Camile not as bad as I thought!!!!

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
User avatar
LSU2001
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1711
Age: 58
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: Cut Off, Louisiana

Camile not as bad as I thought!!!!

#1 Postby LSU2001 » Mon May 23, 2005 2:59 pm

:oops: According to the following exerpt from an online article, Camile in 1969 was not nearly as bad as I remember. Maybe this lends a lot of creedence to the posters on this board who are telling people that just because you THINK you have lived through a cat. 1,2,3,4,5 cane your local conditions may be very different than the eyewall. I don't know if the damage was due tornadoes or if I simply was so scared that I overestimated the damage or if the wind meters in Pascagoula simply went off before the worst of the storm came in. I only know that if 81 mph were all we sustained in Pascagoula I never want to go through a true cat 2,3,4, or 5 storm. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Tim

Accurate wind measurements are almost impossible to obtain in a hurricane of Camille's intensity. Based on reconnaissance flight level winds and measured surface pressure, maximum surface winds were calculated at 175 knots (201.5 miles per hour), close to the center, early on the afternoon of the 17th. This calculation represents the maximum winds ever observed in a hurricane and based on something other than pure estimation. The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 may have had more severe winds, but there is just no way of telling.
The highest actual measurement on a wind instrument was found on an Easterline Angus wind speed recorder which had been left running on a Tranworld Drilling Company rig located east of Boothville (Maine Pass Block 29). The recorder had been switched to double scale before evacuation and recorded an extreme gust of 172 miles per hour before the paper jammed and the trace was lost. An Air National Guard Weather Flight stationed at Gulfport Municipal Airport, estimated sustained winds in excess of 100 miles per hour and gust of 150-175 miles per hour. Other less reliable reports from the Gulport-Bay St. Louis area indicated winds of 150-200 miles per hour. At Boothville, Louisiana, 107 mile per hour gusts were recorded before a power failure; at Pillottown, Louisiana, the SS CRISTOBAL estimated winds at 160 miles per hour.

Winds at Biloxi (Keesler Air Force Base) were measured at 81 miles per hour with gusts to 129 miles her hour late on the 17th. At Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula the highest sustained wind reached 81 miles per hour while a local radio station reported 104 mile per hour winds before a power failure.

West of the storm center hurricane force winds reached only the eastern edge of New Orleans; brief gusts of 60-85 miles per hour extended over most of the city. Eastern sections of St. Tammany and Washington Parishes were swept by intense winds estimated up to 160 miles per hour in gusts at Slidell and up to 130 miles per hour in gusts at Bogalusa and Angie.

Hurricane force winds were confined close to the storm's center as it move inland. These winds extended from east of New Orleans to Pascagoula, while gusts of hurricane force winds extended along the coast from New Orleans to just west of Mobile Bay and inland to just south of Jackson

Hurricane Camille ranks high as one of the most destructive killer storms ever to hit the U.S. Total damage has been estimated at $1.42 billion with 258 deaths and 68 additional persons missing -- this includes the Gulf Coast and the Virginias. In round figures, the damage equals the destruction caused by Hurricane Betsy, in a much more concentrated area, in September of 1965. Betsy and Camille stand together as the two most destructive storms to ever ravage the U.S.
While most of Betsy's damage was incurred by Louisiana, Camille spent most of her wrath in Mississippi; the total figure there is estimated at $950 million; Louisiana suffered $350 million mostly in lower Plaquemines Parish.

The total U.S. deaths figure was 258 with three persons reported dead in Cuba. The U.S. figure is the highest in a hurricane since 390 persons died during Hurricane Audrey, which moved over western Louisiana in June 1957; most of these deaths, like those in Camille, were drownings.

