Hurricane Dorian Banter Thread

[Hailstoned]

Hurricane forecasting: Cone of Probability. "Stable Genius" as weatherman: Conehead of Improbability.

[Jim Marusak]

1 hour ago, Hurricane Agnes said:

 

well, Dr. Neil Jacobs, current acting head of NOAA, will be speaking a keynote address tomorrow morning at 8am CT at the NWA Annual meeting in Huntsville. how do you think that will go? especially any Q&A after the speech?

[Hurricane Agnes]

11 minutes ago, Jim Marusak said:

well, Dr. Neil Jacobs, current acting head of NOAA, will be speaking a keynote address tomorrow morning at 8am CT at the NWA Annual meeting in Huntsville. how do you think that will go? especially any Q&A after the speech?

The agenda for Tuesday is here - https://nwas.org/annual-meeting-events/annual-meeting/meeting-agenda/#tuesday-glance

Quote

Tuesday, September 10
07:45 AM – 08:00 AM	Student Map Briefing
08:00 AM – 08:30 AM	Keynote - Dr. Neil Jacobs
08:30 AM – 09:30 AM	G1 - Winter
08:30 AM – 09:30 AM	G2 - Social Science and Vulnerable Populations
09:30 AM – 11:00 AM	Networking Break with Exhibitors and Poster Session #1
11:00 AM – 11:30 AM	Keynote - Janice Huff
11:30 AM – 12:00 PM	Keynote - Angela Lese
12:00 PM – 01:30 PM	Supporting Women in Meteorology Luncheon (Any attendee may register to attend. Seating is limited.)
12:00 PM – 01:30 PM	Lunch
01:30 PM – 03:00 PM	H1 - Health and Wellness
01:30 PM – 03:00 PM	H2 - DSS
03:00 PM – 04:30 PM	Networking Break with Exhibitors and Poster Session #2
04:30 PM – 05:30 PM	I1 - Fire Weather
04:30 PM – 05:30 PM	I2 - Tropical
05:30 PM – 06:30 PM	NWS Employee Engagement
05:30 PM	AMWRO
05:30 PM	NWA Committee Chair Dinner Meeting with Board

And it looks like a pretty tight schedule.  Dr. Jacobs has a 30 minute slot and then someone else is on at 8:30 am (someone presenting a research paper), so I doubt there will be any Q&A associated with his remarks. Usually keynotes at professional meetings don't have Q&As and tend to run 45 minutes or more (and often occur in a "prime time" morning slot or as part of a dinner), so this seems pretty "short" to be considered "keynote" outside of them calling it that due to his position in public service... and they have other folks scheduled to give "keynotes" after him.

[Hurricane Agnes]

In reference to the NWAS meeting going on - some tweets of note -

The above in reference to NWS head Dr. Uccellini's remarks this morning regarding his public support of the Birmingham FO (video of those remarks in the tweet below and he got a standing ovation near the end of his speech when he explicitly praised the staff for doing the right thing) -

 

[TriPol]

Why is NOAA under the Dept. of Commerce anyway?

[Hurricane Agnes]

10 minutes ago, TriPol said:

Why is NOAA under the Dept. of Commerce anyway?

Most likely because what they do involves monitoring conditions that might impact movement of goods - i.e., shipping (whether over land, in the air, or at sea).

[TriPol]

2 minutes ago, Hurricane Agnes said:

Most likely because what they do involves monitoring conditions that might impact movement of goods - i.e., shipping (whether over land, in the air, or at sea).

I'm answering my own question. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/01/why-noaa-commerce-department

We should create a cabinet level department that houses Climatology, Geology and Meteorology and move NOAA and the USGS there and create some kind of new organization that deals with climate change.

[Hurricane Agnes]

1 minute ago, TriPol said:

I'm answering my own question. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/01/why-noaa-commerce-department

We should create a cabinet level department that houses Climatology, Geology and Meteorology and move NOAA and the USGS there and create some kind of new organization that deals with climate change.

I agree we probably should but it will be doubtful that it would be done.  If anything, they might consider going as far as making it a "standalone" (like EPA) or even like FEMA, particularly after the fiasco of FEMA when it was neutered after being shoved under DHS, later prompting Congress to make them a standalone agency again.  In fact, since I mention EPA, they should probably be included in some standalone grouping with NOAA and USGS as you suggest.

[STxVortex]

3 hours ago, TriPol said:

I'm answering my own question. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/01/why-noaa-commerce-department

We should create a cabinet level department that houses Climatology, Geology and Meteorology and move NOAA and the USGS there and create some kind of new organization that deals with climate change.

No rational, logical, science-related or based US government policies will be possible until the place is cleaned up, reformed, until the 'swamp' is truly drained out.

It's currently mostly controlled by and for anti-science, anti-factual, cultist grifters who act on a far different plane than a patriotic 'for the good of the nation' basis; when not acting on behalf of foreign interests [like RU, MbS, DPRK, etc].

[the ghost of leroy]

4 hours ago, TriPol said:

I'm answering my own question. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/01/why-noaa-commerce-department

We should create a cabinet level department that houses Climatology, Geology and Meteorology and move NOAA and the USGS there and create some kind of new organization that deals with climate change.

Lol. We can’t even come to a political consensus that climate change is real. 

[TriPol]

16 hours ago, the ghost of leroy said:

Lol. We can’t even come to a political consensus that climate change is real. 

We also can't create a consensus that the world isn't flat or evolution isn't real. We shouldn't let those that disagree with science hold back our progress.

[Hurricane Agnes]

Here is a heartening response from the NOAA Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) group - https://www.research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2489/A-Message-from-Craig-McLean-Hurricane-Dorian-and-Exceptional-Service

Quote

 

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

A Message from Craig McLean: Hurricane Dorian and Exceptional Service

Dear Colleagues,

The fierce storm we know as Hurricane Dorian has concluded its ferocious path through the Bahamas and along the U.S. East Coast. Many of you have contributed to the excellent science that has underpinned the forecasts and current understanding of storms such as this one, which accelerated quite rapidly in intensity. The storm also presented challenges in track which improved with enhanced observations. We know that our collective work, from the scientists in the aircraft penetrating the storm, to the scientists deploying the glider picket line, to the modelers and folks working the physics of the storms, across OAR and in our CI's, and across all NOAA Lines, we are working the problem in order to give the NWS forecasters the best tools we possibly can to keep America and our neighbors safe. Thank you. 

During the course of the storm, as I am sure you are aware, there were routine and exceptional expert forecasts, the best possible, issued by the NWS Forecasters. These are remarkable colleagues of ours, who receive our products, use them well, and provide the benefit of their own experience in announcing accurate forecasts accompanied by the distinction of all credible scientists—they sign their work. As I'm sure you also know, there was a complex issue involving the President commenting on the path of the hurricane. The NWS Forecaster(s) corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way, as they should. There followed, last Friday, an unsigned press release from "NOAA" that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster. My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political. Our NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Code of Scientific Conduct make clear that all NOAA employees shall approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology. The content of this press release is very concerning as it compromises the ability of NOAA to convey life-saving information necessary to avoid substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. If the public cannot trust our information, or we debase our forecaster's warnings and products, that specific danger arises. 

You know that the value of our science is in the complexity of our understanding, our ability to convey that understanding to a wide audience of users of this information, and to establish and sustain the public trust in the truth and legitimacy of that information. Unfortunately, the press release of last Friday violated this trust and violated NOAA's policies of scientific integrity. In my role as Assistant Administrator for Research, and as I continue to administratively serve as Acting Chief Scientist, I am pursuing the potential violations of our NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity. Thankfully, we have such policies that are independently cited as among the best in the federal community, if not the best. Your NOAA and OAR management and leadership team believes in these policies and principles. I have a responsibility to pursue these truths. I will.

Thank you for your continued excellent work, and your trust. Carry on.

Craig N. McLean
Assistant Administrator 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 

[eyewall]

The most dangerous aspect of this all is the forcing of government agencies to cover for Trump and his narcissistic personality disorder no matter how unhinged he is. A complete disregard for the truth propagated by agencies charged with protecting life and property is horrifying.

