Camile not as bad as I thought!!!!

[dhweather]

Wow, that's fantastic information Don, thank you very much!

[Agua]

I was 90 miles inland and a child of 5 or 6. The most terrifying event in my life. Half our roof was blown off, huge pecan trees in our yard uprooted ... I would suppose that's a safe bet as to where my abnormal fear and fascination with these systems comes from.

[donsutherland1]

Here's the enlarged version (4x). No double-eye structure:

[donsutherland1]

Thanks Dhweather.

[dhweather]

I was one and in Jackson when Camille came through. My parents
told me of how the large pine trees at our house were so close to
snapping off, winds up to 80 MPH - well over 100 miles inland.

I just have a complete fascination with tropical and severe weather.

[Agua]

Those pictures are creeping me out. I'm trying not to look in this thread, but can't stop myself.

[Derek Ortt]

One major fundamental error in the analysis going on here: you're using structural damage to determine intensity. <b>THIS IS A BIG NO-NO</b>

Structural damage is based upon building codes as well as duration of the winds. Since Sfla had a much stronger code and a much shorter duration of maximum winds, the damage shold be worse from Camielle

One thing that strikes me from those photos, why in the world are those trees remaining standing? Thise damage photos shown there are very similar to those from Ivan west of Pensacola near the Blue Lagoon area (not sure if those are out of the eye wall or not)

[HurricaneBill]

One thing that strikes me from those photos, why in the world are those trees remaining standing?

Why are some houses in a neighborhood totally destroyed by tornadoes while others in the same neighborhood are unscathed?

[Derek Ortt]

depends upon where the suction vorticies are located.

However, in those photos, the trees and houses were located in what appears to be the asme streak area, which leads me to believe that that was storm surge damage as the house was swept off of its foundation

[donsutherland1]

Derek,

Saffir and Simpson made assessments based on the expected damage that winds would cause at the time Camille struck. The references Perry and I made to structural damage concern the Saffir and Simpson assessments, alone.

As for the photos, with the exception of the grounded ships, the photos are from the western Mississippi coast (the Church is from Pass Christian; and the mansion from an unspecified location). Consequently, four of those photos are not from Camille's "ground zero" which was somewhat farther to the east.

[SouthernWx]

One major fundamental error in the analysis going on here: you're using structural damage to determine intensity. <b>THIS IS A BIG NO-NO</b>

No Derek...I base my wind speed analysis on:

a) the words of NHC director Dr Robert H. Simpson, structural engineer Herbert Saffir, and former NHC hurricane specialists John Hope, Robert Case, Gil Clark, and Dr Neil Frank (all of whom I've conversed with in re: to Camille's landfall intensity.

b) radar images

c) limited satellite data, surface obs, and recon information


I've never believed Camille's sustained winds were 190 mph at landfall....but do staunchly believe they were in the 175-180 mph range, with 200-210 mph peak gusts.

In late 1992 and 1993, I was a lone wolf stating to anyone listening that IMO hurricane Andrew was a category 5 hurricane, both at Eleuthera and in southeast Florida; due to the extreme pressure gradient/ extremely small, compact eyewall....Andrew was considerably stronger than the average 922 mb hurricane.

At the time, NHC and everyone representing NHC kept stating 145 mph AT MOST as Andrew's landfall intensity. It was apparent to me from the damage AND the satellite images that Andrew was indeed at cat-5 intensity during Florida landfall. It took a decade, but in the end my analysis was proven correct.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, my post storm wind speed analysis are usually correct (as are my forecasts).

PW

[Javlin]

Derek the house I live in now was my parents then.She was built in 1961 is BOLTED to the concrete slab NOT NAILED like many are now.In the attic I have rough cut timbers in some places with metal straps throughout.The house is also all wood lapsided @ .75" thick.Some of the sub-divisons today as fast as they go up you got to wonder about the strength and most of them with siding.I guess it might take another Camille like storm to resolve alot of the issues we have discussed here.God forbid that should occur again but it will just when and where.Seems to want to happen every 30-40yrs. just like the cycle of activity of hurricanes.It has been a real good discussion for sure all points I have to say are well respected in my eyes.

