[ThirdOfFive]

Interesting!

A category 1 hurricane has max sustained winds of 95 mph.

A category 2 hurricane has max sustained winds of 110 mph.

Francine, as close as I was able to find out, had max sustained winds of "around 100 mph" (Washington Post, 9/11/24)

That means that this entire rancorous debate is over A WIND SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH!!

The real issue here, IMO, is something we've seen much of before: a sense of disappointment that whatever hurricane under discussion wasn't stronger that it turned out to be. We've been hearing now for nearly two decades that global warming was going to increase not only the number of hurricanes per season but their intensity as well. That disappointment is evidenced by the repeated proclivity of media to magnify events associated with hurricanes: if the numbers of hurricanes aren't there, it seems that the power of the ones that ARE occurring are maximized in media to the fullest possible extent.

Are there people who would be a lot happier today, if Francine HAD been a category 5?

Unfortunately, I think so.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Interesting!

A category 1 hurricane has max sustained winds of 95 mph.

A category 2 hurricane has max sustained winds of 110 mph.

Francine, as close as I was able to find out, had max sustained winds of "around 100 mph" (Washington Post, 9/11/24)

Are there people who would be a lot happier today, if Francine HAD been a category 5?

Unfortunately, I think so.

Same as you on wind speed.
As far as anyone being happier with a Cat 5, no one I know would fit that description. But, maybe a bored reporter would relish some drama at the expense of others.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by LeRoySmith

Does the weather club have a member named Jim Jones?

Good one.There is this tiny HINT of cult-like behavior going on. I hope they don't offer drinks. They may be placing large rocks in a particular pattern like Stonehenge in England.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

I've so far contacted over 30 news media and weather reporting agencies, who are sure Francine was a Cat 2 storm -- and so far -- none can provide data confirming Francine's Cat 2 status. It's amazing how many have unthinking respect for authority.

I wonder if Albert Einstein would quibble about a storm being Cat 1 or Cat 2 ?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

OK, I waded through it and distilled it to this: You agree that the Earth has been warming for 20,000 years but now human activity is adding to the warming that would have occurred naturally. Fair point, I'm sure we are contributing, but to what extent? Probably very, very little. Best analysis from climatologists who are not being held hostage by the current narrative is that we are delaying the next period of glaciation by about 8,000 years. But that is due to the rise of agriculture in Asia since 7,000 BC, not anything to do with fossil fuels.

I think that you are selling short the massive effects of fossil fuel. I imagine that if ZERO fossil fuel existed on planet Earth, we would have only 3 billion people instead of 8 billion. We would have to be using wind power and HUGE batteries to cross the oceans and air travel would be difficult (zeppelins anyone).
.......Note.......If we had only 3 billion people on Earth then the upper atmosphere would NOT have enough CO2 stuck there to refract HEAT and the Earth would NOT be warming rapidly. So, I would not have to BITCH about people buying electric cars. We could live with the stinky Infernal Combustion Engines.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

I agree with the bold point above, whole heartedly. However, the issue being questioned is a soft event, not a hard event. Type 1 error, false positive, on a classification issue of safety, which didn't affect the outcome, which also didn't last long. I have had two different careers, and to a lay person, what I see as a significant professional issue, the lay person does not.. . is the Type 1 Error significant to the outcome?

Also realize that referees work for the NFL, and the NFL as a sports entertainment and marketing organization, also uses Type 1 errors to effect outcomes, but at the edges, (most times) and yet viewership and money keeps rolling in. . . The Type 1 errors are easy to see if you know where to look. Is the NFL type 1 errors significant to our daily lives? to the lay person, no, to the professional football participant, yes. . .

I have this exact issue with government financial data, with revisions and methodology changes for accuracy? yes, they are purely incompetent with respect to accuracy,, more about presentation to pay or not pay for certain outcomes. Its glaringly obvious that the imputed numbers are grossly false and misleading, but that is the sign that the country and government is too big to management, and the government is now too lucrative relative to the opportunities by self dealing benefits, that there are shades of 476 AD.

I would suggest that this is the base issue to which this thread is arm wrestling, especially with retirees. Keep up the good work challenging govt for us, but we might not have the same passion for the issue that others have. .

I appreciate the effort to resolve an issue. But, what the heck exactly is a Type 1 error? And I wonder what that post would look like (maybe impressive) if it were translated into a more readable, low- brow-like language?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

I'm only reporting and confirming (as many others are doing) that the NHC is loosening the rules, which in the end, inflates hurricane numbers. Remember, the longest serving NHC Director is warning the public of this dangerous trend ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30kWv95kF_4 ... which only serves to further inflame the fake climate crisis.

