Posted on 10/07/2016 9:45:21 AM PDT by bryan999
There are so many a-hole liberals on Facebook coming out of their troll holes to make fun of this situation.
Matt Drudge, if you’re reading this - stick to this like white on rice. Do not let up! Expose this BS and shove it in their faces!!!
Florida has all of that so can’t I complain a little?
Which is not, in fact, the same station as the one I posted.
The Bahamas are a big place.
And peak winds can be present in a small area.
The station I cited had sustained in excess of 115 (post I saw had sustained at 119mph) with gusts of 140+mph.
Both can be correct.
And likely are.
So Drudge’s ‘no stations showed’ crap is just that. Crap.
I just took a look at the weather buoys and stations around St Augustine and Jacksonville. They are reporting surface winds of 42kts gusting to about 55kts right near the reported eye of the storm on the top left quadrant (where winds are highest). The so called “hurricane” marker from NOAA is showing 120+ Offshore wave heights are only 16’.
It seems clear that NOAA is “exaggerating” the data by a factor of 2x...
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=MYPF1
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=SAUF1
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=frdf1
Here is a better look at ALL 500+ weather buoys near “Tropical Storm” Matthew
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?storm=at4
Not one shows hurricane strength winds at the surface. The highest at ~30nm from the center is 55kts.
You posted a twitter photo from a buzzfeed pundit - that is not a data station.
I wish some of that rain would make its way to Alabama. This terrible drought & 90 degree weather is ridiculous.
Both can be correct.
...
They can be, but as I originally stated one would expect the winds at the station I posted to be higher based on its relative location to the one you posted.
It’s also hard to explain the wind speeds recorded by other weather stations if Matthew really was a storm with 140 mph sustained winds.
the weather channel died many years ago when it went to pc pushing politics.
It’s not ‘what you’d expect’. It’s what is.
As the met’s have posted on the americanwx link I posted, every storm is different.
Just because you don’t see what you expect where you expect it doesn’t negate it if you see it somewhere else.
There WERE cat3+ winds recorded on land, at weather stations, with this storm. Drudge is either ignorant or misleading for an agenda of his own.
And yet those of us who were on the original matthew thread were loading that particular weather station throughout the evening until it failed, from its original link.
https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/48950-major-hurricane-matthew/?page=127
Go back some on this particular thread (full of licensed mets btw) to see lots of other people doing the same thing and getting cat3+ numbers from that station during that time.
Where do you get that info?
Your link points to a blog, not a weather data source.
“AmericanWX.com” also features an extensive section where you can discuss “climate change” with others on the left...
No doubt Matthew had some hurricane strength winds at some point past - that’s not my point though. It is still being hyped as a major hurricane by the MSM despite real-time data to the contrary.
I personally loaded the OFFICIAL link to that weather station that night.
No, it never occurred to me that the ‘line’ would be ‘that never existed’ later on or I would have taken a screen shot.
That weather station, regularly until it went offline. registered cat 3+ winds, sustained, with 140+mph gusts. Ie, Major hurricane strength winds.
Lots of people loaded that particular weather station’s link that night and saw similar wind speeds/gusts.
We aren’t all lying about that.
Even the ones who DID take screen shots that you now think are ‘altered’. Or something.
No clue why drudge is taking this tack.
Lots of met forums have a climate change area. Those discussions, however, are regularly purged from storm links as no one wants the bother of sorting through that when discussing ongoing ‘cane coverage. Not sure what your point is with this remark.
Try here: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/rmd.shtml
The National Hurricane Center can be found here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Both sites are interactive, so you can find high-level info, and drill all the way down to specific buoy data. Some buoys, particularly those in the middle of a storm, can get knocked adrift, and then they won't report data.
There are also some land-based measuring devices. Give them a try.
It’s not ‘what you’d expect’. It’s what is.
...
True, and the NHC should have to explain why the recorded sustained speeds weren’t what was expected in so many locations.
My point is that no hurricane strength winds are being reported in real time (e.g. now, today,15:30 EST) by any of the nearby buoys or shore stations in the vicinity of the storm. However, NWS is still showing it as having sustained winds of 115mph.
In other words, NWS and the MSM are hyping this as a hurricane when the data (and Drudge) suggests otherwise by at least a factor of 2x.
Drudge is absolutely right to point this bias out.
” the NHC should have to explain why the recorded sustained speeds weren’t what was expected in so many locations.”
I can’t imagine you’re serious with this remark.
Seriously?
Your original story was ‘no major cat 3 winds seen’.
When I pointed out that just wasn’t true you changed to ‘not where we expected them’.
Where who expected them? Are you a met? Is Drudge?
This is why the right is regularly excoriated for being superstitious anti-scientists.
As I told you/another poster. Do please follow Ryan Maue and/or Joe Bastardi. Neither are lefty, both are very good at what they do and Maue is even a PhD met who write a LOT of code and did a dissertation on tropical cyclones. Both think Drudge is out to lunch on this.
So the recordings on Exuma at the weather station there don’t count?
Because you don’t want them to count?
Because the storm didn’t ‘windy’ where you think it should have ‘windy’d’?
Exuma station clearly showed sustained at 119mph there and gusts of 140+. Major cane territory.
Do you think the HH’s are lying?
I just went through Matthew last night. I also went through Francis and Jeanne in ‘04. Francis and Jeanne were much rougher than this one. It is good to be prepared, but this one was scaring people just for a political agenda (so called climate change).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.