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

[Pearl River]

Opal wrote

Even though the final report says sustained 190mph winds I extremely doubt it was that strong at landfall.Like I've said before,it is very difficult for storms to keep that kind of intensity even over warm waters,there's no way it's going to keep that intensity till landfall.Remember,this is the north Gulf were talking about,cat 4/5 hurricanes do not like the northern Gulf.Also there was probably land interaction with SE LA that could've caused some weakening.IMO I am convinced Camille was more likely a borderline cat 5/4 at landfall.

Just remember one thing, Camille intensified several hours before landfall, she was not at peak like the other storms were 24hrs prior. If anything, she crossed an area of the LA coast as a 5.

[MGC]

The land that Camille crossed in Louisiana was marsh a couple of feet above high tide. At the time of crossing those areas in Louisiana were well below the surface. Camille didn't encounter any land instill her eye came ashore in Hancock County. This thread has decayed into a my-storm your storm shouting match. IMO it is difficult if not impossible to compare storm A with storm B. Sure we can debate the original intent of this thread. Was Camille a 5 at landfall? IMO she was but, I think the 190mph landfall intensity is a bit high. I'm no expert and neither are any of us here so who are we to argue with opinions penned by experts in their fields who wrote the reports back in 1970. I sure wish they would reanalyze Camille soon and but this argument to rest. I feel confident that Camille will be a Cat-5 at landfall after all is said and done......MGC

[Audrey2Katrina]

If it is correct, I think Camille's eye would be very slightly smaller than Andrew.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1992/andrew/satpic/s250900z.gif

From NOAA's NHC..records. .. clearly shows the eye of Andrew as being about the size of Lake Okeechobee (also in the picture)... I'm not going to spend a ton of time nailing it down; but Andrew's eye is described as being around 15 miles wide in at least a dozen places I've seen.. Camille's is described as about 8 miles across... this is no "very slightly smaller" --in my eye. Again... this really proves nothing tho'.

I was talking about sustained winds.

And as I pointed out, there just aren't enough proveable data for either storm. All conclusions are based on the best data available. Remember Camille was nearly 25 years prior to Andrew, and in a much more sparsely populated area--the pressure is there... the evidence of wind damage WAS there, albeit the most photo-worthy was all along the surge zone. There was, as indicated a 120 mph sustained wind recorded 75 miles inland--I find that fairly concrete.

Thanks for expressing that a bit better.

You're welcome; but it's not really "better", it's the same thing I've said repeatedly.

Just as you have expressed your frustration or opinion or otherwise (take your pick), I have expressed mine. Nothing wrong with either.

Ummm... since you were quoting >me< in your statements about bemoaning the 190 mph sustained winds in Camille, I asked you for one instance where I made this the bone of contention. The fact is that I didn't; but your comment is noted.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....

I am also curious as to why there are no photos from Camille that show wind damage that even compares to Andrew or even Charley.I mean,for a "190mph" hurricane would'nt you expect to see photos of that kind of devastation?Or did Camille's winds hit a very small less-populated area and nobody bothered to photograph the area?

Camille hit MS in 1969. Andrew hit Florida in 1993. That's quite a few years in between the two. MS's coast was no where near as developed when Camille struck as it was last year when Katrina struck. Also, there were not that many towns of big size between the coast and Jackson in 1969. That's probably why there aren't that many photos of inland areas.

Andrew hit FL in 1992 not 1993.

[Aslkahuna]

I said that in an earlier post. I find amusing that we can have such a heated discussion about an event that happened 37 years ago and thus probably well before many of the participants were old enough remember let alone follow the storm closely as those of us who are older did.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

I said that in an earlier post. I find amusing that we can have such a heated discussion about an event that happened 37 years ago and thus probably well before many of the participants were old enough remember let alone follow the storm closely as those of us who are older did.

Steve

Agreed, Steve... very much agreed; but sad to say I am one of those "old enough" to remember it quite well.

A2K

[MGC]

I'm in the same old boat! It seems like yesterday that I was looking out over a sea of debris only to have the same nightmare return 36 years later. I guess history does repeat itself....MGC

[wxmann_91]

Wow... apparently every Camille thread ends up like this. LOL

My take - Camille could not conceivably had winds of 190 mph; even though I am sitting thousands of miles away several decades in the future looking at old pics of damage, I am pretty sure that 190 mph are too high. I mean, I've seen pics of standing buildings next to the water.

The pressure-wind relationship is completely useless in this case. 1969 was a hyperactive year, and in fact, most storms that year moved northward and recurved very quickly after genesis. This implies lower than normal atmospheric pressures during that year.

Even if the Loop Current runs all the way to the coast, the depth of the warm water is severely dimished; you can't changed to topography of the ocean floor; and the ocean floor is shallow in the MGC. Even a slight change in the Heat Content of the water is crucial for hurricane strength.

