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

[m_ru]

Even 160mph winds and gusts to 190mph would have flattened those trees in that picture.

Now does ANYONE here know that any picture was taken at the point of max winds? I didn't think so. You'll find some homes and yes even trees that survived the Homestead landing of Andrew--so does this mean Andrew couldn't have been a 160+ cat 5?... nope.... just not enough evidence or proof one way or the other.

Camille was definitely a 5... and at least to this point, the entire NOAA agency agrees with that assessment.

A2K

I went to homestead after Andrew and I didn't see one home that didn't recieve severe damage and I only saw a few trees that were still barely standing.Camille's strongest winds must have hit a small unpopulated area becuase I have seen no wind damage from Camille that even comes close to Andrew.

You have to think about the types of trees too. Trees in certain parts of the country are much stronger than in other parts.

I've never seen trees take wind as well as the ones right on the water where my grandparents live. Trees in southern florida don't have much of a dormant season either. (the dormant season strengthens the wood even on evergreens)

In my opinion, trying to base the strength of a hurricane on tree damage is absolutely rediculous.

Also, I saw many, many more trees blown down in the Beaumont area and Rita was weaker than Katrina. Beaumont hadn't seen a major hurricane since Audrey. The MSC has seen many majors and many glancing blows throughout the years on a pretty regular basis which is a major contributing factor the the strength of a tree. Trees can get "used" to high wind.

[Stratosphere747]

http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/urbanforests.htm

We know from studies of storms like Camille 1969, Hugo 1989 and Andrew 1992 that the trees that come down during storms are always the weakest and most mis-shaped trees in the area. They are often non-native trees unsuited by nature to our exposed coastal landscape. Trees that are often snapped, broken or overturned are often found to be diseased, hollow and rotten in the core, old and in decline and severely imbalanced.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I am only saying that wherever that picture was taken there was not Cat. 5 conditions.

I'll concede that possibility... it's just that I find it pointless to try to assert what this storm was, or wasn't based solely on a picture taken hither or yon.

A2K

[Opal storm]

Are there any pictures from the area where Camille's eyewall hit?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Opal Storm said:
I didn't see one home that didn't recieve severe damage

Odd... we have a poster right here on this site, whose home was in Homestead, and says the damage was relatively light.

In fact, here's their EXACT quote from the Aftermath forum:

I lived in Homestead, FL and I made sure my house was out of the storm surge area and I made sure the house was strong enough to survive 155 mph winds. Well, my house did survive hurricane Andrew with only minor damage.

I guess you just didn't look close enough... but I understand, one can have very selective memory when trying to present a case.

A2K

[Javlin]

I like to add another little tidbit that I have mentioned in another thread about Camille.The next morning when they open the doors to the second floor those same steel doors that shook all night the imagine has been ingrained into my mind forever.The parking lot down below us and out a good was all I could see was blown out rear windows on cars on a hell alot of them.This did not occur from debris the glass seem to be all around the cars.Our car didn't she had a hole in the floor board "good old Pooprolet".Katrina was alittle further away than Camille but yet I did not here or see any of this but then glass is probably alot better today.Just another piece of credence for me Camille's possible strength but Katrina holds the new candle still.This I think can be appropriated to development of the area and her shear size.

[Opal storm]

I guess you just didn't look close enough... but I understand, one can have very selective memory when trying to present a case.

A2K

I take offense to that last comment.I'm not blind,I know what I saw.It's hard to forget those terrifying images I saw while down there.

I didn't examine the whole city of Homestead,I'm sure there were homes that made it out with minor damage.I was just telling you what I saw.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I take offense to that last comment.I'm not blind,I know what I saw.It's hard to forget those terrifying images I saw while down there.

Hey, that's a 2-way street... I and probably others took equal umbrage at your "I've seen...a lot of storm surge damage but NOT MUCH wind damage..." (Yes, you qualiied it later but the implication was as transparent as glass. As far as not being blind...congrats, neither am I, and I saw first-hand the terrifying images of Camille, and as far as the "whole city of Homestead", it's not as if we're talking about a sprawling urban area. With all due respect, I would imagine that just the whole of the "city" saw at least 4 and 5 winds from Andrew---the point being that just because one doesn't see "all that much wind damage"...doesn't mean that there wasn't one heck of a LOT of wind, and wind damage. The point being that vision is limited--and where one of these things is concerned...damage isn't.

A2K

[Derek Ortt]

Dr Ted Fujita determined that the maximum winds in Andrew were confined to small streaks, which wer elater confirmed by some work by a prof at the University of Oklahoma using Doppler data in Frances and Ivan. Outside of the max wind streaks, the winds may only be 30-50% of the max winds based upon the Doppler data

[Stormcenter]

I am only saying that wherever that picture was taken there was not Cat. 5 conditions.

I'll concede that possibility... it's just that I find it pointless to try to assert what this storm was, or wasn't based solely on a picture taken hither or yon.

