Camille not a cat-5 at Mississippi landfall???

[MGC]

I did not see the wind damage from Andrew only the pictures or video. I did see the damage from Camille and compared to all the other hurricanes I've seen in the past Camille had the worst wind damage and second to Katrina in surge damage. Camille likely produced wind damage in streaky patterns like Andrew in mesovortices. Katrina also produced wind damage in streaks. I positive that Katrina produced mesovorticies in pockets along the coast. Incredible wind damage in an area and a quarter of a mile away little wind damage. I wonder if the NWS doppler radar has the resolution to detect small areas of intense wind from the distance it was located. Also, reading the reports posted above, the winds in Camille were measured by doppler radar on the AF recon that managed to penetrate Camille before it lost an engine and had to leave the hurricane......MGC

[Audrey2Katrina]

They may have used something employing the "Doppler Effect," MGC, but I rather doubt that they had Doppler radar before the late 1970's... I could be wrong, as I know the "effect" has been around for quite some time; but true Doppler Weather Radar is a relatively new technology as far as I know. That said, I agree with just about everything you've said... and I did see damage from both... pretty much up close and personal... one of my colleagues at school was a former Homestead resident who went through Andrew and Katrina... obviously didn't get one of those infamous "streaks" because where they were (and it wasn't in N.O.--it was Miss.) they said Katrina's winds were worse--and remember I'm strictly quoting what ONE person observed in THEIR particular swath of wind fields. Face it, they were both bad, but we do know that Camille's landfalling pressure was substantially lower, but that all-important "gradient" has to be factored in... and therein, lay the rub.

A2K

[MGC]

I know the Navy had doppler radar back in the mid 70's. The radar sets had tubes in them and were not solid state. The radar operator had to manually track the radar beam. Don't know how the AF doppler worked. I know a guy that was a navigator in the HH back in the 70's and few many a hurricane. I'll give him a ring and ask him if he remembers how they measured the wind back then.....MGC

[Law Dispatch]

If you look at the picture Extremeweatherguy has posted, not all tree's are blown down. Not even the dead one's. Normandy, we need to realize that the 190mph winds would be in one area, not spread out. The tree's in your picture may not have been in the area where the 190mph winds occured. Until the NHC officially downgrades Camille, she will always be a catagory 5.

[Extremeweatherguy]

If you look at the picture Extremeweatherguy has posted, not all tree's are blown down. Not even the dead one's. Normandy, we need to realize that the 190mph winds would be in one area, not spread out. The tree's in your picture may not have been in the area where the 190mph winds occured. Until the NHC officially downgrades Camille, she will always be a catagory 5.

And I agree. I think Camille was a minimal Cat. 5 for sure. I was just trying to show that the picture posted before mine was likely outside of the Cat. 5 wind range.

BTW, Here is a reminder of the official definition of a Cat. 5 for everyone:

Category Five Hurricane:
Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, and signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 miles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required. Only 3 Category Five Hurricanes have made landfall in the United States since records began: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Camille (1969), and Hurricane Andrew in August, 1992. The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane struck the Florida Keys with a minimum pressure of 892 mb--the lowest pressure ever observed in the United States. Hurricane Camille struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast causing a 25-foot storm surge, which inundated Pass Christian. Hurricane Andrew of 1992 made landfall over southern Miami-Dade County, Florida causing 26.5 billion dollars in losses--the costliest hurricane on record. In addition, Hurricane Wilma (pdf) of 2005 was a Category Five hurricane at peak intensity and is the strongest Atlantic tropical cyclone on record with a minimum pressure of 882 mb.

[Law Dispatch]

Extreme that's fine, but remember, the winds of that strength are not distributed equally. Let's remember one thing. Pictures do not tell all.

[Aslkahuna]

The overland gust ratios for Tropical Cyclone winds come from a study done by JTWC in the 1970's during which they derived the overwater ratios now used extensively by NHC. There is an abstract of the study in one of the ATCRs from the 1970's but I had read the full study as there was a copy in the Forecaster's Library in the weather station at Clark AB. I referenced this source sometime back during a discussion on Katrina and I guess I will have to reference it again.

Steve

[jazzfan1247]

Another good report on Camille...Keep learning a few things...Wink

http://tinyurl.com/k5zdy

An interesting thing about this report is that it kinda downplays the wind damage aspect of Camille. Of course this is to be expected to some extent, given the fact that generally storm surge damage is more impressive than wind damage. Nevertheless, you see phrases such as “the most intense damage was in the first several blocks inland” and “some wind damage occurred, but was secondary to the storm surge damage”.

But what really made me think was the following paragraph:

The downtown area of Gulfport and inland coastal areas had only relatively small amounts of structural damage. Some windows and signs were broken in the downtown area of Gulfport, and many first-floor areas suffered significant water damage (Criswell and Cummins 1970, p. 18). Other areas within Gulfport suffered window damage and destroyed roofs. Isolated pockets of residences inland were heavily damaged, with some homes leveled.

Obviously this is a bit vague, and can be interpreted in different ways. And Gulfport was probably just outside of the maximum winds in the eyewall. But in any case, I think it’s pretty clear from this paragraph that Gulfport did not experience any sustained winds greater than Category 3 strength. Although I’m far from certain, I think at least from this type of wording that it’s certainly possible Camille wasn’t a Cat 5.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I think at least from this type of wording that it’s certainly possible Camille wasn’t a Cat 5.

Fortunately we don't classify hurricanes by a few words taken from from a report taken hither or thither... but from observations, barometric pressures, and reliable sources of data... which the "official" NHC report calls the 160+ sustained winds reported. I don't think it's any more possible that Camille wasn't a Cat 5 than it is that Andrew wasn't.... personally, I'm convinced of it... they both were.

A2K

[timNms]

I did not see the wind damage from Andrew only the pictures or video. I did see the damage from Camille and compared to all the other hurricanes I've seen in the past Camille had the worst wind damage and second to Katrina in surge damage. Camille likely produced wind damage in streaky patterns like Andrew in mesovortices. Katrina also produced wind damage in streaks. I positive that Katrina produced mesovorticies in pockets along the coast. Incredible wind damage in an area and a quarter of a mile away little wind damage. I wonder if the NWS doppler radar has the resolution to detect small areas of intense wind from the distance it was located. Also, reading the reports posted above, the winds in Camille were measured by doppler radar on the AF recon that managed to penetrate Camille before it lost an engine and had to leave the hurricane......MGC

I was wondering that also about Katrina. There are places in my area where there are trees snapped and uprooted, yet a few hundred feet away, trees are still standing. Other than possible tornadoes, I would think it was mesovorticies as you stated.

[Stratosphere747]

Tim,

I don't know if you happened to see this, and I've yet to really review any pictures from either Katrina or Camille. Just curious if it has any validity to it.

http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/urbanforests.htm

Quote from the report....

"We know from studies of storms like Camille 1969, Hugo 1989 and Andrew 1992 that the trees that come down during storms are always the weakest and most mis-shaped trees in the area. They are often non-native trees unsuited by nature to our exposed coastal landscape. Trees that are often snapped, broken or overturned are often found to be diseased, hollow and rotten in the core, old and in decline and severely imbalanced."

[timNms]

Tim,

I don't know if you happened to see this, and I've yet to really review any pictures from either Katrina or Camille. Just curious if it has any validity to it.

http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/urbanforests.htm

Quote from the report....

"We know from studies of storms like Camille 1969, Hugo 1989 and Andrew 1992 that the trees that come down during storms are always the weakest and most mis-shaped trees in the area. They are often non-native trees unsuited by nature to our exposed coastal landscape. Trees that are often snapped, broken or overturned are often found to be diseased, hollow and rotten in the core, old and in decline and severely imbalanced."

I saw that. I wasn't talking about one or two trees. It would be 10-20 trees, sometimes about the lenght of a football field in distance. The ones down didn't appear to be weak. Pines as big around as a 50 gallon drum would be snapped or uprooted, pecan trees, oaks, etc, would be broken or uprooted. Then a few feet away, the trees would still be standing. Wish I had a pic for you to see.

[Normandy]

You saw what Camille did up close, did the wind damage you see compare to that of Andrew's?

As a matter of fact, yes I did--miles and untold miles of it, and I'm not talking water surge damage. Camille had an awful surge (biggest after Kat's); but not nearly as far inland where the felled and snapped trees, and demolished homes were innumerable and uncountable--this I saw with my own eyes. Now in all honesty I can't say those winds were 190... nobody can. What instrumentation would survive such windspeeds? My point has never been the 190 mph.. which is something I'll always consider an estimate, and possibly even a peak gust.. I just don't know... but one thing I do know... the "wind" damage was there, and it was decidedly a 5 by any stretch of comparison I can conjure up.

A2K

Im sorry, I really don't mean to offend you, but I don't think that is possible.

For one, Camille threw 24 feet of surge in her right front quadrant, which means that ANYTHING within a mile or two of the coastline would have been obliterated by the surge, probably more. So the wind damage you would have seen (if it had not been touched by surge) likely would have fell far below Category 5 damage, because the winds decrease the farther the hurricane goes inland. Pro Mets concede that Homestead was destroyed by upper end 3 and category 4 winds, NOT category 5 winds, and Homestead is I think about 16 miles from the coast. Thats a severe drop off in maximum wind intensity. So if you saw wind damage that rivaled Hurricane Andrew, then I would think you saw damage produced by Category 3-4 winds (Im COMPLETELY throwing out the notion that Camille had 190 mph winds because if she did NOTHING would be left at the coastline but mud, IE no trees).

Some more questionable images concerning her alleged 190 mph winds.


That looks like surge damage, and the house itself has NO visible wind damage....this had to be in an intense portion of Camille because any house that sustains that much surge damage had to have a lot of water put in the house.


Again, notice the Church....relatively minimal wind damage. And surge was there, a boat was throw inland (Again, making the area located in an intense portion of Camille).


Hmmm, does this scene look familiar? It sure does, because Katrina produced damage JUST like this. Notice the buildings toward the back of the picture, little to no wind damage seen. And these are four and five story buildings, so they would be even MORE susceptible.


I present Pass Christian MS, and the scene looks VERY familiar. Notice the trees...they stand. 190 mph winds, they fall, and get blown to another state. Not just the trees, some power poles also stand. This is picture does show some severe wind damage, but 190 mph damage? No way.



The famous picture of the condo destroyed. Again, this scene looks VERY familiar, lots of buildings flattened, lots of trees still standing.



Look, im not trying to degrade those who live on the MS coast, but honestly im shocked that you all would support Camille being so powerful when Katrina (A BONAFIDE 3.....a 3!) absolutely put her to shame. You can say size matters, and it does, but folks if you have 190 mph winds, then size wont matter. Until Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Andrew had produced the most prolific hurricane damage (IE it rivaled Camille) that anyone in THIS country has ever seen....and I mean ever....and this was PURE wind.....NO WATER. That is in my mind what makes Andrew such a mythical storm, because he made neighborhoods look like tornadoes were dropped over all of Homestead, while Camille and katrina seem to have made it look like it brought the Asia tsunami to the MGC.

In my mind, they both produced two different types of damage, and the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....and if Camille is to have 190 mph winds, her damage should absolutely DESTROY Andrew's (ESPECIALLY considering that Homestead is said to have seen CAT 4 conditions). I think that you all on the MGC should be more open to the fact that Camille just might not have been as strong as she was made out to be...it seems as if you attack anyone and automatically disbelieve anybody that mentions otherwise, including pro mets.

[Extremeweatherguy]

great post normandy!

[timNms]

You saw what Camille did up close, did the wind damage you see compare to that of Andrew's?

As a matter of fact, yes I did--miles and untold miles of it, and I'm not talking water surge damage. Camille had an awful surge (biggest after Kat's); but not nearly as far inland where the felled and snapped trees, and demolished homes were innumerable and uncountable--this I saw with my own eyes. Now in all honesty I can't say those winds were 190... nobody can. What instrumentation would survive such windspeeds? My point has never been the 190 mph.. which is something I'll always consider an estimate, and possibly even a peak gust.. I just don't know... but one thing I do know... the "wind" damage was there, and it was decidedly a 5 by any stretch of comparison I can conjure up.

A2K

Im sorry, I really don't mean to offend you, but I don't think that is possible.

For one, Camille threw 24 feet of surge in her right front quadrant, which means that ANYTHING within a mile or two of the coastline would have been obliterated by the surge, probably more. So the wind damage you would have seen (if it had not been touched by surge) likely would have fell far below Category 5 damage, because the winds decrease the farther the hurricane goes inland. Pro Mets concede that Homestead was destroyed by upper end 3 and category 4 winds, NOT category 5 winds, and Homestead is I think about 16 miles from the coast. Thats a severe drop off in maximum wind intensity. So if you saw wind damage that rivaled Hurricane Andrew, then I would think you saw damage produced by Category 3-4 winds (Im COMPLETELY throwing out the notion that Camille had 190 mph winds because if she did NOTHING would be left at the coastline but mud, IE no trees).

Some more questionable images concerning her alleged 190 mph winds.


That looks like surge damage, and the house itself has NO visible wind damage....this had to be in an intense portion of Camille because any house that sustains that much surge damage had to have a lot of water put in the house.


Again, notice the Church....relatively minimal wind damage. And surge was there, a boat was throw inland (Again, making the area located in an intense portion of Camille).


Hmmm, does this scene look familiar? It sure does, because Katrina produced damage JUST like this. Notice the buildings toward the back of the picture, little to no wind damage seen. And these are four and five story buildings, so they would be even MORE susceptible.


I present Pass Christian MS, and the scene looks VERY familiar. Notice the trees...they stand. 190 mph winds, they fall, and get blown to another state. Not just the trees, some power poles also stand. This is picture does show some severe wind damage, but 190 mph damage? No way.



The famous picture of the condo destroyed. Again, this scene looks VERY familiar, lots of buildings flattened, lots of trees still standing.



Look, im not trying to degrade those who live on the MS coast, but honestly im shocked that you all would support Camille being so powerful when Katrina (A BONAFIDE 3.....a 3!) absolutely put her to shame. You can say size matters, and it does, but folks if you have 190 mph winds, then size wont matter. Until Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Andrew had produced the most prolific hurricane damage (IE it rivaled Camille) that anyone in THIS country has ever seen....and I mean ever....and this was PURE wind.....NO WATER. That is in my mind what makes Andrew such a mythical storm, because he made neighborhoods look like tornadoes were dropped over all of Homestead, while Camille and katrina seem to have made it look like it brought the Asia tsunami to the MGC.

In my mind, they both produced two different types of damage, and the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....and if Camille is to have 190 mph winds, her damage should absolutely DESTROY Andrew's (ESPECIALLY considering that Homestead is said to have seen CAT 4 conditions). I think that you all on the MGC should be more open to the fact that Camille just might not have been as strong as she was made out to be...it seems as if you attack anyone and automatically disbelieve anybody that mentions otherwise, including pro mets.

1. The house looks like it took on water from the surge. Without knowing it's location, I can't say if it was located within the cat 5 wind area or not.

2. The pic of the church....If memory serves me correctly (and those who live along the coast can verify)...is located in either Gulfport or Biloxi which would put it OUTSIDE of the cat 5 windfield in Camille.

3. Hard to say what the windspeed was in the 3rd pic. Looks like surge damage, but not sure if that was in Gulfport or Biloxi, which most likely was not in cat 5 winds due to Camille's windfield.

4. Pass Christian....yep, some trees stood. However, I'd venture to guess that most of those in the picture were under water when the cat 5 winds were blowing. Could be the reason you see them still standing. Well, some of them at least

Now, as far as stating whether or not Camille was a cat 5. I believe she was. Did she have 190 mph winds at landfall? I'm not sure. Some reports say 160, some say 190. I do know that until Katrina, she was the benchmark for the MS Gulf Coast. Also I know it is easy for us to look at pictures and say this or that about a storm, but we're not the professionals who did the evaluations. Unless we've been trained to look at the details, data, and made personal visits to the area to assess the damage first hand, our opinions don't amount to a hill of beans. What we should do instead of second guessing the experts is to use the lessons learned from storms like Camille, Andrew, Katrina and many others and apply those lessons so that lives can be saved. We should look at the destruction from all storms and find a way to make our buildings stronger.

Again, it is easy for us to look at pictures and say "No way this was a cat whatever" but it's another thing for us to have the training to make the correct assessment.

[Huckster]

A few points, things most of us know but seem to forget. We know that with ALL hurricanes, the maximum sustained winds used in determining a hurricane's intensity according to the Saffir Simpson Scale only occur in a very small area, usually on the right front quadrant of the hurricane. I don't intend to give exact or scientific measurements, but let's say Camille's eye was 12 miles across and the eyewall was roughly 2 miles across on either side. This, if I am doing my math correctly, would yield a swath of 16 miles. This is still a relatively small area, and we know that the cat. 5 winds, if there were any, almost certainly would not actually be found in all parts of the eyewall, but rather only in a VERY narrow area in the eastern or northeastern eyewall. The true area receiving cat. 5 winds would probably have only been a mile or two across at best over WATER. Again, I am using these figures just to make a point, and I don't know the exact dimensions of Camille's windfield.

I think it is somewhat foolish to try to argue against Camille's current recorded intensity as a cat. 5 hurricane by using a few pictures from here and there. That presents an incomplete picture, a puzzle with many pieces missing. The fact is, if Camille was indeed a cat. 5 at landfall in Mississippi, the cat. 5 winds would probably have only been a couple of miles across at most and have extended inland by maybe the same or less. Again, going to the pictures, where are the pictures of cat. 3 WIND damage from the Panhandle from Opal? Opal is a hurricane that will mainly be remembered for its surge, but according to the TPC, it did in fact produce cat. 3 sustained winds over land in a very small area, thus justifying its listing as a landfalling major hurricane. Given the state of affairs in August of 1969, both with and without Camille, it is very unlikely, in my opinion, that anyone would have systematically taken pictures at ground level of all areas along the Mississippi coast in hopes of finding "cat. 5 wind damage." As far as I know, the Saffir Simpson Scale had either not been invented or was not in widespread use at the time; no one had any need or personal bias to try to put Camille at the top end of any "scale," in spite of the current trend of everyone seemingly wanting "their" storm to be the worst, at least, as far as I know.

As for subjective wind analyses. Given that hurricane winds tend to occur in streaks, I think it is unwise to use a handful of pictures to say that a hurricane was or was not of a certain intensity. As for Katrina, I have NOT been to the coast in Mississippi, but I have seen New Orleans and the stretch along I-10 in Mississippi. Even in Louisiana along I-12 and just off it, I can see swaths where damage was MUCH worse than spots just a few hundred feet away. In Mississippi, to the east of the center of the eye, this type of damage is even more apparent. And in NO East, around the former Jazzland/Six Flags area, almost all the trees are completely flattened. As has been mentioned elsewhere, tree damage in and of itself is not conclusive in determining windspeed or a hurricane's intensity. Around Jazzland, the appearance was more like a giant tornado, but I find it hard to believe that a massive tornado several miles across flattened all those trees, especially on the western side of the hurricane. A more plausible explanation is that the Chinese Tallow trees which have supplanted the native trees are less wind resistant, yielding a biased appearance of wind. Is it possible that the trees right along the coast in Mississippi developed some tolerance to high winds whereas those some 15 miles from the coast in Homestead did not? Could that possibly be why the Live Oaks in that one picture remain standing while so many spindly, tall pine trees in the Homestead area were snapped? Just something to think about. Again, I am not trying to be overly specific or even quote anyone. I'm just wanting to throw some more ideas into the mix here.

[Aslkahuna]

It was a year after Camille when Celia hit Corpus Christi that the existence of narrow high intensity wind streaks were first documented. In some respects, Celia was a lot like Camille in that the storm was intensifying rapidly in the final hours before landfall. Celia was not anywhere near as intense as Camille but did have estimated gusts well in excess of 150 mph in the windstreaks whch curiously were in the left semicircle.

Steve

[Frank P]

timNims... the structure in the first picture was in Biloxi, about two or three blocks or so east of where the Beau Rivage Casino now stands.... it was an old hotel and/or apartment complex.. Biloxi as you know was quite a distance from the "eye wall" of Camille... thought I'd like to clarify that information...

[timNms]

timNims... the structure in the first picture was in Biloxi, about two or three blocks or so east of where the Beau Rivage Casino now stands.... it was an old hotel and/or apartment complex.. Biloxi as you know was quite a distance from the "eye wall" of Camille... thought I'd like to clarify that information...

Thanks, Frank. I suspected as much.

[Javlin]

timNims... the structure in the first picture was in Biloxi, about two or three blocks or so east of where the Beau Rivage Casino now stands.... it was an old hotel and/or apartment complex.. Biloxi as you know was quite a distance from the "eye wall" of Camille... thought I'd like to clarify that information...

Thanks, Frank. I suspected as much.

Another picture thrown out there to represent the WHOLE WIND FIELD of Camille by some who do not even know where the picture is located or depicting.Maybe I should go look up some pics of Charley;nevermind.