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

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
Opal storm

#221 Postby Opal storm » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:53 pm

I'm tired of hearing posters from MS/LA saying that us here in Florida or anywhere else think Camille was not a 5 becuase it wasn't "our storm" :roll: .Come on,that's just childish talk and it is uncalled for.We ALL know Camille was one of the most devastating storms ever,we are not downplaying it becuase it wasn't "our storm".
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#222 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:54 pm

that may be because they feel challenged.


A professional should NOT feel "challenged" simply because someone takes issue with their professed opinion--especially when there is no lack of other "professionals" who likewise differ with their views.

A2K
Last edited by Audrey2Katrina on Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

Opal storm

#223 Postby Opal storm » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:56 pm

timNms wrote:
Opal storm wrote:
the damage that Andrew showed us I HAVE NOT seen with Camille....
I am also curious as to why there are no photos from Camille that show wind damage that even compares to Andrew or even Charley.I mean,for a "190mph" hurricane would'nt you expect to see photos of that kind of devastation?Or did Camille's winds hit a very small less-populated area and nobody bothered to photograph the area?


Camille hit MS in 1969. Andrew hit Florida in 1993. That's quite a few years in between the two. MS's coast was no where near as developed when Camille struck as it was last year when Katrina struck. Also, there were not that many towns of big size between the coast and Jackson in 1969. That's probably why there aren't that many photos of inland areas.
That's what I thought.I'm sure if Camille's strongest winds would've hit Biloxi or Gulfport it would've looked like Homestead in terms of wind damage.
0 likes   

Valkhorn
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:09 am
Contact:

#224 Postby Valkhorn » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:58 pm

I don't know if anyone's ever thought of this, but if there is a storm surge covering 20-30 feet of the immediate coast, wouldn't the waves and what was covered by water be pretty much shielded from the maximum winds?

This would mean that the only places immediately along the coast which would be subject to the highest winds would be stronger, taller buildings?

Just a thought.
1 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#225 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:58 pm

I just want to make sure all who come here for information get the fair share of understanding, too, even those who disagree with Camille's official landfalling intensity.


With all due respect... isn't that the MODS, job? I mean, if you wish to take a viewpoint, and express it, by all means, do so; but becoming a self-appointed Marshall of Dodge isn't going to sit well with people who don't take to being lectured to when they've really done nothing wrong--were it to have gotten out of hand, I feel confident that by now a Mod might have taken a position and/or stopped it. Thanks to this unwanted turn of the discussion, I see that as an ever increasing possibility. Can we please either discuss rationally our viewpoints without the pedantic lecturing?

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

#226 Postby Normandy » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:02 pm

Ill respond later A2K, but to compare Camille's core to Andrews is a bit foolish, imo. Eye sizes do not make intense winds, gradients do, and if you do look up Andrew you will notice he had a RIDICULOUS pressure gradient, especially with that high sitting to the north.

Again, I'll respond later.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#227 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:15 pm

I'm tired of hearing posters from MS/LA saying that us here in Florida or anywhere else think Camille was not a 5 becuase it wasn't "our storm"


That kind of reasoning/thinking is definitely NOT so parochial as to be restricted to LA/MS, or FLA, or TX... or wherever have you...it gets brought up by all sides, and usually because of the undeniable correlation... albeit we both know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#228 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:16 pm

Valkhorn wrote:I don't know if anyone's ever thought of this, but if there is a storm surge covering 20-30 feet of the immediate coast, wouldn't the waves and what was covered by water be pretty much shielded from the maximum winds?

This would mean that the only places immediately along the coast which would be subject to the highest winds would be stronger, taller buildings?

Just a thought.


that point has been brought up, Valkhorn... and it is a valid one IMO.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#229 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:17 pm

That's what I thought.I'm sure if Camille's strongest winds would've hit Biloxi or Gulfport it would've looked like Homestead in terms of wind damage.



Fully agree on this one, and I'm certain the folks in Biloxi/Gulfport are grateful.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#230 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:24 pm

Ill respond later A2K, but to compare Camille's core to Andrews is a bit foolish, imo. Eye sizes do not make intense winds, gradients do, and if you do look up Andrew you will notice he had a RIDICULOUS pressure gradient, especially with that high sitting to the north.


Number 1) I didn't say that "eye size" defines intensity of winds, now did I?... I merely noted that Camille had both a very small eye... (Wilma ring a bell?) AND a very low landfalling pressure--indeed sizeably lower than Andrew's. The two COMBINED, usually DO have something to say about "possibly" extreme winds?? So attempting to re-context the argument is a bit foolish IMO. As far as just what the suddenly much discussed gradient was... well, when you present it, please provide a contour map, complete with isobars so we can see this "ridiculous" pressure gradient. Of course, it would be nice if we were to have a similar map showing the gradient in Camille; but I rather doubt than anything remotely reliable from that far back exists, so it will still, obviously remain an unprovable position--by me, or you.

Number 2)
Again, I'll respond later.


I'll be here, God willing. :wink:

A2K
Last edited by Audrey2Katrina on Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

Javlin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1620
Age: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: ms gulf coast

#231 Postby Javlin » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:43 pm

Opal storm wrote:I'm tired of hearing posters from MS/LA saying that us here in Florida or anywhere else think Camille was not a 5 because it wasn't "our storm" :roll: .Come on,that's just childish talk and it is uncalled for.We ALL know Camille was one of the most devastating storms ever,we are not downplaying it because it wasn't "our storm".


Opal I am by far trying not to imply that and I was being sarcastic when I mentioned looking for pictures of less damage done by Charley.I have not challenged any of the data from other storms nor will I.What I am tired of is people using isolated pictures as evidence of an entire event to downplay the known data at this point from the NHC.I cannot change the data of any of the other storms . I could by using the same tactics as the opponnents I probably could produce the same results as those that challenge Camilles intensity.CVW I would have to agree on one point was Camille really 190mph hitting MGC I just cannot go that for some reason was she a 5 that I believe.I am with Ortt on this a nice reanalysis is needed and would be appreciated.
Last edited by Javlin on Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
docjoe
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: SE Alabama..formerly the land of ivan and dennis

#232 Postby docjoe » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:43 pm

we had a really bitchin thunderstorm a couple of weeks ago...snapped some 1-2" twigs like it was nothing and left inches of water in the yard!!!
(no lecture please...just tryin to lighten things up just a touch) :D

docjoe
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#233 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:47 pm

docjoe wrote:we had a really bitchin thunderstorm a couple of weeks ago...snapped some 1-2" twigs like it was nothing and left inches of water in the yard!!!
(no lecture please...just tryin to lighten things up just a touch) :D

docjoe


The Levity is appreciated!. :D ... Is this a lull before the other side of the storm approaches! :wink:

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#234 Postby Pearl River » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:56 pm

CVW wrote

Please quit the bashing and hostility I sense once and for all on those who disagree with Camille's intensity. Some of us (including those who disagree with Camille's intensity) need to feel more welcomed here, just like you feel the need to feel welcomed here, too.


The bashing and hostility are on both side's. You have the right to disagree, the same as I. It's the constant badgering or baiting that some keep using to try and prove their point. We have some who say life experince doesn't matter, but in the same breath agree with someone who holds their viewpoint, that their life experience is correct. This is not aimed at you, but others have made those statements.

I'm not going to tell you or anyone else that a storm they experienced wasn't bad based on pictures or lack of. I did not say you could not spell Camille, but for a professional in the field to continually not spell it correctly, I'm going to correct them.
0 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#235 Postby MiamiensisWx » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:01 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:No, there's no "maybe" about it CVW... it's a matter of public record.. the measurements are there and were recorded at several locations.


True, but I was just leaving room for doubt, although I agree that the 909 millibars reading WAS surely accurate.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:The size of Camille's intense "core" was at least as small as that of Andrew, and satellite pictures show this, IMO... please let's not go back over this immense size imbroglio again, as it accomplishes nothing. You look, not at the outer feeder bands; but that enormously intense core of Camille, and you're looking at a storm with an eye smaller, and a core tighter--even than Andrew. Andrew's eye was nearly TWICE as large as the 8 mile eye of Camille. The point about how wide the overall swath of winds was can be debated forever; but as to the intensity around the core--there's only a comparison inasmuch as they were--well, similar with Camille having much the smaller eye.


Which of the two radar images below are you referring to about Camille's small core?

Link

The top one appears to be taken from a reconnaissance aircraft, while the bottom one appears to be the actual New Orleans radar image. If it is correct, I think Camille's eye would be very slightly smaller than Andrew. Is there a scale for that image for the eye/core width? Still, Camille most likely had a smaller eye than Andrew, as you have stated.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Why not practice what you preach, and provide "concrete" evidence that it was. This is more arguing in a vacuum, and propaganda-wise is known as an appeal to ignorance: "If you can't PROVE your point then I win the argument".... doesn't work that way CVW. The "concrete" evidence you so long to see is actually lacking in both storms... aside from a clearly lower barometric reading for Camille, which is decidedly "concrete."


Of course Camille's landfall pressure is concrete. I was talking about sustained winds.

As for Andrew, here are my thoughts...

If you read the report on Andrew's upgrade, the sustained Category Five winds occurred in an area where few, if any, lived, and in any area where any scarce anemometers failed before the peak winds arrived (and those peak winds likely occurred nearby in streaks, not in the direct area of the few, scarce anemometers). These area(s) of the true sustained Category Five winds in Andrew were located between Elliott Key and the tip of Key Biscayne, in streaks on Elliott Key and in the vicinity of Fowey Rocks and Cape Florida, and in the sparsely-populated area of Fender Point and in small streaks along Biscayne Bay near Coral Gables/Perrine on the mainland. No wonder, along with all the other factors, why these winds weren't recorded.


You have a good point, though. Evidence in both storms is not 100 percent concrete. What I meant by concrete is that we may (key word is "may") have a slightly better chance of figuring out storm intensities now than in 1969; of course, just my opinion.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Why am I not surprised that you find Andrew a 5, and Camille probably a 4? Okay... that was sarcasm... actually on the Andrew thing, I tend to agree.. and have stated so MANY times.. I equally feel the same could be said for Camille.... I fail to see the point?


Thanks for expressing that a bit better. I just haven't seen enough evidence from the data we have and from what I've learned from more recent storms to support Camille's 190MPH landfall intensity; again, just my personal perspective based on my own observations.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Since you've chosen to take what I consider the "low road" on this tack, I will say that "nitpicking" is in the eyes of the beholder. The use of the term "nonsense" lends neither logic, nor any degree of credibility to anything you've stated. Were you truly capable of seeing the "logic" of much of what I'd been stating, you'd see the use of both hyperbole and sarcasm, as well as plausible doubt, none of which are "nonsense"... in trying to illustrate my points... they do seem to have evaded some, however--but it hasn't been for lack of effort.


I have seen your mixture of hyberbole, sarcasm, and what you consider palusible points in your posts. Your posts are always interesting, and some points can be drawn from what you have said; thanks for explaining it out better.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:No need to SCREAM!!!! And simply because both I, and the overwhelming majority of meteorlogical/climatological experts who've been around much longer, and doubtless studied the storm moreso than you have, disagree with your assessment doesn't mean we'd be BASHING your "opinion"... it simply means that quite frankly, we view it as wrong.


True, but it's not like I haven't studied the storm and winds much. You can learn a lot from all sides of the debate, and I take that into account, along with my own personal experience and knowledge from professional mets and climatological experts, as well as other personal views based on evidence from others. I just felt that those who disagree with the common perception among some get somewhat arrogantly lashed; again, just my own opinion, and it could be wrong, but some better understanding is needed. Thanks for telling me better again.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Ya know... THIS :uarrow: is the mantra I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing by the predictably same folks over and over. I don't believe now, nor will I EVER believe that because someone has a title like "pro-met" that I am duty-bound to become a sycophant expected to bow to their every utterance. I do NOT need YOU or anyone else to lecture me on "respect"... so spare me the effort. Had you done extensive research you'd find that quite a few "Pro-mets" disagree with the "pro-mets" who've voiced that Camille wasn't a 5, and even some who don't think Andrew was a 5.... this is NOT disrespect--it's called "having a different opinion" and even "respectful" dissent!... kindly learn the difference-- having your own opinion is NOT tantamount to disrespect! On the other hand... when an individual.. be they pro-met, mod, analyst, or just some Joe-blow off the street, preaches down their nose to me, or anyone else, or employs tactics such as dogmatic assertions implying they are right and anyone else is either wrong or foolish, well--it is obvious that the lack of proper "respect" is being channeled from THEIR end... and a response in kind is often the result. Perhaps you need to view things from every angle before passing judgment on just who might be showing a lack of respect.


