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

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#121 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:01 pm

I'm not sure if I understand your last sentence A2K... Camille and Katrina made landfall in almost the exact locations... However Katrina's eye wall was SO MUCH BIGGER in diameter than Camilles


Frank, I'm going on the data provided by the actual NHC reports and archives. Katrina made COC landfall actually in extreme SE St. Tammany Parish crossing over the Pearl River at the Miss/La. border. Camille was definitely "East" of Bay St. Louis... again going by the NHC report...which had her heading almost directly into Gulfport, perhaps a shade to the west of that... which is why I said 15-20 miles east--just citing their own data, Frank.

Although, beyond any doubt Katrina had a larger eye, albeit radar showed her actually attempting to tighten up as she moved inland over Mississippi... she was quite an enigma.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

Opal storm

#122 Postby Opal storm » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:04 pm

From everybody I heard that was here in Pensacola during Camille say that it was a little worse than what we got during Katrina.I heard that there were many trees uprooted in Pensacola during Camille.If the winds were strong enough over here to uproot trees,than Camille was probably not a very compact storm at all.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#123 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:06 pm

The TS wind radii appears to have been about the same, only leaving the question of the hurricane wind radii


Actually, on the TS wind radius... if you'll refer to the data you proffered earlier done by Wxman57, unless I'm recalling things badly here (which is a possibility) you'll equally see Camille's was not remotely the "same".

The questions indeed, still linger.

A2K
Last edited by Audrey2Katrina on Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

Derek Ortt

#124 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:13 pm

lets just hope that the reanalysis reaches Camielle in the very near future, so these questions can be settled once and for all (I will accept any reanalysis findings, even if I disagree with them), so we are not faced with another scenario where a hurricane kills more 35 years after it made landfall, than it did the day it made landfall
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#125 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:22 pm

but my feelings/interpretations are that Camille was a relatively small core storm with a moderate to large windfield. We could argue this till the cows come home(whenever that is) and we are not going to come to agreement, but stating people and or agencies are dead wrong without anything except ones opinion to back it up is not right either, imo. It is indeed unfortunate that there is not(still) a reliable network of instrumentation to gives us details we so desperately would like to have.


Couldn't agree with you more on this, David; I hope you understand that my repetitions of the phrase were strictly tongue-in-cheek to emphasize the inappropriateness of such a comment--as clearly evinced in my prior post that this wasn't fair to the hard work and/or professionalism of people for whom I have nothing but respect--including the late, John Hope.

It is a pity we can't have "all" the data necessary to come to any indisputable conclusions--but we both know that this just isn't possible given even today's much better technology. This understood, it would be nice if everyone could restrict the expression of their opinions, whether professional, or not, to just that--their opinions, in a civil matter, avoiding all references intended to disparage an opposing viewpoint... the simple fact is...

Those cows haven't come home... and I doubt they ever will! :wink:

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#126 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:49 pm

Sabine Pass.....

http://tinyurl.com/fm5gv


A valid contention to which I have 2 responses:
1.) It is NOT an official NHC report, and it does NOT show winds sustatined over hurricane force--and we were told by our numerous estimable pro-mets not to put too much credibility in isolated NWS advisories--but hey, I'm good with it... it's quite possible.

2.) Check this pdf file, and go to the bottom of page 3
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/108456.pdf

You will find that the "documented" hurricane wind radius is given at 190 Km.. (close to the same 120 m given for Carla... again... no way it was "much larger" and no how-- by THESE data.) And finally, this is based on data gathered from instrumentation nearly half a century ago... whereas the above cited Katrina data is quite current. I'm not about to disparage the integrity of those older data; but just pointing it out for proper context.

A2K
Last edited by Audrey2Katrina on Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#127 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:54 pm

However, the origional point of contention I have is that Camielle was not small, based upon what we know now


Hey, now on THAT, we fully agree. While I have often cited Camille as a "small" hurricane, going on much of previously read material... upon seeing the sat imagery I just don't see a "tiny" hurricane at all. I DO see a much tighter core, and to be certain one that is much smaller by comparison to Katrina; but by no means was she truly "tiny"... her outermost bands seem to me to extend a respectable distance... but it's in that intense "core" that I feel the extremely low barometric pressures combined with that small "core" which have created a VERY steep gradient, and consequently, some pretty incredible wind speeds... at least that's the way I see it.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

Valkhorn
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:09 am
Contact:

#128 Postby Valkhorn » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:59 pm

Camielle in 1969


Derek... I would assume a pro would know how to spell Camille.
0 likes   

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 29112
Age: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Cypress, TX
Contact:

#129 Postby vbhoutex » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:02 pm

Opal storm wrote:From everybody I heard that was here in Pensacola during Camille say that it was a little worse than what we got during Katrina.I heard that there were many trees uprooted in Pensacola during Camille.If the winds were strong enough over here to uproot trees,than Camille was probably not a very compact storm at all.


There were definitely trees uprooted in P'cola and Gulf Breeze during Camille. I can vouch for that.

And A2K the whole Camille experience was quite an eye opener for me. I was 17 at the time and into the weather, especially the tropics, with a weather freak for a father(gee I wonder where I go it from? :D ) so I knew more than the average joe even then what was going on. When Camille was about 200 miles S of us they were still predicting that she would/could come in right over P'cola. :eek: :eek: Our house stood at 16 feet msl and the storm surge she came in with would have, to say the least, been in our house and then some. I look back and just cringe and wonder why there were no evacuation recommendations that I was aware of. I won't go into the whole story, but I witnessed 8 foot of surge and waves washing clear across Santa Rosa Island during Camille. If I remember correctly P'cola is 120 miles as the crow flies from where Camille landfalled.
0 likes   

Valkhorn
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:09 am
Contact:

#130 Postby Valkhorn » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:05 pm

which is why I asked for the official wind obs to verify his statements


Derek, being a 'pro', you would realize I think that official obs would fail before the highest winds reach the station due to things like power outages and the actual station being destroyed.

The latter happened in Ivan in Meridian, MS with a 60mph wind gust before the brunt of the storm arrived.

In MS during Katrina most of the inland stations cut out around 6 or 8am, hours before the eyewall ever got near.

In fact in Hattiesburg we had an unofficial report of sustained winds at 46mph at 8:45 in the morning. The eye wall reached us at 11:00.

I should also add that even according to MS's storm reports, the highest gusts were reported just as the instruments FAILED.

Why do self-proclaimed experts go on data which never works during the height of the storm. If you use instruments which failed before maximum readings could ever be recorded, naturally you won't get a clear picture.

Of course there are also real experts out there who realize this, but please don't look at the surface obs, notice there's a huge gap due to a power outage, and tell me that the winds just weren't there when there wasn't even power to record it.

Also, I might add, that I have a photograph of my home barometer in Hattiesburg reaching 27.92 inches which I can post later.
1 likes   

Derek Ortt

#131 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:32 pm

I'd be really careful with the personal attacks, Valkhorn

Stick to science, and do not let this thread degenerate into personal attacks, as I really do not appreciate them
0 likes   

User avatar
beachbum_al
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2163
Age: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: South Alabama Coast
Contact:

#132 Postby beachbum_al » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:58 pm

Opal storm wrote:From everybody I heard that was here in Pensacola during Camille say that it was a little worse than what we got during Katrina.I heard that there were many trees uprooted in Pensacola during Camille.If the winds were strong enough over here to uproot trees,than Camille was probably not a very compact storm at all.


Of course I was not born yet when Camille hit but my parents lived in Fairhope near the bay when she hit. Both have said that Katrina was worse than Camille storm surge but not the wind. Camille here was about the same as wind for the area as Katrina. (Fairhope is along Mobile Bay for those who don't know where it is~East side of Mobile Bay) I think this is due to the fact that Camille was a smaller compact storm than Katrina and Katrina storm surge was more like a Cat 4 or 5 than a 3. There were a few trees down, etc with both. Like I said above most of the damage in Fairhope and the Eastern Shore was due to Storm Surge from Katrina.
Last edited by beachbum_al on Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#133 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:01 pm

And A2K the whole Camille experience was quite an eye opener for me. I was 17 at the time and into the weather,


Well, David, that puts us in the same "age" category :lol: . I went to the Miss. coast as a teen volunteer to help cleanup after Camille, and I'm telling you, it is a sight that to this day positively boggles the mind--the "snapped" trees were quite literally all over the place. You are one very lucky person inasmuch as Camille didn't take that more NE jog, situated where you were in the crosshairs of a VERY dangerous Cat 5--well just gives ya the shivers to think of it. As for me, I became a weather-freak at a VERY early age...some 12 years earlier when this thing called Audrey slammed into SW La. but I really don't remember much of that one beyond the name and some stiff winds... now BETSY... THAT was another story. I lived in the Ninth Ward...very close to St. Bernard Parish, and I well recall that flood. Also, I can tell you that being as far east as I was near the St. Bernard Line, the winds from Katrina there were horribly worse than anything either Camille or Betsy produced... the entire steeple of our 150 year old church completely blown off. So at least on this side, I can tell you firsthand that Katrina was much stronger than Camille--but I ain't about to argue what she was east of that wall, because I'm convinced that Camille was every bit of a 5.... with a very tightly wound core... perhaps even comparable to a Charley in the narrowness of max windspeeds.

Yup... you are one lucky person, lol... I would NOT have wanted to gone through the eyewall of Camille--for any amount of money. :D

A2K
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#134 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:06 pm

. Both have said that Katrina was worse than Camille storm surge but not the wind. Camille here was about the same as wind for the area as Katrina. (Fairhope is along Mobile Bay for those who don't know where it is~East side of Mobile Bay)


I have no doubt as to the sincerity of their observations--and on a localized level, I trust to their senses implicitly. That said, the official records on both storms, show that the winds from Katrina were actually worse in the Mobile area than those recorded from Camille, even though Camille made landfall closer to Mobile than Katrina did... sort of a tribute to Camille's enormous intensity, (since those landfall winds were immensely higher) and Katrina's humongous size. Either way, they were two unforgettable monsters and hold the #1 and #2 record surges from hurricanes in US history... no doubt about that, and it's a shame the same areas received both.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

Valkhorn
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:09 am
Contact:

#135 Postby Valkhorn » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:48 pm

Stick to science, and do not let this thread degenerate into personal attacks, as I really do not appreciate them


We all should stick to science, including you.

Refering to obs that never captured the true intensity of a storm is just silly in my opinion.

How is a station with no electricity ever supposed to record the brunt of a hurricane? Or even one that no longer exists or was damaged by a storm.
0 likes   

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 29112
Age: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Cypress, TX
Contact:

#136 Postby vbhoutex » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:29 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
And A2K the whole Camille experience was quite an eye opener for me. I was 17 at the time and into the weather,


Well, David, that puts us in the same "age" category :lol: . I went to the Miss. coast as a teen volunteer to help cleanup after Camille, and I'm telling you, it is a sight that to this day positively boggles the mind--the "snapped" trees were quite literally all over the place. You are one very lucky person inasmuch as Camille didn't take that more NE jog, situated where you were in the crosshairs of a VERY dangerous Cat 5--well just gives ya the shivers to think of it. As for me, I became a weather-freak at a VERY early age...some 12 years earlier when this thing called Audrey slammed into SW La. but I really don't remember much of that one beyond the name and some stiff winds... now BETSY... THAT was another story. I lived in the Ninth Ward...very close to St. Bernard Parish, and I well recall that flood. Also, I can tell you that being as far east as I was near the St. Bernard Line, the winds from Katrina there were horribly worse than anything either Camille or Betsy produced... the entire steeple of our 150 year old church completely blown off. So at least on this side, I can tell you firsthand that Katrina was much stronger than Camille--but I ain't about to argue what she was east of that wall, because I'm convinced that Camille was every bit of a 5.... with a very tightly wound core... perhaps even comparable to a Charley in the narrowness of max windspeeds.

Yup... you are one lucky person, lol... I would NOT have wanted to gone through the eyewall of Camille--for any amount of money. :D

A2K
Seems we became weather freaks at about the same age too. My first real remembrance of interest in the weather and my first tropical cyclone experience I remember was in 1958 with Hurricane Flossy. Thought only a Cat1 I still to this day remeber the storm and going out in the eye to go to a neighbors house. Been through many others since then of varying degrees.

As you said, seeing the aftermath of Camille up close and personal was probably the most sobering experience I have ever had. The absolute destruction and devastateion I saw literally took me to tears. I saw it both along the coast and well inland both. As others say, the pictures never do it justice, as horrific as they are. Though I have never lost my fascination with the weather and especially the tropics, that experience totally changed how I look at tropical cyclones.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5899
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

#137 Postby MGC » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:21 pm

Nash Roberts, the noted meteorologist from New Orleans, published a book on Camille in 1969. Entitled, "Extreme Hurricane Camille" this book is a must read by any hurricane enthusiast. The New Orleans Public Library on Loyola Blvd has a copy. I've read this book on several occasions back in the early 70's when I was reading as much as I could find on hurricanes. Roberts gives excellent descriptions of the history of Camille and its damage inflicted on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. There are wind field charts, a map of exactly where the eye crossed the coast and other valuable reference material included. It is without question the best and most informative book on Camille in existence.....MGC
0 likes   

timNms
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1371
Age: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:45 pm
Location: Seminary, Mississippi
Contact:

#138 Postby timNms » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:46 pm

0 likes   

Stormcenter
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6684
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:27 am
Location: Houston, TX

#139 Postby Stormcenter » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:00 am

Camille was and always will be a Cat. 5 hurricane and there is nothing you can magically pull out of a hat from 37 years ago that is going prove otherwise. Next thing you know someone will post Katrina was really a Cat.1 hurricane at landfall and her 30 foot storm surge was caused by the high tide and not her storm surge. :D
0 likes   

Stratosphere747
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Surfside Beach/Freeport Tx
Contact:

#140 Postby Stratosphere747 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:06 am

Link to the entire report from May 1970.

http://www3.csc.noaa.gov/hes_docs/postS ... AMILLE.pdf
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FLCrackerGirl, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], jaguars_22, TomballEd, Yellowlab and 41 guests