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

[Ivanhater]

I agree Opal storm; they shouldn't be bashing your opinions. Also, you most certainly have been posting facts to back up your arguments, but they seem to be getting ignored by some. My best advice for you is to just give up the argument and move on. That strategy has worked for me many times in the past during these type of debates. There can be no clear cut winner. People with such strong opinions can not be swayed one way or the other; the debate will go on forever. The best thing to do is to just move on and focus on other topics, and eventually this thread will be forgotten. We can leave it up to the NHC to re-classify Camille if they one day wish to do so. Right now any arguments against that fact are like arguments against a wall. No matter how much some of us disagree, we can never really win until it is "official".

Thanks and I agree,we should all just move on.Camille is still a 5 officially,that may or may not change in the future but we can still have different viewpoints.But all these opinions and arguments don't accumulate to anything in the end.

Hopefully this thread can come to a happy ending like a episode of Full House,where there are no hurt feelings.

If I was online I would of had your back Opal! Opal is doing the same thing everyone is doing...posting opinions with the facts at hand...Just posting "official" data really is not posting absolute facts knowing it may not be totally factual since it has not been reanalyzed.

[Extremeweatherguy]

No matter how much some of us disagree, we can never really win until it is "official".

Well newsflash, it IS official, Camille was a CAT 5. Someone could have cleared that up 37 years ago if all it took was for it to be "official".

your right. I changed the wording of my post to clarify what I meant.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Considering that almost all of Camille's western side was over SE LA

That's the first misconception. In the first place, the storm made landfall some 20 miles (or thereabouts) EAST of the La/Miss line with a MUCH smaller eyewall, hence a goodly part of the worst winds, even on the WESTern side would have been over Mississippi. In the second place, I'm sure you DO realize that what you're calling SE LA. consists of a mere peninsula jutting out into the Gulf that is only a few miles wide, with bodies of water on both sides? This is hardly going to play any major role in reducing the strength of a Cat 5 storm, the Cat 5 winds of which certainly didn't pass over even this tiny land area to be weakened at all. Recall the "only" Cat 3 Katrina lost NONE of it's Cat 3 status and it truly DID pass over SE Louisiana.. hitting Plaquemines, and passing directly over St. Bernard AND Eastern Orleans parish before the La/Miss landfall. How much less do you suppose the "weakening" would be with FAR less interaction over SE LA lands and from a powerful Cat 5? (Okay... perhaps rhetorical.) Camille impacted SE La... but in no way to the extent that it impacted Mississippi.

that could've caused some weakening

This is a possibility... perhaps down from 170-180ish down to 165-170'ish, perhaps even a little lower than that (although "officially" I believe it's the 165)... who knows but from it's peak that "some weakening" didn't amount to enough to bring it's winds down below the 155 threshhold... that I will never believe.

Just a opinion folks,I am not forcing anybody to believe this and I'm sorry if anybody felt that I was.I mean no disrespect.

No problem, Opal...as stated by just about everyone... you ARE entitled to your opinion. I've tried a thousand times to explain that disagreement is NOT the same as disrespect, it just doesn't register with some who can't seem to tell the difference.

Although in my opinion, (and that of the official agency), your opinion is wrong!

If you're going to cite that--please do it contextually... I'm only throwing out a little levity to lighten it up a bit. I respect your opinion even though I don't agree. I hope the feeling is mutual.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Upper-level winds are rarely favorable for major hurricanes moving

Rarely doesn't mean never.

I don't think anybody said it is totally impossible for a cat 5 to hit the north/central Gulf coast,

No, perhaps not in so many words, although it has certainly been suggested by very strong implication. As to its "possibility", I feel Camille settled the issue.

The other issues I believe were already addressed in my quoted post... seems there's nothing new here.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

until the NHC "officially" changes the landfalling intensity of Camille (which may never happen).

You're right about people not paying much attention to things they don't want to hear or see... I mean one person wasted 30 minutes and came to the conclusion that everyone is wrong! (Which, BTW I will take note of as many comments were made by pro-mets, so I truly don't want to hear the "how dare you challenge the reputation of a pro-met" line again. Not that the aforementioned person wasn't entitled that opinion, as they certainly are-- I only ask for consistency in future reference--I'm sure this will be the case. For whatever it's worth, I pointed out that they did do a complete 214 page report on it, and other storms, only 5 years before Andrew hit... nothing changed then, so I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that reclassification. I'd put my money on your parenthetical truism.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

...Just posting "official" data really is not posting absolute facts knowing it may not be totally factual since it has not been reanalyzed.

Actually it IS quite "official". This doesn't preclude yet another analysis; but I do have a document dated 1987 where all the data was most definitely revisited, and there seems to be no question in it as to the fact that Camille was still very much regarded a 5 at that point in time.

So it's "official"... Camille was a Cat 5 at Mississippi Landfall!!

Glad we cleared that up!

A2K

[Pearl River]

Ivanhater wrote

Opal storm wrote:
Extremeweatherguy wrote:
I agree Opal storm; they shouldn't be bashing your opinions. Also, you most certainly have been posting facts to back up your arguments, but they seem to be getting ignored by some. My best advice for you is to just give up the argument and move on. That strategy has worked for me many times in the past during these type of debates. There can be no clear cut winner. People with such strong opinions can not be swayed one way or the other; the debate will go on forever. The best thing to do is to just move on and focus on other topics, and eventually this thread will be forgotten. We can leave it up to the NHC to re-classify Camille if they one day wish to do so. Right now any arguments against that fact are like arguments against a wall. No matter how much some of us disagree, we can never really win until it is "official".
Thanks and I agree,we should all just move on.Camille is still a 5 officially,that may or may not change in the future but we can still have different viewpoints.But all these opinions and arguments don't accumulate to anything in the end.

Hopefully this thread can come to a happy ending like a episode of Full House,where there are no hurt feelings.


If I was online I would of had your back Opal! Opal is doing the same thing everyone is doing...posting opinions with the facts at hand...Just posting "official" data really is not posting absolute facts knowing it may not be totally factual since it has not been reanalyzed.

Opal storm was basing his "facts"/opinions on unproven data. We have been posting our "facts"/opinions based on known and proven data issued by the NHC. Until there is another agency to prove otherwise, the NHC has the final say. Their final say, as of now, Camille was/still is a cat 5. No if's, and's, or but's.

[Frank P]

BREAKING NEWS JUST IN

CAMILLE STILL A CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE.....



I think perhaps its time to move on to the next great forum debate gang...

[Stormcenter]

20 pages for something we all already knew the answer to 37 years ago.
Camille was and always be a Cat.5 hurricane. There is not any strong evidence out there to prove otherwise.

[Audrey2Katrina]

BREAKING NEWS JUST IN

CAMILLE STILL A CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE.....



I think perhaps its time to move on to the next great forum debate gang...

Can Ya Imagine That?

20 pages for something we all already knew the answer to 37 years ago.
Camille was and always be a Cat.5 hurricane. There is not any strong evidence out there to prove otherwise.

Couldn't agree more... which is why I'd hoped the "It's OFFICIAL" might've helped draw things to a nice, friendly close..... we shall see.

A2K

[Ivanhater]

By no means am I getting into the debate at hand ...Only thing I am saying is just because something is "Official" does not make it "absolute". I have my doubts about the "Official" data about Ivan, and some here have their doubts about the "Official" data about Katrina...just because it is what is on the books now doesn't make it absolute does it? I think not, and that is the only point I am trying to make...just my "opinion" though ..carry on everyone...

[The Sandcrab]

Carla. Now THAT was a monster, area-wise, and should probably be upgraded to a five . . .

Seriously, is it time for a new scale? With so many factors in what makes a storm severe, S-S only counts the peak winds. Maybe it's best to keep it simple. I think I've read something about this before, anybody?

[timNms]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/hi ... ml#camille

interesting info on Camille from NHC

"A minimum pressure of 26.84 inches was reported in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, which makes Camille the second most intense hurricane of record to hit the United States. The actual maximum sustained winds will never be known, as the hurricane destroyed all the wind-recording instruments in the landfall area. The estimates at the coast are near 200 mph. Columbia, Mississippi, located 75 miles inland, reported 120 mph sustained winds. A storm tide of 24.6 ft occurred at Pass Christian, Mississippi."

[hurricanesurvivor]

I experienced both Camille and Katrina, and I can definitely say that the winds in Camille were stronger than the ones in Katrina. The eyes of both storms came over us here in Picayune. In Camille, my grandmother's house was nearly destroyed by wind as there is no water near her house. A very large old live oak tree was toppled and fell on the house, and there were 5 pine trees slicing through our trailer there that we rented out. Nearly every tung nut tree in the entire county was blown down, and a thriving industry was obliterated because of that. Yet, when we returned home to New Orleans the next day (we had evacuated to Picayune as it was thought Camille was "the big one" for New Orleans) and the trash cans we had left at the curb were not even blown down. That was only 50 miles away. So I do think Camille was a small storm. I saw it with my own eyes. I don't need anyone to tell me otherwise. The eye of Camille took barely 20 minutes to pass over, where Katrina's eye took about an hour. Nearly every tree in our neighborhood came down during Katrina, yet there are those on this board who claim there was no tree damage in Katrina. I could go on and on about the two storms, but I will always believe Camille was a cat 5 and a small storm, no matter what anyone tries to tell me.

[timNms]

I experienced both Camille and Katrina, and I can definitely say that the winds in Camille were stronger than the ones in Katrina. The eyes of both storms came over us here in Picayune. In Camille, my grandmother's house was nearly destroyed by wind as there is no water near her house. A very large old live oak tree was toppled and fell on the house, and there were 5 pine trees slicing through our trailer there that we rented out. Nearly every tung nut tree in the entire county was blown down, and a thriving industry was obliterated because of that. Yet, when we returned home to New Orleans the next day (we had evacuated to Picayune as it was thought Camille was "the big one" for New Orleans) and the trash cans we had left at the curb were not even blown down. That was only 50 miles away. So I do think Camille was a small storm. I saw it with my own eyes. I don't need anyone to tell me otherwise. The eye of Camille took barely 20 minutes to pass over, where Katrina's eye took about an hour. Nearly every tree in our neighborhood came down during Katrina, yet there are those on this board who claim there was no tree damage in Katrina. I could go on and on about the two storms, but I will always believe Camille was a cat 5 and a small storm, no matter what anyone tries to tell me.

I think the winds in Camille were much worse than those in Katrina, also. My mom had a trash can that she had left out when Camille hit. We have yet to find that thing and that was almost 40yrs ago LOL.
You are right, tho. There was LOTS of tree damage and downed trees from Katrina.

[ammmyjjjj]

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about ... eport.html


I found this interesting article on Camille and the damage she caused.

[KWT]

I personally think we very nearly got to see a clone to Camille in the shape of Charley, if it were a slower hurricane then with it having such a tight graidiant it was going to get int othe 170-185mph range, I'm sure of it. Of course it didn't actually happen thankfully but I have a feeling Charley was close to having the same sort of strength as Camille.

something new to the debate i suppose!

[Ixolib]

I experienced both Camille and Katrina, and I can definitely say that the winds in Camille were stronger than the ones in Katrina. The eyes of both storms came over us here in Picayune. In Camille, my grandmother's house was nearly destroyed by wind as there is no water near her house. A very large old live oak tree was toppled and fell on the house, and there were 5 pine trees slicing through our trailer there that we rented out. Nearly every tung nut tree in the entire county was blown down, and a thriving industry was obliterated because of that. Yet, when we returned home to New Orleans the next day (we had evacuated to Picayune as it was thought Camille was "the big one" for New Orleans) and the trash cans we had left at the curb were not even blown down. That was only 50 miles away. So I do think Camille was a small storm. I saw it with my own eyes. I don't need anyone to tell me otherwise. The eye of Camille took barely 20 minutes to pass over, where Katrina's eye took about an hour. Nearly every tree in our neighborhood came down during Katrina, yet there are those on this board who claim there was no tree damage in Katrina. I could go on and on about the two storms, but I will always believe Camille was a cat 5 and a small storm, no matter what anyone tries to tell me.

I think the winds in Camille were much worse than those in Katrina, also. My mom had a trash can that she had left out when Camille hit. We have yet to find that thing and that was almost 40yrs ago LOL.
You are right, tho. There was LOTS of tree damage and downed trees from Katrina.

In agreement with both posts above. Camille's winds were ABSOLUTELY stronger than in Katrina. I too was in both...

[MGC]

Quite a spirited debate back in 2006. Now that the reanalysis of Camille is complete, I believe we can lay to rest the landfall intensity was indeed Cat-5 and reject the theory that the NGOM can not support a Cat-5 hurricane. Not suprised at all with lowering the max winds to 175mph. Rather suprised with the lowering of landfall pressure to 900mb.......MGC

[Nimbus]

Obviously this discussion is main stream news now with Jeff Masters Blog.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... -us-hurric

Reevaluating storms from the 1960's that brings back memories..

Anyone remember this scene?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lgnXM54Zw