Hurricane expert Klotzbach: #Irma at landfall comes in 7th behind 1935 Labor Day storm

While this won’t be of much comfort for those that are squarely in it’s path right now, it is a small bit of good news. Dr. Philip Klotzbach has compiled rankings of both hurricane Irma and Harvey when they made landfall. Compared to the 1935 Labor Day storm, Irma is a distant 7th, tied with the 1928 Lake Okeechobee storm.

He writes:

Table of all hurricanes with landfall pressures <= 940 mb at time of U.S. landfall. was 929 mb and was 938 mb.

With Irma ranked 7th, and Harvey ranked 18th, it’s going to be tough for climate alarmists to try connecting these two storms to being driven by CO2/global warming. But they’ll do it anyway.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
189 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Francisco
September 10, 2017 8:00 am

Yes they are trying Anthony and they are succeeding. My 15 year old niece thinks the end is near.

Reply to  James Francisco
September 10, 2017 8:17 am

Show her this maybe:comment image

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  harkin1
September 10, 2017 8:22 am

That’s hilarious. Keeping that one.

Sixto
Reply to  harkin1
September 10, 2017 9:26 am

The prediction should be in 2005.

Patrick Boyle
Reply to  harkin1
September 11, 2017 11:04 am

I went through two hurricanes on the Chesapeake Bay. The first one was when I was in a tent at Camp Letts. That was in the fifties. The problem is that I can’t figure out which hurricane is was – there were so many in those days. I also sailed through a hurricane on the bay when I was twenty but again I can’t pin it down more accurately because there were so at more hurricanes then.
My college friends lost houses to hurricanes. That was considered normal in the sixties. It is possible that the long pause in big storms is now ending. To me it seems like a return to normal times.

Ima right
Reply to  harkin1
September 11, 2017 12:01 pm

He also said New York City would be flooded by 2015. Apparently
we were not the lucky

pochas94
Reply to  James Francisco
September 11, 2017 8:15 am

Be sure you know where she’s getting her information!

Thor
Reply to  James Francisco
September 11, 2017 8:56 am

She’s right, but not because of any hurricane…

JCalvertN(UK)
September 10, 2017 8:00 am

Thanks to the existence of Cuba (the landmass – not the political state).

JCalvertN(UK)
September 10, 2017 8:11 am

True. However rebuttals based on the number, strength or frequency of hurricanes making landfall on the coast of USA alone are not going to wash. Any counter-arguments have be made from a global perspective.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
September 10, 2017 8:19 am

They will probably try to spin it that way. Combination of sour grapes, any port in a storm, and last but not least “no matter what happens, it’s climate change, and man’s use of fossil fuels is at least partly to blame”.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2017 8:54 am

For the CAGW crowd, man’s use of fossil fuels is wholly to blame. There is no other factor in the zealots eye.

stevekeohane
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
September 10, 2017 8:33 am

As Joe Bastardi pointed out, the Pacific normally has 3X the cyclones of the Atlantic, but now there are zero. How’s that for global?

Goldrider
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 9:07 am

Joe Bastardi has been featured prominently on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show daily since Irma hove in sight. He has stated the known facts clearly, simply, in non-technical terms any layman can readily comprehend.
Rush’s show reaches more people across this country on a weekly basis than all of the far-left clap-trap mongers combined. And lest we forget, most of the people following Twitter are media wonks who live for the next usable blurting, not ordinary people with kids, commute, or work to do. The people are getting the word, believe me . . . and the blue bubble of self-important leftists who think The Weather responds to humans is getting smaller every day. The Wall Street Journal and New York Post also now put quotes around “climate change” and frame the CAGW alarmists as a quaint joke.

Chris
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 12:06 pm

A pity the Fortune 1000, the world’s banks, the largest insurance companies and all the investment funds didn’t get your message, Goldrider. Their belief that CAGW is real and requires action has not changed in the slightest.

Sixto
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 12:11 pm

Chris September 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm
Do ALL those institutions really buy into CACA? I’m not buying it.
As long as there is profit and publicity mileage in claiming to do so, some will. But few are actually betting real dough that we’re on the Venus Express.
When Al Gore sells his oceanside house and moves back to the Appalachians, then maybe his sincerity will have some credibility. Ditto all those planet savers jetting to conferences in seaside resorts. Until then, alarmists are all hypocrites.

Sixto
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 12:18 pm

Which insurance companies have taken unusual steps to prepare for CACA?
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/analyst-kai-pan-says-insurance-224553470.html

Sixto
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 12:19 pm

They have lots of cash, thanks to so few claims from storm damage during the past 12 years.

MarkW
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 2:13 pm

Like most trolls, Chris counts press releases as example of science.

Chris
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 11:50 pm

“Like most trolls, Chris counts press releases as example of science.”
Another logically incoherent post from MarkW. I didn’t mention a press release,and I didn’t mention science. I stated that the corporate world believes AGW is real and are taking action. Nothing stated on WUWT or the NY Post or the WSJ will alter that fact.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2017 10:59 am

Chris, the corporate world believes in the government benefits flowing in response to their actions.
I know CAGW is crap, but I lobbied the Nevada Legislature for subsidies and renewables mandates because I was developing a geothermal electric power project. I worked to maximize the benefits to my employer and its consumer/owners.
Get real about what the “corporate world” believes in: Profits, fool.
Since people are involved in the corporate world, there is also altruism.

Chris
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 10, 2017 11:55 pm

Sixto said: “Do ALL those institutions really buy into CACA? I’m not buying it.
As long as there is profit and publicity mileage in claiming to do so, some will. But few are actually betting real dough that we’re on the Venus Express.”
Find me 3 links to the web sites of large companies who hold a skeptic position on AGW. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
What is the profit mileage in Walmart taking action on climate change?

Bryan
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 11, 2017 3:33 am
Caligula Jones
Reply to  stevekeohane
September 11, 2017 11:37 am

Yes, funny how averages are good for pointing out climate change (i.e., average temp has risen .01 degrees in X years), but not for averaging storms and stuff.
As I’ve mentioned, most of the panicking is being done by people who, to the charitable, suck at math.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
September 10, 2017 8:47 am

Fair enough JC, but couple things. Most of the record historically is based on what came over the horizon with a day’s notice and surrounding countries didn’t have the tech to measure so carefully. They still rely on the US for info. Also, most, particularly the target audience of useful idiots used by doomsters, wouldn’t know barricuda
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=barricuda&atb=v78-3__&t=cros&ia=about
from Barbuda or Bermuda.

Ron
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 10, 2017 4:39 pm

Wow is that the pinacle of intelligence ? I do think most of them would know a fish from an island.
To think anybody could mistake a fish from an island , well that is not the most sensible thing that I have heard for a long time.

Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
September 10, 2017 8:51 am

Has anyone else noticed that both Harvey and Irma had exactly 130 Mph sustained winds at landfall which is the threshold for cat 4? Also, when Irma was said to be a cat 5, the winds were again right on the threshold. Could it be that there’s some rounding going on here to make the situation seem worse then it is ‘for the public good’? After all, if it was ‘only a cat 3’ at landfall, the public would become jaded for the next one. Not that a high end cat 3 storm isn’t dangerous, although rounding to the narrative does seem to be an accepted course of action within NOAA …

Bill
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 10, 2017 9:19 am

Cat-inflation. Strongest reported gust, GUST in the Keys was 120. The surge at Key West was 3 feet. Strong cat 2, pretty much. The highest gust, GUST with Harvey was 132. Strong cat 3, pretty much. How do climate bedwetters use a storm that isn’t the worst ever or even record?