Camille ripped a swath of destruction along the entire length of the Mississippi coast up to three or four blocks inland. She also destroyed some inland areas such as resedential sections of West Gulfport and the Biloxi suburb of D'Iberville. In low areas the rows of houses stopped a block or two from the beach and beyond a row of debris were bare foundations along the beach front. From Pascagoula to Pass Christian, and to a lesser degree farther east and west, piles of lumber, building materials and trees were thrown together by the surge. In some cases, piles of debris extended for more than a block square. Highway 90, the main coastal thoroughfare, was covered with sand in many sections and completely washed away in other sections. About one-third of the Bay St. Louis Bridge and one-half of the Biloxi-Ocean Springs Bridge were damaged when tides lifted the spans off their supports. The Army Corps of Engineers indicated that to make some 530 miles of roads passable, about 100,000 tons of debris had to be cleared away. Mr. M. James Stevens, Vice-President of the Mississippi Resteraunt Association, reported that the Coast's resort industry suffered the worst disaster of any similar recreation area in the world. Along U.S. 90, in the Biloxi area, some 60 resort properties suffered damage with about one-half of them destroyed. Buildings on high knolls of about 20 feet or more were able to weather the high winds and survive the storm surge. Many buildings at the 10 feet level were crushed.

At Clermont Harbor, the destruction was total, and eastward to Bay St. Louis many hundreds of beach homes were destroyed. Henderson Point in the Pass Christian area was completely destroyed except for an old building that was formerly a maritime academy. In the Gulfport harbor, damage was severe. Three large cargo ships, the ALAMO VICTORY, the HULDA, and the SILVER HAWK were badly damaged and washed high aground at the north end of the harbor. At the banana wharf, all the sheet metal was stripped from the structures, but most of the framework was intact. On the west side of the harbor, most of the damage was to the lower walls of the buildings where the battering-ram effect of floating cargo carried the sides away. A large diesel fuel barge lifted out of the harbor, carried ashore, and deposited on the medial strip of U.S. 90. Farther up the beach was a large oil storage tank that had floated several miles from its original position.

The beautiful, modern marina fronting the Broadwater Beach Hotel at Biloxi appeared to be intact, but at close inspection the molded concrete covers over the boat slips had corners and pieces broken off by floating debris in the high water. Buildings along the waterfront were demolished and most of the boats were either sunk or had been washed away.

At Pascagoula's Ingalls Shipyard the large cargo ship, MORMACSUN, under construction, broke its moorings and was carried by a 12 foot rise of water onto high ground.

In Hancock County most residents live in low-lying areas. In the hamlets of Lakeshore, Clermont Park, Pearlington, Ansley and the Cedar Point seection of Bay St. Louis, destruction was almost complete. Storm surges of 15 feet and higher and devastating winds turned beach houses into stacks of driftwood. At the Mississippi Test Facility, southeast of Picayune, some 1600 refugees took shelter Sunday night (17th). The high winds and water knocked down some overhead powerlines and flooded the underground lines. Emergency generators were put into use but operations at the facility were suspended until Tuesday.

In Pearl River County there was an estimated $35-40 million loss from damage. The county agent said that about 85 percent of the dairy barns in the county were either severely damaged or were a complete loss. About 35,000-40,000 acres or bearing tung trees were destroyed. There was an additional loss in timber and heavy damage was inflicted on the pecan crop. In Poplarville, the county seat, the mayor estimated that about 90 percent of the homes sustained damage in varying degrees.

There was electric power failure throughout 14 counties, from the coast to as far north as Simpson County. In some sections this loss lasted for several days. The South Mississippi Power Company had to almost completely rebuild their distribution system, and their transmission network was badly damaged. Camille's effects were also devastating on telephone service. Of Mississippi's 765,000 telephones, approximately 15 percent were out of service. In the Gulf Coast area this figure jumped to 67 percent.

The U.S. Forest Service made an aerial survey over a 14 county area of southern Mississippi, an area of 3.8 million acres, which revealed that about 1.9 million acres of commercial forest land in 12 counties received varying degrees of damage. Observations from the air indicated that hardwood forests suffered somewhat heavier damage than pine forests. Some of the hardwood forests were completely defoliated by severe winds. The Forest Service estimates damage to Mississippi sawtimber at 1.8 billion board feet and to pulpwood at 1.4 million cords.

