Camille Thoughts based upon 1969 Report

[Derek Ortt]

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/storm_archiv ... elim06.gif

wind gusts at landfall were ESTIMATED to be 190 m.p.h. more as I find them

[jasons2k]

deleted post - thanks Derek

[Derek Ortt]

no other documentation in the report issued at the time

[dhweather]

Sadly, we'll nevere have a clue as to Camille's maximum sustained
winds. She destroyed all the instruments near her core.

[tallywx]

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/storm_archives/atlantic/prelimat/atl1969/camille/prelim06.gif

wind gusts at landfall were ESTIMATED to be 190 m.p.h. more as I find them

yes, which basically means, "take it with a grain of salt." how can one possibly estimate what 150 mph v. 190 mph looks like when one has seen neither before?

even trained NWS employees were having a hard time believing their wind gauge during the passage of Rita. Their website blog includes such comments as "we just measured a gust to 71 knots here at the office, which we still believe was on the low side of accurate" and "Speaking of max winds, the office just had a gust measured at 75 knots or 86 mph. Sure sounds a lot stronger..."

NWS Lake Charles contends that the gauge reading "had to be" a good 15-20 knots too low. we'll see what scientific tests on that gauge (which hopefully will be conducted) reveal.

if accurate, that underscores how even an 80 mph wind can be grossly overestimated if we left it to visual inspection.

[BLHutch]

I estimate that I would not want to be caught in neither 150 nor 190 mph winds.

Brady

[StormWarning1]

Derek, were the recon pressure measurements at flight level? Did they do any reduction corrections?

[Derek Ortt]

the report did not have the wind speeds from flight level

[StormWarning1]

the report did not have the wind speeds from flight level

The 5th paragraph of the article states that recon indicated a central pressure of 901mb. Anyway to know if that was a surface estimate or a flight level measuremant?

[patsmsg]

Well, The 190 mph estimate has been made by both local mets and NHC personnel who would have a reasonable knowledge of such things. It's not like it's just some idiot off of the street who made these estimates.

I think the same kind of question could be made about the readings taken in the 1935 Labor Day hurricane. What? One guy walked around with a barometer (J.E. Duane), and we take his as the official word? Seems to me the pressure could have been higher OR lower than he observed. It's ONE guy's observations. And from a guy who claims he was knocked out, and woke up the next day in a coconut tree, no less Nobody ever questions his observations?

Why is it that everytime someone questions Camille's winds, they say 190 mph "estimated" - meaning since we don't know, the winds were likely lower.

I'll go the other way. Since the winds are only estimated, they must have actually been much higher. I was there, so of course, I couldn't be wrong. Just like the guy in Miami. Better yet, good luck proving me wrong. I assume you get my point here.

To me, at least, it's obvious we'll never no for sure. We shouldn't get so hung up over these things. The damage, and loss of life are what matters, not the observed wind speeds or pressure.

[Derek Ortt]

as said in the other thread, it matters for future storms, so that a repeat of Katrina's high death toll in Mississippi because people survived Camielle does not ever happen again

[f5]

everyone thinks Camille had 190 mph "SUSTAINED" winds this report say gusts

[patsmsg]

as said in the other thread, it matters for future storms, so that a repeat of Katrina's high death toll in Mississippi because people survived Camielle does not ever happen again

I agree it would be useful to know. But we do not have the data to say definitively.

Rather than worry about that, we should focus on making sure people know that any major hurricane is capable of catastophic damage and loss of life. We all know that one storm with X-mph winds does not equal another storm with X-mph winds. The wind speed is only part of the equation, and we do not want people focusing too much on it.

The bottom line is people should leave if they are told to do so.

[jax]

everyone thinks Camille had 190 mph "SUSTAINED" winds this report say gusts

early sunday afternoon a recon plane estimated 901mb and 190 mph
winds...

[jax]

everyone thinks Camille had 190 mph "SUSTAINED" winds this report say gusts

early sunday afternoon a recon plane estimated 901mb and 190 mph
winds...

[stormspotter]

everyone thinks Camille had 190 mph "SUSTAINED" winds this report say gusts

ditto

[patsmsg]

as said in the other thread, it matters for future storms, so that a repeat of Katrina's high death toll in Mississippi because people survived Camielle does not ever happen again

Derek, not to make light of this, because of course, this IS a valid question with a reasonable goal in mind.

Still, too me, an evacuation response DETERMINED solely on wind speed is akin to somebody looking at a charging pit bull, and wanting to know whether it weighs more or less than 80 pounds before deciding whether or not to run. (It's a pit bull, you run..)

That's it. Too many posts on this from me, so I'm bowing out on this topic now.

[vbhoutex]

everyone thinks Camille had 190 mph "SUSTAINED" winds this report say gusts

And there are also reports that the instruments at Keesler AFB measured a gust to 220 mph with sustained 185 mph before it was destroyed. We could go on and on but we will never know for sure. As Derek said, one of the major points of discussions such as this and reanalysis is to be sure that in the future we know more and more about these hurricanes and their destructiveness in all aspects so we can better and better educate the public so we never see another hurricane killing over 1,000 people and doing $100's of billions in damage. There are NUMEROUS lessons to be learned from all of these discussions and the final reanalysis by the scientific community. WE MUST LEARN THOSE LESSONS AND EDUCATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABOUT THEM if we don't want to repeat history again.

[jasons2k]

I'm afraid no matter what there will be many more storms with damages of $100B plus. That's virtually unpreventable.

However, hopefully the death tolls will be lower.

[stormspotter]

Not sure what I'm missing here in this thread, afterall we all know what caused the death of a 1000 or more people from Katrina. STORM SURGE and
FLOODING the two major killers of hurricanes.