Camille not a cat-5 at Mississippi landfall???

[Derek Ortt]

so are the reports in Pensacola wrong?

My statement was based entirely upon the recon wind radii, as well as the report from Pensacola. Now, if the winds were not as high as David suggested, then the statement will be re-evaluated

Nowever, hurricane winds extending out 60NM from the center based upon recon is not a small hurricane at all

As for Katrina being small, I said that WITH RESPECT to the other hurricanes, which have been much larger and occupied a much larger portion of the GOM (as WXman57 has reported many times here, that Carla was significantly larger than Katrina, and I'll accept what he has said as he's doing a project on hurricane sizes and intensities to determine damage potential)

[benny]

I don't know anything about the reports in Pensacola, but if they were just estimates, they are laced with error. The only official report in the paper is PNS NAS which reported a wind gust to 71 mph. Maybe there are some later obs that didn't make it in the paper?

In any event, size is one of those difficult things to measure as everywhere has a different way of looking at it. Some people like radius of 34 kt winds. Others like the hurricane force winds. Some use the radius of the outermost closed isobar. It is best to say what qualification anyone is looking at in terms of size to help others figure out what their metrics are.

[f5]

what made the surge so bad was those 175 mph winds Katrina had was acting like a bulldozer pushing the water into one spot

[Audrey2Katrina]

Even though the technology was ten years old then it was not nearly as detailed, in all aspects of it, as it is now. Thus the satellite presentation would be and was much different and for those of us looking today could/would present a different picture that imo could "mislead" us. We all know the core of Camille was indeed much smaller than Katrina's core, but I will stand by my first hand experience as far as the size of Camille.

You bring a valid point, David. And I fully recognize you "personal experience", sadly that is the one thing that whenever others bring it up, have it shoved in their faces bye the "experts" who "know better" because of all their remote sensing data, or limited data, or anything but in-situ data. There is a MAJOR difference in simply expressing that you disagree with someone's findings, such as you are much more objectively doing here, and exhibiting colossal hubris in declaring that no matter what you experience, no matter what other opinions exist, "I'm right, and you're wrong!" ... Your point is well taken, and I agree that just about anything's possible within a restricted locale where these things make landfall...and remind all that Camille also made landfall well EAST (i.e. closer to Florida) of where Katrina did.

A2K

[Frank P]

Even though the technology was ten years old then it was not nearly as detailed, in all aspects of it, as it is now. Thus the satellite presentation would be and was much different and for those of us looking today could/would present a different picture that imo could "mislead" us. We all know the core of Camille was indeed much smaller than Katrina's core, but I will stand by my first hand experience as far as the size of Camille.

You bring a valid point, David. And I fully recognize you "personal experience", sadly that is the one thing that whenever others bring it up, have it shoved in their faces bye the "experts" who "know better" because of all their remote sensing data, or limited data, or anything but in-situ data. There is a MAJOR difference in simply expressing that you disagree with someone's findings, such as you are much more objectively doing here, and exhibiting colossal hubris in declaring that no matter what you experience, no matter what other opinions exist, "I'm right, and you're wrong!" ... Your point is well taken, and I agree that just about anything's possible within a restricted locale where these things make landfall...and remind all that Camille also made landfall well EAST (i.e. closer to Florida) of where Katrina did.

A2K

I'm not sure if I understand your last sentence A2K... Camille and Katrina made landfall in almost the exact locations... However Katrina's eye wall was SO MUCH BIGGER in diameter than Camilles

[Derek Ortt]

people also have to understand that the scientists can ONLY go upon the hard data. Personal accounts should only be used when there is nothing else to go by.

This is not an insult to those who went through something. Instead, the scneitists are trying their very best to explain the event, and some of the attitudes ehre are to be honest, extremely frustrating and have led me to question, why bother?

[Audrey2Katrina]

The wind reports given by VBHoutex show that NHC was wrong with their statement that Camielle was a small, compact storm, since it matches up with other hurricanes and their sizes that are now considered large

Whoa! wait, now have we suddenly had an epiphany?

What wind reports are you talking about?