I already stated earlier that several experts DO disagree with the upgrade of Andrew, and I have already provided my thoughts on why I still agree with the upgrade. I also have seen many professionals still agree with Camille's Category Five status at landfall, so there is nothing wrong with differing opinions. Enough said, I feel, for the moment.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Again... beating a dead horse... attacking a straw man... take your pick. I'm so sick of seeing this bandied about. Find me ONE place wherein >I< have made this wind speed a major point of contention. On the other hand, I can provide PLENTY wherein I made it patently obvious this was NOT my concern at all.


Just as you have expressed your frustration or opinion or otherwise (take your pick), I have expressed mine. Nothing wrong with either.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:You mean like how quick some Florida folks might be similarly offended by those who might disagree with Andrew or Charley's "alleged" windspeeds? Again.. cuts both ways... Although in this much I will agree with you... I canNOT understand why it is that some folks seem to think they are "entitled" to have the very worst hurricane by fiat of Divine Providence, and anyone daring to encroach upon that claim is summarily beaten down with post after incessant post. I've said it before and I'll say it again... whoever wants to have the worst ever is WELCOMED to it; frankly I wish I'd never heard of Katrina... or Camille or Betsy for that matter. But for whatever reason, I'm VERY sure that a statistical correlative study will show beyond any doubt that one's geographic location has a LOT to do with what storms they are "convinced" were the worst--and I do NOT exclude myself from that statistic--I find it quite universal.


The portion highlighted in bold is exactly my point I have been trying to make in my posts in this topic. It is very true.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Well, annoying is, as annoying does... frankly I don't mind a substantive discussion/debate, where real numbers and data are bandied about instead of condescending lectures. I will tender you the same advice you offered me.. in the future, please stick to data/info and eschew the ad-hominem innuendos. I definitely do not like being preached to; but I welcome substantive debate and discussion.


Completely agree on this.


Pearl River wrote:I'm not going to tell you or anyone else that a storm they experienced wasn't bad based on pictures or lack of. I did not say you could not spell Camille, but for a professional in the field to continually not spell it correctly, I'm going to correct them.


I completely agree with the portions highlighted in bold. Those are part of my points.
Last edited by MiamiensisWx on Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#236 Postby Pearl River » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:41 pm

CVW wrote

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
No, there's no "maybe" about it CVW... it's a matter of public record.. the measurements are there and were recorded at several locations.


True, but I was just leaving room for doubt, although I agree that the 909 millibars reading WAS surely accurate.


The 909mb was definitely accurate. The barometer was tested by the NWS in New Orleans and tested accurate.
0 likes   

User avatar
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#237 Postby Pearl River » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:58 pm

First of all the disagreement is about those stating Andrew can be a cat5 at 922mb, but Camille cannot be one at 909mb.

Meteorology, like other sciences is not exact and even these scientists cannot agree with each other.

Let's take a look at the "facts" as you so state. Here are the "facts" about Camille. Landfall pressure of at least 909mb. This was verified accurate by the NWS in New Orleans. Winds of 190mph. This is in the final report issued by the NHC on Camille. These are some of the "facts" that have been attacked by other's on this thread and not by A2K. Just because no picture of the severest damage may exist, does not mean it did not occur.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5899
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

#238 Postby MGC » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:02 pm

The Church Normand posted in Pass Christian was not totally destroyed by Katrina. The roof was not destroyed nor the walls. It was washed through by Katrina's surge which was several feet higher than Camille. The Church is located a couple of blocks off the beach. The same trees pictured as surviving Camille also survived Katrina. Since the surge was higher in Katrina than Camille yet parts of the Church structure survived Katrina but not Camille what destroyed the Church building completely in 1969? If water didn't do it than I guess the wind must have.......MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
Aslkahuna
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 4550
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

#239 Postby Aslkahuna » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:27 pm

Incidentally, there's a minor error in the year of Andrew's landfall in some posts above. Andrew made landfall in 1992-the second named storm to enter the US that year-5 hours after Tropical Storm Lester (an EPAC Storm) entered the US just east of Nogales AZ.

Steve
0 likes   

Opal storm

#240 Postby Opal storm » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:29 pm

Even though the final report says sustained 190mph winds I extremely doubt it was that strong at landfall.Like I've said before,it is very difficult for storms to keep that kind of intensity even over warm waters,there's no way it's going to keep that intensity till landfall.Remember,this is the north Gulf were talking about,cat 4/5 hurricanes do not like the northern Gulf.Also there was probably land interaction with SE LA that could've caused some weakening.IMO I am convinced Camille was more likely a borderline cat 5/4 at landfall.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests