T1B

It was posted by the NFHC. Why don't you ask them for their raw data? Morons.

Goober McTuber wrote:It was posted by the NFHC. Why don't you ask them for their raw data? Morons.

And NFHC stands for what?

All the barometers were destroyed = it was probably about 155mph.

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:It was posted by the NFHC. Why don't you ask them for their raw data? Morons.

And NFHC stands for what?

National Fucking Hurricane Center.

Papa Willie wrote:In other words, they'll do anything to boost the numbers to push their GW agenda.

Goober McTuber wrote:

The third most-powerful hurricane in recorded history to hit the U.S. mainland, Michael washed away homes, destroyed vehicles and ripped apart buildings with maximum sustained winds of 155 mph.

That's one or two mph short of a category 5. Are you all afraid that if you don't downplay the severity of these storms that they will lend credence to climate change?

Actually, it was a cat 3 when it moved into Georgia.

88 wrote:That isn't what I gathered from the video. And disagreement regarding the reported maximum sustained wind speed of a destructive hurricane is not new.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... e90d28eb08

My take is that much of this is just an educated guess. And that it does not matter so much unless you happen to be one of those poor souls who were in the path of the monster when it was being most vicious.

All valid. The reporter offers up a few explanations as to why wind speeds never got to the reported number. Some fall short like the wind speed over water being faster due to less friction. If that were the case, why didn’t any of the buoys or platforms record such winds. Also the parts about the stations losing power misses the mark. These stations almost always have battery backups.

As mentioned it matters not what the actual wind speed was if you were in the path of the eye wall. But it does matter for future forecasts and building codes.

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Actually, it was a cat 3 when it moved into Georgia.

What part of “here” didn’t you understand

It was supposedly Cat 3 when it got to Georgia. May have calmed down a bit by the time it got to Bacon. You seem a bit agitated today, Melty. Watch your blood pressure.

Most all of that destruction was due to storm surge.

Left Seater wrote:Most all of that destruction was due to storm surge.

Which was powered by those 45 mph winds.

Largest surge recorded since Melty jumped into Mobile Bay.

Left Seater wrote:Most all of that destruction was due to storm surge.

Bull fucking shit lefty...I assumed you were a tad smarter then buttsy...

Bucmonkey wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Most all of that destruction was due to storm surge.

Bull fucking shit lefty...I assumed you were a tad smarter then buttsy...

Clearly you aren’t smart at all if you disagree. Dude on the westher channel showed the high water mark. Guess what it wasn’t from rainfall.

Yes because storm surge took out all the trees miles inland.

Storm surge doesn't remove roofs or snap trees in half.

As opposed to “random” pictures? What’s your point?
(Assuming you actually have one)

Goobs being Goobs with his 45 mph comment.

As for my storm surge comment, it was in reference to the photo in the NYT, one post up from mine. The good Dr’s house is still standing. To the camera right of the good Dr’s house most structures are completely wiped out. Towards the rear of the photo far more structures are still partially standing. Then beyond that is a stand of trees.

My comment still stands in reference to that photo. Apparently y’all suck at this message boarding thing.

Back to your strawman ways, I see. Why do you act like a spoiled child all the time?

Left Seater wrote:Goobs being Goobs with his 45 mph comment.

As for my storm surge comment, it was in reference to the photo in the NYT, one post up from mine. The good Dr’s house is still standing. To the camera right of the good Dr’s house most structures are completely wiped out. Towards the rear of the photo far more structures are still partially standing. Then beyond that is a stand of trees.

My comment still stands in reference to that photo. Apparently y’all suck at this message boarding thing.

I know that much damage was caused by a large storm surge. What causes a large storm surge like that? Why, it's the wind. Which Tardspray suggested was 45 mph. Hence, my comment. Apparently y’all suck at this message boarding thing.

Papa Willie wrote: I got my ass whipped.

Yes, you did.
And it's quite large, BTW.

Shortbusspray wrote:Where in the fuck did I say it had 45 mph winds in Florida, inbred moron? :)

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49500&p=975549#p975549

You really are retarded, aren't you?

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Shortbusspray wrote:Where in the fuck did I say it had 45 mph winds in Florida, inbred moron? :)

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49500&p=975549#p975549

You really are retarded, aren't you?