[vbhoutex]

Derek, the mansion is definitely storm surge damage. I believe it was located in Biloxi. The church I am not positive if it was storm surge or not, but I think it was. I can tell you that I was 2 miles inland in Pass Christian and saw houses that were no where near any water off of their foundations. These were not manufactured homes either, they were "normal" well built homes. I've already posted previously about the damage I saw 60 miles inland.

[mobilebay]

Myself I don't think it matters which one was the strongest (Camille or Andrew). Both hurricanes was horrendous (spelling?) . Once they get that strong it really doesn't matter. You can show horror pics from both Canes. Please remember a lot of the Damage you see from Camille was Storm surge ( which was of Biblical proportions), and it is hard to deduce what was storm surge or wind damage. While with Andrew it was pretty much wind damage that you see. Just my humble opinion. If I had to say what I thought, I think Camille was the strongest. However, I don't think it really matters at all.

[donsutherland1]

Dave,

I tried to find out more about the mansion but only found references to the Mississippi coast. I had been under the impression that it was the western coast but might be mistaken if it is in fact in Biloxi. The other photos were from Pass Christian.

One thing that should be noted is that where a storm surge occurs, it is more difficult for there to be a complete "blow-down" of trees. The water provides protection from the full impact of the wind. So, it would not be surprising that where the storm surge occurred, some of the trees were left standing. Why? The storm surge overspreads the area before the height of the storm. So, by the time the eye wall arrives, the "protection" is in place.

As for the structural damage assessment, it's critically important to highlight the expertise of Mr. Saffir (one of the foremost experts on wind damage) and Dr. Simpson (director of the NHC). Their opinion of the damage is highly credible.

[Derek Ortt]

It is equally important to remember that today's standards do not take damage into consideration. If you try and classify hurricanes based upon damage around some people, you'll be laughed out of the room (and this is not a joke at all, I've seen it happen)

[donsutherland1]

Mobilebay,

Without doubt Camille and Andrew were both catastrophic hurricanes. FWIW, the rankings of the three Category 5 hurricanes that made U.S. landfall are:

1. Hurricane #2 (1935) "The Labor Day Hurricane"
2. Hurricane Camille (1969)
3. Hurricane Andrew (1992)

For the most part, I believe the discussion concerns whether or not Camille was a strong Category 5 storm at landfall. Most of the evidence says that she was:

• Radar near landfall
• Barometric pressure
• Structural damage
• Storm surge
• Expert assessments from Dr. Simpson (NHC director) and Mr. Simpson (one of the world's leading experts on wind damage)
• Trajectory of storm as it came onshore/SSTs along her track
• On reanalysis, Camille's strength was reaffirmed

The case for a borderline Category 5 storm is weak.

• Small size limited area of wind damage: compact size has nothing to do with intensity
• Hypothesis of weakening rests on the fact that very few measurements were taken (sampling error would be too great for confidence in such a hypothesis) or lack of wind instrumentation (destroyed or inoperable due to the strength of the storm and thus this has little bearing)
• Standing trees: storm surge prevents a full blow-down, as the surge arrives ahead of the highest winds associated with the eye wall

[Ixolib]

Dave,

...One thing that should be noted is that where a storm surge occurs, it is more difficult for there to be a complete "blow-down" of trees. The water provides protection from the full impact of the wind. So, it would not be surprising that where the storm surge occurred, some of the trees were left standing. Why? The storm surge overspreads the area before the height of the storm. So, by the time the eye wall arrives, the "protection" is in place...

