Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,600
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Michael Banter Thread

Windspeed

By Windspeed,
in Tropical Headquarters

Recommended Posts

donsutherland1

donsutherland1

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, SENC said:

Honestly, I wish We could get @LakeEffectKing & @donsutherland1 to chime in  their thoughts here..

I trust those 2 guys to give very UN~Biased, &   honest answers.. 

(No guys I don't wanna have too drag ya'll into this debate)..

Though..

that said..

What I seen & monitored via the Sea buoys Data sets , (NOT what the NHC said) discarding those..

Actual Marine conditions.. 

The "actual video(s) from "landfall" ..

AND based on My own experience,,

This was a Strong Cat 2.. 

Hurricane watcher & survivor on SENC Coast since 1969.. 

Right now, I think the base case is a Category 4 hurricane at landfall.

Multiple measurements confirmed Michael's strength as it neared landfall. The area of its most extreme winds was very small. Approximately 40-45 minutes before landfall, Tyndall AFB was registering wind gusts of 129 mph before its instruments failed or were destroyed. It is extremely likely that even stronger winds occurred prior to landfall, but were not measured. Data from some of the storm chasers, particularly Brett Adair who may have been in the storm's most severe winds, might provide further insight (many videos were taken away from the storm's strongest winds, as the area of most intense winds was very small).

It will take time to survey the damage. Damage surveys will provide further information on the storm's winds. Until all of that work is complete, I think one has to be cautious about suggesting significant changes regarding the storm's strength at landfall.

For now, given the multiple reconnaissance measurements and last instrument measurements prior to landfall, I see little reason to argue that the base case wasn't a landfalling Category 4 hurricane. Given the storm's small size and wind field, one won't see the kind of large-scale devastation from a storm such as Hugo. One will see a much smaller area of extreme wind damage (area) more in line with an Andrew, Charley, or Harvey.

More details will probably be available when the National Hurricane Center posts its end-of-season report.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 537
  • Created
  • Last Reply
weatherCCB

weatherCCB

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, SENC said:

Folks might want too imply..

Well look at the "roofs" flying off blah blah.... [/I]

I have a answer too this..

Where "Michael" made "landfall"  was in fact Historic ..

NO Landfall from a "major" much less a Cat 1 or 2 in about 30 years..

Building codes were not in effect for those older homes, they lacked Hurricane straps.. Grandfathered in..

Plenty of Old Mobile Home parks, (For seniors) are/were still there..

Just my 2 cents..

Again this was no stronger than a cat 2, ..

 I Have a team put together this evening to prove it so..

Based on DATA.. 

 

Have seen Ariel photos of Mexico beach. You completely wrong dude.  You really need to be banned by mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CheeselandSkies

CheeselandSkies

Posted
Posted

I'll say it again, no Cat 2 has a perfectly formed stadium eye fully surrounded by deep convection, WMG eye temp on Dvorak, and produces the kind of "white-out" video footage coming out of Michael. Looks very comparable to other high-end 4 landfalls of recent years such as Maria and Patricia.

Oh, and I suppose Cat 2s have pressure in the 920s (not even at the center of the eye) and impress guys like Josh and other chasers who have been in some of the strongest landfalls of the decade.

...but I suspect these are the kind of folks who aren't going to be convinced by data, so I'm wasting my digital breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpeters3

jpeters3

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Freshgeek said:

Where is SENC now?
 

 


Dude that only looks like strong TS force wind damage.  I doubt this thing was even a hurricane at landfall ;-).

(I'm obviously making fun of the idiot who thinks this was only Cat 2).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPLS

MPLS

Posted
Posted

As a years-long lurker, I just have to say that the threads for this storm were easily the worst I've ever seen on these boards.

So I decided to start blocking anybody who mentions Sandy and it's already cleaned up these threads a decent amount for me. Definitely worth trying if you're sick of NY posters stroking their Sandy schlongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sojitodd

sojitodd

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, MPLS said:

As a years-long lurker, I just have to say that the threads for this storm were easily the worst I've ever seen on these boards.

So I decided to start blocking anybody who mentions Sandy and it's already cleaned up these threads a decent amount for me. Definitely worth trying if you're sick of NY posters stroking their Sandy schlongs.

