Major Hurricane Irma

BumperD · 10-09-2017 11:23pm

Silence from Marco island.

Gaoth Laidir · 10-09-2017 11:28pm

PaulKK wrote: »

My point was I don't understand why you are constantly trying to downplay what is obviously a disastrous situation for those affected.

I stated in my post that this is a life changing event for those people and hence its bizarre that you are in every post I've seen you make on this thread stating that its not as strong as predicted. Odd that you are trying to take the moral high ground with the exact argument I made.

It appears that you are trying to impose some odd sense of smug superior knowledge when the event that is occurring is still highly dangerous and catastrophic. I personally don't care if its a cat 5 or cat 3, from the footage its obvious that its highly damaging event regardless.

Anyway I'll bow out now and go back to lurking rather than contributing.

As I said, I'm not downplaying it. And what I say makes absolutely no difference to those affected.

Of course it's life-changing, and highly damaging. That's why we've all been glued to it all week. On some occasions the intensities didn't add up. I just highlighted that, nothing else.

You call it smug superior knowledge. Fine. I don't. I didn't make up the data, I just quoted them.

Gaoth Laidir · 10-09-2017 11:29pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Because there was plenty of other data not saying that?

CNN? Fox?

George Sunsnow · 10-09-2017 11:36pm

What's the argument over here?
GL is only talking about the wind strength which governs the category of the hurricane
The wind strength was nowhere near what the Virgin Islands or st Maarten experienced that's factually correct

The impact on Florida especially the keys, Miami and the gulf coast is combinationally severe (wind rain and surge)
That's enough to justify any sort of language by the authorities and media networks to frighten people into taking action to save their own lives
I'm glad they did that and don't begrudge the networks their sensationalism for that

Donegal Storm · 10-09-2017 11:39pm

Gaoth Laidir has provided excellent coverage of this storm all week and has always backed up what he's said with raw data, refreshing to read some actual facts amidst all the sensationalism.

Anyway, winds shouldn't be as big an issue from now on out but I suspect it'll be daybreak tomorrow before we get a real picture of what damage the storm surge and flooding have done, looking on google maps there's a huge amount of waterfront properties all along the coastline so tens of thousands of people could have their homes ruined overnight. I haven't heard much about tides but hopefully high tide doesn't coincide with the surge

MJohnston · 10-09-2017 11:42pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

CNN? Fox?

Those aren't data, I'm talking about the tracks that have been published constantly from all the various models.

MJohnston · 10-09-2017 11:43pm

George Sunsnow wrote: »

What's the argument over here?
GL is only talking about the wind strength which governs the category of the hurricane
The wind strength was nowhere near what the Virgin Islands or st Maarten experienced that's factually correct

The impact on Florida especially the keys, Miami and the gulf coast is combinationally severe (wind rain and surge)
That's enough to justify any sort of language by the authorities and media networks to frighten people into taking action to save their own lives
I'm glad they did that and don't begrudge the networks their sensationalism for that

One more time - it is not sensationalism.

Seriously, why do people think this?

sword1 · 10-09-2017 11:45pm

NIMAN wrote: »

I didn't, they mentioned 45mph on at least 4 or 5 occasions, I have no idea what context it was in though.

I think that figure was mentioned earlier in relation to a footbridge they close at 45 mph. Not sure how many people are isolated by closing it.

Gaoth Laidir · 10-09-2017 11:46pm

Fort Myers has reported 58 mm of rainfall in 1 hour.

BumperD · 10-09-2017 11:47pm

Regarding the surge , 1 cubic metre of water weighs approximately 1 ton. Just to give some context if what's projected to be on its way

Jobs OXO · 10-09-2017 11:49pm

Apparently some of the Floridians are shooting the hurricane ! This can't be any use can it?

Gaoth Laidir · 10-09-2017 11:50pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Those aren't data, I'm talking about the tracks that have been published constantly from all the various models.

Not one NHC official intensity forecast mentioned anywhere near Cat 5 at landfall. Go back and check the Forecast Discussions here if you don't believe me.

Individual models have gone on crazy solo runs. The GFS was a joke with its intesnities constantly around 20-30% below the consensus, while the NHC's new HMON model was all over the shop. There were very few times - if any - when the consensus was showing a Cat-5 landfall. The only place I saw Cat 5 mentioned was on CNN.

Gaoth Laidir · 10-09-2017 11:51pm

Jobs OXO wrote: »

Apparently some of the Floridians are shooting the hurricane ! This can't be any use can it?

It's like that video of a woman spraying vinegar at the sky to neutralise a chem....contrail. :rolleyes:

Cantona's Collars · 10-09-2017 11:59pm

One CNN report showed an empty marina, the boats are sitting on the sea bed.When that water surges back it will be at least 3 ft above land at that location.Sea walls already inundated in several places.

MJohnston · 11-09-2017 12:03am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Not one NHC official intensity forecast mentioned anywhere near Cat 5 at landfall. Go back and check the Forecast Discussions here if you don't believe me.

Individual models have gone on crazy solo runs. The GFS was a joke with its intesnities constantly around 20-30% below the consensus, while the NHC's new HMON model was all over the shop. There were very few times - if any - when the consensus was showing a Cat-5 landfall.

You're not really getting what I'm talking about - which is that the idea that Irma has been 'overhyped' or 'sensationalised' is just wrong. At various times during the track of Irma, Category 5 landfall was not highly unlikely, and Category 4 was certainly on the table.

When these things are not 100% impossible, then it would be deeply irresponsible for the media to write them off. The fact that they were in actuality pretty far from 100% impossible meant that they had to place them in the realm of possibility.

Yourself and a few other posters would seem to prefer that the media prevaricate about the intensity of these storms and give out confusing and vague guidance. I'm saying that they absolutely must only talk about the worst case scenarios that are within a decent range of probability, and to call that hype or sensationalising is wrong-headed.

Akrasia · 11-09-2017 12:07am

MJohnston wrote: »

You're not really getting what I'm talking about - which is that the idea that Irma has been 'overhyped' or 'sensationalised' is just wrong. At various times during the track of Irma, Category 5 landfall was not highly unlikely, and Category 4 was certainly on the table.

When these things are not 100% impossible, then it would be deeply irresponsible for the media to write them off. The fact that they were in actuality pretty far from 100% impossible meant that they had to place them in the realm of possibility.

Yourself and a few other posters would seem to prefer that the media prevaricate about the intensity of these storms and give out confusing and vague guidance. I'm saying that they absolutely must only talk about the worst case scenarios that are within a decent range of probability, and to call that hype or sensationalising is wrong-headed.

Really well said

Kermit.de.frog · 11-09-2017 12:11am

Not hearing much if any news from the vulnerable storm surge locations.

Gaoth Laidir · 11-09-2017 12:11am

MJohnston wrote: »

You're not really getting what I'm talking about - which is that the idea that Irma has been 'overhyped' or 'sensationalised' is just wrong. At various times during the track of Irma, Category 5 landfall was not highly unlikely, and Category 4 was certainly on the table.

When these things are not 100% impossible, then it would be deeply irresponsible for the media to write them off. The fact that they were in actuality pretty far from 100% impossible meant that they had to place them in the realm of possibility.

Yourself and a few other posters would seem to prefer that the media prevaricate about the intensity of these storms and give out confusing and vague guidance. I'm saying that they absolutely must only talk about the worst case scenarios that are within a decent range of probability, and to call that hype or sensationalising is wrong-headed.

Even when the official NHC forecasts don't mention them? So it's forecasting by media now is it? They were the only ones mentioning the worst case scenario.

But maybe they should mention Cat 5 every time a hurricane is forecast, ah sure just to be sure, like. Never mind what the science is saying. :rolleyes:

Akrasia · 11-09-2017 12:19am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Even when the official NHC forecasts don't mention them? So it's forecasting by media now is it? They were the only ones mentioning the worst case scenario.

But maybe they should mention Cat 5 every time a hurricane is forecast, ah sure just to be sure, like. Never mind what the science is saying. :rolleyes:

If cuba didn't get in the way, IRMA could have been a cat 5 on Florida landfall. And regardless of wind speed, the size of the storm alone made this a very dangerous event. This storm is huge.

irishfeen · 11-09-2017 12:19am

Very interesting piece on The Weather Channel from FT. Myers, Florida on how the reporting crew uploaded video and audio from being battered with the eye of the storm... they are reporting outside what looks to be a hotel which lost electricity... with a petrol generator running the cameras, microphones, routers etc they ran Ethernet cables direct to the hotels routers and completely uploaded the live broadcast via the hotels broadband ... watched live by probably millions of people in the US and around the world on the weather channel and MSNBC.

Technology is amazing in such a destructive event to inform people.

GritBiscuit · 11-09-2017 12:23am

NHC update

...700 PM EDT POSITION UPDATE...
...EYEWALL OF IRMA HAMMERING FORT MYERS...

A wind gust of 88 mph (142 km/h) was recently reported at the
Southwest Florida International Airport in Fort Myers.

An unofficial observing site in Cape Coral, Florida, just measured a
wind gust of 101 mph (163 km/h).

A NOAA tide gauge in Naples just measured a water level of 3.9 feet
above Mean Higher High Water.

SUMMARY OF 700 PM EDT...2300 UTC...INFORMATION
LOCATION...26.6N 81.7W
ABOUT 15 MI...25 KM ENE OF FT. MYERS FLORIDA
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...110 MPH...175 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...N OR 350 DEGREES AT 14 MPH...22 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...940 MB...27.76 INCHES

Gaoth Laidir · 11-09-2017 12:26am

Akrasia wrote: »

If cuba didn't get in the way, IRMA could have been a cat 5 on Florida landfall. And regardless of wind speed, the size of the storm alone made this a very dangerous event. This storm is huge.

If Cuba wasn't there... :rolleyes: Cuba was there all along. It didn't just suddenly jump in there out of the blue.

I've agreed it's a dangerous event either way. I don't know why people think I said it's not. Luckily it turned out to be about half as dangerous as it would have been had the CNN model turned out to be true.

MJohnston · 11-09-2017 12:29am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Even when the official NHC forecasts don't mention them? So it's forecasting by media now is it? They were the only ones mentioning the worst case scenario.

But maybe they should mention Cat 5 every time a hurricane is forecast, ah sure just to be sure, like. Never mind what the science is saying. :rolleyes:

You seem to be suggesting that the NHC forecast is posited as being the 100% probable outcome, when in fact you and I both know that's definitely not the case.

It is certainly not 'forecasting by media' (though from experience I'm certain there are plenty in the media who could do a very good job of that) to understand that even these NHC advisories are caveated with inaccuracy, and that it is a responsible media who will always err on the side of the inaccuracy leading to a worse outcome.

Gaoth Laidir · 11-09-2017 12:41am

MJohnston wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that the NHC forecast is posited as being the 100% probable outcome, when in fact you and I both know that's definitely not the case.

It is certainly not 'forecasting by media' (though from experience I'm certain there are plenty in the media who could do a very good job of that) to understand that even these NHC advisories are caveated with inaccuracy, and that it is a responsible media who will always err on the side of the inaccuracy leading to a worse outcome.

The NHC forecast is the most probable outcome based on the knowledge at hand at the time. It is certainly more correct than the media, whose sole purpose is to sell news. Are you saying that the media are now free to issue forecasts of their own free will? That they can take the official forecast and add their own bits to it as they see fit? It's a good job the NHC website is so easy to navigate...

Kermit.de.frog · 11-09-2017 12:47am

The eye has totally collapsed now.

Wind field will get larger but winds less intense.

Eastern coastal counties taking a bigger hammering than the west right now.

P.S last report for surge was 3.7 ft in Naples.