Interesting Analysis Of Michael

The title of this video is over the top – as are some of her assertions, but she details a lot of the things I have been saying for years about exaggerated wind speeds.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Interesting Analysis Of Michael

  1. DM says:

    Weather Underground has data supporting Tony. Max winds of 86 mph between Panama City & Apalachicola. Max gusts around 120 mph.

    Pls note gusts exceed winds. This is the case at ALL the stations in the area. Tony pointed out a couple days ago an oddity in the official weather commentary–wind speeds significantly exceeding gusts. So, actual data validate the doubt Tony cast on the official commentary.

    Data from weather stations in this area NOT available after 12:20 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. on 10 Oct.. Perhaps that is because the area lost power.

  2. Windsong says:

    I watched the progress of Michael as it made landfall in the panhandle on the NWS Weather & Hazards Data Viewer. It appeared that the hurricane force winds came ashore in a narrow space, centered right over Tyndall AFB. The last reported numbers I saw at TAFB were same as shown on the video, wind ENE 86/G129. Then the sensor was blown away, and it is still not up on the Data Viewer. Photos of the aftermath at TAFB would confirm extreme wind. Closest sites to the west and east of TAFB and Mexico Beach that have a seven day record showing are Panama City Beach, NOS-NWLON PCBF1, and Apalchiola, NOS-NWLON APCF1. (All times EDT, 10/10/18, and elevation is low, both report 0 feet.) Wind at PCBF1, 1148: N 49G70; 1236: NNW 48G88; 1354: WNW 59G80. Wind at APCF1, 1218: S 58G74; 1306: S 62G81; 1448: SSW 53G64. If you go east or west a little further to Tallahassee (KTLH) and Destin-Ft. Walton Beach (KDTS) airports, then you see lower numbers. KTLH peaked at 1553 with SSE 41G69, KDTS peaked at 1302 with NNW 41G54. However, what the uploader misses entirely (unless I didn’t hear it) is that Mexico Beach was severely battered by a large storm surge in addition to the wind.

  3. steve case says:

    The title of this video is over the top – as are some of her assertions, but …

    What wasn’t over the top was the image [time mark 16:26] of tarps that survived the so-called 150 mph winds.

    She didn’t point it out but the structures on stilts also survived. So obviously it wasn’t wind that did the damage, it was the “storm surge” which I never heard her talk about.

    Well anyway, Tony – thanks for posting it was a very fast 30 minutes.

    • Tom O says:

      From what I read, the storm surge was 7.7 feet. I don’t think it would have done that much damage. I think they tell you big numbers for the wind because the higher the winds, generally, the greater the storm surge, and further inland the battering waves will drive. I don’t know what to think about the damage, but I do have imagination, and I can think of ways the selective damage could be done.

      • David A says:

        I believe the highest reported surge was nine feet, five feet less then the prediction of 14 feet.

        To analyze the timing of wind gauge break up with the position and movement direction of the eye wall would give one a reasonable estimate of peak ground speed winds. My WAG is string Cat 2.

  4. Anon says:

    Trump on 60 Minutes: Interview on October 15, 2018.

    Within the first 3 minutes he gets hit with Hurricane Michael & Climate Change.

    Trump: “We have scientists that disagree with that.”

    Trump: “You would have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda. Scientists also have a political agenda.”

    The guy just speaks the Truth. Impressive…

  5. Anon says:

    Trump on 60 Minutes: Interview on October 15, 2018.

    https://youtu.be/wFt6HURbdfk

    Within the first 3 minutes he gets hit with Hurricane Michael & Climate Change.

    Trump: “We have scientists that disagree with that.”

    Trump: “You would have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda. Scientists also have a political agenda.”

    The guy just speaks the Truth. Impressive…

  6. Brent Thale says:

    Eep. I’ve also noticed how measured wind speeds tend to be lower than what is officially recorded for storms, I assume it’s because they are using radar estimates for the absolute fastest winds that only extend a little out from the center.

    But this video contains extremely provocative and AFAIK unfounded accusations involving weapons, coordinated “strikes”, and cell-phone towers causing high atmospheric pressure which discredit the quality information found elsewhere in the video. I would say it’s counterproductive to skeptic arguments.

    • Tom O says:

      The presentation of information is very interesting and I agree that the implication of the towers being used to create weather is novel and unfounded, but I do recall reading the designer of HAARP, as an example, implied that it might be possible to use it to control weather. Who knows what DARPA may have developed in the interests of controls or weapons. I had read that they were attempting to develop directed energy weapons, so again. who knows?

      • Jeff L. says:

        For those who don’t know, HAARP == “High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program”. The term “high-frequency” is a bit of a misnomer because the frequencies used are relatively low when compared with cellular tower transmissions (HF=160-10 meters, while cell phone towers operate between 37cm-16cm.)
        Also, the second A in HAARP stands for Auroral. The program operated exclusively near the arctic. Obviously Florida is nowhere near the arctic.

  7. AndyDC says:

    Michael had a central pressure of 919 mb (27.14″) at landfall, which is a slightly lower central pressure than what Andrew had when it made landfall in south Florida during 1992. There was a peak gust of over 160 mph at the National Hurricane Center in Coral Gables during Andrew, and the pure wind damage at Homestead (well inland) seemed far worse than anything seen in Michael. Both were relatively compact storms. Why Andrew was so much worse seems mysterious to me. But a 27.14″ hurricane is clearly not a fake hurricane.

    Also it is clear that the Florida Keys hurricane of 1935, which had a central pressure of 26.35″ was clearly worse than Michael, as was Camille in 1969, that had a central pressure well under 27.00″. The fact that there were worse hurricanes 49 and 83 years ago would seem to refute the alarmist notion that hurricanes are getting worse.

    In the 1935 hurricane, central pressures were so low that structures that had survived the first half of the storm exploded from within.

    • NavarreAggie says:

      “Why Andrew was so much worse seems mysterious to me. But a 27.14″ hurricane is clearly not a fake hurricane.”

      This is most likely due to Andrew having been a little more mature at landfall, resulting in higher speed winds wrapped completely (or nearly completely) around the core of the storm. Andrew was a category 4+ storm for at least a couple of days before the US mainland landfall and was intensifying right up until landfall, so it was organized and strong before strengthening over the gulf stream.

      It appears that Michael had high winds in a small northeastern section of the storm that passed over Mexico Beach and Tyndall AFB. Radar images of Michael at landfall seem to confirm that, and dry air intrusion and shear limited the intensification of the storm until the last 24 hours or so. Also, while the pressure can change fairly quickly sometimes the wind field can be a little slow to respond, also contributing to a mismatch between measure central pressure and estimated maximum wind speeds.

      I still maintain that public perception equates maximum wind speeds with total storm damage potential which clearly is not the case. Small intense storms can cause localized damages while nominally weaker, large storms can cause more damage over a much wider area. While it is possible that the maximum wind speeds were similar, Andrew’s damage seems to indicate the wind field was much more developed and symmetrical at the time of landfall.

  8. arn says:

    Now you are no longer just a climate denier
    but also a hurricane denier(TM).

    (i hope i get rewarded by the climate mafia for coining this new term for the orwellian idiot speak :)

  9. NEJking says:

    She certainly knows her way around a computer. Too bad she added in all that whack-a-doodle stuff about nighttime weather modification, etc. She had a lot of good points about: how this storm was used to promote climate change, ARGO buoys’ data, wind speed, land-based instruments corroborating the claims on TV of its strength, and that the storm surge came in and took what it could back to sea.

  10. Gamecock says:

    First half of video is excellent. Later speculation on cause of destruction is bizarre.

    Said Dr. Navarro on Weather Channel today showed wind gust in a GA town at 115 mph, and said this was only the second time on record that a major hurricane had hit GA.

    Okay, wind gusts mean double ought nothing. It is sustained winds that are the basis of hurricane strength. A gust of 115 does not a Cat 3 make. Note also, as Tony pointed out previously, they showed a gust at Tyndall of 129 mph. Not sustained 155.

    Previously, I have said that TWC was just proclaiming what the government told them. I didn’t see them as villains. But having ‘doctor’ before her name means Navarro knows that a gust doesn’t make a Cat 3. She lied. On air. For the world to see.

    Additionally, TWC still going on and on about Michael. It was an important story LAST WEEK. Not now. They are supporting Grace’s contention that Michael is being punched up in support of Climate Change™.

    Was Michael a high Cat 4? NFW.

Leave a Reply to AndyDC Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.