Per the "up to 120mph", definitely didn't happen sustained wise, and gusts were mostly in the ~100mph range, so the guidance wasn't off much for those on the coast imho. Agreed, the Cat5 talk needed to be toned down. Especially when, per the SS scale and keeping in mind the general public's knowledge, there isn't really a huge difference between a 4 and 5 wind wise, and one could potentially argue that after a TC reaches a 3 the Cat is irrelevant. I understand keeping a balance. Idk, maybe I didn't hear/see any of the fear-mongering you're referring to because I was mentally balls deep in the meteorological side versus public side. Per the climo though... I've seen it referenced over and over by experienced Mets and by weenies on forums like these that this wasn't a storm one could really compare to climo because of the stack of statistical anomalies involved. Were they all wrong? Were they all focusing too much on those outliers versus the larger synoptic picture, so to speak? I want all input and perspectives because it could very well be me one day writing a FD for dissemination by the NHC... Conversations like these matter, but the hyperbole from both sides damages the goal, I feel, of properly conveying threat to life and property. Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk