Comments on: Fay finally weakens http://pjmedia.com/weathernerd/2008/08/20/fay-finally-weakens/ Brendan Loy\'s hurricane blog Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:42:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Brendan Loy http://pjmedia.com/weathernerd/2008/08/20/fay-finally-weakens/comment-page-1/#comment-205 Brendan Loy Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:36:15 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/weathernerd/2008/08/20/fay-finally-weakens/#comment-205 P.S. Something else to consider: because of the way the NHC rounds up & rounds down from knots to mph, there is no such thing as a 55 mph tropical storm. It's either 50 or 60. (45 kt x 1.15 = 51.75 mph, which rounds down to 50 mph. 50 kt x 1.15 = 57.5, which rounds up to 60 mph.) So, when you say "sustained winds were 50 to 55 MPH," even if you are correct, it isn't necessarily obvious that 50 mph was the correct estimate. 60 mph might be equally justifiable, based on that data, depending on what the other data said. In which case, in taking issue with the 65 mph designation, you're quibbling over <b>5</b> mph, for like, what, three hours? Six hours? And at a time when there was conflicting data. Again: lame. P.S. Something else to consider: because of the way the NHC rounds up & rounds down from knots to mph, there is no such thing as a 55 mph tropical storm. It’s either 50 or 60. (45 kt x 1.15 = 51.75 mph, which rounds down to 50 mph. 50 kt x 1.15 = 57.5, which rounds up to 60 mph.) So, when you say “sustained winds were 50 to 55 MPH,” even if you are correct, it isn’t necessarily obvious that 50 mph was the correct estimate. 60 mph might be equally justifiable, based on that data, depending on what the other data said. In which case, in taking issue with the 65 mph designation, you’re quibbling over 5 mph, for like, what, three hours? Six hours? And at a time when there was conflicting data. Again: lame.

]]> By: Brendan Loy http://pjmedia.com/weathernerd/2008/08/20/fay-finally-weakens/comment-page-1/#comment-204 Brendan Loy Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:23:45 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/weathernerd/2008/08/20/fay-finally-weakens/#comment-204 Steve, I think that's a question for the Tropical Cyclone Report at the end of the season. As I'm sure you know, intensities are sometimes adjusted up or down in those reports. We'll see. As things stand, it seems fairly obvious to me that the NHC made a reasonable, contemporaneous <b>estimate</b> (it's always an estimate) of <b>maximum</b> sustained winds (remember, it's supposed to be a <i>maximum</i>; it's not an assertion that those wind speeds are widespread) based on <i>all</i> available data, which includes not just anemometers (which cannot be everywhere) but observations based on satellite, radar, pressure, recon, etc. Maybe the estimate was a little off. If so, that's hardly something to make a federal case over. I fail to see how calling Fay a 65 mph tropical storm, instead of 55 mph, would meaningfully advance the dreaded Al Gore Agenda. In any event, your confident prediction that the NHC would conspiratorially "count-pad" by declaring Fay a hurricane just before landfall -- when such a declaration would be unverifiable -- and would then say "it weakened immediately after landfall," was obviously not borne out by the facts. Nothing of the sort occurred. I guess they weren't "<a href="http://www.seablogger.com/?p=11543#comments" rel="nofollow"><b>clearly</b> rigging it to play a game they’ve played before</a>" after all. If anything, NHC was conservative in not upgrading Fay to a hurricane yesterday over land, when based on radar, barometric pressure, etc., they could easily have justified saying that it was probably a minimal hurricane, and the ground instruments in the particular locales where they happen to exist just weren't picking it up. Even Alan Sullivan, who is the very antithesis of an alarmist or count-padder or AGW hype-monger, thought Fay might be a hurricane yesterday over land. But the NHC held off, because the raw data didn't support it. Basically, yesterday was a very bad day for your NHC/AGW conspiracy-theory nonsense, so now you're quibbling over 5 or 10 mph, still assuming the worst rather than giving them the benefit the doubt and waiting for the end-of-season report to learn more about the data. Lame. Steve, I think that’s a question for the Tropical Cyclone Report at the end of the season. As I’m sure you know, intensities are sometimes adjusted up or down in those reports. We’ll see.

As things stand, it seems fairly obvious to me that the NHC made a reasonable, contemporaneous estimate (it’s always an estimate) of maximum sustained winds (remember, it’s supposed to be a maximum; it’s not an assertion that those wind speeds are widespread) based on all available data, which includes not just anemometers (which cannot be everywhere) but observations based on satellite, radar, pressure, recon, etc. Maybe the estimate was a little off. If so, that’s hardly something to make a federal case over. I fail to see how calling Fay a 65 mph tropical storm, instead of 55 mph, would meaningfully advance the dreaded Al Gore Agenda.

In any event, your confident prediction that the NHC would conspiratorially “count-pad” by declaring Fay a hurricane just before landfall — when such a declaration would be unverifiable — and would then say “it weakened immediately after landfall,” was obviously not borne out by the facts. Nothing of the sort occurred. I guess they weren’t “clearly rigging it to play a game they’ve played before” after all.

If anything, NHC was conservative in not upgrading Fay to a hurricane yesterday over land, when based on radar, barometric pressure, etc., they could easily have justified saying that it was probably a minimal hurricane, and the ground instruments in the particular locales where they happen to exist just weren’t picking it up. Even Alan Sullivan, who is the very antithesis of an alarmist or count-padder or AGW hype-monger, thought Fay might be a hurricane yesterday over land. But the NHC held off, because the raw data didn’t support it.

Basically, yesterday was a very bad day for your NHC/AGW conspiracy-theory nonsense, so now you’re quibbling over 5 or 10 mph, still assuming the worst rather than giving them the benefit the doubt and waiting for the end-of-season report to learn more about the data. Lame.

]]> By: SteveSadlov http://pjmedia.com/weathernerd/2008/08/20/fay-finally-weakens/comment-page-1/#comment-203 SteveSadlov Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:16:47 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/weathernerd/2008/08/20/fay-finally-weakens/#comment-203 Show me the data justifying the claim that there were 65 MPH sustained winds, let alone, 60MPH sustained winds, at any point during this storm's track over Florida. I would love to see those data. The (public domain, NOAA) data I have examined seem to indicate that at most, sustained winds were 50 to 55 MPH. Winds such as these occurred during two general periods, firstly, as the storm cross the Keys, and secondly, as it wobbled over the Western shores of Okeechobee. Show me the data justifying the claim that there were 65 MPH sustained winds, let alone, 60MPH sustained winds, at any point during this storm’s track over Florida. I would love to see those data. The (public domain, NOAA) data I have examined seem to indicate that at most, sustained winds were 50 to 55 MPH. Winds such as these occurred during two general periods, firstly, as the storm cross the Keys, and secondly, as it wobbled over the Western shores of Okeechobee.

]]>