Why does anyone claim the Camille was not as powerful as Katrina.?

Question

Katrina was simply a very large storm, and this (combined with its previous strength) caused a very bad storm surge which obviously caused extreme destruction in Southeastern in Louisiana (I mean New Orleans East, St Bernard, and Plaquemines) and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. But, Camille was a much more powerful storm, in general, sure some structures that survived Camille were destroyed by Katrina, but Camille obilterated most places in its path.

Quite simply even in Buras Louisiana the site of the direct landfall, some houses still had roofs (granted they were practically underwater), in Camille houses had extreme structural damage from the wind and not just from the large surge.

Answer 1

Since you asked a great question, I will present to you a flaw in the system. The system is known as "naming the more powerful hurricane" by the way. As the years have gone by, the rise in human population and all of the construction has allowed for more death and destruction. People nowadays have failed to make even a reasonable comparison of past hurricanes to present hurricanes. Imagine what Camille would have done to New Orleans if it happened in 2005 instead of 1969 (I think it was 1969 when Camille developed). Katrina was named the most destructive hurricane because there was far more buildings and other stuff for it and the flooding to destroy. I believe you know what the flaw is now. Just because a hurricane was more intense, it does not mean it had more things to destroy and lives to claim. Look at Hurricane Rita, it broke the record of most intense hurricane ever with 882 mb. It didn't take the path of most destruction though. So many people would rather pay attention to the death and destruction rather than what caused it.

As you can see, stl_luna_7 pointed out the facts about Camille.

To stl_luna_7: Well yes of course a hurricane's power is measured by hard data. However, that does not answer Teutonic's question. I was pointing how Camille was unwisely portrayed as a weaker hurricane because it didn't do as much damage as Katrina.

Answer 2

Camille was a Category 5, but even its storm surge wasn't as much as Katrina.  Camille's was... 25, 26 feet, I think?  Katrina's was around 35.  Camille was a wind storm, Katrina was a water storm.  If we hadn't gotten the water, we'd be picking up branches and repairing a few roofs like all the other Cat. 3's.

Answer 3

Camille was much more powerful.  She had winds of 190 gusting to 220mph and a minimum central pressure of 26.84in or 909mb.  Katrina had winds of 125mph and a pressure of 920mb.  Case closed.

To Sturm:  The  power of a storm is measured by hard data.  wind speeds and pressure.   the deeper a low(which a hurricane is) the stronger and more powerful of storm.

damage is a side issue...