I would have put OT but a hurricane is weather....right? Besides I'm apparently kill filed anyway


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.

So the biggest recorded storm at sea and a cat 2 on landfall. I suppose there is an argument it was luck that it missed populated areas but even so the geography of the western Mexican coastline means that Hurricanes have to rise over the mountainous area thus collapsing their strength.

Paul Homeward presents a good breakdown of event and far better than I ever could.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...cane-patricia/



So the greatest Hurricane ever in the Americas turns out no worse than some uprooted trees, flooding and nowhere near the devastation of hurricane of 1959 (not named then) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Mexico_hurricane



Overall we should be thankful it did down grade rapidly and that advanced warnings would have mitigated loss of life but surely not structural damage.

On Sunday, 25 October 2015 10:12:25 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
I would have put OT but a hurricane is weather....right? Besides I'm apparently kill filed anyway


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.

So the biggest recorded storm at sea and a cat 2 on landfall. I suppose there is an argument it was luck that it missed populated areas but even so the geography of the western Mexican coastline means that Hurricanes have to rise over the mountainous area thus collapsing their strength.

Paul Homeward presents a good breakdown of event and far better than I ever could.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...cane-patricia/

So the greatest Hurricane ever in the Americas turns out no worse than some uprooted trees, flooding and nowhere near the devastation of hurricane of 1959 (not named then) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Mexico_hurricane

Don't be too disappointed the mud slides do the dirty work by definition.

Overall we should be thankful it did down grade rapidly and that advanced warnings would have mitigated loss of life but surely not structural damage.

I wonder what your friend SFB has to say about winfarms:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...iasco-exposed/

On Sunday, 25 October 2015 11:12:51 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 25 October 2015 10:12:25 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
I would have put OT but a hurricane is weather....right? Besides I'm apparently kill filed anyway


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.

So the biggest recorded storm at sea and a cat 2 on landfall. I suppose there is an argument it was luck that it missed populated areas but even so the geography of the western Mexican coastline means that Hurricanes have to rise over the mountainous area thus collapsing their strength.

Paul Homeward presents a good breakdown of event and far better than I ever could.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...cane-patricia/

So the greatest Hurricane ever in the Americas turns out no worse than some uprooted trees, flooding and nowhere near the devastation of hurricane of 1959 (not named then) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Mexico_hurricane

Don't be too disappointed the mud slides do the dirty work by definition.

Overall we should be thankful it did down grade rapidly and that advanced warnings would have mitigated loss of life but surely not structural damage.

I wonder what your friend SFB has to say about winfarms:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...iasco-exposed/

Hm. Not a lot of people want to know that.

On Sunday, 25 October 2015 11:12:51 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 25 October 2015 10:12:25 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
I would have put OT but a hurricane is weather....right? Besides I'm apparently kill filed anyway


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.

So the biggest recorded storm at sea and a cat 2 on landfall. I suppose there is an argument it was luck that it missed populated areas but even so the geography of the western Mexican coastline means that Hurricanes have to rise over the mountainous area thus collapsing their strength.

Paul Homeward presents a good breakdown of event and far better than I ever could.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...cane-patricia/

So the greatest Hurricane ever in the Americas turns out no worse than some uprooted trees, flooding and nowhere near the devastation of hurricane of 1959 (not named then) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Mexico_hurricane

Don't be too disappointed the mud slides do the dirty work by definition.

Overall we should be thankful it did down grade rapidly and that advanced warnings would have mitigated loss of life but surely not structural damage.

I wonder what your friend SFB has to say about windfarms:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...iasco-exposed/

I wonder if he will edit this out:

weatherlawyer permalink
October 25, 2015 11:53 am

Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It are they there non scientits is the ones who started it all. That damn conservative warmonger whatsername just wanted to **** on them miners. All because whatsisaircut got sickness benefit for 'em.

On Sunday, 25 October 2015 11:55:46 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 25 October 2015 11:12:51 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 25 October 2015 10:12:25 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
I would have put OT but a hurricane is weather....right? Besides I'm apparently kill filed anyway


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.

So the biggest recorded storm at sea and a cat 2 on landfall. I suppose there is an argument it was luck that it missed populated areas but even so the geography of the western Mexican coastline means that Hurricanes have to rise over the mountainous area thus collapsing their strength.

Paul Homeward presents a good breakdown of event and far better than I ever could.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...cane-patricia/

So the greatest Hurricane ever in the Americas turns out no worse than some uprooted trees, flooding and nowhere near the devastation of hurricane of 1959 (not named then) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Mexico_hurricane

Don't be too disappointed the mud slides do the dirty work by definition.

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?

--
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/

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?

--
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/

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.


Compare the two

Patricia https://images.search.yahoo.com/sear...-s&fr2=piv-web


Sandy

https://images.search.yahoo.com/sear...F-8&n=60&x=wrt

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.

--
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/

Freddie Wrote in message:
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.

I forgot to add: Patricia was the most intense Pacific hurricane
to affect the Americas. So comparison with Atlantic hurricanes
was, as you would say, definitely OT.
--
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/

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.

--
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/



Thing is Patricia will be the Paris poster girl despite the fact it was a damp squib