Albaman quotes this in reference to wind strengths over the Philippines:
Haiyan hit Guiuan, on the Philippine island of Samar…the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) assessed Haiyan’s sustained winds at 195 mph, gusting to 235 mph, making it the 4th strongest tropical cyclone in world history. Satellite loops show that Haiyan weakened only slightly, if at all, in the two hours after JTWC’s advisory, so the super typhoon likely made landfall with winds near 195 mph. The next JTWC intensity estimate, for 00Z UTC November 8, about three hours after landfall, put the top winds at 185 mph. Averaging together these estimates gives a strength of 190 mph an hour after landfall. Thus, Haiyan had winds of 190 – 195 mph at landfall, making it the strongest tropical cyclone on record to make landfall in world history.
Unfortunately, as stated before, the Philippines own weather bureau reports top wind speed on landfall at the same place, Samar, as 235kph….147 mph, not 195mph:
So who is correct…the US JTWC based in Haiwaii or the Philippine’s own weather bureau?
Guess we will just have to wait and see.
Though of course the BBC seemed to have changed its mind:
BBC now reporting reduced wind speeds that would make it a Cat4 storm:
Typhoon Haiyan – one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall – swept through six central Philippine islands on Friday.
It brought sustained winds of 235km/h (147mph), with gusts of 275 km/h (170 mph), with waves as high as 15m (45ft), bringing up to 400mm (15.75 inches) of rain in places.
This choice is a no-brainer, if you have half a brain.
The JTWC may be based in Hawaii, but its physical location is irrelevant: it has access to “numerous meteorological satellite systems and sensors, radar data, surface and upper level synoptic data”. It’s the best funded such organisation in the world.
The Philippines weather bureau… isn’t.
its nice to see lefties relying on the US Military for the truth. I take it you see their word as gospel when it comes to other matters, for eg, drone strikes
I know heart warming to watch ain’t it very like their being happy to quote the daily mail when it suits them even though they profess to loath said paper and never read it ?
I’m not a lefty. You can think somebody is an idiot without being at the opposite end of the political spectrum from them. Although such subtleties frequently escape BBBC commenters.
well im a Conspiracy Theory Skeptic. You’re a leftie
So, in your humble view CTC, is the BBC correct to say the storm is due to global warming?
No. But this thread isn’t about that, it’s about Alan’s pathetic attempt at self-justification.
Really…then why is the post titled ‘Who is correct?’
Why is the blog called ‘Biased BBC’?
You have completely lost track of what is actually being said and the intentions behind the comments.
But then you have your own agenda…..shame the BBC has had to correct its reports to say 235 KPH.
Explain that.
Gotta say, just reading that first line… admirable.
And brave. So very, very brave.
Yep…and yet NASA managed to confuse metric with Imperial with disastrous effect…..and the highly expensive and technologically advanced US Army (and ours) got its arse kicked by sandal wearing Afghans using AK47’s, RPG’s and fertiliser bombs.
credit were credit is due, the terrorists dont even use real AK47’s, they make their own copies in garden sheds. Even the ammo is sub standard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy
which is worrying. if they can do this in some backwards country. Imagine what they can make here
“NASA managed to confuse metric with Imperial with disastrous effect…..and the highly expensive and technologically advanced US Army (and ours) got its arse kicked by sandal wearing Afghans using AK47′s, RPG’s and fertiliser bombs”
A single mistake made by a NASA engineer ten years ago and a military defeat of course entirely discredit the well-funded American government scientific agencies. Well done, a line of argument both stupid and irrelevant.
I don’t actually care whose figures are more accurate. I am merely pointing out that, to the dispassionate observer (that is, one who is not so wedded to their thesis that they desperately cast around for data to support it) it is, on the balance of probabilities, likely that US scientific agencies have access to better and more reliable weather data than their Filipino counterparts, whose observation stations, as Albaman has pointed out, are likely to have been taken out of action by the strength of the winds.
‘… a line of argument both stupid and irrelevant. ‘
A line of argument you started.
How about the multi-million pound computers that didn’t predict the global warming standstill…..that continually can’t predict weather in this country……
yep…..lots of money and brains…..don’t always add up to an accurate and reliable picture do they?
And the proof that any Philippine instruments were damaged…apart from Albaman’s imagination? None so far.
‘A line of argument you started.’
No, Alan, you were the one who cherry-picked two irrelevant examples of US technological failure rather than accept that massively funded government agencies tend to gather more exhaustive and accurate data than those that are poorly funded. The only one being a footling idiot here is you.
What have forecast models got to do with this? Precisely nothing. Prediction and recording data are two entirely separate things. If you can’t tell the difference… well, I’ve probably hammered that point home enough.
‘And the proof that any Philippine instruments were damaged…apart from Albaman’s imagination? None so far.’
Did you read his post?
“UPDATE 5 PM 11/7/2013: The storm has made landfall, and the weather stations in the region have stopped transmitting (after one showed a 97-mph wind gust).”
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/typhoon-haiyan-yolanda-strongest-storm-on-earth/19696692
Albaman cited an actual meteorologist. Perhaps you can substantiate *your* claim that the weather stations *weren’t* damaged?
‘massively funded government agencies tend to gather more exhaustive and accurate data’
And as a contribution to Strictly Come Tinkerbell, there’s what some massively funded outfits can tend to do with what they gather…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/03/been_hounded_by_the_bbc_for_li.shtml
Maybe it was a different time?
You have a short memory for your own comments….
This is the line you took:
‘This choice is a no-brainer, if you have half a brain.
The JTWC may be based in Hawaii, but its physical location is irrelevant: it has access to “numerous meteorological satellite systems and sensors, radar data, surface and upper level synoptic data”. It’s the best funded such organisation in the world.
The Philippines weather bureau… isn’t.’
So you claim that the best kit and funding makes the JTWC far better than the Philippines weather bureau….
A comparison that you now deny making….that technology can fail…..
‘No, Alan, you were the one who cherry-picked two irrelevant examples of US technological failure’
You claim:
‘What have forecast models got to do with this? Precisely nothing’
But they have everything to do with your point…..which is why you don’t like the point being made….the failure of multi-million pound computers is just another example of the failure of highly expensive technology.
Desperate backpedalling from you.
You’re really not very bright, are you.
You suggested that a single mistake by a NASA engineer, and a military defeat, in some way invalidate the assertion that better-funded scientific agencies are more likely to gather accurate data than poorly funded ones. Your argument is childish and wrong, and I pointed that out. There is nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote.
You conflate climate modelling with meteorological data gathering. The only thing they have in common is the use of expensive computers. The major difference – which you apparently can’t see – is that one is predictive, the other simply records what has happened. I agree entirely that climate models have failed and that their predictions have been proved wrong. But thinking that the failure of one discredits the other would necessitate a turn of mind so unsubtle that I doubt even you are capable of it.
Word of advice, Alan. Stop digging.
Advice you should take yourself….still not explained why the BBC report 235 KPH now.
When you’re ready.
So now I’ve proved you wrong you ask for proof of something I never argued. You are a knave and a fool.
CTC says ‘…(that is, one who is not so wedded to their thesis that they desperately cast around for data to support it)’.
Lovely, unselfconscious irony given the sketchy characters starring in Climategate whom the BBC relies upon for information to peddle it’s global warming agenda.
Past records come from increasingly less sophisticated sources, right back to when only a surface weather station could give you a maximum speed on the surface for that location, with now, satellites obtaining the maximum speed from increasingly better three dimensional observations of a storm.
So finally, observations of the maximum speed of a storm are probably no longer missed out by lack of observational sophistication.
But this would have produced an illusion of an increase in hurricane speeds over time.
Excellent point, Richard, but unfortunately far too inconvenient for any environmentalist at the BBC to consider.
“So who is correct…the US JTWC based in Haiwaii or the Philippine’s own weather bureau?”
Alan, you ignore an obvious point. After landfall may of the wind monitoring stations fail – not surprising really in such strong winds which damage both the measuring apparatus and disrupts the power supply for the computers etc. monitoring their output.
“UPDATE 5 PM 11/7/2013: The storm has made landfall, and the weather stations in the region have stopped transmitting (after one showed a 97-mph wind gust).”
“BREAKING NEWS 2 PM 11/7/2013: The JTWC has now declared that Super Typhoon Haiyan (known locally as Yolanda) has sustained winds of 170 knots (195 mph) with gusts to 205 knots (235 mph)”
“So is this the strongest storm ever recorded on Earth? The answer, as it always is in meteorology is: It depends. A couple of storms in history were measured (not estimated) with higher winds, as high as 180 knots, but storms before 1970 were later disqualified from the rankings. I think it’s safe to say that no storm in recorded history has made landfall at this pressure reading. However… these sat wind estimates are below 253 mph, the new wind record set by Typhoon Olivia in 1996, that was confirmed three years ago. Amazingly, that was instrument measured, and it remains to be seen what instruments have measured with Haiyan.”
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/typhoon-haiyan-yolanda-strongest-storm-on-earth/19696692
Yep….Philippines just made up the figure.
No good keep quoting the same stuff from JTWC as ‘proof’ because I can just keep quoting the Philippine’s figures…we’ll just have to wait and see confirmation either way….and then the BBC can amend its reports once again.
Alan, where did I say that the “Philippines just made up the figure”?
Let me make an educated guess here. If the JTWC’s data supported your argument you would be all over it like a rash and you would be suggesting that we could not rely on the Phillipine’s figures due to the damage that the country sustained during the storm.
Any rational individual has a choice.
Trust the Philippine data disrupted by the event or that from the JTWC which uses several satellite systems and sensors, radar, surface and upper level synoptic data as well as atmospheric models that were not compromised by the event.
I will leave it to others to judge whether you are a rational person or not.
You claimed the measuring instruments must have been damaged:
‘Alan, you ignore an obvious point. After landfall may of the wind monitoring stations fail – not surprising really in such strong winds which damage both the measuring apparatus and disrupts the power supply for the computers etc. monitoring their output.’
Therefore any figures produced must have come from where?
If they had no instruments where are you suggesting the figures came from?
Your comments are implying that they made the figures up.
Your latest comment therefore lacks any logic or rationality….follow your own train of thought….and where does that lead?
Any evidence that the measuring devices are damaged?
No.
So you made that up to bolster your case.
Just as you made up a claim that I said you worked for the BBC based on your email address….which is odd as your email doesn’t say Albaman@BBC.Independentscotland.com…it makes no reference at all to the BBC…..and I made no reference to it either.
You continually ignore requests to provide this ‘evidence’……still waiting.
“Any evidence that the measuring devices are damaged?”
Apologies Alan for making the assumption that you actually read posts before commenting on them.
Albaman says:
November 13, 2013 at 2:54 pm
“UPDATE 5 PM 11/7/2013: The storm has made landfall, and the weather stations in the region have stopped transmitting (after one showed a 97-mph wind gust).”
I assume that damage to weather stations have always caused the underestimation of the strength of hurricanes in the past, but now that we have satellites, we can pretend that hurricanes are more powerful that the past.
I “ASSUME” this would prove that Albaman is a moron.
Warmists do prefer assumptions to facts don’t they.
At the risk of repeating myself is it not “moronic” (rather than a sign of your self proclaimed intelligence) to call someone you have never met a moron?
Quisling Albaman,
To paraphrase one instance: there is no difference in funding methods between the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation and the Daily Telegraph. In the end it is all public money.
Rather a moronic statement. Something you would expect a moron to say.
An assumption that Albaman is a moron, can be proved right or wrong by the scientific method.
Another admirable exercise in obfuscation by Albaman who still hasn’t managed to give an opinion as to whether the BBC is correct to link this typhoon to global warming.
I suspect he thinks they are.
Do you not read the title of this post? It asks ‘Who is correct?’
It doesn’t say one side or the other…it puts both sides and doesn’t defend one set of figures or the other…unlike yourself who has taken a fixed position…a position which isn’t tenable on the facts…which remain uncertain.
So are you again suggesting the Philippine weather bureau made their figures up?….because the weather bureau quite clearly states that on the 8th of November (1 day after your date) the wind speeds were 235 kph on land.
On the 7th the Australian weather bureau reported:
‘As a typhoon, the winds around Haiyan reached a maximum sustained wind strength of 232 km/h on November 7’
Just how did they work that out if all instruments were down?
As I said we shall have to wait and see which figures are more accurate…..
And you continue to ignore the fact that the BBC has finally decided that 235KPH is the accurate figure.
Super typhoon Yolanda stronger than Pablo: US military
by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNNews.com
Posted at 11/06/2013 7:35 PM | Updated as of 11/07/2013 12:10 PM
“MANILA (UPDATED) – Super typhoon Yolanda (international name Haiyan) will be packing maximum sustained winds of around 268 kilometers per hour (kph) and gusts reaching 324 kph when it slams into the Samar-Leyte area Friday, the US military’s weather bureau said Wednesday.
In comparison, super typhoon Pablo had 259 kph sustained winds and 314 kph gusts when it hit Mindanao in December 2012, according to the Hawaii-based Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) run by the US Navy and Air Force.
The JTWC expects Yolanda to reach peak strength today, November 6, and sustain its full Category 5 ferocity until it makes landfall.
The weather agency said the super typhoon is already carrying 250 kph maximum sustained winds and 305 kph gusts as it barrels toward the Philippines.
It expects the tropical cyclone to intensify further in the next 36 hours while it crosses the warm waters of the Philippine Sea.
“STY Haiyan (Yolanda) will make landfall just prior to TAU 48, over the Central Philippines. [It] will weaken as it tracks across the Philippine islands, but should emerge over the South China Sea as a 110 knot (203 kph) typhoon,” the JTWC added.”
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/11/06/13/super-typhoon-yolanda-stronger-pablo-us-military
Full credit for creating a distractor’s distraction to keep the pin-head angel discussions clear of actual BBC factual inaccuracy, lack of objectivity and integrity.
That it involves endless spinning on wind strengths makes it even funnier.
Both these posts are worth a read.
The BBC gets a derogatory mention and The Mail is being reported to the PCC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/super-typhoon-haiyanyolanda-another-overhyped-storm-that-didnt-match-early-reports/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#more-97255
Watt can make an official complaint about the Mail, but there is no recourse regarding the BBC, who he says can’t be much trusted with facts these days. And now with Leveson, the BBC’s superior invincibility and unaccountability will be more firmly established.
Welcome back David.
On the today programme on radio four this morning. [7.38 am]
Some senior bloke in the World Bank (President? Kim?) was arguing that the typhoon in the Philippines is a sign that it is “Time to stop arguing about climate change, Time to act”.
Evan Davis let him spout lots of unscientific nonsense, in fact positively encouraged him, including ‘By 2030 Bangkok could be underwater’. This he attributed solely to climate change. This is a lie. Bangkok may soon be underwater, but it is due to several factors that have nothing to do with climate. Bangkok is built on a swamp, it was all underwater 1000 years ago. Industry is extracting groundwater, often illegally, and a huge concrete city has been built on soggy ground. This is causing the land to sink at up to five centimetres per year. But Bangkok’s flooding problems have nothing to do with climate change as the World Bank claimed. Nothing to do with rising sea levels. We could halt all CO2 production immediately, it would do nothing to help Bangkok.
When the so-called experts get caught out telling such blatant lies, how can they be surprised when people are sceptical about their other claims.
Shame Evan Davis didn’t act like an inquiring journalist instead of a partner in the World Banks climate campaign.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h3l0k
1hr 38min
I suppose its because lefties are unable to think and act at the same time due to mental inferiority.
Here’s a little advice for Alan: ‘Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
“Just as you made up a claim that I said you worked for the BBC based on your email address….which is odd as your email doesn’t say Albaman@BBC.Independentscotland.com…it makes no reference at all to the BBC…..and I made no reference to it either.
You continually ignore requests to provide this ‘evidence’……still waiting. ”
Happy to do so when you invest in a search facility for the blog. Unlike some of your sycophants I have better things to do than create a “cut and paste” index or log – especially when it relates to some of your more inane ramblings.
I assume you are paid by the compulsory license fee or another disreputable source of income such as tax money stolen from the people to pay for the ideology and dogma of the moronic left, or whatever they want to buy or subsidise or save from going bust (due to not serving the customer) because of cronies in high places.
You assume wrongly.
In other words you have absolutely no evidence…..your claim was basically a lie.
Shame you don’t have the guts to admit it and apologise….and as usual you resort to low insult when the going gets tough.
Reputable sources quoted by Albaman to support an argument in this thread: 1. Reputable sources quoted by Alan to suppport an argument : zero.
Perhaps Albaman should have quoted the full quote…slippery not to have:
Haiyan was so strong that Friday morning, local time, an observation site in Guiuan, Philippines, measured the sustained winds at 96 mph, before the site was disabled.
That’s one site was disabled.
Anyway…. you are saying that the BBC is not reputable when it has amended its report to say that the wind speed was 235 KPH now and not 235 MPH?
Because that’s the point of this blog….not the actual windspeed….but how the BBC reports it.
And you say ‘reputable source’…well it’s a blog….just like this or WUWT…..WUWT quotes 235 KPH…so again you pick your windspeed and source….
‘Jesse Ferrell’s WeatherMatrix blog covers extreme weather worldwide with a concentration on weather photos and Social Media.’
Albaman – your fatal attraction to this website continues to be great source of amusement. Keep up the entertainment!
Fun for me as well and cheaper than buying the Beano or Dandy..
I generally know when I have made a valid point as Alan (and his willing sycophants) descend on mass.
Thanks for proving the point!!
A valid point? And yet you can’t explain how the Philippine weather bureau issued an official statement saying the wind speed was 235 KPH.
Which is the point isn’t it? You claim weather stations were disabled and unable to produce data and yet there is the data.
What is more the BBC is now quoting that figure of 235 KPH not 235 MPH.
The point that seems lost on you is that this is about how the BBC reports things….and it seems they got something wrong somewhere.
Keep reading the Beano.
Most (if not all) of the Philippines weather reporting stations went *off air* not because of damage by excessive wind to the reporting apparatus but because of power failure.
A) evidence for this assertion?
B) difference this makes? The data still omits peak wind speed.
CTC….Still avoiding answering how the BBC came to the figure of 235 KPH….and the Australian weather office a figure of 232 KPH.
Or indeed how the Philippines themselves issued the 235 KPH figure.
Any ideas CTC where those figures came from as you’re the expert on weather technology in the Philippines…low tech though you claim it is?
CTC, the next time there is a storm a brewin’ in that there Philippines, take a gander at this web site: http://weather.com.ph/