Was Camille 190 mph?
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
Was Camille 190 mph?
since Wilma had an 882 mb pressure smallest compact storm on record i'm her scratching my head why weren't the winds over 200 mph this thing had an eye about a mile wide
0 likes
-
Matt-hurricanewatcher
- Aslkahuna
- Professional-Met

- Posts: 4550
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Contact:
One factor, which has been discussed by NHC with regards to Wilma during the early phases of the storm is that the pressure surrounding the storm were lower than the usual climatological values for the area and time of year. This means that the gradient or difference in pressure with respect to distance is not as tight as it would be for a storm in a normal pressure regime. A certain corporate Meteorologist noth withstanding, it's GRADIENT and NOT central pressure that is most important in the development of the winds. That said, there's also a lag time in the wind catching up to the storm, they need to spinup and inertia keeps that from happening immediately. In the case of this storm, the pressure fell too fast for the winds to catch up before the windfield began to expand. Finally, the diameter of the eye is too small for the WC-130 to turn safely within it. The normal turning radius of the C-130 in a non combat (steeply banked)turn is 1.5 NM so they had to shoot across and this may affect the wind measurements. They can not do a short radius turn in proximity to the eyewall-it's too dangerous. They tried that in STY Kit in 1966 and we nearly lost an aircraft and they also tried it in STY June in 1975 and got tossed out of the eye twice.
Steve
Steve
0 likes
-
Matt-hurricanewatcher
-
soonertwister
- Category 5

- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 2:52 pm
-
Matt-hurricanewatcher
-
truballer#1
-
soonertwister
- Category 5

- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 2:52 pm
-
Mississippi Storm Magnet
- Tropical Storm

- Posts: 114
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:02 pm
- Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi
- Contact:
-
curtadams
- S2K Supporter

- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:57 pm
- Location: Orange, California
- Contact:
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:Maybe because with only 2 nmi wide eye that is almost impossible to get the highest winds. Heck they take the winds every 30 seconds...You go almost through the wind field in that time. I personally think it was closer to 190 mph...But thats my option.
Seems they adjusted for that. In the "VDM from ****" http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic ... &start=560 they reported max winds of 194 mph. That's the "max wind" which I think is a 10 second measurement. 10 seconds should be short enough to get a pretty good reading. You'll note that the 10 sec winds aren't enormously higher than the 1 min winds, so I don't think there will be all that much change within the 10 sec period.
0 likes
- wxmann_91
- Category 5

- Posts: 8013
- Age: 34
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:49 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Wilma was almost like a WPAC typhoon. The surrounding atmospheric pressures in the Caribbean were lower than normal (almost as low as the normal pressures in the WPAC), which, though allowed Wilma to break the pressure record, decreased the gradient. Had this occurred in September or August and everything else was the same, this could've easily approached the strength of Tip.
0 likes
-
Jim Cantore
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 319 guests
