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

[Ixolib]

I have just witnessed the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen, in this thread, especially from someone who cannot spell Beulah or Camille correctly.

Deeeep breath.... Breathe in.... Breathe out....

[BC]

I think the main reasons Camille brought less of a storm surge than Katrina are:

1. Path/track - Camille was on a northwest track for most of her existence.. See here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about ... /fig1b.gif

Katrina, however, started on a western track, then tracked southwest for a bit, then northwest and then hit on an almost due north track.. One theory I have is that as she tracked southwest, Katrina pushed more water into her future track, like she amplified her own surge..

See here:
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

2. Speed - Camille sped up as she approached the Coast whereas Katrina did not. And Katrina was moving very slowly, something like 8 mph if I recall correctly..

3. Landscape - The Coast was less developed in 1969, thus there were more natural barriers for the surge. Now, after Katrina, we'll probably see surge going further inland on lesser storms.

4. Storm/Eye size - Katrina was huge. Camille was smaller.

Just a few of my thoughts on the topic having been personally affected by Katrina and indirectly affected by Camille (family's lived here all their lives)..

[swampdude]

I would think the fact that Katrina was a Cat 5 many hours before landfall as opposed to Camille's late intensification and speed would be a large factor in Katrina's greater surge.

[timNms]

Good points, BC and swampdude.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Recon data while invaluable, is NOT the best definer of a storm's full size...satellite imagery is much better... and in that comparison... well, there's just no comparison

Camielle was not compact based upon the recon. It was only about 20-30% smaller than Katrina,

You keep saying this... and continue to talk about "myths"... but in all fairness then, among those perpetuating this "myth" is the NHC-TPC, which I tend to agree with... along with clear satellite imagery showing it about half the size of Katrina, if that much.

NOAA Magazine online:

Although much smaller in size than Katrina, Camille’s 190 mile per hour winds generated a record storm surge measuring as much as 24.3 feet along a large portion of the Mississippi coastline. In

And another NOAA online quote:

the size of Katrina, with hurricane force winds extending 120 miles from its center, was much larger and the destruction more widespread than Camille.

Aside from differing from the numbers some go with, by over an additional 30 miles which alone transferred around the entire circumference of a storm could make it well over 30% larger than the 90 miles, AND, By what you're stating, I guess NOAA doesn't know what they're talking about either... oh well, opinions do vary widely on many issues... this being just another. And I can deal with that. The difference being that some of us can admit it's an opinion (professional or otherwise), while others make dogmatic pronouncements that leave no room for opposing viewpoints--frankly I think in doing so, the latter lose virtually all credibility if for no other reason than their unwillingness to brook anyone's opinion but their own.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

On the suggestion that "hurricane" winds were in Pensacola--there are NO reports of such in the Camille report... in fact "wind damage" from Camille IN THE REPORT is described as "moderate to low" as far in as Dauphin Island, Alabama. Additionally, this storm (Camille) struck many miles further EAST to begin with, making landfall (by the report EAST of Bay St. Louis--probably closest to Gulfport) And this would shove its max winds a good 15-20 miles further east to begin with.

More about the "myth" of Camille's size... from the NHC:

Quote from the NHC-NOAA Archives from prelim report Hurricane Camille: Aug. 14-28, 1969:

... "This SMALL, intense storm"....

Hmmm seems those folks who had all three, satellite, recon, and radar data were just hell-bent on starting a myth.

Now let's do a little math... understanding that hurricanes are usually quite assymetrical at landfall--but the assymetry balances out in that it works the same for both storms... The NHC for Katrina --using the LOWER number of 90 nm as it's hurricane wind radius... and using the HIGH number of 60 "statute" miles for the extend of hurricane winds from Camille... gives us two circle of the following Areas: Katrina: hurricane wind area--approx. 25,434 sq. mi... Camille: 11,304 Sq. miles.... Hmmmmm now unless the formula for area of a circle has been altered drastically, that makes Katrina at the very least DOUBLE the size of Camille giving Camille the Higher end numbers AND counting what were recorded as "statute" miles the same size as the actually longer "nautical" miles of Katrina, and Katrina the lower end... had I used the higher 120 nm for Katrina, and the probable "statute" mile figure for Camille... it'd be more than 3 times the size. The 20% larger/smaller figure is just mathematically not even in the same ballpark. And YES, I know neither was a perfect circle--but think proportionality, this goes the same for BOTH storms, and would thereby still, proportionally, yield similar results for comparative purposes. Frankly, in my opinion the comment that Camille was only 20-30% smaller than Katrina is the biggest "myth" I've seen thus far in the thread.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Camielle was a fairly large storm

Could you please provide ONE document from an official NHC/NOAA source making this claim?

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Sounds like Camille was about the size of Ivan.

Not even remotely the case... Look at the satellite imagery of both.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

about the size of Ivan would be correct... and we all consider Ivan to have been a large hurricane

OMG... tell me we aren't going to now start claiming Camille was a "large" hurricane. I'd really like to see that cited in just ONE official document on the storm. Certainly everyone is entitled their interpretation of the data; but I just don't see this as remotely plausible.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

the forecasters in hindsight, really had no clue what they were doing,

I'm sorry, but there are those here who find anyone challenging a pro-met's declaration on anything from A-Z as offensive; but to say that folks like John Hope, (for whose daughter this storm was named), and the countless meteorologists at the time were "clueless" smacks of a hubris I've never seen in here before; and I've seen plenty. They had radar, they had recon, they had satellite, they had anemometers... no they didn't have computerized imagery... or doppler radar; but EVERY rule of math was in place and numbers don't change... while we've made great strides in the last few years in getting more and even better quality data, I would hardy call their information "clueless".

I'm aghast at the hubris of such an evaluation of the hard work and dedication of the people who came to those conclusions.

35 years from now, the same thing probably will be said about today

Frankly, I think that with but few exceptions, while they may consider many of the devices today to have been antiquated by then, I would hope they would have enough tact to eschew describing their hard-working progenitors as "not having a clue."

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

then the 1969 NHC report is so dead flat wrong that Great One would have done a better job of writing it.

Nice... real nice... but I guess I can take consolation in that like you said... in another 35 years....

As I said, the science was so poor back then that of course the forecasters did not know what we did today.

Well then if it was so "poor", how do we know anything about the size of Carla? or even better, of the Labor Day Storm of 1935... I mean that was some 71 years ago, they must have been using stone-knives and bearskins back then--how can ANYTHING about that storm be considered reliable?

Plus, satellite was very new then.

By today's standards, yes; but it had been in use for nearly TEN years by the time of Camille--technology ten years old is hardly new, and it's not as if they didn't have satellite data--they did.

They actually thought that the larger the size of a hurricane, the stronger it was

1.) I'm not going to challenge that comment; but could you provide an article ca. 1969 showing that this is what they believed... I can't seem to find one.

2.) This is inconsistent with their OWN words in calling Camille a "small" storm, and clearly acknowledging it's high intensity, additionally, if this is so, they must've thought the Labor Day storm filled half the Atlantic.

A2K

[timNms]

First, it's the catagory, now the size? What will be next? Wait, let me guess. She was just a figment of our imagination? C-a-m-i-l-l-e never really happened?

Sometimes it gets quite frustrating when all of the data available points to her being a cat 5 storm and some come on here screaming "NO way she could have been a 5, or no way she could have had 190 mph winds". Tell that to the PROFESSIONALS who did the evaluations, research, and came to the conclusion that this is exactly what happened.

In all seriousness, I respect the opinions of both the pro mets and those who are not professionals, just dedicated weather enthuisiasts. However, until the OFFICIAL reports state otherwise, I'll continue to believe that Camille roared ashore with at LEAST 190 mph sustained winds, a 20+ft storm surge, and was a small, compact storm with an eye that was less than 10 miles across.
And I might add, was THE benchmark along the Mississippi coast until Katrina. Yes, Mississippi was struck by a catagory 5 hurricane and chances are, it will happen again. It may not be in my lifetime, but it will happen one day. I just hope those who survived Katrina learned a lesson that Camille survivors did not learn. GET OUT!!

[Audrey2Katrina]

I have seen no ridiculous statements,just a good discussion IMO

A "good discussion" should reflect more than one viewpoint and just a tad more objectivity and tolerance for an opposing one.... IMO.

