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

#141 Postby timNms » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:32 am

thanks, stratosphere
0 likes   

User avatar
Downdraft
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 8:45 pm
Location: Sanford, Florida
Contact:

#142 Postby Downdraft » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:33 am

Amazing what happens when science steps on the toes of passion.
0 likes   

User avatar
Ixolib
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2741
Age: 68
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Biloxi, MS

#143 Postby Ixolib » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:44 am

Downdraft wrote:Amazing what happens when science steps on the toes of passion.


Or vice-versa... :wink:
0 likes   

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

#144 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:57 am

Thanks, for the info on the Camille book, MGC.. I will definitely do an internet search for it.. (don't go into the city proper that much although I've been to the Loyola branch of the library once this year-- BTW... did you know that those cartoon characters about the history of New Orleans/La. by the old "checkout" desk done by John Chase (old T-P/States-Item cartoonist) were also the product of help he had from a classmate of mine and an understudy of his: Danny Frohlich. Just an aside :) But I'll definitely look for the book, as the hurricanes that have been my "passions" have been Audrey, Betsy, Camille, and now Katrina---to a lesser extent but also one I remember well was Hilda. (All names retired I believe). And Nash Roberts was THE MAN, in this area when it came to hurricanes... I mean for more than 40 years... folks turned to Nash wherever he was. I'd just LOVE to hear his thoughts on Katrina.

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.

#145 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:19 am

Downdraft wrote:Amazing what happens when science steps on the toes of passion.


Or even worse: egos masquerading as science, presenting conjecture as reality and utterly disregarding obvious facts!

bad---very bad.

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.

#146 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:21 am

Stratosphere, Thanks a MIL for that report... nice to see a lot of "science" there, sans passion... I saved all 8.5 Mb of it for the old hurricane archives. Good stuff!

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

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

#147 Postby timNms » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:41 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
Downdraft wrote:Amazing what happens when science steps on the toes of passion.


Or even worse: egos masquerading as science, presenting conjecture as reality and utterly disregarding obvious facts!

bad---very bad.

A2K


:lol:
0 likes   

User avatar
Aslkahuna
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 4550
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

#148 Postby Aslkahuna » Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:14 pm

I also think that important clues as to why Camille hit as hard as it did and other important differences between what that storm did vs what Katrina did can be found in what happened subsequent to landfall. After all not many storms manage to retain identity into Tennessee and then track across VA and then redevelop as soon as they move back out over water leaving behind massive flooding in VA due to horrendous rains like Camille. That alone would suggest that the dry air that weakened Katrina may NOT have been a factor with Camille as it made landfall.

Steve
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

#149 Postby Normandy » Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:54 pm

Aslkahuna wrote:I also think that important clues as to why Camille hit as hard as it did and other important differences between what that storm did vs what Katrina did can be found in what happened subsequent to landfall. After all not many storms manage to retain identity into Tennessee and then track across VA and then redevelop as soon as they move back out over water leaving behind massive flooding in VA due to horrendous rains like Camille. That alone would suggest that the dry air that weakened Katrina may NOT have been a factor with Camille as it made landfall.

Steve


Well, i'll play devil's advocate.

In 2001, TS Allison went ashore near Galveston, sat inland for about two days, and once it re-emerged it instantly redeveloped into a subtropical cyclone.

My point, I don't think that assessment is fair in proving concretely that Camille was a Cat 5, because a weak TS maintained its identity over land for two days.




My opinion is that Camille did NOT have 190 mph winds, and in no way do I think it is possible that it did....because I don't know if people understand just what 190 mph sustained winds....and with using the overland wind gust ratio of 1.4-1.6 that would yield VERY severe gusts of 240 mph+.....I don't think people understand just what that would do to a landscape.

Take these pics of damage from Camille.



Image
190mph would absolutely flatten those trees in the background....as in they wouldn't be standing there.


