The most fantastic eyewall video of a hurricane I've ever seen – #Irma

This was taken earlier today by the new GOES-16 weather satellite, which has been producing some fantastic hi-res imagery of Hurricane Irma, This video, from NASA’s Short-term Prediction Research and Transition Center (SPoRT) in Huntsville, AL, tops anything I’ve ever seen.

Here is the same sequence, zoomed out a bit further:

0 0 vote
Article Rating
169 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Moa
September 6, 2017 12:13 am

Spectacular.

Jimmy Haigh
September 6, 2017 12:19 am

It’s a hell of a twister.

David A
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
September 6, 2017 3:58 am

It is an Annular hurricane. From wiki…
Annular cyclones can maintain their respective peak intensities for extended periods of time unlike their asymmetric counterparts. Following peak intensity, such systems will tend to gradually taper off. This unusual intensity persistence makes their future intensities difficult to forecast and often results in large forecast errors. In an analysis of hurricanes in the East Pacific and North Atlantic between 1995 and 1999, Knaff and Kossin observed that the National Hurricane Center underestimated the intensity of annular hurricanes 72 hours out by 18.9 kn (35.0 km, 21.7 mph).[1]

jesusdidntgiveuponme
September 6, 2017 12:32 am

Setting aside for a few moments how dangerous and destructive it is, Irma truly is beautiful!

thojak
September 6, 2017 12:37 am

WOW !
A heck of a lot of O2-molecules there…

Reply to  thojak
September 6, 2017 1:09 am

thojak
97% of them by all accounts.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  HotScot
September 6, 2017 6:49 am

More like 21% I think.

Ron
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2017 12:44 am

No about 21%. or if you believe the Cononleys there is a lot of O8 which is red!

oppti
September 6, 2017 12:37 am

There is one more hurricane chasing Irma, about 5 degrees more eastward.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-52.76,10.07,1956/loc=-61.641,17.767
Is it good or bad news?

Menicholas
Reply to  oppti
September 6, 2017 2:13 am

Mostly bad…it will not weaken Irma any, although Jose will suffer if it goes over the same water as Irma did.
But it indicates, to me anyway, something like what we saw in 2004 and 2005, when the conditions were favorable and every low pressure center or area of persistent cloudiness spun up into a tropical system and intensified.
We get so few strong hurricanes because the conditions that allow them to persist and strengthen are relatively rare…it is not merely a function of water temperature.
Lack of wind shear or dry air to disrupt them, allows them to form and strengthen readily, given that warm water as an energy source.
Presence of wind shear or dry air means that they cannot form or persist no matter what the water temp is.
Then the temperature profile of the atmosphere must be favorable, with high pressure aloft and a low at or near the surface to initiate and maintain the convection and allow for the ventilation in all four quadrants.
Only with rapid convective potential and outflow aloft can they form and gain strength.
Once these conditions prevail though…storms can and will form one after the other.

David A
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 4:03 am

Curious if anyone has calculated the amount of heat loss in a season when the conditions are favorable, vs unfavorable?

rbabcock
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 6:39 am

David A- the difference is 6,398,881.43088 hiroshima’s.

GPHanner
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 8:27 am

I lived through a summer like that in the Western Pacific; in 1966. The storms seemed like they were on conveyor belts.

Auto
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 12:25 pm

rbabcock September 6, 2017 at 6:39 am
I laughed like 1.00000003 drains!
Much appreciated – Auto

Steve Vertelli
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 10:27 pm

Wow Menicholas some how I sense I’m not going to have to go look it up; thnks for the overview.

September 6, 2017 12:40 am

As they say, “that thing really sucks!”

vukcevic
September 6, 2017 12:44 am

regular updates from NASA
https://twitter.com/NASA_SPoRT

Menicholas
Reply to  vukcevic
September 6, 2017 2:27 am

It went north of Barbuda and Antigua, lucky for them.
But perhaps bad for interests further up the line…it now appears to be on a path that could more readily :thread the needle” and bring the storm into the Keys and Florida with minimal or zero disruptive potential from land and mountainous terrain.
If it skirts all the Islands, misses Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and Cuba, it may arrive in the Keys or off the East coast of Florida with a very long, strong and persistent fetch, potentially maximizing the surge potential.
So far nothing to indicate we will escape this thing without someplace, and more likely a lot of someplaces, receiving catastrophic impacts.
This storm appears to have the potential to be the most costly and perhaps deadly hurricane to hit the US in our lifetime.

arthur4563
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 2:55 am

It depends upon what you mean by “lifetime.” It would be unlikely to outdo Camille 1969, a Gulf hurricane. That storm killed over 500 and made landfall with 175MPH winds and pressure of 900MB,(a pressure which Irma has yet to acheive) and travelled from the Gulf coast northward – flooded Richmond Virginia badly. Allen, a 1980 Atlantic basin storm, was essentially as powerful as Irwin and several others were almost as powerful, wind-wise, in the past 40 years. I would guess that we see a hurricane as strong as Irwin or nearly so, about every 15 to 25 years. If you live 30 years or more, I guarantee you’ll see another cane as strong, especially if you include Gulf canes. Notice that all of the “records” they claim for Irma are for Atlantic basin canes, not Gulf canes, which can be the deadliest, since nothing hampers them before they make landfall and especially because there are always warm Carribbean currents circulating in the Gulf – it was those that blew up Katrina, a very weak storm that came from the Atlantic basin.
We have a generation that has never even seen a destructive hurricane – these storms are new and unprecedented – to them, but not to older folks who have lived thru dozens of major hurricanes.

Greg
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 8:41 am

I doubt it will be more deadly than Ketrina, if the death toll there can be blamed on the storm rather than fatal incompetence on land.

patrick michaels
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 5:49 pm

It went right over Barbuda. Maue (I think it was him) had a satellite image with the outlines of the island in the eye. At least up until now, not one fatality there. Let’s hear it for technology and rapid communication!!!

RichardX
Reply to  vukcevic
September 6, 2017 2:40 am

Dramatic stuff. But is there not one educated person at NASA who knows the difference between it’s and its as in “maintaining it’s strength”? If they can’t get basic grammar right, why should we have confidence in anything they do?

Menicholas
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 2:44 am

Cannot agree with that logic Richard.
If someone makes a grammatical or typographic error, they must not know what they are doing regarding anything else?
If Albert Einstein cannot keep his hair combed neatly, why should we believe he knows diddly squat about physics.

RichardX
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 3:16 am

Typos happen to all of us, but an organisation such as NASA should have some sort of quality control mechanism that catches them. Allowing them to get through makes me wonder what else they allow to get through.

Menicholas
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 2:46 am

Oops, forgot the question mark…I must be a moron.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 4:57 am

Well said. There is so much to read and so little time that the first filter is for grammar, as well thought as well said.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 5:17 am

RX,
My tablet deletes “its” and inserts “it’s”.
Some standards like this fall every generation.
Pity, they often were devised for clarity.
The older you are, the more generations of change you see.
Geoff

Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 7:41 am

So, by this logic, as long as any organization publishes writing in which the grammar is perfect, I should trust everything they say. Because surely, if the person tweeting for that organization has perfect grammar skills, I can logically extend that attention to grammatic detail to every other aspect of that organization.
I’m putting a sarc note here on mine. *sarc*

South River Independent
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 8:41 am

It is most difficult to effectively proofread your own writing. Most writing published on the internet is not proofed. Nothing published in my local paper is proofed. Proofreading is not considered necessary anymore. Now, autocorrect, which I refer to as autoerror, makes proofreading more necessary than ever before. Or is that EVAH before?

Jeff
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 9:41 am

British English uses “it’s” as the possessive. That would be Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, Indian, and of course British speakers/writers of “The King’s English”.
There are more important things to worry about at this time, particularly if the person is working at NOAA.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 10:00 am

RichardX and Menicholas,
I think that the truth may be found somewhere in between your two positions. An organization or individual that is careless, or doesn’t pay attention to detail in one area, may well exhibit the same tendencies in other areas. Demonstrating the behavior in one area may give others the impression (rightfully or wrongfully) that the trait reflects incompetence or general unreliability. If a government agency posts grammatically incorrect statements, it does say something about priorities and attitudes. The person(s) responsible for communicating with the public is not doing the organization, already experiencing criticism, any favors! But then, it is hard to find good help these days. Especially, if they spend a lot of time demonstrating in the streets to support ‘science.’

Auto
Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 12:39 pm

Jeff September 6, 2017 at 9:41 am
“British English uses “it’s” as the possessive. That would be Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, Indian, and of course British speakers/writers of “The King’s English”.
There are more important things to worry about at this time, particularly if the person is working at NOAA.”
Jeff, sorry, no.
Here ” it’s ” is a shortening of ” it is “.
Here ” its ” is the possessive.
Yes, generally an apostrophe is used for the possessive – “Jeff’s comment . . .”
Just not in that case [its – or mine or yours, or his or hers, or our or their – which might prove a point, though I don’t know which it might be].
To the original: RichardX September 6, 2017 at 2:40 am :
I would simply comment that language is a medium of communication [like the International Code Flags – ‘A’ – I have a diver down; ‘B’ I am carrying dangerous goods, and so forth].
Whilst I would much prefer that NASA [and everyone, myself very much included] stuck to the conventions, I ask if the ‘message’ was communicated in the form intended?
If it was – gr8!
It is important to communicate for your audience.
Talking to a nine-year-old will usually need different phrasing to talking to a PhD – even about a similar subject (unless it is dinosaurs!).
Twittering and texting will still depend on who you are talking to: is gr8 really great?
Auto

Reply to  RichardX
September 6, 2017 1:46 pm

>>
Oops, forgot the question mark…I must be a moron.
<<
Rhetorical questions don’t need a question mark–so you have an out.
Jim

Ron
Reply to  RichardX
September 7, 2017 12:54 am

Dear Jeff, you have a long memory, most of the English cannot rememberhaving a king. Since 1952 they speak , or try to speak the Queen’s English. That by the way is not somewhere in New York.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  vukcevic
September 6, 2017 9:07 am

If Irma is headed straight for the Virgin Islands, that means that Necker Island, owned by British billionaire Sir Richard Branson, is going to take a direct hit. Necker is his private island resort in the BVI (rents out at $65,000 per day if anyone is interested). I looked at it with Google Earth and it appears as though the island gets its electricity from a farm of over 1,000 solar panels (I counted and calculated about 1,250 of them, but I could be off).
What will be interesting is what that solar farm is going to look like after Irma is finished with it. My guess is though that it probably won’t shake his belief in solar energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_Island_(British_Virgin_Islands)

Jeff
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 6, 2017 10:09 am

From one Necker Wrecker (Branson and his idiot panels) to another.
Here’s hoping and praying that Irma does as little damage as possible…

USexpat
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 7, 2017 11:54 am

Branson lost all his buildings but was safe in the wine cellar getting drunk.

Leo Smith
September 6, 2017 12:50 am

@vukcevic
With respect, all this is available on NOAA website so why not simply link to that?

vukcevic
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 6, 2017 1:56 am

my reply is further down
note that images from NASA’s Short-term Prediction Research and Transition Center (SPoRT) also are used the article.

Greg
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 6, 2017 8:48 am

all this is available on NOAA website so why not simply link to that?

yes, that would have been good had you done it.
https://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/sport/

hunter
September 6, 2017 1:01 am

Awesome. Terrifying.
There is a cold front m8ving across the country right now. What is the chance of it forcing Irma to make its NE turn prior to landfall?

Latitude
Reply to  hunter
September 6, 2017 5:37 am

Extremely good…..they have delayed Irma a day, almost every day…..started out here on Thurs, then Fri, then Sat…and now almost Sun
Can’t delay it without letting the steering front have more time to get here and steer it….
NHC is the odd man out now….models having it turning and going up the east coast

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  hunter
September 6, 2017 8:01 am

Yes, awesome, in the literal sense of the word as “filling one with awe”, which I take to be your intent. Not “awesome” as in “Awesome, dude!” 😉

Chris Norman
September 6, 2017 1:10 am

This is surely not in real time.

Ron
Reply to  Chris Norman
September 6, 2017 1:31 am

Yes they got the sun to cast a shadow at 1 am.

Menicholas
Reply to  Chris Norman
September 6, 2017 2:41 am

I agree that that is the most incredible look down into the eye of a storm ever seen on video.
The timescale of the individual convective cells in the eyewall is amazingly fast, especially when contrasted to the bubbling of the cells around the periphery, as they can be seen overshooting the outflow shield.
Awesome and humbling.
Anyone seen an estimate of the diameter of the eye at this point?
Together with the elapsed time it should allow in interesting way to derive the rotational speed of the eyewall.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 2:48 am

Doh! I posted in the wrong location…my edumacation has failed me!

Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2017 7:46 am

Well, you improperly punctuated a prior post, so luckily we all stopped believing you were educated after that. *wink*

Reply to  Chris Norman
September 7, 2017 4:40 am

>>
This is surely not in real time.
<<
No, both videos show a time lapse of about 31 minutes in 6 seconds (5 SEP 17 20:05:23Z-20:36:23Z and 5 SEP 17 20:19:53Z-20:50:53Z). That would be a speed-up of 310 times–if I got the math right.
Jim

R.S. Brown
September 6, 2017 1:33 am
vukcevic
September 6, 2017 1:42 am

Mr Smith, thanks for the info.
The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Program (GOES) is a joint effort of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
For the space stuff I go to NASA, for the ground level to NOAA. Since the images are from space I linked to NASA, but of course it is free choice of everyone where to go.
I haven’t looked at the NOAA’s presentation, but at the above (NASA’s) you can scroll down for the earlier selection.

vukcevic
Reply to  vukcevic
September 6, 2017 1:47 am

reply to Leo Smith September 6, 2017 at 12:50 am

Jeremy Poynton
September 6, 2017 2:41 am
Rhoda R
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton
September 6, 2017 4:16 am

That is impressive. And if you pan out you can also pick up Katina off the coast of Mexico as well.

ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 2:56 am

No, no, no, climate change is having no impact on the environment. It is just a figment of the imagination, a bunch of hocus pocus.
Strange that this Irma just happens to be most powerful Atlantic Ocean hurricane in recorded history – now, why could that be? Let me think …
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/06/hurricane-irma-most-powerful-atlantic-caribbean-islands

Lee Osburn
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 3:11 am

Ivan
It also just happens that the sun is having one hell of active period. Xrays and Protons. Xrays are instant since they travel at the speed of light but the protons take about 5 days to get here.
What is the possibility of the Sun is causing these large weather activities?
That is where my bet is, if i were a gambling man that is.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Lee Osburn
September 6, 2017 3:15 am

Please Lee, give me a break. This solar flare or whatever argument has no validity whatsoever.

Reply to  Lee Osburn
September 6, 2017 6:17 am

NOT instant — about 8 minutes.

MarkW
Reply to  Lee Osburn
September 6, 2017 6:17 am

Fascinating how the troll declares that only it’s theories are valid.

bit chilly
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 3:39 am

i think the claim is the most powerful in ten years , a bit different to what you posted ivankinsman.

John
Reply to  bit chilly
September 6, 2017 3:53 am

Ah, all depends. It likely will be the strongest recorded (we haven’t been recording too long). Overall, this season won’t beat the 2005 season, but Irma is a whopper.
Until people know exactly why and how hurricanes form, no association no any gas in the atmosphere can be made, especially when the long term trend is a downward/no movement one from an overall point of you. 100 or so waves this year and only a few end up as hurricanes. Until we know why, guessing about the reason for the strength is pointing. No idea if people guessed about Andrew in 1992, Carla in 1961, Betsy in 1965 or Camilie in 1965.
The Labour Day hurricane of 1935 was a very powerful one as well. Long before mans CO2 emissions were noteworthy.
One thing is for sure, if we had the 60s to do over again, the level of panic and hysteria would be eye watering.

Reply to  bit chilly
September 6, 2017 3:56 am

The claim is the most powerful hurricane by wind speed in that exact location… kind of like breaking the record for homeruns in Fenway Park.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 3:51 am

The urge to blame “climate change” (Warmunist code for CAGW) for any unusual weather event is evidence of a weak -brained individual grasping at straws to hang on to a failing ideology.

John
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 3:55 am

The same people who burn witches when their crops fail or think God was offended. It’s quite arrogant to automatically assume so much responsibility for weather events. At least give it a few decades, as currently no positive trend has been observed.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 3:56 am

You guys just don’t get it. How much more evidence do you need that CAGW, resulting in warmer ocean temperatures, isn’t exacerbating the power of these hurricanes?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 4:01 am

Good fracking grief!!!comment image

John
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 4:07 am

Real evidence. Not gut feeling or fear.
Explain to me how the 1935 Labour Day hurricane was so powerful. Explain to me how the 1980 hurricane Alan was so powerful. Alan managed sustained wind speeds of 190 MPH, or 5 MPH faster than the Labour Day one some 45 years prior.
AS OF YET (it can change), Irma has 913 hPa. The Labour Day was 892 hPa. Gilbert in 1988 was 888 hPa.
SO FAR, Irma is a powerful hurricane maybe it will set a new record, but until you understand how other hurricanes were more powerful, equal or almost up there more than 80 years prior, you may as well just be well, erm, doing something in the wind.

Bob boder
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 4:11 am

Ivan;
So for the last ten years was it also weaken them? The most probable reason this is the strongest recorded hurricane in this region is because we have only recently had the technology to monitor hurricanes this closely in this region. The most recent streak of no major hurricane strikes was the only thing in recorded history that was unpressidented. So if global warming has any effect on hurricane development it would seem more likely it would be the Lessing of their frequency and strength.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 4:23 am

Ladies, and gentlemen, may I present a textbook example of confirmation bias- its name is “ivankinsman”

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 5:46 am

ivankinsman said: “You guys just don’t get it. How much more evidence do you need that CAGW, resulting in warmer ocean temperatures, isn’t exacerbating the power of these hurricanes?”
——————–
What evidence? Because you said so? Because you posted a link from the Guardian (hahahaha)?
Demonstrate that you have the first clue and then, many here will “get it”, if you have something worth getting.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 6:19 am

ivan, I’m waiting for evidence, period.
The claim is that the oceans have warmed by 0.001C. Since the limit of accuracy on the probes is only 0.1C, I take that claim with a huge grain of salt. Not to mention int insurmountable problem of insufficient coverage.

Editor
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 7, 2017 12:39 am

Friends,
Ivankinsman is a flat out troll, as shown in this thread:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/04/attributing-hurricane-harvey-to-climate-change-is-murky-science/#comment-2602149
expect to get a bunch of evasive replies.

Editor
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 7, 2017 1:01 am

He is a flat out troll, here is his latest reply to me:
” ivankinsman
September 7, 2017 at 12:43 am Edit
Let me put this scenario to you. You have been asked to comment on the digestive system of the Tasmanian devil. You know nothing about it – you are not a biologist – so what do you do? You take a look at all the research out there, particularly that put out by the experts on the topic. You then look at the areas where there is broad consensus and try to reflect this in your description.
You, my friend, are not on the IPCC because you are not a climate scientist expert but an amateur who is ranting and raving because your evidence has not been accepted by the mainstream scientific body.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/04/attributing-hurricane-harvey-to-climate-change-is-murky-science/#comment-2603088
That was his reply this I wrote,
” Sunsettommy
September 7, 2017 at 12:29 am Edit
Ivan,once again avoids discussing known IPCC projection failures,he is apparently going to ignore them completely,to maintain his climate cult status.
He writes like a man who has no idea what an ignorant fool he is:
“The science is proven my friend (and there is no way I claim to be a climate scientist or anything close) so I am not going to dispute it with you.
What I am going to do, though, is show the broad INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS on what action needs to be and is already being taken to mitigate the impact of AGW:..”
I am the one who tried talk about FAILED science projections based on the IPCC reports,while this warmist turd wants to avoid it totally,yet thinks the science (what ever that is) is proven.
To sum it up, Ivan is into the following nonsense,:
Consensus fallacy
Science is settled absurdity
Push political solutions on unverified modeling scenarios
Avoid discussing anything
IPCC Reports is his religion
Ivan, cheerfully admits he is has no science literacy, yet thinks the science is proven,while he is profoundly ignorant of the same science he defends.
Pathetic!”
The troll is completely avoiding my claim that the IPCC and the AGW hypothesis are failures. He ignores it completely by instead pushing consensus fallacies.
He is here to fog up the threads with warmist baloney,and avoid any deep discussion on anything.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 7, 2017 7:52 am

Sunset,
Logical, reasonable, critical thinkers organize their thoughts and arguments in specific ways that make them easy to identify. Our words are windows to our thought processes.
Likewise, people who think in logical fallacies, or cognitive biases organize their thoughts and arguments in ways that reveal their cognitive biases too. Trolls are easy to spot. It’s not just the things they say and write that gives them away either, it’s the things they avoid responding to as well.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 3:58 am

From the NOAA (who view AGW as a reality The Guardian view it as a reality too, but need to sell newspapers).
“July marks a continuation of a record-long major hurricane (Category 3 or stronger) landfall drought in the United States. The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma on October 24, 2005. This major hurricane drought surpassed the length of the eight-years from 1861-1868 when no major hurricane struck the United States’ coast. On average, a major hurricane makes landfall in the U.S. about once every three years. The reliable record of landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. dates back to 1851.”

davideisenstadt
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 3:59 am

Explain the 12 year lull in hurricanes making landfall in the CONUS then, please?
What, that was weather, and this is climate?
Please.

ivankinsman
Reply to  davideisenstadt
September 6, 2017 4:19 am

It’s not causing hurricanes; it is exacerbating the strength of the hurricanes.

John
Reply to  davideisenstadt
September 6, 2017 4:38 am

Before you embarrass yourself further, I suggest you take a good look at hurricane activity for the past 90 years or so.

Reply to  davideisenstadt
September 6, 2017 6:44 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones#cite_note-HURDAT-3
Sustained Wind Speed mph
1 Allen 1980 190
2T “Labor Day” 1935 185
2T Gilbert 1988 185
2T Wilma 2005 185
2T Irma 2017 185
Pressure hPa
1 Wilma 2005 882
2 Gilbert 1988 888
3 “Labor Day” 1935 892
4 Rita 2005 895
5 Allen 1980 899
6 Camille 1969 900
7 Katrina 2005 902
8T Mitch 1998 905
8T Dean 2007 905
10T “Cuba” 1924 910
10T Ivan 2004 910
12 Irma 2017 913
Irma is BAD… But it’s not outside the normal range of major hurricanes.
The average maximum sustained wind speed of the 24 worst North Atlantic hurricanes since 1924 is 170 mph. 2 SD = 25 mph. 145-195 mph = natural variability.
The average minimum atmospheric pressure of the 24 worst North Atlantic hurricanes since 1924 is 910 hPa. 2 SD = 24 hPa. 886-934 hPa = natural variability.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  davideisenstadt
September 6, 2017 7:58 am

They were still there, but hiding – hurricane hideatus.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  davideisenstadt
September 6, 2017 8:07 am

Oh thou knowing one, ivankinsman, what caused hurricane strength exacerbation when CO2 ppm were so low?

MarkW
Reply to  davideisenstadt
September 6, 2017 11:23 am

Were they hiding in the deep oceans?

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 4:55 am

ivankinsman,
You have fallen into the trap set by McKibben back in 2006. There are plenty of examples of super-hurricanes, if you only open the history books. I would open the books for you, but it gets old after doing it for more than a decade. Here is a post from here on WUWT back in 2012:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/hurricane-warning-mckibben-alert/
I am not scoffing at the dangers of a storm like this. Those in harm’s way should pack, and get to a safe place at least a day before the storm hits. If the storm turns away you can then laugh about being over-cautious. If you are stuck in one of these storms it is no laughing matter.

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 4:59 am

“Recorded history”. Now compare that to the age of the current Atlantic Ocean.

harry
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 5:48 am

clueless

D P Laurable
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 5:49 am

Now even weather phenomena have a party affiliation.

MarkW
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 6:17 am

Recorded history doesn’t go back as far as you think it does.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 6:28 am

Puh-leez do, let you think. You certainly haven’t thus far. So, we see, with modern technology, a naturally occurring event and its “climate change”. So, this winter, when there is a large snowstorm, it’s A NEW ICE AGE! To hype this as the most powerful hurricane in recorded human history is to deny that, even at the beginning of the twentieth century, we had little to no knowledge of what hurricanes even existed in the Atlantic, save those delayed reports from sailors. Those sailors that witnessed as strong storms as Irma are likely at the bottom of the Atlantic. Your reasoning is pure, unadulterated political hyperbole.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Don Perry
September 6, 2017 7:18 am

Let’s make this very clear – I used the words ‘ever recorded’, so I am not referring to the one’s that were not recorded – no-one has any idea about these until they are still living.
Also, please never use the word ‘politics’ with me in this debate – I am not a Democrat, liberal, Republican, alt-right etc. Politics has NOTHING to do with this issue which is based purely on climate science evidence.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Don Perry
September 6, 2017 7:31 am

What evidence? There is NO measurable connection between human activity and the frequency or behavior of hurricanes. None.

MarkW
Reply to  Don Perry
September 6, 2017 11:25 am

Ever notice how those who are the most political, spend the most time trying to convince others that they are above politics?
Yes, we are quite aware how trolls like to use the phrase “ever recorded” in an effort to impress the uninformed.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 7:39 am

Ivankinsman, really?
This one storm is proof of CAGW, is it? You know for an absolute fact that the water being 1.8 degrees warmer in the part of the Atlantic where hurricanes form is attributable only to AGW? You are absolutely certain that hurricane formation and strength is only attributable to the higher temperatures?
Eh, what’s the use.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 6, 2017 7:45 am

CAGW does not cause a hurricane like this but higher ocean temperatures, and it is these that exacerbate the strength of hurricanes. Climate scientists are predicting more intense hurricanes in the future. No one hurricane can be attributed to CAGW.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 8:30 am

ivankinsman

CAGW does not cause a hurricane like this but higher ocean temperatures, and it is these that exacerbate the strength of hurricanes. Climate scientists are predicting more intense hurricanes in the future.

And what, pray tell, is the measured increase in ocean water temperature between now and 2005? Between 2017 and 1970? Between 1932 (last year of multiple Cat 4-5 storms) and 2017? We have had NO HURRICANES hit the US coast since 2005, and no trend in hurricane strikes at all since they have been recorded striking the US coast and Caribbean islands since the Spaniards began recording them in 1500. Which was still deep in the Little Ice Age.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 6, 2017 8:23 am

Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes that are on record. Irma is a monster in terms of coverage and hurricanes are forecast to intensify.
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/atlantic-hurricane-category-five-history-0

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 6, 2017 11:26 am

Notice how ivan evades the point in order to go back to his bought and paid for rant.
He just want’s use to assume that the only possible cause for warmer water is CO2.

David A
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 6, 2017 12:57 pm

Jeez, a parrot could argue like that.

Ron
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 7, 2017 2:34 am

Andrew Cook, On the corollary how do you know that it was not? Are you a 100% certain that it was not augmented by AGW?

M Courtney
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 7, 2017 2:37 am

Ron, On the corollary how do you know that it was not caused by aliens? Are you a 100% certain that it was not augmented by Little Green Men?
That’s the problem with pseudoscience like AGW.
If you reverse the null hypothesis you let in belief in anything.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 7, 2017 3:10 am

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YZOMk7BDP2A/Uo-mjzfxqFI/AAAAAAAADHs/QIuiGEAZnmU/s1600/uslandfalls1900to2013.jpg
i see definitely a trend in US landfalls… but why is it going down? shouldn’t it go up Ivan? 🙂

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 7:45 am

Ivan-the-troll is not only delusional, but evidently doesn’t know when to stop digging. Fascinating.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2017 11:26 am

He’s paid by the post?

RAH
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 7:46 am

Ivankinsman does not understand that correlation does not imply causation and in fact doesn’t even understand that there isn’t any correlation after years of average hurricane seasons before and since 2005. (Not talking about those that did not strike the US, just over all Atlantic hurricane seasons).
There is not scientific link demonstrating that atmospheric CO2 at 400 ppm will produce more powerful storms than when it was 300 ppm which is about where it was when the most intense hurricane on record to strike the United States came ashore in the Florida Keys on labor day 1935.
To be sure, Irma is that kind of storm. A monster that will most likely set new records. But the conditions that are bringing this storm are understood well enough to know it is a product of natural variation and not man caused climate change. Ivankinsman and his ilk need to go find an active volcano and a virgin to sacrifice into it.

Reply to  RAH
September 6, 2017 8:21 am

Ivan might as well have posted:
Climate scientists caught plagiarizing prophecies of the Bible and other ancient writings. Natural calamities are increasing…which automatically means that 2000+ year old prophecies are vindicated!!

Editor
Reply to  RAH
September 7, 2017 12:42 am

People, he is a perfect example of the ignorant troll, as shown in this thread. He refuses to acknowledge the many IPCC projection failures. He continues to claim the science is settled and that sort of baloney.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/04/attributing-hurricane-harvey-to-climate-change-is-murky-science/#comment-2602149

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 7:54 am

Ivan,
Who are you speaking to?
The climate always changes, so of course the environment changes along with it. No imagination or magical delusion required to grasp that.
Which historical “record” are you referring to?
And what exactly is your point ?

ivankinsman
Reply to  Aphan
September 6, 2017 8:26 am

Have no idea what you are wittering on about my friend. Add something specific to the debate or stay out of it.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Aphan
September 6, 2017 9:12 am

ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 at 8:26 am
Have no idea what you are wittering on about my friend. Add something specific to the debate or stay out of it.
———————–
That’s rich. Not to mention, totally hypocritical, at this point, since all you’ve supplied to the debate is blather, couched in terms suited to a religious zealot.
Ps It isn’t up to you to decide who speaks, or when, or about what.
That said, there’s really no need for me to defend Aphan, since she is capable of tearing you a new one, using logic and reason, alone.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 6, 2017 4:25 pm

Awwwwwwe *blush* thanks Alan. Something tells me I’d have to explain the rules of logic and/or reason to Ivan first…

MarkW
Reply to  Aphan
September 6, 2017 11:28 am

ivan, you are the one who made the proclamation about biggest recorded. The question is, which record.
Do you care to answer the question or will you once again, dodge and weave your way to exhaustion?

Greg
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 8:55 am

now, why could that be? Let me think …

Well when you manage to explain why for the last 12 years of the “hottest decade on record” there has not been a major hurricane landfall in the US you may be able to explain why this one is so strong.
Now go away and have that little think you were planning on and come back and let us know when you know enough to explain both the post 2005 drop in hurricane activity as well as the recent high points.
Hint : just picking out one event and going “LOOK , CO2 in action” does not count.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Greg
September 6, 2017 9:04 am

Talking about the future, mate:
To quote: “In the years ahead, hurricanes are quite likely to become stronger, and the strongest ones more frequent.”
Harvey and Irma is arguably just the start. Time will tell…
https://www.google.pl/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/hurricane-irma-category-six.amp.html

RAH
Reply to  Greg
September 6, 2017 11:00 am

ivankinsman September 6, 2017 at 9:04 am
Talking about the future, mate:
To quote: “In the years ahead, hurricanes are quite likely to become stronger, and the strongest ones more frequent.”
Harvey and Irma is arguably just the start. Time will tell…
https://www.google.pl/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/hurricane-irma-category-six.amp.html
————————————————————————–
Again, the science has not been produced to connect any correlation that may come to pass in the future with causation. You and your sources are just barking at the moon. There is nothing scientific about them or you.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Greg
September 7, 2017 12:27 am

ivankinsman September 6, 2017 at 9:04 am
Talking about the future, mate:
To quote: “In the years ahead, hurricanes are quite likely to become stronger, and the strongest ones more frequent.”
Harvey and Irma is arguably just the start.

That’s what they said after Katrina too.

Editor
Reply to  Greg
September 7, 2017 12:47 am

Allan,Greg and others,
Ivankinsman is a flat out ignorant troll, he will never admit he and his warmist cultists are wrong on anything.
I deal with this loon in this thread:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/04/attributing-hurricane-harvey-to-climate-change-is-murky-science/#comment-2602149
He actually wrote this in reply to me:
“The science is proven my friend (and there is no way I claim to be a climate scientist or anything close) so I am not going to dispute it with you.
What I am going to do, though, is show the broad INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS on what action needs to be and is already being taken to mitigate the impact of AGW:
Organisation: C40 is a network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change.
Acting both locally and collaboratively, C40 cities are having a meaningful global impact in reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. C40 brings together a unique set of assets and creates a shared sense of purpose. C40 offers cities an effective forum where they can collaborate, share knowledge and drive meaningful, measurable and sustainable action on climate change.
Link: http://www.c40.org/
Business: Mars
‘We’re trying to go all in’: Chocolate giant Mars pledges $1 billion to fight climate change
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/mars-climate-change-investment-global-warming-sustainability-plan-greenhouse-gas-2017-9?IR=T
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/04/attributing-hurricane-harvey-to-climate-change-is-murky-science/#comment-2603061

john harmsworth
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 10:01 am

In order for your sarcastic and wishfully inadequate comment to be relevant, you would need to establish that Atlantic waters are warmer than in the past, as that is the source of the hurricanes energy. There is no evidence that is the case, so the alternative explanation is that chance circumstances of chaotic weather patterns have caused the hurricane to dwell over warm water for an unusual amount of time. CHANCE CIRCUMSTANCES! The foundation of ALL weather!

ivankinsman
Reply to  john harmsworth
September 6, 2017 1:08 pm

South Asia experience worst monsoon records in decades. 40 million people affected. Not just contained to the Atlantic my friend – this is happening globally. MORE dangerous life-threatening storms with extreme winds on the increase … get real about what is happening to this planet.

Roger Knights
Reply to  john harmsworth
September 7, 2017 12:30 am

But the global ACE record doesn’t show a big uptick lately, does it?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 10:09 am

ivankinsman,
Historically, the greatest number of cat 3+ hurricanes making landfall in the US was during times of cooler weather. Also, for what it is worth, JoNova’s website shows a plume of cold water in the Pacific that looks like La Nina conditions may be setting up. Even so, as the old saying goes, “One swallow does not a Spring make.” [I think the aphorism was coined by Yoda.]

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 6, 2017 11:29 am

A swallow of what?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 6, 2017 3:55 pm

Of an arboreal dinosaur descendent.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 7, 2017 12:31 am

The saying refers to an (early) bird.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 8, 2017 3:08 am

First time since records began 1830s something that two category 4 hurricanes have hit a major land mass in the same season.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 8, 2017 1:56 pm

Wrong again Ivan. Where DO you get your information from?
In 1915, two cat 4 hurricanes hit Texas and Louisiana just six weeks apart.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 9, 2017 12:45 am
Auto
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 6, 2017 1:06 pm

Ivan,
I think most people reading this site would say that climate change affects, well, the climate – and so, the environment, too.
And has done for billions of years. So climate change is not new – we both know that it didn’t start with the SUV.
There are man-caused effects, of which urban heat islands [UHIs] are probably the most widely accepted.
Deforestation and soot deposition on ice are also reasonably widely accepted.
These are modestly local – although deforestation can be island-wide – in Sumatra, for example.
Where temperatures are taken in locations that become affected by urban heat islands – over decades – the reading reflects the local environment.
Perhaps they show an increased average – in that (now) UHI; whereas other sites – perhaps quite close – but outside the UHI – show little or no increase – even, possibly, a small decrease.
If the UHI-affected locations are used for longer-term records – and analysis – it is possible that the ‘Official Record’ will show increasing averages.
All this recent weather – Harvey, Irma, Jose, the CMEs, even a grotty British Summer (?”Summer” – so called?) – coincides with the first full hurricane season since David Cameron and Barack Obama ceased to hold their countries’ destiny in their manicured hands.
Now – me –
I think that is coincidence.
Others have the right to a different view.
But, if I am to accept that different view, I need convincing.
Facts will do that – not belief systems.
Auto

ivankinsman
Reply to  Auto
September 6, 2017 1:11 pm

Ok one of the few reasonable comments I’ve received on this site. Let’s hope the evidence convinces

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Auto
September 6, 2017 3:54 pm

Auto,
Yet, there was a time when those advocating AGW denied that UHI had any significant impact on global temperatures. Skeptics kept bringing the subject up, and now there is agreement that UHI causes at least local if not regional increases in temperature and precipitation. Were it not for the ‘dnyers,’ the collective wisdom might have prevailed because nobody would have been willing to investigate what was considered “settled science.”

catweazle666
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 10, 2017 2:05 pm

Heh, you quote from ‘The Guardian’ again and expect to be anything but a laughing stock, Ivan?
You never give up with your drivel, do you?
Do you never get bored of sleeping on a rubber sheet?

ivankinsman
Reply to  catweazle666
September 11, 2017 6:06 am

Try this one Catweazle. This is what us happening to the USA and some of it in Europe when it cimes to wild fires.Time go get that head of yours out of the sand and man up…
https://www.axios.com/climate-change-is-like-diabetes-for-the-planet-2482724454.html

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 11, 2017 7:20 am

Catweazel will eat you for breakfast if you keep linking to such articles.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (IPCC) So,
anthropomorphising the planet in any way is just about as unscientific as it gets. The planet is not human, and the climate is not it’s blood sugar. What an idiotic comparison!
The past 11,000+ years have been UNcharacteristicly calm on a planet which the empirical evidence shows is prone to having a changing climate. And evidence shows it has changed more quickly and more dramatically in the past than it is today.
Learn something today:
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Abrupt-Climate-Change-Inevitable-Surprises/10136

ivankinsman
Reply to  Aphan
September 11, 2017 9:37 pm

This is a great wake-up call for you and your ilk, Aphan
As Bill McKibben shows there is nothing that is ‘uncharestically calm’ about the climatic events occurring in Nirth America. At last the mainstream American public is starting to get it and the sceptics can carry on living in your small rarefied bubble talking about ‘prophets of doom and other such tripe:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/11/threat-climate-change-hurricane-harvey-irma-droughts

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 12, 2017 7:37 am

Bill McKibben is no scientist and your repeated links to a biased newspaper instead of science or empirical evidence does nothing but make you less and less credible.
The very insinuation that planet Earth was calmer and in some kind of static perfection prior to the Industrial revolution is hilarious and empirically FALSE. Geological and botanical proxies show a completely different story.
But you keep trying. You make me laugh sad clown.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Aphan
September 12, 2017 7:45 am

Keep on living in your bubble and one day it will burst when you realize that AGW is a reality. Look at the bigger picture in terms of where man-made CO2 is going. It doesn’t just disappear you idiot…

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 12, 2017 8:26 am

No science from you again, just bluster and prophecies. This is why you make me laugh. Do you have science and evidence? If you do, why aren’t you using it ? Do you think crying wolf and calling names is more effective?
Everyone knows that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Its a fundamental physical principle. So DUH, CO2 doesn’t just “disappear”! But lets discuss other things it DOES NOT DO:
*. It doesn’t just float around in the atmosphere indefinately,
*it doesn’t “trap”, hug, hold onto, or block IR photons,
*it does not generate any energy independently
* the IR photons it absorbs and re-emits cannot make an object that has already been warmed by the Sun even “warmer” because heat transfer occurs in only ONE direction…from warm object to cooler object.

ivankinsman
Reply to  Aphan
September 12, 2017 8:36 am

I have no idea where you comr up with your voodoo science. Spend this evening reading about the scientific principles underpinning AGW:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html

ivankinsman
Reply to  Aphan
September 12, 2017 10:27 pm

The evidence stated here – if you can be bothered to read it – shows that this planet is currently by no means in a calm state. If you think it is calm now then you are more of a blinkered sceptic than I thought:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/10/us/noaa-2016-climate-change-report/index.html

Reply to  catweazle666
September 12, 2017 3:19 pm

Rofl!! VOODOO science? Clearly you don’t even understand the “science” in the article you linked to, because it doesn’t contradict anything I said at all. Either you are making erroneous assumptions about what you THINK I believe, you have a reading comprehension problem, or you’re just a troll looking for a bridge to live under.

Reply to  catweazle666
September 13, 2017 8:10 am

Ivan…honest, intelligent people take things out of context. What i said was:
“The past 11,000+ years have been UNcharacteristicly calm on a planet which the empirical evidence shows is prone to having a changing climate. And evidence shows it has changed more quickly and more dramatically in the past than it is today.”
Relative to Earths entire history, the past 11,000 years have been “calm” in comparison. It oddly coincides with the spread of human civilization, but correlation does not prove causation does it?

catweazle666
Reply to  catweazle666
September 13, 2017 3:15 pm

“As Bill McKibben shows…”
You just LOVE doubling down on stupid don’t you, little troll?
Not satisfied with the Grauniad and the Puffington Host, now you invoke the egregious Weepy Bill McKibben.
You’ll be quoting the wisdom of Bill Nye the (non)Science Guy next!

ren
September 6, 2017 4:06 am

Jet stream will push Irma south.
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/HURRLOOPS/atir.html

Reply to  ren
September 6, 2017 5:50 am

Bet it doesn’t…

ren
Reply to  JKrob
September 6, 2017 9:16 am

Let’s make a bet.

ren
Reply to  JKrob
September 6, 2017 9:28 am

Let’s make a bet 🙂

Reply to  JKrob
September 6, 2017 11:53 am

Well…you will have to be very specific about what qualifies as “push Irma South” IOW – wobbles don’t count. Oh, BTW, troughs don’t ‘t suppress tropical cyclone tracks, they provide a ‘weakness’ in the pressure pattern for them to turn north. High pressure to their north suppress them south…it’s like climbing uphill – but…what do I know :-/

Rhoda R
September 6, 2017 4:28 am

That “Windy” site thatJeremy Poynton

Rhoda R
September 6, 2017 4:31 am

Sorry, computer burped. As I was saying, Mr. Poynton’s site is interesting because you can follow the winds at all levels. Looking at the winds, I don’t see how Irma can continue its northern track much longer-that jet stream looks pretty strong and Irma’s winds seem to go to the top of the atmosphere.

Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 5:15 am

Haven’t heard from Barbuda yet, but the NOAA weather station was/is operating and sending data.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=bara9
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/stations/bara9.jpg
Wind speeds got up to 155 mph or 250 kph before it went down.comment image
Air pressure still operating went down to 924 mb in the eye.comment image

Bill Illis
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 5:31 am

Watching a live webcam from Gustavia island which is going through the back-side of the eye-wall right now. Can barely see a palm tree 30 metres away; unreal.
Search google for – St-Barth – Port de Gustavia webcam – I’m not linking it directly.

Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 5:36 am

Wow! That is scary.

vukcevic
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 6:21 am

mostly noise with one poor palm tree ‘screaming’ for help. If you go slowly with cursor along the red line you can see b&w stills going back 4 hours, showing the advance of Irma, click on any of the stills to see bits of recorded b&w movie.

eyesonu
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 9:31 am

Electrical power remained on.

eyesonu
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 9:46 am

If I had a spare palm tree I’d stick it thru my sun roof and drive down the interstate and see if I could replicate the wind effect. Will 118 mph do it?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 10:04 am

By the central pressure metric, Irma is far from the strongest Atlantic hurricane.

bw
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 6:37 am

Sustained wind speed reached 102 knots. The Saffir-Simpson scale is defined by maximum sustained winds.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php
Sustained winds of 102 knots put Irma in the middle of the Category 3 range. The anemometer for NDBC station BARA9 is slightly over 10 meters above MSL. This conforms to the required definition for anemometer height for measured sustained winds that define the Saffir-Simpson scale.
Plots of sustained winds before the failure show that the eyewall for this storm passed directly over the Barbuda station. The 102 knots of sustained winds are consistent with the central pressure measured for a Category 3 hurricane.

Auto
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 6, 2017 1:43 pm

Bill,
Fascinating – much appreciated.
But 923 mb – although pretty blooming low – is not t h a t exceptional.
I remember watching the BBC weather forecast (hey – if you mistype, you very easily get ‘gorecast’!), the night the “Braer” grounded – so January 1993 – onto the Shetlands.
The broadcast: –
There was a low off Scotland, that was forecast to be 920 mb.
Off the British Isles, in winter, my rule of thumb is : –
980 mb – Gales [Beaufort force 8];
960 mb – Storm Force winds – so Beaufort force 10;
940 mb – Hurricane force winds – Beaufort Force 12 (“That which no canvas can withstand”).
So 920 mb obviously struck me, and I remarked to my then-fiancée that this storm would bring trouble to any unprepared ship. Happily no one on the Braer was seriously hurt – and the wind and waves managed to turbo-degrade most of the 85,000 tonnes of oil she carried. There was some environmental damage – but surprisingly limited, thanks to the storm itself.
I never saw what the actual – not forecast – pressure was measured at, although – per Wiki, that I could edit: –
“The system continued to slow as it turned north-northeast, reaching its estimated lowest pressure of 914 hPa (27.0 inHg) later that morning.”.
914 hPa is effectively 914 mb.
And the Wiki does say –
“The Braer Storm of January 1993 was the most intense extratropical cyclone ever recorded over the northern Atlantic Ocean”
By contrast, the Great Storm of October 1987 probably had no pressure lower than about 945 mb – the lowest reading I have sighted (or seen cited!) is 948 mb.
Auto

Eyal Porat
September 6, 2017 5:38 am

Awesome!

john
September 6, 2017 5:41 am

Another huge solar eruption this morning.
http://spaceweathernews.com
LATEST SOLAR NEWS:
(Sep 6 1229UTC) An X9.3 solar flare has erupted – significant CME analysis will need to take place today. This flare was the largest in 12 years and is the 15th largest solar flare on record.
(Sep 6 1143UTC) An X class solar flare erupted this morning – CME analysis is a few hours away. Meanwhile, solar wind must be monitored today for the impact of the CME that erupted two days ago. Strong geomagnetic storms are expected.

ren
Reply to  john
September 6, 2017 6:09 am

A coronal mass ejection is expected to arrive at our planet this afternoon (UTC time) around 16:00 UTC with a plus/minus of about 6 hours.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00930/2caukoqxq853.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/SpaceWeatherLive/photos/a.319511298163386.72025.133686703412514/1381731001941405/?type=3&theater

South River Independent
Reply to  john
September 6, 2017 8:58 am

Obviously the large solar flare was caused by excess CO2 in earth’s atmosphere. Everyone should limit their breathing to inhalations.

Auto
Reply to  South River Independent
September 6, 2017 1:46 pm

If ninety percent eliminate their breathing – then the extreme Climatastrophists will have won – at the population will have declined – in about ten minutes – to their preferred 750 million.
But we won’t do that!
Auto.

dp
September 6, 2017 8:52 am

Posting twitter videos is far worse than misusing “it’s” vs its. Most of the world does not have a twitter account, and there’s no chance I’m going to accept their cookies. Stop doing it.

vukcevic
Reply to  dp
September 6, 2017 11:20 am

at least twitter warns about it, many other websites don’t, most of the web browsers can be set to erase all cookies when you close it.

Steve Ta
September 6, 2017 9:29 am
dragineez
September 6, 2017 9:51 am

On a completely different note – I was at Kennedy and watched that satellite launch.

john harmsworth
September 6, 2017 9:53 am

It’s ( proper use of it’s) part of their department of redundancy department.

BillJ
September 6, 2017 11:00 am

Amazing video just up until the cam breaks
https://youtu.be/dA5qYrboTUE

September 6, 2017 1:42 pm

There are concerns about the two nuclear power plants in Florida, but real eye opener will be how much of the renewables (solar and wind) survive Irma.

September 10, 2017 11:14 am

I think 3D-4D GeoSEIS Tomography has the capability to revolutionize the GIS & IPS technologies for early storms predicting and monitoring:
Uniqueness of 3D-4D GeoSEIS Tomography technology is determined by algorithms that transforms 2D digital images (Vis, Thermal, IR, MS…) into volumetric 3D-4Dseist models which reflects the evolution of storms and tornadoes…
* For example: The volumetric 3D GeoSEIS Tomography model of an internal spacetime structure (quaternion) of a Sinlaku storm https://flic.kr/p/9qP5KD; https://flic.kr/p/9qSsg3; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XcMxWi7wY4; it is created by volumetric 3D GeoSEIS Tomography transformations of the AQUA IR image.

%d bloggers like this: