Great Thread: Truly Learning About Storms (EDITED)

[MiamiensisWx]

Well I for one am CERTAINLY glad that certain people in this thread have the credentials to judge wind damage and strength of hurricanes!

People, for crying out loud. First off, remember Camille was much smaller than Katrina. Example: Ivan and Dennis were nearly the same strength and hit almost the same location, but Dennis did not cause as much damage. Why? Dennis was much smaller and moving much faster than Ivan.

Secondly just because the MAJORITY of systems weaken at landfall along the N GOM in what I would like to call "exceptionally good timing and placement of dry air and wind shear with respect to latitude and the coastline" does NOT mean that EVERY single one will.

I am greatly afraid that this mindset will continue and one day one will NOT weaken at landfall, and many deaths will occur. Please, for the love of God, get that idea out of your mind and analyze data as it comes in.


/rant

Just because I think Camille was less intense than thought does not mean I think weakening storms or Category Three or Category Four storms are "weak". I think COMPLETELY the opposite.

What a way to twist my words. Try reading EVERYTHING I said in my post in a more CAREFUL manner.

[MiamiensisWx]

Why can't people accept the fact that Camille was a CAT5?

Well said doctorhurricane!

Well, there are many people who won't accept the fact that Wilma was a Category Two - not a Category Three - when it moved over southeastern Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties).

Also, just because I said Camille was less intense I am in NO MEANS WHATSOEVER implying that Camille (or ANY hurricane, regardless of wind intensity) is a "wimp". I don't think like that. I think completely the opposite. Try to read my post more carefully, OK?

Even Category Three hurricanes can have immensely powerful gusts (e.g., microbursts or small tornadoes).

[MiamiensisWx]

I have one more thing to add, in regards to pressure... Katrina is estimated to have been a strong Category Three or low-end to moderate Category Four (NONE of this is laughing matter and neither of these categories are even the slightest bit close to "weak") and still had a low pressure estimated at 918 millibars at landfall.

SUMMARY: NO HURRICANE IS WEAK. JUST LOW-END. HOWEVER, I STILL DO NOT THINK CAMILLE WAS A CATEGORY FIVE AT LANDFALL.

[DoctorHurricane2003]

I did read your post, I am not just talking to you, and I don't really care if it is a 1, 2, 3, or 4. If people (general American public) hear that storms always weaken before landfal, many will become complacent due to that keyword "weaken." There is no rebutting that. Perhaps you should read more carefully yourself, as you twisted my words in the way that you described that I "twisted your words" when in fact I did not because I was talking to more than one person.

Now can we please stop having this same exact discussion every other week which inevitably leads to 1 or more threads locked?

[m_ru]

I have to stick with the data and my family members who went through both Katrina and Camille and say that Camille was a 5.

[Lindaloo]

Why can't people accept the fact that Camille was a CAT5?

Well said doctorhurricane!

Well, there are many people who won't accept the fact that Wilma was a Category Two - not a Category Three - when it moved over southeastern Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties).

Also, just because I said Camille was less intense I am in NO MEANS WHATSOEVER implying that Camille (or ANY hurricane, regardless of wind intensity) is a "wimp". I don't think like that. I think completely the opposite. Try to read my post more carefully, OK?

Even Category Three hurricanes can have immensely powerful gusts (e.g., microbursts or small tornadoes).

After going through Katrina I am now a firm believer and am not going to compare this storm to that storm. Data does not lie. I was not in Wilma but I can just about bet you she was a bad one. A hurricane is a hurricane. They are all bad news from CAT1 to CAT5.

[rtd2]

I have one more thing to add, in regards to pressure... Katrina is estimated to have been a strong Category Three or low-end to moderate Category Four (NONE of this is laughing matter and neither of these categories are even the slightest bit close to "weak") and still had a low pressure estimated at 918 millibars at landfall.

SUMMARY: NO HURRICANE IS WEAK. JUST LOW-END. HOWEVER, I STILL DO NOT THINK CAMILLE WAS A CATEGORY FIVE AT LANDFALL.