Other things I find fishy about the Camille and her "190mph" winds....the report states gusts, not sustained winds... Like Derek mentioned, they did not reduce like they do nowadays, so the science in retrospect was a bit outdated.

Another thing, the reported gusts.....does it not seem at all fishy that no other hurricane, not even Andrew (which many people believe and probably would agree has produced the most severe wind damage by a cyclone, only rivaled by Tracy in Australia, another alleged Cat5) produced anything REMOTELY close to a gust of 224 mph? And mind you this was an instrument from 37 years ago.

IMO, Camille and katrina were very similar....with the exception of Camille possibly being a much more ferocious hurricane while out in the gulf....probably close to the 190 mph figure given to it at landfall.....It weakened very quickly just like Katrina likely, and probably lost a good 40 mph of its winds imo before landfall. In my opinion, Camille had winds between 140 and 160.[/img]
0 likes   

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

#150 Postby Stratosphere747 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:12 pm

I doubt anyone wants to read all 130 pages of the report I posted (though half of it is bad images) but on page 29 the wind speeds are given. This report by the engineers has the highest speed at landfall of 160 with gusts to 190. Only estimations, but seem to be right in line.

Always a bit confused on why the 190 sustained keeps floating around.
0 likes   

User avatar
Extremeweatherguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 11095
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Florida

#151 Postby Extremeweatherguy » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:43 pm

Even 160mph winds and gusts to 190mph would have flattened those trees in that picture. Take a look at this picture. It shows what just Cat. 1-2 force winds (with gusts to Cat. 3 force) did to a pine forest during Katrina in MS.

Image
Last edited by Extremeweatherguy on Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

m_ru
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 136
Age: 37
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Gautier, MS
Contact:

#152 Postby m_ru » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:50 pm

where in Mississippi was that picture taken?

btw...comparing tree damage from different hurricanes is pointless. If you notice, most of those pines had tap root failure. It just so happens that the area of the Mississippi Gulf Coast (atleast where my grandparents live for sure) had recieved a lot of rain that summer. In fact, the ground where my grandparents live was squishy even before Katrina came in, which definitely contributed to all the huge trees that uprooted on their property. The wetter the ground is, the more trees that are gonna uproot.

Camille was fast moving and my mom told me that there wasn't much rain with it compared to all the other hurricanes she'd been in but the wind was absolutely insane.
Last edited by m_ru on Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:58 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.

#153 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:55 pm

IMO, Camille and katrina were very similar....with the exception of Camille possibly being a much more ferocious hurricane while out in the gulf....probably close to the 190 mph figure given to it at landfall.....It weakened very quickly just like Katrina likely, and probably lost a good 40 mph of its winds imo before landfall. In my opinion, Camille had winds between 140 and 160.[/img]


Actually, it was probably quite the reverse. There is a documented BL measure of winds of 234 kt...at 866 mb level, in Katrina... I don't think even Camille reached that level--but this WAS while Katrina was very much an intensifying 5 still well into the Gulf. On the other hand, the evidence indicates a tremendous intensifying on the part of Camille (Charley-like) not any losing of intensity until it actually struck land.

Perhaps I'm just playing devil's advocate as well; but there isn't a scintilla of doubt in my mind that Camille was every bit of a 5 at landfall. Also, I really do tire of hearing over and over that there is some gospel about this 1.4-1.6 sustained to gust ratio, when any cursory view of actual measured winds will find quite a few places where the ratio between the two was much lower--especially in the high-end winds... (the lower the sustained, the easier to have a much higher ratio--even the aforementioned doubling gust)... and finally... a picture hither or yon cannot possibly tell what the maximum winds everywhere had to be.

You will find that there were areas along where Camille made landfall that there wasn't a tree left standing, and untold miles of them snapped in two. Whether she was a 190 sustained or not is irrelevant, IMO... it is quite possible they were lower than that as there is no certified measurement of winds of that intensity--but the 160 + is certainly there, and her landing pressure was nearly 20 points lower even than Andrew-- and please spare me the "pressure doesn't equal wind"...when we know the correlation is absolutely there.

