Katrina surge footage

[dhweather]

This was taken at St. Stanislaus school in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.

http://www.diamondheadweather.com/katrinass.wmv

[Pearl River]

That's amazing. For those that do not not know the landscape of St Stanislaus, it sits on a hill just along the coast.

[Ixolib]

Amazing indeed... Some of that footage looked eerily like the Tsunami footage from December 2004.

Did St. Stanislaus get surge in Camille? If so, I'm wondering what all those cars - and apparently people other than the cameraman - were doing there?

And while I'll agree that watching a gas station canopy blow away can be terrifying - as in the Charley video - I would be much more terrified to be someplace where sea water is rising, surging, and churning as shown in this particular Katrina video.

[Pearl River]

Amazing indeed... Some of that footage looked eerily like the Tsunami footage from December 2004.

One big difference....the wind.

I'm not sure what the surge was in that area from Camille.

[Ixolib]

Amazing indeed... Some of that footage looked eerily like the Tsunami footage from December 2004.

One big difference....the wind.

Good Point!!

[hurricanetrack]

Who took this? A storm chaser or someone with a camera in the right place at the wrong time? Just curious....even more evidence from that awful day.

[tailgater]

Great stuff, how much would you say the surge came up in that area . I wish there was a time stamp on the footage.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I saw a few sites about what happened at St. Stanislaus... horrible. That old oak you saw in the clip is no longer there--withstood Camille and countless other storms; but not Katrina. Just in case you're interested in some aside info about some of the things that went on there try this link:

[/url]http://www.conceptionabbey.org/TowerTopics/TTWinter05/katrina.htm[url]

There are a few other sites, and it has some pics of the devastation around that school.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

Things like this really bother me (from the site at the above link):

Nate Phillips wanders through a hallway shredded by Katrina's
160-mile-an-hour winds.

Do they not realize that Katrina did not have 160mph winds at landfall? Also, isn't it obvious that this is surge damage and not wind damage? I see so many inaccurate facts about storms and inaccurate photo discriptions all the time. People need to do a little more research or have a little more understanding before assuming things. I mean I have seen pictures from Houston after Rita saying "Damage done by Rita's 120mph winds" and really all we got here from Rita were some 60-65mph wind gusts. I think this is why people are getting a false idea about storm strengths. They see the media overstate things all the time and it gets written into their head. For instance, many people would think that Miami recieved cat. 3 force winds from Wilma, because they heard Wilma was a Cat. 3 at landfall and then saw video that they thought was bad from Miami and just assumed that it was a 3 there. Because of this, now when a place see Cat. 1/2 force damage...many will automatically think it is Cat. 3 force damage.

[Ixolib]

Things like this really bother me (from the site at the above link):

Nate Phillips wanders through a hallway shredded by Katrina's
160-mile-an-hour winds.

Do they not realize that Katrina did not have 160mph winds at landfall? Also, isn't it obvious that this is surge damage and not wind damage? I see so many inaccurate facts about storms and inaccurate photo discriptions all the time. People need to do a little more research or have a little more understanding before assuming things. I mean I have seen pictures from Houston after Rita saying "Damage done by Rita's 120mph winds" and really all we got here from Rita were some 60-65mph wind gusts. I think this is why people are getting a false idea about storm strengths. They see the media overstate things all the time and it gets written into their head. For instance, many people would think that Miami recieved cat. 3 force winds from Wilma, because they heard Wilma was a Cat. 3 at landfall and then saw video that they thought was bad from Miami and just assumed that it was a 3 there. Because of this, now when a place see Cat. 1/2 force damage...many will automatically think it is Cat. 3 force damage.

All good points, EWG.

I don't know how or if this phenomena will ever change. Obviously, because all of us on S2K spend so much time here on the board, we are able to gain much more insight, knowledge, opinion, pro/con, and "interesting" viewpoints than other folks who don't have this resource for a daily discussion. But, for the "average Joe", they have no concept of the more intricate details of a landfalling storm. Certainly, before S2K, my opinions and viewpoints on tropical systems were not anywhere what they are now...

Now whether or not that's a good this is up for debate!!!

[Javlin]

EWG did you get that picture off of the site?The only thing I could find actually in the line of photos was the Katrina tribute.I would have to add though that the surge video looks impressive and the wind some of the best thus far of the storm.Not no 160 like that picture says.

[Pearl River]

Things like this really bother me (from the site at the above link):

Quote:

Nate Phillips wanders through a hallway shredded by Katrina's
160-mile-an-hour winds.


Do they not realize that Katrina did not have 160mph winds at landfall? Also, isn't it obvious that this is surge damage and not wind damage? I see so many inaccurate facts about storms and inaccurate photo discriptions all the time. People need to do a little more research or have a little more understanding before assuming things. I mean I have seen pictures from Houston after Rita saying "Damage done by Rita's 120mph winds" and really all we got here from Rita were some 60-65mph wind gusts. I think this is why people are getting a false idea about storm strengths. They see the media overstate things all the time and it gets written into their head. For instance, many people would think that Miami recieved cat. 3 force winds from Wilma, because they heard Wilma was a Cat. 3 at landfall and then saw video that they thought was bad from Miami and just assumed that it was a 3 there. Because of this, now when a place see Cat. 1/2 force damage...many will automatically think it is Cat. 3 force damage.

I'm sure that statement was made before Katrina's final report was released.

[Lindaloo]

Mark, they were probably seeking shelter at the school. ALOT of people have video camera's with them.

[ROCK]

Things like this really bother me (from the site at the above link):

Nate Phillips wanders through a hallway shredded by Katrina's
160-mile-an-hour winds.

Do they not realize that Katrina did not have 160mph winds at landfall? Also, isn't it obvious that this is surge damage and not wind damage? I see so many inaccurate facts about storms and inaccurate photo discriptions all the time. People need to do a little more research or have a little more understanding before assuming things. I mean I have seen pictures from Houston after Rita saying "Damage done by Rita's 120mph winds" and really all we got here from Rita were some 60-65mph wind gusts. I think this is why people are getting a false idea about storm strengths. They see the media overstate things all the time and it gets written into their head. For instance, many people would think that Miami recieved cat. 3 force winds from Wilma, because they heard Wilma was a Cat. 3 at landfall and then saw video that they thought was bad from Miami and just assumed that it was a 3 there. Because of this, now when a place see Cat. 1/2 force damage...many will automatically think it is Cat. 3 force damage.

Yep, this is all true EWG. People like to over estimate winds for some unknown reason.

[MiamiensisWx]

Has anyone thought that the Saffir-Simpson Scale may need a disclaimer if the scale is not changed? I think it should have a disclaimer reminding people that the Saffir-Simpson Scale is a very, very, very rough overview and should be taken as the lightest and broadest guideline and that it often won't be accurate and that destruction by a storm relies on many factors, including storm size (in the case of surge), an area's geography and obstructions, how microbursts and gusts often cause most of the damage in many storms, how Category One and Category Two winds can be very destructive (based on the scenario and circumstances), and how people should take every storm seriously because they all will, in all probability, cause immense destruction in one way or another. This disclaimer is only if the Saffir-Simpson Scale is not removed or changed (as I hope it will). Who thinks my idea sounds good?

By the way, I also think more work should be put into how storms will cause a specific amount of surge in a certain area, depending on geography, storm size, and other factors.

[Ixolib]

Has anyone thought that the Saffir-Simpson Scale may need a disclaimer if the scale is not changed? I think it should have a disclaimer reminding people that the Saffir-Simpson Scale is a very, very, very rough overview and should be taken as the lightest and broadest guideline and that it often won't be accurate and that destruction by a storm relies on many factors, including storm size (in the case of surge), an area's geography and obstructions, how microbursts and gusts often cause most of the damage in many storms, how Category One and Category Two winds can be very destructive (based on the scenario and circumstances), and how people should take every storm seriously because they all will, in all probability, cause immense destruction in one way or another. This disclaimer is only if the Saffir-Simpson Scale is not removed or changed (as I hope it will). Who thinks my idea sounds good?

