Interesting quote comparing Camille to Katrina

[timNms]

I am reasonably sure that the majority of homes destroyed in Camille were from the SURGE and NOT the wind... of course that goes without saying for Katrina... from my experience I had very few friends that lost their home to wind, for either Camille or Katrina, unless it was from a tree falling on it... but a plethora of them from surge

That's because most everybody in Katrina didn't see sustained major hurricane force winds.Had Katrina made landfall as a 5,more people would have lost their homes to wind,not surge.Because wind isn't limited to the coast like surge.

I disagree... more people would have still lost their homes to surge than wind, even at a Cat 5... Camille proved that... as stated in my previous post... I didn't have any neighbors, relatives or friends lose their home from the WINDS OF CAMILLE... any my wife has 20 brothers and sisters and I have 5 brothers... so I have a ton of relatives, and a few friends too.... and the only homes that was damaged of my relatives and friends during Camille was from water... and if my memory doesn't fail me I'm pretty sure is was a Major storm... yet a plethora of them lost homes due to surge of Katrina.... of course this was in the Biloxi and Ocean Springs areas and perhaps some will argue that Camille didn't have major hurricane winds in that our area either... which is totally BS....

another point, IF, IF, IF Katrina would have come in at 175, which is still less that Camille... it would have brought with it a surge perhaps in the 35-45 range... every house on the Biloxi peninsular would have been underwater and perhaps destroyed... by surge...

Hate to bring up a whole other argument but Camille was most likely NOT a category 5,definitely not a 175mph hurricane.

If a REAL category 5 hurricane the size of Katrina made landfall in MS,the catestrophic damage would extend MUCH farther inland than the storm surge damage along the coast.

What some of you fail to understand is that the damage from Katrina DID go far inland. There were homes in the Hattiesburg area damaged or destroyed by Katrina's wind. There were many that were destroyed by fallen trees, also. I'm 100 miles inland. My house sustained around $4000 in damages from wind and rain. My brother's home had over $20,000 in damages. He lives in Jones county, just to my southeast.

Who's to say that there wasn't catastrophic wind damage along the coast BEFORE the surge came in? There is no evidence left to examine, however, because it washed back into the gulf.

To say that Camille was not a catagory 5 without backing that statement up with facts is rediculous. What makes you think Camille's winds were less that 175 mph? Do some research and read the old advisories on Camille. They are scary!
Your statement is no different than me saying Andrew was not a catagory 5 and not posting facts to back the statement up.

We can debate this issue until the cows come home, but I'll offer my take on it. Whether it's from jealousy (scary thought, but appears that some are of the mindset "if it doesn't hit my state, it's nothing more than a 3"), or ignorance, Mississippi and Florida have been impacted by catagory 5 hurricanes. Florida twice and Mississippi once for certain and who knows, in years to come, Katrina may be bumped up. I do know for a fact that thousands of lives were changed on August 29, 2005 and no matter what catagory label is placed on her, our state will never be the same again.

[sunny]

What some of you fail to understand is that the damage from Katrina DID go far inland.

Brookhaven got hit pretty good, too. They were still without electricity when we went through there a week after the storm. Things were a pretty good mess there, too.

[timNms]

Sunny, you are right. I teach in Jefferson Davis County. Many folks in the Prentiss, MS area were without electricity for 3 to 4 weeks following Katrina. There was a great deal of destrution in that area as well. People fail to realize just how massive this storm was and how destructive it was. Seeing pictures gives just a small inkling of what it was really like (and in many cases, still is like)

[sunny]

Sunny, you are right. I teach in Jefferson Davis County. Many folks in the Prentiss, MS area were without electricity for 3 to 4 weeks following Katrina. There was a great deal of destrution in that area as well. People fail to realize just how massive this storm was and how destructive it was. Seeing pictures gives just a small inkling of what it was really like (and in many cases, still is like)

I was amazed, Tim. We didn't expect things to be as bad as they were that far inland.

We went to Baton Rouge from Atlanta. Well, Walker which is right outside of Baton Rouge. They were just getting electricity back and food on the shelves of the super markets. It was an amazing site to see people almost fighting over what WAS available. Still amazing to think about really.

[Pearl River]

Here is the pressure at landfall during Camille.

The lowest land pressure was observed by Mr. Charles A. Breath, Jr. of Bay St. Louis, in his home a few blocks from the west end of Bay St. Louis Bridge. He made the reading of 26.85 inches on his aneroid barometer as the eastern edge of Camille's eye passed overhead. His barometer was later checked and found to be accurate by the New Orleans Weather Bureau Office.

Tested accurate. Most will say that there is no correlation between pressure and wind.

Camille's lowest pressure measured was 26.61.

Courtesy U.S. Department of Commerce, ESSA's Climatological Data, National Summary, Volume 20, Number 8, 1969

[timNms]

The happest moment of my life (following Katrina lol) was when the power was restored to downtown Collins, MS (bout 6 miles from my home) on the Friday following the storm. We were told by my wife's co-worker that her brother's gas station would be getting power that day. He told her to have us park our vehicle at his store and he'd fill us up. We left my car there at 11 am. We went back at 4, my wife dressed for her night shift at the hospital. We waited until after 6 pm and she left us there to go to work. At ELEVEN pm, the power was restored. I'd never been happier to see street lights as I was that night. We were gased up and on our way finally. What was sad about it was that the only grocery store in the town had sustained major roof damage and was unable to reopen for weeks after the storm...but we could go buy a cold coke or bottle of water in town after the power was back on lol.

[Ixolib]

We can debate this issue until the cows come home...

With this particular issue, it's quite probable that the cows will NEVER come home.

I do know for a fact that thousands of lives were changed on August 29, 2005 and no matter what category label is placed on her, our state will never be the same again.

Amen to that! I'm living proof of that statement... Last summer at this time I was blissfully ignorant of what was to happen to me and my family only two months later...

[timNms]

We can debate this issue until the cows come home...

With this particular issue, it's quite probable that the cows will NEVER come home.

I do know for a fact that thousands of lives were changed on August 29, 2005 and no matter what category label is placed on her, our state will never be the same again.

Amen to that! I'm living proof of that statement... Last summer at this time I was blissfully ignorant of what was to happen to me and my family only two months later...

I'm guilty of the same thing!

[Opal storm]

I am reasonably sure that the majority of homes destroyed in Camille were from the SURGE and NOT the wind... of course that goes without saying for Katrina... from my experience I had very few friends that lost their home to wind, for either Camille or Katrina, unless it was from a tree falling on it... but a plethora of them from surge

That's because most everybody in Katrina didn't see sustained major hurricane force winds.Had Katrina made landfall as a 5,more people would have lost their homes to wind,not surge.Because wind isn't limited to the coast like surge.

I disagree... more people would have still lost their homes to surge than wind, even at a Cat 5... Camille proved that... as stated in my previous post... I didn't have any neighbors, relatives or friends lose their home from the WINDS OF CAMILLE... any my wife has 20 brothers and sisters and I have 5 brothers... so I have a ton of relatives, and a few friends too.... and the only homes that was damaged of my relatives and friends during Camille was from water... and if my memory doesn't fail me I'm pretty sure is was a Major storm... yet a plethora of them lost homes due to surge of Katrina.... of course this was in the Biloxi and Ocean Springs areas and perhaps some will argue that Camille didn't have major hurricane winds in that our area either... which is totally BS....

another point, IF, IF, IF Katrina would have come in at 175, which is still less that Camille... it would have brought with it a surge perhaps in the 35-45 range... every house on the Biloxi peninsular would have been underwater and perhaps destroyed... by surge...

Hate to bring up a whole other argument but Camille was most likely NOT a category 5,definitely not a 175mph hurricane.

If a REAL category 5 hurricane the size of Katrina made landfall in MS,the catestrophic damage would extend MUCH farther inland than the storm surge damage along the coast.

What some of you fail to understand is that the damage from Katrina DID go far inland. There were homes in the Hattiesburg area damaged or destroyed by Katrina's wind. There were many that were destroyed by fallen trees, also. I'm 100 miles inland. My house sustained around $4000 in damages from wind and rain. My brother's home had over $20,000 in damages. He lives in Jones county, just to my southeast.

Who's to say that there wasn't catastrophic wind damage along the coast BEFORE the surge came in? There is no evidence left to examine, however, because it washed back into the gulf.

To say that Camille was not a catagory 5 without backing that statement up with facts is rediculous. What makes you think Camille's winds were less that 175 mph? Do some research and read the old advisories on Camille. They are scary!
Your statement is no different than me saying Andrew was not a catagory 5 and not posting facts to back the statement up.

We can debate this issue until the cows come home, but I'll offer my take on it. Whether it's from jealousy (scary thought, but appears that some are of the mindset "if it doesn't hit my state, it's nothing more than a 3"), or ignorance, Mississippi and Florida have been impacted by catagory 5 hurricanes. Florida twice and Mississippi once for certain and who knows, in years to come, Katrina may be bumped up. I do know for a fact that thousands of lives were changed on August 29, 2005 and no matter what catagory label is placed on her, our state will never be the same again.

I have seen no wind damage in Camille that even comes close to suggesting 175mph winds sustained,if you can find some pics of Camille's damage that might change my mind then please post them.

You think I'm jealous becuase I didn't get hit by Camille so that's why I don't think it was a 5?Okay....yeah im so jealous

[Derek Ortt]

Dont want to get into the cat 5 thing, but I did a pressure to wind ratio for NGOM landfalling systems since 1995, and 909mb yields 120KT. Still by far the most intense hurricane MS has ever seen was Camielle

[Ixolib]

Dont want to get into the cat 5 thing, but I did a pressure to wind ratio for NGOM landfalling systems since 1995, and 909mb yields 120KT. Still by far the most intense hurricane MS has ever seen was Camielle

Dependent, of course, upon how one measures "intensity"...

Then there's the issue of wind & pressure ratios, which may also hold a bias depending on which side the researcher desires to promote or demote. Interestingly, on some storms, some folks will take the ratio to their grave but on other storms, those same folks will say the correlation is far from precise and take every opportunity to discount it's relevance...

[timNms]

I have seen no wind damage in Camille that even comes close to suggesting 175mph winds sustained,if you can find some pics of Camille's damage that might change my mind then please post them.

You think I'm jealous becuase I didn't get hit by Camille so that's why I don't think it was a 5?Okay....yeah im so jealous

Were you there when Camille hit? Did you go there after she hit and do a damage assessment? What credentials do you have to justify your opinion? Just because you have not seen pictures of cat 5 damage from Camille does not make it a fact that she was anything less than a 5.

Again, I suggest that you do some research and provide concrete evidence that suggests she was less than a 5 before assuming people will accept your opinion that she was not a 5.

Did I say you were jealous that Camille did not hit you?

[timNms]

Dont want to get into the cat 5 thing, but I did a pressure to wind ratio for NGOM landfalling systems since 1995, and 909mb yields 120KT. Still by far the most intense hurricane MS has ever seen was Camielle

Derek, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but could you explain that pressure to wind ratio for NOGM landfalling systems that you have mentioned? How did you reach the conclusion that 909 yields 120Kt?

Since your study is only from 1995 to present, does that not yeild a skewed view? You are leaving out many other storms that have affected the area. And what would happen if the same storm with pressure of 909 struck western Florida or the East Coast of the US? Would the pressure to wind ratio be different and if so, why?

Also, do you not have to factor into your figures weather features at the time of landfall (sheer, etc.)? Also, wouldn't the month in which the storm struck play a role in pressure/strenght?

[Derek Ortt]

the pressure to wind ratio is unfortunately the best we have when we do not have other data.

A study at the Monterrey conference also showed that the GOM pressure to wind ratio is different from the rest of the basin, and is closer to the WPAC. Therefore, a 909mb could have produced "only" a cat 4, in the absence of a strong ridge of high-pressure nearby.

I wish recon was standardized then... so we would not have these theoretical arguments

[timNms]

the pressure to wind ratio is unfortunately the best we have when we do not have other data.

A study at the Monterrey conference also showed that the GOM pressure to wind ratio is different from the rest of the basin, and is closer to the WPAC. Therefore, a 909mb could have produced "only" a cat 4, in the absence of a strong ridge of high-pressure nearby.

I wish recon was standardized then... so we would not have these theoretical arguments

Why is GOM pressure to wind ratio different than that of the rest of the atlantic basin?

[Derek Ortt]

here is the unofficial press to wind ratio that I calculated in my spare time

http://www.nwhhc.com/presswind.jpg

I just did a simply quadratic curve fit to the data since post 1995. I used that period, since the data is of the highest quality then

The equation is p=-0.0108u^2 +0.5743 u+ 995.2977

p=pressure in mb
u=wind in KT

The one presented in MOnterrey is of a much higher quality as it ha the entire GOM, not just landfall locations

Note: I am not keeping this link active very long, so look at is quickly, everyone

[Derek Ortt]

Could be that ambient pressures are lower in the GOM. In the tropical Atlantic, we have the larger ridge of high-pressure to the north of the systems often, creating a stronger pressure gradient. In the abscence of this, we often have a WPAC like relation, like we had with Wilma in the Caribbean last year

[timNms]

here is the unofficial press to wind ratio that I calculated in my spare time

http://www.nwhhc.com/presswind.jpg

I just did a simply quadratic curve fit to the data since post 1995. I used that period, since the data is of the highest quality then

The equation is p=-0.0108u^2 +0.5743 u+ 995.2977

p=pressure in mb
u=wind in KT

The one presented in MOnterrey is of a much higher quality as it ha the entire GOM, not just landfall locations

Note: I am not keeping this link active very long, so look at is quickly, everyone

That's very interesting. However, I still wonder why your study only included storms from 1995 to present. Does that not skew the findings? Forgive me if I'm being a pain in the butt. I also will tell you up front that I have no clue what you are doing LOL. I only do 2nd grade math

[Derek Ortt]

what I did is not really a study at all... just something to test a hypothesis I had when I had free time a few months ago... but the results were a bit surprising

As I said, I only included post 1994 storms due to the fact that the best track before then is known to have flaws, which is why the reanlaysis is being done (and I still have questions, especially with a 110KT 955mb October hurricane in Tampa)

[timNms]

Great. Thanks for the info.