All I saw David post was his expression of what he "personally" seems to have experienced! I saw him describing strong winds and "reports" of gusts up to 100 from a storm nearly 20 miles EAST from where Katrina made landfall -- no "official" data whatsoever was provided--which doesn't bother me; BUT. Are you now going to lend credence to to an "unofficial" personal account, when in the past, if anyone tendered personal experience you sloughed it of with little more than contempt and the product of an imagination that always tends to exaggerate "their" storms. I have no problems with his report or experience, which is consistent with my views all along--but for YOU to suddenly cite someone's personal experience as some sort of "proof" that the NHC must have made a mistake--in fact been "dead flat wrong"... is so out of character that I am positively stunned.

Well, I'm glad you came around to our side, because >I< think the NHC got it dead-flat wrong on Katrina!

Welcome to the club!

A2K

[Derek Ortt]

which is why I asked for the official wind obs to verify his statements

Now, even if the reports were 71 m.p.h. at peak... according to the NHC's report on Katrina (of which there is no question regarding its reliability... maybe in 35 years), hurricane force winds also did not reach Pensacola. The highest gust at NAS was 62KT, or about the same as experienced in Katrina per Benny's post

The TS wind radii appears to have been about the same, only leaving the question of the hurricane wind radii

[Audrey2Katrina]

Compared to Carla, Katrina and Ivan were also small hurricanes,

Please provide me some "official" documentation (aside from the opinions of Wxman57 with whom I've already had this discussion, and found to be a respected difference of opinions on something for which there clearly isn't enough verifiable data).... I've asked you to provide data from an official site before and you have yet to do so. Please show me just ONE place where an official NHC/TPC site (or NOAA) has said that Katrina was a "small" hurricane by comparison to Carla.... I've found a few calling it one of the "largest" to strike the US mainland--but not a single one showing it "small" compared to any of them-- please give us just one verifiable source for this assertion.

Satellite is not a good indicator of size at all, the wind field is the only meaningful measure since it is quantifiable. In science, things must be quantified.

I knew it'd get down to "wind field" once the satellite imagery clearly showed that there was no comparison... and yes, as a science teacher for the past 30 years I certainly do understand that science, by it's very nature, is empirical. Now I provided an easily applicable math program using the actual measurements of both Katrina and Camille, showing that in the "hurricane wind field" Katrina was over 120% LARGER (more than twice) the size of Camille using those very provided "wind-fields"... using "measurments"... at the very least they show that a statement that Katrina was at most 20-30% larger than Camille is "dead flat wrong!"

A2K

[Derek Ortt]

the 120 miles of hurricane winds along the Texas Coast, as Chris has cited, is larger than Katrina's 90NM hurricane force wind radius

[Audrey2Katrina]

which is why I asked for the official wind obs to verify his statements

But then there was no official wind obs. given... certainly not showing any hurricane winds in "Gulf Breeze" at the time of Camille...emphasizing two points 1) Gulf Breeze is practically ON the Gulf coast about 5 mi. further south than Pensacola proper so any winds/squalls would've been coming straight off the water, (can't believe ya'll rode that out over there, David, I'd have been terrified with Camille closing in on a location so surrounded by water!) and 2.) for the 3rd time... Camille was a healthy 20 miles further EAST than Katrina at landfall.

You also stated that the NHC was "dead flat wrong" in saying Camille was smaller, and then sort of didn't "blame" them for their antiquated science of 1969... but this does NOT seem to jive well with either NASA, or NOAA sites of THIS YEAR which have said that Camille was "much smaller"... I suppose even today's NASA and NOAA scientists are equally "dead flat wrong"?

Hey, I have no problem with your disagreeing with them, that is your prerogative, just as much as it's mine to disagree with yours. I just have a little bit of a difficulty in the assumption of a dogmatic stance that declares one position MUST be the right one, and all others simply MUST be the wrong ones.

I respect your position and opinion on the matter; but I do not agree with it, and at least with regard to Camille, the best scientists and reports current to THIS DATE, are on my side of the issue. --doesn't make either side right or wrong--but clearly shows a demarcation of widely disparate opinions.

