Talk:Hurricane Camille/Archive 1

New edits
The "hurricane party" is not just an urban legend. The Civil Defense Team that evacuated this area made a film entiltle "Camile was no Lady". This documentary shows the before an after images of the destruction. It also shows the Civil defense team trying to evacuate this building. They were greeted by a man holding a unique beer mug, who welcomed them to a hurricane party. They encouraged them to leave but all refused. After the storm, all that was left was a pile of lumber and that distintive beer mug. As far as survivors, there are differing acounts as to whether or not anyone survived. 63.172.27.2 12:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)M.Stewart

I hope that if my changes don't meet with universal approval they will be revised as needed rather than reverted; let me know what you think, in any case. Ataru 23:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Why in god's name is this stupid Hurricane Party anecdote taking up so many paragraphs. Can't we just mention it in a sentence or two? This smells like someone's pet topic.


 * Because it is the most famous story of Camille. Most people have heard of it, and not many people know that it is an urban legend.  Runningonbrains       PS, is there an easier way to sign these things than manually adding the link??
 * It is not an urban legend. A book was later written by the only survivor of the party, one out of a group of roughly 25, I believe.  The party was held in Pass Christian, Mississippi, and Camille leveled the property to its foundations. -- Chr.K. 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * She was not the only survivor...other survivors have called her a liar repeatedly. Apparently, the story is based on a single, unreliable survivor.  Runningonbrains 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit War and Protection
This is one of the stupidest edit wars I have ever seen on wikipedia. That said, would all parties agree to the following version- Camille is considered to be one of the worst storms to ever hit the mainland United States (others including Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Ivan). Camille had winds in excess of 210 mph (340 km/h) and a storm surge of over 24 feet (6 metres) (see storm surge profile).

Also- Curps, you have protected a page in which you were involved in an edit war. As far as I understand it, this is counter to Wiki's policy. Autopilots 19:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Autopilots, you are mistaken. This was no edit war: this collection of anon IPs was "Cyrius's personal vandal", this was discussed in the various admin pages (protected page, etc).  This vandal attacked at several pages, not just this one. -- Curps 19:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't realize that. For this article, however, the anonymous vandal was probably correct in their inclusion of Hurricane Ivan as one of the worst storms to hit the mainland U.S., regardless of their intentions. Autopilots 20:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the matter. Given the passage of time, though, I've unprotected the article. -- Curps 20:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is that Ivan really doesn't belong in the same category as Camille and Andrew; Ivan was bad, but not superlatively so. I'm not going to start an edit war about it though. Ataru 23:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The following is an Unsigned comment by user:24.254.43.158, interjected into my comment

(others including Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Ivan, and the Galveston Hurricane of 1900). I have moved it here. Autopilots 06:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Party?
I've heard from some very official, trustworthy sources (ie, EVERYWHERE) that there was a hurricane party and that only one did survive the hurricane. This is the only place where I've heard that the "Hurricane Party" was an urban legend. bob rulz 12:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * You can go tell Duckworth that he's dead or lying then. The reason the story sticks around is that it's a really good story. There's one person who says they were the only survivor of the party, and at least two others who say she's full of shit, and the only actual research I've ever seen done on the thing agrees with the "full of shit" assessment. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As said above, the story is true. The location was Pass Christian. -- Chr.K. 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We should remove or trim the Hurricane Party section. This is an encyclopedia, after all - that kind of stuff is better suited to a personal website. If you want to make mention of it, that's fine, but the article should not go into the detail it does.
 * The matter was mentioned in a work published by the NOAA itself, the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tropical Cyclones (so far as I remember the name...will hereafter check it out once more to be certain), as one of the foremost examples of blatant human stupidity in the face of mind-numbing natural power, and the questions it raises (along with those who stayed during Katrina, for instance) as to how much freedom governments should allow their citizens in the face of the possibility of near-certain annihilation of entire regions. The Hurricane Party story, if true, should definitely be in the article; it asks us whether totalitarian coersion on the part of our leaders might sometimes be a good thing. --Chr.K. 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1.42 or 1.5 or 7.5 billions?
I wonder, which data is correct about the total damage done by the Camille? Is it 1.42, 1.5 or even 7.5 billions as stated on the right brief of the site? Not to be totally overscrupulous but the 1.42 and 7.5 differ quite a lot in my opinion.

J.M.