Reply to  Bill
September 10, 2017 9:35 am

Bill,
Likely a consequence of NOAA and NASA operating the Hurricane Hunters and providing the authoritative data about wind speeds prior to land fall.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 10, 2017 2:36 pm

I initially pooh-poohed this notion, I felt the evidence left behind in the destruction was sufficient proof of the strength of the storm, and the satellite photos/videos of large well-developed eyes was and is most impressive… But after visiting wind-speed gauge reports (through the internet) myself, and finding the same dearth of reports that match the assigned Category, I’m beginning to wonder. Hmmm.

James at 48
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 11, 2017 8:39 am

Catflation is the evil twin of “name ’em and claim ’em.”

TCE
September 10, 2017 8:15 am

The 1938 New England Hurricane (also referred to as the Great New England Hurricane and Long Island Express) was one of the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclones to strike Long Island, New York and New England. In addition, it’s the fastest tropical cyclone on record worldwide attaining a maximum speed of 70 mph. The storm formed near the coast of Africa on September 9, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane on Long Island on September 21. It is estimated that the hurricane killed 682 people, damaged or destroyed more than 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at US$306 million ($4.7 billion in 2017).

Gary Pearse
Reply to  TCE
September 10, 2017 8:51 am

Not just an inflation factor. You have to multiply this figure by a ratio of today’s population to yesteryear s.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 10, 2017 8:59 am

And include current population density factors for potential property damages

Goldrider
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 10, 2017 9:11 am

They say when the 1921 hurricane hit Tampa, the population was 10,000. Today, it’s 3 million. Perhaps the part of “climate” we should be questioning is our penchant for moving gigantic numbers of people onto a peninsula built on limestone and mangrove swamps, where the land is subsiding, in the cross-hairs of most every Atlantic cyclone that goes by. Maybe intelligent Conservatives can start framing “climate” as a matter of intelligent building, planning, and insuring instead of futile attempts to propitiate the Angry Gods by a return to Stone-Age living.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 10, 2017 2:33 pm

@Goldrider September 10, 2017 at 9:11 am
“Maybe intelligent Conservatives can start framing “climate” as a matter of intelligent building, planning, and insuring…” But that’s just it, as a conservative (small “c”) I say let a landowner do whatever they want. And the insurance companies likewise should be allowed to decline to insure a home built on a flood plain with slab-on-grade construction, but that would also require the government getting completely out of the way, and desist with insuring the uninsurable, or bailing them out after the fact when they decline to even seek insurance. THAT is a conservative response, and always should be. There is no “…framing…” to be found in that response.

Ron
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 10, 2017 4:56 pm

No, you do not multiply by population to get mortality figure. Today we have early warning and better building. There is no comparison. You know it so why post it?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 11, 2017 8:22 am

It’s pretty damn simple. Population density, infrastructure density and costs, etc. Moving toward the coasts has been a relatively modern phenomenon. I find it funny that you have liberals who make fun of people moving to flood zones and when it floods, they want to rebuild. However, move to the coasts and when hurricanes and fires occur, they always want to rebuild. Even though we know hurricanes and fires happen. A way to mock people who are different.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 11, 2017 8:35 am

Red, I will state that proper civic planning on a local level, including proper construction codes and adequate drainage is a conservative issue. Libertarianism does not mean negligence, and natural disaster preparation is one of the principle duties of a local government.
Harvey dumped nationwide records of rain on Houston, but because we were prepared, 90% of the city was up and running smoothly a week later. To compare, Katrina was a smaller hurricane that temporarily wiped New Orleans off the map, and Sandy was a minor Category 1 that thoroughly devastated an unprepared region that had been criminally negligent in not preparing for a storm significantly smaller than had been seen in the past.

depressionbaby
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 11, 2017 10:56 am

Florida’s total population in 1980 was less than 10 Million; today it’s more than 20 Million. Plus, I would assume that the majority of those people live relatively close to the East, South, and West coasts of Florida.

Goldrider
Reply to  TCE
September 10, 2017 12:33 pm

Dad reminded me today that his older sister walked him several miles home from school as the 1938 hurricane struck; a few trees were falling, but otherwise uneventful. Another elderly friend was at the movies in coastal CT and came out of the show to find the storm upon them. Zero warning.

Ron
Reply to  TCE
September 10, 2017 4:48 pm

TCE
A storm in the 19th century killed more than 800 in the UK. It killed more than the US 1938 storm.
So what does it prove?

Newsel
Reply to  TCE
September 13, 2017 2:31 pm

We live 200 miles north of where Irma came ashore and it passed directly overhead. Zero damage or flooding but then we live a few miles inland with a house built to Fl. 2001 Building Codes. When they put those together they did a great job. If you build in a flood plain or are susceptible to a surge event and your house is at ground level you will eventually be flooded out. In Houston I read that 70% of their wet lands have been developed as residential areas over the past decade or so. Anyone surprised at the flooding that went on? Ditto New Orleans, Ditto Long Beach etc. etc.. What is the definition of insanity? Still have to feel for those who lost everything. As some have suggested here-in, if you live in a Zone A you may just have to be self-insured and be prepared for the eventual landfall.

David A
September 10, 2017 8:15 am

The Labor day storm had ground based sustained winds of 185 before instruments broke and a 20 ‘ storm surge.
I will be live the Cat 4 landfall of Irma when ground base instruments show it.
It is time for WUWT to demand this and or post all ground based readings. My 2 cents worth.

David A
Reply to  David A
September 10, 2017 8:25 am

Do far it is clear, Irma and Harvey; the two weakest ground based CAT 4 landfall storms in history!
Zero people should say I am minimizing the pain inflicted on people from this storm. I am not. I just want the facts on ground based wind readings to compare to past storms.

Reply to  David A
September 10, 2017 8:43 am

That 185 was not an anemometer reading, but analyzed from barometric pressure and things the storm did.

David A
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 10, 2017 9:25 am

There was a 30 second 300 mph gust that broke the instrument.

David A
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 10, 2017 9:26 am

Typo 200 mph

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 10, 2017 11:03 am

Can you cite your 200 MPH for 30 seconds?
My cite for 185 MPH being from analysis and not an actual wind measurement: In the Wikipedia article on the 1935 Labor Day hurricane: “The Labor Day Hurricane was the most intense storm ever known to have struck the United States, having the lowest sea level pressure ever recorded in the United States—a central pressure of 892 mbar (26.35 inHg)—suggesting an intensity of between 162 kn and 164 kn (186.4 mph – 188.7 mph). The somewhat compensating effects of a slow (7 kn, 8.1 mph) translational velocity along with an extremely tiny radius of maximum wind (5 nmi, 9.3 miles) led to an analyzed intensity at landfall of 160 kt (184.1 mph, Category 5)”

Ron
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 10, 2017 5:00 pm

Basically no you cannot replicate this 200 mph number.It is never 205 or 206 always 200mph that is estimated. As Feyman stated if you can’t measure it you can’t call it science.

benofhouston
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 11, 2017 10:02 am

A broken instrument gives a minimum, Ron. It’s 200 +/- significant error mph. When you are talking about single events, you have to take what measurements are available.

September 10, 2017 8:18 am

My first hurricane was Donna in 1960 which went over our house in Sanford. I also had Charlie in 2004 go right over my house. In both cases it would have been real nice to be someplace else but that did not happen for various reasons.
The thing that has always bothered me about news reporting on the canes is that they always act like they really know exactly where the hurricane is going and they really don’t. Look at the reporting on this hurricane — they said for 5 days at least it was going up the east coast of Florida.
I also hate the supper hysteria by the “news reporters”. The canes are big, dangerous storms — no need to hype them over what they are. Give us the facts you have.
I am in Orlando this time and my town is full of people who left the east coast but would be better off if they had stayed on the east coast. These things happen. We just hope that Orlando is far enough away so that the damage is not too bad and that the power is not out for weeks.
At this point, we pray.
~ Mark

Janice Moore
Reply to  markstoval
September 10, 2017 8:55 am

Take care, Mark, you and yours. I’ve been praying (and for your heart health, too), and will continue to. Janice
P.S. I agree. The news media are exploiting human fear to gain advertising dollars (based on how many people are watching their fear-mongering).

Latitude
Reply to  markstoval
September 10, 2017 9:27 am

Mark, they moved it east coast to west coast back and forth….3 times

Bill
September 10, 2017 8:20 am

Pressure already places it out of the single digits now and rising.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 10, 2017 8:20 am

They’ll do it anyway. Astounding that they do. Thry jave long ago run out of fresh ways to say it, as well. It has become a zombie groan.

ren
September 10, 2017 8:30 am
babazaroni
September 10, 2017 8:33 am

That’s two Cat 4 US landfalls in a single season.

bw
Reply to  babazaroni
September 10, 2017 8:57 am

Nonsense. Videos and photos of damage at the surface show no evidence of major hurricane force winds.
Maximum sustained winds measured by surface anemometers were Category 2 for a short time for Harvey.
Irma winds along the Florida keys are all below hurricane threshold, that’s a tropical storm.

Nigel S
Reply to  bw
September 10, 2017 9:27 am

weather.com had 78mph / 960mbars at Key West and 86mph / 968mbars at Marathon as the eye crossed the Keys at about 8:00 EDT between those two places which would qualify as hurricane force by Beaufort scale.

babazaroni
Reply to  bw
September 10, 2017 10:25 am

Hum, yet somehow Klotzbach has categorized it as Cat 4 strike. Oh well.

deebodk
Reply to  bw
September 10, 2017 11:27 am

Station data from Key West: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=kywf1
Station data from Vaca Key: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=vcaf1
Neither recorded sustained winds over tropical storm strength.

Sixto
Reply to  bw
September 10, 2017 11:30 am

babazaroni September 10, 2017 at 10:25 am
Maybe he’s going by pressure or by winds beyond the Keys.

Ron
Reply to  bw
September 10, 2017 5:01 pm

No it might be a cat 3 but it is still a hurricane

MarkW
Reply to  babazaroni
September 10, 2017 2:16 pm

Even if true, it’s not the first time that has happened.

benofhouston
Reply to  babazaroni
September 11, 2017 10:13 am

If we take the official numbers at face value, yes. I think people here are going too far on the skeptic side, venturing towards nihilism.
This is definitely an active hurricane season, and an extremely virulent weather pattern from the past two weeks. However, don’t forget that this has happened before. Don’t forget 2005. Katrina and Rita were about as far apart as Harvey and Irma, but with LMNOP in between, and that season also included Emily and Wilma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Systems

ren
September 10, 2017 8:35 am

Above 400 mb the wind direction is opposite.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/atlantic/winds/wg8ir.GIF

Eustace Cranch
September 10, 2017 8:39 am

Well, in any case it looks like the Mississippi Basin will have a LOT of water to deal with by mid-week.

babazaroni
September 10, 2017 8:42 am

Hum, I don’t see any reference to size in that list. Since Irma was much larger than Andrew, size matters as well.

Eustace Cranch
September 10, 2017 8:45 am

Even here in Richmond we weren’t immune to a couple of “I” hurricanes- Isabel and Irene. Isabel brought 75mph winds and we lost power for 8 days. 90mph might seem “tame” in context of the Irma hype but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in it.

Ron
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
September 10, 2017 5:04 pm

Well in Havant the streets are flooded and the locals are having a party and using them as swimming pools.

September 10, 2017 8:48 am

Katrina was over Louisiana land as a 135 MPH Cat-4 according to the 26b public advisory. 29.7 north, 89.6 west.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 10, 2017 11:26 am

My apologies. I just learned that Katrina’s 135 MPH wind as of the 26b advisory was reanalyzed downwards to 125 MPH (more exactly from 120 to 110 knots) after the storm.

Sixto
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 10, 2017 11:28 am

Katrina is a classic example of the hurricane intensity inflation plaguing NOAA.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 10, 2017 2:52 pm

My memory keeps telling me Katrina was a Cat 2 storm at landfall. Still of a strength that the Army Corps of Engineers correctly predicted the levees could not withstand, but far from the Cat 4 the hysterical media hysterically reported for many days. I suspect the same thing may happen as a result of the aftermath analysis of both Harvey and Irma. Maybe not Harvey, I did see photographs out of Rockport (a place that lacked any official wind speed measuring devices) of broken flagpoles and cells gone from the top of a cell phone tower. Both of which may be the result of an undetected tornado within the storm, but still some significant winds!

Dave Fair
September 10, 2017 8:48 am

Bob Tisdale is back! See him at his blog: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/green-slime/#comment-38410
NOAA’s model speculation is at: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Here is my comment on NOAA’s latest sales job:
“At last! I’ve missed you greatly, Bob. Please don’t stay away in the future.
Pamela’s cited NOAA sales job says it all here: “Owing to the large interannual to decadal variability of SST and hurricane activity in the basin, Bender et al (2010) estimate that detection of this projected anthropogenic influence on hurricanes should not be expected for a number of decades. While there is a large rising trend since the mid 1940’s in category 4-5 numbers in the Atlantic, our view is that these data are not reliable for trend calculations, until they have been further assessed for data homogeneity problems, such as those due to changing observing practices.” [Even they had to print “… detection of this projected anthropogenic influence on hurricanes should not be expected for a number of decades.” in bold face type.]
It’s models all the way down.”
Go visit Bob and encourage him to keep up the blogging.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 10, 2017 9:06 am

Thanks, Mr. Fair, for the heads up about Bob Tisdale. That’s great. He is much-missed around here. His brief, but powerful, post hits the nail on the head. The bottom line about all this for the CO2 hu$tlers (of all stripes) is: money.

Chris
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 10, 2017 12:12 pm

“The bottom line about all this for the CO2 hu$tlers (of all stripes) is: money.”
Rubbish. By your logic, all the folks working on health care research are hustlers because they make a living doing research on new vaccines, etc. Don’t trust anyone who gets paid for what they do! What tripe.

catweazle666
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 10, 2017 4:02 pm

By your logic, all the folks working on health care research are hustlers”
Try this.
The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?mcubz=0&_r=0
Plenty more where that came from.

catweazle666
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 10, 2017 4:02 pm

By your logic, all the folks working on health care research are hustlers”
Try this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?mcubz=0&_r=0
Plenty more where that came from.

Dave Fair
Reply to  catweazle666
September 11, 2017 7:39 pm

Health care researchers and their bosses don’t hustle for research grants? Health care researchers working for private companies don’t want to get paid and receive promotions? Private health care providers don’t want to make profits? What are you getting at cat?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 10, 2017 10:53 pm

The key, Chris, is what I meant by “this.”
Here it is (from my comment on the Bob Tisdale post about which I was commenting to Mr. Fair above — you apparently were completely oblivious to the context of my remarks, no doubt due to your haste ….):

wildly inaccurate news reporting (through half-truths, omissions of key facts of context, and gross exaggeration)

(Source: me, here (scroll down to my name on this page): https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/green-slime/#more-11649 )
Sorry, Chris, but you’ll have to repeat “Basic Reading Comprehension” — again.
Try asking your parents to hire a tutor.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 10, 2017 10:59 pm

Janice, you seem like such a nice lady; please call me Dave.
Old joke: “My friends call me Dave, but you may call me Mr. Fair!” does not apply to you, obviously.

Chris
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 11, 2017 12:10 am

No, Janice, I see that logic is not your strong suit. Let’s start with your post here on WUWT: “Thanks, Mr. Fair, for the heads up about Bob Tisdale. That’s great. He is much-missed around here. His brief, but powerful, post hits the nail on the head. The bottom line about all this for the CO2 hu$tlers (of all stripes) is: money.”
Note that you made NO mention of your comment on Bob’s WordPress site. You simply complimented Bob on his post, that’s all.
And what was his post? “With the natural disasters of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, we have once again seen the unlimited capacity of politicians and their funding-hungry toadies (climate scientists), and of mainstream media and business persons.”
The WordPress post you praised here attacks climate scientists (among others) for being funding-hungry.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2017 11:02 am

They aren’t funding-hungry, Chris? It seems a basic requirement for survival of their jobs. No?

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 11, 2017 3:52 am

To Chris , Buzz off troll, the alarmist type so called climate scientists are sucking on the public teat. With cooling kicking in and causing grieve to many farmers, they may be lucky if they are only tarred and feathered.

Chris
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 11, 2017 7:36 am

Wayne Job, global cooling, eh? That’s a laugh. Let’s see your supporting evidence.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 11, 2017 10:06 am

Dear Befuddled Chris,
Your thinking ability appears to be sadly impaired, thus making this reply to you likely a futile exercise. I answer you mostly to prevent your confusion from confusing others more intellectually able than you. Sorry for the blunt words, Chris, but I think a dose of cold water is called for here, to prevent your making a fool out of yourself (your subconscious seems to realize this, thus, you use only a very common first name to identify yourself here).
The assertion above about climate hu$tlers “of all stripes” requires no logic to understand. It is a simple statement of fact about those academic sc@mmers.
Here it is:
Telling lies about human CO2 puts money into my pocket.
It’s a simple concept: human greed and baseness.
In a word:
F R A U D.
With pity, but not compassion (for I think your pride so consumes you that you are less a victim of your own intellectual impairment, than a perpetrator of it),
Janice
*****************************************
DAVE FAIR! 🙂 Thanks! Will do.
Wayne Job: Thanks for the fine back-up. Much appreciated (and still grateful for your kind remarks to me when I felt so low a few months back).

Chris
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 11, 2017 7:47 pm

catweazle, go ahead and show me a climate change study paid for by the PV manufacturers or wind turbine manufacturers. Your post is intended to show that scientists get bought off by industry. Fine, show me examples of it in the climate change space, where the private sector paid for results that helped their business.

Chris
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 11, 2017 8:24 pm

Janice,
Chris is indeed a common name. it happens to be mine. Is that too complicated for you to comprehend?
You then proceed to do a 180 – whereas before you were saying that your above post was about the media and not climate scientists, now you say it is. Which is it, Janice?
You then say: “The assertion above about climate hu$tlers “of all stripes” requires no logic to understand. It is a simple statement of fact about those academic sc@mmers.
Here it is:
Telling lies about human CO2 puts money into my pocket.”
Of course it requires logic (and actually, the more correct word is evidence). I can say “all banks cheat their customers” or “all cancer researchers are corrupt because they will say anything to keep the grant money flowing”. Making an assertion without evidence is nothing more then empty words. You did nothing to refute my point about other academic disciplines and what makes climate research different.. Or are all academics corrupt in Janice’s world view?

Chris
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 11, 2017 9:21 pm

Dave Fair said: “They aren’t funding-hungry, Chris? It seems a basic requirement for survival of their jobs. No?”
All academics that do research need to find funding sources, I am not debating that at all. I did research in graduate school that was grant funded, so am familiar with the process. What I question is the implication that climate scientists are doing shoddy research (concluding the CO2 is causing substantial temperature increases and associated problems like droughts and sea level rise). If that is true – and those who make those accusations never provide proof – then why doesn’t this occur on a widespread basis in other disciplines like cancer research or research on new wheat varieties? I don’t mean the occasional debunked paper – yes, you can find examples in all disciplines – I mean WIDESPREAD fraud.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chris
September 12, 2017 9:26 am

Chris, nobody has concluded your “… the CO2 is causing substantial temperature increases and associated problems like droughts and sea level rise).” At best, modelturbation speculates a link. Based on hard measurements, even the political UN IPCC makes no such hard claims.
My problem is with the anthropogenic global warming meme pushed by the activists, politicians and profiteers. Here are just a few of the warning signs:
1) Use of unvalidated models that are only accurate over their late 20th Century tuning periods, such as predicting a tropical troposphere hotspot which failed to materialize. Results from efforts to downscale models to regional results give even worse results.
2) Publicizing the insane RCP 8.5 scenario as “business as usual.”
3) Using misleading statements in relation to weather events, such as “consistent with what we could expect (more of, stronger, etc.)” in the speculated future warmer world. Hard left politicians and the more ardent activists actually ascribe individual instances of bad weather to global warming.
4) Scientists switching roles to advocate draconian polices that would fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems. A political activist is not in the same class as a scientist.
5) …………………………………….
Aw, Chris. I am tired of listing problems with CAGW that are obvious to anyone with an open mind. I really don’t care about your climate illusions. Believe what you will, but pushing opinion as fact gets you nowhere with the knowledgeable.

catweazle666
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 13, 2017 2:27 pm

Dave Fair September 11, 2017 at 7:39 pm
“What are you getting at cat?”
Replying to “Chris September 10, 2017 at 12:12 pm”

Steve Oregon
September 10, 2017 8:50 am

Not to nit pick but why does every coverage show on screen “CAT 4 -130 mph- gusts to 160” while every live report tells of winds no where near that?
Big Pine Key did report a gust to 120 mph. But that gust and the sustained winds are not CAT 4.
WUWT?

bw
Reply to  Steve Oregon
September 10, 2017 8:59 am

The Saffir-Simpson scale is based on sustained winds measured at 10 meters. It says nothing about gusts.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  bw
September 10, 2017 3:56 pm

“The Saffir-Simpson scale is based on sustained winds measured at 10 meters.” and most of the wind-speed gauges found on the NOAA site are NOT at 10 meters. Most are on buoys (at sea) or ground-based (over land).
The highest gust recorded from Harvey was at this station:
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=ANPT2 At the top right of that screen shot is a pic of the station itself, showing the instruments up on a tower. Site information indicates “…[s]ite elevation: 10.261 m above [MSL]…Anemometer height: 3.96 m above site elevation…” So not at standardized height, either.
Most readings were taken from buoys more like this:
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42045 The site information indicates the anemometer is 3.4 m above site elevation, and although it indicates the site elevation as “sea level” it does NOT call it MSL, the buoy elevation varies with the tides. To get a 10 m wind speed from that data will require some conversion. I don’t know how accurate that can be, nor do I know if it is the same conversion done on information collected when Carla came ashore in 1961, for example.
For those with more time, I got there by starting with http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ Once you zoom into any area in question, you can pick a buoy by clicking on any of the indicated data stations. That opens an info window, you can then click on either “View details” or “View history” (if you click on “View details, you can then scroll down and view a table of wind data, if the site has an anemometer, so I don’t know why it has both). When you view details it will often have a pic of the reporting station itself, and will also provide the details for the station including elevation. See what you can make of it, are ANY of them actually recording wiind speed at 10 m AMSL? And since they’re not at 10 m, how is the conversion done?

