On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 4:07:46 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 3:36:23 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
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:
I would have put OT but a hurricane is weather....right? Besides I'm apparently kill filed anyway
So I guess you were looking to rile somebody rather than engage in
a constructive discussion?


But here's Jame's Delingpoles article , quite funny really.

Yes I've seen the arguments that it was the a very powerful storm but it did fill 40mb in 24 hours and rapidly collapsed into a cat 2.
Landfall - especially in a mountainous region - will do that to a
hurricane.

So the biggest recorded storm at sea and a cat 2 on landfall.
No, it was a cat 5 on landfall.
snip

Overall we should be thankful it did down grade rapidly and that advanced warnings would have mitigated loss of life
Yes, we should be thankful.

but surely not structural damage.
Ooh here's a thought - maybe building construction and placing was
influenced by the 1959 storm?

Well if the storm was a monster compared to hurricane Sandy and the wealthier folk of the eastern sea board who have been hit by devasting hurricanes in the past, surely they would be better prepared with less damage but Sandy seems to have caused far more problems.
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.

--
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/

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 claims? That it was the most intense Pacific storm to affect the Americas? That's a fact; not a claim.

Seconded. Why doesn't Lawrence get data from the official source ie NOAA and the Mexican meteo site, instead of non-scientific commentators?