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
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#201 Postby Pearl River » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:10 am

Javelin wrote

timNms wrote:
Frank P wrote:
timNims... the structure in the first picture was in Biloxi, about two or three blocks or so east of where the Beau Rivage Casino now stands.... it was an old hotel and/or apartment complex.. Biloxi as you know was quite a distance from the "eye wall" of Camille... thought I'd like to clarify that information...


Thanks, Frank. I suspected as much.


Another picture thrown out there to represent the WHOLE WIND FIELD of Camille by some who do not even know where the picture is located or depicting.Maybe I should go look up some pics of Charley;nevermind.


:lol: I know of one picture where the building was "totally" destroyed, but yet there are tree's standing in the same picture. Make's a person say "hmmm".
0 likes   

Opal storm

#202 Postby Opal storm » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:36 am

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
if you are not in one of thsoe streaks, the winds are significantly less, as is the damage


Thanks, that would explain a lot... not just for Andrew--but many other storms as well.

A2K
I think this picture may be an example to those streaks.

Image
Notice how some homes in this neighborhood made it out MUCH better than others.
0 likes   

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

#203 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:57 am

Im sorry, I really don't mean to offend you, but I don't think that is possible.


I'm sorry, as well, but what you, or I think, doesn't define possibilities.

Questions:

1.) Were you THERE to firsthand see the devastation "miles" inland from Camille? Just curious to know if you're basing this on old photos like the nice collage you put above, or are basing your conclusion on actually having been there making observations when it happened and having driven the entire area as I had.

2.) Do you know for a fact that these pictures reflect anything like the areas of max intensity of wind speeds?

Statements:

1.) In the first place, you and some others keep harping on the 190 mph sustained, as if that were the be-all and end-all-- quite frankly it isn't. --At least not for me; but what I do tire of is hearing the incessant speculation half a century after the fact that people figure Camille was "over-rated" and somehow or other probably not a "real" Cat 5, like Andrew--whose intensity, for whatever it's worth, was a significant approx. 20 mb (hPa) of pressure HIGHER at landfall than was Camille's.

2.) I'm NOT a resident of Mississippi, so it's no ego thing to/for me at all. I just know what I saw, when I saw it, and I really wish people would cease mischaracterizing any disagreement as an "attack". The title "pro-met" means just that--they are meteorologists as a career, and were well-trained in their field. Just as I'm a pro-educator... and the title "pro"-whatever in no way suggests infallibility, or universal agreement. I have great respect for anyone who becomes a "pro" in whatever their choice of careers; this does not mean that every time a disagreement arises, that one is bound to genuflect in deference to an opinion from said pro, nor does it imply that to simply voice that disagreement is an "attack". One could draw an analogy between a pro "historian" of today, telling folks what it was like during the Battle of the Marne... and then hearing a differing account from a Veteran of WWI, describing quite a different story. Does the account of the eye-witness mean that the historian (who certainly earned a degree and is a pro) should feel slighted? Maybe we have different perspectives of this; but I just don't view it that way. I can see two people holding different opinions and yet not guilty of "attacking" anyone.

3.) While your mention of the area known as Homestead being 16 miles from the coast, what about 75 miles from the coast? From NOAA's own Records, available at the NHC/TPC: "Columbia, Mississippi, located 75 miles inland, reported 120 mph sustained winds. " Those are sustained Cat 3--CAT 3 winds a full 75 miles inland. Is it so beyond the pale to believe that 75 miles closer to shore they were at least 35 mph stronger? Well I certainly don't, even though I respect your right to "think" it's not possible.

Frankly, I think all the hindsight experts (whoever they be) could equally take your closing advice, and consider the possibility that maybe--just maybe, Camille was indeed every bit of a Cat 5, and as offensive as it might seem to "some" certainly had winds as great as any in Andrew (which was for 10 years considered a 4--and still held to be so by some "pro-mets")..and possibly even greater--at least acknowledge that possibility.


A2K
Last edited by Audrey2Katrina on Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:18 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.

#204 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:00 pm

the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....


I HAVE.... unfortunately in travelling in a military rescue and assistance convoy, I didn't bring a camera to document it... but like the aforementioned WWI vet... I DO know what I saw... and it was definitely there.