Great observation. There are several examples of "trees" surviving storm surge. Even in The Pass and eastward toward Biloxi after Camille, most of the oaks along the beach were left standing - and still stand proudly today after 300 years of hurricanes. This is also evidenced by the numerous trees left standing on the barrier islands of Cat, Ship, and Horn and the more closer Deer Island south of Biloxi. I agree that the trees were actually "protected" from the wind (and wind-driven waves) simply because their base structure (trunk & roots) were already under water, which in most cases initially rises at a relatively calm rate.

[vbhoutex]

Dave,

I tried to find out more about the mansion but only found references to the Mississippi coast. I had been under the impression that it was the western coast but might be mistaken if it is in fact in Biloxi. The other photos were from Pass Christian.

One thing that should be noted is that where a storm surge occurs, it is more difficult for there to be a complete "blow-down" of trees. The water provides protection from the full impact of the wind. So, it would not be surprising that where the storm surge occurred, some of the trees were left standing. Why? The storm surge overspreads the area before the height of the storm. So, by the time the eye wall arrives, the "protection" is in place.

As for the structural damage assessment, it's critically important to highlight the expertise of Mr. Saffir (one of the foremost experts on wind damage) and Dr. Simpson (director of the NHC). Their opinion of the damage is highly credible.

That mansion could easily have been closer to the eye than Biloxi. There were quite a few ante-bellum mansions along the coast prior to Camille and they were spread from Biloxi to Pass Christian, though I feel like the bigger ones such as that one were to the East of Pass Christian. What I do remember is that not one of those gorgeous mansions was left standing after Camille(nothing was for at least a quarter to a half mile inland(to a low bluff)). The minimum any recieved was near total destruction with maybe a low wall or two left standing. Most were totally swept away by the surge. One of the pictures still etched in my mind is driving along the beach looking up into the oaks which had been stripped bare of any foliage and seeing washers, dryers, refrigerators and other debris lolodged 25-30 feet up in them.

Derek, maybe in the crowd you run with(a scientific community I presume and believe me I have been around them too, so I understand what you are saying)we would be laughed out of the room. I doubt it would happen in most places where not everything is dealt with as an absolute. JMHO.

[donsutherland1]

Derek,

Again, one has to go back to when Camille struck. The technologies available in 1969 were far less advanced than those when Andrew crashed ashore. It is not possible to use today's technologies to analyze Camille.

Because wind instrumentation was destroyed (as also happened with Andrew, too), one should not necessarily assume that the maximum readings before that happened were representative. Indeed, as was the case with the reassessment of Andrew's strength, surface winds were likely far higher than progged before the instrumentation was destroyed. In Andrew's reassessment, the report notes that the surface winds, as measured, "would likely have continued to increase to substantially higher values" had the instrumentation survived for "at least a few more minutes." The same almost certainly holds true for Camille and the report does a great job in explaining the dynamics of hurricane surface winds.

For those who are interested, the report can be found at: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... ms2004.pdf

With Camille's assessment, as with any earlier hurricane, one simply has to use the best evidence available. That's why both Dr. Simson and Mr. Saffir used, in part, the structural damage. That damage was consistent with an F-3 tornado according to Mr. Saffir. Mr. Saffir was one of the world's foremost experts on wind damage. Today, advanced technology makes such reliance on structural damage far less important. Yesterday, such technology did not exist.

Moreover, given past experience with landfalling storms that came ashore at a north-northwest trajectory, it is highly likely that Camille had conserved her strength until she came ashore. Moreover, the time between the 905 mb reading and 909 mb reading was so large that a lot could have happened. Assuming a straight-line decline, while a possibility, is not the only credible possibility. Indeed, if past hurricanes are considered, a straight-line decline is probably not even a likely possibility. Indeed, the radar image just prior to landfall strongly suggests that Camille was exceptionally intense. Very warm SSTs, even to the Mississippi shores of > 29.5°C also argued for the potential of Camille's conserving her strength and even strengthening.

Overall, the case that Camille came ashore with 170 mph - 180 mph winds is very strong. In the end, I expect that Camille will not be downgraded from her present status as the second strongest hurricane ever to make U.S. landfall.