 * There was a lot of inflation between the 1960s and 2005. I'm guessing that's the discrepancy. --Golbez 15:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

What are compact hurricanes?
My question is what are compact hurricanes? Is it big? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfanfaiz (talk • contribs)


 * I suppose knowing what the word compact means helps. --Golbez 02:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, wouldn't it mean a small and well organized (and intense) hurricane? Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we can talk about it in any official way "compact hurricanes" isn't an designation its just a normal English adjective added to it, which is used to describe small intense storms (Camille, Cyclone Tracy....)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Compact" would be a reference to what the Miami Sun-Sentinel called Hurricane Andrew, in an article in a special edition of the newspaper published August 22, 1992. Studies of the impact of compact hurricanes like Andrew, or wide-sweeping ones like Camille or Katrina, are also in numerous, disparate locations; and yes, I am stating that calling Camille a compact hurricane is not accurate. Basically the difference is that Andrew devastated very specific regions, but left others comparatively nearby untouched, in likewise comparison to wider-diameter cyclonic systems. --Chr.K. 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Todo
Biggest single thing is probably references. But also, the length of the article hides the fact that the impact section is really small. Jdorje 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Two long paragraphs is small? Maybe compared to the rest of the article, but it's not small. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The impact section is only 6 sentences long.


 * Camille devastated an enormous area of the Gulf Coast; the area of total destruction'' in Harrison County, Mississippi was 68 square miles (176 km&sup2;).


 * ''The storm directly killed 143 people along Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. An additional 113 people perished as a result of catastrophic flooding in Nelson County, Virginia. In all, 8,931 people were injured, 5,662 homes were destroyed, and 13,915 homes experienced major damage, with many of the fatalities being coastal residents who had refused to evacuate.  The total estimated cost of damage was $1.42 billion (1969 USD), or $8.889 billion (2004 USD); at the time this made Camille the second-most expensive U.S. hurricane of all time (behind Hurricane Betsy) though it would later be surpassed by numerous other hurricanes.


 * The name was retired after the 1969 season.

&mdash; jdorje (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on this article being one of the most notable storms in history and having just 1 paragraph on its effects, I downgraded it to Start-class. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Better? What more is needed for B class? Hurricanehink 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I upgraded it to B-class. To go further, the impact, aftermath, and preparations need to be extended greatly.  In particular there is still relatively very little on the gulf coast impact. — jdorje (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Impact
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/camille/report.html

http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~littlerosie/camille.html

found some sources to help you add more info in the CAmille article

Storm05 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proper terminology
I remember seeing a discussion on this somewhere else (cant remember where for the life of me)...Hurricane pronouns should be gender-neutral. It is like this in every other tropical cyclone, Camille should be no different.Runningonbrains 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right, read the article on neutercane for a quick description of a consequence of how it was done. The usage of female names was originally meant in the same way as referring to ships as "she", but the negative connotations meant the current alternating male/female naming was introduced.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

901mb?
Where does this figure come from? Has new information been released recently or something? Pobbie Rarr 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * THe ref is right next to it in the infobox. Read to see yourself. Icelandic Hurricane #12 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While this is no doubt an interesting development, this does present a problem. Why do some official websites have the 905 minimum, and some have a 901 minimum?  In a google search, only a few sites list the 901 reading...most have Camilles minimum at 905.  In my opinion it should be left at less than or equal to 905 until someone can find out why there are two numbers floating around out there. Runningonbrains 20:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The 901 source is completely unofficial. I am changing it. Also, the damage total and death toll were unofficial. I changed that to the official NHC source. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This site reads;


 * ''"One last reconnaissance flight was made early Sunday afternoon (17th), and Air Force pilot
 * Marvin A. Little and his crew found a central pressure of 901 millibars (26.61 inches) and
 * maximum surface winds at more that 200 miles per hour (175 knots) near the center. Due to
 * engine trouble, this was the last penetration made. Hurricane force winds extended out to
 * 60 miles; Camille was a small, but extremely intense hurricane located less than 100 miles
 * from the mouth of the Mississippi River. The storm was at its peak and was under
 * surveillance of the New Orleans radar."