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

#205 Postby Opal storm » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:02 pm

Stratosphere747 wrote: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.
160mph sounds more realistic than 190mph,especially for a north Gulf coast storm.Just my opinion.
0 likes   

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

#206 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:03 pm

well in excess of 150 mph in the windstreaks whch curiously were in the left semicircle.


Now that is curious.. considering the essentially rock-solid perception of highest winds being to the East... Do you have any possible explanations for this, Steve? Just curious.

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.

#207 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:05 pm

Maybe I should go look up some pics of Charley;nevermind.


BLASPHEMY!!!!! :lol: :lol: :wink: j/k folks... lighten up!

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.

#208 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:13 pm

Notice how some homes in this neighborhood made it out MUCH better than others


Yup... and that's what I recall seeing in many of the destroyed areas of both storms. Since the pic isn't identified I'm inclined to ask.. is that one also of the Homestead area? Looks like it.

At any rate, there were several similar potential "streak" areas well inland from Camille... saw 'em. And like I said, and others here who recall the storm I KNOW can back me up on this... while people can point to trees along the coastline that survived (for which a possible explanation MAY be that the surge actually restricted the bending of the trees as the majority of the trunk was undeer water), yet in the areas around I-10... for miles, upon miles, upon miles, I saw tens of THOUSANDS of trees, not just "blown over"... but positively snapped like toothpicks from wind damage. And that sort of thing I haven't seen before, or since. Again, it is entirely likely that the those "streaks" of max sustained winds were in areas unphotographed, and/or undeveloped... who knows? One thing we DO know is that the storm was "rapidly" intensifying as it moved toward landfall, and has the second lowest landfalling pressure of ANY storm to strike the US, and THE lowest to strike the actual mainland area of the US, and that in and of itself seems to suggest that the possibility of her being a 5 is decidedly high, if not a foregone conclusion--which it is IMHO.

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

#209 Postby Opal storm » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:18 pm

the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....
I am also curious as to why there are no photos from Camille that show wind damage that even compares to Andrew or even Charley.I mean,for a "190mph" hurricane would'nt you expect to see photos of that kind of devastation?Or did Camille's winds hit a very small less-populated area and nobody bothered to photograph the area?
0 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#210 Postby MiamiensisWx » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:34 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:1.) In the first place, you and some others keep harping on the 190 mph sustained, as if that were the be-all and end-all-- quite frankly it isn't. --At least not for me; but what I do tire of is hearing the incessant speculation half a century after the fact that people figure Camille was "over-rated" and somehow or other probably not a "real" Cat 5, like Andrew--who's intensity, for whatever it's worth, was a significant approx. 20 mb (hPa) of pressure HIGHER at landfall than was Camille's.


That may be true in terms of barometric pressure, but Andrew was a bit smaller than Camille at landfall, so the fact of Andrew's higher pressure at landfall doesn't prove that Andrew was not a Category Five landfall or was not a Category Five at peak intensity. To be honest, this constant nitpicking of Andrew is getting a bit annoying, too... if you have doubts about Andrew's Category Five intensity at landfall, why not provide concrete evidence to support your opinion (besides the constant "not one anemometer measured sustained winds in Andrew close to the alleged 165MPH"). That is NOT concrete evidence, and it does not support your opinion adequately. For once, you need to have BETTER reasoning to support your argument, no matter what side of the debate you or on in terms of Andrew's intensity at landfall (and in the Camille intensity debate).

Without taking anything away from Camille (if that's what some presume), I personally believe Andrew was a Category Five at landfall. If you read the report on Andrew's upgrade, the sustained Category Five winds occurred in an area where few, if any, lived, and in any area where any scarce anemometers failed before the peak winds arrived (and those peak winds likely occurred nearby in streaks, not in the direct area of the few, scarce anemometers). These area(s) of the true sustained Category Five winds in Andrew were located between Elliott Key and the tip of Key Biscayne, in streaks on Elliott Key and in the vicinity of Fowey Rocks and Cape Florida, and in the sparsely-populated area of Fender Point and in small streaks along Biscayne Bay near Coral Gables/Perrine on the mainland. No wonder, along with all the other factors, why these winds weren't recorded.

My point is this: please support your opinion on Camille WITHOUT the nitpicking of other storms, please. It would support your logic better without getting into total nonsense why Andrew was less than Camille and so on and so forth. If you don't like what you feel are attempts to "downplay" Camille and other northern Gulf storms, please don't do it to other storms, and don't disagree on other storms' intensities without true, concrete evidence.

