Was Camille a Cat 4 at landfall?

[StormWarning1]

Right, just before landfall. The pressure could be that of a CAT 5 like you said. Katrina is the 3rd major storm to have winds less than you would expect for the measured pressure at a landfall. Dennis and Emily are the other 2.

[Derek Ortt]

at second landfall, Katrina may have been 115KT, the highest limit of cat 3, based upon some of the recorded winds in the landfall zone from Gulfport, which was not even where the eye made landfall

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I thought 115 knots=cat4?

[WeatherEmperor]

I thought 115 knots=cat4?

yes it is. according to an official conversion method from NOAA, 115knot is 132 mph which is a Cat 4.

<RICKY>

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/metcon.php

[Jim Cantore]

190mph

909mb at landfall

they couldnt of made that big a mistake (then I think of Ethel)

[Derek Ortt]

Frederic is listed as a 115KT cat 3. 115KT is used for both 130 m.p.h. and 135 m.p.h.. In this case, it is likely we had a 115KT cat 3

[seflcane]

Mr. Ortt

I've read your comments about how Camille might have been a cat4 at landfall and katrina a 3.

First I have great respect for HRD, Chris Landsea and other NHC forecasters as I email them on a regular basis.

Anyways I would like to state my own conclusions about camille.
First camille was a definate cat5 at landfall. maybe not 190 but 180 at least. There are observations ground level from eastern LA that support this as well as a few obs from the MS coast. WSR 57 radar images show the clear "donut" look we see with intense hurricanes and in this case Camille was Annular. but compact.

Onto katrina. Despite some weakening at landfall due to some drier air at landfall and a eyewall replacement cycle that was taking place Katrina was still a 145-150mph storm. yes the storm was not as organized right before landfall, but recon data from the SE quad showed a still cat4, and this was not the strongest winds remember. At and just after first landfall katrina got her eye wall structure back and was about ready to intensify again had it not run into land. there have been some photos from very SE LA and rule areas along the delta that very few people live and infact fox news was there today. There was alot of trees stripped of their leaves and buildings are twisted into peices of metal, but not alot of people live in those areas so there are not alot of buildings to study the damage from. at MS landfall I agree Katrina was stronger. I say 135-140mph based on the video I saw of the storm, and the damage to trees, houses inland or 4 story and more buildins. The wind damage is complete in alot of areas and Hugo like.

I would like to add one final note. While I dont think there is anything large scale in the northern Gulf causing weaker storms, but one theory over the last maybe 30 years or so is that with the increase population, increase in river runoff, and the LA marshes sinking that this is all increasing the cooler water under the surface in the northern Gulf. That could be reasons why we have seen powerful canes in the northern Gulf up until the late 70s. Now with all the asphault and less soil to soak up fresh water runoff it's now going into the rivers and draining into the northern Gulf. Just my 2 cents. I've mentioned this to dr. Landsea before.

[seflcane]

I happend to find a radar image of Camille on the NHC FTP site in the Camille report.

[img]ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/storm_archives/atlantic/prelimat/atl1969/camille/prelim04.gif[/img]

[Derek Ortt]

could this be great one? the language is quite similar. If not, I appologize for being mistaken

[Ivanhater]

could this be great one? the language is quite similar. If not, I appologize for being mistaken

i keep hearing about greatone, i guess he was around before my time here, or i just wasnt paying attention, he must have been a real bugger

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Mr. Ortt

I've read your comments about how Camille might have been a cat4 at landfall and katrina a 3.

First I have great respect for HRD, Chris Landsea and other NHC forecasters as I email them on a regular basis.

Anyways I would like to state my own conclusions about camille.
First camille was a definate cat5 at landfall. maybe not 190 but 180 at least. There are observations ground level from eastern LA that support this as well as a few obs from the MS coast. WSR 57 radar images show the clear "donut" look we see with intense hurricanes and in this case Camille was Annular. but compact.

Onto katrina. Despite some weakening at landfall due to some drier air at landfall and a eyewall replacement cycle that was taking place Katrina was still a 145-150mph storm. yes the storm was not as organized right before landfall, but recon data from the SE quad showed a still cat4, and this was not the strongest winds remember. At and just after first landfall katrina got her eye wall structure back and was about ready to intensify again had it not run into land. there have been some photos from very SE LA and rule areas along the delta that very few people live and infact fox news was there today. There was alot of trees stripped of their leaves and buildings are twisted into peices of metal, but not alot of people live in those areas so there are not alot of buildings to study the damage from. at MS landfall I agree Katrina was stronger. I say 135-140mph based on the video I saw of the storm, and the damage to trees, houses inland or 4 story and more buildins. The wind damage is complete in alot of areas and Hugo like.

I would like to add one final note. While I dont think there is anything large scale in the northern Gulf causing weaker storms, but one theory over the last maybe 30 years or so is that with the increase population, increase in river runoff, and the LA marshes sinking that this is all increasing the cooler water under the surface in the northern Gulf. That could be reasons why we have seen powerful canes in the northern Gulf up until the late 70s. Now with all the asphault and less soil to soak up fresh water runoff it's now going into the rivers and draining into the northern Gulf. Just my 2 cents. I've mentioned this to dr. Landsea before.

I believe that Katrina made landfall with 140 to 145 mph winds. You can clearly see that for a time it had losted its western quad. Then it wraped back around. So yes the system could of been getting its act together. The second landfall around 130 mph. The damage was caused by the surge of 175 mph monster. In Charley was 150 mph so whats 5 to 10 mph between friends. Still she was a very big hurricane.

Camille caused less surge and she did not kill thousands. Like this one just did. Yes the damage was bad but not as bad as this. So that is why people are looking into her more in thinking more inline with cat4.

[NorthGaWeather]

Mr. Ortt

I've read your comments about how Camille might have been a cat4 at landfall and katrina a 3.

First I have great respect for HRD, Chris Landsea and other NHC forecasters as I email them on a regular basis.

Anyways I would like to state my own conclusions about camille.
First camille was a definate cat5 at landfall. maybe not 190 but 180 at least. There are observations ground level from eastern LA that support this as well as a few obs from the MS coast. WSR 57 radar images show the clear "donut" look we see with intense hurricanes and in this case Camille was Annular. but compact.

Onto katrina. Despite some weakening at landfall due to some drier air at landfall and a eyewall replacement cycle that was taking place Katrina was still a 145-150mph storm. yes the storm was not as organized right before landfall, but recon data from the SE quad showed a still cat4, and this was not the strongest winds remember. At and just after first landfall katrina got her eye wall structure back and was about ready to intensify again had it not run into land. there have been some photos from very SE LA and rule areas along the delta that very few people live and infact fox news was there today. There was alot of trees stripped of their leaves and buildings are twisted into peices of metal, but not alot of people live in those areas so there are not alot of buildings to study the damage from. at MS landfall I agree Katrina was stronger. I say 135-140mph based on the video I saw of the storm, and the damage to trees, houses inland or 4 story and more buildins. The wind damage is complete in alot of areas and Hugo like.

I would like to add one final note. While I dont think there is anything large scale in the northern Gulf causing weaker storms, but one theory over the last maybe 30 years or so is that with the increase population, increase in river runoff, and the LA marshes sinking that this is all increasing the cooler water under the surface in the northern Gulf. That could be reasons why we have seen powerful canes in the northern Gulf up until the late 70s. Now with all the asphault and less soil to soak up fresh water runoff it's now going into the rivers and draining into the northern Gulf. Just my 2 cents. I've mentioned this to dr. Landsea before.

I believe that Katrina made landfall with 140 to 145 mph winds. You can clearly see that for a time it had losted its western quad. Then it wraped back around. So yes the system could of been getting its act together. The second landfall around 130 mph. The damage was caused by the surge of 175 mph monster. In Charley was 150 mph so whats 5 to 10 mph between friends. Still she was a very big hurricane.

Camille caused less surge and she did not kill thousands. Like this one just did. Yes the damage was bad but not as bad as this. So that is why people are looking into her more in thinking more inline with cat4.

Camille was also a very compact storm and did not affect as large an area. I think the damage was just as bad in some spots, but Katrina had a higher surge and likely caused more damage. Camille IMO was a Cat 5. BTW, some people are saying the wind damage didn't support it, huh? Were you there and did you evaluate the damage? If not then you have no idea.

[seflcane]

Mr. Ortt

I've read your comments about how Camille might have been a cat4 at landfall and katrina a 3.

First I have great respect for HRD, Chris Landsea and other NHC forecasters as I email them on a regular basis.

Anyways I would like to state my own conclusions about camille.
First camille was a definate cat5 at landfall. maybe not 190 but 180 at least. There are observations ground level from eastern LA that support this as well as a few obs from the MS coast. WSR 57 radar images show the clear "donut" look we see with intense hurricanes and in this case Camille was Annular. but compact.

Onto katrina. Despite some weakening at landfall due to some drier air at landfall and a eyewall replacement cycle that was taking place Katrina was still a 145-150mph storm. yes the storm was not as organized right before landfall, but recon data from the SE quad showed a still cat4, and this was not the strongest winds remember. At and just after first landfall katrina got her eye wall structure back and was about ready to intensify again had it not run into land. there have been some photos from very SE LA and rule areas along the delta that very few people live and infact fox news was there today. There was alot of trees stripped of their leaves and buildings are twisted into peices of metal, but not alot of people live in those areas so there are not alot of buildings to study the damage from. at MS landfall I agree Katrina was stronger. I say 135-140mph based on the video I saw of the storm, and the damage to trees, houses inland or 4 story and more buildins. The wind damage is complete in alot of areas and Hugo like.

I would like to add one final note. While I dont think there is anything large scale in the northern Gulf causing weaker storms, but one theory over the last maybe 30 years or so is that with the increase population, increase in river runoff, and the LA marshes sinking that this is all increasing the cooler water under the surface in the northern Gulf. That could be reasons why we have seen powerful canes in the northern Gulf up until the late 70s. Now with all the asphault and less soil to soak up fresh water runoff it's now going into the rivers and draining into the northern Gulf. Just my 2 cents. I've mentioned this to dr. Landsea before.

I believe that Katrina made landfall with 140 to 145 mph winds. You can clearly see that for a time it had losted its western quad. Then it wraped back around. So yes the system could of been getting its act together. The second landfall around 130 mph. The damage was caused by the surge of 175 mph monster. In Charley was 150 mph so whats 5 to 10 mph between friends. Still she was a very big hurricane.

Camille caused less surge and she did not kill thousands. Like this one just did. Yes the damage was bad but not as bad as this. So that is why people are looking into her more in thinking more inline with cat4.

Camille was also a very compact storm and did not affect as large an area. I think the damage was just as bad in some spots, but Katrina had a higher surge and likely caused more damage. Camille IMO was a Cat 5. BTW, some people are saying the wind damage didn't support it, huh? Were you there and did you evaluate the damage? If not then you have no idea.

Also dont forget 100 miles inland Camille brought major hurricane conditions. You dont see that often in the northern Gulf. It's not like South Florida when you got a storm liek Andrew crossing with water on both sides still feeding into the storm while it's over land. Camille is a legend herself. camille, Andrew, Labor Day storm are in a class of their own intensity wise. Katrina, Donna, Ivan. or any of them should not be in their class.

[SouthernWx]

There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of most hurricane experts that Camille was a cat-5 hurricane at time of landfall. The wind damage; even inland 25 to 50 miles was characterized by Dr Herbert Saffir as "similar to the destruction of a major tornado" in his post-storm engineering analysis. Dr Saffir and Dr Robert Simpson are the two gentleman the "Saffir-Simpson" hurricane intensity scale was named after.

You cannot compare Camille to Katrina.....they are different types of violent hurricanes. Camille was a small, compact hurricane with an eye only 11 miles in diameter at landfall.....sustained hurricane force winds at landfall only extending 45 miles from the center. That's why New Orleans escaped catastrophe in 1969 but not last Monday. At landfall, 64+ kt winds in Katrina extended over 120 miles east and over 60 miles west of the 35 mile wide eye.....was a hurricane more in the mold of Hugo or 1961's Carla; possessed a very large windfield that served to push a tremendous amount of water from the GOM into the extremely shallow waters of Mississippi Sound.

When the hurricane approached the coastline and winds shifted to south, Mississippi Sound was basically flung onshore.....and contrary to Camille, tthe massive storm surge covered a very large area. I've been looking over some preliminary tide data from WSFO Mobile, and 12'+ storm tides were measured as far west as Grand Isle....all the way eastward to near Mobile; a distance of over 125 miles. During hurricane Camille, the 12'+ atorm surge affected a much smaller area; from near Pearlington, MS to Pascagoula (and southern Plaquermines Parish, LA....from Port Sulphur southward to Burrwood).

In addition, hurricane Camille came in from the SSE.....while Katrina slammed inland directly from the south....the worst possible scenario for the Mississippi Coast. Even though Katrina was IMO a 120-125 kt cat-4 near Slidell (based on Nexrad data from KMOB), the large size and long duration of hurricane force winds "piling" offshore waters into Mississippi Sound produced IMO a record breaking storm tide level.....unlike anything ever seen before (primarily because a LARGE diameter hurricane of Katrina's intensity [927 mb] hadn't struck the Mississippi Coast in the 155 year period of record).

Looking at past history does however give us an understanding of why Katrina's surge was higher than Camille's.....even though winds were IMO 30 kts weaker (and central pressure 18 mb lower at impact). In September 1947, a very large "minimal" cat-3 hurricane approached the Mississippi-SE Louisiana coast; a former 120 kt cat-4 which devastated south Florida. As this 100 kt/ 961 mb cat-3 passed south of Mississippi before passing directly over New Orleans, a tremendous storm surge enveloped the Mississippi Coast. The tide reached 14.8' feet at Gulfport harbor.....only 5.3' lower than the 20.1' surge that hurricane Camille produced there in 1969--- even though the 1947 hurricane came in from ESE and was much weaker than either Camille or hurricane Katrina.

I've tried to warn folks the past five-plus years on this forum and others.....IF they thought hurricane Andrew was bad, just wait until a large cat-4 or 5 hurricane someday slams into and across south Florida.
The September 1926 hurricane wasn't as intense as Andrew, but I guarantee you if it were to occur in 2005.....the damage will dwarf Andrew's toll, and IMO be as bad or even worse than Katrina. Most hurricane experts realize that 35-40% of the millions living along the immediate coastline and offshore barrier islands from Key Biscayne northward into Palm Beach county failed to evacuate during Andrew. If Andrew had been the size of Katrina, the entire coastline would have been innundated by a 12-17' foot storm surge (perhaps even higher in localized areas); IMO thousands would have perished.....and the hi-rises of downtown Miami would have resembled the aftermath of an explosion afterwords.

Katrina's wrath and terrible toll should be a wake-up call for other highly populated and extremely vunerable coastal areas........Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Houston-Galveston, and the Tampa Bay region to name three (not to mention the extremely vunerable Florida Keys....where even a strong cat-3 can mean thousands being trapped and drowning). Greater New Orleans and adjacent coastal Mississippi aren't the only locations where a catastrophic death toll is possible during a landfalling major hurricane.

Anyway, back to Camille being reclassified as a cat-4. I trust Dr Landsea and other hurricane experts at AOML/HRD and NHC will utilize the same analysis and judgement as I have.....and recognize from the post-hurricane wind damage analysis of Dr Saffir and others, compact size of the windfield and core eyewall region, limited surface obs, and recon data (Camille became so intense that some military pilots REFUSED to attempt penetration of her small, violent eyewall) that Camille possessed the same intensity at landfall as 1998's hurricane Mitch (155 kt). Also, the pressure/ wind relationship of such a small, compact 909 mb hurricane gives an estimated wind speed of 150-160 kts (175-185 mph)......why such noted hurricane experts of the past as Dr Robert H. Simpson, Dr Herbert Saffir, and the late John Hope all believed Camille to be a category 5 hurricane at impact....and so do I.

Just my 0.02 cents worth....

PW

FYI.....I was just reading through a 1969 publication regarding hurricane Camille, and it mentions what I've just posted.....the radial diameter of Camille's storm surge was unusually small for a major hurricane in that area (Mississippi coast); primarily due to the small, compact size of the eye and eyewall at landfall (Monthly Weather Review).

[seflcane]

Great post Perry. Frances last year was forecasted to hit as a 140-150 mpg hurricane smack dab in the middle of SE Fl. If that was the case major hurricane conditions would have covered a very large area. the loss of life would exceed what katrina did IMO. Another worse case is a storm like the Labor day storm today moving in towards the keys. A tropical storm just 36-48 hours out and bombing into a 160 plus mile an hour cane. Florida Keys residents dont take storms that serious I think. If even half of them stayed we would see total carnage. At least with katrina in New Orleans they did not get the brunt of the winds so at least most structures were able to withstand the onslaught of the storm and the levees held up for awhile. If Katrina hit head on or as a cat5 houses would explode, the water would come in at a faster pace and people would not have time to get to their roofs, or get out. Plus the wind so strong people stuck outside would be impaled and alot more grusome.

[MWatkins]

Perry...your discussion is both detailed and comprehensive. I think you have bascially covered both the problem with the Saffir Simpson scale as well as the inherant differences between hurricanes...as well as the continued threat to our coastal communites.

Nicely done IMHO....

MW

[seflcane]

Perry...your discussion is both detailed and comprehensive. I think you have bascially covered both the problem with the Saffir Simpson scale as well as the inherant differences between hurricanes...as well as the continued threat to our coastal communites.

Nicely done IMHO....

MW

I wish someone Perry ran NHC. No offense to Max or anyone.

[camilletider]

For once we actually do have a modern example that sheds considerable light on our present topic. Camille campares VERY favorably to Andrew in many regards as a small extremely intense landfally hurricane. Although I have heard a number of figures put forth for Camille, the most authoritative and well done have her eye as being very similar to Andrew's. I have been able to campare this info as I have in my possession a large collection of reports and papers specifically on Camille from many scientific journals and publications that I have collected over the years. If Camille with its size, structure, pressure gradient, wind field studies, and other characteristics was not a Cat. 5 then it really calls into questions whether Andrew was as well, at least IMHO.

[seflcane]

For once we actually do have a modern example that sheds considerable light on our present topic. Camille campares VERY favorably to Andrew in many regards as a small extremely intense landfally hurricane. Although I have heard a number of figures put forth for Camille, the most authoritative and well done have her eye as being very similar to Andrew's. I have been able to campare this info as I have in my possession a large collection of reports and papers specifically on Camille from many scientific journals and publications that I have collected over the years. If Camille with its size, structure, pressure gradient, wind field studies, and other characteristics was not a Cat. 5 then it really calls into questions whether Andrew was as well, at least IMHO.

One of the key factors has not been brought up and that is that Camille and Andrew were both in the process of intensification at landfall as opposed to Katrina which was not. It is widely recognized that this is a considerable factor in the true intensity of the sustained wind speeds and the number and intensity of the damage causing spinups or wind swirls within the eye wall and rainbands.

do you have any of this info on your PC? If so i'll give you my email addy and you can send me it.

[camilletider]

but whatever else I have we will see what we can do. I had a complete crash a few months ago and so what I have on computer is just a little. I have some more that thank goodness was backed up on CD but most of my stuff is copied on Zerox machines in libraries from the journals so they are not on my computer in any form. I don't think I have anything on computer that you can't find in any simple Google search.

One good way to get some good stuff is to do a search on this board as there have been some great discussions about Camille with great info. Read carefully whenever you see that SOUTHERNWX is the author. He is very knowledgeble about Camille unlike some other respected mets on this board who are very sharp with contemporary storms but clearly have not done as much research on some storms past, particularly Camille. No insult intended, just making an observation. If I am wrong, I apologize.

GREAT to have you back Perry! I've missed your posts. I hope things with you and your family are well.