Interesting quote comparing Camille to Katrina

[f5]

what if Katrina came in at 175 sustained what would the damge be then?

[timNms]

It would be hard to say, seeing as the damage that was done PRIOR to the almost 40 ft surge was washed away before anyone could see it.

[Ixolib]

Like I've always said.... It's not the wind that causes mass destruction. It's the water.

So, while 175MPH winds would obviously have had a significant impact, it's the surge that would have come with those winds that would have caused the annihilation - and a significantly higher death toll - of the MS Gulf Coast.

[MGC]

I grew up in NO East near Read Blvd. After Camille I recall just a few down trees and little wind damage. Hard to believe a Cat-5 struck just 40 miles away. Katrina knocked down at least half the trees in my old neighborhood......MGC

[f5]

not only did Katrina had 175 mph winds she was huge in overall size in a nutshell she looked like the perfect doomsday storm on satallite for N.O that would mean annhilation

[Derek Ortt]

need to step in about whether the wind or water causes more damage

In a real cat 4 or a 5, it is almost always the wind that causes the damage, but the flooding that kills people.

Remember, the last 3 cat 4 and 5's that have hit the USA, the vast majority of the damage was due to wind, even though Andrew put 10 feet into Coconut Grove and 17 at landfall. Sustained cat 5 winds, bring about wind gusts which are EF5 on the new Enhanced Fujita Scale

A cat 5 is basically a prolonged violent tornado, with brief periods of EF5 conditions. Those winds will flatten a much larger area than tidal surge

[Opal storm]

Like I've always said.... It's not the wind that causes mass destruction. It's the water.

So what caused the mass destruction in Homestead and Punta Gorda?

I know surge causes a lot of devestation but the wind can do just as much if not more destruction and shouldn't be downplayed by surge.

[Ixolib]

Like I've always said.... It's not the wind that causes mass destruction. It's the water.

So what caused the mass destruction in Homestead and Punta Gorda?

I know surge causes a lot of devestation but the wind can do just as much if not more destruction and shouldn't be downplayed by surge.

Not meaning to downplay... Just speaking from personal experience.

For a large part, much of Punta Gorda's destruction centered on mobile homes and gas station awnings. In fact, much of the media coverage - both still and video - highlighted and keyed in on the many mobile home parks in the area that were destroyed and flimsly-built metal buildings (i.e., gas station awnings) that easily catch wind and fall apart with relative ease. Those structures are far from structurally sound. Basically, just a large flat roof held up by only four corner legs with minimal (if any) cross-brasing.

In Homestead, I believe shoddy building codes were at least partially responsible. Of course, these arguments/discussions will go (and have gone) on forever with one's viewpoint being one thing and another's viewpoint being the other. Tornadoes (as opposed to straight-line winds) are a whole other story, which may further explain the issues in Homestead and surrounding areas.

Certainly, there are exceptions to the mobile homes and gas statioins being the only damage. But, seems that they represent the majority.

I believe if a 175mph cane were to hit the MS Gulf Coast - or anywhere for that matter - but brought with it no surge (which, of course, will never happen) the resultant impact would be significantly less than what we saw with Katrina's surge result.

I did not experience either Andrew or Charley, but I did experience every MS storm since 1965. And from my experience, the damage that water can do far exceedes the damage that wind can do - both being relative to one another in a given storm.

Like I said, one's opinion vs. another's.....

[Ixolib]

In a real cat 4 or a 5, it is almost always the wind that causes the damage, but the flooding that kills people.

Given that the documented and repeated landfall history of either is pretty hard to come by - at least in the U.S. - only time will tell which scenario proves itself out.

A cat 5 is basically a prolonged violent tornado, with brief periods of EF5 conditions. Those winds will flatten a much larger area than tidal surge

Of course, it depends on where landfall takes place. In a hugely surge-prone area, a "real" cat 5 might bring with it a 40+ foot surge. That kind of inundation will make wind damage pale in comparison. But, as with the previous rationale, only time will tell...

[MGC]

Katrina's tidal surge destroyed a much larger area than Andrew's Cat 4-5 wind swath. Likely, Katrina's tidal surge destroyed a larger area than Andrew, Charley and Camille's Cat 4-5 wind swath combined. Katrina destroyed the entire coastline of the State of Mississippi, a third of the State of Louisiana and half of the coastline of the State of Alabama. Think about that.......MGC

[timNms]

Katrina's tidal surge destroyed a much larger area than Andrew's Cat 4-5 wind swath. Likely, Katrina's tidal surge destroyed a larger area than Andrew, Charley and Camille's Cat 4-5 wind swath combined. Katrina destroyed the entire coastline of the State of Mississippi, a third of the State of Louisiana and half of the coastline of the State of Alabama. Think about that.......MGC

And I might add, the destruction didn't stop at the coast. It went well inland. Whether destroyed by fallen trees or by the wind itself, there were many structures in the Hattiesburg area that took a beating from Katrina.

