http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/
NOAA is claiming 80MPH.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Mission Accomplished
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
Observed Estimates are more reliable than actual observations. Actual observations need to be “Corrected” for observation Bias. “Properly” smoothed the winds will have been recorded at 200+ MPH, DONCHANO!
Even though dropsondes into the storm are actual observations.
Everyone knows that wind speeds are higher at altitude. They didn’t have airplanes in 1900.
At altitude! They are not measurements at 10M above the surface or anywhere close to that, unless the planes are flying at wave top altitude.
Speed will rapidly decay as the eye wall hits land.
Andy
Very Rapidly in this case, as was the case with Irene.
I was over 150 miles from where a Hurricane made landfall in the 90s and the wind kept me awake all night.
We did not have to have the NHC telling us what we did not experience first hand. The next day it was obvious what strong winds can do to mature trees.
One single offshore station showed 75 mph when I looked at the interactive wundermap right now, but yes, this doesn’t really look like something extraordinary. Could still be bad enough for the people over there, I cross my fingers for them!
At 200 feet above the surface.
That’s within the boundary layer.
Just because you deleted posts which showed you to be wrong doesn’t mean you are somehow right.
If you can’t debate, then that’s a sign you’re a liar, right?
What a stupid comment. Wind speeds are much higher at 200 feet than they are at the surface.
Huh, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port measures wind at 200 ft above the surface? (only 45 mph there now, btw)
Their anemometer is at 58 metres on the oil platform.
Espen,
Actually ~320 ft above the water surface. “Anemometer height: 57.9 m above site elevation” (platform), and “site elevation: 39.6 m above mean sea level”.
You have to adjust those 320 ft values (multiply by 0.78 per NOAA formula) to get them to what NOAA says “conform to the universally accepted reference standard of 10 meters”.
Yes, 200 ft is not the level at which to measure winds speed. IIRC the norm is 30 ft.
Steve, please help me with my confusion: your map shows lots of numbers near 76, but you say 48mph. Are the 76’s in kph?
Thanks, Rich.
Those are temperatures in degrees F
Steve, thanks (though I seem to get 25 (Celsius) rather than 77 (Fahrenheit) when I go there). I have now managed to see a legend for the “feathers” on the weather vane, which suggest that each is worth 5 mph. But your recorded map does not show 9 or 10 of these to make the 48mph you quote. Have I got the scaling wrong?
Thanks,
Rich.
Now you have me wondering if we can find an example of the NHC and ground based observations agreeing with one another. Or is this some sort of systemic disparity?
We must be comparing apples to oranges here…
Same story with Irene. They used observations at altitude, which of course have stronger wind speeds. I suspect that no one did that in 1880.
So, the 77 / 78 values are in kilometers per hour?
Degrees F