I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
Cyclone1
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2739
Age: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:03 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Re:

#41 Postby Cyclone1 » Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:36 pm

Ptarmigan wrote:
Cyclone1 wrote:
In MPH, yes. But in kts, it is a category three. It is one of the NHC's greatest paradoxes.
Or maybe I got that backwards...


110 KT * 1.15 = 126 mph (Cat. 3)
115 KT * 1.15 = 132 mph (Cat. 4)
120 KT * 1.15 = 138 mph (Cat. 4)

Cat. 1 74-95
Cat. 2 96-110
Cat. 3 111-130
Cat. 4 131-155
Cat. 5 156+


I know, it rounds correctly, but 113kts is a category three, wind measurements are always rounded, 115kts, cat three. Makes no sense, but that's how it is.
0 likes   

Frank P
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2776
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:52 am
Location: Biloxi Beach, Ms
Contact:

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#42 Postby Frank P » Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:37 pm

Javlin wrote:quote FrankP:Not sure if I completely agree with ya Derek, I was in my house during Elena and yes the wind blew as hard as I ever seen being on the beach but there was minimal damage on the coast from wind, my house lost about 15 shingles and that was it..... the surge max was 8 feet... I know because it takes a 9 foot surge to put water at the base of the sea wall in front of my house... that has happened only three times in my lifetime... Camille... 21 foot surge, TS Isadore 9 foot surge, and Katrina... 26 feet... my biggest fear, and what I thought was my worse case scenario on the beach would be if one of the great Oaks came crashing down on my house.. never figured a 26 foot surge... one of the reasons I moved my house back 20 feet was to get it away from the Oaks... not sure if I got it far enough away...



Not to stray to far off topic but when you mentioned that it brought up a story told to me by Craig up there by Winn Dixie,maybe mine and yours watering hole :cheesy: .Him and his brother were caught in the attic during Katrina and they started to here and feel this noise"twanggg"like a steel cable snapping.They looked at each other like WTF,were able to see outside some but could not figure it out.Then it came too them it was the Oak,huge Oak maybe 8' in diameter had been partially submerged for a while and the sound was the roots snapping.Craig said that each time you heard the "Twangg" the Oak would lean a little more. The Oak finally gave up and the main root gave way and he said it almost literally came flying out of the water and hit the house.Does that make you feel any better Frank :lol: Kevin


Gee Kevin let me think about that for a minute.... uhhhhh ,,,, NO... them dang Oak limb are heavy too... :double:

good thing its slow right now because I can't say my posts are very entertaining or adding much value, but its really slow for this time of the year... that was NOT a whine...

SIDE BAR... Isadore was a neat storm to watch... I remember sitting in my front yard around 3 in the morning.. wind was blowing about 50 mph.. very dry storm for my area, just a lot of wind and a surprising high surge.. GOOD PIXS IXOLIB.... sipping on a Barq root beer in my lawn chair right at the edge of the sidwalk near the hwy... NOT under any OAK limbs... I was watching the Collesium pier being destroyed and deposited right on the beach in front of my house.. it was amazing... not to mention a cop trying to arrest me for violating the curfew... sitting in my chair I told him I wasn't violating anything, I was in my yard watching a pretty cools TS coming inland.. he gave up and told me I was crazy... smart fella... :D
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#43 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:20 pm

115KT is also used to represent 130 mph, so 115KT is often considered cat 3
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#44 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:23 pm

what part of MS were you in in relation to the eyewall of Elena, Frank. It may mean a large difference in winds

Also, remember that the wind damage is not uniform, it is in streaks. Surge though, is most certainly uniform
0 likes   

User avatar
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5316
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re:

#45 Postby Ptarmigan » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:39 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:115KT is also used to represent 130 mph, so 115KT is often considered cat 3


We are a base 5 system. 113 KT is 130 mph, but that's not a 5. I can see why they consider 115 KT=130 mph.
0 likes   

Javlin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1621
Age: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: ms gulf coast

Re:

#46 Postby Javlin » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:22 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:what part of MS were you in in relation to the eyewall of Elena, Frank. It may mean a large difference in winds

Also, remember that the wind damage is not uniform, it is in streaks. Surge though, is most certainly uniform


Derek,Frank and I were both in the eye,Frank lives about 1/4 mile out front of me as the crow flies.It was pretty wild the BFD up the road would annouce over the load speaker "you have 5mins. till the eye passes,then 4 mins etc. etc"and then the wind shift.Kevin
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#47 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:53 pm

I'm just trying to figure out which part of the eyewall you entered since there is extreme variation of the winds

Hugo hit at cat 4 (though I believe it was a cat 5 at landfall), yet Charleston, which experienced the eye, only received cat 1/2 winds.

I a wondering if you made the RFQ as the difference could be two full categories for a storm such as Elena
0 likes   

Javlin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1621
Age: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: ms gulf coast

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#48 Postby Javlin » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:26 pm

I a wondering if you made the RFQ as the difference could be two full categories for a storm such as Elena


Sorry too to be stupid but what is RFQ?the eye seem to last maybe 8-10mins maybe a little longer,we pick up debris in that time frame.
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#49 Postby Normandy » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:34 pm

Derek,
If Hugo was a true Cat 5 (and it was deepening up to landfall right?) then Charleston should have recieved more than cat 1/2 sustained winds. Dean carried Cat4 winds in his western eyewall, as did Andrew.

What data suggests Hugo was a 5? Operationally its only held at 135 mph, which is barely a 4.
0 likes   

dwsqos2

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#50 Postby dwsqos2 » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:54 pm

Javlin wrote:Sorry too to be stupid but what is RFQ?the eye seem to last maybe 8-10mins maybe a little longer,we pick up debris in that time frame


RFQ= Right Front Quadrant
0 likes   

Matt-hurricanewatcher

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#51 Postby Matt-hurricanewatcher » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:37 am

TCHP is not there for a cat5 at 35 north like hugo made landfall. I think the record was 27 north for a cat5 in the Atlatnic. Also you have dry air coming off the landmass as the storm is making landfall...You think Katrina,Ivan had to deal with unfavorable enviroment to remind a strong cat4-"weak" cat5. Hugo I don't think could do it? I could be wrong.
0 likes   

User avatar
Windspeed
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:38 am

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#52 Postby Windspeed » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:54 am

I adamantly disagree that the maximum potential for intensity at landfall over the northern Gulf of Mexico is upper category three or winds between 125-130mph sustained. I do not want to call Derek out, but I will gladly debate him on this if he so chooses. I have seen Derek make this claim over the past few years and I consider his idea has some merit because often hurricanes do weaken on approach with the coastline along the northern Gulf of Mexico. However, each hurricane had a different circumstance with both its atmospheric environment and its source with oceanic heat potential. My main argument is that though the occurrence of landfalling category four and five hurricanes may be infrequent along the northern Gulf coastline, the consistency of category three landfalling storms should not be the basis for setting that region's maximum potential for intensity at category three. I want to show there is a range between tropical cyclone heat potential (TCHP) of the shallow shelf versus rate of motion of the core of an intense hurricane. Continental airmass is also highly influential on the intensity of landfalling hurricanes on the northern Gulf Coast. Category 4 and 5 landfalls are infrequent by their nature, but there is a window of opportunity along the northern Gulf Coast that will support category 5 landfalls. I believe such window is very dependent on three factors: 1) The shape and location of the Loop Current and any subsequent warm core ring (WRC) or "eddy;" 2) The temperature at the immediate surface (SST) right at the coastline and on the shallow shelf; and 3) the position of continental airmass and its moisture content with respect to the core of the hurricane before landfall. There is such a scenario I will try to quickly show that may have occurred during an intense system like Hurricane Camille and why I believe it will occur again.

The main focus of this post is heavily reliant on the constant evolution of the Gulf Loop and subsequent eddies or warm core rings that it sheds over the course of a six to eleven month cycle. Most of you should be familiar enough with how the main Gulf Loop current works so that I will not have to explain it in detail. You can go here, here and here to read up on how this current and subsequent eddies influenced the rapid intensification of three closely studied systems, Hurricane's Katrina, Rita and Opal.

If your connection is high speed, you should also watch the following animation of how the Loop Current generates warm core rings and eddies here.

Now I am quite certain that no one here, including Derek, denies the important relationship between the Gulf Loop and rapid intensification of systems that traverse that region of the GOM. However, I wish to point out that the location of the Loop Current before it sheds a new warm core ring (WCR) ring may dramatically increase the chances of a Cat 4-5 storm intensifying all the way up to landfall on the northern Gulf Coast. Keep in mind the Gulf Loop is ever changing and can often times exclude the region just south of the shallow shelf, or it can stretch from the straits all the way to the shelf wall varying in range and shape. I also feel that forward motion of the core of the cyclone is vital to this process once the storm moves off the most northern extension of the current and onto the shallow shelf right before landfall. In other words, I am trying to show that timing is everything...

Please review the following images:

This is how the current Gulf Loop and it's subsequent eddy look at present:

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_nlom32/navo/IASSP1.gif

The TCHP map reflects the location of these features:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2007238go.jpg

As you can see, there is a WCR that has been shed from the Gulf Loop. This WCR eddy was shed over the past two months and is ripe for supporting any major hurricane that would potentially bare down on the Louisiana coastline. This WCR has a 26ºC isotherm well down around 100m with very high TCHP above. It is also important to note that the shallow shelf just south of Louisiana is over 30ºC.

The temps right at the surface and notice the 30+Cº currently on the shallow shelf:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2007238gosst.png

Granted, this is shallow due to the presence of the shelf. This is also a contributing factor to why the SSTs are so high on the shallow shelf in July/August as the influences of daytime heat/land breeze from over land is the warmest of the year with direct sunlight insolation at its highest lagging from June; furthermore, an absence of cold fronts to cool the shallow shelf during those months. If an intense hurricane moved at a decent rate of speed over this region with favorable atmospheric support, I think the storm would be able to maintain Cat 4 to 5 intensity, such as Camille did in 1969. I also believe that Camille did not have time to be sufficiently weakened from the influences of a continental drier continental airmass, or, the core of the storm was embedded within a sufficiently moist environment to avoid erosion of the core. A slower moving or larger storm might well enough have upwelled the cooler waters of the shallow shelf, or entrained drier continental airmass quick enough to weaken on that same shallow shelf. I feel speed of motion of the core of a hurricane is much more important to maintain higher intensities over a region of high SST temps versus lower TCHP.

I suspect the shape of the Gulf Loop right before generation of new WCR eddy might open up the door in conjunction with 30º+C SSTs on the shallow shelf, providing an avenue for which a hurricane at Cat 4-5 intensity could maintain through landfall. Consider the following shape of the Gulf Loop such as this:

Image

Notice how far north the Loop Current is just as it is about the shed a new eddy. It is literally running right up to the shallow shelf just south of the Panhandle and Alabama. Imagine if you will, Dennis or Ivan having the luxury of the Loop Current with this shape and current SSTs right on the shallow shelf running at 30ºC. Yes, the maximum potential would be far greater than a 130mph hurricane. Factor in forward speed of a faster moving hurricane, I think you have the ingredients for a landfalling category four or five storm. Of course, there's more than oceanic heat. You also need favorable atmospheric conditions.

So what was really occurring during Camille?

Well unfortunately during Camille we did not have the remote sensing techniques to samples of the oceanic and atmospheric environment that compare to the technology we have available today. However, I can play out a plausible scenario....

Keep in mind this is purely speculation on my part, if only influenced in small part by the recon and satellite data available at the time. Camille moves away from the western tip of Cuba and enter the region of the Gulf Loop. The core is relatively small during initial rapid intensification phase as it begins move over the high TCHP of the Gulf Loop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurricane_camille.jpg

Camille rapidly bombs with a very intense pinhole eye somewhat similar to Hurricane Charlie's rapid intensification; however, being over such high heat potential, the outer banding features are likewise able to consolidate and intensify rapidly around the core and the CDO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurricane_Camille_16_aug_1969_2340Z.jpg

The overall size of Camille expands though the core remains very intense as the storm approaches the southeastern Louisiana coastal shelf. The Gulf Loop may have assisted in keeping Camille intense right up to the shelf as it may have shed or been in the process of shedding a WCR eddy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurricane_Camille_17_aug_1969_1957Z.jpg

