Most Costly Storms in USA

[NC George]

here we go again with the camille was or wasn't a 5 discussion....

Well, I'm going to use the NFL replay method of logic here. It's a declared 5 (right now.) Until we get some conclusive evidence it wasn't - it was a 5 in my book.

[Coredesat]

Hey, Iniki should be in there from 1992. It caused $3.5 billion in damage (2005 USD), even if it only hit Hawaii. Hawaii is part of the U.S. and the list is costliest U.S. strikes.

It should. It'd be more than Juan but less than Isabel.

[NC George]

Georges, we dont know if Camielle was a 5 for sure. The method to determine the 5 in 1969 was not all that good

And I'm not French, so don't put an 'S' on the end of my name.

[Lindaloo]

I think SE Louisiana at the mouth, may be likely, if its a large storm, moving at 310, and movign at 15KT or faster (an Andrew-like storm, moving at a slightly more northerly angle)

Georges, we dont know if Camielle was a 5 for sure. The method to determine the 5 in 1969 was not all that good

Derek, how do we know for sure Andrew was a 5? They kept saying 4, 4, 4 then 10 years later he was a 5. It has been 36 years since Camille. How do we know Katrina wasn't really a 5? Katrina did the same thing Camille did only over a much broader area. Now people think Camille was not a 5 because Katrina was a 3 with an enormous surge. Come on.

[Derek Ortt]

we are more certian that Andrew was a 5 because we know that the method used in 1992 was downright wrong. They assumed that 1500 feet winds were equal to surface winds, and 700mb winds were about 20% higher than surface winds. We now know that this was total bunk (and Klaus likely will lose hurricane status, since it was called a cane due to 70KT winds at 1500 feet... we now know that the winds were likely closer to 55KT)

we know that Camielle was not a 5, as the values used during the advisories were 90% of FL winds. However, dropsondes showed that the normal 90% reduction did not apply, as is often the case for weakening systems (and in some intensifying systems like Charley at Cuba, the surface winds are actually higher than FL winds)

[Lindaloo]

we are more certian that Andrew was a 5 because we know that the method used in 1992 was downright wrong. They assumed that 1500 feet winds were equal to surface winds, and 700mb winds were about 20% higher than surface winds. We now know that this was total bunk (and Klaus likely will lose hurricane status, since it was called a cane due to 70KT winds at 1500 feet... we now know that the winds were likely closer to 55KT)

we know that Camielle was not a 5, as the values used during the advisories were 90% of FL winds. However, dropsondes showed that the normal 90% reduction did not apply, as is often the case for weakening systems (and in some intensifying systems like Charley at Cuba, the surface winds are actually higher than FL winds)

Now you know Camille was not a 5? Until I see some pure evidence (and the jury is still out) not speculation, then Camille was a 5. You ought to come talk to the baby boomers that rode out Camille in 1969 that were not on the beachfront.

[MiamiensisWx]

Now you know Camille was not a 5? Until I see some pure evidence (and the jury is still out) not speculation, then Camille was a 5. You ought to come talk to the baby boomers that rode out Camille in 1969 that were not on the beachfront.

It's not quite speculation, actually. It's more like an educated guess. However, most can agree that Camille was either a middle to high-end Category Four or Category Five at landfall. If it happens that Camille was not a Category Five at landfall, it was still likely AT LEAST a middle to high-end Category Four. Take it in a positive way. We are all not perfect; after all, we are all learning here! This is just my two cents worth... you can disagree if you like.

[Lindaloo]

He said he KNOWS for sure Camille was not a 5. Speculation is the key word.

[MGC]

If Camille was weakening, than what do you estimate the CP was at peak intensity? Remember, 909mb was observed in Bay St. Louis in Camille. Since there were no penetrations since the 902mb CP was observed, is it not resonable to assume that Camille bottomed out well below 902mb while still in the central GOM over the warm loop current? The oceananic heat content is sufficient to support a small Cat-5 since it was sufficent to support a large Cat-5 Katrina just until landfall. If Camille was indeed weakening at a rate simular to Ivan's and Katrina's decay than how can we speculate about Camille's CP? Katrina weakened a good 9mb in the last 4 hours prior to landfall in Mississippi. If that decay rate is applied to Camille than it is possible that Camille was a sub 900mb hurricane just off the Louisiana coast. Camille did in fact pass over the Chandeleur Islands several hours before Mississippi landfall. Another argument to support a Cat-5 is eye diameter. Camille eye was on the order of 10-12 miles in diameter, not the 30 miles of Katrina or the 40 of Wilma in Fla. A smaller eye would suggest higher winds as most hurricanes I have observed in the past that have small eyes have higher winds than a larger eye hurricane with a identical CP......MGC

