Comparisons of satellite cyclone measurements vs. historical records is a nonsensical exercise. Satellites have a very high sampling rate and coverage, and will always find the peak wind speeds and minimum pressures. But older hurricanes have either very sparse data, or no data at all – in which case their intensity is based on damage.
Ryan Maue tells me that “very sharp gradients in wind exist” near the eyewall, which means that older observations are almost guaranteed to not locate the peak wind speeds.
The only way to compare recent hurricanes with ones from the past are by surface measurements or damage. Using either of those criteria, Typhoon Yolanda was nowhere near what Jeff Masters claims it was. Just more junk science from the team.
Most satellite imagery of cyclones over oceans generally are not verified and confirmed by people who are independent of governments which have a certain political and financial agenda.
Science involves the need for independent verification and independent confirmation of empirical data, observations, imagery, measurements, etc.
My remote sensing studies always taught in situ measurements over anything else. We relied on ground measurements to confirm and calibrate. Now it seems to be the other way around.
A satellite image gives an accurate view of wind in a storm at ground level?