• Member Statistics

    16,026
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Bobby Orr
    Newest Member
    Bobby Orr
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
WxWatcher007

Category Five Hurricane Michael

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, sakau2007 said:

You are also strawmanning, although I think you may be doing it unintentionally. Nowhere did I claim that picture only got 115 sustained. Infact I am almost certain the winds were much higher there. I am showing you damage from a 145mph storm. I think that’s a fair comparison to a supposedly 140mph cat 4 as it was crossing I-10, no? But the damage along I-10 (that we have seen so far) is not even close to as bad as what we saw in Punta Gorda from Charley. 

 

I think some of ya’ll read my posts and just immediately think I am saying the storm wasn’t bad or something. Simply not true... I’m merely disputing the intensity of the storm several hours after landfall. Cat 2/3 damage, particularly that far away from the coast, is still incredible.

 

 

And you don't have all of the evidence as you admit "that we have seen" as you say, and yet you are convinced you are right?  Really?  How can you dispute something when you admit you do not have all of the evidence. How could you have all of the evidence so quickly after the storm(you started this yesterday)? This is what is making you look unhinged. This claiming to be able to dispute something when the onus is on you to disprove the official story when you admit you do not even have all of the information necessary to do so is not going over well. 

 

Just let it go at least until you do have more info-this is not making you or your argument look good at all.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BlunderStorm said:

Don't mind me I'm just here to spectate the wind intensity and damage arguments. :popcorn: I wonder how many additional pages to this thread will be created from this.

Well I am sure the hurricane will get upgraded eventually to a cat five and the cat 4 damage corridor will be found to extend all the way to Marianna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Papa Joe said:

There will be some loss, but wildlife are much more resilient than you might think. Think fire ant rafts.

Lots of black bears in that area of the state.  That would be an unpleasant visitor to have poking through your rubble pile.   Swimmers, climbers, runners - they are resilient. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bubbler86 said:

This and animals left behind in the houses swept away.  I cannot imagine leaving animals behind but people do it.  

Yeah leaving pets behind is horrible....they're supposed to be part of your family and the pets have no idea why you left them behind as they drown.  There's plenty of people I'd rather leave behind instead of the pets....

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wendy said:

Miami fire and rescue in Mexico Beach told CNN reporter on the ground that they didn't want to discuss a death toll but that it didn't look good.

Maybe that'll get rid of troll.

That's awful. Was this just reported?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Whineminster said:

Yeah leaving pets behind is horrible....they're supposed to be part of your family and the pets have no idea why you left them behind as they drown.  There's plenty of people I'd rather leave behind instead of the pets....

Are any of them posting in this thread? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sakau2007 said:

ad hominem attacks. a familiar symptom  of losing an argument.

 

actually im quite aware. i don’t care if you or anyone else “sees the light.” 

anyone who has an opinion that i care about would be able to follow the simple claim and logic I used. 

then there are people like chargers09 who might be dumb, or might just not realize he was arguing against a point i wasn’t making. either way, it has now been explained to him and his most recent posts show that he is either dumb or, more likely, a combination of prideful/can’t admit he made a mistake. it is easier for him to act like he is taking the high road by not arguing anymore when he is also sticking his head in the sand.

 

thank you to the few of you who engaged in a professional manner and offered explanations and your points of view, even if we don’t agree on all points.

 

 

You ignored my post requesting confirmation of the date and location of the photos you posted. Your argument is based on "I think" and "im pretty sure that". Those statements are not evidence and dont support any argument. Frankly, without you providing anyone with any hard facts or information, your argument is DOA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miami fire and rescue in Mexico Beach told CNN reporter on the ground that they didn't want to discuss a death toll but that it didn't look good.
Maybe that'll get rid of troll.


I hope that's more a didn't look good with respect to all the debris and rubble they have to do search and rescue through and not actual dread about deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Windspeed said:

 


I hope that's more a didn't look good with respect to all the debris and rubble they have to do search and rescue through and not actual dread about deaths.

 

Possible since they are not the local rescue department that handles area, thinking very very few people we're even in the town as it hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Whineminster said:

Yeah leaving pets behind is horrible....they're supposed to be part of your family and the pets have no idea why you left them behind as they drown.  There's plenty of people I'd rather leave behind instead of the pets....

People who would be screaming at the water as it surrounded them "You are only a Cat 1, you cannot harm me".

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wendy said:

Miami fire and rescue in Mexico Beach told CNN reporter on the ground that they didn't want to discuss a death toll but that it didn't look good.

