Hurricane Camille Satellite Image

[KWT]

I agree MGC there are bound to be some systems that are strengthening upto landfall, the most recent system that has hit the states rapidly strengthening has to be Charley.

[jinftl]

It is that type of scenario that really must frighten forecasters and local emergency management officials...a storm jumping 1 or 2 categories at the 11th hour when it is then too late to adequately prepare and evacuate those who are now in danger (who may have been 'ok' to ride out the storm were it the Cat 1, for example, it was 12-24 hours earlier).

I agree MGC there are bound to be some systems that are strengthening upto landfall, the most recent system that has hit the states rapidly strengthening has to be Charley.

[Derek Ortt]

that's not the official reanalysis though

the same product had 101KT for Katrina at Louisiana landfall, when BT has it at 110KT

[HurricaneBill]

What would be worse? A Category 4-5 weakening to a Category 3 before landfall? Or a Category 1 rapidly intensifying to a Category 3 before landfall?

[brunota2003]

What would be worse? A Category 4-5 weakening to a Category 3 before landfall? Or a Category 1 rapidly intensifying to a Category 3 before landfall?

Depends on the situation. A 5 weakening to a 3 will have a larger surge, like Katrina showed us, whereas a 1 to a 3 quickly before landfall won't really have time to "build" its surge up (that doesn't mean the surge won't be as bad, or to not listen to local officials).

Windwise, a strengthening hurricane is worse than a weakening one in "most" cases. A weakening storm is losing it's punch due to a weakening of storms associated with it. As the storms weaken, they cannot transport winds to the surface as "efficiently". An example of this is Hurricane Isabel, especially on the west side of the storm where winds in the eyewall didnt even reach 40 mph sustained in most areas.

The winds are better transported to the surface in a strengthening system, especially one that is rapidly strengthening, due to strong thunderstorms reaching high aloft and being able to drag the winds all the way to the surface. (As seen in Hurricane Charley).

Rainwise, it all depends on why the storm is weakening or strengthening and the local terrain. A weakening storm can dump copious amounts of rain (ie Camille over the mountains of Virigina...32 inches in 24 hours) or it can be limited due to dry air or shear.

Tornadowise, I really do not know if it matters?

Perhaps a promet could fully answer.

[Category 5]

I cannot tell if an EWRC was beginning with Camielle or not

Also, from those sats... IT WAS NOT A SMALL HURRICANE!

Thanks for pointing that out Derek -- and as a result, Camille's surge was extensive, although not as large as Katrina's.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about ... s/fig4.gif

Camille if I have my facts right was a good size storm east of the center, but not much on the west side.

[Derek Ortt]

What would be worse? A Category 4-5 weakening to a Category 3 before landfall? Or a Category 1 rapidly intensifying to a Category 3 before landfall?

Depends on the situation. A 5 weakening to a 3 will have a larger surge, like Katrina showed us, whereas a 1 to a 3 quickly before landfall won't really have time to "build" its surge up (that doesn't mean the surge won't be as bad, or to not listen to local officials).

Windwise, a strengthening hurricane is worse than a weakening one in "most" cases. A weakening storm is losing it's punch due to a weakening of storms associated with it. As the storms weaken, they cannot transport winds to the surface as "efficiently". An example of this is Hurricane Isabel, especially on the west side of the storm where winds in the eyewall didnt even reach 40 mph sustained in most areas.

The winds are better transported to the surface in a strengthening system, especially one that is rapidly strengthening, due to strong thunderstorms reaching high aloft and being able to drag the winds all the way to the surface. (As seen in Hurricane Charley).

Rainwise, it all depends on why the storm is weakening or strengthening and the local terrain. A weakening storm can dump copious amounts of rain (ie Camille over the mountains of Virigina...32 inches in 24 hours) or it can be limited due to dry air or shear.

Tornadowise, I really do not know if it matters?

Perhaps a promet could fully answer.

OK, this needs repeating for the 1 trillionth time here

A WEAKENING HURRICANE DOES NOT PRODUCE A LARGER SURGE THAN AN INTENSIFYING ONE. IT IS THE STORM SIZE THAT MATTERS

Katrina did not produce its large surge because it had been a cat 5. It produced it because it was so large

When was Ike ever a cat 5 in the Gulf? It was never more than a 2

[Derek Ortt]

What would be worse? A Category 4-5 weakening to a Category 3 before landfall? Or a Category 1 rapidly intensifying to a Category 3 before landfall?

maybe a steady state would be the worst, like an Ike or an Isabel, but a little stronger. Especially a large steady state hurricane like those two were

[MGC]

Ike was becoming better organized as the hurricane approached Texas. I doubt that factor had any affect on the surge though. I guess size does matter!!!!......MGC

[jinftl]

I wonder if Ike had actually been a stronger storm with a very strong core of Cat 3 or 4 winds instead of a diffuse large area of Cat 1 and Cat 2 winds as he crossed the Gulf, if the surge might have actually been less b/c overall, there would have been less surface area getting hurricane force winds...a stronger Ike would have pulled itself in some, concentrating the energy in a core (not to say he could not have been as large as a Cat 4)...like a figure skater to some extent...causing a core area of devastating surge instead of as large a swath as he did in a 'weaker' form.

What would be worse? A Category 4-5 weakening to a Category 3 before landfall? Or a Category 1 rapidly intensifying to a Category 3 before landfall?

Depends on the situation. A 5 weakening to a 3 will have a larger surge, like Katrina showed us, whereas a 1 to a 3 quickly before landfall won't really have time to "build" its surge up (that doesn't mean the surge won't be as bad, or to not listen to local officials).

Windwise, a strengthening hurricane is worse than a weakening one in "most" cases. A weakening storm is losing it's punch due to a weakening of storms associated with it. As the storms weaken, they cannot transport winds to the surface as "efficiently". An example of this is Hurricane Isabel, especially on the west side of the storm where winds in the eyewall didnt even reach 40 mph sustained in most areas.

The winds are better transported to the surface in a strengthening system, especially one that is rapidly strengthening, due to strong thunderstorms reaching high aloft and being able to drag the winds all the way to the surface. (As seen in Hurricane Charley).

Rainwise, it all depends on why the storm is weakening or strengthening and the local terrain. A weakening storm can dump copious amounts of rain (ie Camille over the mountains of Virigina...32 inches in 24 hours) or it can be limited due to dry air or shear.

Tornadowise, I really do not know if it matters?

Perhaps a promet could fully answer.

OK, this needs repeating for the 1 trillionth time here

A WEAKENING HURRICANE DOES NOT PRODUCE A LARGER SURGE THAN AN INTENSIFYING ONE. IT IS THE STORM SIZE THAT MATTERS

Katrina did not produce its large surge because it had been a cat 5. It produced it because it was so large

When was Ike ever a cat 5 in the Gulf? It was never more than a 2

[Derek Ortt]

the surge probably would have been lower had ike been a small cat 3 or 4 in the GOM vs the cat 2 that took up most of the Gulf

[MGC]

We had a respectable surge here on the Mississippi Coast from both Ike and Gustav. I'd rather face a small Cat-4 like Charley than a big Cat-2 like Ike. The water destroys so much more.....MGC

[jinftl]

I would think part of the reason for Charley's lower-than-expected surge for a Cat 4 was due to the size of the storm and the fact that intenisification took place so close to the coast and so close to landfall that there wasn't time to generate a typical surge...had Charley been a Cat 4 for a longer period of time before landfall, the surge in areas near and to the right of landfall would have been greater...even if the windfield was as small.

Small but intense storms have absolutely generated destructive surges....Andrew caused a 17' storm surge near landfall in south miami-dade county and the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 produced an estimated 18-20' surge in the Keys. (Keep in mind, that due to the coastline contour and slope, a 17' surge off south florida would be several feet higher in the northern gulf....battering waves would be a bigger issue on the flip side in south florida however).

A small cat 4 like Charley won't always have a 6' surge associated with it....but of course, a smaller sized storm would not impact as much of the coast with surge as a large 'weaker' storm.

We had a respectable surge here on the Mississippi Coast from both Ike and Gustav. I'd rather face a small Cat-4 like Charley than a big Cat-2 like Ike. The water destroys so much more.....MGC

[HurricaneBill]

What would be worse? A Category 4-5 weakening to a Category 3 before landfall? Or a Category 1 rapidly intensifying to a Category 3 before landfall?

maybe a steady state would be the worst, like an Ike or an Isabel, but a little stronger. Especially a large steady state hurricane like those two were

Kind of like Elena in 1985?

Actually, what would have happened if Elena had tracked slightly to the south and ended up moving over Lake Pontchartrain?

[vbhoutex]

I cannot tell if an EWRC was beginning with Camielle or not

Also, from those sats... IT WAS NOT A SMALL HURRICANE!

Thanks for pointing that out Derek -- and as a result, Camille's surge was extensive, although not as large as Katrina's.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about ... s/fig4.gif

Camille if I have my facts right was a good size storm east of the center, but not much on the west side.

I was in Gulf Breeze, FL for Camille. We had 8 foot storm surge and gusts I would guess were above hurricane force. Sustained were probably in the 65-70 mph range. Our trees were literally bending over to the ground and were stripped of their leaves. I flew over the back side of Camille as she was heading further inland the day after landfall(The first commercial flight along the Gulf Coast in 36 hours we were told) and through the breaks in the clouds I could see what looked like snow capped mountains below me. The whole Camille experience was quite incredible for me.

[wxman57]

I would think part of the reason for Charley's lower-than-expected surge for a Cat 4 was due to the size of the storm and the fact that intenisification took place so close to the coast and so close to landfall that there wasn't time to generate a typical surge...had Charley been a Cat 4 for a longer period of time before landfall, the surge in areas near and to the right of landfall would have been greater...even if the windfield was as small.

Small but intense storms have absolutely generated destructive surges....Andrew caused a 17' storm surge near landfall in south miami-dade county and the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 produced an estimated 18-20' surge in the Keys. (Keep in mind, that due to the coastline contour and slope, a 17' surge off south florida would be several feet higher in the northern gulf....battering waves would be a bigger issue on the flip side in south florida however).

A small cat 4 like Charley won't always have a 6' surge associated with it....but of course, a smaller sized storm would not impact as much of the coast with surge as a large 'weaker' storm.

Charley's radius of max winds was less than 10 miles at landfall, resulting in a surge of only 4-6 ft. Had that RMW been closer to an average of 25 miles, then the surge would have been closer to 18 ft. It doesn't really matter how long that Charley had a tiny area of Cat 4 winds, Charley's small areal coverage of hurricane-force winds just couldn't produce a large surge. More time wouldn't have made much difference.

[wxman57]

We had a respectable surge here on the Mississippi Coast from both Ike and Gustav. I'd rather face a small Cat-4 like Charley than a big Cat-2 like Ike. The water destroys so much more.....MGC

Technically, what you saw from Ike and Gustav on the MS coast was wave set-up and not storm surge associated with the landfall of the core of a hurricane. Both hurricanes produced waves between 40 and 70 feet, but for different reasons. Ike did so because it was so large. Gustav tracked in a straight line and was accelerating, resulting in what is called "trapped fetch waves", waves traveling along at the same speed as the hurricane, growing larger and larger as Gustav's strongest winds remained over the largest waves for a long period of time. These large waves moving into the MS Coast resulted in water levels as high as 6-8 feet above normal well away from the hurricanes.

[StormClouds63]

A variety of information on 1969's Hurricane Camille is available from this NHC web site:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/cdmp/

Look under year (1969) and name of storm (CAMILLE) for loads of scanned documents and images.

[wxman57]

A variety of information on 1969's Hurricane Camille is available from this NHC web site:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/cdmp/

Look under year (1969) and name of storm (CAMILLE) for loads of scanned documents and images.

Looking at the marine forecasts, I notice that they were only issuing a 12-hr forecast back then. I believe that the NHC will be going to a 7-day forecast in the next 3-5 years. We started making 7-day track forecasts (behind the scenes) last year and may go public with a 7-day track in 2010.

And there was no 35 kt wind radius, just a 30 kt and 50 kt. I suspect the wind radii have significant errors, too. It's "strange" that almost all hurricanes from 1851-1987 have average hurricane force wind radii of between 50-80nm. Then, suddenly, when we have recon that can actually measure surface winds there are many, many very small hurricanes in the best track database.

[brunota2003]

Well excuse me for trying to answer a question and getting it wrong.