Hurricane Nicole never hit Florida
 

This will be the opening discussion at Thursday's (Nov 17) Weather Club meeting at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. There is no data showing hurricane force winds came with Nicole -- only tropical storm force winds. This is why The Weather Channel stopped reporting winds as Nicole hit the coast.

From the national hurricane center:
000
WTNT62 KNHC 100800
TCUAT2

Hurricane Nicole Tropical Cyclone Update
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL172022
300 AM EST Thu Nov 10 2022

...NICOLE MAKES LANDFALL ALONG THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA JUST SOUTH
OF VERO BEACH...

Radar imagery from Miami and Melbourne shows the center of Nicole
has made landfall on the east coast of the Florida peninsula on
North Hutchinson Island just south of Vero Beach. The maximum
sustained winds are estimated to be 75 mph (120 km/h), and the
minimum central pressure is estimated to be 981 mb (28.97 inches)

Homes Crash Into Ocean, At Least Two Dead After Nicole Batters Florida | The Weather Channel

(​3:25 p.m. ET) Wind Gusts Up To 80 MPH
A​ new list of high wind reports includes gusts up to 80 mph in Melbourne, 78 mph in Cocoa Beach and 75 mph in Cape Canaveral. All those locations are in Brevard County. In Volusia County, Daytona Beach recorded a gust of 70 mph.

(4​:00 a.m. ET) Nicole Now A Tropical Storm Again
N​icole has weakened back to a strong tropical storm just one hour after its landfall. More weakening of the storm is expected as Nicole moves farther inland, but impacts from storm surge, strong winds and heavy rainfall will continue from Florida up the East Coast to end the workweek.

(​3:50 a.m. ET) Wind Gust Over 70 MPH
W​ind gusts of 70 mph or greater have been clocked on Florida's Atlantic coast this morning. That includes 73 mph at Playalinda Beach, 71 mph at Cape Canaveral and 70 mph at Melbourne.

(​3:00 a.m. ET) Nicole Makes Landfall
N​icole made landfall at 3 a.m. ET on Thursday morning just south of Vero Beach, Florida. Maximum sustained winds were 75 mph, making Nicole a Category 1 hurricane.

Correct -- but not one report of a measured (not estimated) sustained surface wind of hurricane force wind -- which is 74 mph or greater. Even though the above 3 AM report mentions 75 mph winds -- no one can find any valid reports -- unless you can.

So are you claiming fake data, manipulated data, or fake news?

Oh, I know! The National Weather Service knew at 3AM that the wind speeds had decreased and the storm was not a hurricane but they were motivated by political reasons to postpone that announcement until 4AM. It's all part of the global climate change conspiracy!

All I know it was windy not much difference between 73 and 75. For those that may have suffered damage I don’t think they could tell either. Once a tropical storm is named our insurance deductible goes from $500 to 2% assessed value for the duration.

All I know is that there are NO wind reports showing Nicole produced hurricane strength winds in Florida. I don't deal in consensus, conspiracy, or narrative -- only data. The data says Nicole hit Florida as a tropical storm -- unless you can show me actual wind data saying otherwise.

Where is the data showing Nicole hit as a TS? Where is the data showing Nicole was a hurricane at 2:30AM but no longer a hurricane at 3AM when it made landfall?

All that data will be shown on Nov 17, at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. Pictures (and data) are worth a thousand words. Also, I have queried dozens of meteorologists nationwide (including hurricane experts) and none have yet to identify any surface sustained wind data showing Nicole produce hurricane force winds during landfall. For those who wish look for themselves ... a good starting point is the Weather Underground which has lots of good historical wind data.

Why does it matter??

So you *don't* have data to show Nicole was not a hurricane when it made landfall at 3AM. I can find any number of reports that it made landfall as a hurricane. Lacking any data to the contrary, I'll trust the reports.

Weather Underground was a good source, thank you. I had seen this page earlier then lost it. Interestingly enough, it shows hurricane strength at 3AM when Nicole made landfall.

As for Laurel Manor on the 17th, no thank you. I've already been to enough meetings and read enough of your writing to have a good idea what will be served up at the meeting.

Because without conspiracy theories conspiracy theorists have nothing to do.

Facts always matter.

1. Twisting what I said will not work. I said there is no data showing Nicole produced hurricane force winds. If you have this data, please provide.

2. The reference to "this page" is not data -- it does not provide the location of the weather station which produced that wind speed -- not does it provide the value of the maximum "sustained" wind versus wind gust.

Looks like the OP on point for a verifying a very important distinction.

The Jewish lasers wiped out the data….

Florida county puts damage from Nicole at $522 million | AP News

Nicole hit Florida very hard however you want to describe it.

your op implies deception. To what end?

I guess the implications are that since Nicole never made land as a hurricane people either 1) needed to react differently or 2) over reacted due to the "deceptive" reporting. I bet there is a lot of folks who either lost their homes to the surf or sustained flooding that would be to differ.

What's an "op" ?

I had screen damage from Nicole and called the insurance company because I need to replace a large birdcage screen. Parts could be repaired but it was old and we were considering replacing it. I assumed the wind deductible on our policy would apply which is $1000. They said no the hurricane deductible applied which is 2% of home value. I said it was a tropical storm. They said it was a hurricane when it made landfall therefore hurricane deductible applied. Ugh! We have never made a claim for home insurance ever and I guess that continues.

Old person or original poster. I like the former. Wonder how many other ways of defining. Sorry, you guys get back to discussing this.

Yesterday, my life was filled with
 

see above. Anyway, i'll repeat, " to what end?"

I suppose to the real weather geeks this parsing of words has value. For the folks in Wilbur-by-the-Sea, whose homes wound up as flotsam in the Atlantic, the distinction is likely pointless.

Original post.

So, let me see if I have the right. A group of Villagers, are holding a meeting to determine if Nicole was, or wasn't, a hurricane. LOL. I'm sure there's a reason why it matters to you, and your group, what I can't understand is why you think other people care. 74 mph, 73 mph, 76 mph..... is really all the same.

Nothingcane Nicole is only the beginning of the meeting, because it is current events. All weather club meetings start with current events -- which is what many are interested in. After Nicole is a discussion of EPA's failure to use government weather data when creating their Endangerment Finding -- which is the legal basis of the Green New Deal. It's a minor issue, but important to some.

The naming of hurricane, tropical storm, typhoon, etc is not important. It's the "weather" experienced which is important -- such as max wind speed, amount of rainfall, etc.

If the storm was a “no named storm” your deductible would apply but since Nicole was named and would be viewed as hurricane even if downgraded the 2% rule applies.

And this is the same weather club that seems to have an agenda, discounts climate change. :a20:

The Weather Club does not do narrative, agenda, belief, consensus, rumor, or discounts -- only data. If you have data other than what is presented or discussed please provide -- for that is how science moves forward. For example, if you have evidence that Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane, please provide a sample Florida wind report. Also, if you have data showing that hurricanes are increasing, please provide that. If you can show that the earth has warmed for the last 7 years then please provide that data. If you know why the EPA refuses to make public the logic they used to claim CO2 is causing climate harm, please so provide.

Pretty sure if it's a named storm, regardless of TS or hurricane status the deductible is higher.

Data is one thing. HOW that data is described, can be quite another.

Back in the day, living as a lad and young adult in the wilds of Northern Minnesota, we experienced a weather phenomenon called a “Canadian High”. Canadian highs usually followed a blizzard or a period of heavy snow. They were characterized by clear, bright blue skies, falling temperatures, and intermittent wind. Canadian highs were welcome; there was always cleanup after a heavy snow; plowing, shoveling, sometimes chainsaw work because of fallen trees and limbs, etc. Plus, the falling temps made icy roads better to drive on: anyone who has experienced a northern Minnesota winter can vouch firsthand for the fact that ice-covered roads at -30 degrees have MUCH better traction than those at, say, +30.

Then, one day, we no longer had “Canadian Highs”. They were instead called “Polar Vortexes”, with all the sinister connotations one could derive from the name. Meteorologists from Duluth to International Falls solemnly warned mothers of young children that the approaching polar vortex could contain GAWDawfully dangerous cold temps, to keep the tykes bundled up, don’t let ‘em outside alone, etc. etc., as well as depending on the depth of cold and velocity of expected wind, warnings about EXPOSED FLESH CAN FREEZE IN _____ MINUTES!!! Gone we’re the days of the welcome Canadian highs, being replaced instead by the apocalyptic warnings and admonishments regarding the upcoming polar vortex.

Some years after the name change, one of the meteorologists up there admitted that the name change was to make the event “more newsworthy”. Says a lot, perhaps too much, not about WHAT we are being told but WHY. Is panic more newsworthy? Apparently so.

So…yeah. Present the data. But keep the unnecessary flourishes out of it.

so no response to post # 17

The Weather Club is about data. What data are you talking about?

Well, that link says that Nicole was a Category 1 HURRICANE when it hit. To me, the important thing was the link ALSO said that it was ONLY the 3 rd hurricane to hit Florida since 1853 when records started being kept. That fact coupled with the record Gulf summer temperatures leads ME to BELIEVE the predictions that the EARTH will keep having record heat for the next 30 years. Also, the FACT that worldwide the coral is dying and will be down to only 10% by 2090.

Global warming was mentioned, so I thought about the recent World Conference on the subject. The world considers it a GIANT problem even though perhaps our local weather club may think otherwise. Maybe they want to debate that out with Greta Thunberg. If they can get her here, then I WOULD attend that meeting.

Ditto. With the media, it's all about sensationalism -- because it sells. All this verbiage about Polar Vortex, Atmospheric Rivers ... and no doubt more to come ... are nothing new -- just flowery labels for atmospheric characteristics that have been going on for millions of years. But in the Weather Club, hype and consensus are replaced by data.

Personally and for what it is worth, I don't use OP. I prefer to say thread starter.

The AP is a great source of climate misinformation #1. For example, over 100 hurricanes have hit Florida since 1853 ... Why Does Florida Have So Many Hurricanes? - AZ Animals

The AP is a great source of misinformation #2. How can they say Florida was hit by a hurricane if there is no data to support the claim? It's kinda like saying DDT causes cancer -- but it does not.

So, I am guessing that the 2nd part of the meeting is to "throw shade" on the Green New Deal and say that WIND generators lower property value, make people sterile, and are the work of the devil. Then the meeting finishes up with a rousing chorus of " the Flat Earth Society's Theme Song"