JM2cents worth

A2K
1 likes   

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

#154 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:57 pm

Even 160mph winds and gusts to 190mph would have flattened those trees in that picture.


Now does ANYONE here know that any picture was taken at the point of max winds? I didn't think so. You'll find some homes and yes even trees that survived the Homestead landing of Andrew--so does this mean Andrew couldn't have been a 160+ cat 5?... nope.... just not enough evidence or proof one way or the other.

Camille was definitely a 5... and at least to this point, the entire NOAA agency agrees with that assessment.

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
Extremeweatherguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 11095
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Florida

#155 Postby Extremeweatherguy » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:58 pm

m_ru wrote:where in Mississippi was that picture taken?
I am pretty sure it is from De soto national forest in southern MS.
0 likes   

Opal storm

#156 Postby Opal storm » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:58 pm

Good post Normandy,I agree.A lot of the pics I've seen from Camille show a lot of storm surge damage but not much wind damage,at least not any wind damage that suggests 190mph winds or anything close to that.

While Camille's true intensity may be a mystery forever,one thing we can ALL agree on is that it was it was an extremely devestating storm.
0 likes   

User avatar
Extremeweatherguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 11095
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Florida

#157 Postby Extremeweatherguy » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:59 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
Even 160mph winds and gusts to 190mph would have flattened those trees in that picture.


Now does ANYONE here know that any picture was taken at the point of max winds? I didn't think so. You'll find some homes and yes even trees that survived the Homestead landing of Andrew--so does this mean Andrew couldn't have been a 160+ cat 5?... nope.... just not enough evidence or proof one way or the other.

Camille was definitely a 5... and at least to this point, the entire NOAA agency agrees with that assessment.

A2K
I am not saying it was not a Cat. 5. I am only saying that wherever that picture was taken there was not Cat. 5 conditions.
0 likes   

Opal storm

#158 Postby Opal storm » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:02 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
Even 160mph winds and gusts to 190mph would have flattened those trees in that picture.


Now does ANYONE here know that any picture was taken at the point of max winds? I didn't think so. You'll find some homes and yes even trees that survived the Homestead landing of Andrew--so does this mean Andrew couldn't have been a 160+ cat 5?... nope.... just not enough evidence or proof one way or the other.

Camille was definitely a 5... and at least to this point, the entire NOAA agency agrees with that assessment.

A2K
I went to homestead after Andrew and I didn't see one home that didn't recieve severe damage and I only saw a few trees that were still barely standing.Camille's strongest winds must have hit a small unpopulated area becuase I have seen no wind damage from Camille that even comes close to Andrew.
0 likes   

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

#159 Postby Stratosphere747 » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:03 pm

Another good report on Camille...Keep learning a few things...;)

http://tinyurl.com/k5zdy
0 likes   

Javlin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1620
Age: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: ms gulf coast

#160 Postby Javlin » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:10 pm

Now that picture Nomandy is it in the Bay,Gulfport ,Biloxi or Ocean Springs that would make a big difference.EWG how was that field of trees surrounded was it open to that ,the slope there,there are all kinds of variable.All I can say is that that night at Dolan Hall at KAFB those steel doors to what was supposedly a CD building shook violently ALL night long.Too me Katrina had the surge but the winds did not bother me that bad but Camille just seemed stronger.As we sat that night you could here over the radios winds gust 200+ being announced,now was that in Gulfport or the Bay I can not honestly tell you and they where just est.Camille's eye was 5-10 miles in diameter making a tight storm with higher wind velocities I would suspect much like the some of those that have hit S FL like Charley or Wilma but no one argues Charleys record even though those winds where confined to a small area it was still a strong 4 border 5.This picture thing behooves me some,I am sure I can find pictures of Charley that says it was not a 4 but that does not change the facts,it was a 4.
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