Posted on 10/23/2015 8:07:47 AM PDT by Cecily
Bubba_Leroy’s right... can’t leave out Bush’s fault and women and minorities hit hardest. We know our liberal liars well...
As a meteorologist...I can tell you estimates are estimates. Just because an anemometer is rated to 200...doesn't mean is really is.
This is from the reanalysis project (wiki quote of the NHC project): The Labor Day Hurricane was the most intense storm ever known to have struck the United States, having the lowest sea level pressure ever recorded in the United States—a central pressure of 892 mb (26.35 inHg)—suggesting an intensity of between 164 kt and 162 kt (188.7 mph – 186.4 mph). The somewhat compensating effects of a slow (7 kt, 8.1 mph) translational velocity along with an extremely tiny radius of maximum wind (5 nmi, 9.3 miles) led to an analyzed intensity at landfall of 160 kt (184.1 mph, category 5). This is the highest intensity for a U.S. landfalling hurricane in HURDAT2, as 1969’s Hurricane Camille has been recently reanalyzed to have the second highest landfalling intensity with 150 kt (172.6 mph).
IOW-1935 had sustained winds of 185-190 MPH at landfall and Camille had winds of 170-175 mph.
As I said in a previous post, almost EVERY storm record you read about has the winds OVER-estimated. They used inaccurate calculations back then to estimate the surface winds. You will likely not read (anytime soon) that Camille's winds were not 190-200 MPH....but actually closer to 170. It takes a while for people to accept scientific realities and to allow guesses and myths to dissipate.
I just googled Camille’s winds, and the first hit has it at 190mph.
Nope. I was specifically responding to this post:
"It may yet prove to be undoubtedly the strongest storm of all time."
Whatever. My daughter is in the path and I am in constant contact with her today.
No. From your article: "the aircraft measured sustained flight level winds of 190 mph and estimated surface winds of 196 mph." Surface winds were estimated...not measured. That's a big diff.
That is almost CERTAINLY not correct. I believe the FLof that recon was 10K'. Dropsonde never measured 196...its an estimate. However, using the standard formula...a FL wind of 190 mph at 10K would equal a surface wind of 170-175 (depending on the structure of the storm). The standard rule of thumb is to take 90-95% of the FL winds at 10K' and that equals your surface wind. If you are at 5000' its more like 85%. If you are at 1500'...it's 75-80%
So using the NHC standard corrections, a MEASURED FL wind of 190 would equal 170 at the surface.
This is all relatively new research (in the last 30 years or so) and during Allen...and before...they took the FL winds and said that was the surface with very little correction. We now know that was not the way to do it.
OK...I actually explained how that myth will be likely found on websites for years to come in post #42. HOWEVER...the re-analysis project (which is taking the science to old guestimates) says "1969’s Hurricane Camille has been recently reanalyzed to have the second highest landfalling intensity with 150 kt (172.6 mph)."
So...google all you want. The NHC has lowered the official windspeed to 172...and here is the citation: "American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, August 15, 2014, A Reanalysis of the 1931–43 Atlantic Hurricane Database, Landsea et al., pg. 6114"
I can remember as a kid, before they had better forecasting tools, weathermen were saying this thing was 2 days out, and it could go anywhere from Galveston to Tampa.
Eastern Pacific Basin Hurricanes do not make landfall on US soil, the waters noth of Baja California are too cold.
Since you missed it the first time: "You will likely not read (anytime soon) that Camille's winds were not 190-200 MPH....but actually closer to 170. It takes a while for people to accept scientific realities and to allow guesses and myths to dissipate."
Again...the OFFICIAL land-falling winds of Camille have been lowered by the people who make the record books. But hey....what do they know... :-)
Like Camille, Patricia is a small, compact hurricane - Cat 5 winds only 15 nm across. Bad day for people in the impact zone, but not as widespread a disaster zone as, say, Katrina.
That is VERY true. The pressure gradient is incredible. This is more like a 20 miles wide tornado.
Any chance of talking her into getting out of the path quickly?
I was in Houston for Hurricane Alicia in 1983. It was "only" a Category 3 at landfall, but I never want to go through one again. Hurricane Ike was a Category 4 when it hit Galveston in 2008 and the storm surge took out everything on Bolivar Peninsula.
Think Ike was a Cat 2, but might has been a 5 with it's storm surge. You are right, Bolivar was beyond devastation.
Rode Ike out, and was not nearly as bad as Rita.
Where were you during Rita?
Most of the population of Texas coast evacuated inland. We had two families from Houston camped out in our house and every hotel and motel in Central Texas was booked.
Camille was actually recorded at 190 m.p.h. by recon aircraft on the morning of August 17th 1969. That flight suffered damage and had to land in Houston....more flights were scheduled, but were cancelled after that. Highest actual recorded wind was 172 mph at Buras LA..before the instrument broke...all other recording intruments were also destroyed. One offshore buoy recorded a gust of 237 mph. Because Camille was a small, very tightly “knotted” storm. many experts think her 190...215 gusts were on the low end. The storm actually traveled over 4 states..re entered the ocean, and very nearly became a hurricane again. Lets see what this one is at landfall...the closer they get to shore, they interact with systems over land, and usually weaken.
“Since you missed it the first time: “You will likely not read (anytime soon) that Camille’s winds were not 190-200 MPH....but actually closer to 170. It takes a while for people to accept scientific realities and to allow guesses and myths to dissipate.”
I don’t have first hand knowledge of Camille. I moved to New Orleans a few years afterward, and the natives there who had lived through many hurricanes told me no one had ever seen anything like it. It was like a giant tornado. The destruction was comparable to a nuclear blast in some places. Their knowledge of the strength of the winds came from meteorologists who were in charge at the time. It crossed the boot of Louisiana (where all the recorders were destroyed), and moved on to the Mississippi coast and left only concrete slabs where buildings once stood. If it had hit New Orleans, it would have basically erased the city (they told me).
Yes...and as I pointed out in another post: FL winds are usually reduced by 10% to give you your surface winds. Therefore, FL winds of 190 would give sfc winds of 170. The NHC took that into account in the re-anal project.
The 190 mph wind est of landfall will certainly live in legend for a very long time...but the re-anal project by the NHC...which is run by Dr Chris Landsea (what a name for a hurricane nut)...who really knows his stuff...has lowered the winds down to 172 at landfall...and they take into account ALL of the records...the measurements...etc. They look at the historic evidence of the actual recording devices (some of which are KNOWN to measure on the high end during extreme events...IOW they may say 180 but in actuality it may be 160...etc).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.