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

[Javlin]

Well after all this debate and that the NGOM cannot support a cat 3/4 then the next time the NHC HOLLERS cat 5 coming just hang tite it's only at best a cat 3 just some Damage.It might be months later others will chime in "hey I see no pictures that constitute a cat 5 it must of been a 3" then feel the knowledge maybe I saw different.Maybe Opal was a cat 1 for a lot but a cat 3 for some.Hey I have seen alot of canes from Camille till now and everyone of them had there own personality.No two Canes are alike.While Katrina reminded me personally of Elena wind wise in Biloxi W the surge by far surpassed Camille but Camille to me for some reason opt to more winds.Then you take Georges for some reason scared the s%#$ out of me with tornadoes and meovorticies with the whole house fr$@#^&* feel-in like it was shaken to pieces I was as scared that night as any.I have personally seen the the eye of two reported Hurricanes where it goes dead calm of lesser magnitudes than what we are talking about and they both had there willy's to where at both times the damage around my house of the last 47 yrs was less than what happened to the West of me.So if by Chance the NHC is correct then I saw 105-115mph Sustained winds with minimum damage then what does it take to bring down this old house.People I walked in the eye picking up debris while the BFD up the road kept us informed "You now have 5 more minutes before the eye passes" and on down to 1 minute.When you have lived through this at 110-115 mph come back and talk.I am sure there are some here to my West have been through more and there story only adds more.

[Aslkahuna]

Incidentally, anyone who has ever seen a barograph pressure trace from a hurricane knows darn well that the isobars are NOT evenly spaced once you get inside the "bar" of the storm. Those last 20 or so miles before you hit the eye and withing the eyewall itself feature some really steep gradients with the strongest winds usually (but not always) just outside the inner edge of the eyewall and usually (but not always) in the Right forward quadrant. My experiences with typhoons in the Philippines have taught me that there is a lot of variability in the windfield of an intense Tropical Cyclone which relates to the convection that is going on. My considered opinion on all this is that Camille was indeed a Cat 5 at landfall but that like Andrew the Cat 5 winds were in a small area of the eyewall and most probably limited to the immediate coastal areas.

Steve

[timNms]

Incidentally, anyone who has ever seen a barograph pressure trace from a hurricane knows darn well that the isobars are NOT evenly spaced once you get inside the "bar" of the storm. Those last 20 or so miles before you hit the eye and withing the eyewall itself feature some really steep gradients with the strongest winds usually (but not always) just outside the inner edge of the eyewall and usually (but not always) in the Right forward quadrant. My experiences with typhoons in the Philippines have taught me that there is a lot of variability in the windfield of an intense Tropical Cyclone which relates to the convection that is going on. My considered opinion on all this is that Camille was indeed a Cat 5 at landfall but that like Andrew the Cat 5 winds were in a small area of the eyewall and most probably limited to the immediate coastal areas.

Steve

I agree with you, Steve, on the cat 5 winds of Camille being confined to a small area along the coastal areas.

[HurricaneJoe22]

Can everyone stop trying to one-up each other around here with these Cat. 5 threads? The bottom line is that you can't prove what happened nearly 40 years ago on the Mississippi coast. Maybe Camille was a Cat. 5 and maybe she wasn't. Right now, the people who know a lot better than us (NHC) say she was. So let's leave it be and spend more time discussing the present. OK, I feel better now. G'nite, everybody.

[Normandy]

Nobody is trying to one-up anyone, its just that the folks on one side of the spectrum are trying to show the MGC folks that it is indeed possible that Camille could have been a little less than a 5, or a lot less than 190 mph.

[Aslkahuna]

Well, I was working the night Camille came in and I was doing hourly analyses of the storm as long as the data allowed so I know what the people were dealing with down there especially considering the fact that I watch an equivalent to Cat 5 Typhoon run towards me just two years earlier though it weakend to a Cat 1 by the time it reached us. But I saw the aftermath to our Southeast.

Steve

[Opal storm]

Nothing's going to change the minds of those who've closed them, Holly. I don't have any pictures, save those in my mind's eye, and I only too well can see miles upon untold miles of snapped over trees... HUGE tall trees, many MILES inland, from Camille.. quite literally thousands upon thousands... and if folks want to think I'm making that up.. then they can think what they want. I KNOW what I saw, and words (not to mention "pictures") simply can't describe it.

A2K

Hmm...why should I believe what you saw when you didn't believe what I saw down in Homestead?Maybe you weren't looking close enough.

I guess you just didn't look close enough... but I understand, one can have very selective memory when trying to present a case.

Anyways I am done with the whole Camille debate,we could argue over the same stuff for days and days and nothing is going to come out of it.Personally,I believe Camille was not a 5,that's just my opinion.I've taken everybody's opinion (from both side of the argument) into consideration and I'm still not convinced it was a 5.

[Frank P]

Nothing's going to change the minds of those who've closed them, Holly. I don't have any pictures, save those in my mind's eye, and I only too well can see miles upon untold miles of snapped over trees... HUGE tall trees, many MILES inland, from Camille.. quite literally thousands upon thousands... and if folks want to think I'm making that up.. then they can think what they want. I KNOW what I saw, and words (not to mention "pictures") simply can't describe it.

A2K

Hmm...why should I believe what you saw when you didn't believe what I saw down in Homestead?Maybe you weren't looking close enough.

I guess you just didn't look close enough... but I understand, one can have very selective memory when trying to present a case.

Anyways I am done with the whole Camille debate,we could argue over the same stuff for days and days and nothing is going to come out of it.Personally,I believe Camille was not a 5,that's just my opinion.I've taken everybody's opinion (from both side of the argument) into consideration and I'm still not convinced it was a 5.

Gee maybe I need to rethink all this....

NHC says Camille was a Cat 5, a plethora of scientists and meteorologists say Camille was a Cat 5, the damage indicates in all probably it was a Cat 5... and until the NHC reclassifies it, of which I'm relatively convinced that will never happen... it will remain a Category 5....

I can say this without any doubt it was one of the most intense storms ever to hit the US.... and I lived thru it and saw it first hand, and had 5 feet of water in the house I was staying in on Point Cadet , and went months without running water and electricity... .... and heard the screaming winds during the night...

and the really funny thing was that I was so sure I would never EVER see anything this devastating again... well I was wrong on that account big time thanks to Katrina....

[Opal storm]

Nothing's going to change the minds of those who've closed them, Holly. I don't have any pictures, save those in my mind's eye, and I only too well can see miles upon untold miles of snapped over trees... HUGE tall trees, many MILES inland, from Camille.. quite literally thousands upon thousands... and if folks want to think I'm making that up.. then they can think what they want. I KNOW what I saw, and words (not to mention "pictures") simply can't describe it.

A2K

Hmm...why should I believe what you saw when you didn't believe what I saw down in Homestead?Maybe you weren't looking close enough.

I guess you just didn't look close enough... but I understand, one can have very selective memory when trying to present a case.

Anyways I am done with the whole Camille debate,we could argue over the same stuff for days and days and nothing is going to come out of it.Personally,I believe Camille was not a 5,that's just my opinion.I've taken everybody's opinion (from both side of the argument) into consideration and I'm still not convinced it was a 5.

Gee maybe I need to rethink all this....

NHC says Camille was a Cat 5, a plethora of scientists and meteorologists say Camille was a Cat 5, the damage indicates in all probably it was a Cat 5... and until the NHC reclassifies it, of which I'm relatively convinced that will never happen... it will remain a Category 5....

Like I said,I am done with this argument.

I can say this without any doubt it was one of the most intense storms ever to hit the US....

That's one thing we can both agree on.

[Audrey2Katrina]

My considered opinion on all this is that Camille was indeed a Cat 5 at landfall
but that like Andrew the Cat 5 winds were in a small area of the eyewall and most probably limited to the immediate coastal areas.

And a "professional" opinion as well. Thank you very much, Steve, for clarifying much more succinctly what I was "trying" to 'splain to others:

anyone who has ever seen a barograph pressure trace from a hurricane knows darn well that the isobars are NOT evenly spaced once you get inside the "bar" of the storm.

To simply isolate a wind field at the contour of hurricane force winds and from there automatically draw the conclusion that this implies an evenly-spaced distribution of pressure grade (isobars)--hence "small storm" regardless of central pressure = deeper gradient, and therefore MUST be stronger than a "big storm" even with much lower central pressure--well it just doesn't pan out.

Nobody here, certainly not I, tried to ascertain that pressure "alone" meant higher winds--but only that there was a distinct "correlation" which I think everyone would agree with.

My considered opinion on all this is that Camille was indeed a Cat 5 at landfall

I quite agree and once again thanks for a voice of reason.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Can everyone stop trying to one-up each other around here with these Cat. 5 threads?

The assumption that it's a game of "one-up"manship, is yours--(granted, that I feel in the case of some folks it may very well be just that)... however, that said, the decision to read and/or participate in the thread is yours... kind'a like the television set, ya know. If you don't like the program--change the channel. Personally I've learned quite a lot in doing the research I've had to do in keeping up with the debate. I do believe the decision on what threads are within acceptable constraints rests with administration and moderators, and unless I'm missing something, I don't see that next to your name--of course you are entitled and welcomed to your opinion--hence in response to your question...umm.. not until/unless we feel we've gone over it to everyone's satisfaction. (Which is probably right about now--so that should come as good news). I think if the Mods and/or Admin finds we've wandered too far astray, they'll let us know. Meanwhile... hey pick your channel and enjoy the show!

I did.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Nothing's going to change the minds of those who've closed them, Holly. I don't have any pictures, save those in my mind's eye, and I only too well can see miles upon untold miles of snapped over trees... HUGE tall trees, many MILES inland, from Camille.. quite literally thousands upon thousands... and if folks want to think I'm making that up.. then they can think what they want. I KNOW what I saw, and words (not to mention "pictures") simply can't describe it.

A2K

Hmm...why should I believe what you saw when you didn't believe what I saw down in Homestead?Maybe you weren't looking close enough.

Hmmmm... don't think I ever said you or anyone else for that matter needed to believe what I saw... in fact, quite the contrary, I as much as said it was irrelevant. Oh.. and FWIW... I saw both, whereas you seem to have only seen one... big difference in stereo-vision... and tunnel vision

I guess you just didn't look close enough... but I understand, one can have very selective memory when trying to present a case.

Seems that line really bothered you Opal... and aside from being out of context, it wasn't intended as the insult you obviously took it to be. Oh, well, since you're finished with it, I'll close with a "no harm done--or intended" from my end of the discusson. Hopefully we've both learned something about not just walking in another man's shoes... but seeing through another's eyes as well.

A2K

[Opal storm]

Hmmmm... don't think I ever said you or anyone else for that matter needed to believe what I saw... in fact, quite the contrary, I as much as said it was irrelevant. Oh.. and FWIW... I saw both, whereas you seem to have only seen one... big difference in stereo-vision... and tunnel vision

You went to Andrew's ground zero?

[HollynLA]

Just wanted to add something here, I don't think the classification of a storm is an "opinion" but rather a fact. Many posters on this thread have said it's "their" opinion, but classifications are all based on facts. In other words, it's not my opinion that it just rained at my house but rather a fact that be proven, just like Camille's classification.

Also, OpalStorm, I find it funny that you believe so intensely that Andrew was a 5 as the NCH named it 10 years later (which btw, I believe this also), but yet don't believe that Camille was. So which is it, do you only believe the NHC when it serves your purpose?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Depends on the interpretation of Andrew's "ground zero". But in all fairness, I can't allow anyone to draw the false impression that this means I was personally in Homestead within days or even weeks of landfall--we were quite busy over here dealing with Andrew as well, as you should know. That said, (and I just KNOW what kind of response this will probably yield; but WTH... go for it.) I have a very close friend living in Kenner, La. whose neighbor is a former Homestead resident who rode out every horrible minute of Andrew--doubtless at the "ground zero" to which you refer. The pictures they have, not just in the form of photographs they'd taken after all the terrors they'd been through; but obviously in their "mind's eye" come through with vivid clarity. (So you see, I do give credence to an observation rife with clear conviction as elaborated through personal experience.) Essentially, the point about "seeing" both wasn't intended to imply that I'd been to Homestead itself for the storm, as I'd mentioned in other threads on these fora my experiences with Andrew here in Louisiana. I WAS at Louisiana's "ground zero" near Morgan City where Andrew made its next landfall as a Cat 3. This is why I stated I'd "seen" them both. I was alive and very much at "ground zero" within days of Camille's strike... and I was right where Andrew came into Louisiana--hence "saw them both". And based on actually having lived through seeing them both, I've no doubt BOTH... were Cat 5's.

Hope that cleared that matter up.

A2K

[Opal storm]

Also, OpalStorm, I find it funny that you believe so intensely that Andrew was a 5 as the NCH named it 10 years later (which btw, I believe this also), but yet don't believe that Camille was. So which is it, do you only believe the NHC when it serves your purpose?

I find it funny how some of you folks in MS and LA agree with the NHC that Camille was a 5,but bash the NHC about Katrina "only" being a 3. Just becuase Andrew was a 5 doesn't mean Camille was too,as they are two totally different storms.I have posted my reasons as to why I don't think Camille was a 5,I'm not going back into this mess.Again,I am done with this discusion. .

[Audrey2Katrina]

Just becuase Andrew was a 5 doesn't mean Camille was too,

Conversely, one could validly say: "Just because Camille, which ALWAYS was a Cat 5, doesn't mean that Andrew (which was a 4 for ten years) ever was a 5.

Perspective.... What you Or I think is irrelevant. The FACTS say both were 5's. We all know the saying about opinions.

A2K

[HollynLA]

I find it funny how some of you folks in MS and LA agree with the NHC that Camille was a 5,but bash the NHC about Katrina "only" being a 3.

I never even mentioned Katrina, and I never said I disagreed with the NHC. Why are you pulling things out of a hat that are not even part of this debate?

Just becuase Andrew was a 5 doesn't mean Camille was too,as they are two totally different storms.

All storms are different. I don't understand what your point is here?
but the fact is that the NHC has both documented as Cat 5s.

I have posted my reasons as to why I don't think Camille was a 5

Your reasons do not change facts. Sorry but the tropical professionals at the NHC disagrees with you, and guess who I believe?

[Opal storm]

Your reasons do not change facts. Sorry but the tropical professionals at the NHC disagrees with you, and guess who I believe?

Did I say my reasons change the fact?Come on,this is a tropical wx discussion forum where people can post THEIR OWN opinions.Are there rules that say I MUST agree with everything the pros and NHC say?And by the way,there are some pro mets out there that think Camille was not a 5,so the disagreemnet does not only exist on this board.

[timNms]

Your reasons do not change facts. Sorry but the tropical professionals at the NHC disagrees with you, and guess who I believe?

Did I say my reasons change the fact?Come on,this is a tropical wx discussion forum where people can post THEIR OWN opinions.Are there rules that say I MUST agree with everything the pros and NHC say?And by the way,there are some pro mets out there that think Camille was not a 5,so the disagreemnet does not only exist on this board.

Besides Mr. Ortt on this board, name the "other pro mets who think that Camille was not a 5" and their place of employment I'd like to see the research they have done.