By the way, I also think more work should be put into how storms will cause a specific amount of surge in a certain area, depending on geography, storm size, and other factors.

YEP!!! Now all 'ya gotta do is take your idea/concept to the "officials" (whoever they are???), convince them of its relevance, and get it enacted.

[wxman57]

I input some of the data from the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center Shore Protection Manual relating to the shoaling factor and storm surge generation. During the storm surge calculation, one has to consider the 10 fathom depth contour along the coastal areas. This can enhance or diminish the storm surge threat to a particular coast. The graphic below shows the storm surge multiplier for the shoaling effect along the Gulf coast from Brownsville, TX to the FL Panhandle. Note the two worst places for a hurricane to hit - Bay St. Louis, MS (Camille, Katrina) and Vermilion Bay, LA (mid LA coast). Also note that the surge multiplier for Pensacola is only 0.6 -- 1/3 that of the MS Coast. Had Ivan hit MS where Katrina did, its surge would have probably been in the 20-25 foot range like Camille.

[vbhoutex]

Has anyone thought that the Saffir-Simpson Scale may need a disclaimer if the scale is not changed? I think it should have a disclaimer reminding people that the Saffir-Simpson Scale is a very, very, very rough overview and should be taken as the lightest and broadest guideline and that it often won't be accurate and that destruction by a storm relies on many factors, including storm size (in the case of surge), an area's geography and obstructions, how microbursts and gusts often cause most of the damage in many storms, how Category One and Category Two winds can be very destructive (based on the scenario and circumstances), and how people should take every storm seriously because they all will, in all probability, cause immense destruction in one way or another. This disclaimer is only if the Saffir-Simpson Scale is not removed or changed (as I hope it will). Who thinks my idea sounds good?

By the way, I also think more work should be put into how storms will cause a specific amount of surge in a certain area, depending on geography, storm size, and other factors.

Part of the problem with a disclaimer on the SS scale as well as the other good points you make is that the general public really could care less about the technicalities that we all know about and understand. The average joe/jill just wants to know if they will get water in their home and if the roof will come off in the winds predicted. That is one reason the SS is basically a worst case predictor. Unfortunately the media only cares about getting the biggest story and that translates into pictures like that above being paired with unknowledgeable comments about the strength of a hurricane. Whoever did that particular one above used "good" information. We all know that Katrina had 160 mph winds(for that matter the gusts in that area could have been that strong), but not at landfall. My point is partly the same as EWG's-the media IMO needs to be reined in when reporting these storms, but that gets into a whole other issue.
We also have to be careful about being "arm chair quarterbacks" ourselves(even with the many resources we have)since we don't always know where the information being presented to us comes from, especially if we weren't "there". JMHO and this is not directed at anyone in particular.

[Extremeweatherguy]

EWG did you get that picture off of the site?The only thing I could find actually in the line of photos was the Katrina tribute.I would have to add though that the surge video looks impressive and the wind some of the best thus far of the storm.Not no 160 like that picture says.

I did not get that off of the site of the video, I got it off of the site A2K posted.

[Pearl River]

Part of the problem with a disclaimer on the SS scale as well as the other good points you make is that the general public really could care less about the technicalities that we all know about and understand. The average joe/jill just wants to know if they will get water in their home and if the roof will come off in the winds predicted. That is one reason the SS is basically a worst case predictor. Unfortunately the media only cares about getting the biggest story and that translates into pictures like that above being paired with unknowledgeable comments about the strength of a hurricane. Whoever did that particular one above used "good" information. We all know that Katrina had 160 mph winds(for that matter the gusts in that area could have been that strong), but not at landfall. My point is partly the same as EWG's-the media IMO needs to be reined in when reporting these storms, but that gets into a whole other issue.
We also have to be careful about being "arm chair quarterbacks" ourselves(even with the many resources we have)since we don't always know where the information being presented to us comes from, especially if we weren't "there". JMHO and this is not directed at anyone in particular.

Very well said VB.