• Member Statistics

    16,052
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    David herry
    Newest Member
    David herry
    Joined
WxWatcher007

Major Hurricane Laura

Recommended Posts

Was there any place that got 20 feet of surge? Just curious?  So far on weather channel...damage doesn’t look commensurate with a very high end Category 4 hurricane?  Just saying?  Maybe the pictures will come in later on...

  • Thanks 1
  • Weenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some surge somewhere is highly likely, but Lake Charles was advised of a possible 20 foot surge and got nothing, the storm chasers were active on the street. Similarly the 30 mile inland surge was greatly overblown. This really hurts the credibility of these NHC advisories imho.

If it hurts their credibility, by whom? Are you suggesting they not put out a warning for a 15-20 ft surge when data suggested it might occur? Which option do you take? The one that might be correct and no lives lost or the one that might be wrong and significant loss of life? 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

If they have that data and fail to implement a dire warning for it, I can assure you the heat would be far worse, including undermining their credibility. TC forecasting, like all other forecasts, are susceptible to error.

 

We know a gauge failed at Cameron just above 9 ft. We have no gauges further east. Cameron was not in the eastern eyewall. It's very possible here that there was an area of 15-20 ft surge, but further east in the wildlife preserve, swamps and marshlands. The next immediate gauge is too far east to be helpful.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WinterWolf said:

Was there any place that got 20 feet of surge? Just curious?  So far on weather channel...damage doesn’t look commensurate with a very high end Category 4 hurricane?  Just saying?  Maybe the pictures will come in later on...

Lake Charles is pretty tore up. They didn't get inundated with surge, but lots of buildings with roofs gone/some walls collapsed. Similar to Panama City after Michael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CheeselandSkies said:

Lake Charles is pretty tore up. They didn't get inundated with surge, but lots of buildings with roofs gone/some walls collapsed. Similar to Panama City after Michael.

Oh I’m sure.  But this type of storm should have leveled that area imo. Katrina was considerably weaker When making landfall, and totally wiped out coastal Mississippi when it came in.  Doesn’t seem to be the case here..which of course is good for the western Louisiana coast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dunkman said:

I don't recall ever seeing cat 4 sustained winds measured in the US during a hurricane.

Not even in Andrew? The damage in homestead looked like an ef4 tornado had scrubbed the landscape.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CTWeatherFreak said:

Not even in Andrew? The damage in homestead looked like an ef4 tornado had scrubbed the landscape.

Ya exactly.  This doesn’t even look close to that destruction. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WinterWolf said:

Was there any place that got 20 feet of surge? Just curious?  So far on weather channel...damage doesn’t look commensurate with a very high end Category 4 hurricane?  Just saying?  Maybe the pictures will come in later on...

Remember the strongest winds at landfall would have been over the coast in a (thankfully) sparsely populated area. Already plenty of pictures of structural damage in Lake Charles. Will be interesting to compare winds in Lake Charles to Panama City in Michael. Michael was a big stronger and Panama city was on the coast, but got the weaker NW eye wall. Given the official obs Lake Charles certainly saw Cat 4 wind gusts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WinterWolf said:

Oh I’m sure.  But this type of storm should have leveled that area imo. Katrina was considerably weaker When making landfall, and totally wiped out coastal Mississippi when it came in.  Doesn’t seem to be the case here..which of course is good for the western Louisiana coast. 

Storm surge is never just a linear correlation to a strength of a cyclone. There are more variables that come into play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

saving all of these comments for later today and tomorrow when the full extent of the damage is known

  • Like 9
  • Weenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The surge for LCH was for the storm going a bit more west. The swamps to the east likely got a devastating surge, but we don't know yet. Just because LCH was spared with the storm not really putting them on the right side, does not mean the NHC credibility is hurt. This is a terrible statement to say. Classic IMBYism. 

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Oh I’m sure.  But this type of storm should have leveled that area imo. Katrina was considerably weaker When making landfall, and totally wiped out coastal Mississippi when it came in.  Doesn’t seem to be the case here..which of course is good for the western Louisiana coast. 

The difference between a rapidly intensifying 175+mph storm and a steady state 150mph storms is huge. But don't worry, you'll see some awful pics coming out soon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind is, even a high-end Category 4 to 5 hurricane only contains those winds over a small portion of its eyewall, especially over land. They also don't have the vertical component, and less of the instantaneous acceleration, that tornado winds do. So you will seldom see widespread damage comparable to a violent tornado. Andrew seems to have been an exception, not sure why. I've heard it posited that there was something unique about the convective processes in Andrew's eyewall that made it much more efficient than even other Category 5s in transferring extreme gusts (A chaser on another forum, not sure if he's on here under a different name, calls them "Fists of God") to the ground.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Storm surge is never just a linear correlation to a strength of a cyclone. There are more variables that come into play. 