Last June, my family and I went to Orlando to Disney. On our way there, we drove on I 10 through the area that Ivan affected. I remember seeing the trees bent from the winds. I don't know how far inland that scenario went, but I can tell you that there are many, many trees in my area and even as far north as Meridian that look like the ones in Ivan's path in AL/FL do.

[timNms]

not only did Katrina had 175 mph winds she was huge in overall size in a nutshell she looked like the perfect doomsday storm on satallite for N.O that would mean annhilation

I'd be interested to hear what the Pros have to say about this scenario. Suppose Katrina had maintained 175 mph winds until her 2nd landfall on the MS coast. Would the surge have been even higher than it was?

Does anyone know how many miles 14 blocks equals to? That's the distance my wife's aunt lived north of the beach in Pascagoula, MS and she took on 2 feet of water. I'd also like to know how many miles north of the beach I 10 is in Waveland/Bay St. Louis. I saw the water line pic that someone posted a few months ago. It still amazes me how far inland the surge went.

[vbhoutex]

need to step in about whether the wind or water causes more damage

In a real cat 4 or a 5, it is almost always the wind that causes the damage, but the flooding that kills people.

Remember, the last 3 cat 4 and 5's that have hit the USA, the vast majority of the damage was due to wind, even though Andrew put 10 feet into Coconut Grove and 17 at landfall. Sustained cat 5 winds, bring about wind gusts which are EF5 on the new Enhanced Fujita Scale

A cat 5 is basically a prolonged violent tornado, with brief periods of EF5 conditions. Those winds will flatten a much larger area than tidal surge

Derek, since winds in a hurricane seem to be very capricious and somewhat spotty, from what we have seen, except with Andrew and Charley-BOTH SMALL HURRICANES WITH SMALL CORES-I would tend to disagree with that statement. At least with Katrina and for that matter with Rita, the surge went for miles in some cases and caused massive destruction. I'm not about to downplay wind damage from any hurricane, but your statement seems to say to me that those winds will be felt over a much larger area than I would think. Please correct my thinking if it is incorrect.

[Aslkahuna]

One can not possibly conceive of the damage that Katrina would have done had the storm come ashore with 175mph winds. The winds would have taken anything out that stuck out above the surge which in that particular part of the Gulf Coast probably would have been near 40'. In a falt coastal area, a surge can indeed run many miles inland until you either reach the elevation of the temporary sea level or the momentum is dissipated.

Steve

[hurricanesurvivor]

I think I read it here on this board- if Katrina had remained a cat5 all the way in to the 2nd landfall in MS, the storm surge would have been estimated to reach our home in Picayune--25 miles inland! That really got my attention. We stayed for Katrina thinking we were far enough inland to only get wind damage. To think we might've had water here is unfathomable and terrifying. We won't ever stay for another one, that's for sure!

[Derek Ortt]

yes, it's where the storm crosses the coast in a 5 that determines whether or not the cat 5 winds would do the majority of the damage (and also whether or not you are in the streaks)

A cat 5 hitting Miami will be about an 80% wind event

As for Punta Gorda, there were re-enforced concrete buildings that were destroyed. In Andrew, it was not the building codes... as places that "only" received cat 3 winds were fine. It was the cat 4 and 5 regions that were devastated. (The new codes are no improvement, we need structures like in Cayman)

One other thing, it seems as if the wind only becomes the most destructive in a 4 or a 5, as the recent cat 3's have been surge events. Only the 4's and 5's have been wind

[Frank P]

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in on this...

You can build for most applications of wind events... they do wind tunnel tests on modular homes up to 150-160 mph and they don't fall apart... and these homes are built with typical materials such as 2x6 construction... so this stuff about a Cat 4 or 5 destroying everything in its path is not necessarily true, it all depends on its construction..... .... however, those same houses built to withstand 150-160 mph winds would not stand a chance against any significant surge... it is my understanding that many of the homes in Homestead were not build to the tougher international building codes for home building back when Andrew struck..... which also contributed to their demise...

of course you have to take into account the duration of the wind event... some of the houses rated for 150-160 mph may not be able to take this for hours on end...

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

Now when you start talking about winds in the 175 mph range all bets are off, but for the most part this would be in only a very limited area... whereby the surge associated with this wind, depending on the continental shelf area it is impacting, would have a much greater involvement and devastation...

They are building hurricane and debris impact windows now rated for 180+ mph, you can get metal roofs rated for over 200 mph... and depending on the construction of house materials... you CAN build a house to withstand 150-160 mph... but you can't afford to build such a house to withstand water, especially anything in a velocity zone or where wave impact could be significant... nor can you build a house to withstand impact from a large falling tree... but you can for wind... and that is what most of the people along the coast hopefully going to do... if they can afford it... but more importantly, most are going to try to get out of the way of the surge....

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

[Frank P]

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...

[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.