Katrina Versus Camille

I'd like to compare these two hurricanes. I've been hearing that Katrina has done more damage than Camille (not counting busted levees and flooding in NO). I've heard several times people mention that a structure that survived Camille was wiped out by Katrina. This doesnt' seem to jive with the lower windspeeds of supposedly Cat 4 Katrina to Cat 5 Camille. How similar are their sizes and landfall tracks? How could Katrina 'shred' so much of Biloxi and Gulfport by winds alone if winds were so low as stated in other threads?
 
the surge was higher than camille

the weather channel had some awesome video of the storm surge in mississippi on tonight
 
I think there is alot of misconceptions that the majority of the damage in Biloxi etc. is from winds. Isnt it actually from storm surge from what is basically a 30 ft wave? I mean the Tsunami last December was 35 ft and this storm surge was 30 ft! Water is jsut jaw droppingly powerful.
 
Originally posted by Jason A.C. Brock
I think there is alot of misconceptions that the majority of the damage in Biloxi etc. is from winds. Isnt it actually from storm surge from what is basically a 30 ft wave? I mean the Tsunami last December was 35 ft and this storm surge was 30 ft! Water is jsut jaw droppingly powerful.

There is no doubt the storm surge came in very fast, but it was no tsunami.
 
Camille Vs Katrina

Katrina was huge compared to Camille - roughly 4-5 times as wide in terms of destructive winds.

It was also just about as low as low in terms of land-fall pressure measurements.

The combination allowed it to gather a storm surge that was as high as Camille's, covering a larger area, moving inland farther and staying inland longer.

By that measure, it was far worse than Camille.
 
Man..talk about disappointment...I was expecting this thread to be about an epic battle...kinda like Godzilla vs Mothra....

Anyway...

The windfield was spread out over a much larger area than Camille, as was the storm surge. Just look at the damage in Mobile...the Battleship has an eight degree list to dockside...that takes some power folks. Also, the Gulf Coast is built up tons more, so there were alot more structures to involve.

Now...this is a theory of mine...the barrier islands have been eroded quite substantially since Camille hit. The offshore area has become much more shallow (probably due to sediment from the barrier islands eroding). Also, the beachfront areas in many locations that were devistated by Camille were actually lower than before (they didn't build the sand/soil levels back up to compensate for the material eroded from Camille's surge), and areas all along the Gulf that were not affected by Camille had a higher land level between them and the Gulf before Camille, but the erosion left the area from the dunes back lower. Would this combination not allow, or even enhance (as the case of the shallower offshore areas) the tidal surge, both in height and intensity when it came ashore, thus allowing for more damage? For those of you not familiar with the area, there are (or were) places that you could wade out more than a mile on the sand, because of the sediment buildup over the years.
 
there is some truth to that Chris, I know for a fact that dredging avtivities in the Mobile Bay Ship Channel have caused daphin island to lose its supply of replenishing sand. the west end has since slowly been eroding. This island helps to protect Bayou LaBatre (BubbaGump Shrimp anyone?)

As far as teh windfield, yes it was super wide. the damage here in mobile is incredible for a storm that made landfall some 80 miles to the west.
 
Back
Top