By doing research myself on Camille and analyzing all the factors and information I already know, I believe Camille was likely a high-end Category Four (150MPH to 155MPH) or very low-end Category Five (160MPH is my best top sustained one-minute or so estimate) at landfall. Just my personal opinion, so PLEASE DON'T BASH IT! I wish the professional mets and others could be shown some more respect. That's all.

Also, I don't think that mamy are really "downplaying" Camille or other northern Gulf storms. After all, we all know Camille (and all other landfalling storms, regardless of which region or area they made landfall in) and other storms were, and are, what they are: disasters! Even though I understand why many northern Gulf members may be offended by those who disagree with Camille's alleged landfall intensity (as this is completely understandable in the light of the aftermath of the also horrific Katrina), I am still puzzled why this should have to make this debate so emotional, rather than interesting and knowledgeable, and I also find it hard to understand what is so hard to let go of Camille's alleged 190MPH intensity at landfall. I just don't understand the problem here. What is so wrong about letting go on previous assumptions about Camille's landfall intensity and accepting new ideas and thoughts? It doesn't make the event less destructive, nor is it attempts to downplay northern Gulf storms and storms that did not make landfall in Florida. To be honest, what is the whole problem? I hate to sound mean (or arrogantly prideful, which I'm not), and I understand the feelings of others, but this is just puzzling (and rather annoying, to tell the truth).
0 likes   

Scorpion

#211 Postby Scorpion » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:37 pm

I am almost positive that Homestead recieved Cat 5 winds in Andrew. The damage in Punta Gorda from Cat 4 winds is still not as bad as what Andrew did to Homestead.
0 likes   

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

#212 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:46 pm

I am also curious as to why there are no photos from Camille that show wind damage that even compares to Andrew or even Charley


Oh, I really doubt this is true, although I haven't made an exhaustive search for them--I'm sure some can be found if one devotes enough time and/or effort to do so. I have an old WWL special: Camille "Wind over the Water"... which clearly shows areas blown apart (much like the Homestead pics).. but they DO seem to focus on the coastal areas, for the obvious reasons that this is where most of the development was.
But there are two things to consider: For purposes of the discussion I'll refer to the Andrew comparison moreso than Charley, as, frankly, there IS no comparison with Charley--Camille quite simply was MUCH worse (intensity wise--obviously not damage-wise as the two areas affected were VASTLY different in cost of damaged infrastructure)-- than Charley.

1.) The areas that were "developed" were very much different, where Andrew struck a MUCH more developed (hence subject to visible damage) than the areas where Camille came in.

2.) The national "obsession" with hurricanes was nowhere NEAR what it had become by the time of Andrew, as while for Camille, some pictures were taken, and those, nobody knows if they were around/near the worst wind areas, and for Andrew you had national media taking reams and reams and reams of photographic horror that certainly gets permanently etched in one's memory.

3.) The NHC's OWN records showing inland sustained winds of 120 mph (HIGH end Cat 3) over SEVENTY-FIVE miles inland-- you will NOT find this established for either Charley OR Andrew... in fact, Charley's "max" wind field was so small that it's described as less than 3 mile radius at landfall, and once 75 miles inland the max "sustained" winds were struggling to be Cat 1... much less a strong Cat 3. So as to photographic evidences... I guess folks were less inclined to take a lot of pics of forest/trees back in 1969 in a relatively un-developed area, whereas they were just whirring away at the sensational pics of structural damage done in very developed areas between 40-50 years later.

A2K
0 likes   

User avatar
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#213 Postby Pearl River » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:51 pm

CVW wrote

By doing research myself on Camille and analyzing all the factors and information I already know, I believe Camille was likely a high-end Category Four (150MPH to 155MPH) or very low-end Category Five (160MPH is my best top sustained one-minute or so estimate) at landfall. Just my personal opinion, so PLEASE DON'T BASH IT! I wish the professional mets and others could be shown some more respect. That's all.


I want to know one thing? Why is it disrespectful to disagree with a pro-met? Some of the pro-mets need to show some respect to those of us who don't have "pro" in front of their name's. Some other's need to show respect to us as well. We have opinion's also, but we get bashed because we don't agree. All of us do research in one way or another and until the NHC say's so, Camille, and let me re-spell it, CAMILLE is a cat5 whether you or anyone else like's it or not. When the NHC decides to downgrade her, just like Katrina, I'll accept it.

Just because there is no picture of damage, does this mean it did not occur? No it doesn't. Just because tree's are standing, does it mean that there were no 190mph or 165mph winds in the storm? No it doesn't.
1 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#214 Postby MiamiensisWx » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:52 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:3.) The NHC's OWN records showing inland sustained winds of 120 mph (HIGH end Cat 3) over SEVENTY-FIVE miles inland-- you will NOT find this established for either Charley OR Andrew... in fact, Charley's "max" wind field was so small that it's described as less than 3 mile radius at landfall, and once 75 miles inland the max "sustained" winds were struggling to be Cat 1... much less a strong Cat 3. So as to photographic evidences... I guess folks were less inclined to take a lot of pics of forest/trees back in 1969 in a relatively un-developed area, whereas they were just whirring away at the sensational pics of structural damage done in very developed areas between 40-50 years later.


Actually, the Everglades just northwest, west-northwest, and west of Homestead likely received Category One/Category Two winds a fairly good stretch inland close to Andrew's core.

I really want to see some pictures, if you can find any, of the hundreds of snapped trees you say you've observed in areas after Camille. I have not really found a single, if any, photograph that reflects that after Camille. I wish I could have seen for myself, but I didn't, and I find little evidence that suggests Camille was much higher, if ANY higher, than 160MPH as maximum sustained winds at landfall, and may well have been a bit less than that. Of course, I could easily be wrong. It is just an innocent estimate, and feel free to disagree with it.
0 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#215 Postby MiamiensisWx » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:16 pm

Pearl River wrote:I want to know one thing? Why is it disrespectful to disagree with a pro-met? Some of the pro-mets need to show some respect to those of us who don't have "pro" in front of their name's. Some other's need to show respect to us as well. We have opinion's also, but we get bashed because we don't agree. All of us do research in one way or another and until the NHC say's so, Camille, and let me re-spell it, CAMILLE is a cat5 whether you or anyone else like's it or not. When the NHC decides to downgrade her, just like Katrina, I'll accept it.

Just because there is no picture of damage, does this mean it did not occur? No it doesn't. Just because tree's are standing, does it mean that there were no 190mph or 165mph winds in the storm? No it doesn't.


First of all, I know Camille (yes, a person who disagrees with Camille's estimated landfall intensity can actually spell Camille correctly, imagine that) was 190MPH sustained at landfall by official standards. We all know that.

I understand that some professional mets can get a bit testy and somewhat arrogant occasionally, such as Ortt, but that may be because they feel challenged. Let's face it: the professionals may not respect others enough at times, and I agree with that, but why eliminate the possibility that they feel tossed out by others here who are so defensive on their viewpoints? I feel you have taken what I said out of context. I was not forcing my opinion on you or anyone else; I was merely presenting it.

In addition to that, there isn't as much difference between a high-end Category Four and a Category Five (be it 160MPH or 190MPH) at all, and both are equally devastating, so what does it matter to you that some professional mets don't say what you may want to hear?

Camille and Katrina were unimaginably devastating. Andrew was devastating. Wilma was devastating in Florida to mobile homes and other structures, insurance, and lives - and annoying, too. Even Mitch as a tropical storm in the Florida Keys was personally devastating to those who lost friends or homes, or received heavily damaged homes, from tornadoes spawned by that storm.

I know there are several experts who disagree with Andrew's Category Five upgrade as the landfall intensity, and who believe Andrew should have retained it's original 145MPH landfalling intensity, and I accept that, as they have valid reasonings for their argument, just as I have mine for my reasoning why I believe Andrew was still a Category Five at landfall. I just want to make sure all who come here for information get the fair share of understanding, too, even those who disagree with Camille's official landfalling intensity.

As for your last point, it has valid reasonings for that, and I accept that. There is much to learn about the synoptics coming into play that influence winds in tropical cyclones, whether making landfall, brushing land, or out in the open waters. I also know I could be wrong on my intensity estimates of Camille, but I am using my best analysis, thoughts, and opinions from others blended in to get the best argument, thoughts, and estimates, in my opinion, that I think are most accurate, or estimates and possibilities I think were possible.

Please quit the bashing and hostility I sense once and for all on those who disagree with Camille's intensity. Some of us (including those who disagree with Camille's intensity) need to feel more welcomed here, just like you feel the need to feel welcomed here, too.

Please don't take this in a negative way, either. Thanks.
0 likes   

Frank P
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2776
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:52 am
Location: Biloxi Beach, Ms
Contact:

#216 Postby Frank P » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:30 pm

One of the really big problems that contributed to the great amount of wind damage inflicted by Hurricane Andrew, which I have no problem with it being classified as a Cat 5 (even being a good ole Biloxi boy :lol: ).... was the shoddy housing construction of the homes in the area affected...

Here is the data that backs up that claim... go to the following link

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/wp/wp94/wp94.html#walls

and read the section on "Hurricane Damage to Homes" they lay out in great detail why so many homes in Florida was destroyed by Andrew... bottom line substandard housing construction.... especially in the roofing structure..

this is a most interesting article and a must read for anyone getting ready to rebuild after Katrina... some great lessons learned...

for the record I don't play the "my hurricane is stronger than yours"
I have great respect for all the majors..... if fact, I hope everyone else is hurrances are bigger and stronger and more powerful than any I ever get again...
0 likes   

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

#217 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:33 pm

That may be true in terms of barometric pressure


No, there's no "maybe" about it CVW... it's a matter of public record.. the measurements are there and were recorded at several locations.

Andrew was a bit smaller than Camille at landfall


The size of Camille's intense "core" was at least as small as that of Andrew, and satellite pictures show this, IMO... please let's not go back over this immense size imbroglio again, as it accomplishes nothing. You look, not at the outer feeder bands; but that enormously intense core of Camille, and you're looking at a storm with an eye smaller, and a core tighter--even than Andrew. Andrew's eye was nearly TWICE as large as the 8 mile eye of Camille. The point about how wide the overall swath of winds was can be debated forever; but as to the intensity around the core--there's only a comparison inasmuch as they were--well, similar with Camille having much the smaller eye.

why not provide concrete evidence to support your opinion (besides the constant "not one anemometer measured sustained winds in Andrew close to the alleged 165MPH"). That is NOT concrete evidence, and it does not support your opinion


Why not practice what you preach, and provide "concrete" evidence that it was. This is more arguing in a vacuum, and propaganda-wise is known as an appeal to ignorance: "If you can't PROVE your point then I win the argument".... doesn't work that way CVW. The "concrete" evidence you so long to see is actually lacking in both storms... aside from a clearly lower barometric reading for Camille, which is decidedly "concrete."

I personally believe Andrew was a Category Five at landfall. If you read the report on Andrew's upgrade, the sustained Category Five winds occurred in an area where few, if any, lived,


Why am I not surprised that you find Andrew a 5, and Camille probably a 4? Okay... that was sarcasm... actually on the Andrew thing, I tend to agree.. and have stated so MANY times.. I equally feel the same could be said for Camille.... I fail to see the point?

My point is this: please support your opinion on Camille WITHOUT the nitpicking of other storms, please. It would support your logic better without getting into total nonsense why Andrew was less than Camille and so on and so forth.


Since you've chosen to take what I consider the "low road" on this tack, I will say that "nitpicking" is in the eyes of the beholder. The use of the term "nonsense" lends neither logic, nor any degree of credibility to anything you've stated. Were you truly capable of seeing the "logic" of much of what I'd been stating, you'd see the use of both hyperbole and sarcasm, as well as plausible doubt, none of which are "nonsense"... in trying to illustrate my points... they do seem to have evaded some, however--but it hasn't been for lack of effort.

By doing research myself on Camille and analyzing all the factors and information I already know, I believe Camille was likely a high-end Category Four (150MPH to 155MPH) or very low-end Category Five (160MPH is my best top sustained one-minute or so estimate) at landfall. Just my personal opinion, so PLEASE DON'T BASH IT! I


No need to SCREAM!!!! And simply because both I, and the overwhelming majority of meteorlogical/climatological experts who've been around much longer, and doubtless studied the storm moreso than you have, disagree with your assessment doesn't mean we'd be BASHING your "opinion"... it simply means that quite frankly, we view it as wrong.

I wish the professional mets and others could be shown some more respect. That's all.



Ya know... THIS :uarrow: is the mantra I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing by the predictably same folks over and over. I don't believe now, nor will I EVER believe that because someone has a title like "pro-met" that I am duty-bound to become a sycophant expected to bow to their every utterance. I do NOT need YOU or anyone else to lecture me on "respect"... so spare me the effort. Had you done extensive research you'd find that quite a few "Pro-mets" disagree with the "pro-mets" who've voiced that Camille wasn't a 5, and even some who don't think Andrew was a 5.... this is NOT disrespect--it's called "having a different opinion" and even "respectful" dissent!... kindly learn the difference-- having your own opinion is NOT tantamount to disrespect! On the other hand... when an individual.. be they pro-met, mod, analyst, or just some Joe-blow off the street, preaches down their nose to me, or anyone else, or employs tactics such as dogmatic assertions implying they are right and anyone else is either wrong or foolish, well--it is obvious that the lack of proper "respect" is being channeled from THEIR end... and a response in kind is often the result. Perhaps you need to view things from every angle before passing judgment on just who might be showing a lack of respect.

I also find it hard to understand what is so hard to let go of Camille's alleged 190MPH intensity at landfall


Again... beating a dead horse... attacking a straw man... take your pick. I'm so sick of seeing this bandied about. Find me ONE place wherein >I< have made this wind speed a major point of contention. On the other hand, I can provide PLENTY wherein I made it patently obvious this was NOT my concern at all.

I understand why many northern Gulf members may be offended by those who disagree with Camille's alleged landfall intensity


You mean like how quick some Florida folks might be similarly offended by those who might disagree with Andrew or Charley's "alleged" windspeeds? Again.. cuts both ways... Although in this much I will agree with you... I canNOT understand why it is that some folks seem to think they are "entitled" to have the very worst hurricane by fiat of Divine Providence, and anyone daring to encroach upon that claim is summarily beaten down with post after incessant post. I've said it before and I'll say it again... whoever wants to have the worst ever is WELCOMED to it; frankly I wish I'd never heard of Katrina... or Camille or Betsy for that matter. But for whatever reason, I'm VERY sure that a statistical correlative study will show beyond any doubt that one's geographic location has a LOT to do with what storms they are "convinced" were the worst--and I do NOT exclude myself from that statistic--I find it quite universal.

but this is just puzzling (and rather annoying, to tell the truth).


Well, annoying is, as annoying does... frankly I don't mind a substantive discussion/debate, where real numbers and data are bandied about instead of condescending lectures. I will tender you the same advice you offered me.. in the future, please stick to data/info and eschew the ad-hominem innuendos. I definitely do not like being preached to; but I welcome substantive debate and discussion.


Respectfully :wink:
A2K
0 likes   

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

#218 Postby timNms » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:47 pm

Opal storm wrote:
the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....
I am also curious as to why there are no photos from Camille that show wind damage that even compares to Andrew or even Charley.I mean,for a "190mph" hurricane would'nt you expect to see photos of that kind of devastation?Or did Camille's winds hit a very small less-populated area and nobody bothered to photograph the area?


Camille hit MS in 1969. Andrew hit Florida in 1993. That's quite a few years in between the two. MS's coast was no where near as developed when Camille struck as it was last year when Katrina struck. Also, there were not that many towns of big size between the coast and Jackson in 1969. That's probably why there aren't that many photos of inland areas.
0 likes   

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

#219 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:49 pm

Actually, the Everglades just northwest, west-northwest, and west of Homestead likely received Category One/Category Two winds a fairly good stretch inland close to Andrew's core.


The entire distance across S. Florida that Andrew trecked, was less than the 75 miles inland to Columbia MS... not to mention over land with substantially smoother and wetter environment... not that it really matters.

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.

#220 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:52 pm

I really want to see some pictures, if you can find any, of the hundreds of snapped trees you say you've observed in areas after Camille.


Well, you know, there's an old addage: "People in Hell want ice water"... no insult intended... just an illustration of want-vs-availability. And just to set the record straight.. I didn't say "hundreds"... I said tens of thousands... and would like to ask you: Are you suggesting that I'm telling a lie? Also, I do believe that I'd already reported I was in a military relief convoy... so, sad to say I didn't take pictures of anything... much less the miles of snapped trees... but nothing you, OR I can say will change the FACT that they most definitely were there.

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


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Europa non è lontana, JtSmarts, Lizzytiz1, riapal and 42 guests