I'm not saying Camille was not a Cat 5. I'm just quite doubtful of it. However, if the Loop Current runs all the way to the shore, it can still support probably an upper-end Cat 4 (IMO). That's probably how Camille fared.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I'm not saying Camille was not a Cat 5. I'm just quite doubtful of it. However, if the Loop Current runs all the way to the shore, it can still support probably an upper-end Cat 4 (IMO). That's probably how Camille fared.

An opinion to which you are entitled; but there are many pro-mets very much convinced that she was every bit of a 5 all the hypothesizing one way or the other notwithstanding. I respect your viewpoint; but pictures do no justice to what Camille was--they really don't--you'd had to have been there--I was, and I'm convinced she absolutely was a 5... she was consistently intensifying all the way in.

But hey... it's an interesting discussion, right?

A2K

[Opal storm]

Good points wxmann_91,I agree.

[HollynLA]

Before Katrina, Camille was known as the storm of all storms. I have heard so many poeple tell me stories about what they may have witnessed regarding Camille and it was always about the shear power of this storm. The stories were always horrifying. Now of course, Katrina has taken alot of that over but Camille will always be remembered in MS and even LA. But I know that in the minds of those who experienced Camille, she'll always be a cat 5. Oh btw: she'll be a cat 5 according to all recordings and the NHC as well. (just thought I would remind everyone of that too).

As far as pictures, I could show you a picture of my house after Katrina that was still standing but lost part of it's roof. There were also trees around still standing, but what you don't know if that I was about 50 miles away from the center. These pictures so many are using for factual information (btw: I've never heard anyone ever doing that before here) may have been away from the center. The strongest parts of Camille was so small so why does everyone assume that the pictures were where the strongest winds were?

[Audrey2Katrina]

so why does everyone assume that the pictures were where the strongest winds were?

that question's been asked more times than I care to recall, Holly. It just seems that the latest thing that seems to be very vogue is to question Camille's landfall intensity because of a growing following for the unproven (and frankly I think quite erroneous) theory that the Northern Gulf simply just cannot have/support a landfalling Cat 4 or 5.... Hugo was a strong 4 considerably further north than Pass Christian...but it's an exercise in futility. I completely concede that the variables are myriad and far too complex for anyone, on whichever side of the issue they plant themselves, to arrive at any dogmatic conclusion. I canNOT say with 100% certainty that Camille was a 5 at landfall (though I most certainly am convinced she was)... and NOBODY can say with 100% certainly that she was not--either.

And the beat goes on!

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

that question's been asked more times than I care to recall, Holly. It just seems that the latest thing that seems to be very vogue is to question Camille's landfall intensity because of a growing following for the unproven (and frankly I think quite erroneous) theory that the Northern Gulf simply just cannot have/support a landfalling Cat 4 or 5.... Hugo was a strong 4 considerably further north than Pass Christian...but it's an exercise in futility. I completely concede that the variables are myriad and far too complex for anyone, on whichever side of the issue they plant themselves, to arrive at any dogmatic conclusion. I canNOT say with 100% certainty that Camille was a 5 at landfall (though I most certainly am convinced she was)... and NOBODY can say with 100% certainly that she was not--either.

I believe the northern Gulf probably can support a low-end landfalling Category Five, and Katrina is probably proof of it. Why? Here's why. The main causes of Katrina's weakening from a Category Five to a borderline Category Three/Category Four in the last few hours before landfall near Buras was increasing shear (playing a part in the erosion of the clouds and the elongation of the system), along with dry air intrusion. Katrina was interacting with an approaching trough from the north-northwest, which was intruding on the storm's circulation. Several hours before landfall, Katrina was a high-end Category Four/low-end Category Five, bearing a classic and healthy satellite presentation. Had Katrina arrived in it's position about 150 miles south of the Mississippi Delta at an earlier time, Katrina very likely would have retained 160MPH up until it made landfall because of the later arrival of the trough. If that occurred, wind damage in the New Orleans area (as well as in other areas of Louisiana and in coastal Mississippi) would likely have been catastrophic, along the wide windfield of also highly destructive Category One sustained winds and tropical storm-force winds.

As for the Camille damage pictures, even though they were almost certainly not taken in the areas of the highest sustained winds, some of them were likely very close. For that reason, while photos were likely not taken in the areas of the highest sustained winds (and some of the highest gusts), when you take in wind variables in the areas photographed near the highest sustained winds, along with other factors, I still personally cannot find Camille higher than a low-end Category Five (160MPH roughly) at landfall. Believe me - I analyze all of the variables and take in the small area of the maximum winds and storm size, yet I can't seem to come up with anything much higher.

Bottom line is that it was an extremely destructive event.

[timNms]

the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....

I am also curious as to why there are no photos from Camille that show wind damage that even compares to Andrew or even Charley.I mean,for a "190mph" hurricane would'nt you expect to see photos of that kind of devastation?Or did Camille's winds hit a very small less-populated area and nobody bothered to photograph the area?

