Camille Thoughts based upon 1969 Report

[timNms]

36 years after Camille, there were some who stayed to ride out Katrina. Why? Because Camille set the bar along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
I think the lesson here is never underestimate what a hurricane can do. Unfortunately, in years to come, some will forget the lessons learned in Katrina and the death and destruction will be repeated.

[jasons2k]

36 years after Camille, there were some who stayed to ride out Katrina. Why? Because Camille set the bar along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
I think the lesson here is never underestimate what a hurricane can do. Unfortunately, in years to come, some will forget the lessons learned in Katrina and the death and destruction will be repeated.

Exactly. I have stated this in a few threads. That's also why it's imperative that the intensity issue is resolved. If Katrina 'sets the bar' by being classified as a Cat. 5, then what happens next time a true Cat. 5 comes barreling in?

[MGC]

I've heard this a thousand times down here on the coast..."never thought it would be worst than Camille." I finally had a cry today, eating at the "tent" in Pass Christian. I guess seeing the destruction once too many times pushed me over the edge......MGC

[timNms]

36 years after Camille, there were some who stayed to ride out Katrina. Why? Because Camille set the bar along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
I think the lesson here is never underestimate what a hurricane can do. Unfortunately, in years to come, some will forget the lessons learned in Katrina and the death and destruction will be repeated.

Exactly. I have stated this in a few threads. That's also why it's imperative that the intensity issue is resolved. If Katrina 'sets the bar' by being classified as a Cat. 5, then what happens next time a true Cat. 5 comes barreling in?

I understand your point. It is my opinion that the scale be revised to take into account storm surge as well as wind speed. In this instance, people would have a better understanding (or forewarning) of impending doom.

Of course, if I lived along the coast, I wouldn't have to be asked to evacuate. Tropical storm watch and I'd be gone to Jackson Hurricane warning and look out Canada, here I come!

[Lindaloo]

I've heard this a thousand times down here on the coast..."never thought it would be worst than Camille." I finally had a cry today, eating at the "tent" in Pass Christian. I guess seeing the destruction once too many times pushed me over the edge......MGC

((HUGS)) I know what you are going through. It is going to be a long tough road, but we will be back.

[Ixolib]

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

As many other posters in this thread have said, we SHOULD be concentrating on the effects of "storm surge" as opposed to sustained wind speeds and/or gusts. As with any other hurricane, surge is the overwhelmingly primary killer just as it was in both Camille and Katrina - not the wind.

The lessons to be learned are based in the understanding and communication of how, why, when, and where a strom forms its surge - even when hundreds of miles from the coast - and then maintains that surge all the way to the coastline. Certainly Katrina's winds were diminshed at landfall, but her surge certainly was not. Once we not only understand that phemonena, but also completely educate the public, then the use of historical data for future reference will have a true impact and a viable use.

[weunice]

I mentioned elsewhere that I read a book where they discussed the recon flight where they estimated the 190 for Camille. Apparently the water on the surface had gathered into deep furrows which was something nobody on the flight had ever seen before. It mentioned how they had training material used to help them estimate wind speeds based on a visual look at the surface and 150 was the tops in the manual. Now having no clue what happens on those flights and whether such techniques are even employed today my question would simply be has anyone seen the type "furrows" they referred to in storms since? (namely the recent Cat 5's)

[JM892]

Hello, everyone. I think I can provide some information about Camille's peak and landfall intensities. After Camille devastated the Mississippi coast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a comprehensive survey. Their report, including photographs, diagrams, inundation maps, etc., was released in May 1970. Here is a link to a PDF copy (8.57 MB). Unfortunately, the quality of the PDF leaves much to be desired.

http://www3.csc.noaa.gov/hes_docs/postS ... AMILLE.pdf

And here are a few excerpts. Note that the page numbers I'm giving are for the PDF file, not the page numbers printed on the report's pages.

Early Sunday afternoon, the last reconnaissance flight was made and the crew of this flight recorded a central pressure of 26.61 inches and clocked maximum winds at more than 200 m.p.h. near the center. Hurricane force winds extended out 60 miles from the center and gales outward about 180 miles. The storm was now at its peak and located less than 100 miles from the mouth of the Mississippi River. By 7 o'clock Sunday night, Camille was 60 miles south of Gulfport, moving north-northwest about 15 m.p.h. and expected to move inland near Gulfport that evening. (pp. 12-13)

Based on observed winds at reconnaissance flight level and measured surface pressure, the U. S. Weather Bureau calculated maximum surface winds at 201.5 m.p.h. close to the center early in the afternoon of 17 August. At this time the storm was centered about 140 miles southeast of New Orleans. The calculation represents the maximum winds ever observed in a hurricane and based on something more than pure estimation (ESSA's Climatological Data, National Summary, Vol. 20, No. 8, 1969).

The highest wind speed actually measured was recorded on an Easterline Angus wind speed recorder on a Transworld Drilling Company rig in the Gulf of Mexico 15 miles east of Camille's path. Extreme gusts of 172 m.p.h. were recorded before the paper jammed and the trace was lost. At Boothville, Louisiana, the Weather Bureau office reported gusts of 107 m.p.h. at 7 PM Sunday, before power failure.

Accurate wind measurements were almost impossible to obtain at landfall due to Camille's intensity. Highest winds near the center were estimated at 160 m.p.h. with gusts to 190 m.p.h. An Air National Guard Weather Flight stationed at Gulfport Municipal Airport estimated sustained winds in excess of 100 m.p.h. and gusts of 150-175 m.p.h. Keesler Air Force Base at Biloxi measured winds at 81 m.p.h. with gusts to 129 m.p.h. The Mississippi Test Facility near Picayune estimated sustained winds of 140 m.p.h. and gusts to 160 m.p.h. At New Orleans, winds ranged from 42 to 64 m.p.h. with maximum gusts to 85 m.p.h. At Slidell, Louisiana, the maximum sustained winds were estimated at 125 m.p.h. with peak gusts to 160 m.p.h. (pp. 20, 22)

So, according to the Corp of Engineers' official 1970 report, Camille's estimated maximum sustained winds at landfall were only 5 m.p.h. above the category 5 threshold. Unfortunately, in the 35 years since then, the 190-200 mph figure has been repeated over and over again in books, articles, TV stories, etc., giving people an exaggerated idea of Camille's intensity at landfall. Perhaps if Mississippi residents had known this more realistic estimate, they would have evacuated, instead of staying in Katrina's path.

By the way, a wind field map on page 21 of the PDF shows a maximum wind speed of "175 mph," but given the figures quoted above, that seems to be a simple average of the maximum sustained winds and gusts:

160 + 190 = 350
350/2 = 175

[Normandy]

Hmmm....Katrina drops from 175 into the 130-140 range....Camille drops from the 190 range to 160....seems right (all northern gulf hurricane weaken a lot before landfall).

[JM892]

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....

Those figures wouldn't have come from an official report. As I quoted above from the Army Corps of Engineers report, "Keesler Air Force Base at Biloxi measured winds at 81 m.p.h. with gusts to 129 m.p.h."

And the instruments at Keesler weren't destroyed. If you look at page 104 of the PDF I linked to, you'll see an uninterrupted trace of Keesler's anemometer during Camille's passage.

[JM892]

Hmmm....Katrina drops from 175 into the 130-140 range....Camille drops from the 190 range to 160....seems right (all northern gulf hurricane weaken a lot before landfall).

It's interesting you said that. When Katrina was at its peak the day before landfall, I was talking about her with a few family members, and I told them that, according to the Corps of Engineers report, which I'd come across and read a few weeks earlier, Camille had weakened from a peak of about 200 mph to 160. "Hopefully," I said to them, "Katrina will also weaken 40 mph from her peak of 175."

As we know, Katrina's winds did weaken about that much, but that didn't prevent the devasting storm surge.

[Normandy]

Hmmm....Katrina drops from 175 into the 130-140 range....Camille drops from the 190 range to 160....seems right (all northern gulf hurricane weaken a lot before landfall).

It's interesting you said that. When Katrina was at its peak the day before landfall, I was talking about her with a few family members, and I told them that, according to the Corps of Engineers report, which I'd come across and read a few weeks earlier, Camille had weakened from a peak of about 200 mph to 160. "Hopefully," I said to them, "Katrina will also weaken 40 mph from her peak of 175."

As we know, Katrina's winds did weaken about that much, but that didn't prevent the devasting storm surge.

Do u have an idea of the flight level winds measured in Camille? id wonder to know what they were so maybe we could use the modern reduction factor.

[JM892]

Well, the first excerpt I gave from the report said that the last recon flight "clocked maximum winds at more than 200 m.p.h. near the center." Exactly how much more I don't know. This article that ran in "The Clarion Ledger" last year to mark the 35th anniversary of Camille might give us some idea. It states that Camille had "registered wind gusts of up to 253 mph." If that figure is true, those gusts must have been measured by a recon plane. (No instrument on the ground recorded them.) Of course, the maximum sustained winds would have been much less than that.

By the way, aircraft reconnaissance was fairly sophisticated, even in the 1960s. Planes were equipped with doppler radars and dropsondes were already used back then to measure temperature, relative humidity, and pressure down to the surface.