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

[Normandy]

Mythical was the wrong word, it was meant to denote "famous" or "incredible"

And no, it doesnt blow my theory to bits.

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

Is everything in ur post really factual data or wasn't some of it your opinion?

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

[timNms]

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.

Did those points you heard come from people who were qualified to make that assesment or did you read them in this thread?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Something I think is important to point out here, that picture was taken in a subdivision (yes, it's obvious) where there are very few trees, mostly short shrubs and such when houses are built very close together. Also, if it was from a newer sub., most trees were very young. The pic from Camille shows trees that were probably over 100 years old.

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

[Stratosphere747]

The tree issue may need to be looked at a bit more. I've used this report a few times and will continue to as I feel it has some validity when some try and compare wind and tree damage to equate category damage...

http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/urbanforests.htm

We know from studies of storms like Camille 1969, Hugo 1989 and Andrew 1992 that the trees that come down during storms are always the weakest and most mis-shaped trees in the area. They are often non-native trees unsuited by nature to our exposed coastal landscape. Trees that are often snapped, broken or overturned are often found to be diseased, hollow and rotten in the core, old and in decline and severely imbalanced.

Yall are killing me on this tree stuff.....

[wxman57]

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

[Audrey2Katrina]

The post that A2K made about the partial reanalaysis at Camille's pressure might lend credence to the same warm sst's involved again.

Javlin, folks have been so frenzied posting in here I seriously doubt anyone but you managed to read the one "documented" analysis by NOAA and the NWS on Camille, that asserted she remained in a "steady state" for all her last 36 hours. And even had they read it... they wouldn't believe it IMO... after all it was written all of 5 years before Andrew and is obviously out of date... of course the same argument might be said for.... well, I'm sure you get the picture.

A2K

[Normandy]

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.

Did those points you heard come from people who were qualified to make that assesment or did you read them in this thread?

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

[Audrey2Katrina]

I don't think the north central Gulf coast is capable of seeing anything greater than a 160mph hurricane.And even a 160mph landfall along the north Gulf coast I would consider a once in a lifetime event.The fact is,major hurricanes (especially cat 4/5's) will weaken at some point before making landfall along the north central Gulf coast.

Well, fortunately, or unfortunately, as the case may be, nature isn't going to submit itself to the constraints imposed upon it by anyone's opinion... mine, yours, or anyone elses...

A2K

[timNms]

Mythical was the wrong word, it was meant to denote "famous" or "incredible"

And no, it doesnt blow my theory to bits.

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

Is everything in ur post really factual data or wasn't some of it your opinion?

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

What truth? All I've seen from you is what you think. Sure, you posted some data from other storms, comparing pressures and size, and a few pix, but that does not prove that your opinion is correct.

Were you even alive when Camille struck the coast? Did you see firsthand the damage? What qualifications do you have to make such assessments of a hurricane's damage? What professional training do you possess that qualifies you to do so?

I am basing my opinion on what the NHC said, and first hand experience, since I lived through Camille in a 3 room house Yeah, we had an outhouse way back then.

Again, I'll say until the officials who make the decisions change that assignment, the only thing you and I and others can do is post our opinions and I don't believe what we say on this board is going to make a bit of difference in the outcome.

[Stratosphere747]

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

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

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

[Audrey2Katrina]

I am sure that at least 90% of trees in those small pockets were downed

Which STILL leaves 10% standing, hence throw out the SS description. Look, I'm not picking a fight with you over this EWG, frankly we probably agree on more than we disagree; it's just that I'm not going to sit idly by and watch/listen to claims that it's just not possible for a 5 to hit the NGOM, when I know D*d good and well what I saw in 1969, and if that wasn't a 5, then Andrew wasn't a 2. (That's hyperbole folks!)

A2K

[MGC]

If you look at the reports, Camille didn't have a 60 mile radius of hurricane force winds. Keesler AFB, located about 20 miles from landfall in Biloxi reported a sustained wind of 81mph. Based on this report, Camille likely had a radius of hurricane force winds of near 25-30 miles, about the same size as Andrew. Camille was just as tightly wound as Andrew, without the benefit of a high pressure system enhancing the wind field........MGC

[Ixolib]

If you look at the reports, Camille didn't have a 60 mile radius of hurricane force winds. Keesler AFB, located about 20 miles from landfall in Biloxi reported a sustained wind of 81mph. Based on this report, Camille likely had a radius of hurricane force winds of near 25-30 miles, about the same size as Andrew. Camille was just as tightly wound as Andrew, without the benefit of a high pressure system enhancing the wind field........MGC

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!!

Realizing I was only 12 at the time, the winds of Camille are forever-etched in my mind. That was one scarey night!! Much more so than what I experienced with Katrina in terms of wind-o-phobia.

[Opal storm]

I am sure that at least 90% of trees in those small pockets were downed

and if that wasn't a 5, then Andrew wasn't a 2.

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

[Pearl River]

Normandy wrote

timNms wrote:
Opal storm wrote:
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.


Did those points you heard come from people who were qualified to make that assesment or did you read them in this thread?


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

According to Derek, advisories mean nothing compared to the final report. The final report on Camille from the NHC, winds to 190mph, 909mb landfall, cat 5.

As you are personally convinced Camille was was not a cat 5, Some of us are convinced she was. Just because you show a few pictures of houses standing, does not mean she wasn't a cat 5, because the pictures of Homestead show houses still standing after Andrew. It took the NHC 10yrs to upgrade Andrew to a 5. It's been almost 38yrs since Camille and guess what, no changes.

[Normandy]

If you look at the reports, Camille didn't have a 60 mile radius of hurricane force winds. Keesler AFB, located about 20 miles from landfall in Biloxi reported a sustained wind of 81mph. Based on this report, Camille likely had a radius of hurricane force winds of near 25-30 miles, about the same size as Andrew. Camille was just as tightly wound as Andrew, without the benefit of a high pressure system enhancing the wind field........MGC

There have been different reports from Biloxi, because one report (written by the AL Struct Corps I believe or something) said that Biloxi had both 100 mph sustained observations and 81 mph sustained observations.

[Pearl River]

Opal wrote

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

[Opal storm]

Opal wrote

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.

[Normandy]

Also MGC, Miami downtown (As Derek has mentioned, experienced winds less than that of Wilma)...which gave them 81 mph sustained. Andrew also gave them those winds I believe (refer to him or a NHC report).

Downtown Miami sits 17-20 miles from Cutler Ridge. That would give Andrew a hurricane force wind radii on land of 17-20 miles. Perhaps that 60 mi figure is Camille's marine wind radii.

[Pearl River]

Opal wrote

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
Quote:

I am sure that at least 90% of trees in those small pockets were downed



and if that wasn't a 5, then Andrew wasn't a 2.
Uhh...did I miss something there? Or was that just another one of those "my storm" is bigger than "your storm" type things.

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