Camille hit MS in 1969. Andrew hit Florida in 1993. That's quite a few years in between the two. MS's coast was no where near as developed when Camille struck as it was last year when Katrina struck. Also, there were not that many towns of big size between the coast and Jackson in 1969. That's probably why there aren't that many photos of inland areas.

Andrew hit FL in 1992 not 1993.

You are correct. My brain said '92 but my fingers typed '93

[timNms]

Wow... apparently every Camille thread ends up like this. LOL

My take - Camille could not conceivably had winds of 190 mph; even though I am sitting thousands of miles away several decades in the future looking at old pics of damage, I am pretty sure that 190 mph are too high. I mean, I've seen pics of standing buildings next to the water.

The pressure-wind relationship is completely useless in this case. 1969 was a hyperactive year, and in fact, most storms that year moved northward and recurved very quickly after genesis. This implies lower than normal atmospheric pressures during that year.

Even if the Loop Current runs all the way to the coast, the depth of the warm water is severely dimished; you can't changed to topography of the ocean floor; and the ocean floor is shallow in the MGC. Even a slight change in the Heat Content of the water is crucial for hurricane strength.

I'm not saying Camille was not a Cat 5. I'm just quite doubtful of it. However, if the Loop Current runs all the way to the shore, it can still support probably an upper-end Cat 4 (IMO). That's probably how Camille fared.

Your opinion does not reflect what history states. OFFICIAL reports say she had 190 mph winds at one time, not too long before landfall. From what I have read, she was rapidly strengthening as she approached landfall, unlike many of the recent storms which were in a weakening phase. Until official reports state otherwise, Camille WAS a catagory 5 at landfall on the MS gulf coast.

I still find it amusing to read posts that say the NGM cannot support a cat 5 hurricane. Where is this written in stone? In my 44 years of living I have learned one important lesson and that is to NEVER say NEVER!

[wxmann_91]

I'm not assuming the pics were from the strongest wind areas, but I do believe the one with the house standing is from Pass Christian, which is near the area of max winds.

[wxmann_91]

Your opinion does not reflect what history states. OFFICIAL reports say she had 190 mph winds at one time, not too long before landfall. From what I have read, she was rapidly strengthening as she approached landfall, unlike many of the recent storms which were in a weakening phase. Until official reports state otherwise, Camille WAS a catagory 5 at landfall on the MS gulf coast.

I still find it amusing to read posts that say the NGM cannot support a cat 5 hurricane. Where is this written in stone? In my 44 years of living I have learned one important lesson and that is to NEVER say NEVER!

Well you do have a point there. Nevertheless, this is not a formal scientific debate, so we can express our opinions here.

[timNms]

I'm not assuming the pics were from the strongest wind areas, but I do believe the one with the house standing is from Pass Christian, which is near the area of max winds.

"Near" and "at" are two different things.

[Pearl River]

Definition of Category 5 from the NHC site:

Category Five Hurricane:
Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, and signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 miles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required. Only 3 Category Five Hurricanes have made landfall in the United States since records began: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Camille (1969), and Hurricane Andrew in August, 1992. The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane struck the Florida Keys with a minimum pressure of 892 mb--the lowest pressure ever observed in the United States. Hurricane Camille struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast causing a 25-foot storm surge, which inundated Pass Christian. Hurricane Andrew of 1992 made landfall over southern Miami-Dade County, Florida causing 26.5 billion dollars in losses--the costliest hurricane on record.

It does not state there is total building devestation. We also don't know the exact area where that house was located, along with the landscape.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Wow... apparently every Camille thread ends up like this. LOL

My take - Camille could not conceivably had winds of 190 mph; even though I am sitting thousands of miles away several decades in the future looking at old pics of damage, I am pretty sure that 190 mph are too high. I mean, I've seen pics of standing buildings next to the water.

The pressure-wind relationship is completely useless in this case. 1969 was a hyperactive year, and in fact, most storms that year moved northward and recurved very quickly after genesis. This implies lower than normal atmospheric pressures during that year.

Even if the Loop Current runs all the way to the coast, the depth of the warm water is severely dimished; you can't changed to topography of the ocean floor; and the ocean floor is shallow in the MGC. Even a slight change in the Heat Content of the water is crucial for hurricane strength.

I'm not saying Camille was not a Cat 5. I'm just quite doubtful of it. However, if the Loop Current runs all the way to the shore, it can still support probably an upper-end Cat 4 (IMO). That's probably how Camille fared.

Your opinion does not reflect what history states. OFFICIAL reports say she had 190 mph winds at one time, not too long before landfall. From what I have read, she was rapidly strengthening as she approached landfall, unlike many of the recent storms which were in a weakening phase. Until official reports state otherwise, Camille WAS a catagory 5 at landfall on the MS gulf coast.

I still find it amusing to read posts that say the NGM cannot support a cat 5 hurricane. Where is this written in stone? In my 44 years of living I have learned one important lesson and that is to NEVER say NEVER!

Camille only had 160mph winds at landfall according to the report. The gusts were 190mph.