PCB weather station. At no point did I say I only thought that they had 45mph winds

Papa Dumbass wrote:That is from the PCB weather station. At 5:36, they got their highest gust of 45 mph (39.1 knots).

So yes, you did not say you only thought that they had 45mph winds. You suggested they may have had lesser winds. Go ahead. Look. It's not that hard. YHPYIYOC*.

*You Have Punched Yourself In Your Own Cunt

Papa Willie wrote:2. I would say that the hurricane was a Cat 2, maybe a low end Cat 3. Even though it was a 4, almost a 5.

You claimed 45 mph at the highest. But you are too much of a bleeding cunt to admit your error. You are still, and will always be, a fat fucking retard.

Now we're done.

You obviously have serious reading comprehension issues, fatso. The National Hurricane Center reported MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...155 MPH...250 KM/H. Don't be an idiot.

Goober McTuber wrote:The National Hurricane Center reported MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...155 MPH...250 KM/H.

Then link us up to one reading showing that.

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:The National Hurricane Center reported MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...155 MPH...250 KM/H.

Then link us up to one reading showing that.

Mikey linked this up a couple days ago. Why are you being so obtuse?

Papa Willie wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:The National Hurricane Center reported MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...155 MPH...250 KM/H.

Then link us up to one reading showing that.

He's getting too old and fucked up to see anything other than what he wants to see, Lefty. It's like trying to talk to a fucking lead-based shoe box...

You're too fucked up to understand facts, Melty. Let that sink into your fat head.

C’mon, y’all gotta laugh at the fearless weatherman valiantly braving those hurricane force winds to bring you the news LIVE! Only to be upstaged by the couple strolling by him in the background with nary a breeze blowin’. It truly shows how far the media will go to get ratings and viewers.

Rooster wrote:C’mon, y’all gotta laugh at the fearless weatherman valiantly braving those hurricane force winds to bring you the news LIVE! Only to be upstaged by the couple strolling by him in the background with nary a breeze blowin’. It truly shows how far the media will go to get ratings and viewers.

And where was that? It certainly wasn't during the landfall at Mexico Beach. I saw video from a car driving along in that vicinity and the car had to dodge a house moving across the highway.

Ask and you shall receive.
https://youtu.be/GpSgdOGWOYQ[/youtube]

That's not Mexico Beach, ya flamin' tard.

I never suggested that it was. My only point was to highlight what Spray and Lefty have been saying all along— that the media and climate alarmists have a stake in reporting a more catastrophic and dire situation for their own agenda, that being more eyes on their broadcast for advertising dollars perhaps, or in the case of the AGWists, access to the levers of power.

Perhaps the winds did reach 155 mph. But we need to recognize that the sensors which remained functioning did not report such velocities. And the others? Well, they broke before any such numbers were recorded, so it is pure speculation as to what the wind speed topped out at during the storm as it hit Florida. In the meantime, we have the Weather Channel alarmists attempting to deceive their viewers which only brings their cause into disrepute.

NOAA and NWS aren't TV news channels.

Mikey wrote:NOAA and NWS aren't TV news channels.

Correct. But they have no data showing actual 155 mph sustained winds either.

Is there ANY mountain the pollution crowd won’t climb to pour more crap into the environment?

Nice straw man.

Rooster wrote:C’mon, y’all gotta laugh at the fearless weatherman valiantly braving those hurricane force winds to bring you the news LIVE! Only to be upstaged by the couple strolling by him in the background with nary a breeze blowin’. It truly shows how far the media will go to get ratings and viewers.

It was a bullshit video. It just shows how stupid and gullible Trump ball washers are.

He was standing in mud after working a 12 hour shift in strong winds. He should have picked a better place to shoot his story.

Who gives a shit about the Weather Channel anyway?

Rooster wrote:I never suggested that it was.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Rooster wrote:C’mon, y’all gotta laugh at the fearless weatherman valiantly braving those hurricane force winds to bring you the news LIVE! Only to be upstaged by the couple strolling by him in the background with nary a breeze blowin’. It truly shows how far the media will go to get ratings and viewers.

And where was that? It certainly wasn't during the landfall at Mexico Beach.

Rooster wrote:Ask and you shall receive.
https://youtu.be/GpSgdOGWOYQ[/youtube]

You were saying? Just shut up.