Michael Banter Thread

[SENC]

1 minute ago, mappy said:

I'm not sure what you're looking for here? you posted wind obs from towers that all went offline during the worst of the storm. I'm not sure how you can ask for data to prove you wrong, when there is no data at all to give. Tyndell AFB gusted to 130mph before going offline. Last I checked a low end Cat 2 doesn't gust to 130mph.

Mappy, see that's the thing, everyone is screaming CAT 4 or CAT 5.. Yet there is NO DATA too support this..

Not being  'snarky here" Just please bear withme.. I'm NOT trying to insult you or anyone here..

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2018/al14/al142018.update.10101853.shtml?

“Recently reported wind gusts include:

Tyndall Air Force Base: 119 mph (191 km/h)
Florida State University Panama City Campus: 116 mph (187 km/h)
University of Florida/Weatherflow Mexico Beach: 104 mph (167 km/h)”

The differences make sense, since Tyndall is right in the firing line, however in the summary:

“MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…150 MPH”

I guess that must be historical, somewhere out where it would affect only boats and seagulls. See Link

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/met.html?id=8729210

Now reads maximum gusts of 76kn and sustained of a “terrifying” 142 + kn

[biodhokie]

1 minute ago, SENC said:

“MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…150 MPH”

Question: Please define for us Maximum Sustained Winds. You keep bringing it up as the cornerstone to your whole argument, I just want to check that we're operating off the same definitions.

[mappy]

1 minute ago, SENC said:

Mappy, see that's the thing, everyone is screaming CAT 4 or CAT 5.. Yet there is NO DATA too support this..

Not being  'snarky here" Just please bear withme.. I'm NOT trying to insult you or anyone here..

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2018/al14/al142018.update.10101853.shtml?

“Recently reported wind gusts include:

Tyndall Air Force Base: 119 mph (191 km/h)
Florida State University Panama City Campus: 116 mph (187 km/h)
University of Florida/Weatherflow Mexico Beach: 104 mph (167 km/h)”

The differences make sense, since Tyndall is right in the firing line, however in the summary:

“MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…150 MPH”

I guess that must be historical, somewhere out where it would affect only boats and seagulls. See Link

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/met.html?id=8729210

Now reads maximum gusts of 76kn and sustained of a “terrifying” 142 + kn

you seem to have missed the entire point of my post. How can we show you data when there is no data to give you DUE TO INSTRUMENT FAILURE? 

I did find this:

80 miles inland, long after landfall, 115mph gust. But yeah, its just a low end cat 2. 

[Wmsptwx]

The tree damage alone is staggering and absolutely backs the nws and nhc's assessment.

[KPITSnow]

But guys, winds ONLY gusted to 119 MPH!!! Who cares if the station was knocked offline, that is all the proof we need!

[sojitodd]

7 minutes ago, Roger Smith said:

SENC, all of the data-based arguments you have presented fall into one of two categories:

(a) the data were incomplete due to instrument failure before the strongest winds, or

(b) the data are correct but are taken from locations that nobody claims to have been in the strongest wind zone.

I'm surprised you haven't figured this out for yourself, even as dim an intellect as my own managed to reach these conclusions. 

To be more specific, it is quite plausible that winds continued to increase at Tyndall AFB and the Panama City buoy, review your own data and you'll see that both cut out and stopped reporting.

And the Panama City Beach and Tyndall Tower (located south of Cape San Blas) data are correct but pressures will show you how far they were outside the core. 

I don't see any evidence that you're disputing the central pressure being around 920 mb at landfall. So how could that possibly be a cat-2? 

Then there's the entire issue of no data yet known at least for wind speeds between Tyndall AFB and Appalachicola. For that we have only secondary evidence such as the widespread damage at Mexico Beach. 

And this guy also has the temerity to throw around stuff like "data" and "peer reviewed" when it is less than 24 hours after landfall. This is hopeless-this is the guy who used the term "snowflake"-and as a 50-something guy myself I can tell you 90% of the time someone uses that term they are a boneheaded Trumptard in my age group.

[mappy]

a freight train, metal box cars, knocked over

 

[BxEngine]

Just now, mappy said:

a freight train, metal box cars, knocked over

 

Pretty weird to see this thread extrapolated into a real world picture. Lol

[sojitodd]

7 minutes ago, mappy said:

you seem to have missed the entire point of my post. How can we show you data when there is no data to give you DUE TO INSTRUMENT FAILURE? 

I did find this:

80 miles inland, long after landfall, 115mph gust. But yeah, its just a low end cat 2. 

But...but...that just shows that the storm was a cat 2 that did not weaken after being over land for 4 hours! lol

[H2O]

7 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

Yeah the board being slow at points was annoying af too and made it impossible to moderate, it would keep freezing after i would hit submit to pinky posts. And i dont blame anyone at all for choosing to not deal with this crap and spend time with their family...thats always the right choice. 

 

Unless your kid is learning the recorder. Then its hard liquor and the ban hammer.

That was my problem.  I was in here watching posts during LF and I just couldn't hide posts due to the board freezing up.  Literally 30 posts would get posted before the one i wanted to hide would get hidden.  I just gave up when it was page after page of the status of Brett Adair and his floating car livestream.

 

Sorry I didn't help more but as you say life>moderating adult babies.