A2K

Good post.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Dr Ted Fujita determined that the maximum winds in Andrew were confined to small streaks

Well in deference to the estimable Dr. Fujita... does he imply that these "streaks" were consequent to, perhaps, tornados? Or just fairly thin bursts that would have yielded a 60 second avg above 155? I only ask because I'd heard there are some who feel Andrew's upgrade wasn't justified and before anyone in the respected Sunshine State jumps down my throat >I am not one of them< I am only repeating what I'd heard-- I guess kind'a like there are those who don't feel that Camille was a 5---there are some who feel Andrew wasn't.

Personally, I'm convinced just from what I've seen, that they both were.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I have seen no wind damage from Camille that even comes close to Andrew.

You're the one who seems to be bent on making this into a competition of sorts between this hurricane or that. Personally, I've lived to see both of them pretty first hand, and I can tell you Camille's wind damage was unparalleled where I'd seen it. Perhaps that's a case of selective memory as well; but at least I was around to have seen them both. Additionally, as far as "not seeing anything coming "close".. to the much revered Andrew... by your own admission . you haven't seen it all, either.

And by the record books.. Camille is still "officially" the stronger of the two. As if that should matter at all.. The Labor Day Storm beats 'em both... who cares???? They were both killers and BOTH Cat 5's. Anyone that worried about "but our storm was worse"... well, IMHO, has issues they really need to come to terms with-- and I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular... just a general statement.

A2K

[MGC]

Judging a hurricane's intensity on one picture that we don't have a clue where it was taken? So I guess all the engineers, scientists and pro mets that did the reports don't know what they are talking about either? Camille only had Cat-5 winds in a small area, not the entire coast. Keesler AFB maybe 20 miles away from landfall only reported sustained winds of 81mph or Cat-1. Camille only produced Cat-4 and Cat-5 winds over a relatively small area just along the beach front. Go inland only a few miles and winds die off quickly. I live about 1 mile east of where Camille's highest surge was located at Menge Ave......MGC

[Opal storm]

I have seen no wind damage from Camille that even comes close to Andrew.

You're the one who seems to be bent on making this into a competition of sorts between this hurricane or that. Personally, I've lived to see both of them pretty first hand, and I can tell you Camille's wind damage was unparalleled where I'd seen it. Perhaps that's a case of selective memory as well; but at least I was around to have seen them both. Additionally, as far as "not seeing anything coming "close".. to the much revered Andrew... by your own admission . you haven't seen it all, either.

And by the record books.. Camille is still "officially" the stronger of the two. As if that should matter at all.. The Labor Day Storm beats 'em both... who cares???? They were both killers and BOTH Cat 5's. Anyone that worried about "but our storm was worse"... well, IMHO, has issues they really need to come to terms with-- and I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular... just a general statement.

A2K

I am not making a competition between Andrew and Camille at all.I'm just trying to figure out how Camille made landfall with 190mph winds sustained yet I have yet to see any damage that suggests that.

You saw what Camille did up close, did the wind damage you see compare to that of Andrew's?

[Derek Ortt]

based upon the University of Oklahoma work from Frances and Ivan, those streaks are not tornadoes, but straight line wind streaks

if you are not in one of thsoe streaks, the winds are significantly less, as is the damage

[Stratosphere747]

I doubt anyone wants to read all 130 pages of the report I posted (though half of it is bad images) but on page 29 the wind speeds are given. This report by the engineers has the highest speed at landfall of 160 with gusts to 190. Only estimations, but seem to be right in line.

Always a bit confused on why the 190 sustained keeps floating around.

[Audrey2Katrina]

You saw what Camille did up close, did the wind damage you see compare to that of Andrew's?

As a matter of fact, yes I did--miles and untold miles of it, and I'm not talking water surge damage. Camille had an awful surge (biggest after Kat's); but not nearly as far inland where the felled and snapped trees, and demolished homes were innumerable and uncountable--this I saw with my own eyes. Now in all honesty I can't say those winds were 190... nobody can. What instrumentation would survive such windspeeds? My point has never been the 190 mph.. which is something I'll always consider an estimate, and possibly even a peak gust.. I just don't know... but one thing I do know... the "wind" damage was there, and it was decidedly a 5 by any stretch of comparison I can conjure up.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

if you are not in one of thsoe streaks, the winds are significantly less, as is the damage

Thanks, that would explain a lot... not just for Andrew--but many other storms as well.

A2K

[ROCK]

Good point Derek. I would suspect the good doctor to know what he's talking about. Its to bad those wind streaks hit an area such as Homestead. The pictures were incredible. IMO, Andrew was a lot more devestating with its winds than Camille. Just making a general statement....

[Audrey2Katrina]

Andrew was a lot more devestating with its winds than Camille. Just making a general statement....

To which you're entitled... I would equally say the reverse is true. Just another general statement!

A2K