Ministry Of Truth At Work In Florida

Hurricane Michael has been upgraded to a category 5 hurricane (sustained wind speeds above 155 MPH.)  When Michael made landfall, the highest reported wind gust was 119 MPH.

Hurricane MICHAEL

Michael Now Accelerating Through Central Georgia; Deadly Storm Surge, Damaging Winds Continue Following Florida Panhandle Landfall | The Weather Channel

This video was recorded at the time, and shows how numbers were massively inflated last year, even before today’s additional Orwellian rewrite of history. The title of the video is over the top, but there is lots of valuable content.

Impressive work by the Ministry of Truth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Ministry Of Truth At Work In Florida

  1. rah says:

    Anyone know if NOAA has ever retroactively downgraded a hurricanes category?

  2. spren says:

    The cultists apparently are becoming very desperate as the public is not buying their hysteria.

  3. jack b :-) says:

    I read the headline a few minutes ago, did a little research, then read the (more) local article from WPLG / http://www.local10.com. The estimates of 160mph were extrapolated from 9,000 peak winds of 175mph and adjusted for… blah, blah, blah.

    Waayyyy down in the 13th (of 15) total paragraphs there was this:

    “In any case, the Category 5 winds were likely confined to a very small area offshore and right near the coast in or near the Mexico Beach area, where the storm surge destroyed almost every home. Most of the Panama City area experienced lesser winds, which is the real lesson of Michael.”

    Amazing. But it’s the new norm in regards to the weather-spinning bidness.

  4. rah says:

    BTW, NOAA is obviously changing the official criteria for classification from the classic Saffir Simpson Scale criteria then they need to both change their description of that scale and publish the new specific data parameters for each category.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/hurricane-michael-gets-an-upgrade-to-rare-category-5-status/ar-BBW6rPK?ocid=spartanntp

    Until then no one should accept their claims as valid on that subject because they are not transparent.

  5. Reynders says:

    I follow and understand the NOAA falsification of Michael wind speeds.

    I can’t follow the her description of the University of Wisconsin radar images of blue clouds with green centers. Is she saying that cell phone towers are really secret NOAA government weather control machines to heat the south and central areas of the US to falsely convince us that global warming from CO2 is destroying the earth?

    I guess I need clarification here.

  6. Angus Mcthag says:

    It’s entirely possible that the ratings increase has more to do with gaming the system for relief efforts and insurance limitations than to make globull warmering mor plausible.

    More aid money comes in for a more severe storm because it’s not based on how bad the damage is, but how officially strong the storm was.

    It’s still bullshit, but a different flavor.

  7. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    One of the frustrations for the climatistas is that extreme weather events are getting milder according to the data like tornado numbers, accumulated cyclone energy and cyclone frequency. So if CO2 is doing anything it is making weather nicer.

    Can’t have that.

    So the obvious thing is to adjust the data in the same way as they do with temperature. That way they can make people believe EWEs are getting worse.

    Consequently every little wisp of wind on land becomes a tornado and every cloud at sea gets named as a tropical storm.

    I rather like this one today where someone looked at the AGW industry and worked out it meets all 10 of the formal criteria for being a cult.

    THE CLIMATE CULT (19 Apr)

  8. NavarreAggie says:

    Right after landfall, I predicted this to my wife. Not surprising in the least.

  9. MeMyselfAndI says:

    Good description of the Climate Cult at http://www.Powerlineblog.com today.

  10. kevin roche says:

    Tony, I love your work, but you are wrong here. I know navy personnel who were on a ship in the bay between Panama City and Panama City Beach and said their onboard equipment was registering winds of up to 150 mph. I suspect if you dig around you might find verification of that somewhere. In addition, I think Tyndall air force base, which was heavily damaged, had similar recordings. I own about 2000 acres of timber land about 40 miles inland and there was significant damage, but nothing compared to if you drive on I-10 near Marianna, which is over 50 miles inland, acre after acre of pines is just flattened. Never seen anything like that near other Florida storms.

    • rah says:

      According to NOAA’s own criteria for the Saffir Simpson scale, hurricanes, unlike tornadoes, are classified by wind speed and wind speed alone and not by the amount of damage they cause, storm surge, pressures, or anything else.

      https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php

      The classic criteria for Saffir Simpson classification is for the highest wind speed measurement sustained for 1 minute at 10 meters above surface level from an unmasked station. (Friction with the surface causes wind speeds at lower elevations to be lower while windspeeds measured where the air passes around or between terrain features or high structures can be greatly enhanced)

      Now obviously there is a high probability that there will not be a station meeting the classic Saffir Simpson requirements exactly where the highest winds of a storm are located. But since NOAA is not using the classic Saffir Simpson wind measurement criteria and are adding factors like pressures and windspeeds obtained by remote sensing from aircraft or satellites they should be publishing the exact criteria and parameters that they are using for all to see. Otherwise their claims cannot be substantiated or challenged by independent analysis of their data and thus are not scientific.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      Comparing at the damage caused by Hurricane Michael to the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew is like comparing a week old kitten to a full grown male tiger.

      It’s ludicrous. Hurricane Michael is simply not in the same category as Hurricane Andrew. And a retroactive re-classification isn’t going to make it so.

      • rah says:

        Agreed. Andrew was like a giant EF-4 tornado in the way it flattened massive numbers of houses to their foundations.

  11. AndyDC says:

    There was surprisingly little damage to structures away from the storm surge.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      you should go look at pictures of Marianna if you believe that. Store fronts were completely flattened. There wasn’t comparable damage to Andrew because this is a completely rural area, as anyone who has been there knows, but where there were buildings they were destroyed or seriously damaged.

  12. Grilled Tomatoes says:

    I went to weather underground and while I could access current Tyndall AFB data, when I changed the date to 10/10/18, the station data changes to Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport, Florida, that show a peak wind speed of 74 mph. I could be going about this completely wrong.

  13. Steven Parker says:

    In related/unrelated news, climate change is making pollen season worse: https://www.newsobserver.com/living/article229340129.html

    “The only way to reverse the current trend of increased pollen production is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to Ziska.”

  14. RW says:

    The woman in the video shows the wind gusts well above 100 mph. Now, that may well not be how hurricanes are defined (and I’ll assume here that they are not defined by the recorded speed of wind gusts), but if she and anyone else is hoping to convince a lay person with details, they ain’t gonna do it by pointing to the only one of two columns of wind data that happens not to match what the broadcasts claim. Indeed, the picture in your post Tony also says “gusts” of 100+ mph, which seems consistent with the raw data the woman shows in her video (but does not explicitly point out).

    No argument from me that it is propagandist cherry picking to display only observations for gusts over sustained wind speed.

    In the war of persuation, skeptics have an uphill battle and need a near perfect game to win.

  15. Tom Abbott says:

    There were many buildings, many with roofs still attached, still standing at Mexico Beach, the epicenter of Hurricane Michael, after the hurricane passed through.

    A Category 5 hurricane would have swept the area of Mexico Beach clean of buildings.

    NOAA and NASA’s credibiity are falling almost as fast as the Leftwing Media.

    • Squidly says:

      Virtually all buildings on stilts at Mexico Beach were standing. There is no way those buildings would be standing after a Cat 5 hurricane. No chance at all. If this had been a real Cat 5 hurricane, there would be absolutely nothing left on the beach. It would have been wiped completely clean. We have seen this very thing historically, so we have a frame of reference for comparison.

      The entire Hurricane Michael narrative was/is 100% pure propaganda.

      The only reason why they released this so-called “upgrade” was to get the whole thing back into conversation again. Absolutely no other reason for it. They need to get the whole AGW BS to stay on the front pages so they can continue to push their New Green Deal suicide pact.

  16. 1muzzy says:

    Perhaps this is a case of the tree/forest syndrome, focusing on the macro you lose sight of the micro. The damage was localized as if caused by an EF-5 tornado not the widespread damage associated with a Cat-5 hurricane. Could it be there was a tornado or tornado effect at the center of this tropical cyclone?

    • Kevin Roche says:

      If you think there wasn’t widespread damage you should go drive the area from the coast to 50 or 60 miles inland.

Leave a 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.