Lawrence Jenkins Wrote in message:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 15:21:48 UTC, Freddie wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins Wrote in message:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 14:53:08 UTC, Freddie wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins Wrote in message:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 08:52:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins Wrote in message:
It's all about location location location, Lawrence.
Compare the two
Okay:
1. Sandy came ashore in a densely populated area. Patricia came
ashore in a rural and largely unpopulated area - which,
incidentally, is difficult to reach and, consequently, news of
damage will be slow to propagate.
2. Sandy came ashore in flat topography near sea level, so its
effects only slowly dissipated. Patricia came ashore in
mountainous terrain which - as I'm sure you're aware by now -
will cause rapid dissipation of the storm and its
effects.
I'm afraid you're comparing oranges with pork chops.
Thing is Patricia will be the Paris poster girl despite the fact it was a damp squib
It wasn't a damp squib - it behaved just as anticipated.
The claims being made for it are ludicrous however if they reflect the truth then just goes to show they are not a big deal. No deaths reported yet. Even in the area it hit there wasn't much damage let alone devastation
What is being claimed is that, in terms of central pressure
reading and wind strength, it was the most powerful hurricane
recorded in the Pacific, east of the international date line.
This is true. Nothing about its severity in terms of property
damaged or lives lost has ever been claimed. All claims have been
based on the (factually correct) pressure and wind
recordings.
I've tried to explain why its impact was relatively muted (FWIW
there have been recorded deaths). I'm not going to explain
further - I'll just provide a link for you to follow:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/961527...icia-aftermath
--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/