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.
Hurricane Patricia Strikes Mexico With 165 M.P.H. Winds – The New York Times
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.
Hurricane Patricia Strikes Mexico With 165 M.P.H. Winds – The New York Times
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.
CNN is doing it too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/23/americas/hurricane-patricia/index.html
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.
the rule of thumb is to reduce satellite wind speed 15 percent to get an estimate of wind speed on the ground.
They are claiming the 200 mhp was measured by an aircraft:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2015/ep20/ep202015.discus.014.shtml
That still isn’t comparable with historic measurements taken near the ground.
Bette Midler, eh? I’m glad she’s not on our side…
Didn’t she teach a class at MIT on the physics of tropical depressions… or was that Rodeo Drive depression amelioration with recreational drugs??
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.
The one great lesson of history is that no one learns from history.
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.
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.
Multiple drink umbrellas are lost.