Camille not a cat-5 at Mississippi landfall???
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.
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 75
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
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

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
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 75
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
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
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 75
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
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
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
- Aslkahuna
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Contact:
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
Steve
0 likes
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.

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
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 3772
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Surfside Beach/Freeport Tx
- Contact:
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.
Always a bit confused on why the 190 sustained keeps floating around.
0 likes
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
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.


Last edited by Extremeweatherguy on Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
-
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 136
- Age: 37
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:09 pm
- Location: Gautier, MS
- Contact:
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.
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
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 75
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
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
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 75
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
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
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
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.
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
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
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.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
0 likes
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.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
0 likes
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 3772
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Surfside Beach/Freeport Tx
- Contact:
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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: FLCrackerGirl, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], jaguars_22, TomballEd, Yellowlab and 41 guests