A2K

[drezee]

In my opinion, Camille was worse in Grand Bay, AL

[vbhoutex]

As far as the wind reports in Pensacola, I am only repeating what we were being told by local reports. When we went out on a fire run at midnight, we were told gusts were to 100 mph. At that point the trees in my yard were bending to the ground and being stripped of their leaves and it was a very scary experience being out in that. I know that the NWS told us(as reported on local radio) on the morning after Camille had made landfall that we were not supposed to cross the bay bridge because the winds were still above 50 mph. I flew out of Pensacola that morning on the first flight along the Gulf Coast in 36 hours and it was indeed quite an experience. In all honesty, I do not think the winds were still at 50 mph when we crossed the bridge, but this was around 9 or 10 in the morning. My guess, since I had no official observations from the bridge, would be the sustained at that time were more on the range of 35 -40 mph with higher gusts. Obviously I have no proof of my "experience" except my knowledge base from over the years and looking back on it with my increased knowledge, but my feelings/interpretations are that Camille was a relatively small core storm with a moderate to large windfield. We could argue this till the cows come home(whenever that is) and we are not going to come to agreement, but stating people and or agencies are dead wrong without anything except ones opinion to back it up is not right either, imo. It is indeed unfortunate that there is not(still) a reliable network of instrumentation to gives us details we so desperately would like to have.

[Audrey2Katrina]

the 120 miles of hurricane winds along the Texas Coast, as Chris has cited, is larger than Katrina's 90NM hurricane force wind radius

The 120 "miles" (whether nautical or statute is not a firmly established fact; but I'll grant you the possibility that they were nm) is by NO means proven... had you followed the thread wherein he and I went back and forth over Carla.. I used his own data of "documented" windspeeds to show that those "documented" for Carla were no wider than what could be shown for Katrina. I do believe we both simply walked away from that discussion agreeing to disagree. The technologies in the days of Carla were nearly ten years OLDER than those of Camille, hence even far LESS reliable--or are we going to once again get into cherry-picking the data we chose in order to prop up a flailing position?

A2K

[timNms]

The wind reports given by VBHoutex show that NHC was wrong with their statement that Camielle was a small, compact storm, since it matches up with other hurricanes and their sizes that are now considered large

I respect VB's personal experience, but he's just like me-a non-professional weather nut. I was asking for OFFICIAL documentation of wind reports in that area. I haven't found any yet.

[Audrey2Katrina]

All of this information is out there on the internet to let people make their own determinations, but it seems clear after 30 min of research that anyone comparing the size of Camille to Katrina better be using terms such as "much smaller". There are many ways to determine size of a hurricane but Katrina is tops in many of them. Katrina is not "small" in any sense of the word.

Great post, Benny.... couldn't agree with you more... and thanks to that MUCH easier to read report on the 1969 hurricane season--already archived it

I couldn't agree with you more. If you're going to present a position... back it up with documentation rather than hyperbole and opinion. Everyone, literally everyone is entitled to disagree with anyone on a particular point; but it does lend one more credibility when they can back it up with more than just rhetoric.

A2K

[Stratosphere747]

the 120 miles of hurricane winds along the Texas Coast, as Chris has cited, is larger than Katrina's 90NM hurricane force wind radius

The 120 "miles" (whether nautical or statute is not a firmly established fact; but I'll grant you the possibility that they were nm) is by NO means proven... had you followed the thread wherein he and I went back and forth over Carla.. I used his own data of "documented" windspeeds to show that those "documented" for Carla were no wider than what could be shown for Katrina. I do believe we both simply walked away from that discussion agreeing to disagree. The technologies in the days of Carla were nearly ten years OLDER than those of Camille, hence even far LESS reliable--or are we going to once again get into cherry-picking the data we chose in order to prop up a flailing position?

A2K

Sabine Pass.....

http://tinyurl.com/fm5gv

[Derek Ortt]

What we may have had was a tighter core (which recon confirms), but a greater TS wind area in Camielle, while Katrina has a larger core, and smaller TS area based upon the obs from Pensacola and the rest of the Florida Panhandle (TS winds did not stretch beyond Destin in Katrina, per the NHC report)

if someone has the reports from Camielle in the Florida Panhandle, then this argument can be somewhat settled

[Audrey2Katrina]

other hurricanes, which have been much larger and occupied a much larger portion of the GOM

okay 90 nm... to 120 nm... equals 30 nm difference (assuming the data valid, which for the purposes of this will remain solely hypothetical) and this makes a cane like Carla, in your own words "MUCH larger"....

Hmmmm.. 60 nm vs. 90 nm.... still equals 30 nm difference using the very numbers YOU cite---and now it's suddenly NOT a "MUCH larger" hurricane....

Seems a bit inconsistent IMHO.

A2K

[Derek Ortt]

I will give you that, much larger should have been used for Katrina vs Camielle

However, the origional point of contention I have is that Camielle was not small, based upon what we know now