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR THOUGHT. And so does the DATA!

http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hu ... amille.htm


Important FACTS from the Site above "A Transworld oil rig platform tower that was abandoned as the hurricane approached, recorded gusts to 172 mph until failure. It has been estimated that from Biloxi to Gulfport, wind gusts were in excess of 180 mph, while from Long Beach to Waveland, winds likely exceeded 200 mph.


I LIVED through both and they Both were horrific.... Katrina was worse as far as storm surge and Area of damage (From mobile to N.O.) The most Amazing thing I remeber about Katrina was the 34MB drop in pressure in a Mere 11 hours! There was a comparison chart in the local paper recently (sunherald) that should Katrina's Hurricane force winds extended out twice as for as camille, ect. That said Believe Camille had Cat 5 winds/surge at Landfall in a tight 15-20 mile Eyewall BUT Katrina was stronger on the and storm surge factors NEITHER I hope the like of I see AGAIN! On a Side note the Outpour of help form Everyday citizens and Churchs have been AWESOME! My damages were minimal, but my parents Had 4 ft of water in ther home BTW they Live in Zone C and of course have No flood insurance but with My labor and the small amout of Insurance money (From roof) and Blessing from fema of 12,500 structure and 5,200 contents my parents will move in this weekend and there home is 99% complete! and I'm Tired! Thanks all
ALSO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_ ... ississippi

[curtadams]

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR THOUGHT. And so does the DATA!

http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hu ... amille.htm

Important FACTS from the Site above "A Transworld oil rig platform tower that was abandoned as the hurricane approached, recorded gusts to 172 mph until failure. It has been estimated that from Biloxi to Gulfport, wind gusts were in excess of 180 mph, while from Long Beach to Waveland, winds likely exceeded 200 mph.

Read your own words. You provide no *facts* to support Camille as a Cat 5 at landfall. A gust of 172 at sea doesn't prove Cat 5 status even at sea, never mind later at landfall. The other claims are - note the wording! - "estimated" and "likely". IE, not facts, opinions.

[senorpepr]

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR THOUGHT. And so does the DATA!

http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hu ... amille.htm

Important FACTS from the Site above "A Transworld oil rig platform tower that was abandoned as the hurricane approached, recorded gusts to 172 mph until failure. It has been estimated that from Biloxi to Gulfport, wind gusts were in excess of 180 mph, while from Long Beach to Waveland, winds likely exceeded 200 mph.

Read your own words. You provide no *facts* to support Camille as a Cat 5 at landfall. A gust of 172 at sea doesn't prove Cat 5 status even at sea, never mind later at landfall. The other claims are - note the wording! - "estimated" and "likely". IE, not facts, opinions.

Without jumping into the "Camille: Cat 5 or not" debate, I will say that 170-180 mph gusts, especially on land, does not prove category 5 sustained winds. In fact, 170-180 mph gusts are typical of a category 4. With that said, I must repeat that I am not endorsing either arguement. I have not looked through enough of the data to make such a claim.

[vbhoutex]

I saw the aftermath of Camille, up close and personal. The description of CAT5 destruction by wind is what I saw and I do know the difference between surge damage and wind damage!! I can not believe some people come into a weather forum and question hard data because they have seen pictures.

[Derek Ortt]

what areas had the cat 5 winds?

I am wondering this because in Andrew, most of the devastated area did NOT receive cat 5 winds (except for extreme eastern parts of Homestead and very low end at that, most received cat 4 winds)


that said, finding out the exact intensity of Camielle is extremely important and requires slosh simulations, along with extensive recon analysis based upon today's methods. We need to know this so that when the enxt cat 3 or 4 approaches MS, we can accurately compare it to Camielle and Katrina, so that the mistakes of Katrina are not repeated.

Also, regarding the size... Camielle was said to be small only when compared to storms such as Carla. By the same standard, Katrina was small in size when compared to Wilma, and Katrina was definately not a small hurricane by any stretch of the imagination at all

[Air Force Met]

And so does the DATA!

Important FACTS from the Site above "A Transworld oil rig platform tower that was abandoned as the hurricane approached, recorded gusts to 172 mph until failure. It has been estimated that from Biloxi to Gulfport, wind gusts were in excess of 180 mph, while from Long Beach to Waveland, winds likely exceeded 200 mph.
i

That data actually would not prove a Cat 5 because land gusts can be as much as 50% over the sustained.,,which mean you can have sustained ay 150 gust 200. That's a cat 4...

[Air Force Met]

I have to stick with the data and my family members who went through both Katrina and Camille and say that Camille was a 5.

Well...no offense...but unless your family members are trained mets with equipment...there's no WAY they can honestly make an estimate that's accurate so that's not something that should carry any weight at all in a discussion. I am a trained observer with almost 20 years experience of observing and forecasting weather (still observe on occasion to keep current) and without equipment there is no way I could tell the difference between Cat 3 sustained winds and cat 5 sustained winds from observing them with my eyes. It's not possible to experience a storm and say "well...that was 120 mph sustained....wait...now it's 160 mph". Trust me.

As for the data...that's the debate...and I still think it show's a cat 5...althought not a 190 mph Cat 5...a "weaker" cat 5...but when you are a Cat 5...it doesn't really matter.

[Ixolib]

Well, having experienced both first-hand, I can surely say that the winds in Katrina were NOT nearly as extreme as those I experienced in Camille - and I was in the exact same location for both. In fact, throughout the early morning hours of August 29, I kept telling my family members who evacuated to MY house that the winds are "not that bad". Imagine my surprise just a short time later when the surge quite unexpectedly came into my home!!!!!!!!!!! To my untrained mind, that just did not make sense.

To sum it up, Camille's winds were much higher with no surge here in my house in Biloxi. Katrina's winds were noticeably lower, with 3 feet of surge in my house. Strange indeed.

As the story goes, Camille killed more people on August 29, 2005 than she did on August 17, 1969...

[WindRunner]

One point I see that has not been brought up is the inaccuracy of instruments at such high wind speeds. Today, and even more so in the 60s, there are very few pieces of equipment that can survive such winds, and if they do, accuracy cannot be assured at such speeds. It's possible that the data could be either lower or higher than what really occured, and we'll never know if the data was inaccurate, how inaccurate the data was, or if Camille was truly a 5. The re-analysis will come, and they'll say what makes the most sense after everything is analyzed, and whether they say it's a 5 or not, the truth is that we will never be 100% sure either way.

[terstorm1012]

I don't agree...It is entirely possible that those buildings that remained standing were well constructed.

Even with Andrew, there were areas that had "superficial" damage and others that were completely destroyed. My uncles house for all intents and purposes should be gone but stood up and kept most of its roof. Storm surge was a different story.....but the house stood that too.

[curtadams]

The re-analysis will come, and they'll say what makes the most sense after everything is analyzed, and whether they say it's a 5 or not, the truth is that we will never be 100% sure either way.

Remember that statement. These hurricanes are all unique, and they all vary drastically both spatially and temporally - especially during landfall, which is when we most care. We take a few measurements here and there but it's basically the blind men and the elephant.

[Lindaloo]

I don't agree...It is entirely possible that those buildings that remained standing were well constructed.

Even with Andrew, there were areas that had "superficial" damage and others that were completely destroyed. My uncles house for all intents and purposes should be gone but stood up and kept most of its roof. Storm surge was a different story.....but the house stood that too.

Not necessarily. First Baptist Church in Gulfport managed to survive Camille. The Church was destroyed by Katrina.

[Air Force Met]

Well, having experienced both first-hand, I can surely say that the winds in Katrina were NOT nearly as extreme as those I experienced in Camille - and I was in the exact same location for both.

I understand that. I'm just making a point that one can't tell the difference between Cat 3 or 4 sustained winds and Cat5 sustained winds. Your overall experience can certainly be judged...but nobody can say that something is a 125 mph sustained and another is 160 with certainty...and noone can certainly say that one wind is 140 and another is 160...just ont possible unless you have equipment. The main reason is you aren't looking outside at the stuff blowing around...but trying to save your life and hiding under something.

[Lindaloo]

Why all of a sudden are people questioning Camille? Why are people not questioning Andrew? We all know the homes in that area hit by Andrew were not up to code. The Discovery Channel and Investigative Reports both ran segments about it.