The "storm surge" as defined was not delayed and accompanied the eyewall.
What you are likely referring to is a nature of the winds around the
hurricane on the eastern side. The initial northeast-east winds are blowing
off-shore or parallel to the coastline at the initial onset of the surge, so
there's a second pool of water back into the area that occurs when the winds
shift into the south and southwest after the passage of the storm's center
bringing a pile of water back into the bay.
As a correction, N.O. did not have a surge 12-18 hous after the eye made
landfall. Storm surge is a very specific term that coincides with a rising
sea surface ahead of and in the immediate vicinity of the approaching eye.
This is not to be confused with man-made disasters such as a levee failure
owing to torrential rainfall and the force of winds against that barrier.
Similarly in Port Arthur, the standing water did not result from surge but
from intense run-off and standing water -- i.e. flooding. We tend to assume
that rain guages are "catching" the intense rainfall during the intense part
of a hurricane when in reality only a small portion of the rain is making it
onto the surface with the rest "suspended" for the lack of a better term by
being blown horizontally and upwards by 100mph+ winds and hurricane
updrafts. When these winds subside, there is very typically a very drastic
and mass settling of airborne water that can be shown by rapid rain gauge
accumulations when doppler radar intensities would not support it. Needless
to say, 6-10" of rain anywhere in the country, let alone an area with high
water table and poor drainage, is going to have extensive standing flood
waters develop in the 12-24 hour time frame after a hurricane.
Hope this helps.
> The "storm surge" as defined was not delayed and accompanied the eyewall.
> What you are likely referring to is a nature of the winds around the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> As a correction, N.O. did not have a surge 12-18 hous after the eye made
> landfall.
Actually there are a number of credible reports to the opposite. The level
of Lake Ponchetrain did rise many hours AFTER the passing of the southern
edge of the eyewall. This also appears to have happened in Rita. Is this
effect being ignored or previously gone unnoticed?
> Storm surge is a very specific term that coincides with a rising sea
> surface ahead of and in the immediate vicinity of the approaching eye.
Exactly and that nitpick is exactly what I'm questioning. In BOTH cases a
larger tidal flood occurred many hours AFTER the passing of the southern
edge of the eyewall. Such makes your "specific term" seem ill-defined.
> This is not to be confused with man-made disasters such as a levee failure
> owing to torrential rainfall and the force of winds against that barrier.
>
> Similarly in Port Arthur, the standing water did not result from surge but
> from intense run-off and standing water -- i.e. flooding.
AH, can you cite a source. The flooding in Cameron and Creole and many of
the other surrounding area was NOT caused primarily by rainfall. If
rainfall was a great cause of flooding then let's meter that with the
flooding level in powerless sub sealevel Galveston.
> We tend to assume that rain guages are "catching" the intense rainfall
> during the intense part of a hurricane when in reality only a small
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> is going to have extensive standing flood waters develop in the 12-24 hour
> time frame after a hurricane.
Let's see the cows as shown on TV in the area of the delayed flooding are in
great distress because they are drinking rain fresh flood water....SALTWATER
storm surge and upstream fresh water pushed by saltwater surge and is the
issue.
>> It appears that in both Katrina and Rita that a second larger storm surge
>> happened 12-18 hours after the eye made landfall. Obviously this
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> known effect? Is this something previously unreported? Whats happening
>> here?