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.
#Irma was 929 mb and#Harvey 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes they are trying Anthony and they are succeeding. My 15 year old niece thinks the end is near.
Show her this maybe:
That’s hilarious. Keeping that one.
The prediction should be in 2005.
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.
He also said New York City would be flooded by 2015. Apparently
we were not the lucky
Be sure you know where she’s getting her information!
She’s right, but not because of any hurricane…
Thanks to the existence of Cuba (the landmass – not the political state).
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.
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”.
For the CAGW crowd, man’s use of fossil fuels is wholly to blame. There is no other factor in the zealots eye.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Which insurance companies have taken unusual steps to prepare for CACA?
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/analyst-kai-pan-says-insurance-224553470.html
They have lots of cash, thanks to so few claims from storm damage during the past 12 years.
Like most trolls, Chris counts press releases as example of science.
“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.
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.
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?
Chris
You have it exactly wrong.
Listen to what Warren Buffet has to say……
http://www.omaha.com/money/warren-watch-no-harvey-super-cat-claims-for-berkshire/article_b6430c4e-8b6b-572a-aafc-4d83b40d60bf.html
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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?
Bill,
Likely a consequence of NOAA and NASA operating the Hurricane Hunters and providing the authoritative data about wind speeds prior to land fall.
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.
Catflation is the evil twin of “name ’em and claim ’em.”
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).
Not just an inflation factor. You have to multiply this figure by a ratio of today’s population to yesteryear s.
And include current population density factors for potential property damages
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.
@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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That 185 was not an anemometer reading, but analyzed from barometric pressure and things the storm did.
There was a 30 second 300 mph gust that broke the instrument.
Typo 200 mph
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)”
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.
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.
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
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).
Mark, they moved it east coast to west coast back and forth….3 times
Pressure already places it out of the single digits now and rising.
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.
Wind direction 100-500 mb.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/atlantic/winds/wg8wvir.GIF
That’s two Cat 4 US landfalls in a single season.
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.
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.
Hum, yet somehow Klotzbach has categorized it as Cat 4 strike. Oh well.
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.
babazaroni September 10, 2017 at 10:25 am
Maybe he’s going by pressure or by winds beyond the Keys.
No it might be a cat 3 but it is still a hurricane
Even if true, it’s not the first time that has happened.
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
Above 400 mb the wind direction is opposite.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/atlantic/winds/wg8ir.GIF
Well, in any case it looks like the Mississippi Basin will have a LOT of water to deal with by mid-week.
Hum, I don’t see any reference to size in that list. Since Irma was much larger than Andrew, size matters as well.
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.
Well in Havant the streets are flooded and the locals are having a party and using them as swimming pools.
Katrina was over Louisiana land as a 135 MPH Cat-4 according to the 26b public advisory. 29.7 north, 89.6 west.
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.
Katrina is a classic example of the hurricane intensity inflation plaguing NOAA.
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!
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.
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.
“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.
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 $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?mcubz=0&_r=0
Plenty more where that came from.
By your logic, all the folks working on health care research are hustlers”
Try this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?mcubz=0&_r=0
Plenty more where that came from.
Health care researchers and their bosses don’t hustle for research grants? Health care researchers working for private companies don’t want to get paid and receive promotions? Private health care providers don’t want to make profits? What are you getting at cat?
The key, Chris, is what I meant by “this.”
Here it is (from my comment on the Bob Tisdale post about which I was commenting to Mr. Fair above — you apparently were completely oblivious to the context of my remarks, no doubt due to your haste ….):
(Source: me, here (scroll down to my name on this page): https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/green-slime/#more-11649 )
Sorry, Chris, but you’ll have to repeat “Basic Reading Comprehension” — again.
Try asking your parents to hire a tutor.
Janice, you seem like such a nice lady; please call me Dave.
Old joke: “My friends call me Dave, but you may call me Mr. Fair!” does not apply to you, obviously.
No, Janice, I see that logic is not your strong suit. Let’s start with your post here on WUWT: “Thanks, Mr. Fair, for the heads up about Bob Tisdale. That’s great. He is much-missed around here. His brief, but powerful, post hits the nail on the head. The bottom line about all this for the CO2 hu$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.
They aren’t funding-hungry, Chris? It seems a basic requirement for survival of their jobs. No?
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.
Wayne Job, global cooling, eh? That’s a laugh. Let’s see your supporting evidence.
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$tlers “of all stripes” requires no logic to understand. It is a simple statement of fact about those academic sc@mmers.
Here it is:
Telling lies about human CO2 puts money into my pocket.
It’s a simple concept: human greed and baseness.
In a word:
F R A U D.
With pity, but not compassion (for I think your pride so consumes you that you are less a victim of your own intellectual impairment, than a perpetrator of it),
Janice
*****************************************
DAVE FAIR! 🙂 Thanks! Will do.
Wayne Job: Thanks for the fine back-up. Much appreciated (and still grateful for your kind remarks to me when I felt so low a few months back).
catweazle, go ahead and show me a climate change study paid for by the PV manufacturers or wind turbine manufacturers. Your post is intended to show that scientists get bought off by industry. Fine, show me examples of it in the climate change space, where the private sector paid for results that helped their business.
Janice,
Chris is indeed a common name. it happens to be mine. Is that too complicated for you to comprehend?
You then proceed to do a 180 – whereas before you were saying that your above post was about the media and not climate scientists, now you say it is. Which is it, Janice?
You then say: “The assertion above about climate hu$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?
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.
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.
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”
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?
The Saffir-Simpson scale is based on sustained winds measured at 10 meters. It says nothing about gusts.
“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?
Rounding to the narrative seems to be a common practice at NOAA …
ratings
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.
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)
Marathon Florida is to the east. Look at the NOAA hurricane warning for today. Cat 1 warning.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The table is ranked on pressure.
On wind speeds, Irma is about 15th (if my counting is right!!!)
Well now, it appears that Irma was a bit oversold.
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.
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.
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.
From the current Miami radar, it looks like Irma’s made her turn – and is once again heading toward my house (in Orlando).
Whee.