Reply to  Steve Oregon
September 10, 2017 9:01 am

Rounding to the narrative seems to be a common practice at NOAA …

EW3
Reply to  Steve Oregon
September 10, 2017 9:06 am

ratings

Reply to  Steve Oregon
September 10, 2017 9:12 am

The definition is the eye wall wind speed, the max. The eyewall did not hit Key West, the west edge was 15 miles further east according to radar. Makes an enormous difference. Think a spinning figure skater with arms tucked, then slowly extended to slow the spin. Simple law of conservation of angular momentum. Key West had 100 plus sustained. Big Pine key closer to the east side of the eyewall clocked ~120, I am about 180 miles northeast of the eye at present (Fort Lauderdale) and we are still experiencing 65-70, 85 gusts, and 15 foot waves breaking over the coral reef offshore. Your quibble should be with the Saffir Simpson definition, not the observations coming in.

EW3
Reply to  ristvan
September 10, 2017 9:52 am

My quibble is with the reporting. It’s disingenuous.
Not sure where you got your key west wind speed though. According to the NDBC at
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=kywf1
the highest sustained wind is 61 kts or 70.2 mph (unless I’m missing something)

David A
Reply to  ristvan
September 10, 2017 10:15 am

Marathon Florida is to the east. Look at the NOAA hurricane warning for today. Cat 1 warning.

David A
Reply to  ristvan
September 10, 2017 11:06 am

Ristivan here are 258 ground based readings in the Florida and keys…
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?storm=at1
Highest gust 81 knots.

Reply to  ristvan
September 10, 2017 6:40 pm

Hey, David A, come live thru what we just hvw then whine again. For regular particulra, see Judith Curry.com ongoing commentary. I am living it. You?

arthur4563
September 10, 2017 8:59 am

Published figures for Camile disagree with those in this table, except for pressure (900MB).
Wind speed claimed to be 175 MPH at landfall, with gusts over 200MPH (Meter broke when it hit 200) And Camille wrought damage al the way to Wash DC – it badly flooded Richmond VA.
It killed over 500 as I recall – just in the U.S. (it was a Gulf cane). Irma is not in the same class as Camille. Not even close.

Rhoda R
September 10, 2017 9:06 am

It seems that the relief in being able to FINALLY report a real honest to God hurricane hitting the US has made the media and warmistas giddy.

Editor
September 10, 2017 9:09 am

The table is ranked on pressure.
On wind speeds, Irma is about 15th (if my counting is right!!!)

Editor
September 10, 2017 9:11 am

Well now, it appears that Irma was a bit oversold.

bw
September 10, 2017 9:14 am

Irma has now moved over the keys, with maximum sustained winds now dropping.
Four reliable NDBC stations from west to east along the keys show no sustained winds of hurricane force.
Maximum sustained winds measured by anemometers recorded at these stations can be compared to measured winds of historical hurricanes using similar technology at similar heights above sea level.
PLSF1 59 knots at 7am
KYWF1 61 knots at 8.24am
VCAF1 54 knots at 9.42am
Key West and Vaca key were closest to the eyewall.
The fourth NDBC station is FWYF1 which is Fowley Rock well to the east of the other three. The anemometer height is 44 meters which is much higher than the others. The latest recorded sustained winds show 65 knots at 10 am, which is just above the 64 knot threshold for a Category 1 hurricane. Sustained winds closer to the 10 meter height should be well below that.
Based on observed facts, tropical cyclone Irma was not a hurricane at US landfall.

Janice Moore
September 10, 2017 9:15 am

Note that the hurricane hu$tlers are using the same tactic now used daily by the National Weather Service meteorologists (I’ve been checking their forecasts almost daily for over 2 years, now):
1. (for both temp. and hurricanes) forecast/guess/”project” far higher temperatures or much stronger wind speed and the like than are highly likely to occur (i.e., they forecast at the lowest likelihood, high end).
2. (as to hurricane reporting mainly) omit reporting what actually happened except in the most vague, quick, manner.
Result:
the general public remembers the forecast, and NOT what actually happened (often, TEN degrees F or more lower (or much less severe in storm effect)).
Motivation: money.

JP Miller
September 10, 2017 9:18 am

At 12:15PM EDT Irma’s eye seems
To be breaking down. Given the measured wind speeds we’ve seen reported over the Keys, there’s no way this is a Cat 4 now and will hit Florida coast likely a Cat 1 in fact, if not by TV and NWS exaggerations. The storm surge may be a strong bad as predicted but despite the fact that I live in Naples I’m from Missouri on this one. I think media and NWS will have a black eye (sorry for the pun) on this one.

Chad Irby
September 10, 2017 9:18 am

From the current Miami radar, it looks like Irma’s made her turn – and is once again heading toward my house (in Orlando).
Whee.

arthur4563
September 10, 2017 9:19 am

I turn off the audio when viewing the Weather Channel, to avoid the possibility that I will lose control and put something handy thru the TV screen. Right now they are claiming that Tampa has not seen a major hurricane since 1921. From the looks of the Hurricane Center estimates, they still won’t have seen one when Irma passes by. They estimate Irma as leaving major hurricane status less than halfway up Florida – quite a distance from Tampa.

Reply to  arthur4563
September 10, 2017 9:48 am

To be fair, the claim was a direct hit. Eyewall. We know what that means because we too a direct hit from Wilma in 2005. Being just 15 miles away can make a huge difference. Andrew made a direct hit on Homestead, yet south Miami just 27 miles away had almost no damage because Andrew was spun up so tight and small.

David A
September 10, 2017 9:22 am

Do far it is clear, Irma and Harvey; the two weakest ground based CAT 4 landfall storms in history!
Zero people should say I am minimizing the pain inflicted on people from this storm. I am not. I just want the facts on ground based wind readings to compare to past storms.

Don
September 10, 2017 9:23 am

So why isn’t Gilbert 1988 even on the list?

Sixto
Reply to  Don
September 10, 2017 9:42 am

IMO cuz it weakened over Mexico before hitting Texas.

See - owe to Rich
September 10, 2017 9:27 am

As this thread is newer, I am just posting three of my recent comments from the older “maue expert” thread:

If people want to keep an eye on winds speeds recorded by buoys, use the link http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?lat1=25.0n&lon1=80.0w&uom=E&dist=150&ot=A&time=8 .
Fowey Rock, FWYF1, see http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=FWYF1 , has been recording the highest speeds for the last few hours, between 60 and 70 knots, i.e. Category 1 Saffir-Simpson. Interestingly Fowey Rock is on the Miami side. Hurricanes going north typically have the highest winds on the east side, so perhaps, emphasize perhaps, Naples isn’t in too much danger as the eye approaches it. There could be higher winds on land of course just to the east of the eye.
Does anyone have a link to the nearest NWS station to Naples?
Rich.
Sorry, I just saw bw’s posting https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/09/hurricane-expert-maue-irma-may-bomb-to-cat-5-again/comment-page-1/#comment-2606353 . There he also talks about Fowey Rock, and the fact that the anemometer height is 44m, well above the official 10m level.
Rich.
Homestead Air Base station KHST, south of Miami and not too far from the sea, stopped reporting winds after 11am having had a gust of 62mph out of a sustained wind of 28mph.
Enquiring minds want to know: did a gust take it out or is the NWS trying to starve its customers, you the people, of accurate information?
Rich.

erastvandoren
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
September 10, 2017 3:10 pm

And their estimate for 10m height is 52kts, which is below hurricane strength.