I apologize for the LONG line of posts, folks... but I got in late on this tonight, and one by one, felt there were things that simply needed... well, at least a "balancing" viewpoint, if for no better reason than to keep this from becoming a mutual admiration society where no one (or precious few) seemed willing to challenge the view of someone who, with all due respect, at least appears to have very LITTLE regard or respect for anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with his stated opinion...again... JMO, and if I'm offbase--apologies tendered.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I would think the fact that Katrina was a Cat 5 many hours before landfall as opposed to Camille's late intensification and speed would be a large factor in Katrina's greater surge.

An excellent observation, and also quite possibly yet another variable in the mix. Kudos for that mention!

A2K

[Frank P]

I would think the fact that Katrina was a Cat 5 many hours before landfall as opposed to Camille's late intensification and speed would be a large factor in Katrina's greater surge.

An excellent observation, and also quite possibly yet another variable in the mix. Kudos for that mention!

A2K

I also agree that did make a big impact on the surge... I thought that of Ivan as well, he was Cat 5/4 as he entered the GOM.... back to back years with very powerful storms weakening a notch as they impacted the NGOM, but still carrying with them devastating storm surges.. something to remember for when the next time this happens....

[vbhoutex]

Sounds like Camille was about the size of Ivan.

Not even remotely the case... Look at the satellite imagery of both.

A2K

Even though the technology was ten years old then it was not nearly as detailed, in all aspects of it, as it is now. Thus the satellite presentation would be and was much different and for those of us looking today could/would present a different picture that imo could "mislead" us. We all know the core of Camille was indeed much smaller than Katrina's core, but I will stand by my first hand experience as far as the size of Camille.

[Derek Ortt]

The NHC was dead flat wrong regarding the size of Camielle in 1969, which is not to blame them, but an indication of the state of their science.

Satellite is not a good indicator of size at all, the wind field is the only meaningful measure since it is quantifiable. In science, things must be quantified.

Compared to Carla, Katrina and Ivan were also small hurricanes, but we know that to say Katrina and Ivan were small is absolutely moronic with what we know today

[timNms]

The NHC was dead flat wrong regarding the size of Camielle in 1969, which is not to blame them, but an indication of the state of their science.

Satellite is not a good indicator of size at all, the wind field is the only meaningful measure since it is quantifiable. In science, things must be quantified.

Compared to Carla, Katrina and Ivan were also small hurricanes, but we know that to say Katrina and Ivan were small is absolutely moronic with what we know today

When you say the NHC was dead flat wrong, what proof do you have to show that the NHC was wrong? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I would like to see what it is that causes you to say this.

[Derek Ortt]

The wind reports given by VBHoutex show that NHC was wrong with their statement that Camielle was a small, compact storm, since it matches up with other hurricanes and their sizes that are now considered large

[benny]

The NHC was dead flat wrong regarding the size of Camielle in 1969, which is not to blame them, but an indication of the state of their science.

Satellite is not a good indicator of size at all, the wind field is the only meaningful measure since it is quantifiable. In science, things must be quantified.

Compared to Carla, Katrina and Ivan were also small hurricanes, but we know that to say Katrina and Ivan were small is absolutely moronic with what we know today

Derek,
You should known better when making all these claims and not having one shred of credible evidence to back them up. Some wind estimate in Florida is very unreliable, even by the best of meteorologists.. where's the real data?

Well.. according to this report:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/li ... b/1969.pdf

Look at Page 4 in the surge/pressure curves. This figure claims that Mobile never got below about 995 mb during Camille. But from the Katrina report:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf

Mobile got down to about 983 mb (p.25) Pressures in Slidell were some 30 mb lower, with a landfall point shifted just a few miles from Camille. I think the safest thing to say is that Katrina was a gargantuan storm, while Camille was much smaller. Look at what the experts decided for impacts by state...
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist.htm

No sustained hurricane force winds were recorded in Alabama during Camille but they were in Katrina (Dauphin Island) Pascagoula MS, on the MS/AL border during Camille only had a wind gust to 81 mph (the instrument died in Katrina, though there was report of a 108 mph measured wind gust in Pascagoula at the EOC). Just a small comparison but many more can be made.

All of this information is out there on the internet to let people make their own determinations, but it seems clear after 30 min of research that anyone comparing the size of Camille to Katrina better be using terms such as "much smaller". There are many ways to determine size of a hurricane but Katrina is tops in many of them. Katrina is not "small" in any sense of the word.