Damage in Louisian was confined mainly to southeastern sections with some damage in the eastern part of the state. The storm surge generated by Camille swept the area from Empire southward clean. Most structures in this area, including some that had survived hurricane Betsy, were completely demolished by the combination of wind and water. The tidal surge also flooded some parts of lower St. Bernard Parish and eastern sections of Orlean Parish. Camille's intense winds were unusually small in areal extent, particularly to the west of the center. Damage in these areas was generally minor. However, eastern sections of St. Tammany and Washington Parishes were swept by intense winds and heavy rainfall (4-6 inches), and the heavily forrested area received considerable damage. Extensive property damage resulted from trees falling on homes and businesses, utility lines and roads.

Agricultural and timber losses, including 8,000 heads of cattle.


Back to Louisiana Hurricane Info
Home

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AT:
http://members.tripod.com/~littlerosie/camille.html
0 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 29133
Age: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Cypress, TX
Contact:

#2 Postby vbhoutex » Mon May 23, 2005 3:27 pm

I know what I experienced in Gulf Breeze, FL.(120 miles from the center). We also had sustained above hurricane force with gusts to at least 100 mph. I can't prove it, but I've even reviewed what I witnessed against wind speed parameters several times and stick by my estimates.

The article, which I do not have time to read in its' entirity right now does make a very valid point which I have alluded to in other posts, specifically right after Ivan last year. The winds in a Tropical Cyclone are not in any ways near a prefect circle or even oval around the center of a TC. They vary widely even at the center of a storm since a lot of the winds that are being generated are actually in individual storms around the center of circulation and some are indeed the result of tornados within those storms. Thus that is why different places close to each other show different levels of destruction-because one place happened to have a more severe cell or feederband or squall(take your pick) come through than someplace maybe a mile away, but still as close to the center. By default the NHC must state that the winds in a TC are up to a certain amount up to a certain distance from the center of the TC to be sure everyone is properly warned of th epotential of the winds. There is no way they can be detailed about the winds and where they will/do hit or their strength. There are not enough wind instruments deployed to ever do that.
0 likes   

donsutherland1
S2K Analyst
S2K Analyst
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: New York

Re: Camile not as bad as I thought!!!!

#3 Postby donsutherland1 » Mon May 23, 2005 3:56 pm

Camille was a very small but intense hurricane. Its brunt was felt at Gulfport, which experienced winds of 170 mph or higher for a short period of time. Although its small size spared Louisiana and Alabama of its devastating power, Camille was an exceptionally ferocious hurricane (2nd strongest to hit the USA).
Last edited by donsutherland1 on Mon May 23, 2005 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

Anonymous

#4 Postby Anonymous » Mon May 23, 2005 4:04 pm

Camille probably came onshore with winds of 180 mph or 155 kts, but they were probably in a small area to the north and east of the center.
0 likes   

User avatar
dhweather
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Heath, TX
Contact:

#5 Postby dhweather » Mon May 23, 2005 4:07 pm

It's tought to say what the peak winds really were for Camille at landfall -
she broke every wind recording instrument near and just east of landfall
at Pass Christian, MS.
0 likes   

User avatar
dhweather
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Heath, TX
Contact:

#6 Postby dhweather » Mon May 23, 2005 4:21 pm

0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#7 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon May 23, 2005 5:23 pm

very little chance of 155KT winds at landfall from Camielle

storm was weakening slightly as it approached the coast and reading other reports from the time leads me to the conclusion that there is nothing known about how to use flight level reduction factors. Ethel was called a cat 5 based upon 140KT at 850mb, when we know today that that equated to about 110KT. I wonder if the very high Camielle winds were absed upon something cimilar, which would mean they would be adjusted downward
0 likes   

Anonymous

#8 Postby Anonymous » Mon May 23, 2005 5:36 pm

I highly doubt that the winds would be lower than 180 mph. Maybe 175 mph, but the damage...and 909 mb....
0 likes   

cyclonaut

#9 Postby cyclonaut » Mon May 23, 2005 5:36 pm

Could Camille be downgraded?
0 likes   

donsutherland1
S2K Analyst
S2K Analyst
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: New York

#10 Postby donsutherland1 » Mon May 23, 2005 5:54 pm

Floydbuster,

With a central pressure of 909 mb at landfall, which is probably the best measure of Camille's strength at that time given instrumentation difficulties where she made landfall, I believe it is more than likely that she was a Category 5 storm immediately at landfall. The structural wind damage in Gulfport also appeared to support such a conclusion.