Steve Case
September 10, 2017 9:30 am

The badness of hurricanes besides how fast the winds and how low the pressure should also include where they strike and how long they linger. This one’s going skate up the Florida coast and do a lot of damage as opposed to going straight inland and decaying to a lesser status.

Steve Oregon
September 10, 2017 9:34 am

So no where in Florida has CAT 4 winds been observed? Yet we don’t hear it reported? Why?

EW3
Reply to  Steve Oregon
September 10, 2017 9:55 am

TV/cable ratings.

September 10, 2017 9:44 am

“…its path…”

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  David G Onkels
September 10, 2017 11:42 am

I’d love to see apostrophe usage rules posted prominently here. Not to mention the respective definitions of “affect” and “effect.”

Sixto
Reply to  Donna K. Becker
September 10, 2017 11:46 am

Some errors are from autofill on phones, not caught before sending.
Lots of definitions would be needed besides “effect” and “affect”, plus correct usage and spelling. I just let them go, whether obvious grammatical, spelling and usage mistakes or only typos.

See - owe to Rich
September 10, 2017 9:47 am

Following my gripe about non-functioning NWS sites, I shall now gripe about non-functioning webcams in the Naples FL area. I’ve tried several, and none are working. Do webcam owners turn them off when a storm is approaching, just in case they get damaged? It would be quite interesting to see a car (say) being blown into a webcam in its last moments on earth…
And I expect the insurance would pay.
Naples does seem to be in the current path of the eye, so observations there could be crucial in understanding the nature of this hurricane.
Rich.

Griff
September 10, 2017 9:59 am

but Irma was considerably stronger BEFORE it got to US shores, wasn’t it?
How’s it rank if you include it in its ‘highest’ state?
(This is exactly what those alarmists have been trying to alarm you about – and they were right, weren’t they? All this frantic effort to try and claim that 2 truly severe weather events are ordinary)

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 10:27 am

they were right, weren’t they?
They (and you) bet on the same losing horse for 12 years, and when the horse manages to win ONE time, they’re supposed to get credit?
Don’t make me laugh. See Harkin1’s post at 8:17.

Steve Adams
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 11:05 am

You don’t “rank” it Griff because we have no reliable long term data for wind speeds of offshore hurricanes, so what would we “rank” it against? The frantic effort you refer to is merely trying to keep some kind of sense of proportion in the dessemination of “information” in times of crisis and natural disaster. We don’t need hype and horse puckey, particularly from government funded agencies who are supposed to simply record and report what they measure. As the MSM beclowns itself more and more, rational people just tune them out.

Sixto
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 11:21 am

Griff,
It still ranks lowly.
Outside the US it has to compete with the most extreme storms, like Labor Day, Camille, Allen, Gilbert. Rita and Wilma, all 900 hPa or lower. Plus all those between 900 and Irma’s pressure.
You could easily have looked up these facts yourself.
BTW, did you notice that yesterday 2017 Arctic sea ice extent surpassed 2008, making this year the seventh lowest since 1979, after 2012, 2007, 2016, 2015, 2011 and now 2008? Good chance of beating 2010, too.
Don’t you feel foolish for making such the ridiculous prediction that this year was “sure” to be the lowest Evah! The low record of 2012 is liable to stand for years, if not decades, at least.

Ron
Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 5:08 pm

And yet the Antarctic was at its lowest

Sixto
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 12:17 pm

Griff,
Alarmists were right about nothing.
Irma wasn’t any stronger at any point in its path than many other hurricanes from long, long ago.
Nothing is happening in earth’s climate or WX that hasn’t happened over and over again before.
The null hypothesis can’t be rejected. Indeed, it’s the only hypothesis for which there is evidence.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 1:38 pm

If you look at Irma’s rank as its maximum, it would tie with Wilma in 2005. And in 2005 we would have four cat 4 hurricanes if you look at maximum (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma) as compared to two for 2017 (Harvey and Irma). So yes, the 12 year streak is broken, but we’re nowhere near as bad as we were just prior to the streak.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 2:21 pm

Historically, the strength of a hurricane is unknown prior to hitting land.
PS, almost all storms are stronger before they hit land. This is nothing new and not a surprise to everyone other than you.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 3:10 pm

Griffie, not even wrong.

erastvandoren
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 3:15 pm

Yeah, barely cat 4 North of Barbuda…

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2017 4:07 pm

“and they were right, weren’t they?”
No, they were absolutely nothing of the sort.
And even if they were, it had absolutely ZERO to do with man’s CO2 output.
Will you EVER make a post that isn’t at best disingenuous, mostly totally mendacious?
No go and apologise for slandering Dr. Crockford.

September 10, 2017 10:15 am

Assume hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent. We have taken steps to compensate for that though Houston suggests there is more to do. Our ‘eyes’ are better (using satellites). Our predictions are better. Our knowledge is better. Our communication methods of the dangers are better. As Luddites we could have never have developed fast enough computers for hurricane predictions and everything that goes into our weather satellites and it might be suggested we’d be at greater risk from hurricanes.

Sixto
Reply to  Ragnaar
September 10, 2017 11:39 am

IMO there was enough info to have ordered evacuations from Houston, but the mayor didn’t. Shades of Katrina, when the mayor of NO and governor of LA refused to order evacuation or seek federal aid in time.
The problem in Houston is development and subsidence. The WX pattern which kept the storm over the same area, not much people can do about that.

Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 12:03 pm

Smarter development could somewhat lessen the impacts of heavy precipitation. Might also improve their water quality and that of the nearby gulf.

Sixto
Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 12:07 pm

More storm drains and reservoir capacity, perhaps. However it could be a long time before the combination of hurricane and blocking WX pattern recurs.
Maybe pumping water back into the ground to combat subsidence.

MarkW
Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 2:25 pm

During the last hurricane to hit Houston, evacuation was ordered, and dozens died during that evacuation.
I suspect the mayor of Houston made the right call.

Patrick B
Reply to  Sixto
September 11, 2017 10:03 am

As a Houstonian, I think our Mayor is something of an idiot. But he made the right call here. Certainly evacuation of the city would have been (1) impossible without at least a week plus of lead time, (2) a waste of time and effort when the large majority of the city was not flooded, (3) resulted in far more deaths and injuries due to travel accidents than the few drowning deaths (almost all of which could have been avoided by reasonable behavior). If you watched the news channels, you might have thought all of Houston was flooded, in fact, a very small area was flooded – and a not insignificant amount of those areas had flooded before.

RAH
September 10, 2017 11:06 am

Well it’s OFFICIAL folks! The Weather Channel has just announced that the NWS has been downgraded to the CAT 3. LOL!

David A
September 10, 2017 11:07 am

Ristivan here are 258 ground based readings in the Florida and keys…
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?storm=at1
Highest gust 81 knots.
Check it out….
Set the time…

Steve Adams
September 10, 2017 11:16 am

Anthony, wouldn’t it be interesting to crowdsource amateur(PWS?) wind data all along the coasts during weather events like Harvey and Irma? In particular, many amateur radio enthusiasts, who already provide emergency communications assistance in times of disaster, seem to routinely have antenna towers which would allow mounting at or close to the 10m height. Such an enormous body of information would be an incredible view of the variations in wind speeds with terrain differences, distance from coasts, storm centres etc and a useful balance to the seemingly sparse “official” numbers which always seem to disappear just when needed to counter the media silliness.