Maybe that'll get rid of troll.

CNN added 3 more people to the toll.  Undisclosed reasons right now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

38 minutes ago, MPLS said:

I'm fairly certain it's more a symptom of people being tired of your schtick.

You literally liked a post a page or two back that was nothing but a strawman against me. Not that interested in discussing my posts with you when it appears you don't even know what my claim was. Either that, or you think it is cool to tell someone to never come back to the forum because they said the grass is green when you know the sky is blue.

 

50 minutes ago, sojitodd said:

And you don't have all of the evidence as you admit "that we have seen" as you say, and yet you are convinced you are right?  Really?  How can you dispute something when you admit you do not have all of the evidence. How could you have all of the evidence so quickly after the storm(you started this yesterday)? This is what is making you look unhinged. This claiming to be able to dispute something when the onus is on you to disprove the official story when you admit you do not even have all of the information necessary to do so is not going over well. 

 

Just let it go at least until you do have more info-this is not making you or your argument look good at all.

This is a reasonable response. Thanks for taking the time to post it. You are right... I don't have all of the evidence. As for me being convinced I am right... as it stands right now, yeah, I am. But I'm not one to ignore future evidence. I am more than happy to revisit the topic when more evidence comes in. I wouldn't expect for a reporting station to report 140mph sustained winds the minute after the NHC releases that advisory. I'm a reasonable person. I understand the difficulties in getting data and evidence. 

But with that being said, based on what I had seen up to that point (and up to this point), I made my claim. It's not like this is 1940 and communication was nonexistent to the areas I am talking about. Maybe the hardest hit areas that is true. And maybe even the hardest hit areas up by interstate 10. But that's why I made sure there was a pretty big gap in the observations compared to the advisory before I made the claim. If someone had video or anemometer data clearly showing 125mph sustained winds along I-10, then I never would have disputed a 140mph cat 4 existing there. But the gap was much more significant than that. Granted, more details rolling in every hour... but still nothing to change my mind. Yet. If anything, I'd say I'm more confident now than I was 18 hours ago because we do have more data and I still think my claim holds water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, psv88 said:

You ignored my post requesting confirmation of the date and location of the photos you posted. Your argument is based on "I think" and "im pretty sure that". Those statements are not evidence and dont support any argument. Frankly, without you providing anyone with any hard facts or information, your argument is DOA

I'm at work and have a lot of posts to respond to. The picture was taken in Punta Gorda on August 14, 2004. I don't know exactly how high the winds were in that exact spot. I think there was pretty good data and quite a few measurements very nearby though. Based on that, first hand accounts, other pictures, and various other evidence, I feel confident to say the winds experienced there were above 120 sustained.

As for "I think" and "I'm pretty sure that" type statements... those are merely my early conclusions based on the evidence that I have thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sakau2007 said:

Um, sure I can. If a radar shows me a thunderstorm over the water, I'd expect it to show me the same returns over land. I think the NHC has scientists that are smart enough to figure out how to incorporate land into their advisories. We know the wind speeds rapidly dissipate, and the wind field typically expands. 

The NHC had this thing as a category 3 in Georgia. I'm sorry, I don't think that there is any evidence to show this. A 140mph cat 4 at I-10. Again, I don't buy it. You say pictures back it up. I say otherwise. Go look at wind damage from places where equipment didn't fail in previous storms where they actually recorded sustained winds for a 1 minute average of 115mph and compare it to damage in extreme southwestern Georgia, and then correct for building codes and whatnot. It's not the same. Compare the wind damage in Punta Gorda, Florida in 2004 with the wind damage from the I-10 corridor today: 

AR-308119431.jpg?MaxW=950&cachebuster=18

It's not even in the same category (no pun intended)

As for the equipment failure issue, that's fine and all, but we see this in virtually every storm... that surface observations inland never live up to what the advisories are showing should be happening. Lots of equipment didn't fail away from the coast, and especially in Georgia. The inland observations just don't really jive with the advisories.

And this is just me opining. There are real reasons why it makes sense to issue accurate advisories. I'd hate for someone who rode this thing out in Interstate 10 and experienced 100 mph sustained winds think they are ready for 140mph winds the next time one comes along.

 

Is it possible cat 4 winds didn't make it to I-10? Yes.  Will we know definitively before the surveys are done?  No.

