Interesting quote comparing Camille to Katrina

[Audrey2Katrina]

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.

I've seen plenty... whether or not it was 175... who knows... this is arguing in a vacuum. But I can tell you one thing... I WAS there within a day of Camille's landfall, and trust me, there were tens, if not hundreds of THOUSANDS of trees snapped like toothpicks... quite literally as far as the eye could see, for mile after unbelievable mile. This was not done by surge... it was ALL wind damage. I have never in my life seen such extensive damage to trees.. and I can tell you that for many miles there wasn't so much as ONE left standing. I will never forget that image as one finds it rather difficult to forget it once you've seen it firsthand.

Sorry I didn't bring a camera... but I know what I saw.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Therefore, a 909mb could have produced "only" a cat 4, in the absence of a strong ridge of high-pressure nearby.

Becomes an operative phrase. Do we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there wasn't?

Algorithms and models are helpful; but have also frequently proven to be less than infallible, hence there will always be room for error, and doubt. This will always be an irresolvable debate--unless we manage to break the time barrier and go find out firsthand.

A2K

[Pearl River]

The ambient pressures over the GOM or even the Atlantic Basin in general have been talked about as being lower only over the past 10 years or so, from what I have read. I don't feel that pressures in 1994, 2002, or 2005 to name a few years can be said to have occured in 1969.

I know the Weather Bureau estimated a wind gust in Slidell from Camille as high as 160mph, on the west side of the storm.

[Opal storm]

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?

I find it very hard to believe that a cat 5 (especially 180-190mph) hurricane could maintain that kind of strength considering almost all the other major hurricanes to hit the N Gulf coast weakend before landfall.If I remember right I read somewhere in another thread that the last recon mission on Camille was 4 hours before she passed near the Mouth of the Mississippi river.4 hours is plenty of time for significant weakening,Dennis went from 145mph to 120mph in about that amount of time.That would also be about 8 or so hours before landfall near Bay St Louis.IMO by the time Camille got to MS it was probably a cat 4 like Charley.A 180-190mph Camille at landfall sounds very extreme for a northern Gulf coast hurricane.

[vbhoutex]

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.

I've seen plenty... whether or not it was 175... who knows... this is arguing in a vacuum. But I can tell you one thing... I WAS there within a day of Camille's landfall, and trust me, there were tens, if not hundreds of THOUSANDS of trees snapped like toothpicks... quite literally as far as the eye could see, for mile after unbelievable mile. This was not done by surge... it was ALL wind damage. I have never in my life seen such extensive damage to trees.. and I can tell you that for many miles there wasn't so much as ONE left standing. I will never forget that image as one finds it rather difficult to forget it once you've seen it firsthand.

Sorry I didn't bring a camera... but I know what I saw.

A2K

I wasn't there within one day, but I crossed MS inland from the coast within 2 weeks and the damage was incredible!!! Sorry I didn't take pictures either. We can argue this till the cows come home and we'll never know the answer. The inland wind damage I saw as well as that along the coastal area that I know wasn't from surge was beyond belief.

[f5]

i wonder what what 175 mph sustained winds feels like over water like Katrina had.i also wonder what is feels like to the human body

[Opal storm]

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.

I've seen plenty... whether or not it was 175... who knows... this is arguing in a vacuum. But I can tell you one thing... I WAS there within a day of Camille's landfall, and trust me, there were tens, if not hundreds of THOUSANDS of trees snapped like toothpicks... quite literally as far as the eye could see, for mile after unbelievable mile. This was not done by surge... it was ALL wind damage. I have never in my life seen such extensive damage to trees.. and I can tell you that for many miles there wasn't so much as ONE left standing. I will never forget that image as one finds it rather difficult to forget it once you've seen it firsthand.

Sorry I didn't bring a camera... but I know what I saw.

A2K

I wasn't there within one day, but I crossed MS inland from the coast within 2 weeks and the damage was incredible!!! Sorry I didn't take pictures either. We can argue this till the cows come home and we'll never know the answer. The inland wind damage I saw as well as that along the coastal area that I know wasn't from surge was beyond belief.

I am not trying to downplay Camille or the devastation.I know the damage was incredible and I do believe what you guys saw.

[Extremeweatherguy]

i wonder what what 175 mph sustained winds feels like over water like Katrina had.i also wonder what is feels like to the human body

I saw a TV show where a guy in a wind tunnel was strapped in and experienced winds all the way up to 160-165mph. If he hadn't been strapped in, he would have been blown away. He also said that it becomes hard to breath at that speed since the pressure on your chest is so great.

[Extremeweatherguy]

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?

I find it very hard to believe that a cat 5 (especially 180-190mph) hurricane could maintain that kind of strength considering almost all the other major hurricanes to hit the N Gulf coast weakend before landfall.If I remember right I read somewhere in another thread that the last recon mission on Camille was 4 hours before she passed near the Mouth of the Mississippi river.4 hours is plenty of time for significant weakening,Dennis went from 145mph to 120mph in about that amount of time.That would also be about 8 or so hours before landfall near Bay St Louis.IMO by the time Camille got to MS it was probably a cat 4 like Charley.A 180-190mph Camille at landfall sounds very extreme for a northern Gulf coast hurricane.

I agree. Even Wilma, the STRONGEST hurricane in the Atlantic basin history (based on pressure), only had 175mph winds. The same for Katrina and Rita while over the water last year too. I find it very hard to believe that Camille could have had 190mph winds at landfall....especially along the N. Gulf. Either way though, I still think Camille was likely a strong Cat. 4 or low end Cat. 5 storm at landfall.

BTW: I think the Labor day storm of 35' could have had 190mph winds at landfall. There were reports of EVERY blade of grass being ripped up off of the island it hit. Now THAT is extreme!

[Audrey2Katrina]

I find it very hard to believe that a cat 5 (especially 180-190mph) hurricane could maintain that kind of strength

With all due respect, what you, OR I, "believe" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the official data still say she was a Cat 5 at landfall, and while max sustained winds cannot be certified as they ALL broke well before max wind intensity could be measured, the VAST majority of professional meteorologists out there still believe she was indeed a Cat 5 at landfall.

As far as to this burgeoning hypothesis that all major hurricanes MUST weaken before landfall, it is a held belief by many... and statistically it has a valid premise but it by no means bears the test of being the case in EVERY scenario. Audrey most definitely INTENSIFIED moving inland to Cat 4 (I know someone who just "can't believe"... etc. will chime in there; but BTDT with that discussion), at any rate she intensified. So all these hypotheticals about what someone "believes" or what patterns "most"storms "seem" to follow just won't wash.

Bottom line... "officially" Camille was a Cat 5, fully, at landfall, whether some wish to believe it or not... and it will remain the "official" standing unless/until an "official" agency, and not someone's "opinion" deems it otherwise.

And I firmly agree with the "official" status.. all this speculation about what one believes or not, notwithstanding.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

BTW: I think the Labor day storm of 35' could have had 190mph winds at landfall. There were reports of EVERY blade of grass being ripped up off of the island it hit. Now THAT is extreme!

Incidentally, since someone mentioned the last "official" recon being several whole "hours" before landfall... the difference in the pressure THEY recorded, (905) and the landfalling pressure recorded ON LAND (909) is NOT all that significantly different. And just another sidebar, an "unofficial" barometric reading had her at 901... only 9mb above that Labor Day Storm... something to think about!

A2K

[MGC]

Camille didn't weaken quite as much as Katrina did. From 905mb to 909mb is not that much. Katrina had a CP of around 902mb but had a CP of 928mb at the Pearl River landfall. That is a 26mb rise for Catrina vrs an 4mb rise for Camille. Had Camille had the same rate of filling that Katrina had than Camille likely bottomed out sub 900mb over the loop current after the last recon found 905mb. Of course this is just speculation on my part, but considering how small Camille was I think it is possible that Camille had a CP below 900mb. I base this on the observed rate of filling that recent TC have exhibited the past several seasons. Is it not reasonable to expect Camille to behave in a similar manner as Opal, Lili, Ivan and Katrina? Having observed the damage from both Camille and Katrina directly, Katrina had a much wider swath of hurricane force winds, much larger. Areas that escaped wind damage in Orleans Parish suffered a great deal of wind damage during Katrina. The only reason Katrina caused more damage though was the water. Katrina's surge put Camille's to shame.....MGC

[HurricaneBill]

We've seen major hurricanes that weaken significantly prior to landfall in the past few years.

However, these storms were all major hurricanes when approaching the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

What about storms that approach as Category 1s or 2s? Could they possibly strengthen up to landfall and hit as a strong Category 3?

For example: Hurricane Eloise in 1975.

Eloise is listed as making landfall with 110KT sustained winds and a pressure of 955mb. Eloise appears to have strengthened up until landfall.

In fact, looking at the data, Eloise seemed to undergo significant strengthening more further north than Katrina, Lili, Opal, etc.

In a 12 hour period, Eloise's pressure dropped from 980 mb to 958 mb. The winds increased from 85KT to 105 KT. Eloise was in the Northern GOM at this point.

6 hours later, Eloise was just about to make landfall, and the pressure had fallen to 955mb and winds upped to 110KT. Eloise also appeared to be accelerating in forward speed.

The pressure/wind ratio seems normal for a Category 3 hurricane.

[timNms]

BTW: I think the Labor day storm of 35' could have had 190mph winds at landfall. There were reports of EVERY blade of grass being ripped up off of the island it hit. Now THAT is extreme!

Incidentally, since someone mentioned the last "official" recon being several whole "hours" before landfall... the difference in the pressure THEY recorded, (905) and the landfalling pressure recorded ON LAND (909) is NOT all that significantly different. And just another sidebar, an "unofficial" barometric reading had her at 901... only 9mb above that Labor Day Storm... something to think about!

A2K

Also, weren't the sustained winds at the last recon stated to be at or above 200 mph? I'll have to dig up those old advisories to be sure.

[Derek Ortt]

I would not use those advisories as they did not know what we know today about the appropriate reduction factors. At times, they used 850mb winds as EQUAL to surface winds, meaning, they need to be multiplied by .8 to get the real winds

I do know that the final report only states gusts to 190 m.p.h., not sustained. This would also, along with the pressure to wind relation, equate to a cat 4

Even so, Camielle had higher winds than Katrina.

I wish the debate would have been settled prior to Katrina, could have included statements on nwhhc and on PNJ about just how dangerous the storm was in cmparison to Camielle, if Camielle is proven conclusively not to have been a 5

[Derek Ortt]

eloise is from teh questionable 70's... so 110KT may be a bit high

That said, it is only the 4's and 5's that have trouble in the NGOM. Maybe there is a thermodynamic constraint due to the low heat content in the NGOM that can only support no more than a marginal 3, which is where everything tends to converge to

[Audrey2Katrina]

they need to be multiplied by .8 to get the real winds

This is not always etched in stone. Some of this came out in the Katrina report; but it is not equivalent to canon law from everything I've read.

I do know that the final report only states gusts to 190 m.p.h., not sustained.

This may or may not be true in some reports; but I've read sustained 180-190 and Gusts well over 200.

Personally, I seriously doubt that Camille can ever be proven conclusively to have been anything one way or the other; especially in seeing as how it was nearly 40 years ago. Some "official" analysis using all sorts of mathematical algorithms and models may come down from Olympus and proclaim otherwise; but this, while bearing official status, will not, for all it's number-crunching, prove anything "conclusively" albeit it will bear considerable credibility within many circles. Hurricanes cannot be simply nailed down to an exact algorithm especially when the variables we cannot anymore review are so far removed. Too many things that just can't be measured anymore and the data is too long removed time-wise. I feel there will always be those convinced that Camille was indeed a 5 including within professional meteorological circles.

I agree Camille had the stronger winds... but that said, I think they still may have missed something on Katrina... I'd like to say only time will tell--but this one even time won't resolve. There'll always be those who think someone's got it wrong.

A2K

[Stormcenter]

After storms like Katrina and Camille I think people need to realize a hurricane is hurricane no matter what the top winds are and respect that if and when they are threatened. Then afterwards judge the storm for it's death and destruction afterwards not whether it was a Cat.1,2,3,4 or 5 when it made landfall or what it's "top winds" at landfall or lowest pressure was. In my opinion once you get to a Cat.2 and above it's time to get out if you value your life.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Katrina was a very very big cat5 just 6 hours before she made landfall. That surge did not go down at all durning that time. Also a cat4 winds can snap trees to.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Katrina was a very very big cat5 just 6 hours before she made landfall.

Absolutely true. Katrina was by FAR the larger of the 2 with the widest windfield (one of the widest ever to make landfall IMO--I'm sure someone will jump on that)
Camille was much smaller, AND had a faster forward speed; but she packed an enormously intense eyewall and had equally, the higher windspeeds of the two.

A2K