Chris
Reply to  Steve Adams
September 10, 2017 12:15 pm

And how would you determine which data was gathered with proper instrumentation and bias adjustment?

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Steve Adams
September 10, 2017 12:22 pm

Steve, my preference would be for weather stations at the coasts to be engineered for 200mph, and tested in a wind tunnel yearly.

It doesn't add up...
September 10, 2017 11:17 am

Now downgraded to 120mph/Cat 3 ahead of peninsula landfall.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT1+shtml/101757.shtml

Zack aa
September 10, 2017 11:31 am

Will believers castigate politicians for funding the rebuilding of the Florida Pennisula? If Mann and Gore chalk up the devestation to GW then shouldn’t the call be to just write off the loss and never fix any storm damaged areas within 50 miles of a tidal flat. End the federal flood insurance program, repurpose those funds towards building new communities high in the a
Appalachians. Why postpone the doom a hundred years hence?

Phil
September 10, 2017 11:41 am

Based on an analysis of AF306 Mission #30 into IRMA (this link will probably only be valid for a while) and the raw data file (ibid), I have done an analysis (which may be incorrect).
Briefly, the only surface wind data in the raw data file are peak (10 sec) winds in knots. Readings are reported every 30 seconds. I assume it is possible to approximate 1 minute sustained surface wind estimates by averaging two consecutive 30-second readings. There are two candidates:
11:56:30 89 knots
11:57:00 110 knots
Average would be 99.5 knots or about 115 mph, barely a Cat 4.
12:07:30 86 knots
12:08:00 97
12:08:30 98
12:09:00 97
12:09:30 92
12:10:00 89
12:10:30 83
12:11:00 79
The highest pair would give a 1 minute estimate of 98.5 knots or about 113 mph, a Cat 3.
Currently, Irma is rated a Category 3. It looks like the reported ratings are based on the SFMR readings, which are estimated surface winds speeds. From the whole flight, it appears that these speeds were only seen for about 3 minutes, disregarding those estimates that were higher but that had error flags or neighboring error flags (making them estimates of peak gusts not sustained speeds.)
There was a peak gust (albeit bracketed by error flags):
13:25:30 116 knots or about 134 mph

David A
Reply to  Phil
September 10, 2017 12:38 pm

Phil, is that not aircraft reconnaissance???

Phil
Reply to  David A
September 10, 2017 3:44 pm

Yes

David A
Reply to  Phil
September 10, 2017 12:42 pm

If you want ground based 475 observations go here…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/the-hurricanes-return/#comment-86422

EW3
Reply to  Phil
September 10, 2017 4:21 pm

Phil, interesting data.
It raises a question I’ve had for a while – When multiple dropsondes are used, how do they select the dropsonde to report, or do they average them?

Phil
Reply to  EW3
September 10, 2017 7:01 pm

I didn’t look at dropsondes, only at SMFR readings.

deebodk
September 10, 2017 1:38 pm

It’s hitting Naples right now pretty good but no sustained hurricane-force winds to be found:
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=npsf1&unit=E&tz=STN

bw
Reply to  deebodk
September 10, 2017 3:07 pm

Sustained winds 43 knots at 4.18pm EDT recorded there. Radar showed the heaviest part of the eyewall at that time. Then the center of the eye with 5 knots 30 minutes later. The trailing side of the eyewall shows 31 knots.
On cable news a NHC expert says winds are “over 100” and Irma is “Category 2”
Live video of damage in Naples shows almost no palm tree damage but some fronds down in the streets. No damage to structures visible at that location. News reporter says some power is out, but the street lights behind him are obviously still working.

erastvandoren
September 10, 2017 3:03 pm

Irma just made landfall by Naples http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=NPSF1
Min pressure 940, sustained wind 50mph. Not even a hurricane anymore.

Ron
Reply to  erastvandoren
September 10, 2017 5:12 pm

Well now it is being reported as 105 mph, that is still a hurricane

erastvandoren
Reply to  Ron
September 10, 2017 5:19 pm

Such speeds never happened. Not in 10m height. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/obs.shtml

erastvandoren
Reply to  Ron
September 13, 2017 3:19 am

They lied all the time.

Nigel S
September 11, 2017 12:27 am

The NOAA website is excellent, checking wind speed in Dover Strait at Sandettie Lightship (36 knots at 06:00 GMT) brought up a red highlighted ‘Storm Special!’ link to relevant US data, these are people who enjoy their work and know its important.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nigel S
September 11, 2017 11:03 am

It is wise to praise the people actually doing the work!

David
September 11, 2017 5:06 am

In the meantime, we in the UK are having an ‘Ahhhh – bless….’ moment about our least-favourite billionaire (Richard Branson) reporting that his tax-haven – Necker Island – has been ‘devastated’….
Its an ill wind….

Steve
September 11, 2017 8:09 am

Al Gore is a politician out to line his own pocket and gain more power. He is not a science and only uses data “convenient” to make his argument, and leaves out data that is “inconvenient” to him. When are the lemmings in society going to wake up and realize they have been doped?

Freeland_Dave
September 11, 2017 8:19 am

Slipping into number 7. First they reported it was the worst in US history. Then they reported it was the second worst in the last fifty years. Now they are saying it’s number seven in US history. Which is it news casters? It’s anything you want it to be so you can grab a headline and have your three seconds of fame. Pathetic MSM reporting. Is it any wonder why people don’t trust the media any longer?

Steve maio
September 11, 2017 8:37 am

Wait I thought this storm was the worst ever and we were all going to die from the winds and waters
Pitiful leftist anti REALIST !

James at 48
September 11, 2017 8:38 am

BoooHiss@ “write your SSN with a Sharpie” – got hype?!

Rhys
September 11, 2017 8:45 am

But…but….but 3 500-year storms so far!

Har old
September 11, 2017 8:56 am

Would someone please explain the following: The Key Vaca buoy,VCAF1, just east of Key West shows maximum sustained wind speed for Sunday 10th, as the eye passed, of 47 knots. What happened to the 115kn figure claimed by NHC and Klotzbach ?

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Har old
September 11, 2017 10:29 am

Well you see, if you divide 115 by 2 you get 57, and 57 isn’t really so very far from 47 is it? Under the precautionary principle, all wind predictions and statements must be multiplied by a factor of 2, in case the public get complacent and go around thinking they can manage in 60 mph winds.
Oh, and it has to be 115 and not 95 (twice 47), because 115 is a major hurricane and 95 isn’t.
More seriously, yes, you are not the first person on WUWT to ask this sort of question, and I hope you won’t be the last. No – I do hope you will be the last, because the Trump administration will haul the NWS over the coals until they get their statements to match the objective data. That’s an idea we could shoot the breeze over 🙂
The only thing to be said in defence of NOAA and NWS is that a single location may not be recording the maximum winds for a storm. But the location you cite appears to have been very near the eyewall at one point, so should have had near max winds. Do you happen to know how near the eyewall?
Rich.

Har-old
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
September 11, 2017 8:13 pm

Regret I do not havedefinite figure for how close to the eye, but it muct have been very close. No sign of “zero” wind from the buoy data.
Thanks for your input.

Hankmeister3
September 11, 2017 10:32 am

How can this be? Only #7? The national socialist media’s pathetic soothsaying had everyone believing Irma was the storm of the century and proof positive of “global warming”/”climate change” (sic). Such breathless fearmongering and I bet more than a few prayers to Mother Gaia that this would be a storm that would slaughter hundreds if not thousands of human beings and wipe Florida off the map just so those in the Church of Climatology could say, “I told you so.” Such disgusting unprofessionalism on the part of many posturing meteorologists and the left-wing white-privileged elite media outlets (including Fox News, btw) who were predicting doom and gloom with Hurricane Irma. It seems to me for the predictions of apostles of global warming to come true, there should have been several Irmas/Katrinas a year from 2006 to present to “prove” anthropogenic global warming but all we got over the last twelve years is Hurricanes Sandy, Harvey, Irma and now Jose losing steam out in the Atlantic.
The denizens of the Church of Climatology apparently need to pray harder to Gaia Earth to lash out at all those red-state Neanderthals who voted for Trump, right? At least that’s what actress Jennifer Lawrence thinks that’s what this whole hurricane season is all about, Gaia’s repudiation of Trump and his “deplorables.” What superstitious ignoramuses on the left.

Clinton Edwards
September 11, 2017 10:53 am

For some reason I see no mention in all the comments of the 1900 Galveston storm. According to the BS chart it comes in at #21. Who cares what the pressure or wind speed is? How powerful was the storm? I still have never seen a method to combine all the elements of a storm to tell people just how strong it is. The 1900 storm killed from 6000 to 12000. It is still the most deadly event, man made or weather, ever to befall the U.S..

Pancake rachel corrie
September 11, 2017 11:30 am

Jesus christ said hed come back 0 ad 2017 ad….still no sign of him
[????? .mod]

jake
September 11, 2017 2:38 pm

Did the leftists blame hurricanes & climate change on God before 1900 & fossil fuels? (oops)

NEXRI
September 11, 2017 3:09 pm

Lol, the climate always changes and has nothing to do with humans or cows. Idiots

Dave Fair
Reply to  NEXRI
September 11, 2017 7:45 pm

Weather changes. Climate has been remarkably stable for over a hundred years. Minor warming, but that has been a net benefit by any measure. And thanks for that CO2 greening that keeps more people from starvation.

ardg65
September 11, 2017 3:32 pm

The talking point is that we can’t rely on measurements made in the ’40s or before because they were highly inaccurate, because climate change! Amazing.

ardg65
September 11, 2017 3:32 pm

The talking point is that we can’t rely on measurements made in the ’40s or before because they were highly inaccurate, because climate change! Amazing.

EDGE
September 11, 2017 4:48 pm

Klotzbach forgot Hurricane Ike, Cat 5, then Cat 4 at landfall, which was 145 mph and 935 millibars. That would have tied it for 15th on his list. Ike killed 211 people and wiped out much of Galveston.

Reply to  EDGE
September 11, 2017 8:13 pm

That’s because he is only counting the storms as they make landfall on the US. While Ike what as you note on your comment a cat 4 and 935 millibars it was not that when it made landfall on the US; on September 13, Ike made landfall on the northeast end of Galveston Island in Texas, with a minimum barometric pressure of 950 mbar (28 inHg) and sustained winds of 110 mph (180 km/h), making Ike a Category 2 hurricane. As a category 2 hurricane, AT LANDFALL, it does not make the list.

EDGE
September 11, 2017 5:31 pm

He also forgot Hurricane Patricia (2015) with 872 millibars and winds of 215 mph.

Reply to  EDGE
September 11, 2017 8:15 pm

Patricia did not make landfall on the US, hence it’s not on this list. She was the strongest ever recorded tropical cyclone, but this list only pertains to ones making landfall on the US

Connie
September 11, 2017 8:21 pm

My husband was stationed at Keesler AFB, in Biloxi, Mississippi August, 1969. We never experienced a hurricane before let alone a Cat 5, 195 mph winds with 30′ water wall. We were one year married, young and from Kansas. We were used to tornadoes, what can be worse, right? Hurricane Camille has since been downgraded, not sure why, but my newspaper article says it was 190mph winds and 30′ water surge. It wiped out the coast from Florida panhandle to New Orleans with the eye making landfall around Biloxi and Gulfport. Cellphones were not invented yet so our families didn’t know if we were alive or dead for 11 days. We didn’t have any organization come ping around to give us water, food, shelter or help. We filled up every container and the sinks, and bathtub with good water before. We helped each other and cleaned up the area we lived in. Neighbors opened the freezers after several days, when thawing meat was needing to be cooked, and we had a huge bar b q and fed a lot of people in our neiborhood. Camille took the life of 295 people. People thinking they could ride out the hurricane because they had just gone through Betsy, it wasn’t bad they would say. We ate canned beanie weanies and canned spam after that bar b q and we were thankful to have that. It was days before we had power again. We had no way of communication and drove toward the middle of the state until we found live phone lines to call our families, that was in Hattiesburg, Miss.. There were oil tankers washed up onto the shore at Mobile, Alabama, many bridges gone or destroyed, thousands of homes destroyed,
I wanted to tell you my story because these storms are NOTHING new.

Reply to  Connie
September 12, 2017 6:01 pm

Thanks.

Toni martin
September 20, 2017 9:41 am

After two years of studying the whole global warming thing, I found out that previous periods of warming were associated with human prosperity, like around the year 1000 when Eric the Red began colonizing Greenland and grew wheat and barley on that land which is now covered in permafrost. And that CO2 is not a pollutant, but instead it is a natural gas used by plants as food and that we could use a whole bunch more of it. It doesnt become toxic to humans until it reaches a concentration of 60,000 ppm; we are now at 400 ppm. So the more CO2, the better our agricultural yields will become and the more the Earth becomes covered in plants.
And so, imagine my dissapointment and anger when I found out that some aholes at NOOA and at NASA have bee fudging and changing the temperature records, which clearly show that the 1930’s were much warmer than today.
Go to YouTube and type: NASA climate data fraud- Trend “completely fake” and “manipulated”
The mainstream media is completely ignoring all of this.

Toni martin
September 20, 2017 10:09 am

Climate has always changed and will allways change. Climate is determined by these primal titanic forces such as the heat output of the sun, which appears to be cyclical, every 60 years or so, our orbit around the sun, sometimes more circular, sometimes more oval, in what appears to be a ten thousand year cycle which causes our ice ages. Volcanic eruptions, plate techtonics, changes in ocean currents, etc, all contribute to the constant climate changes.
CO2 is only 0.117% of greenhous gasses out of which humans produce about 7% and historically has never been associated with global warming; our ice ages have all started when CO2 was a thousand times higher than today. Remember when humans thought the the Earth was the centr of the universe? We are always thinkimg that we are much more significant than we are. The fact is,mthat humans are too puny to effect the climate of the Earth.
Only humans would be egotistical enough to think that we can write laws that will stop the climate from changing. I can read the letter to God: “Dear Lord, you are hereby commanded by law to stop the climate from changing immediately, otherwise your supply of vestal virgins will cease”.
And, in the meantime, in 2016, 3-4 million cases of cholera were reported resulting in 65,600 deaths. Cholera epidemics are cause by a lack of sanitation and running water in many areas of the world, a problem that coukd be fixed at a fraction if the billions being spent each year on global warming research alone.
Global warming/ climate change has become a huge industry employing hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom will continue to push this fasle narrative in irder to keep their jobs.

Toni martin
September 20, 2017 10:29 am

Please pass the following link to everyone you know. The truth needs to get around:
Go to YouTube and type: NASA climate data fraud- Trend “completely fake” and “manipulated”

%d bloggers like this: