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

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.

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?

On Monday, 26 October 2015 16:07:46 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.

Cat 5 collapsing like a pack of cards to cat 2 and as for your term 'affect' is a joke and a sick one at that. A cat five sustain even in a remote area would have lefts tens of thousand of trees flattened in it wake. It was powerful and possibly record breaking for a very short time.


Powerful storms at sea we ignore this one was powerful for a very short time at sea. It missed a populated area but even so the evidence to create a pre Paris AGW legend doesn't exist.

On Monday, 26 October 2015 17:18:00 UTC, Scott W wrote:
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?

Scott I went to NOAA and this is a page on their website, its the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale/ You will see that as the intensity grows to a cat 3 already the wood construction buildings are going by the time you reach 5 trees and wooden buildings are gone



http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php



This is why I do not trust these organisations their own web pages tell you the opposite of what they tell the public.

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:38:21 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 16:07:46 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.

Cat 5 collapsing like a pack of cards to cat 2 and as for your term 'affect' is a joke and a sick one at that. A cat five sustain even in a remote area would have lefts tens of thousand of trees flattened in it wake. It was powerful and possibly record breaking for a very short time.


Powerful storms at sea we ignore this one was powerful for a very short time at sea. It missed a populated area but even so the evidence to create a pre Paris AGW legend doesn't exist.

Again, you have nor understood a word of what Freddie has said. You get the idea for your last sentence from the almost empty inside of your own head.

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:50:18 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 17:18:00 UTC, Scott W wrote:
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?

Scott I went to NOAA and this is a page on their website, its the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale/ You will see that as the intensity grows to a cat 3 already the wood construction buildings are going by the time you reach 5 trees and wooden buildings are gone



http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php



This is why I do not trust these organisations their own web pages tell you the opposite of what they tell the public.

Idiot.

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:38:21 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 16:07:46 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.

Cat 5 collapsing like a pack of cards to cat 2 and as for your term 'affect' is a joke and a sick one at that. A cat five sustain even in a remote area would have lefts tens of thousand of trees flattened in it wake. It was powerful and possibly record breaking for a very short time.


Powerful storms at sea we ignore this one was powerful for a very short time at sea. It missed a populated area but even so the evidence to create a pre Paris AGW legend doesn't exist.

Nobody has ever related this storm to AGW apart from you. It was (albeit briefly) the strongest tropical storm ever recorded in the western hemisphere.. It was hyped up by the media, words like 'catastrophic' were used. That's just media hype for you but you can also argue that catastrophic devastation *might* have happened. Either way, it was nothing to do with AGW.

Col

On Monday, 26 October 2015 18:26:03 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:38:21 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 16:07:46 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.

Cat 5 collapsing like a pack of cards to cat 2 and as for your term 'affect' is a joke and a sick one at that. A cat five sustain even in a remote area would have lefts tens of thousand of trees flattened in it wake. It was powerful and possibly record breaking for a very short time.


Powerful storms at sea we ignore this one was powerful for a very short time at sea. It missed a populated area but even so the evidence to create a pre Paris AGW legend doesn't exist.

Nobody has ever related this storm to AGW apart from you. It was (albeit briefly) the strongest tropical storm ever recorded in the western hemisphere. It was hyped up by the media, words like 'catastrophic' were used. That's just media hype for you but you can also argue that catastrophic devastation *might* have happened. Either way, it was nothing to do with AGW.

Col


Really . I must have imagined it Col. Darn the pesky voices.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...warmer-planet/

http://technewsnow.com/news/is-hurri...ng-looks-like-


http://time.com/4085361/hurricane-patricia-storm/

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/hurrica...limate-change/


Need I link more?

Of course as only three Homebase garden sheds blew over the usual suspects have had the wind literally taken out of their sails

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



Really . I must have imagined it Col. Darn the pesky voices.


I meant people on here.

Col