[TheDreamTraveler]

44 minutes ago, eyewall said:

The most dangerous aspect of this all is the forcing of government agencies to cover for Trump and his narcissistic personality disorder no matter how unhinged he is. A complete disregard for the truth propagated by agencies charged with protecting life and property is horrifying.

Definitely. It's actually scary that so many people will distort reality in favor of anything the president says. These things have been happening to other communities and areas of the country since this administration took office. It's only when he targeted meteorologists, NWS and the weather community that some people finally realized what Trump and his administration have been doing. For anyone complaining why everyone is making a big deal about this...if we sit idly by and say and do nothing then this will become the norm.

[STxVortex]

Another very respected scientist and leader stands up for the good people of NOAA, and [too, imo] politely excoriates the incompetent, and sycophantic, who cravenly interfere with the scientists and technicians of NOAA.   

From the "Scientific American" * :

Observations - Leadership In The Age Of The Surreal

"Leadership in the Age of the Surreal
The professionals at the National Weather Service deserve political leadership that will stand up for them—even when that puts the leaders’ own jobs in jeopardy.

.Over the past two weeks, Hurricane Dorian destroyed portions of the Bahamas and posed a major threat to the southeastern U.S., before eventually making landfall in North Carolina. Given that we are in peak hurricane season, this is not an unprecedented story. In today’s age, however, the devastating hurricane became a backdrop to a political farce that, even in retrospect, seems unbelievable.

... [read the whole article at the link]
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
David Titley
David Titley is an affiliate professor of meteorology at Penn State University; Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (retired); former oceanographer of the navy; former Chief Operating Officer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and a member of the Governing Board at the Center for Climate and Security.

 

[ * The "Scientific American", I began subscribing to it ~c. 1968 ]

[cheese007]

2 hours ago, TheDreamTraveler said:

For anyone complaining why everyone is making a big deal about this...if we sit idly by and say and do nothing then this will become the norm.

I'd definitely be double and triple checking any econ data between now and November 2020

[TriPol]

2 hours ago, cheese007 said:

I'd definitely be double and triple checking any econ data between now and November 2020

I still wonder why Dorian wasn't upgraded to a Cat. 5 sooner. Every single piece of data showed it being a Cat. 5 and the NHC refused to upgrade it until they could no longer wait. Very odd behavior.

[Hurricane Agnes]

5 hours ago, TriPol said:

I still wonder why Dorian wasn't upgraded to a Cat. 5 sooner. Every single piece of data showed it being a Cat. 5 and the NHC refused to upgrade it until they could no longer wait. Very odd behavior.

I think realistically, there isn't much if any difference between a high-end CAT 4 and a low-end CAT 5, as these terms are nothing more than artificial constructs for data categorizing purposes, where in either case, the potential damage impact is the same - catastrophic.  Since "CAT 5" is the highest designation for the scale, it behooves balancing the "drama" of the term with the confirmation that it is truly sustained at that level, as there is no other category "officially" above that level. And when conditions are at the threshold of either designation and one is trying to communicate that to the public, it requires extra care to assess the risk of what might be confusing frequent category changes, while working around the media's propensity to exaggerate (for ratings). So there is a need to confirm, without doubt, that the category has truly been achieved and sustained, again with the knowledge that whether it is a high-end CAT 4 or a low-end CAT 5, the damage is the same.

I do expect like what was done with the "S word" storm in 2012, there will be a "Lessons Learned" activity as part of the full reanalysis of this storm.  NHC took a big hit because the existing criteria was correctly followed when that storm became post-tropical and was no longer considered a "hurricane" ("hurricane" being a term very recognizable by the lay public).  However public outrage ensued because anything less than the use of that term for a storm with equivalent winds/rain/surge and damage impact, became unnecessarily confusing to the public due to the focus on the technicality of "tropical" vs "post-tropical".  I.e., to the scientific met community, that storm's technical makeup and dynamics had changed ("quantitative"), but to the public, the "look" and "feel" and "impact" had not ("qualitative").  And now with climate change altering storm behavior, we are seeing storms maintain tropical characteristics further north in latitude than in the past, often due to a warmer ocean further north.

