Was Camille a Cat 4 at landfall?

[logybogy]

Ivan, Dennis, Katrina...

It's becoming a pattern. I think it's a pattern of low heat content in the shallow waters near shore and dry air. Storms moving north suck in too much dry air from the Continential United States.

I also am beginning to think that Camille was not as strong as she was on landfall given Katrina had a 7 foot bigger storm surge with Cat 3/4 winds. It's very possible Camille had weakened to a Cat 4 before hitting Mississippi. Were there any verified weather wind observations in Camille? The big one is air recon but that was 12 hours before landfall. Plenty of time for weakening.

[Anonymous]

Ivan, Dennis, Katrina...

It's becoming a pattern. I think it's a pattern of low heat content in the shallow waters near shore and dry air. Storms moving north suck in too much dry air from the Continential United States.

I also am beginning to think that Camille was not as strong as she was on landfall given Katrina had a 7 foot bigger storm surge with Cat 3/4 winds. It's very possible Camille had weakened to a Cat 4 before hitting Mississippi. Were there any verified weather wind observations in Camille? The big one is air recon but that was 12 hours before landfall. Plenty of time for weakening.

Uh...no. Remember that Camille was MUCH smaller than Katrina.

[HurricaneBill]

Camille was a smaller and more compact storm, thus she had a steeper pressure gradient.

[wxmann_91]

I personally was going to ask the same question, but I'll let the reanalysis answer that question. But personally I think it was not a Cat 5 at landfall, and that it was weakening at landfall.

The culprit with these is NOT SST's or heat content. It's the shortwave troughs that constantly drop down to cause them to move toward the Gulf Coast and to weaken them with shear and dry air entrainment just as they make landfall.

[Scorpion]

Please... anyone who thinks Camille was a Cat 4 must be on drugs. 909 mb at landfall. Smaller than Katrina. No way it was a 4.

[wxmann_91]

Please... anyone who thinks Camille was a Cat 4 must be on drugs. 909 mb at landfall. Smaller than Katrina. No way it was a 4.

Pressures could be wrong. No recon, no radar, no obs. And wind damage did not indicate a 5, in fact all the major damage occurred from storm surge.

IMHO 140-160 mph hurricane at landfall, so not TOTALLY saying that it was not a Cat 5 at landfall. Also remember that Camille peaked at 905 mb, so obviously it was either weakening or had weakened a bit.

[Droop12]

Im pretty sure that 909mb pressure is accurate. IIRC, it was recorded either near or on a bridge in Bay St. Louis. I personally think Camille was a Cat 5, not 190mph though. Probably about 165 or so. You must remember that Camille was much smaller and size and had a lower pressure then Katrina so the pressure gradient was higher than Katrina's. Wait till PW or Derek see's this, they'll let ya know

[Scorpion]

Well Camille was 190 mph at 905 mb, so if it hit with 909 mb(yes it was recorded 909 at landfall) then theres no way it weakened even 30 mph. Also there were gusts over 200.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Katrina had winds of 140 mph at its first landfall. But she still had 175 mph hurricane surge. So I'm guest if You did not look at anything else Camille was likely at landfall around 150 to 155 mph based on wind damage. With its earlier 190 mph hurricane surge. Also remember Camille was much smaller so it could of caused less surge because of that. So Camille looks to be sightly stronger at landfall but it was smaller.

Also many of the homes that last through Camille was utterly distoryed In Katrina. In Katrina is likely just killed alot more people in has cost alot more.

One thing katrina has shown me that Camille. Might not be any thing near as powerful as said.

[senorpepr]

Please... anyone who thinks Camille was a Cat 4 must be on drugs. 909 mb at landfall. Smaller than Katrina. No way it was a 4.

Pressures could be wrong. No recon, no radar, no obs. And wind damage did not indicate a 5, in fact all the major damage occurred from storm surge.

IMHO 140-160 mph hurricane at landfall, so not TOTALLY saying that it was not a Cat 5 at landfall. Also remember that Camille peaked at 905 mb, so obviously it was either weakening or had weakened a bit.

Actually... there was recon in Camille. There was some limited obs at landfall. Camille was a cat 5.

[Wacahootaman]

Boothville Louisana, near the mouth of the Mississippi recorded a wind gust of 177mph and it was on the weak side of Camille.

[Derek Ortt]

I am now convinced Camielle was a cat 4.

Lets remember something hat we saw from this, the pressure actually fell from 906mb to 902 with Katrina in the GOM, and the winds DROPPED. The same thing happened in Dennis.

The way winds were calculated back then is very suspect as they tended to use 100% of FL winds. So if they flew at 850 as was typical then, you have to cut 20% off of the wind speed

and no scorpion, one does not have to be on drugs to think camielle was a cat 4. By the way, has Emily fallen apart yet, Scorpion?