The last line, which is a personal conclusion is too much of a STRETCH from the 1st two lines. Particularly the "fake climate change" statement. I could NOT attend a club meeting where statements like "fake climate change' was being discussed and worst of all - being taken seriously. There are so many facts in the world that "SCREAM OUT" that climate change (aka Global Warming) is taking place that the WORLD should be taking more serious than they are today. The United Nations is screaming out to anyone that will listen. Global Warming is REAL and I would say that it is the GREATEST THREAT facing the world today. Whole populations of people are moving Northward from the HOT Equatorial areas toward the already teeming-with-people Temperate Zone (like the US of A). This will NOT be a happy welcoming migration.
..........There are SO MANY hints at a BAD future that we are ignoring today. Miami Fl. will be underwater by 2075. ALL the Coral Reefs in the world will probably be dead. By 2075 Florida summers will have many days of 110 actual degrees F. Florida"'s population will ALL be migrating northward by 2075. There will be no one (ZERO) people saying anything but that the world's climate has become the number 1 issue for ALL people and ALL governments to deal with.
..........I am NOT surprised that ONLY the YOUNG people (with futures) in the US are worried about future HEAT. But, I am surprised that so many older, wiser people in The Villages (that are supposed to be intelligent) can NOT see this BAD future coming at them like a freight TRAIN.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

I understand, are they loosening the rules for a political outcome? most likely, as everyone has pointed out, I just pointed out other self serving examples, where everyone is indirectly affected, you and I both, and its a political survival tactic, as we all learn, to advance, we please our boss. In organization behavior studies, as an organization grows and ages, it moves from the original entrepreneur disruptive shiny new status to control and conformity or otherwise it breaks apart. It's the normal course of human organizational behavior, success by herding, and following. And as I stated, a professional sees what lay people do not. . .

and if you inspect the sunspot hurricane graph and just pause a minute, we are seeing a high level of sunspots and geomagnetic storms currently. predictive? depends upon where one wants to look, as coincidental may not be causative provable, but it can be predictive.

will be going to a weather group meeting as soon as we can get there, mostly because of being a data hoarder, both paper and electrons, in case i get an analytical scratch to itch.

Now I can see the esotericism of a Climate Club. Maybe they have a special handshake?

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I think that you are selling short the massive effects of fossil fuel. I imagine that if ZERO fossil fuel existed on planet Earth, we would have only 3 billion people instead of 8 billion. We would have to be using wind power and HUGE batteries to cross the oceans and air travel would be difficult (zeppelins anyone).
.......Note.......If we had only 3 billion people on Earth then the upper atmosphere would NOT have enough CO2 stuck there to refract HEAT and the Earth would NOT be warming rapidly. So, I would not have to BITCH about people buying electric cars. We could live with the stinky Infernal Combustion Engines.

I'm afraid you spelled "massive" wrong---it's M-I-N-I-M-A-L

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Interesting!

A category 1 hurricane has max sustained winds of 95 mph.

A category 2 hurricane has max sustained winds of 110 mph.

Francine, as close as I was able to find out, had max sustained winds of "around 100 mph" (Washington Post, 9/11/24)

That means that this entire rancorous debate is over A WIND SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH!!

The real issue here, IMO, is something we've seen much of before: a sense of disappointment that whatever hurricane under discussion wasn't stronger that it turned out to be. We've been hearing now for nearly two decades that global warming was going to increase not only the number of hurricanes per season but their intensity as well. That disappointment is evidenced by the repeated proclivity of media to magnify events associated with hurricanes: if the numbers of hurricanes aren't there, it seems that the power of the ones that ARE occurring are maximized in media to the fullest possible extent.

Are there people who would be a lot happier today, if Francine HAD been a category 5?

Unfortunately, I think so.

Personally, I could agree with everything except the last line. When a hurricane gets to Cat 3 to 5 we are talking the loss of life. Francine (either a 1 or 2 ) ruined some peoples homes. PERSONALLY, I don't care so much about hurricanes because their number and intensity depends on more than ONE factor. But, the main factor is Ocean WATER temperature, which is HIGH this summer and (what is IMPORTANT) is that the WATER TEMPERATURE will be HIGHER next summer and HIGHER each succeeding summer - which will bring larger and larger Hurricanes. The IMPORTANT thing that I see is the Earth temperature is increasing each year and the average older person wants to ignore it. But, most know that the Coral Reefs are dying and hordes of people are moving NORTH from South America. And they could read about the TUNDRA conditions in Alaska and Russia. The poles, both north and south, are heating faster than the center latitudes of the Earth. The HEAT disruptions and problems that Alaska is facing today will be the problems of the US in about 10 years (maybe longer). But, as long as Villagers look outside their windows and see INFERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE cars, trucks, and golf carts go by they will BEGIN to know that they have a PROBLEM.

[blueash]

I emailed Michael Brennan who is the director of the National Hurricane center and he responded within 2 hours. Is this good enough for you? He gives the methodology, links the data and says it is based on estimation of ground level winds based on known differences between those and airplane elevation. Then says at a later time final data will be published. Sounds above board and non-manipulative to me. YMMV

*************
Thanks for reaching out.

When we estimate intensity we take a variety of data into account, including flight-level and surface wind estimates from aircraft, Doppler radar data from aircraft, and satellite intensity estimates. There are also surface observations, such as buoys, ships, and land stations, but a single surface station almost never experiences the actual peak wind in a hurricane, which are often only found in a small area on the order of a few miles, especially in intense hurricanes.

For the flight-level winds from aircraft, we use an adjustment factor based on dropsonde measurements that provides a surface intensity estimate based on the peak flight-level wind (see Franklin et al. (2003)). From the typical flight level in a hurricane (10,000 ft), the reduction factor is 90% to get an estimate of the intensity of the storm at the standard "surface" height of 10 meters. The flight-level winds are averaged over 10 seconds since the aircraft is typically flying perpendicular to the flow and flies through the strongest winds only for a short time.

For Francine, the Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft reported several sets of flight-level winds in excess of 95 knots (we typically work in knots, which are then converted to mph). These data are summarized in a "vortex message", and I've included a couple of links below. The one just before landfall is shown below, and shows in item J. a peak flight-level wind of 102 knots that was measured at 2132 UTC (532 PM CDT). This, in addition to a previous peak flight level wind of 96 kt the hour before, both support a peak intensity of 85 kt (100 mph), which is category 2, at landfall, which was right around 2200 UTC (6 PM CDT). Our Tropical Cyclone Discussion issued right before landfall, also talks about the data used for the intensity estimate.

Note that even when we have aircraft data available, our intensity estimates are only good to within about 10%, so a system we analyzed as a 100 mph hurricane could easily be 90 mph or 110 mph based on that uncertainty. We go back and do a thorough post-analysis of all the data to come up with the final "best track", including the intensity, and will do so for Francine in the coming months, and it will be published in the Tropical Cyclone Report for that storm.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Best,
Mike
256
URNT12 KNHC 112159
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE AL062024
A. 11/21:42:40Z
B. 29.24 deg N 091.32 deg W
C. 700 mb 2894 m
D. 972 mb
E. 245 deg 7 kt
F. OPEN S
G. E36/50/30
H. 63 kt
I. 103 deg 40 nm 21:29:30Z
J. 210 deg 102 kt
K. 105 deg 31 nm 21:32:30Z
L. 72 kt
M. 268 deg 20 nm 21:48:00Z
N. 335 deg 66 kt
O. 266 deg 25 nm 21:49:30Z
P. 13 C / 3043 m
Q. 19 C / 3044 m
R. 9 C / NA
S. 1234 / 7
T. 0.02 / 1 nm
U. AF302 1406A FRANCINE OB 27
MAX FL WIND 102 KT 105 / 31 NM 21:32:30Z
MAX FL TEMP 19 C 114 / 10 NM FROM FL CNTR
;

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/rec...2409112159.txt

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/rec...2409112109.txt

[sounding]

Originally Posted by blueash

I emailed Michael Brennan who is the director of the National Hurricane center and he responded within 2 hours. Is this good enough for you? He gives the methodology, links the data and says it is based on estimation of ground level winds based on known differences between those and airplane elevation. Then says at a later time final data will be published. Sounds above board and non-manipulative to me. YMMV

*************
Thanks for reaching out.

When we estimate intensity we take a variety of data into account, including flight-level and surface wind estimates from aircraft, Doppler radar data from aircraft, and satellite intensity estimates. There are also surface observations, such as buoys, ships, and land stations, but a single surface station almost never experiences the actual peak wind in a hurricane, which are often only found in a small area on the order of a few miles, especially in intense hurricanes.

For the flight-level winds from aircraft, we use an adjustment factor based on dropsonde measurements that provides a surface intensity estimate based on the peak flight-level wind (see Franklin et al. (2003)). From the typical flight level in a hurricane (10,000 ft), the reduction factor is 90% to get an estimate of the intensity of the storm at the standard "surface" height of 10 meters. The flight-level winds are averaged over 10 seconds since the aircraft is typically flying perpendicular to the flow and flies through the strongest winds only for a short time.

For Francine, the Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft reported several sets of flight-level winds in excess of 95 knots (we typically work in knots, which are then converted to mph). These data are summarized in a "vortex message", and I've included a couple of links below. The one just before landfall is shown below, and shows in item J. a peak flight-level wind of 102 knots that was measured at 2132 UTC (532 PM CDT). This, in addition to a previous peak flight level wind of 96 kt the hour before, both support a peak intensity of 85 kt (100 mph), which is category 2, at landfall, which was right around 2200 UTC (6 PM CDT). Our Tropical Cyclone Discussion issued right before landfall, also talks about the data used for the intensity estimate.

Note that even when we have aircraft data available, our intensity estimates are only good to within about 10%, so a system we analyzed as a 100 mph hurricane could easily be 90 mph or 110 mph based on that uncertainty. We go back and do a thorough post-analysis of all the data to come up with the final "best track", including the intensity, and will do so for Francine in the coming months, and it will be published in the Tropical Cyclone Report for that storm.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Best,
Mike
256
URNT12 KNHC 112159
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE AL062024
A. 11/21:42:40Z
B. 29.24 deg N 091.32 deg W
C. 700 mb 2894 m
D. 972 mb
E. 245 deg 7 kt
F. OPEN S
G. E36/50/30
H. 63 kt
I. 103 deg 40 nm 21:29:30Z
J. 210 deg 102 kt
K. 105 deg 31 nm 21:32:30Z
L. 72 kt
M. 268 deg 20 nm 21:48:00Z
N. 335 deg 66 kt
O. 266 deg 25 nm 21:49:30Z
P. 13 C / 3043 m
Q. 19 C / 3044 m
R. 9 C / NA
S. 1234 / 7
T. 0.02 / 1 nm
U. AF302 1406A FRANCINE OB 27
MAX FL WIND 102 KT 105 / 31 NM 21:32:30Z
MAX FL TEMP 19 C 114 / 10 NM FROM FL CNTR
;

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/rec...2409112159.txt

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/rec...2409112109.txt

"uncertainty"

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I wonder if Albert Einstein would quibble about a storm being Cat 1 or Cat 2 ?

He would care more about all aspects of the storm, the potential death, damage, flooding, power loss, and ultimate cost. But that is jmho.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I think that you are selling short the massive effects of fossil fuel. I imagine that if ZERO fossil fuel existed on planet Earth, we would have only 3 billion people instead of 8 billion. We would have to be using wind power and HUGE batteries to cross the oceans and air travel would be difficult (zeppelins anyone).
.......Note.......If we had only 3 billion people on Earth then the upper atmosphere would NOT have enough CO2 stuck there to refract HEAT and the Earth would NOT be warming rapidly. So, I would not have to BITCH about people buying electric cars. We could live with the stinky Infernal Combustion Engines.

But we would still be better off without most of them.
For around 60 years I have kept to the belief that the root of All of mankind's problems, and most of the Earth's, is, and would continue to be, over population. Every time a TV announcer would ask about someone's family and they would proudly announce they had more than two I would feel a bit of sadness that these were breeders. People polluters. The more they had, the greater the applause. The time for large families is long past, imo. EightBillion people crawling over this planet, polluting, sucking up the resources, destroying habitats and ensuring that the planet won't be able to regenerate itself. The proof is obvious for everyone to see. All the real science spotlights it. But many won't acknowledge it, even if, down deep, they know it is true. Arrogance, ego, and greed will likely end us, unless we fix it, fast. And it can be done.
I'm old, so it won't be me. I have no surviving children. So the question really is for you. Who would like to be the last person on a dieing planet? I hope it will be a man. The thought that it might be a pregnant woman breaks my heart.
Peace. ������������

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

"uncertainty"

HAHAHAHA! Well, I'm certain of one thing, and it ain't about Francine! 😊😏🙄