Talk:Storm surge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 90%
"Nine out of ten people who die in hurricanes are killed by storm surge."
In the US, only 1% are killed by storm surge (in modern times). 59% die in inland freshwater flooding. I'd imagine it's similar in the rest of the Atlantic, as the major killers of the last few decades (eg: Mitch) have done so through inland flooding and associated mudslides. -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're right, but more people die in the Bay of Bengal area than anywhere else, and they are almost all from storm surge. In most storms nobody is killed by storm surge, but every now and then a storm surge will cover an entire city and vast numbers will die. My point is that any statement like this has to be qualified. (P.S. Where does the 59% number come from? Does this include storm surges on lakes like the Okeechobee Hurricane?) Jdorje 01:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The 90% figure is right for U.S. hurricane-related deaths before about 1970. The loss of life attributed to Camille's storm surge was a/the motivating factor for the U.S. National Weather Service to do something about it. The results of thousands of hypothetical hurricanes "run" through the NWS's numerical model, SLOSH, have been used to show surge vulnerability along the entire Gulf and Atlantic U.S. coastlines. Emergency Managers successfully use these results to plan coastal evacuations. SBaig 2010 UTC, 06 December 2005.
Stephen, I did not know you wiki! Would like to expand the article on storm surge (like I'm ever going to have time to do that...) and if so sure could use your help (like you're ever going to have time to do that...). Mkieper 03:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biggest surge
I've just watched a program about Katrina, and they mentioned that the surge produced by Ivan is still the biggest in America's history.
- I think it's premature to change the article to include Katrina's surge, since this is very approximate. Camille's surge is well documented at 23 (or whatever) feet, and we can surely find a NOAA source for this. Finding a reliable source for Ivan or Katrina will be harder. I think we can just qualify the Camille number with "as of 2003". Jdorje 22:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- I honestly believe that after the research is done, it will be found that Katrina's storm surge will be the highest ever recorded. The surge was so high and reached so far inland that it destroyed area's of the MS Gulf Coast that were uneffected by surge during Camille. A friend of mine has a house approximately 1/2 mile above the beach in Bay St. Louis, MS. When the house was built, it was surveyed to be in a "flood free" zone, having an elevation of 34 feet above sea level at the foundation (ie., 34' above the Gulf of Mexico just 1/2 mile away). During the height of the surge, water stood approximately 9 feet in the bottom floor of the house. The math is fairly simple, if the foundation of his house is at 34' and he had 9' of water above that, then the storm surge in the hardest hit county (Hancock) of the MS coast had to be 40+ feet at a minimum. I don't feel that Ivan can be too greatly compared to Katrina in regards to the surge. Though Ivan did a lot of damage, Katrina's surge was much greater. Remember, Ivan hit right at the Mobile Bay, yet Katrina caused the worst floods in Mobile history and it's eye (the heart of the storm) was many miles to the west. --- A resident of MS Gulf Coast, 12 Sept, 2005.
- * * * * *
If you review a topography map, you will see that the highest point in BSL, and it is a small area, is only 25 ft above sea level (which is why the EOC and other police and fire depts remained in such a vulnerable position prior to the storm: sturdy buildings like the courthouse and the sheriff's dept have to be located in the county seat, and BSL is actually one of the highest areas along the coast of Hancock Cty, so there really wasn't any other place for them to locate without going so far inland they'd be in the sticks; Jackson Cty was in a similar situation). It is extremely common for homeowners to think that their home is higher than it actually is, and I'm not sure what the source of that problem may be (I'm wondering if insurance companies have anything to do with it?). My mother in Moss Point MS was conviced her house was 20 ft above sea level; it was flooded by Katrina and is actually 11-12 ft above sea level. Reading online articles in the MS Press and Sun Herald I discovered a woman on Mary Walker Bayou thought her house was 18 ft elevation; it was 10 (rcvd 5 ft of surge), and someone in Ocean Springs thought their home was 30 ft elevation; it was more like 21-22 ft.
The flood line can be measured, but an analysis has to be done to determine what portion of that was storm surge, what portion was high tide, what portion (in some places) may be due to flooding from rain.
I'll probably be documenting something for Kat's storm surge for Wiki once more surge info becomes avail. I've already done a lot of unofficial work mapping the surge line in the aerial photos against topographic maps for the eastern part of the MS coastline.
Mkieper 21:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What?
Can someone please clarify what exactly a storm surge is: To wit -- Is it a giant tidal wave, or a flood that comes in like a tidal wave.
Hi, A storm surge is a flood that comes in like a tidal wave. It is caused by the extreem winds that come with a Tropical Cyclone. However, on top of this storm surge the winds also cause huge waves that are like mini tidal waves.
- Perhaps you should read the article. A storm surge does not come in like a tidal wave (tsunami), it comes in like a tide: slowly. And it dissipates much more slowly as well - about 1 foot per mile - so it can penetrate much farther inland if the elevation remains low enough. And yes there are waves on top of it but these don't behave like tsunamis either, they are just regular waves - but potentially very large. — jdorje (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NOAA Definition of Storm Surge With Motion Chart.
Storm surge appears to be a change in water level more like an exceptionally high tide rather than the "wall of water" popularly portrayed in the media. The rate of change appears to be associated with speed of approach of storm and the height by the windspeed. Levels can be affected by shape of shoreline and slope of the bottom as tides can be effected. Increasing height of waves will of course be added on top of the surge and the stage of tide present. Surge appears to go from average to max in very roughly eight hours in the model linked below. I would expect the rate of change in feet per hour to increase with the maximum height of the surge.
NOAA explanation:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/storm_surge.shtml
Graphic model of 1998 Gulf storm:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/surge/slosh2.gif
I would welcome expert opinion here since my impressions have been derived from about a half hour of study and the application of what I hope is common sense. Tobyw 07:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Importance
I don't think this article should be top importance. High is probably more appropriate, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Only the core article tropical cyclone and the flagship article Hurricane Katrina should be Top-importance IMO. CrazyC83 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I dropped it to high importance, as the topic is still pretty important. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)