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

[MGC]

Yep, 81mph in Biloxi during Camille in the report I read. The radius of hurricane force winds over land is much smaller than over water....MGC

[Normandy]

Well I Don't know which figure is right, because I have read both....until i can get more ill just split the difference and give Biloxi 90 mph i guess.

[Pearl River]

Opal wrote

Pearl River wrote:
Opal wrote

Quote:
timNms wrote:
What I find irritating is the fact that NHC reports have established that Camille was a cat 5 at landfall in MS, regardless of what anyone "thinks". Until the NHC changes that, then it is pointless to say otherwise

I have heard some very good points as to why Camille may have not been a cat 5.I hope the NHC does update the Camille report.Personally,I am convinced Camille was no cat 5 at landfall.


I haven't seen any points about Camille being less than a 5 imo
Well you have your opinion,I have mine.

I think we can agree on that.

[Audrey2Katrina]

A2K, you compared Camille to Wilma

correction, Normandy, I compared the size of the EYE... please, try to keep things in proper context... I was making a point about the small size of the eye... nothing was said about intensity of pressure comparisons at any time. Wilma's was substantially lower and we both know it.

The STRONGEST hurricane recorded PRESSURE wise in the Atlantic basin is the WEAKEST out of EVERY sub-900 hurricane ever recorded.

Really? Maybe I'm missing something about the way this is worded. Is this suggesting the 1935 Labor Day storm was the "weakest"?

And actually, had you followed ALL of what we'd discussed, the "pressure gradient" has been REPEATEDLY brought up. The relationship of P to R of mx winds is beyond dispute; but this is still by no means irrefutable proof that a 909 mb landfalling pressure storm with a max wind radius of 60 mi (which I do not believe at all on the "west" side, as I'd have been in it and it just wasn't there)... There are other intricacies involved as well, When Katrina was a Cat 5, she had a radius of max winds larger than those 60 mi. This makes a nice presentation; but proves nothing.

Additionally, you seem to be using as R, the width of "hurricane force" winds... this is NOT proof by any stretch that the "gradient" from those "max winds" down to that arbitrary 74 mph wind radius was spread evenly. How do you, or anyone else, for that matter, know that there weren't EXTREMELY narrow isobars creating an extremely tight "streak" (as was referred to by another pro-met), which indeed created winds well in excess of the Cat 5 measure? The FACT is that you don't know it, and by simply picking an arbitrary radius of Cat 1 winds as "proof" of a gradient is, while correlative, in no way "proof" that steeper gradients didn't exist closer in. Tell you what, if it is ever "re-analyzed" I'll bet you a case of brew, or a respectable donation to your favorite charity that Camille will indeed be found out to have been a 5...this is something I'm convinced of. Like I said... I'm not interested in a picture or any number for that matter. Can I ask if you were around to drive through the area after Camille--I could be wrong, but I'm strongly suspicious that you were not. Anyway... I'd stand behind my wager--she WILL stand the test.

YES, good-sized hurricane, NOT small)

I suppose this makes you a greater authority than the NHC and NOAA both of which differ from this opinion when speaking comparatively of storms.

1) Katrina came in at 927 mbs, 5 higher than Andrew, with winds some 40 mph less.

I'm assuming this is at 3rd landfall (MS)... and by most measures, Katrina was 2-3 times the size of Camille... we'd been over all this before.

Its dangerous to go under the assumption that since Camille had the 909 mythical pressure that Camille automatically is a Category 5 hurricane.

I sincerely hope that by "mythical" you aren't questioning it as it's well documented. Secondly, nobody is saying that 909 mb makes it "automatically" a Cat 5... equally, we're saying that simply because it landed in the NGOM it is folly to state dogmatically that it could NOT possibly have been a Cat 5...

And therein lay the rub... all that other palaver was really inconsequential to the arguments being presented. I don't think any would dispute the "facts"... but the "conclusions" are most definitely up for debate.

A2K

[Normandy]

Ok Bay St. Louis, where Camille made landfall or close to, is about 29-30 mi from Biloxi, so that would probably give Camille a overland hurricane force wind radii of about 32 mi (Biloxi reported 81, more than the 74 needed).

Andrew gave Miami Cat 1 conditions (NHC report I read said Miami reported 65 kts), which is 17-20 mi from Cutler Ridge (maybe Andrew didn't pass right over Cutler Ridge I don't know).....

But again, Andrew was noticeably smaller than Camille.

What was Katrina's overland wind radii?

[Audrey2Katrina]

You could try though, but it would be hard since everything in that post is hard and factual data.

Hard factual data--presented with conclusions that are decidedly subjective and anything but factual

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Don't act like since the NHC calls something its set in stone.

Oh, I sure don't!!! I'm convinced that Dr. Lyons is right, and that Katrina was every bit of a 4 at first landfall.... still irrelevent...

Also... They've done one reanalysis of it in 1987--five years prior to Andrew.. and it's still called every bit of a 5... I'm convinced that will hold.

A2K

[MGC]

We can't be subjective, we must debate using hard facts. Objectivity is the order of the day. Sorry, but trying to recall facts from 37 years ago are difficult at best. Unfortunately there is little data to go on with Camille. Only a couple of recon reports when she had the 905mb pressure. The most compelling wind report to substantiate Camille as a Cat-5 was the Columbia, MS report of 120 sustained at a location some 75 miles inland. Knowing the rate of decay of inland winds should yield an approximate landfall wind intensity......MGC

[Audrey2Katrina]

a hurricane that was creamed by a Cat 3 Katrina.

Creamed by Katrina... yes, decidedly... but a Katrina that was many times larger... and one that I still maintain was a 4 at landfall... remember, the NHC isn't infallible..we shall see.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I have heard some very good points as to why Camille may have not been a cat 5.I hope the NHC does update the Camille report.Personally,I am convinced Camille was no cat 5 at landfall.

We all tend to see what we're already "inclined" to wanting to see--this goes for me as well as anyone else. Fortunately it will be left in the hands of much more capable individuals than yours or mine. And Personally, I'm convinced she was very much a 5!

A2K

[Opal storm]

Let's not even get close to the whole "katrina was a ___" argument.This thread would go on for months if that argument was brought up.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Nah, you can go and look up the windfields and Andrew's synoptic situation for yourself. Truth seems to hurt

Nahhh... the "truth" doesn't hurt... but unless you can show every isobar... it's those little details that can... and while we won't argue the clear correlation of pressure gradient to wind speeds... There is PLENTY of room to contend just exactly where those lines of gradient existed... and placing them arbitrarily as evenly distributed at a 65KT isobar in no way constitutes "proven fact"...

Truth doesn't hurt... but sometimes how it's manipulated might.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Uhh...did I miss something there? Or was that just another one of those "my storm" is bigger than "your storm" type things.

Nice quote out of context, Opal. Or did you just miss the following "Okay that was hyperbole" comment... Do you understand what hyperbole is, just asking? or perhaps you need to understand the concepts of "irony" and sarcasm in making a point? Nothing about it was intended to be a comparison of storms... but since the thread was originally simply about landfalling Cat 5's in the NGOM it sure didn't take long for the Andrew vs. Camille comparisons to start... doesn't matter. It's all good.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I'm not getting in on THIS argument, but I would point those of you discussing wind radii to some research I've done regarding hurricane wind field size. Here's a graphic representing GoM major hurricane wind radii. I estimated Camille's at about 48nm, which was about average for all the storms that I had at least somewhat reliable data. Note that the wind radii represent the hurricanes at their peaks, not necessarily at landfall.

http://myweb.cableone.net/nolasue/gulfstorms.gif

Thanks for that chart, Wxman... of interesting note is that it does seem to show the "wind radii" comparisons of Camille (yellow) and Andrew (ice blue--I dunno light blue--you call it)... are VERY closely compared, which DOES seem to blow a hole through Normandy's assertion about gradients, as the higher central pressure of Andrew, by THAT data, doesn't seem to have nearly as steep a gradient as Normandy has suggested in his "facts", and if anything, compares rather nicely to Camille's, which was coming off of a much LOWER initial central pressure--possibly (and I stress POSSIBLY) creating a greater "gradient" in Camille... interesting!

Thanks for the "Facts"

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well, I mean, do NHC storm reports and advisories count?

By your own words, Normandy-- the NHC's word is neither final, nor "etched in stone"... but point taken.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Easy with that data 57, as it brings Carla into the equation...

I'll stick with Camille as a 5 within this debate....

Sound decision, Stratosphere.... Sound decision... LOL... I'll drink to that!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Are you saying the highest wind from Camille in Biloxi was only 81mph? If that's the case, then Katrina must have only been about 45 or 50!!

Unless I'm reading my maps wrong, Ixolib; Biloxi (this is NOT easy for one with Dyslexia ) , is only about 20 miles from Pass Christian... so the winds there might very well been quite formidable.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Why don't you copy and quote the whole statement A2K wrote because you did miss something.

Thanks, Pearl, but that is the MO of those determined to mischaracterize what someone has said to put it in a lesser context...

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Let's not even get close to the whole "katrina was a ___" argument.This thread would go on for months if that argument was brought up.

Straw man... I wasn't going there... only making a point using analogy. It was mentioned that there was a change in Andrew, and I simply mentioned there well may be the same, one day, for Katrina, and I know of mets who agree with me on that... it was not intended to resurrect an old argument---you chose t read it that way.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well, I seem to have been on a filibuster for the last several posts; but that's probably because I enjoy stimulating debate. Let me make a few points clear before calling it a night.

1.) I mean to disparage NO ONE. My methods of logic, debate, etc., are no different from any other in attempting to make a point. This does oftimes lend itself to an aura of sarcasm that might make one perceive it as a personal attack. Let me make it perfectly clear. I bear animus to NO ONE on this thread. That I disagree--sometimes quite drastically, with some, is very obvious; but this in no way means I harbor any ill-feelings--only a respectfully different opinion.

2.) We are arguing over many facts that, let's face it, are in the final analysis--UNproveable. For this reason there will always be differing viewpoints. And ya know what? It's those very differing views that make life interesting. Contrary to what any may have thought, I've thoroughly enjoyed the debate/discussion, and still consider all those who've posted, as sincere in their thoughts and posts.... I just thought them wrong (PLEASE understand the employment of wit here!)

and finally, 3.) Camille was every bit of a 5 IMO. I drove through it, I saw it, I know we've been duly remonstrated by Stratosphere about the "tree" issue; but quite honestly, of all the things that struck me the most, there were those miles of matchstick trees... I only wish I had a picture or two to prove/show it. But there is no doubt in my heart of hearts and soul of souls, that literally tens of miles of trees were snapped over--NO exceptions... ALL down, and that is a vision I'll never forget. This was NOT on the coast where the surge may have protected some of the larger, older trees before the winds came in... but let there be no doubt about it, it took WAY more than Cat 3 winds to down all those trees.
As far as erroneously thinking that because Camille was a 5, and Katrina "only" a 3, that somehow or other it would serve a better purpose to downgrade Camille is utterly illogical. ANDREW was a 5, and Katrina probably made half a dozen Andrews, and was only a 3... so does this mean we should downgrade any/all Cat 5's so that people will truly fear a Cat 3? Of course not... if anything the lesson Katrina taught us was that a LOT more than the CAT standing on a rather inflexible scale needs to be considered. The SIZE of the storm as well as its intensity is an essential. (See, Normandy, this was always my contention )... but saying that we need to downgrade 5's so folks could have a better respect for 3's is completely off-base.

Bottom line, getting back to the point of this thread... Category 5's, while VERY rare, are most definitely a possibility in the NGOM, and to lull the people into a false sense of security thinking they can NEVER get a 5, is, I feel FAR more dangerous a mentality than having them consider a less devastating 5 like Camille was possible in the light of a monstrously devastating Katrina at 3.... sadly it could wind up with politicians saying all we need is Cat 3 protection... and then when a 4 or 5 hits... the tragedy will be tenfold worse. Nope... I prefer to err on the side of safety... a Cat 5 can most DEFINITELY hit the NGOM... and IMHO, Camille PROVED it.

I can't prove it.. and no matter what ANYONE says in the future, neither can anyone else; but THIS man will forever KNOW in his heart-of-hearts, that Camille was every bit of a Category 5 hurricane--no doubts about it!

Opposing viewpoints are certainly just as valid in the minds of their perceivers!

However wrong they may be!


Couldn't resist that...

A2K