Camille not a cat-5 at Mississippi landfall???

[MGC]

No question the SS need updating. Remember, the SS scale was developed after Camille and building codes and construction methods today are better. Funny, but the last time I was down in South Florida most of the new subdivisions were clear cut and devoid of trees. I didn't see much tree debris in the pictures, just destroyed houses. I visit South Florida one or twice a year. As I recall, Andrew destroyed many new subdivisions, which opened the Pandora Box of shoddy construction. No doubt, Andrew was a solid Cat-4 in Homestead and those people down there were left to dangle in the wind just like we were up here by Katrina. The simple fact that Camille hit with its intensity clearly proves the theory that the NGOM is incapable of supporting a hurricane of intensity greater than Cat-3 is just plain wrong......MGC

[Javlin]

I still think interaction with land over SE LA should have caused Camille to weaken before landfall.Remember cat 5 hurricanes must have perfect conditions to maintain that strength.Considering much of Camille's western half was over SE LA before landfall in MS, and it encountered shallower water and possibly cooler SST's off the coast,that's not favorable for any cat 5.

Looking at this track Camille's eye came pretty close to making landfall in extreme SE LA before hitting MS.

A valid point to a degree OS but then all we have to do is look at the other lady on the block Katrina.As she crossed the FL Everglades on her SW track she maintain a majority of her signature and strength only to reintensify quickly.The other problem is that while sst's could of had been on the decline that close to the coast in 1969 it very well could of been like 2005 with Katrina warm waters all the way.The post that A2K made about the partial reanalaysis at Camille's pressure might lend credence to the same warm sst's involved again.History does like to repeat itself and maybe that occurred again.Interesting and thought provoking discussion for the most part and have really enjoyed the many ideas presented.

Kevin

[Pearl River]

The landscape where a hurricane hit's does matter as to the type of damage one will see. The wide open space of south Florida will show a much more destructive view, than the tree lined NGOM. Trees do protect houses from damage, and they also protect other trees.

[Opal storm]

I don't think the north central Gulf coast is capable of seeing anything greater than a 160mph hurricane.And even a 160mph landfall along the north Gulf coast I would consider a once in a lifetime event.The fact is,major hurricanes (especially cat 4/5's) will weaken at some point before making landfall along the north central Gulf coast.

[Audrey2Katrina]

It also says all trees blown down by the wind, but that picture does not have all trees down.

Are we REALLY going to take this into a "The Saffir Simpson Scale says THIS will happen, and if it doesn't, then it wasn't!!!" line of thought? I dearly hope not; because I can show you trees that are still standing along the path of Andrew's landfall... I would have thought that if anything, Katrina taught us you can NOT nail down exactly what a hurricane can or will do to a simple SS scale paragraph... just too many other variables and possibilities there.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

In the areas where Cat. 4/5 sustained winds actually occurred (which were very isolated pockets)...yes.

This claim can NOT be proven and you have to know it.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

In the areas where Cat. 4/5 sustained winds actually occurred (which were very isolated pockets)...yes.

This claim can NOT be proven and you have to know it.

A2K

In areas that saw SUSTAINED strong Cat. 4 or Cat. 5 winds, my statement is likely correct. I am sure that at least 90% of trees in those small pockets were downed. Keep in mind though that these were fairly small pockets and the general overall area saw only Cat. 2-3 sustained winds and a much lower level of damage.

[Pearl River]

Opal wrote

I don't think the north central Gulf coast is capable of seeing anything greater than a 160mph hurricane.And even a 160mph landfall along the north Gulf coast I would consider a once in a lifetime event.The fact is,hurricanes will weaken at some point before making landfall along the north central Gulf coast.

I don't think people are really getting the information that has been given. Camille had strengthened to her maximum just south of the mouth of the MS River, not in the central GOM like Katrina and other storms. She was closer to landfall than the other's.

100 year floods are only supposed to happen once every 100 years. I have been thru several and I'm only half a century old.

[timNms]

I don't think the north central Gulf coast is capable of seeing anything greater than a 160mph hurricane.And even a 160mph landfall along the north Gulf coast I would consider a once in a lifetime event. The fact is,major hurricanes (especially cat 4/5's) will weaken at some point before making landfall along the north central Gulf coast.

Fact? What concrete evidence from qualified researchers do u have to back this claim up?

[Audrey2Katrina]

greater wind damage than what I have seen from Camille.

You haven't seen the greatest damage from Camille... nobody here has that I know of... and can we PLEASE rise above the incessant "I got a picture to prove it" mentality?... Hurricanes, (even the small ones like Andrew) cover swaths of land thousands of square miles... so to provide a picture, or even a montage of pictures, while impressive, can in no way "prove" anything about what winds have done. Additionally, how does one know that some/most of this wasn't done by an extreme microburst, or gust up to 180-190, possibly even a tornado! and NOT by those "steady" 155 mph winds? The simple fact is we do NOT know, and the constant railings (always by the same people) that they can "prove" this or that was worse/not as bad, by providing pictures from 2 storms, in two completely different areas as far as urban development, strength of homes, areas affected by surge, and some 25 years of time...is really kind of silly IMO.

A2K

[Normandy]

My goodness, you all ask me are any of these pictures from Camille's worst winds? Pass Christian, smack dab in the RIGHT front quadrant of a northward moving hurricane, will take its worst winds. I have shown pics from Pass Christian, and pictures from Pass Christian are VERY available for viewing. And those pictures DO NOT show Category 5 wind damage, they show damage very similar to Katrina.

And, about the pressure vs wind relationship, believe me it really, really does not make a difference what the pressure of a storm is, its the gradient that determines its winds. Just like it is size that determines the surge. That is proven science folks, and mets will back this up I am certain.

Here are some storms with pressure vs wind realationship issues:
1) Hurricane Charley: 150 mph 941 mbs
2) Hurricane Michelle: 140 mph 949 mbs
3) Tropical Cyclone Tracy: 140 mph+ 950 HpA

Folks, those are three Category FOUR/FIVE hurricanes (Tracy is unknown) that have EXTREME winds with high pressures. A2K, you compared Camille to Wilma...well lets take a look at Wilma and other sub 900 hurricanes shall we?

Hurricane Wilma: 175 mph 882 mbs
Hurricane Rita: 175 mph 897 mbs
Hurricane Allen: 190 mph 899 mbs
Hurricane Gilbert: 185 mph 888 mbs

The STRONGEST hurricane recorded PRESSURE wise in the Atlantic basin is the WEAKEST out of EVERY sub-900 hurricane ever recorded. This proves that pressure and wind to not always correlate with each other as far as determining windspeeds. Doesn't it make you wonder why a cyclone with a pressure of 950 HPA can flatten Darwin with winds alone? Its gradient was so tight that it produced unbelievably severe winds probably close to Cat5 levels.

This is the reason Andrew was so powerful, and other reasons as well. Andrew was slammed into Florida at 20 mph+ by a very very strong high pressure system, creating a very strong gradient in the northern portion of the storm. Andrew was already small, so this high pressure system relating to Andrew made his winds even that much more ferocious.

Lets compare some small hurricanes, and then compare them to Camille.
- Hurricane Charley: 20 mi radius of Hurricane force winds
- Hurricane Andrew: 30 mi? radius of Hurricane force winds
- Hurricane Michelle: 25 mi radius of Hurricane force winds
- Cyclone Tracy: 40 mi radius of TS+Hurricane force winds

- Hurricane Camille: 60 mi radius of Hurricane force winds.


Again, knowing what we know TODAY, it is not fair to compare a fairly good-sized (YES, good-sized hurricane, NOT small) hurricane to midget hurricanes like Andrew, Charley, Wilma (here windfield at her peak was tiny), Michelle, especially when Camille is TWICE the size of all of them as far as wind radii go. Just because Camille made landfall with a pressure of 909 mbs does not AUTOMATICALLY make it a category 5 hurricane, especially considering that:

1) Katrina came in at 927 mbs, 5 higher than Andrew, with winds some 40 mph less.
2) Katrina came in 17 mbs higher than Camille, yet was 120 mph supposedly, a far cry from a Category 5.
3) Hurricane Rita, which Derek flew into, was NEAR Camille's landfall intensity, and did not have measurably winds to suggest it was ANYTHING more than a cat 3....yes.....a Cat 3.

Its dangerous to go under the assumption that since Camille had the 909 mythical pressure that Camille automatically is a Category 5 hurricane.

[Opal storm]

Great post Normandy.

[timNms]

My goodness, you all ask me are any of these pictures from Camille's worst winds? Pass Christian, smack dab in the RIGHT front quadrant of a northward moving hurricane, will take its worst winds. I have shown pics from Pass Christian, and pictures from Pass Christian are VERY available for viewing. And those pictures DO NOT show Category 5 wind damage, they show damage very similar to Katrina.

And, about the pressure vs wind relationship, believe me it really, really does not make a difference what the pressure of a storm is, its the gradient that determines its winds. Just like it is size that determines the surge. That is proven science folks, and mets will back this up I am certain.

Here are some storms with pressure vs wind realationship issues:
1) Hurricane Charley: 150 mph 941 mbs
2) Hurricane Michelle: 140 mph 949 mbs
3) Tropical Cyclone Tracy: 140 mph+ 950 HpA

Folks, those are three Category FOUR/FIVE hurricanes (Tracy is unknown) that have EXTREME winds with high pressures. A2K, you compared Camille to Wilma...well lets take a look at Wilma and other sub 900 hurricanes shall we?

Hurricane Wilma: 175 mph 882 mbs
Hurricane Rita: 175 mph 897 mbs
Hurricane Allen: 190 mph 899 mbs
Hurricane Gilbert: 185 mph 888 mbs

The STRONGEST hurricane recorded PRESSURE wise in the Atlantic basin is the WEAKEST out of EVERY sub-900 hurricane ever recorded. This proves that pressure and wind to not always correlate with each other as far as determining windspeeds. Doesn't it make you wonder why a cyclone with a pressure of 950 HPA can flatten Darwin with winds alone? Its gradient was so tight that it produced unbelievably severe winds probably close to Cat5 levels.

This is the reason Andrew was so powerful, and other reasons as well. Andrew was slammed into Florida at 20 mph+ by a very very strong high pressure system, creating a very strong gradient in the northern portion of the storm. Andrew was already small, so this high pressure system relating to Andrew made his winds even that much more ferocious.

Lets compare some small hurricanes, and then compare them to Camille.
- Hurricane Charley: 20 mi radius of Hurricane force winds
- Hurricane Andrew: 30 mi? radius of Hurricane force winds
- Hurricane Michelle: 25 mi radius of Hurricane force winds
- Cyclone Tracy: 40 mi radius of TS+Hurricane force winds

- Hurricane Camille: 60 mi radius of Hurricane force winds.


Again, knowing what we know TODAY, it is not fair to compare a fairly good-sized (YES, good-sized hurricane, NOT small) hurricane to midget hurricanes like Andrew, Charley, Wilma (here windfield at her peak was tiny), Michelle, especially when Camille is TWICE the size of all of them as far as wind radii go. Just because Camille made landfall with a pressure of 909 mbs does not AUTOMATICALLY make it a category 5 hurricane, especially considering that:

1) Katrina came in at 927 mbs, 5 higher than Andrew, with winds some 40 mph less.
2) Katrina came in 17 mbs higher than Camille, yet was 120 mph supposedly, a far cry from a Category 5.
3) Hurricane Rita, which Derek flew into, was NEAR Camille's landfall intensity, and did not have measurably winds to suggest it was ANYTHING more than a cat 3....yes.....a Cat 3.

Its dangerous to go under the assumption that since Camille had the 909 mythical pressure that Camille automatically is a Category 5 hurricane.

Mythical? I believe it has been established by the NWS in New Orleans that the 909 reading was accurate. Kinda blows ur theory to bits[/b]

[Normandy]

Mythical was the wrong word, it was meant to denote "famous" or "incredible"

And no, it doesnt blow my theory to bits.

You could try though, but it would be hard since everything in that post is hard and factual data.

[timNms]

What I find irritating is the fact that NHC reports have established that Camille was a cat 5 at landfall in MS, regardless of what anyone "thinks". Until the NHC changes that, then it is pointless to say otherwise

[Normandy]

No, its not pointless to say otherwise at all.

The NHC designated Camille has a Cat5 hurricane 37 years ago. It called Andrew a Cat 4 14 years ago. It has since changed that categorization.

Don't act like since the NHC calls something its set in stone.

You know its just troubling to see that so many people will so ferociously defend a hurricane....especially a hurricane that was creamed by a Cat 3 Katrina. We aren't trying to disservice you all by questioning Camille. Anyone arguing Camille as a 4 is only trying to help you all. You thought Camille was the worst it could get....and you were proven wrong....so again, don't assume Camille is the MOST intense a NGOM can get...and don't assume that it is for sure a Cat 5.

[timNms]

Mythical was the wrong word, it was meant to denote "famous" or "incredible"

And no, it doesnt blow my theory to bits.

You could try though, but it would be hard since everything in that post is hard and factual data.

Is everything in ur post really factual data or wasn't some of it your opinion?

[Audrey2Katrina]

If you call those 6 "twigs" in the background full-blown standing trees; then your mistaken. They are merely the "left-overs" of what once was a tree. There are not even any branches left.

Quote from the St. Petersburg Times Reporter who travelled to HOMESTEAD to describe the damage done near Andrew's landfall:

"Trees that had managed to stay upright were stripped of foliage."

Hence... Tree(s) [plural] managed to stay upright.

I've seen pictures of trees--defoliated, to be sure; but lots of 'em standing right in the heart of Homestead. Even in the picture that was provided, I believe by Opal, showing some homes severely damaged (by streaks?) while others show much less damage... shows many standing trees... the tree argument, no pun intended, just doesn't hold water... while an indication of pretty intense winds, proves little about specificity with regard to category on the SS scale.

A2K

[Opal storm]

What I find irritating is the fact that NHC reports have established that Camille was a cat 5 at landfall in MS, regardless of what anyone "thinks". Until the NHC changes that, then it is pointless to say otherwise

I have heard some very good points as to why Camille may have not been a cat 5.I hope the NHC does update the Camille report.Personally,I am convinced Camille was no cat 5 at landfall.

[timNms]

No, its not pointless to say otherwise at all.

The NHC designated Camille has a Cat5 hurricane 37 years ago. It called Andrew a Cat 4 14 years ago. It has since changed that categorization.

Don't act like since the NHC calls something its set in stone.

And you point being?
If we cannot believe what the NHC says, then are we to assume that every tom dick and harry that comes along with an opinion is correct?