55 MPH Winds

http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to 55 MPH Winds

  1. lance says:

    i truly believe the winds will not be the issue, but the rain. Hopefully the flood control will work.

    Hurricane or not…

  2. Bizarre ho people are comparing that cloud formation to Katrina.

  3. GeologyJim says:

    OOPS! No mo’ hurricane

    Cue Emily Littella, “Ne -ver mind”

  4. John B., M.D. says:

    Does this thing have an eye or not?

  5. Bob Johnston says:

    Is there a key or legend to reading the flags to determine wind speed? I can’t tell what I’m looking at (other than non-hurricane speed winds).

    • The “feathers” on the flag for each station show the wind speed: Each long bar represents 10 mph, a short one 5 mph, and a triangle 50 mph. If you go to the map site and click on a station, it will tell you the exact wind speed there currently. This storm barely made hurricane status before it dropped back to under 75 mph max sustained winds (and wind speeds over land rarely got over 50 mph), so just like Irene, it was overhyped, and any “expert” on TV should have been practically yawning hours ago, knowing it was going to fall short of being a major hurricane. I can’t believe we can’t even trust the weathermen anymore.

    • Travis says:

      Each full bar at the end of the flag represents 10mph. A triangle at the end of the flag represents 50mph. A partial bar represents an increment of 5mph. So for example, a flag with a triangle, a full bar, and a partial bar represents a wind speed of roughly 50+10+5, or 65mph (give or take a few mph since the increments are by 5). Or a flag with 4 full bars at the end is about 40mph.

    • Bob Johnston says:

      Thanks guys, much appreciated.

  6. Scott Scarborough says:

    What shows “55” on the map? Is it the related to the number of lines on the tail of each station icon?

  7. Travis says:

    82.9mph at a bouy just offshore of Oil Port, LA.

    http://www.wunderground.com/MAR/buoy/LOPL1.html

    (Yes, this one appears to be recording both wind speed and wind gusts correctly before anyone jumps on me). NHC reports 80mph winds as of their last advisory.

    • Travis says:

      Sorry, not Oil City. Galliano.

      • Toby says:

        Watch Goddard ignore this, too. He’s ignored stations that showed he was wrong on the ground, dropsondes from hurricane hunters, and all other data that counters his position.

      • Toby says:

        Refusal to debate – the sign that you are lying.

        What about the refusal to accept data that contradicts your original claim?

        • Comment: Travis, Yes, the LOPL1 (Louisiana Offshore Oil Port Oil Platform) appears to be recording correctly, but the anemometer height is over a football(U.S.) field length above sea level, 97.5m or 319.8ft above sea level to be exact. According to NOAA, “NDBC adjusts wind speeds to conform to the universally accepted reference standard of 10 meters.” That reduces the 72.1 m/s (82.9 mph) to a 10m value of 31 m/s or 69.3 mph. Oops, still not hurricane level.

          ps. NOAA says “These height standardized wind speeds may be found in the last two columns of the files in the derived2 data directory.” That can be found for LOPL1 here: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/derived2/LOPL1.dmv

    • OldOne says:

      Travis,
      Yes, the LOPL1 (Louisiana Offshore Oil Port Oil Platform) appears to be recording correctly, but the anemometer height is over a football(U.S.) field length above sea level, 97.5m or 319.8ft above sea level to be exact. According to NOAA, “NDBC adjusts wind speeds to conform to the universally accepted reference standard of 10 meters.” That reduces the 72.1 m/s (82.9 mph) to a 10m value of 31 m/s or 69.3 mph. Oops, still not hurricane level.

      ps. NOAA says “These height standardized wind speeds may be found in the last two columns of the files in the derived2 data directory.” That can be found for LOPL1 here: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/derived2/LOPL1.dmv

    • Toby says:

      “Watch Goddard ignore this, too. He’s ignored stations that showed he was wrong on the ground, dropsondes from hurricane hunters, and all other data that counters his position.”

      Since you did ignore a direct cut and paste from a VDM message from aircraft, then yes you are ignoring dropsondes from hurricane hunters. Since you ignored two stations posted here with 80mph or more sustained winds, you are ignoring them. You are also ignoring other data that counters your position, like radar data which is scanning the storm right now.

      If that’s your definition of ‘full of shit’, then I’d hate to see what really bullshitting would be called. Maybe it’s called Goddarding?

      • Me says:

        Post a link to what yer saying then.

      • It is an oil platform fdumbass, not a buoy

      • OldOne says:

        Toby, The only other ‘raw’ reading I saw above hurricane level was KMDJ (MIssissippi Canyon 311A (Apache Corp) Oil Platform). That anemometer is 90m above the platform, but doesn’t give the exact platform height above sea level. If you use the same platform height of LOPL1 to get an estimate, you get 130m above sea level.
        Then apply the correction formula in the link I gave above and the 75knot (86mph) raw number is lowered to a 10m value of 29 m/s or 65 mph, or 9 mph below hurricane strength.

        So sorry to burst your bubble, but Steven is still correct, so far no official documented measured 10m hurricane strength wind from the NOAA coastal network of buoys.

  8. Toby says:

    Not to mention the fact the storm is still pretty much offshore and appears to still be strengthening. Steven is going to have to either admit he is wrong and eat crow, or just leave this on his blog for everyone to see he knows nothing about what he’s rabbiting on about.

    • Ockham says:

      Toby, What is your point? Is it that, even if Steven is wrong on this one, it will somehow nullify every thing he has presented in this blog that brings the CAGW meme into question? I don’t think so.
      This storm, even if it turns out ultimately to be called a hurricane at landfall is a weakling by hurricane standards. Where are the super storms with ‘increased intensity’ that climate activists keep going on about. I wouldn’t crow too loudly about this one. Seven years is a long time to wait for a major hurricane to make landfall in the US and this one isn’t it. I think Steven has made that quite clear. Cling to it if you must.

  9. Global warmers reeeaaally want this to be a hurricane. Can they cope with it not being one?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s