[NC George]

)we know that Camielle was not a 5, as the values used during the advisories were 90% of FL winds. However, dropsondes showed that the normal 90% reduction did not apply, as is often the case for weakening systems (and in some intensifying systems like Charley at Cuba, the surface winds are actually higher than FL winds)

This statement contradicts itself, Derek. If the values used were 90% of FL winds, and you state that dropsondes show the normal 90% reduction does not apply, then the windspeed would have been understated, not overstated (unless you are saying the FL wind multiplier is less than .9)

[Derek Ortt]

dropsondes ahve showed that over areas of lower heat content, the FL multiplier is less than .9 and over warmer regions, it is above .9. When Bret crossed the warm eddy, the multiplier was something like 1.15. The range is .6-1.2, depending upon boundary layer structure and heat content (Isabel was on the low end)

never said I knew 100% sure Camielle was not a 5, though if I had to bet the farm on its intensity, I would go with a cat 4

It is possible that Camielle could have been sub 900 at peak. Smaller systems start to weaken faster than do larger ones, and Camielle was partially over SE Louisiana on its final approach to MS

[x-y-no]

Level of coastal development has a lot to do with the bias to recent years. If the 1926 Miami storm (which ranks #30 on the official list) had struck the same place this year, it would easily be #1 - even over Katrina.

No. The 1926 storm would've been a toss-up when compared to Katrina. Katrina had a significantly larger economic impact versus the 1926 storm and the estimates for both range from 80-100 billion.

Well, we can argue over what the damage of the '26 storm would have been today - I think it would have been a higher dollar damage than Katrina (remember, the '26 storm hit the Gulf coast too). But even if it's a "toss-up" as you say, that still supports my basic point of a bias towards more recent storms in these rankings due to increased coastal development. Even by your reconing, the '26 storm moves from #30 to a virtual tie for #1 - the only difference being the amount of development then vs. now.

However, the fact that Katrina equals or exceeds all the storms of the last 100 years, even considering build-up and inflation makes her all the more astounding and unique.

I don't think I said anything to contradict this.

[NC George]

dropsondes ahve showed that over areas of lower heat content, the FL multiplier is less than .9 and over warmer regions, it is above .9. When Bret crossed the warm eddy, the multiplier was something like 1.15. The range is .6-1.2, depending upon boundary layer structure and heat content (Isabel was on the low end)

never said I knew 100% sure Camielle was not a 5, though if I had to bet the farm on its intensity, I would go with a cat 4

It is possible that Camielle could have been sub 900 at peak. Smaller systems start to weaken faster than do larger ones, and Camielle was partially over SE Louisiana on its final approach to MS

Thanks for the clarification! Although with a spread like that it seems to me that the FL winds are NOT a good predictor of GL winds (if the multiplier can vary by a factor of 2.)

[quandary]

Even though there is obviously a bias towards recent storms, the fact that 4 of the top 5 storms have come in the past 2 years (and none in the 10 year period from 1993 onward) is astounding. Remember that 1995-2003 less 1997 have all been extremely active, yet nothing too terrible happened then. Then, in 2 years, BAM.

[Ixolib]

Some posters tend to cheer for their hurricane in their region. I guess it is a territorial thing common in the male of the species. Like no cat-5 is capable of hitting the NGOM coast only S FLA type post I've read here.......MGC

[Lindaloo]

Some posters tend to cheer for their hurricane in their region. I guess it is a territorial thing common in the male of the species. Like no cat-5 is capable of hitting the NGOM coast only S FLA type post I've read here.......MGC

I missed that one.

[Pearl River]

Dr Bob Sheets wrote in his book Hurricane Watch that the Weather Bureau back then did not like to give wind speed and surge numbers. Dr Simpson broke that rule when he received the report from the aircraft that Camille's pressure had dropped to 26.61. Unfortunately we may never know the true wind speed of Camille since the hunter aircraft had mechanical problems that morning and no other flights went into Camille prior to landfall. So if thats the case, then leave Camille a cat 5.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Some posters tend to cheer for their hurricane in their region. I guess it is a territorial thing common in the male of the species. Like no cat-5 is capable of hitting the NGOM coast only S FLA type post I've read here.......MGC

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Derek knows what he is talking about...The data was not that good back in 1969. It made storms way to power then they where. Camille could be getting down graded soon.

[Lindaloo]

Derek knows what he is talking about...The data was not that good back in 1969. It made storms way to power then they where. Camille could be getting down graded soon.

Don't bank on it.