Consequently, I'm not surprised that the reanalysis of Atlantic hurricanes retained Camille's classification as a Category 5 storm on landfall. The fact that she was a very compact storm, thus the windfield was limited in size, has led to speculation that she might not have been a Category 5 storm on landfall.

FWIW, Andrew was at 922 mb at landfall.
0 likes   

donsutherland1
S2K Analyst
S2K Analyst
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: New York

#11 Postby donsutherland1 » Mon May 23, 2005 5:55 pm

Cyclonaut,

I strongly doubt that Camille will be downgraded.
0 likes   

SouthernWx

#12 Postby SouthernWx » Mon May 23, 2005 6:09 pm

cyclonaut wrote:Could Camille be downgraded?


Not unless whomever is doing the survey completely disregards:

1) damage surveys by leading structural engineers such as Herbert Saffir; who stated the WIND damage was equal to a major tornado (i.e.- F3-F4) many miles inland from the open Gulf of Mexico.

2) damage video and images showing total destruction along the path of the eyewall as it made landfall and passed inland.

3) central pressure and storm surge height consistent with a category 5 hurricane along that section of the Mississippi coast.

In addition, there are CONFIRMED records of sustained winds of 120 mph with peak gusts between 135-140 mph measured at Columbia, Mississippi....over 90 miles inland, by storm spotter James Thornhill. Damage in the city of Columbia and surrounding area consistent with wind speeds of a F2 tornado (113-157 mph). This occurred several hours after landfall (i.e- Camille was still a CONFIRMED major hurricane even 100 miles inland over southern Mississippi).

We may never know the exact intensity of hurricane Camille at the time landfall occurred, but there's reasonable certainty from evidence sustained wind speeds were near 175 mph (155 kt)....with gusts of 200 mph or more (175 kt+). The only reason the death toll was SO LOW (137 along the Mississippi Coast).....was the fact the core passed inland over (at that time) very sparsely populated coastal areas. IMO if Camille had made a direct hit on the greater New Orleans area, it would have been as deadly or worse than Galveston in 1900....IMO many thousands would have drowned.

PW
0 likes   

SouthernWx

#13 Postby SouthernWx » Mon May 23, 2005 6:21 pm

A couple other points:

1) Pascagoula likely experienced peak gusts over 100 mph....possibly 115 mph or more along the immediate beachfront.

2) There are no satellite images available of hurricane Camille at the time of landfall...11 p.m. at night (CST); and IR satellite imagery wasn't available until 1975. Even so, I've researched and studied WSR-57 radar date from New Orleans....and at the time Camille approached and crossed the Mississippi coast, it had a radar signature very similar to hurricane Andrew (extremely small compact eye with perfect symmetry, and extreme convection in all quadrants).

3) Don't compare hurricane Camille at landfall to last season's hurricane Ivan. Camille slammed into the Gulf Coast in mid-August when sst's were at peak level. Remember how Charley exploded over the warm shallow waters last year while approaching SW Florida? Well, the waters offshore Mississippi are just as warm and shallow in August.

I don't know of any evidence that Camille was weakening rapidly at landfall. Radar indicated an extremely severe hurricane....complete and extremely intense eyewall.

I don't personally put much stock in flight level winds reported by recon crews during Camille. To be honest, they were fighting to stay alive (one C-130 was almost lost only a couple hours before Camille made landfall while attempting to penetrate the ferocious eyewall; several other reconnisance pilots REFUSED to attempt penetration....because the eye was too small and eyewall simply too intense; it was too risky....a clear testament to the extreme intensity of this monster hurricane).

