On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:31:25 PM UTC, wrote:
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

larry also believes the Daily Expressive when it quotes Madden's idiocy too.. Hacks will *always* make more than they should out of any situation and all 4 google search links are hacks' opinion. The *fact* remains, which larry wants to try to deny, is that this storm was the strongest Pacific hurricane to affect the Americas. The likelihood of reasons why will come to light in research, probably later this year. That likelihood is that a warming earth (combined with an El Nino) will produce more intense hurricanes. The 4 hacks have used this speculation to write their reports and larry believes it is science and attempts to criticise science on this basis. I know. It's mad. He does this because larry has a far right-wing agenda to deny AGW and all the avalanche of science that accompanies the research. larry doesn't wish to admit that this hurricane was so strong, because he's still hanging on to the non-existent 'pause' in GW and thus how can such strong hurricanes be being spawned when they weren't 20 years ago.

His clear agenda is to constantly deny that this warming is most likely to be caused by humans. That involves closing his eyes and ears to anything which shows the opposite. That's why he is a climate denier and that's why he is an idiot.

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/

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/

On Monday, 26 October 2015 20:19:06 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:31:25 PM UTC, wrote:
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

larry also believes the Daily Expressive when it quotes Madden's idiocy too. Hacks will *always* make more than they should out of any situation and all 4 google search links are hacks' opinion. The *fact* remains, which larry wants to try to deny, is that this storm was the strongest Pacific hurricane to affect the Americas. The likelihood of reasons why will come to light in research, probably later this year. That likelihood is that a warming earth (combined with an El Nino) will produce more intense hurricanes. The 4 hacks have used this speculation to write their reports and larry believes it is science and attempts to criticise science on this basis. I know. It's mad. He does this because larry has a far right-wing agenda to deny AGW and all the avalanche of science that accompanies the research. larry doesn't wish to admit that this hurricane was so strong, because he's still hanging on to the non-existent 'pause' in GW and thus how can such strong hurricanes be being spawned when they weren't 20 years ago.

His clear agenda is to constantly deny that this warming is most likely to be caused by humans. That involves closing his eyes and ears to anything which shows the opposite. That's why he is a climate denier and that's why he is an idiot.

Your a prize **** Garvers, 'twas me that started the thread 'Far From the Maddening Crowd' as a **** take. So don't try you dirty little tactics here you vile lying hypocrite you. By the way shut yer big fat gob going on about AGW as you don't believe a word of it, you flipping lying yellow fraud.

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:17:16 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 20:19:06 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:31:25 PM UTC, wrote:
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

larry also believes the Daily Expressive when it quotes Madden's idiocy too. Hacks will *always* make more than they should out of any situation and all 4 google search links are hacks' opinion. The *fact* remains, which larry wants to try to deny, is that this storm was the strongest Pacific hurricane to affect the Americas. The likelihood of reasons why will come to light in research, probably later this year. That likelihood is that a warming earth (combined with an El Nino) will produce more intense hurricanes. The 4 hacks have used this speculation to write their reports and larry believes it is science and attempts to criticise science on this basis. I know.. It's mad. He does this because larry has a far right-wing agenda to deny AGW and all the avalanche of science that accompanies the research. larry doesn't wish to admit that this hurricane was so strong, because he's still hanging on to the non-existent 'pause' in GW and thus how can such strong hurricanes be being spawned when they weren't 20 years ago.

His clear agenda is to constantly deny that this warming is most likely to be caused by humans. That involves closing his eyes and ears to anything which shows the opposite. That's why he is a climate denier and that's why he is an idiot.

Your a prize ****....... you vile lying hypocrite you.......shut yer big fat gob.......you flipping lying yellow fraud.

The usual resort to foulness when under pressure. Can't use apostrophe's; can't help posting idiocy.

"Coverage of Hurricane Patricia Was Not Overblown, Likely Life-Saving": Forbes article by J. Marshall Shepherd (professor at the University of Georgia's Department of Geography, director of atmospheric sciences, and former President of the AMS).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshall...y-life-saving/

By the way, there was no link to a Delingpole article (none of which are ever worth the pixels they use up).

Stephen.

On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 15:55:17 UTC, Stephen Davenport wrote:
"Coverage of Hurricane Patricia Was Not Overblown, Likely Life-Saving": Forbes article by J. Marshall Shepherd (professor at the University of Georgia's Department of Geography, director of atmospheric sciences, and former President of the AMS).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshall...y-life-saving/

By the way, there was no link to a Delingpole article (none of which are ever worth the pixels they use up).

Stephen.

Yes very remiss of me, thanks for pointing it out

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...ia-damp-squib/


However moving on to the actual science. Stephen did you actually watch this


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

Scott criticised me for not getting my fact from NOAA , well here they are .

Lives being saved by pre warning yes, but so little damage to wooden structure and trees with a cat5 ? Yeah right.

On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 15:55:17 UTC, Stephen Davenport wrote:
"Coverage of Hurricane Patricia Was Not Overblown, Likely Life-Saving": Forbes article by J. Marshall Shepherd (professor at the University of Georgia's Department of Geography, director of atmospheric sciences, and former President of the AMS).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshall...y-life-saving/

By the way, there was no link to a Delingpole article (none of which are ever worth the pixels they use up).

Stephen.



Stephen . I 've just realised what happened. Due to the superior Mexican warning systems the trees actually had time to look for shelter.


If that was a cat five and the biggest ever , then land hitting hurricanes (when we get them that is) shouldn't pose any further dangers to man or trees.

On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 8:21:25 AM UTC, Dawlish wrote:


Can't use apostrophe's;

LOL!

Col

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?



Thirded

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