T1B

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.

Feelings were not hurt, Delusionspray. I have no doubt that the Weather Channel over-hypes their storm coverage. But I asked for a video from Mexico Beach.

And I don’t have one. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that industries that trade in the business of misery and destruction have a stake in hyping the very thing they are selling, ie weather broadcasts don’t earn television ratings when the forecast is sunny and nice every day. TWC was working the ratings with the fake bad weather in NC when the locals walked by and showed us what a farce that business is— and Spray and Lefty are pointing out that in the face of a lack of evidence, the AGW Alarmists still made claims to a hurricane’s strength that haven’t been substantiated with, you know, evidence. These things go hand-in-glove with each other.

We wouldn’t be having this conversation except that the Doomsday prophets have been predicting our world’s horrible future for decades and they keep having to walk their shit back frequently because the Earth has this annoying habit of being quite a pleasant location to live and shows no actual signs of an impending death.

Nobody was over-hyping the weather at Mexico Beach. I realize that you tards don't feel that the National Hurricane Center is credible. Whatever.

Goober McTuber wrote:Nobody was over-hyping the weather at Mexico Beach. I realize that you tards don't feel that the National Hurricane Center is credible. Whatever.

Straw man much?

Papa Willie wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Nobody was over-hyping the weather at Mexico Beach. I realize that you tards don't feel that the National Hurricane Center is credible. Whatever.

Straw man much?

You should know all about strawmen. But you obviously don't.

It's OK we deal with imbeciles every day.

Papa Willie wrote:We're just laughing at you, Mikey. Carry on, buddy.

We...meaning you and your overstretched anal sphincter?

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Nobody was over-hyping the weather at Mexico Beach. I realize that you tards don't feel that the National Hurricane Center is credible. Whatever.

Straw man much?

Make little sense much?

So you don't understand the concept of a Strawman. Midget public defender will be happy to explain it to you.

Left Seater wrote:So you don't understand the concept of a Strawman.

I understand it just fine. I just don't see how it applies to the discussion about Mexico Beach.

I didn’t think I would have to dumb this that far down for you Goobs.

I never have said that I don’t find the NHC credible. People should listen to what they have to say and heed their warnings. However, they are perfect, no one is, and their after action efforts should include setting the record straight. If they don’t have wind speed readings to support their forecasted wind speeds just tell us. If they feel that the damage profile fits with their forecasted wind speed then say that. But offer us up the supporting documents either way.

Left Seater wrote:I didn’t think I would have to dumb this that far down for you Goobs.

I never have said that I don’t find the NHC credible. People should listen to what they have to say and heed their warnings. However, they are perfect, no one is, and their after action efforts should include setting the record straight. If they don’t have wind speed readings to support their forecasted wind speeds just tell us. If they feel that the damage profile fits with their forecasted wind speed then say that. But offer us up the supporting documents either way.

Sure, Fakester, let's offer up the documents on just what a TOTAL FRAUD you really are. How the fuck do you look in the mirror? Oh, that's right, you're such a hollowed coward that you believe what you pretend to believe. Your rote allegiance to the Koch brothers narrative has been stalwart for years. Yet you've never really said an honest word.

He is way too fat to see himself in a mirror unless it was at a funhouse.

Says the guy who can’t see in any mirror because they are all over his head.

Left Seater wrote:I didn’t think I would have to dumb this that far down for you Goobs.

I never have said that I don’t find the NHC credible. People should listen to what they have to say and heed their warnings. However, they are perfect, no one is, and their after action efforts should include setting the record straight. If they don’t have wind speed readings to support their forecasted wind speeds just tell us. If they feel that the damage profile fits with their forecasted wind speed then say that. But offer us up the supporting documents either way.

I thought they posted measured speed of 155? Not predictions, measured. I've seen zero proof that wasn't the case.

I have not seen a single measured speed of 155. Fastest I have seen was 137. Again if anyone has this info book me up.

Goober McTuber wrote:https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2018/a ... .016.shtml

Same thing I posted before. Seater is looking for raw sensor data, or something. It's not that he doesn't trust the NHC, he doesn't trust them to analyze or report their data honestly or correctly.

That report says highest observed recorded winds were a gust of 130. Nothing in that shows a sustained wind speed of 155.

You must be reading a different report.

Maybe it's the "near" part that's giving you trouble?

SUMMARY OF 100 PM CDT...1800 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...30.0N 85.5W
ABOUT 5 MI...10 KM NW OF MEXICO BEACH FLORIDA
ABOUT 20 MI...30 KM SE OF PANAMA CITY FLORIDA
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...155 MPH...250 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...NNE OR 20 DEGREES AT 14 MPH...22 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...919 MB...27.14 INCHES

Recent data from NOAA and Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter
aircraft indicate that maximum sustained winds have increased to
near 155 mph (250 km/h) with higher gusts.

Agreed. Not a single raw data report to verify the claimed wind speed.

Did you actually see any raw data reports for any of the other wind speed claims?

All data from buoys, land based anemometers, or any other source is processed in some way. I'd like to see the one second, five second (or whatever their sampling rates are) data in the original 4-20 mA format.

Papa Willie wrote:Jesus fucking Christ. Unbelievable...

Watch your language, son.

Seater won't believe a story in his local paper unless he's allowed to read the reporter's notes. Melty doesn't trust the National Hurricane Center - he thinks it's a leftist plot.

The vast differences between what and what?

Mikey wrote:The vast differences between what and what?

The vast differences between Melty's world and reality.

BTW -- we had an EF0 tornado yesterday in Portland. Half a tornado to go and we hit the state average for a year (unless there already was one -- I don't remember).

Dinsdale wrote:BTW -- we had an EF0 tornado yesterday in Portland. Half a tornado to go and we hit the state average for a year (unless there already was one -- I don't remember).

You have any data to prove that?

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:The vast differences between what and what?

The buoy data vs. the other shit? Go back to the original post I made, Mikey. 75' seas? There's never been a 75' foot wave in the GoM. It's not like the Pissific.

You linked up the National Buoy Data Center. I have no idea what they are measuring but I'm pretty sure they weren't suggesting there were 75' waves in the Gulf.

We were talking about wind speed.

Anyway, try Googling "Gulf of Mexico Highest Waves" and read through some of the links.

Here's one:

https://www.livescience.com/364-hurrica ... -feet.html

Waves nearly 100 feet tall were recorded last year in the Gulf of Mexico when Hurricane Ivan headed toward shore, forcing scientists to rethink what is normal.

The center of the category 4 hurricane, with winds raging up to 150 miles per hour, passed right over six of the Naval Research Laboratory's wave-tide gauges, churning up waves more than 90 feet high.

Maybe you don't believe it, but there it is. And that was Hurricane Ivan.

Also, when they talk about wave height, I think they're referring to the distance from the trough to the crest, which would be a lot higher than measuring from the normal sea level to the top of the wave.

Turning to buoy 42040, the SWH of 15.96 m is the largest recorded by any of the NDBC buoys in the Gulf of Mexico and translates to a maximum wave height in that sea state of nearly 29 m (about 95 feet).

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... S-87-4-481

Meltspray just got kicked in the cunt.

Papa Willie wrote:

Did you review the buoy data? Certainly they did. Right?

You mean the guys who wrote the peer reviewed scientific journal articles based on buoy data?

I know you don't trust scientists, but I'm pretty sure they did.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... S-87-4-481

BTW...most scientists don't just make shit up like your boy Donnie seems to do on more than a daily basis, and then publish it.

Ever heard of something called "peer review"? Mostly their peers won't just believe just anything that comes their way, like Donnie's minions seem to, and wouldn't let them get away with that kind of shit.

Papa Willie wrote:
Coastal waters out to 20 nm. Didn't happen. I have fished in that same area out 30 miles many a time, and probably the deepest water I ever saw was 50'. It's shallow. Nothing like the Atlantic or Pacific. Just sayin'...

Where's your data?

I've never been on the Gulf before so I can't judge from personal experience, but I think I'll take the scientific study over your observations made while heaving your lunch over the side of a fishing boat.

Papa Willie wrote:...but it takes more area and certainly time to build up mega waves like they're talking about...

And you know this...how?

That's a pretty cool map. It looks like there are some areas, not that far south of Mobile Bay, that are over 1000 fathoms (6,000 feet). Some areas pretty close to Pensacola that are 150 to 500 fathoms, which is 3,000 feet. I'm actually surprised how deep the Gulf is. According to Wikipedia the average depth in the Gulf is over 5,000 feet. Maybe that's one reason that hurricanes build up so quickly there.

When I asked "and you know this...how" what I meant was what do you actually know about how the waves build up. I know that when the depth gets shallow close to shore they get dampened pretty quickly but I've heard that in deep areas, and with 140 (or even 135) mph winds, the giant waves can kick up pretty quickly.

OK I see your point.

Now you've actually got me interested in ocean waves, how they're formed and how they dissipate, and I'm going to have to go get all researchy and find out for myself.

So FUCK YOU. I don't have time to to do this, but I have to. But not today.

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Turning to buoy 42040, the SWH of 15.96 m is the largest recorded by any of the NDBC buoys in the Gulf of Mexico and translates to a maximum wave height in that sea state of nearly 29 m (about 95 feet).

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... S-87-4-481

So they double what they read, and guess. I reckon it could be possible out in the middle, but the depth of the GoM wouldn't allow it further inland. That forecast came from this: https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/Forecast ... .KTAE.html

Coastal waters out to 20 nm. Didn't happen. I have fished in that same area out 30 miles many a time, and probably the deepest water I ever saw was 50'. It's shallow. Nothing like the Atlantic or Pacific. Just sayin'...

Of the one measuring station that didn't fail: https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_histo ... tion=sgof1, we won't be able to see what it saw until about next month.

They said that there was an 83' wave recorded on Florence, but that's the Atlantic. Deeper water, and it was going a whole helluva lot slower. Though Michael had stronger winds than Florence and/or Ivan, it was also moving a lot, lot faster as a system, and it just seems unlikely that the waves would have had enough time to build to anything like 100'.

You do realize that waves build easier and more quickly in shallower water than in the deep, right? Because if you don't, you're just a fat fucking retard spouting nonsense.