NWS Mobile report on Katrina: Cat-4 140mph La landfall

[Derek Ortt]

no, Katrina was FAR hgiher than Camielle

I wa sthinking about something on my way home today

Camielle's 25 foot surge was confined to a localized area, with other parts of MS, like Gulfport and Biloxi receiving closer to 15 feet in all liklihood. The 25 was only in Bay St Louis. I wonder if many believed that Camielle brought a uniform 25 foot surge. Katrinas surge was very similar for all of MS, and the wind field was very similar

[x-y-no]

no, Katrina was FAR hgiher than Camielle

I wa sthinking about something on my way home today

Camielle's 25 foot surge was confined to a localized area, with other parts of MS, like Gulfport and Biloxi receiving closer to 15 feet in all liklihood. The 25 was only in Bay St Louis. I wonder if many believed that Camielle brought a uniform 25 foot surge. Katrinas surge was very similar for all of MS, and the wind field was very similar

I think that's very much the case - just like many North Dade residents are convinced they went though a major hurricane in Andrew, when the most they probably saw was Cat 1 conditions.

[Derek Ortt]

one other aspect that I did not address

in the heads of bays and rivers, the tidal surge is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than for the open GOM. In these areas, 30 feet is definately possible

[ncweatherwizard]

I think it may also be helpful to clarify the difference between surge and increased wave height:

Basically, storm surge is the actual rise in sea level that accompanies a storm. On top of the surge, there are waves that occur as energy moves through the water. More energy usually begets greater amplitude. Greater amplitude gives you taller waves at the shore. This can further the damage already done by the surge, and although the sea level doesn't reach a certain height, waves will temporarily do so.

Scott

[PTPatrick]

I dont know where NOAA gets it's surge values from...because according to them...Pascagoula only had like a 12 or 13 foot surge...yet we had water in our home, which is 18 ft elevation, and protected by a forrest from any wave acction. They actually said the same thing of hurricane Georges, and this water was easily 4-5 ft higher than Georges water was at my house. So I dont know where NOAA took their readings but at my parents house, near the AL/MS state line, the water was probably about 17-18 ft.

[Frank P]

no, Katrina was FAR hgiher than Camielle

I wa sthinking about something on my way home today

Camielle's 25 foot surge was confined to a localized area, with other parts of MS, like Gulfport and Biloxi receiving closer to 15 feet in all liklihood. The 25 was only in Bay St Louis. I wonder if many believed that Camielle brought a uniform 25 foot surge. Katrinas surge was very similar for all of MS, and the wind field was very similar

Derek, Camille put 2 foot of water in my house at the beach...thus the surge was 22 feet in Biloxi... my house is 20 feet plus the two feet.. now granted that might have included the height of the waves... however, at my grandparents house in east biloxi, they also got 22 feet of water... 5 feet in the house which is 17 feet above sea level... I was there... there was NO wave action in this part of town... it was pure surge at 22 feet because I remember it like it was yesterday...

[timNms]

I believe that is an operational report

those surge heights are for Alabama

However, I do not believe that the actual tidal surge was over 30 feet in Mississippi. That was the maximum water height, which includes waves and surge

Then you need to bring your survey equipment and a 35 foot measuring tape on up here to the MS Coast and PERSONALLY take the measurements yourself. Firsthand experience will offer you contrary evidence as there are many straight-line water marks (not wave marks) that would present an easy argument to your "belief").

With a GPS, sitting in my driveway in my Jeep Liberty (now totaled), I get a reading of 30.1 feet above MSL. Here's pic of my front yard during Katrina - and the water had not yet risen to its max! Note the "absence" of waves (front yard faces north, hence - no waves). The surge here is about 3 feet up our pecan tree which is right next to the driveway. At this level, it's probably just a tad above the antenna for the GPS receiver. BTW... The car in the background had just begun to float (which is why I snapped this particular pic). It was 90 degrees in a parellel position only moments before this pic was taken.



And don't forget, I'm in Biloxi, quite far east from areas like Waveland and The Pass which took a much higher surge. Plus, for anyone on the beach, they had "waves" on top of that!! If the water depth was not greater than 30 feet, how did the President Casino end up on TOP of the Holiday Inn - and reportedly further inland than that before the water began to receed? How did Grand Biloxi float off its morings and end up on TOP of the Biloxi Yacht Club?

And here's a few more, including a couple of shots I took from my kitchen door, looking at my neighbor's driveway that's at about the same altitude as mine. Also note the same two cars that are "floating" on the street corner - only a few feet from my driveway!!



And finally, the President Casino - atop the now-crushed two-story Holiday Inn...

I stayed at the hotel next door to the colliseum last June for the truck rodeo. Is that the one that one of the casino's was deposited on?

[TS Zack]

Is Wet Willy's still there?

LOL

What about the Oasis. I stayed at that hotel with my g/f this past summer and it was nice.

Both near the beach so I DONT THINK SO!!!

[Ixolib]

timNms - Yeah, the Holiday Inn - right next to the Coliseum - squished by The President. And the first two floors in the building that runs north and south were completely washed out - even yards away from the beach to the north end.

TS Zack - Wet Willies was being torn down anyway to make room for new condos. But, the amusement park there suffered pretty badly, although Humpty Dumpty at the Goofy Golf didn't fall! The Oasis at Grand Gulfport where I work(ed) is still standing but severly damaged. First two floors are gutted all the way to its north end, and the third floor had water in it. By the way, the Oasis was almost completely protected from "waves" by the highrise hotel across the street, by the casino itself, by the Event Center and Garage, and by the washed up Copa Casino, all of which protected it from the waves moving in from the southeast. The damage there is primarily surge all by itself, minus the waves - first on the way in, then on the way out!! Of course, a few mis-guided containers full of dead chickens from the Port didn't help matters much.

All the Surge/Wave Professors - For some reason, some posters in this thread aren't getting it. The bottom line is this. We can analyze this thing to death from afar using supposedly official reports, satellite imagery, NOAA observations from aloft, and what-have-you, but UNLESS you are here to personally see and measure the height of the surge - using a straight-line watermark as the indicator - your viewpoint will continuously be off track. Some may call it exagerated, some may call it hype, but I've been through TOO MANY storms to play that game. This stuff is old hat to me, and I have no need or desire to make it what it isn't. Reality is what it is - plain and simple. And the only way to disprove the 30+ contention is to come here and see for yourself. Otherwise, the "analysis" may be best left in the books.

[dhweather]

All the Surge/Wave Professors - For some reason, some posters in this thread aren't getting it. The bottom line is this. We can analyze this thing to death from afar using supposedly official reports, satellite imagery, NOAA observations from aloft, and what-have-you, but UNLESS you are here to personally see and measure the height of the surge - using a straight-line watermark as the indicator - your viewpoint will continuously be off track. Some may call it exagerated, some may call it hype, but I've been through TOO MANY storms to play that game. This stuff is old hat to me, and I have no need or desire to make it what it isn't. Reality is what it is - plain and simple. And the only way to disprove the 30+ contention is to come here and see for yourself. Otherwise, the "analysis" may be best left in the books.

I'd say this really applies to all - until you've been here, you simply wouldn't understand.

[timNms]

All the Surge/Wave Professors - For some reason, some posters in this thread aren't getting it. The bottom line is this. We can analyze this thing to death from afar using supposedly official reports, satellite imagery, NOAA observations from aloft, and what-have-you, but UNLESS you are here to personally see and measure the height of the surge - using a straight-line watermark as the indicator - your viewpoint will continuously be off track. Some may call it exagerated, some may call it hype, but I've been through TOO MANY storms to play that game. This stuff is old hat to me, and I have no need or desire to make it what it isn't. Reality is what it is - plain and simple. And the only way to disprove the 30+ contention is to come here and see for yourself. Otherwise, the "analysis" may be best left in the books.

I'd say this really applies to all - until you've been here, you simply wouldn't understand.

Nail, meet hammer! Unfortunately, some just don't understand that some things can't be found in a textbook or on a scientific instrument

[skysummit]

All the Surge/Wave Professors - For some reason, some posters in this thread aren't getting it. The bottom line is this. We can analyze this thing to death from afar using supposedly official reports, satellite imagery, NOAA observations from aloft, and what-have-you, but UNLESS you are here to personally see and measure the height of the surge - using a straight-line watermark as the indicator - your viewpoint will continuously be off track. Some may call it exagerated, some may call it hype, but I've been through TOO MANY storms to play that game. This stuff is old hat to me, and I have no need or desire to make it what it isn't. Reality is what it is - plain and simple. And the only way to disprove the 30+ contention is to come here and see for yourself. Otherwise, the "analysis" may be best left in the books.

I'd say this really applies to all - until you've been here, you simply wouldn't understand.

Nail, meet hammer! Unfortunately, some just don't understand that some things can't be found in a textbook or on a scientific instrument

Yup....I simply will stop taking part in these debates. They're pointless. Those behind the desks will back up their thinkings with all their scientific data, however, those who have seen have the proof.

[jazzfan1247]

These debates are not pointless. They are necessary to determine whether a legitimate Category 3 hurricane produced a Cat 5 surge. If so, we need to warn people accordingly. If debates about the intensity of such storms were completely stopped, no research would be done, and people would not receive accurate data about what kind of storm (wind-wise) they survived. Besides, they are highly intellectually stimulating...which I have enjoyed reading btw.

I fully realize that this storm produced a Cat 5 surge, it's so obvious from the damage. I realize since I haven't been there at the scene, I may not know what the emotional impact is like, and I may not fully grasp it from an emotional standpoint. But we've all scene the scenes of devastation, the blocks upon blocks flattened. It's not like the mets don't have any clue about the scale of the devastation, that it flattened a large part of the MS coast. They may not know what it FEELS like, but they know what it LOOKS like. What I'm saying is dropping a researcher on the coast of MS to see concrete slabs may cause a strong emotional response, but is that really going to affect how the researcher handles his/her research from a scientific standpoint? I bet not. Now, if they were there actually measuring out water lines and figuring out how high the surge was, etc. then obviously their data may change from what they previously thought. But just seeing the the damage itself (without any analysis, just simply being there) isn't going to change their scientific data.

I am terribly sorry for all of those who have lost all they have known due to this storm, it really is an unimaginable tragedy and I will fully admit I don't know what it's like. For those of us who haven't been there though, the only thing we CAN do is look at things from a scientific and objective standpoint. And the professional mets and researchers MUST do this in order to better prepare those in the future.

Thank you all though for providing such interesting discussions throughout the season...as I will probably go back to read-only mode soon...

[bevgo]

timNms - Yeah, the Holiday Inn - right next to the Coliseum - squished by The President. And the first two floors in the building that runs north and south were completely washed out - even yards away from the beach to the north end.

TS Zack - Wet Willies was being torn down anyway to make room for new condos. But, the amusement park there suffered pretty badly, although Humpty Dumpty at the Goofy Golf didn't fall! The Oasis at Grand Gulfport where I work(ed) is still standing but severly damaged. First two floors are gutted all the way to its north end, and the third floor had water in it. By the way, the Oasis was almost completely protected from "waves" by the highrise hotel across the street, by the casino itself, by the Event Center and Garage, and by the washed up Copa Casino, all of which protected it from the waves moving in from the southeast. The damage there is primarily surge all by itself, minus the waves - first on the way in, then on the way out!! Of course, a few mis-guided containers full of dead chickens from the Port didn't help matters much.

All the Surge/Wave Professors - For some reason, some posters in this thread aren't getting it. The bottom line is this. We can analyze this thing to death from afar using supposedly official reports, satellite imagery, NOAA observations from aloft, and what-have-you, but UNLESS you are here to personally see and measure the height of the surge - using a straight-line watermark as the indicator - your viewpoint will continuously be off track. Some may call it exagerated, some may call it hype, but I've been through TOO MANY storms to play that game. This stuff is old hat to me, and I have no need or desire to make it what it isn't. Reality is what it is - plain and simple. And the only way to disprove the 30+ contention is to come here and see for yourself. Otherwise, the "analysis" may be best left in the books.

You are so right. You have to see it to believe it. Pictures do not do justice to the incredible amount of damage and it is unbelievable where the debris line is from the surge.

[MGC]

Ditto, the geeks with the slide rules claiming it is a scientific impossibilty need to carry their disbelieving selves down here and do some real research. The entire NHC staff should be flown up here and given a lesson in what happens when you miss forecast a storm surge by a good margine.......MGC

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

One thing that needs to be remembered is it was 175 mph hurricane. Katrina was like 800 miles across(At least I heard)...Which makes Katrina a very big hurricane. She also had a large wind field that went from New orleans to the Florida panhandle...Something like 120 miles for hurricane force winds/over 200 for tropical storm force. Even so it might of been weaking, as it was moving ashore. You have to remember that water doe's not fellow winds decreasing right away. Also I believe that it was weaking by southwestly winds/shear coming into the southwestern quad + some dry air. But the main factor was likely a EWRC. As of the last hour or so before landfal. You could see that the convection was rewraping. With the outter eye wall becoming the main one. I think it was strengthing slowly as it was moving in.

[f5]

Katrina was mainly a water hurricane instead of wind(Andrew,Charley).the water is her fuel that fuel gives her wind that wind drives that water shes using thus CAT 5 damage

[Ixolib]

These debates are not pointless. They are necessary to determine whether a legitimate Category 3 hurricane produced a Cat 5 surge. If so, we need to warn people accordingly.

Yes! The point above is EXACTLY what we need to concentrate on. Hurricane winds - regardless of their speed - are truly the lesser of two evils, one being wind and one being surge. I agree, Jazz, this is the phenomena that needs to be studied greatly, researched exhaustively, and debated significantly.

The question should be: What surge is to be expected from a storm that was earlier a CAT 5, and then gets downgraded shortly before landfall? We must have viable answers to this one question. Once accomplished, effective planning - based on those answers - is what I believe will make the life and death difference in future landfalls with storms of this magnitude.

For future storms, the advisories and considerations from ALL the authorities (NHC/TPC/NOAA/FEMA/MEMA/ETC...) should first address surge potential, with wind potential coming in as a distant second.

Actually, wind - even at a force of 175mph - is pretty easy to prepare for:
1. Securily board ALL windows, doors, and gables to keep the wind infiltration out of your house.
2. Cut down ALL pine trees within striking distance of your home. (There are no exceptions to this rule!!)
3. Use hurricane straps in all roof construction, and equally in wall/plate construction.

Surge, on the other hand, is impossible to prepare for.

[HurryKane]

I went down to the coliseum last week with a buddy that works at the newspaper. Here's some pictures of the President Casino and the Holiday Inn:

These two were taking standing in the same place. The old mooring site was about a half-mile or more to my left, its new resting site was to my right.



The lobby of the Holiday Inn crushed:



In relation to Highway 90:

[jujubean]

These debates are not pointless. They are necessary to determine whether a legitimate Category 3 hurricane produced a Cat 5 surge. If so, we need to warn people accordingly.

Yes! The point above is EXACTLY what we need to concentrate on. Hurricane winds - regardless of their speed - are truly the lesser of two evils, one being wind and one being surge. I agree, Jazz, this is the phenomena that needs to be studied greatly, researched exhaustively, and debated significantly.

The question should be: What surge is to be expected from a storm that was earlier a CAT 5, and then gets downgraded shortly before landfall? We must have viable answers to this one question. Once accomplished, effective planning - based on those answers - is what I believe will make the life and death difference in future landfalls with storms of this magnitude.

For future storms, the advisories and considerations from ALL the authorities (NHC/TPC/NOAA/FEMA/MEMA/ETC...) should first address surge potential, with wind potential coming in as a distant second.

Actually, wind - even at a force of 175mph - is pretty easy to prepare for:
1. Securily board ALL windows, doors, and gables to keep the wind infiltration out of your house.
2. Cut down ALL pine trees within striking distance of your home. (There are no exceptions to this rule!!)
3. Use hurricane straps in all roof construction, and equally in wall/plate construction.

Surge, on the other hand, is impossible to prepare for.

I agree that hurricanes should include potential surge estimates because it has been proven over and over that water is the main cause for loss of life, however cat 5 winds are no picnic either.....as you said at least there are preps you can make to protect your home against severe winds but it doesn't always work. during andrew my neighbors dryer came through the roof and landed right in the middle of my living room thankfully we were already in the bathroom.I can't count the people I talked to after andrew that said if the winds hadn't let up when they did their house would of fell down around them. anyway the point is I think they should come up with a scale that includes both surge and winds estimates.jmo of course.