New York Times : 165 MPH Winds Are The Strongest In History

Identical story as Typhoon Haiyan. Jeff Masters announces 200 MPH hours before landfall. The storm comes in much weaker, but the propaganda lives on forever.

2015-10-23-20-23-15Hurricane Patricia Strikes Mexico With 165 M.P.H. Winds – The New York Times

2015-10-23-20-48-16 2015-10-23-19-26-28

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to New York Times : 165 MPH Winds Are The Strongest In History

  1. Password Protected says:

    I notice a lot of entertainment types are easily duped by this type of propoganda. Is it their insatiable desire for acceptance?
    Whatever the reason they seem to have no compunction using their notariety to squawk the squawk.
    Unlikely to hear them note any severe winter weather as proof things are normal.

  2. Tel says:

    CNN is doing it too.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/23/americas/hurricane-patricia/index.html

    Hurricane Patricia — the strongest hurricane ever recorded — made landfall on Mexico’s Pacific coast about 6:15 Friday evening (7:15 ET), its 165 mph winds barreling into the coast of southwestern Mexico near Cuixmala, the U.S. National Weather Service said.

    The monster storm touched down hours after weakening slightly with sustained winds decreasing to 190 mph and gusts to 235 mph. Even then, Patricia lashed the coast with fierce winds and rain as tourists and residents in resorts such as Puerto Vallarta and Manzanillo sought shelter.

    See how that works? Start with 165 mph winds and then slightly decrease that down to 190 mph.

    The old up is down trick eh?

    I just checked Wikipedia and Hurricane Allan in 1980 was also 190 mph.

    In the old days, wind speed had to be measured by a genuine met station, now they pull it out of a satellite image, so obviously the measurements aren’t directly comparable at any rate.

  3. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Bette Midler, eh? I’m glad she’s not on our side…

    • stpaulchuck says:

      Didn’t she teach a class at MIT on the physics of tropical depressions… or was that Rodeo Drive depression amelioration with recreational drugs??

  4. Theyouk says:

    Folks around me are sick of my ‘I told you so…this is all hype.’

    Anyone with an ounce of basic weather understanding could see that:
    1. Puerto Vallarta is on the side of the storm where winds would come from land toward the ocean–meaning minimal storm surge, and already diminished intensity.
    2. This storm was not very large.
    3. The area of Mexico ‘in the bullseye’ is relatively sparsely populated.
    4. Manzanillo was outside the ‘hit’ zone.
    5. The storm was making landfall well before the major media outlets acknowledged as much.
    6. Weather readings from around the storm showed that the radius of catastrophic influence was going to be pretty darn small (repeat of point #2; sorry)

    Everything is now “the biggest ever!!!” because no one has learned sh_t about history. The public is basically a collection of newborns–meaning yes, they were ‘born yesterday’. So they are incredibly easily duped.

    Thank you Tony for keeping some accountability and honesty in the public eye–sadly you seem to be the only one doing so.

    I have no doubt we will see (tragically) fatalities from flooding/landslides, but this is an insanely far cry (damage-wise) from Hurricane Andrew or any of the 19th century storms that battered the northeastern US.

  5. Ben Vorlich says:

    Biggest ever on BBC News last night. Not holding my breath for a “We got it horribly wrong” headline item when in proves to be unusual but not exceptional.

  6. stpaulchuck says:

    in the approximately 4.5 billion year history of the Earth we’ve been able to measure hurricane/typhoon data directly via hurricane hunters for some roughly 60 years. These overheated claims of “ever” are pure rubbish.

  7. R. Shearer says:

    Multiple drink umbrellas are lost.

Leave a Reply to Jimmy Haigh Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.