[mappy]

Just now, BxEngine said:

Pretty weird to see this thread extrapolated into a real world picture. Lol

Look, I am all about having data and making sounds classifications based off that data. I map data for a living. I get it. Whether its tornadoes, snowfall, or my day-day military work... I understand.

I just don't know HOW one can prove that something DID do something, when there is no data at all due to failure. But calling it a low end cat 2 is just foolish. There is more than enough to prove that conclusion is wildly inaccurate. 

[H2O]

10 minutes ago, mappy said:

if youre the dummy who gave your kid a recorder to begin with, then you deserve it.  

this is Bx at home

 

[BxEngine]

1 minute ago, mappy said:

Look, I am all about having data and making sounds classifications based off that data. I map data for a living. I get it. Whether its tornadoes, snowfall, or my day-day military work... I understand.

I just don't know HOW one can prove that something DID do something, when there is no data at all due to failure. But calling it a low end cat 2 is just foolish. There is more than enough to prove that conclusion is wildly inaccurate. 

I was just making a trainwreck joke

[hlcater]

1 minute ago, BxEngine said:

I was just making a trainwreck joke

It's okay, I thought it was funny.

[H2O]

11 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

I was but we cut the budget to buy @stormtracker lifts for his shoes.

And shea cocoa butter lotion

[Windspeed]

But SENC has aerial survey photos from 17 years ago he searched on google. Oh and lets not forget bouys. Clearly all the resources at the tips of his fingers he needs to assign wind damage and post reoccurring rant after rant a mere 6 hours after landfall to discredit a 919 mb Category 4 and the NHC.

 

"But the SLABS! The... SLABS! ..... Anemometers!

Politicized..

NHC!.....They

 

are not...

**GOD*****

 

Government...

CONSPIRACY!!!!

 

You young whipper SNAPPERS! ...

 

69 SURVIVOR!......and

OBX bound!!!!!"

[Eskimo Joe]

10 minutes ago, mappy said:

a freight train, metal box cars, knocked over

 

BuT iT dIdN't HaVe An AnEmOmEtEr oN iT sO iT's nOt vErIfIaBlE

[H2O]

53 minutes ago, SENC said:

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..

[Eduardo]

3 minutes ago, SENC said:

Mappy, see that's the thing, everyone is screaming CAT 4 or CAT 5.. Yet there is NO DATA too support this..

 

This is like the tree falling in the woods thought experiment, except that here, we already have aerial footage showing the tree on the ground and we are waiting to hear from eyewitnesses who likely will confirm that it indeed made a sound when it fell....

I'm shocked that any instruments stood up to Cat. 3 wind gusts to record what they did over 40 minutes before landfall.  "Data" includes much more than just those measurements.  We take into account the type and extent of structural damage wrought, eyewitness testimony, satellite and radar imagery, and measurements taken just prior to landfall (i.e. recon obs).  You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of how science works (i.e., how working hypotheses are tested and revised).

We have had less than 24 hours now to survey the damage and assess the strength of Michael by these standards.  Getting a complete picture will take some time.  Calling this an overhyped Cat. 2 at this juncture is both premature and asinine.

[hazwoper]

55 minutes ago, SENC said:

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..

I didn't even bother to read the dribble.  Get lost and go find your tin hat.

[Eskimo Joe]

1 minute ago, hazwoper said:

I didn't even bother to read the dribble.  Get lost and go find your tin hat.

His posts read like those chain conspiracy emails your uncle emails you at 3:00 am.  

[mappy]

14 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

I was just making a trainwreck joke

sorry. i felt like talking instead. 

[KPITSnow]

Getting away from the lunacy, in the grand scheme of things we were relatively lucky where this hit.

 

It is only a matter of time until a cat 4 slams straight into Houston, New Orleans, or anywhere in the Florida peninsula and will make every storm before it look like child’s play. I

[BxEngine]

2 minutes ago, mappy said:

sorry. i felt like talking instead. 

Oh man theres a great "typical woman" sarcastic joke to be had here, but ill refrain. 

 

 

[Amped]

So now we all agree there was no storm at all, these are crisis actors and the whole thing was staged, And even though there was no storm, the storm was created by HAARP. 

[mappy]

lol

[H2O]

1 minute ago, Amped said:

So now we all agree there was no storm at all, these are crisis actors and the whole thing was staged, And even though there was no storm, the storm was created by HAARP. 

And the failing New York Times.

[Eskimo Joe]

3 minutes ago, H2O said:

And the failing New York Times.

A Low energy hurricane created by the Deep State and publicized by the failing New York Time.  Sad!

[the ghost of leroy]

i loved this storm, this thread, the weenies, basically everything.  you can't get true tropical dudes down from the post storm high.

[SharonA]

That section of the Florida Coast has a high number of winter homes and vacation rentals owned by people From Up North.  Lots of calls being attempted to property managers today, I'd bet.

If one of my professors wasn't the "Absolutely no extensions.  Late homework is a zero" diehards I'd be en route with a volunteer group to spend a week.  They need donations and hands.

 

Speaking of volunteering - If you have the time but aren't up to hard physical cleanup-type labor, OBR can still use you - www.facebook.com/OperationBBQRelief/posts/1852743314816447