Just now, CoastalWx said:

The difference between a rapidly intensifying 175+mph storm and a steady state 150mph storms is huge. But don't worry, you'll see some awful pics coming out soon.

Relax Boo Boo...I realize that hype sells.  Just saying the unsurvivable calls and surge 6-9 ft deep 40 miles inland, might have been a tad overblown don’t ya think?  I do.  Common sense told me last night that the 40 mile inland idea was probably inaccurate imo.  But they are the pros. 

  • Like 4
  • Weenie 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of all the Charley "not that bad" posts. This always happens right after a hurricane before the full scope of the damage is known.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, catdaddyfalcon15 said:

i agree, but then people will take as an excuse to ignore the next warning. then the next time is often the real deal. should be interesting to see why the predicted surge didnt occur and how to fix the forecast next time though.

Because the storm went right over lake charles and not 20 miles west? Thats not really too complicated. There is no surge data in the zone that would clearly have the highest surge.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Oh I’m sure.  But this type of storm should have leveled that area imo. Katrina was considerably weaker When making landfall, and totally wiped out coastal Mississippi when it came in.  Doesn’t seem to be the case here..which of course is good for the western Louisiana coast. 

That is because Katrina's surge hit a populated area right on the coast. Wind Damage wasn't a huge issue with Katrina from what I remember.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

The surge for LCH was for the storm going a bit more west. The swamps to the east likely got a devastating surge, but we don't know yet. Just because LCH was spared with the storm not really putting them on the right side, does not mean the NHC credibility is hurt. This is a terrible statement to say. Classic IMBYism. 

I think they forecast a p10 value on those maps. They don't know exactly where the storm will come onshore. The surge will be overdone in most areas except for the one right in the east eyewall. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Ya exactly.  This doesn’t even look close to that destruction. ?

LAKE CHARLES IS TWENTY-THIRTY MILES INLAND. I am not sure what you are missing here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CheeselandSkies said:

One thing to keep in mind is, even a high-end Category 4 to 5 hurricane only contains those winds over a small portion of its eyewall, especially over land. They also don't have the vertical component, and less of the instantaneous acceleration, that tornado winds do. So you will seldom see widespread damage comparable to a violent tornado. Andrew seems to have been an exception, not sure why. I've heard it posited that there was something unique about the convective processes in Andrew's eyewall that made it much more efficient than even other Category 5s in transferring extreme gusts (A chaser on another forum, not sure if he's on here under a different name, calls them "Fists of God") to the ground.

You know that EF5 that hit a cornfield. It wasn't really an EF5 because it didn't hit a town.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OSUmetstud said:

I think they forecast a p10 value on those maps. They don't know exactly where the storm will come onshore. The surge will be overdone in most areas except for the one right in the east eyewall. 

Ok that makes sense...thank you.  But the 40 mile inland stuff??? Wayyy overdone imo...they might want to keep away form talk like that going forward? 

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KPITSnow said:

You know that EF5 that hit a cornfield. It wasn't really an EF5 because it didn't hit a town.

Indeed, because tornadoes have to be rated based on actual damage done, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jbcmh81 said:

This reminds me of all the Charley "not that bad" posts. This always happens right after a hurricane before the full scope of the damage is known.  

In terms of surge it's a fair comparison at least if we're talking about Lake Charles.  The surge event didn't materialize. 

Based on the live streams I watched last night I expect the wind damage to be similar or maybe worse than Port Charlotte/Punta Gorda.  The numbers for Laura may not be as high, but the eyewall was there for a much longer time and there was a period of less sustained winds and big gusts which seemed to cause much damage.  Going through the eye of Charley the eyewall featured extremely strong winds on both sides, but it was over very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WinterWolf said:

Ok that makes sense...thank you.  But the 40 mile inland stuff??? Wayyy overdone imo...they might want to keep away form talk like that going forward? 

How do you know the surge didnt go 40 miles inland east of Lake charles? You're already speculating that forecast was wrong without knowing the ground truth in the areas where something like that was possible

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KPITSnow said:

LAKE CHARLES IS TWENTY-THIRTY MILES INLAND. I am not sure what you are missing here.

What I’m missing is it(catastrophic damage) was called for at Lake Charles. And it doesn’t seem Luke that happened. That’s all I and others are alluding to.  And that’s a good thing obviously.  But we’re just talking and discussing that is all. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the main reason we'll appear to see less destruction from this storm is that there's relatively little to destroy.  There's almost no better track it could have had.

  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OSUmetstud said:

How do you know the surge didnt go 40 miles inland east of Lake charles? You're already speculating that forecast was wrong without knowing the ground truth in the areas where something like that was possible

Live coverage on TV don’t show any water that far inland like that.  But perhaps they will come in later?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.