by a high peak surge but still observable. Figure 69 shows the time 

 sequence of the Gulf-wide oscillation, tjq, generated by HUR4. The 

 average period and Sq are 30 h and 24 h, respectively. The maximum 

 peak is 0.42 m, about a factor of 2 larger than in the HURl 

 simulation. It is interesting to note that the largest difference in 

 the extremes of t}q from HURl and HUR4 occur at their .first maximum. 

 During later stages the differences reduce to a few centimeters. The 

 presence of tjq in the simulated hydrographs from the other stations 

 is preserved. However, this oscillation is no longer coincident with 

 the water levels at the individual stations as in the previous cases. 

 Figures 70 and 71 clearly demonstrate the departure between the two 

 curves at Port Isabel and Progreso. 



A peak surge of 6.5 m at the coast is generated by a fast moving 

 storm of large l^g^(HUR5) . The slow moving storm of the same size 

 (HUR6) however, produces a smaller 4.71 m peak surge. Increasing the 

 maximum surge at the coast with increasing forward speed is the same 

 as that obtained from simulations of small storms as discussed above. 

 Figures 72 and 73 display the computed hydrographs at Galveston 

 obtained from the HUR5 and HUR6 simulations, respectively. Both 

 hydrographs have an initial rise of water level prior to the peak 

 surge that again matches the first peak of their corresponding hq 

 series. The time sequence of the tjq signal for HUR5 and HUR6 are 

 shown in Figs. 74 and 75. The maximum peaks of tjq (0.4 m for HUR5 

 and 0.38 m for HUR6) vary slightly with the forward speed but both 

 are approximately twice as large compared with those produced by the 

 small storms with the same forward speed, i.e., HUR2 and HUR3, 



124 