So in a similar fashion, they may look at ways to more quickly but definitively declare a storm as having achieved that highest category (outside of reported wind speed at the surface through dropsondes) without compromising the science behind the confirmation.  I think this would really be a good idea to do given the sudden increased frequency of such storms (and as we know here, this was the 5th one in 4 years, where in the past, this level of storm was more rare).  You might recall the same issue with Hurricane Michael and a decision, after a post-storm reanalysis, to upgrade it to a CAT 5 at landfall.

[f2tornado]

2 hours ago, Hurricane Agnes said:

I do expect like what was done with the "S word" storm in 2012, there will be a "Lessons Learned" activity as part of the full reanalysis of this storm.  NHC took a big hit because the existing criteria was correctly followed when that storm became post-tropical and was no longer considered a "hurricane" ("hurricane" being a term very recognizable by the lay public).  However public outrage ensued because anything less than the use of that term for a storm with equivalent winds/rain/surge and damage impact, became unnecessarily confusing to the public due to the focus on the technicality of "tropical" vs "post-tropical".  I.e., to the scientific met community, that storm's technical makeup and dynamics had changed ("quantitative"), but to the public, the "look" and "feel" and "impact" had not ("qualitative"). 

Bryan Norcross discusses this specific communication problem in a 2017 writing. This is a less elegant piece than I'm accustomed seeing from him. He has a number of good pieces easily found with a Google search showing where improvements in communication and could be warranted.  

[Hurricane Agnes]

7 minutes ago, f2tornado said:

Bryan Norcross discusses this specific communication problem in a 2017 writing. This is a less elegant piece than I'm accustomed seeing from him. 

The issue of "threat" (and "risk") will always be "mush".  And mainly because it becomes a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario when you attempt to definitively characterize something and you end up being "wrong" because of an outcome that went to the other side of the "wiggle room" spectrum (probability range) from what was expected. It's akin to teasing out the degrees of difference between near-synonymous words like "shall", "should", "will", and "must". The hope is to be able develop tools to help reduce the probability range.

There is a similar issue that goes on with the aftermath of an EFx tornado vs straight-line winds.  There has been tremendous damage done to infrastructure from straight-line winds akin to tornado damage, but the mechanisms (and debris patterns) behind either phenomena are different and this often triggers public frustration on what to call the "cause" of the damage they might experience or have experienced. I.e.,  the public is more familiar with the term "tornado", whereas "straight-line winds" is a more nebulous term and is often automatically considered as "less than a tornado", yet the damage can be the same or even worse.  This is not so much a scientific issue as it is a "perception" issue that happens with media reporting.  The implementation of the "key" things to know - notably the potential "impact", is a good step in the right direction (knowing however that the average person is not visiting the point-and-click maps on the NWS site for their locations to read the actual warning text and are usually getting their weather news filtered by the media on TV, radio, or even from a smart-device weather app).

I really don't think there is a good way to resolve this (at least off the top of my head and in a manner that doesn't introduce a dozen technical terms for damage-causing "storms" - not unlike differentiating hail from sleet... or snow from rimmed flakes or graupel... let alone explaining the ice caused by freezing rain when the air temperature is above freezing). 

One thing that I thought was pretty cool that NHC had done was the creation of an animation illustrating the type of damage a hurricane of "x" range of wind speed could generate.  Unfortunately it is a flash animation (and really should be converted to something like an animated gif or perhaps a HTML5 animation), but can be found here as a standalone - https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/animations/images/hurricane_winddamage.swf (and is also embedded here - https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php)

This type of illustration could actually apply to any type of system that produces extreme winds (whether hurricane or tornado or straight-line winds, etc).  The visualization pretty dramatically illustrates wind force and its potential impact (assuming the infrastructure wasn't already compromised by age or other factors). But it would also behoove the media to pass this type of thing along as well, perhaps as a public-private partnership/collaboration.  As it is, there is quite a bit of rancor that goes on between the private forecasters and the public ones and this sadly tends to cloud (pun intended) the issue of communicating hazards as well.

[Hurricane Agnes]

 

[TriPol]

12 minutes ago, Hurricane Agnes said:

 

Shades of Chernobyl. The State didn't want scientists to spread anything that in any way shape or form disagreed with the official position of the State. It's easy to see where Trump gets his behavior from.

[Hurricane Agnes]

On 9/9/2019 at 5:35 PM, Jim Marusak said:

well, Dr. Neil Jacobs, current acting head of NOAA, will be speaking a keynote address tomorrow morning at 8am CT at the NWA Annual meeting in Huntsville. how do you think that will go? especially any Q&A after the speech?

Here is an article on the follow-up of that -

 

[donsutherland1]

58 minutes ago, Hurricane Agnes said:

 

This is disappointing, but not surprising. It was clear from the onset that the unattributed NOAA statement was a political statement. That the origins are being traced to the White House can be expected given how forcefully and persistently the President clung to his erroneous statement concerning Dorian and Alabama.

[lilj4425]

Ooga-chaka Ooga-Ooga
Ooga-chaka Ooga-Ooga
Ooga-chaka Ooga-Ooga
Ooga-chaka Ooga-Ooga

[ncforecaster89]

I'm posting this comment in the banter thread, as I would suspect any convo regarding chasers (more personally) would be more applicable outside the main storm specific thread.

That said, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I was (and am) genuinely excited for Josh to have intercepted the eye and core of Dorian.  Unlike some, I don't get jealous of others' chasing success.  Why should they?  It has no relevancy on their own chase abilities.  

My wholly scientically objective observation that the winds don't appear to have been any higher in Marsh Harbour than those I happened to observe on the western-most portion of Mexico Beach, shouldn't be taken as somehow an attempt at minimizing the effects on Marsh Harbour.  The only relevancy to Josh in such evaluation is simply an objective review of the winds he documented on video.  As stated multiple times already, I feel he captured genuine Cat 5 winds on video...which is a VERY rare occurrence.  

It makes zero difference that I happened to be the one who documented the highest winds in Michael or that Josh happened to be the one documenting Dorian in MH.  The only relevancy between the two is that each intercept location experienced the greatest impact from the two storms, respectively.  Thus, my own personal interest in knowing what the peak MSW might've been at each specific locality.

Given Josh is typically in the core of a major landfalling hurricane at or near ground-zero, I can understand why some might misinterpret my objective analysis of the peak winds that most likely were encountered in that area, and falsely presume I have some stupid ulterior motive or "agenda".  Nothing could be further from the truth! 

Even when some resorted to unjustified personal attacks when I respectfully argued that all the objective scientific data clearly suggested Patricia wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, I didn't waver on my wholly objective opinion.   Subsequently, the NHC agreed with my precise 130 kt estimate.  Similar instances occurred in discussion of Michael's landfall intensity.   Yet again, my best educated guess (based solely on the objective scientific data) was validated in the NHC TCR.  Now, some are taking exception to my objective viewpoint that Marsh Harbour didn't get anywhere close to those one-minute 10 m estimated MSWs.  Unlike with Michael, we have a lot less access to all the available data, whereby making a specific best educated estimate of the MSW encountered in MH is far more problematic.  That's why I've asked if anyone knows of any additional data that may be available?  Regardless, I'm confident that MH saw a MSW of at least 140 kt.  

I don't personally consider chasing a sport, much less a competition with other chasers.  In sequence of events, my initial goal is to either get into the eye or the area of strongest winds from a documentation standpoint.  Secondly, record the barometric pressure at that location.  Currently in the process of obtaining an anemometer to accurately record wind measurements in future intercepts.  Next, to assist with search and rescue following a devastating event...followed by documentation of the aftermath.   Lastly, I always have (since Katrina in 2005) and always will devote at least one full day to assisting with the cleanup.  This is one thing I wish all chasers would do, and feel we all should do, considering we intentionally place ourselves in these areas of greatest impact and often times benefit from doing so.  Regardless of the other ways we help, I still think it's the least we can do...but that's just me.  

This post is long enough.  But, I just simply wanted to share my personal viewpoints on the contents contained herein to help those who might misinterpret them.  Thanks for taking the time to read it.  Hope all have a great rest of the day!

[HurricaneJosh]

17 minutes ago, ncforecaster89 said:

I'm posting this comment in the banter thread, as I would suspect any convo regarding chasers (more personally) would be more applicable outside the main storm specific thread.

That said, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I was (and am) genuinely excited for Josh to have intercepted the eye and core of Dorian.  Unlike some, I don't get jealous of others' chasing success.  Why should they?  It has no relevancy on their own chase abilities.  

My wholly scientically objective observation that the winds don't appear to have been any higher in Marsh Harbour than those I happened to observe on the western-most portion of Mexico Beach, shouldn't be taken as somehow an attempt at minimizing the effects on Marsh Harbour.  The only relevancy to Josh in such evaluation is simply an objective review of the winds he documented on video.  As stated multiple times already, I feel he captured genuine Cat 5 winds on video...which is a VERY rare occurrence.  

It makes zero difference that I happened to be the one who documented the highest winds in Michael or that Josh happened to be the one documenting Dorian in MH.  The only relevancy between the two is that each intercept location experienced the greatest impact from the two storms, respectively.  Thus, my own personal interest in knowing what the peak MSW might've been at each specific locality.

Given Josh is typically in the core of a major landfalling hurricane at or near ground-zero, I can understand why some might misinterpret my objective analysis of the peak winds that most likely were encountered in that area, and falsely presume I have some stupid ulterior motive or "agenda".  Nothing could be further from the truth! 

Even when some resorted to unjustified personal attacks when I respectfully argued that all the objective scientific data clearly suggested Patricia wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, I didn't waver on my wholly objective opinion.   Subsequently, the NHC agreed with my precise 130 kt estimate.  Similar instances occurred in discussion of Michael's landfall intensity.   Yet again, my best educated guess (based solely on the objective scientific data) was validated in the NHC TCR.  Now, some are taking exception to my objective viewpoint that Marsh Harbour didn't get anywhere close to those one-minute 10 m estimated MSWs.  Unlike with Michael, we have a lot less access to all the available data, whereby making a specific best educated estimate of the MSW encountered in MH is far more problematic.  That's why I've asked if anyone knows of any additional data that may be available?  Regardless, I'm confident that MH saw a MSW of at least 140 kt.  

I don't personally consider chasing a sport, much less a competition with other chasers.  In sequence of events, my initial goal is to either get into the eye or the area of strongest winds from a documentation standpoint.  Secondly, record the barometric pressure at that location.  Currently in the process of obtaining an anemometer to accurately record wind measurements in future intercepts.  Next, to assist with search and rescue following a devastating event...followed by documentation of the aftermath.   Lastly, I always have (since Katrina in 2005) and always will devote at least one full day to assisting with the cleanup.  This is one thing I wish all chasers would do, and feel we all should do, considering we intentionally place ourselves in these areas of greatest impact and often times benefit from doing so.  Regardless of the other ways we help, I still think it's the least we can do...but that's just me.  

This post is long enough.  But, I just simply wanted to share my personal viewpoints on the contents contained herein to help those who might misinterpret them.  Thanks for taking the time to read it.  Hope all have a great rest of the day!

Thanks for your interest in my work, Tony. I appreciate it.

[ncforecaster89]

28 minutes ago, HurricaneJosh said:

Thanks for your interest in my work, Tony. I appreciate it.

Please read my last post in the main Dorian thread.  

So excited you were able to get into the eye and core of Dorian, and the same applies to Jim Edds, as well.  Very disappointed that James wasn't allowed to get to the Island, himself.   

Naturally, I'd also liked to have been there, but I've long ago resigned myself to the reality that I'll never be able to chase outside the U.S. (my wife will never allow it).

Now, things would be completely different if I missed any Cat 3 or higher landfall in the U.S.  To this day, I wish I'd been able to chase Andrew.  Unfortunately, my studies were paramount at the time and I have to remind myself of that.  Charley is another I regret not chasing in Florida, but work obligations made that impossible.   

Anyway, I eagerly look forward to documenting the next major hurricane in the U.S., as well as seeing all the footage you capture during your own chase exploits.  

Have a great rest of the night, Josh!

[Benadrill]

48 minutes ago, ncforecaster89 said:

I'm posting this comment in the banter thread, as I would suspect any convo regarding chasers (more personally) would be more applicable outside the main storm specific thread.

That said, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I was (and am) genuinely excited for Josh to have intercepted the eye and core of Dorian.  Unlike some, I don't get jealous of others' chasing success.  Why should they?  It has no relevancy on their own chase abilities.  

My wholly scientically objective observation that the winds don't appear to have been any higher in Marsh Harbour than those I happened to observe on the western-most portion of Mexico Beach, shouldn't be taken as somehow an attempt at minimizing the effects on Marsh Harbour.  The only relevancy to Josh in such evaluation is simply an objective review of the winds he documented on video.  As stated multiple times already, I feel he captured genuine Cat 5 winds on video...which is a VERY rare occurrence.  

It makes zero difference that I happened to be the one who documented the highest winds in Michael or that Josh happened to be the one documenting Dorian in MH.  The only relevancy between the two is that each intercept location experienced the greatest impact from the two storms, respectively.  Thus, my own personal interest in knowing what the peak MSW might've been at each specific locality.

Given Josh is typically in the core of a major landfalling hurricane at or near ground-zero, I can understand why some might misinterpret my objective analysis of the peak winds that most likely were encountered in that area, and falsely presume I have some stupid ulterior motive or "agenda".  Nothing could be further from the truth! 

Even when some resorted to unjustified personal attacks when I respectfully argued that all the objective scientific data clearly suggested Patricia wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, I didn't waver on my wholly objective opinion.   Subsequently, the NHC agreed with my precise 130 kt estimate.  Similar instances occurred in discussion of Michael's landfall intensity.   Yet again, my best educated guess (based solely on the objective scientific data) was validated in the NHC TCR.  Now, some are taking exception to my objective viewpoint that Marsh Harbour didn't get anywhere close to those one-minute 10 m estimated MSWs.  Unlike with Michael, we have a lot less access to all the available data, whereby making a specific best educated estimate of the MSW encountered in MH is far more problematic.  That's why I've asked if anyone knows of any additional data that may be available?  Regardless, I'm confident that MH saw a MSW of at least 140 kt.  

I don't personally consider chasing a sport, much less a competition with other chasers.  In sequence of events, my initial goal is to either get into the eye or the area of strongest winds from a documentation standpoint.  Secondly, record the barometric pressure at that location.  Currently in the process of obtaining an anemometer to accurately record wind measurements in future intercepts.  Next, to assist with search and rescue following a devastating event...followed by documentation of the aftermath.   Lastly, I always have (since Katrina in 2005) and always will devote at least one full day to assisting with the cleanup.  This is one thing I wish all chasers would do, and feel we all should do, considering we intentionally place ourselves in these areas of greatest impact and often times benefit from doing so.  Regardless of the other ways we help, I still think it's the least we can do...but that's just me.  

This post is long enough.  But, I just simply wanted to share my personal viewpoints on the contents contained herein to help those who might misinterpret them.  Thanks for taking the time to read it.  Hope all have a great rest of the day!

Your posts just have an extremely salty tone to them. 

This isn't "scientific" but video from Mexico Beach or even the Air Force base area compared to video from Dorian look nothing alike. Dorian looks 100x worse. It's really visually apparent which hurricane had higher wind speeds.

[ncforecaster89]

45 minutes ago, Benadrill said:

Your posts just have an extremely salty tone to them. 

This isn't "scientific" but video from Mexico Beach or even the Air Force base area compared to video from Dorian look nothing alike. Dorian looks 100x worse. It's really visually apparent which hurricane had higher wind speeds.

Obviously, I disagree, and it's ok that you view it differently.

Edit: I certainly wouldn't argue the winds were stronger at Tyndall.  They weren't. 

Anyway, I genuinely hope you have a good rest of the night!