Now some of us are just having fun in this banter thread with the "(unspeakable hurricane name here)" ridicule.  Remember Breezy Point!!!-ravaged by surge, wind, and fire!!!! Like the Great Chicago fire, Katrina surge and Andrew wind all in one spot!!! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Polka1

Polka1

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

You guys realize sandysurvivor isnt a real "ny" poster and is just trolling the dumbasses? Its amazing that a generation who grew up on the interwebs cant pick up on this stuff lol

What's amazing is you guys didn't deal with it before it turned the discussions into complete garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Santa Clause

Santa Clause

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

You guys realize sandysurvivor isnt a real "ny" poster and is just trolling the dumbasses? Its amazing that a generation who grew up on the interwebs cant pick up on this stuff lol

I do, just too fun to not mess with. Real posters like Jm were horribly affected by it in reality, so I don't like to poke too much fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KPITSnow

KPITSnow

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

You guys realize sandysurvivor isnt a real "ny" poster and is just trolling the dumbasses? Its amazing that a generation who grew up on the interwebs cant pick up on this stuff lol

Meh. It is hard to tell...there are a ton of NYC posters that do go on and on and on about sandy and aren’t trolling. Saw it in the flo thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sojitodd

sojitodd

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

You guys realize sandysurvivor isnt a real "ny" poster and is just trolling the dumbasses? Its amazing that a generation who grew up on the interwebs cant pick up on this stuff lol

It is a bit of fun-at least in the banter thread.  The sad thing is that there are nutjobs who probably do believe what the troll is putting out. I have been on this board for around a dozen years and have seen enough insanity over the years to know (even though I mostly lurk obviously given my post count). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SENC

SENC

Posted
Posted

Have seen Ariel photos of Mexico beach. You completely wrong dude.  You really need to be banned by mods.

I have a scientifically different view(s), Not going along with Groupthink So BAN HIM! Burn Him at the Stake,, SILENCE!  Just throw out "peer reviewed",  Science, since it doesn't agree with your views & feelings.. Sheesh!

 

Probably napping. Gramps gets cranky when he forgets his oatmeal.

Don't agree? well,, insult & deflect... One Who disagrees with your views. Sounds some some , Pantyfa talk IMOP...

The TV was, of course, showing everyone all the "horrible damage."

Except it wasn't.As the TV news anchor was "breathlessly" reporting on how horrid it all was in the background were houses and other buildings standing tall, proud and undamaged -- they had their roofs, walls and windows all up and not one board in evidence on any of the windows either.

Cat 4? My A** . HAD that been a Cat 4 every one of those ordinary stick-built houses would have been LEVELED and for those that were reinforced concrete (e.g. ICF) every single window and roof would have been trashed.

They weren't.

Oh sure, you can find the collapsed garage or half-built building that came down in dramatic fashion. It was half-built and not even half-strong!

Again this was a 'strong" Cat 2  the Data I'm finding support My conclusion..

 

 

Michael has been hyped beyond what it really was. Thankfully, it appears from the real data that the storm was not a Cat 4 hurricane.

This official NOAA Panama City coastal station, https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/stations/pcbf1.jpg , https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7773e46b15321267a4160187c5a46920b83be25bfc9a0799867ea0c4b3ecb12.png , recorded a maximum sustained wind speed of 53.0 knots, which is 61 mph, which isn’t even Cat 1 windspeed. Here are screen captures of the station data during the maximum recorded wind speeds: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e27cb15d7d36907f76c4f3065fd8d21c4f5fc84f6ad81a6c3781db63765284a.png
Note the maximum 53.0 knots (61 mph) at 3:06 pm.

The nearest NOAA buoy to the east of Panama City, APCF1, recorded a maximum sustained wind speed of 54.0 knots (62 mph), which is also not even a Cat 1 hurricane. Here is that station: https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=apcf1
Here is a screen capture of the wind speeds recorded during Michael’s landfall: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/326b1c9af4e01c28f2e9cb993c8047d2c01da8b3b95a4ea26e9e73b39bd05ddd.png
Note the maximum sustained winds of 54.0 knots (62 mph) at 1:06pm.

Here is the closest NOAA station, SGOF1 , to the east of Panama CIty which is out in the Gulf, unaffected by land, https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=sgof1
This wind speed measurement is at 35.1m above surface, which would measure higher windspeeds than the official 10m height.
Here is a screen capture of the max wind speed history of station SGOF1: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/33c575eeac8f491f600fa4a3d2525aa130374cc28fdaee20ed7749a5f340ea9e.png
Max sustained wind speed of 61 knots (70mph) between 11an and noon.

Here is the wind speed history at a Panama City Beach weather station: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/490679e6111aad721b1ae3d686ef11958faccaef1a8c13f3703e58a5ed49c6a2.png
Maximum wind speeds of between 70mph and 75mph.

Here is another wind speed history at Panama City Beach: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d0c67684db3570bc8b7c68734886635a93e0cbec4071a250fa50668bce83f6a2.png
Maximum wind speed of 76.1mph, barely Cat 1.

This actual data seems to indicate that Michael was hyped beyond what it really was.

So where is the hard wind speed data confirming that Michael made landfall with Cat 4 windspeeds of greater than 130mph to 153mph???
Can anyone link to any hard wind speed data confirming Cat 4 windspeeds? Not just reports, but actual documented DATA?

Oh wait.. NOAA claims 150 mph sustained winds,, but also reports gusts up to 119 mph. Doesn't seem credible. On its face Value

People ( Storm Chasers / Reporters ) where driving around in the streets, some hiding behind building posts, and then came the assine comparison that the “Millibars” (Atmospheric Pressure) had become [ GREATER THAN ] Hurricane Andrew, all this while people are still driving around while others hiding behind buildings/posts, AND… No-Where, at anytime,  Did I hear ANYONE DeclareANY Sustained winds greater than,,, wait for it...  105 mph

Each & everyone of you seem to Forget the Majority of the construction there is 30+ years old.. Mobile Homes & Homes construct back then were & are  built without HURRICANE STRAPS ,,  that were enacted to the building codes after Andrew.. you know those lil metal plates that secure the Roof too the Walls? Yeah those.. The majority of the buildings & homes in reality were NOT up to current building codes ,,,

That said..

I think it's about time for to sack and burn the Sacred Temple of Climate Religion, and gut the staffing of the NHC and NOAA among others, and put true scientists in place--not peer-reviewed, Algore approved pathological liars that we have at present. Guys that prove stuff through science. Without fudging the data. That are OK with being wrong, when they're proven wrong.

A guy can hope, at least.

Meanwhile, I'll get ready for winter. Turns out I don't mind the snow much. It doesn't mess us up anywhere near as bad as even a Cat 2.

I have errands to do.. Ya'll have a God Blessed Day..

lies.jpg

dr_phil_teen_youtube_beating.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BxEngine

BxEngine

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Wmsptwx said:

I do, just too fun to not mess with. Real posters like Jm were horribly affected by it in reality, so I don't like to poke too much fun.

As soon as you start paying me, ill gladly divert attention from my career to babysitting jackasses. Fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BxEngine

BxEngine

Posted
Posted

 

 

4 minutes ago, mappy said:

was sandysurvivor posting in the main thread, or just here in banter? 

He started in the main thread earlier when this didnt look like a significant cane, and moved after a few posts were hidden and realized he was gonna be banned. Must be a smart troll...i especially like his email address. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mappy

mappy

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

 

 

He started in the main thread earlier when this didnt look like a significant cane, and moved after a few posts were hidden and realized he was gonna be banned. Must be a smart troll...i especially like his email address. Lol

ha nice. its funny how people like to get on the mods for not doing enough. were his posts reported? or people just whining about needing moderation. i think next storm all the green taggers and helpers shouldn't do jack **** and see how it goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SENC

SENC

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BxEngine said:

 

 

He started in the main thread earlier when this didnt look like a significant cane, and moved after a few posts were hidden and realized he was gonna be banned. Must be a smart troll...i especially like his email address. Lol

I'm not a troll..  was just "staying on Topic".. I had the wrong winder open, that I was typing in thus,, my mistake.. This is BANTER correct?

So I'm posting in BANTER now,  giving support &  hard FACTS & DATA that only supports a CAT 1 Hurricane..

Yes,  I'm not going along with ___________ .. 

I have different views that are supported with FACTS..

So ya'll want to insult & Ridicule Me.. When FACTS are staring you in the face..

That's all good, I got thick skin.. Though actual observed & recorded data doesn't LIE.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hoosier

Hoosier

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, MPLS said:

As a years-long lurker, I just have to say that the threads for this storm were easily the worst I've ever seen on these boards.

So I decided to start blocking anybody who mentions Sandy and it's already cleaned up these threads a decent amount for me. Definitely worth trying if you're sick of NY posters stroking their Sandy schlongs.

So I'm going to be honest here.  The criticism is warranted and the feedback is appreciated.  There are only a certain number of staff members who check the tropical threads, and I think Michael overachieving so much on intensity (it wasn't THAT long before landfall when the forecast was cat 2-3) may have caught us a bit flat footed, collectively speaking.

There is really no reason that we should have to wait for one person to declare storm mode.  I actually considered implementing it on Tuesday evening as it was becoming apparent what we were dealing with, but I knew I was not going to be able to be here much yesterday morning/afternoon as Michael made landfall.  I felt it would have been unfair to place extra responsibility on other staff members when I wouldn't be around to help.  In hindsight, I regret that. Storm mode does indeed require extra moderator help, but any self-policing that would've happened as a result of storm mode would have helped.

Again, thanks to you and others for the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...