So if it was a reconnaisance flight, wouldn't it be official. Plus, atleast the pressure is likely, because the winds were reported higher than when the 905 mbar measurment was recorded. 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is official!! In the Post-Storm Report on Camille, it states that 200 mph winds and a pressure of 26.61 inches was recorded. After converting into millibars, it equaled 901 mbar. I'm a genius! Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would mean that the 205 mph measurement would still be unofficial, but the max windspeeds would be upgraded 10 mph! This is so amazing! Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The report which carries official bearing is the NHC report, not any other (Like that Army one). The hurricane re-analysis project will study Camille at some point and will alter things - but how is unknown. That report you found is potentially very useful for impact; but if the NHC says "The minimum pressure was 905", the only organisation which can say the NHC is wrong is the WMO. Note, Recon data is NOT official data, remember 2005's Emily had recon data supporting Cat 5 status, it wasn't declared as such until the TCR.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the pertinent sentence from Camille's Preliminary Report (page 6): "Reconnaissance reports early Sunday afternoon (17th) indicated a central pressure of 901 mb and maximum winds were estimated at 190 mph near the center." Nowhere in that report is the 905 figure mentioned, and the timeframe for the 901 corresponds to a blank entry in the best track. Until the re-analysis project releases its conclusions on Camille, I think 901 is the correct figure to quote.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! I am a genius! [[Image:Flag of Iceland.svg|left|20px|]]Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 14:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, why did you change it? The report from which it was from was preliminary, meaning things can change. Do you know how wind reports can change? Well, pressures can change, too. Just this year, 10 storms had their pressures changed in post-analysis. Who's to say that the preliminary report didn't change? Remember, back then, reports weren't that good. I don't understand why you are doubting it when the official best track says it was not that intense. It could be 901, and if Hurdat re-analizes Camille to that pressure, I will gladly shut up and accept that it was lower. Until then, the only official source, the best track, condradicts the data. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hink, you made a couple misunderstandings, although I agree 905 should be the number in the article. First, the Preliminary Report is the Tropical Cyclone Report. Also the Report and the best track do not explicitly contradict; neither claims the minimum pressure was X. The precise phrasing of the report, "recon indicated 901" means they probably were unsure about it (hence the non-recording in best track). That is a similar story to 2005's Delta, there was evidence for an upgrade to hurricane status, but they decided against it. I think thats the reason for the discrepancy and means 905 is the official value at this time. As for the reanalysis.. who knows what will happen?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but any time in the past, when there was a dispute over the pressure or winds, we turned to the Best Track. The reanalysis won't happen for a few years, so we will have to wait until then, or until HURDAT does a Camille reanalysis. They probably were unsure about it. I don't know why the pressures conflict, but you should always listen to the Best Track first. No offense, but if the 901 reading was true, I'm sure other people would have known about it before you found it a few days ago. The NHC continued to use the 905 reading as true, as evidenced in Hurricane Mitch's TCR where Mitch ties with Camille. If the 901 reading was true, why would the NHC be using an incorrect figure, when they are the official source? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the NHC uses the 905 figure is why I'm so sceptical about the 901 figure. Also, given how Wikipedia had accepted 905mb for so long I assumed that there must have been some reliable source of newly-produced data for it to be changed. Pobbie Rarr 22:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add - regardless of whether the minimum pressure was 901mb or 905mb, there's no argument that Camille weakened slightly before landfall (909mb). So is it really appropriate to say it struck land "at peak intensity"? Pobbie Rarr 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch, and I say no. I removed that. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the simplest way to put things is simply to leave out the 901 mb figure, since it's unofficial. If 901 mb is made official in reanalysis, then it can be changed. For now, it says "less than or equal to 905 mb"...well, 901 mb is less than 905 mb. --Coredesat 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have personally emailed the question of 905 versus 901 to the National Hurricane Center. The response (from an actual meteorologist, not some PR lackey) was that the 901 mb reading is taken seriously and that it is the reading they themselves use when discussing the storm. Also the 901 mb reading is mentioned in the book Hurricane Watch by Dr. Bob Sheets (former director of the National Hurricane Center) and Jack Williams (creator of USA Today Weather Page) as the "official" peak intensity. I know it sounds really cheesy to say that leaving it at <905 mb is an insult to Camille, but it kind of is. The storm was clearly stronger than Katrina in terms of pressure, and both observations of its winds and the fact that smaller storms (Camille being slightly smallish and Katrina very large) have faster winds for the same pressure make it decisively stronger. However, I do have to say that the observed 200+ mph may be flawed. In Hurricane Watch, the way Sheets describes the measurement process of the wind speeds gave the wind speed at altitude. He doesn't specifically say this, but the way it was worded suggests that scientists at the time were not very aware of the dropoff in windspeed on the ground. Nowadays the usual number is a 10% reduction, but that's from an official altitude which was not strictly adhereed to in 1969. However 190 mph is certainly plausible from an estimation point of view: Katrina had 175 mph winds and an almost equal pressure, but was far, far bigger. Rita was a little stronger: 895 mb, with winds of 180 mph, but was also far larger. Mitch hit 905 mb and 180 mph, but was also bigger. It was also at a far lower latitude, where the ambient pressure is lower to begin with. In conclusion, 901 mb is decisevly the number that should be used and 190 mph, while it cannot be confirmed (I even asked the NHC about this, and they said they didn't even know--all the old records are in the process of being reanalyzed however) makes a lot of sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony868 (talk • contribs)


 * Very interesting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Just curious, do you have a copy of that email? In addition, we have no official document from them saying we should use 901 mb. Until they make an offical change to Hurdat like they did for Andrew or Donna, it would be factually incorrect to post Camille as having 901 mb, regardless if they said 901 is being taken seriously as the officlal lowest reading. That said, it could go either way on Camille. Who knows, it could have been stronger at landfall, or maybe it was a lot weaker? I for one can't wait until Hurdat re-analizes that time period. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anthony868 - if you can prove that the NHC did send you that email, we can change the article. Otherwise we should stick to 905mb, after all that's what the NHC seem to use. Check out this discussion of Hurricane Katrina from last August, which tells us the following:

"KATRINA IS MAINTAINING A CLASSIC PRESENTATION ON SATELLITE IMAGES...AND CATEGORY 5 INTENSITY. THE CENTRAL PRESSURE MEASURED BY A NOAA HURRICANE HUNTER PLANE AT 1755Z AND 1923Z WAS 902 MB...WHICH IS THE FOURTH LOWEST ON RECORD IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN BEHIND HURRICANE GILBERT OF 1988...THE LABOR DAY HURRICANE OF 1935...AND HURRICANE ALLEN OF 1980. "

If the NHC used the 901mb figure for Camille, it would have been reflected in the above discussion so that Katrina would have been declared the fifth (not the fourth) most powerful Atlantic hurricane at that time.

Having said that, I do believe it to be highly likely that Camille was stronger than 905mb: that figure was recorded at the very start of Camille's period at Cat. 5, not long after clearing Cuba. Therefore, it probably dropped lower at some point between then and landfall on the Gulf coast. However, we can only speculate about this and (as Wikipedians) can only reflect this in the article if a reliable source (i.e. the NHC) backs it up. Pobbie Rarr 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did delete the e-mail, but I will ask for comfirmation again.

In addition to e-mailing again, I also looked around the NHC site for files on Camille and found this: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1969-prelim/camille/prelim06.gif It's labeled as a prelimiary report, but then so are the files on every storm that existed before 1995. Rather than being unofficial, I believe this just means there was a terminology change made after 1994 that came with a computer reorganization of the site. (After 1994 all reports were computerized and poster on the internet, but earlier ones are actually scanned pictures of the documents). In any event, this NHC file on Camille lists its maximum intensity as having winds of approximately 190 mph and a minimum pressure of 901 mb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.142.222 (talk • contribs)


 * The preliminary report is the Tropical Cyclone Report of recent years, there was a change in nomenclature recently. That report states nowhere Camille has a minimum pressure of X. It states "reconnaissance reports indicated a central pressure of 901". That doesn't actually say anything about the status of the 901 figure, hence this discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the NHC has speculated about numerous hurricanes. They admitted that Wilma for instance could well have been lower than 882mb, but they couldn't be sure (remember, the lowest MEASURED reading was 884mb; the 882mb is an estimate). Pobbie Rarr 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it was the same with Rita, which they measured at 897 but adjusted to 895 based on estimates. However, I think the use of the word "indicated" meant, to the meteorologist of that period the same as "was measured." I mean, Bob Sheets was director of the national hurricane center, and he says in his book, cut and dry, that Camille's lowest pressure was MEASURED at 901 mb. However, I could still buy that since it does not explicitly say so in the NHC's archives that Camille reached 901 mb, we cannot accept 901 as the official number. I'll wait on the e-mail, though during last hurricane season I asked 2 questions on 2 different occasions and both took well over a month to respond to.

Okay, I finally have the information that will end this discussion. Someone apparently higher up the latter at the NHC responded to my e-mail this time. Unfortunately for me and the other people who wanted Camille to be stronger than Katrina, no dice:

Your query about Hurricane Camille was forwarded to me. In regards to the 901 mb central pressure, there is a footnote to the 1969 season hurricane season summary published by the National Hurricane Center. It can be found on page 295 of the 1970 Monthly Weather Review and reads:

"Preliminary reports and other publications indicated a lower pressure of 901 mb. Recently, a check of the raw data indicates this should be corrected to the 905-mb value given here."

This is why in the official records Camille is listed as a 905-mb hurricane.

Yours sincerely, Jack Beven Tropical Prediction Center

The <905 mb is now clearly the right choice for Camille. If I had to guess however, I would say that Camille actually got considerably stronger than that. It is a well observed pattern that almost all hurricanes that make landfall on the Northern Gulf Coast weaken considerably before landfall. Katrina, Lili, Ivan, Dennis, Rita, Opal and there's lots of others but my mind is blank right now. For Camille's landfall pressure to be 909 mb and its peak observed 905 would indicate only a 4 mb rise, much less significant weakening than would be expected for any Category 5 approaching land (since they need almost perfect conditions, they are more likely to be affected than a weaker storm approaching land) let alone one approaching the Northern Gulf Coast, Camille almost undoubtedly went below 900 mb at some point. If the other storms that have suffered severe weakening shortly before a Gulf Coast landfall (Ivan from 135 mph to 120, Dennis from 145 to 115, Katrina from 175 to 130, Rita 180 to 120, Lili 145 to 90, Opal 150 to 115-120.) Camille is widely reported to have essentially the same wind speed at its peak as at landfall (190 mph). If I had to guess I would say 900 mb conservatively, 895 mb relistically, and potentially 890 mb. Nevertheless, for the sake of accuracy, <905 is the number to go with. Anthony868 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Jack Beven is pretty high up in the NHC hierarchy, so it looks like the decision is made. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From that I think the article should state "905" not "<905". < implies less than after all. Your guessing at the true intensity is Orignial Research so cannot be used. The best available intensity is 905 and Jack Beven has provided a pretty good answer IMO. The conditions for Camille do seem to have been better than for Katrina, so perhaps a 4 mbar rise isn't implausible, if Katrina didn't have an eyewall replacement when it did, who knows what would have happened? The 905 will remain official until the reanalysis project change things (if they do).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the inequality sign. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you could make an argument for the less than sign for any hurricane before about the early 80s. I also don't think there's really any way to know if conditions were really better for Camille. There was no record of the temperature or depth of the Loop Current, nor of upper level conditions, or any hurricane flights in the storm for many hours before landfall. Also, Katrina's weakening was only partially due to an eyewall replacement. The storm also suffered an intrustion of dry air that severely eroded the western part of the CDO. There was a brief time when convection on the left side of the storm nearly dissappeared almost up to the eyewall. It could be the eyewall replacement was initiated by this. Also, I believe the intrustion of dry air/shear is what is responsible for the weakening of all the major storms I mentioned. Camille we can't know, but I know Opal, Katrina, Rita,Ivan, and Lili were all definitly affected by it, especially Opal. This would suggest that if anything weakened Camille, it was mostly likely this. And though there's no gaurantee, a 4 mb rise for a hurricane needing perfect conditions like Camille would have when approaching the apparently shear prone northern gulf coast is small, suggesting the strong possibility that Camille was significantly stronger at one point. I really think Camille was somewhere in the 895-900 mb range. Also, the gap of time between the last hurricane hunter flight and the time when Camille would have been expected to start hitting shear was long enough that it could have kept strengthening.

Why not just do what they do in other articles...use a ≤ sign...it reflects the fact that this was the official lowest pressure, but because of incomplete reconnaisance information during its extremely intense period, the pressure may have been lower while no one was taking measurements. Its the perfect wiki-type™ solution! Runningonbrains 04:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't quite finish my thought. Truly, having a < sign would be incorrect, but a ≤ reflects the reasonable doubt present in the age before modern reconnaisance... I don't see why using this is unfactual in the least bit.  Runningonbrains 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section
In the peer review I put the article up for, it was suggested that the trivia either be merged or deleted. But I don't think I could do either, so should I create an article titled Hurricane Camille Trivia or something like that. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No need. The comparisons section could be its own section (though I personally think it should be removed. Any storm can be compared to another, but you don't see the comparisons section in another TC article, with the exception of Betsy as another Katrina comparision). The naming could be its own section along with records entitled "Naming and Records". The hurricane party could be part of the impact section in a subsection of Mississippi. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee?
I'm not sure why this article is a GA Nominee, considering it's only a B-Class. But now that it's there, there's nothing we can do about it. So hopefully this article can be upgraded to an A-class soon, so the nomination can come into good use. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 14:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, now I realize GA-class is between a and b classes, not between a and fa classes. So, it's possible that Camille could become a GA. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that listing an article on peer review and GA at the same time shouldn't really be done as it's duplicating efforts. Anyway, I removed it from the nominations for GA, mainly because of language concerns.  For example:
 * caused near-total damage - what is 'total damage'? Better phrasing needed.
 * a hurricane hunter declared the area of disturbance had developed a circulation - makes no sense
 * at the time this made Camille the second-most expensive U.S. hurricane of all time - clumsy; how about just This made Camille the second-most expensive hurricane in the U.S up to that point
 * Gulf Coast and the Caribbean has several single sentence paragraphs.
 * an episode of Quantum Leap titled "Hurricane" (season 4, episode 3) - the season and episode are completely unrelated to the hurricane and should be omitted.
 * Because of a change in the list of hurricane names in 1970, there was no replacement name - this really needs further explanation.
 * a locally larger storm surge - what does 'locally larger' mean?
 * the story of the Harbour Oaks Inn - the link to the Inn's website seems inappropriate. Is the website relevant to the hurricane?  If so, put it in external links.  If not, remove it.
 * Naming section at the end should be combined with earlier section about the name. Worldtraveller 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Large Section commented out
I just completed converting to the template for references and noticed a rather large section of the article is commented out. Anyone know why? TimL 03:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of copied text
I have removed text copied from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/camille/report.html and will work to summarize it to get the Aftermath section up and running again. TimL 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I was doing; my style is just a little different from yours. But the copied text could not be directly viewed. Plus the 4 or five paragraphs were rewritten to a certain degree, so can't those be returned? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They didn't look re-written to me, just a few word replacements here or there. I think we should do better than that, but feel free to put them back in if you feel they are sufficiently re-written. I am far from an authority on the matter, but I don't think what is there constitutes as "reading something and re-writing it in your own words", which is I tihnk the guideline that applies here. What I did when I wrote the Dvorak technique was read a bunch of articles and then created the article from scratch, looking up my references when I need help with what I was trying to say. Regards, TimL 00:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

todo
I rewrote the aftermath section. But there is more to go in there and the "Mitigation" section from the "Camille: Thirty Years after" report has some more good stuff. Also, I only used that one source. Other sources could be integrated. TimL 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. And what does Mitigation mean? Doesn't have to do with preparing for a storm or something like that? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the most signifigant results of the aftermath of Camille was mitigating the damage caused by a future event. New codes were implemented, etc. So, in other words, the aftermath affected the rebuilding effort. I suppose it might be worth mentioning Katrina as part of the aftermath of Camille, in that it doesn't seem many lessons were learned. TimL 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ga Status
Seems to fit all the criteria fine, one might argue that it could fail NPOV because of language like "Catastrophic" but you know, its a hurricane, to delete that would make it pretty factually wrong, the MoS seems followed and the article seems well-written, it looks broad enough to me for a hurricane, there are indeed plenty of pictures, it seems stable, and although I do see a good bit of unreferenced looking statements which I think really need to be worked on, it seems fairly well referenced overall. I see no reason why this shouldn't be a GA, just try to work more on referencing everything for the future. Homestarmy 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Catastrophic" is the actual word taken directly from the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale as its description of damage accrued on the coastline by the landfalling of a Category 5 hurricane. "Mind-boggling" would be POV; Catastrophic is the NOAA term itself. It doesn't say so on the site, but I've seen it written in several books from the 1980s and '90s. --Chr.K. 10:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest landfall anywhere?
I know Camille is easily the strongest landfall in US, and probably North American, history. Has any other tropical cyclone, anywhere, made landfall with 190mph winds? If not, then we can basically say that Camille was the strongest storm to ever hit land. --Golbez 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably not, but I doubt Camille struck at 190 mph. Storms in the northern Gulf of Mexico just seem to weaken a lot before making landfall (Katrina, Dennis, Ivan, Lili). Back on topic, though, I would imagine that some strong WPAC typhoons have made landfall, given how warm the temperatures are. In fact, Joan of 1959 supposedly hit Taiwan with 185 mph winds. Storms further southeast, like in the islands of Micronesia, likely have been hit before with 190 mph. Of course, the biggest problem is that not too many storms have had winds of 190 mph or more. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Only Tip, (Typhoon) Keith, Camille and Allen are recorded as reaching 190 mph winds, and only Camille made landfall with that wind speed. So yes, in terms of wind speed, assuming that the data are correct, Camille was the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone anywhere ever recorded. —Cuivi é nen 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do that. I don't think there is any reliable landfalling data. And if you go by wind damage alone, wasn't Andrew much worse? I guess I disagree with the statement "Camille is easily the strongest landfall anywhere in the U.S." I think it implies we have more knowledge about the ground truth of Camille than we really do. TimL 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrew was worse but far weaker (165 mph v 190 mph). Camille just wasn't very large, and Andrew hit a big city. Plus, the intent of Cat 5 being the upper end of the SS Scale is that, beyond 155 mph, it doesn't matter how much stronger the winds get: everything is being destroyed anyway. Also, we can't use the data in the article and then decide that it isn't reliable. Unless the NHC decides otherwise in the future, Camille made landfall with 190 mph winds. (It isn't as unrealistic as it sounds; Camille was very compact, so damages were limited, and the Eddy Vortex of the Loop Current occasionally extends all the way to the coast, as thought that it did during Camille.) —Cuivi é nen 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Camille was indeed small, but Andrew was even smaller I think. Though wikipedia says 185 mph for The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, I've seen numbers anywhere from 180-200, and the fact of the matter is, I would really expect that it would be at least 190, assuming Camille hit that. Camille had a pressure of 901 (or 905, depending on who you ask) mb, which makes for very strong winds by itself, along with a compact nature that increased wind speed. However, the LDH of 1935 reached 892 mb, and was so small it made Camille look big. The formula for the windspeed of a hurricane based on its pressure (without taking into account size, which is a huge factor for this storm) predicts that the LDH should have had 196 mph winds. The formula for this is derived easily and is simple and linear, and based on hundreds of storms for data. For a 909 mb pressure (Camille's landfall pressure) it predicts 175 mph, suggesting the extreme enhancement provided by small size, since the pressure gradient was steepened. Engineering analysis of damage after the LDH storm produced findings not found in any other hurricane ever. I said 180-200 were the most common, but some findings indicated gusts to 250 mph. Camille's pressure gradient was indeed steep due to its size, but the pressure gradient in the LDH was so small that "it was exceeded only by that of a tornado" according to Grady Norton, the NHC director at the time. I would be willing ot bet that the LDH had the strongest winds of any landfalling hurricane in history, and not just in the Atlantic basin. Based on Dvorak estimates Super Typhoon Angela hit 213 mph sustained, but these estimates aren't much more reliable than measured numbers from 1935. Also, Angela never made landfall at that strength.
 * The Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in its rather massive article, identified the final Camille overflight, inside four or so hours out from landfall, recording gusts reaching 210 mph. --Chr.K. 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but I have some doubts about the wind speed measurements even from times as recent as the early 1990s. The account of the measuring of Camille's maximum winds as reported by the book "Hurricane Watch" by Dr. Bob Sheets and Jack Williams (of the USA Today weather page)suggests that 190 mph winds and 210 mph gusts were actually reported by the plane at altitude. It's difficult to tell since this is only going by wording (they don't actually say this explicitly) but it seemed this way to me. Going by the now comnonly accepted 90% rule, this yields sustained 10m surface winds at 171 mph, making Camille only marginally stronger than Andrew's 167 mph, and that was Andrew's strength at landfall. Camille's pressure rose 4 mb from when that recording was made, suggesting landfall winds of Category 5 strength at landfall but certainly not 190 mph world record winds. The Labor Day Hurricane almost certainly has the world record for landfall strenght. It's 892 mb pressure does indeed suggest 196 mph at the surface, combined with the fact that the Labor Day Hurricane was extremely small, smaller even than Charley and Andrew, two storms that are well known to have had their winds boosted by their small size in comparison to what they would have been expected to have from pressure alone. If the Labor Day Hurricane had 190 mph winds at landfall, I'd have to admit that would be very slow. Andrew's were boosted 9 mph from what a 922 mb hurricane should have had (158 to 167), so logically, considering the Labor Day Hurricane's even smaller size, its winds should be ballpark 210 mph. It sounds insane, but logically it makes sense.

AccuWeather cites this article
It looks like AccuWeather is starting to use our articles for a source, as well. From today's weather news section: ''The drenching downpours will stay south of west-central Virginia, where 37 years ago, the remnants of Hurricane Camille dropped 27 inches of rain on August 20th over Nelson County. According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia (with link), more than 10 inches of rain deluged the mountainside slopes between Charlottesville and Lynchburg in just 12 hours. The resulting flash flood and mudslide killed 153 people. Throughout Virginia and also West Virginia, the remains of the strongest land-falling tropical cyclone worldwide destroyed 349 homes and caused just over $140 million.'' Just thought this was worth mentioning. It's amazing to see how many official weather agencies are starting to cite our tropical cyclone articles. bob rulz 08:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch, and nice job everyone! Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a template for articles that have been cited by a news agency? Ahh... yes. I found it at Talk:Hurricane Dennis. Is there an online version of this AccuWeather bit we can link to? —Cuivi é nen 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if there is an archive for AccuWeather I haven't found it yet. The link to it would just link to the current front page news story...bob rulz 04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Upgrade to top importance
Shouldn't Camille be a must-have for Wikipedia v1.0? I mean, before Katrina, Camille was THE hurricane due to its catastrophic loss of lives and modern impact. Not even Andrew or 1900 Galveston were more talked about. --Kitch 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you should upgrade it, but I would get more opinions first. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on a must-have. If you can only choose 3 hurricane-related articles, Camille might not be in the top 3. I think the high designation suffices, especially if Andrew remains a high. IMO, Andrew was talked about more than Camille before Katrina as the big one. Andrew had the damage, and the memorableness. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's tough to talk about the "Top 5" or "Top 10" most important hurricanes, even from a historical standpoint. IMHO, Camille is in a top 5, along with Katrina, Galveston, Andrew, and the New England storm. But then again, you shouldnt be too worried about it not being included; it's already set for inclusion in the test release. -Runningonbrains 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember though, you should have a Top 5 Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject list, which would have to include non-storm articles. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Camille, Katrina, Galveston, NE, Andrew is a poor selection for the top 5. The top 2 are 1970 Bhola and Katrina. Non-storm articles are typically higher importance, as they have greater encyclopedic value generally.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What about Mitch? bob rulz 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this discussion was on hurricanes, not world-wide storms. Of course Bangledesh storms will outrank Katrina any day, but IMHO the impact is not just measured in insurance claims and lives lost, its what people remember. And yes, I did forget Mitch...and Georges for that matter. Fifi, and the Great Hurricane of 1780 deserve mention, and lets not forget Hugo, and Donna, and Charley. Heck, I'd include them all if I could... except maybe a few Runningonbrains 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you had the wrong impression. The class system is for articles in the entire Wikiproject, so top class is only allowed for a very minimal amount of articles. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I get your point...actually, I was mistaken about the whole conversation (long story, no caffein, etc.) Long story short, ignore what I said.  I do agree with making a few storms of Top Importance, but this should be a long discussion, and on the Wikiproject Talk page. Runningonbrains 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooh, re-reading what I said, I'm sorry if I sounded mean. Yea, I suppose maybe we should bring it up on the Wikiproject page. Importance is subject, after all. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Meh, no prob. I'm the one who cant read :) -Runningonbrains 04:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Something of note for those who for some reason want to rank noteworthiness according to the amount of deaths that result from it: Camille and Allen are the only two recorded Atlantic basin hurricanes to achieve sustained winds in excess of 190 mph (if Camille was that low at the end). Likewise, Camille taught meteorologists many things about hurricane dynamics that they had previously not realized, at least if the National Weather Service's Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tropical Cyclones has anything to say about it. Katrina didn't bring as much new scientific information to the table, with the possible exception, on the anthropological level, of the hard-nosed stubbornness of humans in keeping a city of theirs in an idiotic location, due to emotional connections, even after a catastrophe of such devastating proportions. To put it another way...if Katrina had hit New Orleans dead-on with Camille's intensity...there would be no New Orleans. --Chr.K. 08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Camille
I think that the people that lived there should have been put on a train and excorted out of there towns. If they would have did this less people would have died.I know it took them a long time to rebuild their houses and find a job. I think this hurricane was related to Hurricane Katrina because the people could have been saved but noone tried to do anything to help them.
 * That's nice. This is not a blog about the hurricane, though, especially not 40 years after the fact. --Golbez 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It does bring to mind the Hurricane Party subject, for this article, and discussions that have doubtless been had about it as to whether martial law should be instituted in such cases, to force them to leave. Look what happened when they didn't, in New Orleans, in '05. As mentioned higher up on this page, the Hurricane Party subject should definitely be in. --Chr.K. 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of the hurricane party
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/forcesofnature/interactive/index.html?section=h On the right side, in the Case Studies section, it is the first reference. I would think National Geographic would do its research, and be a viable source for the material...especially as they identify where the survivor did indeed end up. --Chr.K. 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)