Did NHC make the right call by not downgrading the storm whether or not the cat 4 winds verified at I-10? In my opinion, based on the damage sustained along the coast and satellite presentation as it moved inland, yes.  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, the ghost of leroy said:

bruh that's nothing like punta gorda

It doesn't look as bad to me either. It's hard to say given it is just tree damage in a picture. It does look similar to what Escambia County, Alabama looked like after Opal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sakau2007 said:

 

You literally liked a post a page or two back that was nothing but a strawman against me. Not that interested in discussing my posts with you when it appears you don't even know what my claim was. Either that, or you think it is cool to tell someone to never come back to the forum because they said the grass is green when you know the sky is blue.

 

This is a reasonable response. Thanks for taking the time to post it. You are right... I don't have all of the evidence. As for me being convinced I am right... as it stands right now, yeah, I am. But I'm not one to ignore future evidence. I am more than happy to revisit the topic when more evidence comes in. I wouldn't expect for a reporting station to report 140mph sustained winds the minute after the NHC releases that advisory. I'm a reasonable person. I understand the difficulties in getting data and evidence. 

But with that being said, based on what I had seen up to that point (and up to this point), I made my claim. It's not like this is 1940 and communication was nonexistent to the areas I am talking about. Maybe the hardest hit areas that is true. And maybe even the hardest hit areas up by interstate 10. But that's why I made sure there was a pretty big gap in the observations compared to the advisory before I made the claim. If someone had video or anemometer data clearly showing 125mph sustained winds along I-10, then I never would have disputed a 140mph cat 4 existing there. But the gap was much more significant than that. Granted, more details rolling in every hour... but still nothing to change my mind. Yet. If anything, I'd say I'm more confident now than I was 18 hours ago because we do have more data and I still think my claim holds water.

These are from Donalsonville, GA - GA = Georgia.  Seems like they had some winds there too.

43878015_10205038428637135_4001176728201

43787653_10205038429477156_6722463024784

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

Is it possible cat 4 winds didn't make it to I-10? Yes.  Will we know definitively before the surveys are done?  No.

Did NHC make the right call by not downgrading the storm whether or not the cat 4 winds verified at I-10? In my opinion, based on the damage sustained along the coast and satellite presentation as it moved inland, yes.  

 

Definitely not disputing the first part of your post. I agree with you. 

But I do disagree with the second part of your post. I think it is important that even in extreme crisis the public is given the most accurate information possible. "Erring on the side of caution" is not unreasonable on the surface, but I wonder if it does do more harm than good long term. It is possible that there are a lot of people who think they survived a category 4 hurricane 60 miles inland when they actually survived a category 2... which could be disastrous if those people are ever along the coast when the next Charlie/Hugo/Andrew/Michael/Maria/Katrina is bearing down.

But that's okay. Reasonable minds can differ.

Part of the problem is the whole category system that we use to begin with. While it was great decades ago, I think we know a lot more about storms now that it could be time for an overhaul of the metric based on other factors other than just 1 minute sustained wind averages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sakau2007 said:

Definitely not disputing the first part of your post. I agree with you. 

But I do disagree with the second part of your post. I think it is important that even in extreme crisis the public is given the most accurate information possible. "Erring on the side of caution" is not unreasonable on the surface, but I wonder if it does do more harm than good long term. It is possible that there are a lot of people who think they survived a category 4 hurricane 60 miles inland when they actually survived a category 2... which could be disastrous if those people are ever along the coast when the next Charlie/Hugo/Andrew/Michael/Maria/Katrina is bearing down.

But that's okay. Reasonable minds can differ.

Part of the problem is the whole category system that we use to begin with. While it was great decades ago, I think we know a lot more about storms now that it could be time for an overhaul of the metric based on other factors other than just 1 minute sustained wind averages.

You're acting as if the only thing they base messaging on is the saffir simpson scale in order to make the most pedantic f'n argument.

NHC did great here.  Better than outside agencies.  Better than amateurs like you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lfunk11 said:

These are from Donalsonville, GA - GA = Georgia.  Seems like they had some winds there too.

 

 

They did. A gust was measured to 115mph in Donalsonville. I haven't checked to see what their top sustained wind report was. 

And I can show you similar wind damage to that from Vero Beach, FL when Hurricane Erin struck as an 85mph category 1 in 1995. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, the ghost of leroy said:

You're acting as if the only thing they base messaging on is the saffir simpson scale in order to make the most pedantic f'n argument.

NHC did great here.  Better than outside agencies.  Better than amateurs like you.

No... I am responding to the man who said that he thought it was smart to not downgrade it based on what the storm had done earlier. I partially disagree with that assessment and I gave my reason why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.