General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumstblue37
(65,340 posts)brush
(53,776 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)are at a zero elevation above sea level, and as such, I think it is misleading.
I know FL is very low-lying, but you have to account for elevation in these kinds of calculations. Every foot you are above sea-level should be subtracted from the storm surge measurement.
Conversely if you're below sea-level, you should ADD those negative feet in elevation to the storm surge numbers.
Also, the distance from shore definitely matters. So again, kinda misleading.
Chainfire
(17,536 posts)So, perhaps, it is not all that misleading. When I lived in Miami, near the bay, I don't think that my home was four feet above high tide, on a good day. It doesn't take much of a rainstorm to flood some Miami Streets, even with more than 160 miles of drainage canals.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)That point being that: nowhere in the reporters description does he mention that one's elevation (negative or positive) relative to sea level, nor their distance from shore ... matters.
But I hold those actually ARE pertinent data points.
I don't like inaccuracy, what can I say
csziggy
(34,136 posts)The low roofs across the way from his reporting from a balcony are carport roofs, so 9-10 feet high. This video shows the water about 2-3 feet below the roofs: