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

[Audrey2Katrina]

Given the same circumstances, if recon and SMRF were not available for Katrina, I would bet, at minimum it would be a cat 5 at the first landfall, and a cat 4 at the second.

Given the latest actual Recon data that placed her at a strong 4, I seriously doubt they'd be claiming 5... perhaps some... but most would still say a 4... in fact, there are still some "pro-mets" who feel she was indeed a 4 at that landfall--but their opinions seem to get discounted in all the figure-ground noise.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Why is every northern GOM cane down played on this board.

I don't think the "board" does it, per se; but as you can see in reading subsequent posts, there are more than a few individuals wearing what I would call truly parochial blinders, providing a slanted, but not perceived as so, vision, who do indeed think that Cat 4 and 5 storms are the reserved providence of just about every other area BUT the NGOM.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

what is so wrong with admitting the possibilty that Camille may have had lower sustained winds at landfall than originally thought?

Absolutely nothing. That's the beauty of freedom of expression. Each should be allowed their own view of events without someone coming in and looking down their noses at you and loudly, and dogmatically, proclaiming your error, when, despite those who would say otherwise, there are very few things that can be certified as beyond any dispute where weather observations are made--especially when viewing events more than 40-50 years in the past. HOWEVER:

That sword cuts both ways... and when one comes in declaring that they disagree with this "official" finding or that one... they should be given equal respect for their opinions. Most definitely, the matter can be discussed and debated--in a civil manner--but in the final analysis, nobody should feel it their onus to compel anyone to believe other than what their own senses dictate.

Oh... and FWIW.. Camille was a 5 a landfall--of this I am certain! She was much smaller than Katrina... and thank God that she was.

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

I don't think the "board" does it, per se; but as you can see in reading subsequent posts, there are more than a few individuals wearing what I would call truly parochial blinders, providing a slanted, but not perceived as so, vision, who do indeed think that Cat 4 and 5 storms are the reserved providence of just about every other area BUT the NGOM.

A2K

I'll have some snippets from my post earlier in this topic...

I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue. I understand your feelings, but that claim is just completely false. In case you haven't noticed, most of us would rather prefer not to see the carnage that took place on August 29, 2005, because of "Camille was 190MPH, and since most other storm weakened or were dodged bullets, I guess Katrina will do the same", or that "Camille's surge never exceeded the railroad tracks, so why should this weakening [Katrina] storm be any different?". I'm sorry, but that type of thinking is what killed countless people in Mississippi and elsewhere when Katrina arrived. I don't want to see it again, so what is so wrong with admitting the possibilty that Camille may have had lower sustained winds at landfall than originally thought?

Meanwhile, while you (and some others) complain about northern Gulf storms being so-called "downplayed", you (along with some others) willingly go out of your way to say that Andrew was not a Category Five at landfall by using the same claim to support your idea that Camille was a Category Five at landfall by saying that "no instruments during Andrew recorded anything close to Andrew's Category Four/Category Five winds". This same basis is also used to support that Camille was a Category Five at landfall by saying that "most instruments failed before the highest winds came". Excuse me, but if that is true for Camille, then why isn't it true for Andrew? Also, you often say that Camille's maximum sustained winds were in a VERY small area, just like Andrew, yet you say Camille was a Category Five at landfall but Andrew was not!

If all the instruments failed before the highest sustained winds in Camille arrived, thus not recording the highest sustained winds, or were not located in the VERY SMALL area where the maximum sustained winds in Camille were, why would Andrew not be a Category Five at landfall?

Sorry if this comes out in the wrong way, and I REALLY hate to offend Gulf coast residents (trust me, I do), but more suffering and avoidable because of using Camille (or ANY other storm) as the benchmark is INEXCUSABLE!

Just what do you find slanted about any of these points? Also, I never directly - or indirectly - said that Camille was NOT a Category Five at landfall; I merely stated that Camille's sustained winds at landfall may have just been overstated. This is NOT a statement that Camille was not a Category Five at landfall and, looking at my post, there is no such statement.

[MGC]

232 MPH wind gust at Keesler? Not from the reports I have read. Keesler only reported Cat-2 winds if my memory is correct. I wish I could find the radar image of Camille. I too recall Camille having a small eye on the order of 8-10 miles in diameter and eyewall was circular, it was not open in any quadrants. Camille didn't suffer from dry air as Ivan or Katrina......MGC

[Audrey2Katrina]

Sorry if this comes out in the wrong way, and I REALLY hate to offend Gulf coast residents (trust me, I do), but more suffering and avoidable because of using Camille (or ANY other storm) as the benchmark is INEXCUSABLE!

A valid point, CVW... but you'll never do away with "benchmarks"... Until Katrina, it was Betsy for SE and central La. Camille for Miss, and Frederik for Alabama (perhaps later Ivan)... Now it's pretty much Katrina for all three (at least inasmuch as surge goes) ... Opal, for the panhandle (again for some, perhaps Ivan) For Southern Florida EC... it's still Andrew, and the WC, it's now become Charley.... For Texas, it'll be Carla, for those old enough to remember, or maybe Beulah, or Celia for those not as "mature" , for SE Tex and SW La, it was Audrey, and now it's Rita for SE Tex... and probably both Audrey and Rita in SW La. ..For the Carolinas... it's still Hugo...
these benchmarks are as natural for folks living in "hurricane-alley" as it is to have the great Packer teams of the late 60's... Steelers of the 70's... 49'ers of the 80's...and ad-infinitum. It's human nature, and while I can sympathize with your sentiments... nothing is going to change that.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Just what do you find slanted about any of these points?

Did I say YOUR points were slanted, CVW... no need to be so defensive... I was speaking in vagaries... but by the fruit the tree is known. (In other words... if the shoe fits---wear it---if it doesn't... don't try to force your foot in there, as it more often than not winds up in the mouth.)

A2K

[dwsqos2]

Unless terribly mistaken, I believe that this is the radar to which you refer.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1969-prelim/camille/prelim04.gif

[Audrey2Katrina]

This is NOT a statement that Camille was not a Category Five at landfall and, looking at my post, there is no such statement.

CVW... I'm NOT trying to argue with you at all... please don't try to read between the lines... see my prior post about freedom to express whatever you feel without someone jumping down your throat.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Unless terribly mistaken, I believe that this is the radar to which you refer.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1969-prelim/camille/prelim04.gif

Nice image there, dw.... thanks... that's a keeper for my archives.

A2K

[Ivanhater]

I read the archives of Camile and early on they though it was headed for Pensacola, scary thought

[Frank P]

I read the archives of Camile and early on they though it was headed for Pensacola, scary thought

Yeah we all thought that to on the MS coast, I was in high school at the time and we kept waiting for it to turn to hit Fl, sorta like Ivan did, but unfortunately for us it didn't turn..... Camille and Katrina both did a number on the MS coast as we all know... doesn't matter to me what they end up classified... complete and total devastation knows no classification.... bottom line, get the hell out of the way.... period

[Ivanhater]

I read the archives of Camile and early on they though it was headed for Pensacola, scary thought

Yeah we all thought that to on the MS coast, I was in high school at the time and we kept waiting for it to turn to hit Fl, sorta like Ivan did, but unfortunately for us it didn't turn..... Camille and Katrina both did a number on the MS coast as we all know... doesn't matter to me what they end up classified... complete and total devastation knows no classification.... bottom line, get the hell out of the way.... period

Totally agree....
[/b]

[Jim Cantore]

I read the archives of Camile and early on they though it was headed for Pensacola, scary thought

Yeah we all thought that to on the MS coast, I was in high school at the time and we kept waiting for it to turn to hit Fl, sorta like Ivan did, but unfortunately for us it didn't turn..... Camille and Katrina both did a number on the MS coast as we all know... doesn't matter to me what they end up classified... complete and total devastation knows no classification.... bottom line, get the hell out of the way.... period

Totally agree....
[/b]

Problem is that alot of people cant stand not knowing a storms true intensity. I'm that way with Katrina

[Frank P]

I read the archives of Camile and early on they though it was headed for Pensacola, scary thought

Yeah we all thought that to on the MS coast, I was in high school at the time and we kept waiting for it to turn to hit Fl, sorta like Ivan did, but unfortunately for us it didn't turn..... Camille and Katrina both did a number on the MS coast as we all know... doesn't matter to me what they end up classified... complete and total devastation knows no classification.... bottom line, get the hell out of the way.... period

Totally agree....
[/b]

Problem is that alot of people cant stand not knowing a storms true intensity. I'm that way with Katrina

Well HF why don't you look at it from this perspective...

Lets suppose that a "major" hurricane hit where you live...
(and I think we can all agree that Katrina was at least a major storm)
and basically everything around you was totally devastated... totally
any you personally lost everything you had... everything.....
and hundreds and hundreds of people died (some you knew)
and many of your relatives also lost everything they owned....
and your basic way of life was drastically changed for an extended period of time,
and every time you look out your FEMA trailer window or drive down the street all you see is the devastation as a constant reminder,
and it will be years before your area is close to being "normal" again

Under these particular circumstances I don't think the exact intensity of the storm would really matter to you that much now would it???? probably not....

and this is how many of the people of MS and LA feel.... doesn't matter to me what Katrina was classified because one thing I know for sure.. other than killing me or my family she did as much damage to me as should possibly could.... of couse these are the feelings of someone who personally felt the wrath of Katrina....

obviously those not directly affect by Katrina might be more interested in the scientific aspects of the storm, which I certainly understand and perhaps I would be feeling the same way...

[Audrey2Katrina]

Problem is that alot of people cant stand not knowing a storms true intensity. I'm that way with Katrina

Alack and alas, Floyd; there is little one can do about this state of things; however rest assured that you'll hear from "both" sides that we "do" know what it was, when in fact you hit the nail on the head--we do NOT know with any great certitude...the fact is that we have good estimates/ideas--but anyone claiming we "know" beyond any room for doubt, is kidding themselves and anyone else who lends such a comment any credence.

I agree with others... the issue is moot by this time. Let those who choose to believe what they will, believe what they will, with the understanding that "belief" does not alter fact--life indeed does go on.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Under these particular circumstances I don't think the exact intensity of the storm would really matter to you that much now would it???? probably not....

Very well stated, Frank. The simple fact of the matter is that on the scale of personal experience (which is the bottom line for those caught in one of these monsters) Katrina was a 10. What people bicker over about 5-10mph this way or that means next to nothing when one surveys a desolation that once was 'home".

A2K

[Pearl River]

The problem I have is not about classification as it is so much someone telling me that most of the damage was caused by this, but not that. Someone who sees a picture or two, or passing thru an area without seeing the full scope. This house only lost one shingle, so the storm was not that strong. Don't bother to mention that the house was totally surrounded by trees to block the wind or behind another house that was totaled.

I'm not a pro-met nor do I claim to be one. I do know one thing, life experience plays a large part in knowledge. Just because it's not in a textbook, doesn't mean it can't happen. According to the laws of flight, the F-4 Phantom should not fly due to it's design, but it does.

[Lindaloo]

Katrina is the worst natural disaster to ever hit the United States. Many of you have to actually see it to understand the damage. It is terrible. And the after affects on me personally was devastating. It is something I NEVER want to experience ever again. I am just thankful my parents and nephews are still alive.

I do not remember much about Camille except that the adults seemed scared to death, while trying not to let it show in front of us kids. I remember the sigh of relief that our home was still there (only to be wiped out by Katrina later). And a huge Live Oak almost fell on the house where we were sleeping.


So NO, who gives a darn about wind speeds, not me! It is the surge I am afraid of now. Lastly, I am going to leave it up to the EXPERTS to determine if hurricanes are CAT1 to CAT5.

[timNms]

New Orleans was placed under hurricane warnings at 9:00am on Sunday, August 17th. The 190mph winds in CAMILLE were not discovered until early afternoon when she was about 60 miles se of the mouth of the Mississippi. The rapid intensification occured just a few hours before landfall, that's why there is a great possibility CAMILLE was at cat5 at landfall. The reason there was not a later flight into the storm was the earlier aircraft had mechanical problems.

Apparently the Weather Bureau at that time thought Project Stormfury was more important.

dsutherland posted a link to a radar image of Camille as she was making landfall. It showed one tightly wound and symmetric eyewall. I don't think any ERC or dry-air intrusion was taking place on August 18, 1969. That plus the 232 mph wind gust at Keesler makes me a great believer that Camille was a 5.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, she still had 125 mph sustained winds at Columbia, MS which is about 80 miles north of the coast.

I agree with mobilebay. It appears that there are some who think the only place that can be struck by a cat 5 is Florida. Before all is said and done, some will not be happy until Camille is downgraded to a cat 1 and Katrina is downgraded to a strong tropical depression