PW
0 likes   

Opal storm

#14 Postby Opal storm » Mon May 23, 2005 7:08 pm

Never thought I'd see the day when Camille would be considered anything less than a category 5.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

#15 Postby MGC » Mon May 23, 2005 7:12 pm

You can still see the damage today from Camille almost 36 years later along parts of the Mississippi coast. To even consider that Camille was not a Cat 5 at landfall is ludicrous. If Camille was not a Cat 5 than no way was Andrew. Camille had a lower pressure and hurricane force winds extended out further than Andrew by a considerable margin. It is a pity no instruments survived Camille. Comparing damage between Camille and Andrew is also suspect. Camille destroyed building made of real 2x4 not the crap that has been used to build since Camille......MGC
0 likes   

donsutherland1
S2K Analyst
S2K Analyst
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: New York

#16 Postby donsutherland1 » Mon May 23, 2005 7:18 pm

Great posts, Perry.

You're point concerning the structural damage is on the mark. I'm actually quite surprised by some of the speculation concerning Camille. There's little doubt that she was a Category 5 storm on landfall. Even if the wind instrumentation failed/was destroyed, the structural damage and the exceptionally low barometric pressure very strongly point to her intensity.
0 likes   

donsutherland1
S2K Analyst
S2K Analyst
Posts: 2718
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: New York

#17 Postby donsutherland1 » Mon May 23, 2005 7:22 pm

Opal storm,

Rest assured, I'm not aware of any serious effort to downgrade Camille. The speculation, much of which rests on the small size of the hurricane (large areas were not impacted severely) and the loss of wind measuring equipment, does not stand up when the barometric pressure and structural damage is assessed. Camille easily qualified as a Category 5 landfall and her legendary status is secure.
0 likes   

SouthernWx

#18 Postby SouthernWx » Mon May 23, 2005 8:09 pm

A direct quote from the legendary Dr. Robert H. Simpson, former director of the National Hurricane Center:

"By any yardstick, Camille was the greatest hurricane to ever impact the U.S. mainland"


Structural engineer Herbert Saffir surveyed the wind damage after hurricane Camille's passage and stated afterwords:

"The wind damage caused by this great hurricane is far worse than any hurricane I've previously surveyed (since 1947); the wind damage is severe over an extensive area both along the coastline and inland. Even inland away from the gulf, structures were splintered....damage consistent with wind speeds of a major tornado" (F3 or higher)

These are the two well respected gentlemen who created the "Saffir-Simpson" hurricane scale.


One other point to consider...

IF hurricane Andrew had slammed into the Mississippi Coast near Bay St Louis, the storm surge would have likely been several feet LOWER than the 24.6" storm surge produced by Camille. On the other hand, if hurricane Camille had crossed the Florida coastline near Homestead with a central pressure of 909 mb, the estimated storm surge height would be 19-20' feet....or over 2' feet HIGHER than Andrew's.

Just something to think about....from someone who's spent most of his life researching hurricanes and their impact.

PW
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#19 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon May 23, 2005 8:49 pm

MGC,

nowhere did I say Camielle wasnt a 5, just not 155KT, probably 140-145.

The gradient wind equation states that Camielle and Andrew should have very similar winds. Extent of hurricane force winds is totally meaningless in dermining the maximum winds as is absolute SLP.

Only the pressure gradient and radius of curvature will determine the extent of the maximum winds. Camielle was larger than Andrew and the pressure gradient may not have been as intense (remember, Andrew had a large high to its north and there is evidence that Andrew had winds of 155KT at landfall, see Landsea's BAMS Article for more info)
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

#20 Postby MGC » Mon May 23, 2005 9:13 pm

Dereck, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I concure that hurricanes back in the 60's were overstated in their windspeed. I too doubt Camille was as strong as estimated back in 69. What makes you think Camille was weakening just before landfall?......MGC
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gib and 526 guests