Camille....for the skeptics

[timNms]

As I was doing some research on Camille about a month ago, I was looking for a radar pic of her at landfall. I emailed the NHC and they referred me to the NWS. I found this info on their site. Imagine how bad it was at ground zero, if, about 20 miles to the east they had this kind of gusts!
http://www.srh.weather.gov/jan/climate2.html
Highest wind gust on record: 229 mph recorded in Biloxi 8/17/69 (Camille)

Clearly, she was no wimp as some have eluded to. I think she was a cat 5. Small, compact, and deadly, she marched her way onto the MS shore and created havoc!

[Hurricaneman]

wow 229mph

[f5]

what if she was Katrina's size ?

[Derek Ortt]

this is what gets me extremely irate

people saying that because a storm is not a cat 5, but maybe a cat 3 or a cat 4 that it is a wimp. Has Katrina, Rita, and Wilma not taught us anything this year? Katrina, a low to mid 3 at Mississippi, Rita a marginal 3 at Louisiana, and Wilma a 2 only in isolated pockets in S Florida all caused extensive to catastrophic damage. This should clearly have stated to all that even a cat 2 is not a wimp at all. A wimp would be TS Bret or Gert from this year, or Bertha from 2002

[f5]

people think that unless a Hurricane is a CAT 5 a tornado is F-5 or an earthquake is 9.0 they consider anything less to be a wimp just beacuse they don't strike at the top of the SS Scale,Fugita scale ,richter scale ect

[Forecaster Colby]

But there is still nothing like the awesome power of the strongest.

[brunota2003]

Camille was a Cat 5 at landfall, period, end of story...

[f5]

Camille was a Cat 5 at landfall, period, end of story...

190 mph or more like Andrew Intensity 165-170 mph that the big question

[wxmann_91]

I still have my doubts. But I think we can all agree Camille DID NOT make landfall with 190 mph maximum sustained winds.

[Forecaster Colby]

I still have my doubts. But I think we can all agree Camille DID NOT make landfall with 190 mph maximum sustained winds.

I don't...the damage was totally unreal, and once you get past 150-160 with no instruments, how can you tell?

[Aslkahuna]

Using a 1.4 overland gust ratio, the gust to 229 mph would be supported by a 165 mph landfalling intensity for Camille. As has been pointed out before, Cat 5 landfalls are rare because the land interaction that occurs before landfall will weaken the storm somewhat. Small islands are most likely to get Cat 5 hits although Guam, despite its typhoon history, has never had a Cat 5 with Karen in 1962, their strongest hit, being a high end Cat 4. Okinawa, Miyako Jima and Iwo Jima have had Cat 5 hits and Japan one Cat 5 hit. The Philippines have had a few mostly on the offshore islands like Catanduanes (Land of the Howling Wind) and Polillo and Jomalig. STY Rita in 1978 hit a couple of offshore islands as a 5 and the two islands were stripped clean of everything-trees, plants, villages, villagers, etc.

Steve

[Derek Ortt]

the NHC report that I posted here before stated that maximum gusts were 190 m.p.h. and somehow that value has been used as the sustained wind for Camielle

[wxmann_91]

I still have my doubts. But I think we can all agree Camille DID NOT make landfall with 190 mph maximum sustained winds.

I don't...the damage was totally unreal, and once you get past 150-160 with no instruments, how can you tell?

Actually, most of the damage was from surge. Remember that using damage to estimate winds is very inconsitant.

[timNms]

this is what gets me extremely irate

people saying that because a storm is not a cat 5, but maybe a cat 3 or a cat 4 that it is a wimp. Has Katrina, Rita, and Wilma not taught us anything this year? Katrina, a low to mid 3 at Mississippi, Rita a marginal 3 at Louisiana, and Wilma a 2 only in isolated pockets in S Florida all caused extensive to catastrophic damage. This should clearly have stated to all that even a cat 2 is not a wimp at all. A wimp would be TS Bret or Gert from this year, or Bertha from 2002

Sometimes one needs to sit on his fingers and keep them OFF of the keyboard, but this time, I just couldn't make myself do that.
Derek, if that reply is directed at me, first let me say that you took the word "wimp" out of context. It was not intended to mean that unless the storm is a cat 5, it can't do damage or is not worth mentioning. What I was saying was that some appear to want to downplay what actually happened on that August night in 1969.
I think you are very intelligent, but lately, some of us have lost respect for you because of the nasty attitude you have displayed in some posts. Man, don't let that degree in meteorology cause you to forget your roots! You once were one of us commonfolks!

[MiamiensisWx]

Even as late as the 1960s (when Camille hit), people tended to say how strong winds were based on their own experience, what they were taught about storms and winds, and what the winds they experienced FELT like. This means that winds were likely AT LEAST slightly weaker than suggested or advocated. All in all, Camille was likely weaker than what people said at landfall. Also, contrary to popular belief and as mentioned by Derek Ortt, gusts received in Camille have been mixed up and represented as SUSTAINED winds of 190MPH when, in reality, they were highly, highly likely the result of GUSTS or gusts in microbursts. This means that there is even a chance that Camille was an extremely strong Category Four at landfall, with sustained winds around 150MPH to 155MPH with gusts up to the 175MPH to 180MPH or greater. However, I highly think that Camille was very strong at landfall. Also, when you add the surge, you get a destructive storm.

[Derek Ortt]

I believe one of the other pro mets here posted before that he ran the slosh model for a cat 4 in Mississippi and the expected surge is 30 feet, well above that produced by camielle.

I believe, that the best chance to get a 4 in the northern GOM is for the hurricane to take Dennis path, where it is over the shelf water only about 1/2 the time and moving at Dennis speed, at a size comparable to Ivan

[f5]

Charley had 190mph gust reported also does that make him a CAT 5.i'll leave that up for the weather scientist to debate

[wxmann_91]

Charley had 190mph gust reported also does that make him a CAT 5.i'll leave that up for the weather scientist to debate

As I have said, 190 mph gust=Cat 4 maximum sustained wind. And I do believe that gust was recorded on the top of a roof of a hospital, and winds are higher aloft then at the ground.

[f5]

Charley 145-150 landfall sustained winds
gust 200-215

145*1.4=203
150x1.4=210

did i use the gust ratio right?

[Derek Ortt]

the 190 m.p.h. gusts equate to 118-135 m.p.h. sustained using the 1.4 to 1.6 sustained wind to gust ratio given by Asklahuna