[StormWarning1]

Hurricane Hazel in 1954 is listed by the NHC as a CAT 4 at landfall. It hit North Carolina in October. It seems highlty unlikely it was really a CAT 4.

Water temps are to cool that far north in October to support a CAT 4.

Also recon did not adjust the surface pressure from flight level pressure properly in the early days of recon missions.

Camille, hard to say, have to wait for the re-analysis project to get around to the 1960's. But, cant rule out it weakened also, most N.Gulf hurricanes that approach as CAT 4/5 seem to weaken.

[nequad]

Water temps are to cool that far north in October to support a CAT 4.

Not true. Water temps over the Gulf Stream are more than warm enough to support such a storm.

From Jay Barnes book North Carolinas hurricane history...

The coastal region where Hazel made landfall was also battered by some of the most destructive winds in North Carolina's history. Estimates of 150-mph extremes were reported from several locations, including Holden Beach, Calabash, and Little River Inlet. Winds of 98 mph were measured in Wilmington and were estimated at 125 mph at Wrightsville Beach and 140 mph at Oak Island. As Hazel swept inland, its winds endured with freakish intensity. Grannis Airport in Fayetteville reported gusts of 110 mph, and estimates of 120 mph were made by observers in Goldsboro, Kinston, and Faison. At the Raleigh-Durham Airport, the wind-speed dial was watched closely during the storm, and gusts to 90 mph were recorded around 1:30 p.m. Most incredibly, wind gusts near 100 mph were reported from numerous locations in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York as Hazel curved a path through the Northeast on its way to Canada.

Hazel's violent winds hacked or toppled countless trees across eastern North Carolina. In the aftermath of the storm, some sections of highway were littered with "hundreds of trees per mile." Some were uprooted and tossed about, and others were snapped off ten to twenty feet above the ground. In the city of Raleigh, it was reported that an average of two or three trees per block fell. Many fell on cars, homes, and other structures, and power lines were left tangled and broken. Dozens of other cities and towns in the eastern half of the state faced similar losses.

In North Carolina, the destruction left by Hazel was likened to the battlefields of Europe after World War II. Evidence of the storm's violent winds stretched across the state, leaving residents with the task of cleaning up virtually every city street and country road in the eastern half of the state. And the storm tide that swept over the Brunswick and New Hanover beaches brought massive destruction to the coast and was, by all accounts, unparalleled in Tar Heel history.

[Scorpion]

This is Camille we're talking about. Cat 4??? Come on!! This thing is listed as 190 mph winds at landfall. No way it was only 150 or 155. It had 909 mb at landfall! 909! And was much smaller than Katrina.

[Derek Ortt]

the wind field was about as large scorpion. winds in pensacola were quite similar in the two storms. if you ever looked at an eye wall dropsonde, maybe camielle was starting an EWRC, which possibly can cause the most intense winds to life above the surface. And the 1969 estimate is not worth much, since we now know the methods used then were poor

by the way, you never answered my question if emily has fallen apart before landfall yet

[Scorpion]

It probably did. Did you see any Cat 3 or Cat 4 damage in Cozumel or the Yucatan? It had no visible eye either. 955 mb or so supports 100 kts at most.

[brunota2003]

You've got to remember that at landfall, Katrina's pressure was at 918 millibars, and the winds were 145MPH, YES the pressure was 918 millibars at LANDFALL, so if Camille had a pressure just 9 millibars below Katrinas, then it is possible for her to be a Cat 4 at landfall... We may never know though...
Here:
09 GMT 08/29/05 28.8N 89.6W 150 915 Category 4 Hurricane
15 GMT 08/29/05 30.2N 89.6W 125 927 Category 3 Hurricane
Thats Katrina at landfall, 915 right before landfall, 927 after landfall, so doesnt the pressure support Cat 5, since Andrew had a higher pressure, 922 millibars I believe, and he was a Cat 5? So this proves it IS possible for Camille to be a Cat 4 at landfall with a pressure of 909 millibars, right?...

[StormWarning1]

28.8, 89.6 was not landfall for Katrina. If Katrina was a CAT 4 it was only at the mouth of the Miss. River. Along the Miss and Ala. coast it was a 3. And in N.O.it was a 2.
It did have a CAT 5 storm surge.

[brunota2003]

28.8, 89.6 was not landfall for Katrina. If Katrina was a CAT 4 it was only at the mouth of the Miss. River. Along the Miss and Ala. coast it was a 3. And in N.O.it was a 2.
It did have a CAT 5 storm surge.

I said that the 915 was right before landfall, it was 918 at landfall though and then 927 as a Cat 3, isnt that a low to mid Cat 5 in terms of pressure?...