Also, being middle-to-late August, the shallow coastal shelf may have been over 30ºC in SST at the immediate surface. Camille's outer banding features consolidate a concentric eyewall and the core weakens somewhat between 24 and 12 hours prior to landfall; however, the inner core remains relatively small and stabilized or begins to re-intensify upon landfall. The core is also embedded in a sufficiently moist enough environment to ward off intrusion of continental airmass, Camille's smaller circulation may have helped itself along in this process. Also keep in mind, Camille was steaming NNW well inland into the upper Mississippi coastal plain before it slowed and turned into the westerlies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Camille_1969_track.png

Granted it was moving into a weakness, but it may not have had the effects of mid-level intrusion that can occur with a digging shortwave trough. Camille crosses the shallow shelf with a shallow 26º isotherm but at a sufficient rate of speed to avoid its own upwelling and makes landfall with sustained winds above 155mph. Granted, maybe it was not the absurd 190mph sustained winds that were probably more indicative of wind gusts; but I am confident Camille restrengthened or maintained such status prior to landfall to be at the category five classification. I am also confident we will see another category five hurricane make landfall on the Louisiana to Panhandle coastline again.
1 likes   

User avatar
Ixolib
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2741
Age: 68
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Biloxi, MS

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#53 Postby Ixolib » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:27 am

Windspeed wrote:I adamantly disagree that the maximum potential for intensity at landfall over the northern Gulf of Mexico is upper category three or winds between 125-130mph sustained....

Hey Windspeed. You gonna publish that dissertation someplace??!! You ought to - that is some great info with some really great supporting documentation. Thanks for posting it here!!!
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#54 Postby Normandy » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:41 am

Problem with Camille being 190mph at landfall is quite simply this:

It was weakening when it was approaching the coast. Recon measured 901 (I believe?) in the system before landfall, and it came ashore with a pressure of 909 mbs. A weakening storm does not bring 190mph sustained winds to the surface by no means. Take a look at these storms for example at landfall:

- Hurricane Ivan (Operationally a Cat3)...heaviest measured conditions were Cat1 winds in Pensacola (worst winds were just west of Pensacola).
- Hurricane Katrina (Operationally a medium Cat 3)...heaviest measured conditions were Cat2. In addition, posters who experienced Elena and Georges (both weaker than Kat at landfall operationally) said that winds were worse in those.
- Hurricane Rita (Operationally a marginal 3)....heaviest conditions were cat1 in Beaumont... This is a bad example though, as areas near Rita's worst winds were leveled...thus no measurements were taken.


None of these hurricanes brought very severe winds down to the surface. Now, lets look at two good examples of deepening high-category canes and there wind obs:

- Hurricane Charley (Operationally a very strong 4): Can't find any high sustained winds, but a 173 mph gust is impressive enough. Charley's core was ridiculously small and perhaps instruments missed the worst winds.
- Hurricane Dean (Cat5 at landfall): Recon noted some of the most useful information regarding Dean when he was crashing ashore.
1) SFMR registered 120kt winds in the *southern* eyewall.
2) Dropsonde registered 178kt winds 150 feet above the surface
3) Values as high as 165 kt at flight level were measured.
That data suggest Dean could have carried winds anywhere between 160-180 mph. Pressure also was 907 (I believe?) at landfall....very comparable to that of Camille during her landfall. Dean's damage also verifies these winds were present.
- Hurricane Andrew (Cat5 at landfall): When Recon left they noted 160 kt (i believe?) flight level winds and a pressure of 933 mbs....Using today's reductions that would suggest Andrew was already a Cat5 at that point (couple hours before landfall). Recon left the system, and a pressure of 922 mbs was recorded....suggesting Andrew was literally BOMBING....even MORESO then Dean was at landfall. Wind obs from places in the path of Andrew confirmed this:
1) Sustained 100kt winds at the NHC...gusts to 115 kts....Outside the eyewall.
2) Fowey Rocks (NW eyewall) registered a sustained two minute wind of 108 kts....Conditions deteriorated even further in the next hour as the pressure dropped another 20 mbs. Wouldnt be surprised if Fowey Rocks recorded Category 4 conditions in Andrew's NW eyewall considering its intense gradient.
3) Tamiami airport's anemometer was pegged at 100 kts (NHC's report suggests that needles pegged at their max show winds between 105-108kts). 30 minutes later the conditions worsened, and by then, the anemometer failed. Again, would not be surprised if this area saw high end category 4 winds considering andrew's gradient. This area is also 9 miles inland, so surface friction had already taken place in reducing the winds.
4) One of the more important observations came from the *southern* eyewall of Andrew. A mast on a sailboat recorded 13 mins of sustained 99kt winds. The peak 1 min wind on this sailboat likely was much higher, i'd say a rough ballpark estimate of about 110-115 kts perhaps....but really can't say for sure. This was on the coast, so surface friction was not an issue here (although winds were blowing offshore). If 110 kts WERE true, Andrew would have winds in its northern eyewall of some 142 kts. Indicating a Cat5.

Why did I bring all of this up in a Camille discussion? Because until Andrew, no major hurricane conditions were measured on US shores by a landfalling tropical system. It is also not a conincidence that deepening systems tend to bring more severe winds than weakening systems....hence why Georges and Elena are said to have had stronger winds then Katrina despite Katrina being FAR deeper than both. Point is, Camille being a weakening system, in now way could bring 190 mph sustained winds.




EDIT:
Also........as far as the NGOM weakening argument....well.
You have to admit....their are tons of case studies of high category hurricanes weakening right before landfall....Camille included.

For a 190 mph wind to be registered on any coastline, imo, it would take a storm like the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.
1 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#55 Postby MGC » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:52 am

The GOM is quite deep right up to the mouth of the river. Well over 100 fathoms. It then rapidly shallows. The loop current can and does at time extend very close to the mouth of the river. Camille in 1969 rode the loop current to just off shore of the mouth of the river. It was there that an oil rig reported 170mph wind gusts several hundred feet above the ocean surface. There was no doubt that Camille was a Cat-5

Official NHC report on Camille:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-1969Camille.pdf
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#56 Postby MGC » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:54 am

Georges in terms of wind damage had nothing on Katrina. I went though Georges and NO the wind damage was nothing compared to Katrina. Camille and Katrina both destroyed all the wind recording instruments along the coast, yet in Andrew many survived? How can that be if Andrew was such a more intense hurricane?. The anemometer atop the courthouse in Gulfport had one of its cups removed by a debris strike despite an elevation of at least 150 feet AGL.....MGC
Last edited by MGC on Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#57 Postby Normandy » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:59 am

MGC wrote:Georges in terms of wind damage had nothing on Katrina. I went though Georges and NO the wind damage was nothing compared to Katrina....MGC


Ive heard many other residents of MS claim the wind itself was worse in Georges at its peak then Katrina at her peak....

Perhaps the wind damage was worse in Katrina due to the duration.



Oh and btw MGC,
Just a side note, that Oil rig ob really doesn't prove Camille was a Cat 5....that gust at the surface prolly is some 20 mph lower. Not saying Camille wasn't a 5, but that ob doesn't prove it was.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

#58 Postby MGC » Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:12 am

No, a gust don't mean squat. There have been gusts nearly that strong in thunderstorms. As far as the wind damage goes...I sight see quite a bit after hurricanes hit. I've driven to do more post landfall surveys than I can count. I've been observing hurricane damage since Hilda in 64. Georges didn't have nearly the wind damage of Katrina. Fredrick had a lot of wind damage in 79. Comparing Katrina to Georges is no contest wind wise. Perhaps some think Georges had worst winds because Georges stalled at landfall and lasted longer than Katrina, but the wind damage in Jackson County where the RFQ was for many hours didn't measure up to Katrina......MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#59 Postby Normandy » Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:33 am

Don't get mad at me, im not the one who said georges had more intense winds....people who went thru it did. Get mad at them.

And FYI, i wasn't talking gusts...don't know where that came from
0 likes   

User avatar
Aslkahuna
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 4550
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Re: I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

#60 Postby Aslkahuna » Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:19 am

NHC had gusts a lot higher than 115kt just before the Radome blew off and took out the wind sensor.

Steve
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cajungal, Cpv17, Ian2401, Killjoy12, LAF92, riapal, sasha_B, wileytheartist and 39 guests