OT: Hurricane Lee now a Cat 1 hurricane - likely landfall as near Cat 1 in Canada (or maybe far eastern Maine) on 9/16-17

[RUChoppin]

I'd love to know how reliable reports were on Cat 5 hurricanes while in the Atlantic Ocean 172 years ago.

Safe bet that records were pretty scant that far back, especially for fish storms.

 

[BIGRUBIGDBIGredmachine]

I'd love to know how reliable reports were on Cat 5 hurricanes while in the Atlantic Ocean 172 years ago.

There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That's not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.

 

[RUScrew85]

Safe bet that records were pretty scant that far back, especially for fish storms.

That's my thinking. Yet another Tweet that's likely full of crap.

 

[RUScrew85]

View embedded media

There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That's not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.

I was gently suggesting the kinda the same thing.

 

[iReC89]

I'd love to know how reliable reports were on Cat 5 hurricanes while in the Atlantic Ocean 172 years ago.

to be fair he said "farthest ...observed ... since records began 172 years ago.". We just weren't looking there more then 50 or so years ago.

 

[RUChoppin]

That's my thinking. Yet another Tweet that's likely full of crap.

Why is it full of crap? That's as far back as records go. It's like saying "highest wind speed recorded" or "most snowfall recorded". The earliest records of most things will be spotty. Just because there wasn't universal modern tracking on day one doesn't discount the records started when they did.

The tweet said: "Lee is the farthest southeast we've ever observed a Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic since records began 172 years ago."

 

[koleszar]

View embedded media

There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That's not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.

Climate change pays well.

 

[RU4Real]

I'd love to know how reliable reports were on Cat 5 hurricanes while in the Atlantic Ocean 172 years ago.

I have long said that technology accounts for some amount of "increased tropical activity".

There are at least a couple of storms every year that form, circulate and die without ever impacting land and which "exist" solely due to satellite observations. To your point, in the 19th and early 20th centuries they would simply have been noted in ship reports as gales / storms - if they were observed at all.

 

[krup]

View embedded media

There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That's not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.

Marble Bar Australia held the record for the hottest stretch of weather, 160 straight days of temps over 100f in 1923-24. Kids learned about it in school and some government websites in Australia cited it as fact as recently as 2020.

All of a sudden new temperature records were released so that Marble Bar no longer had so many 100 degree days and only 123 in a row.

What a surprise, now they can say the hottest stretch of weather ever was the 154 days in the 2000’s in Death Valley. Marble Bar’s record disappeared just like any talk of the severe hurricanes that hit the US in the 1930’s.

 

[RUScrew85]

Why is it full of crap? That's as far back as records go. It's like saying "highest wind speed recorded" or "most snowfall recorded". The earliest records of most things will be spotty. Just because there wasn't universal modern tracking on day one doesn't discount the records started when they did.

The tweet said: "Lee is the farthest southeast we've ever observed a Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic since records began 172 years ago."

What about all the other hurricanes that weren't observed with 1850's technology? Just because they weren't observed doesn't mean they didn't happen. And if the happened but aren't included in the data presented in the Tweet then the Tweet is misleading - AKA Crap.

 

[LETSGORU91]

I'd love to know how reliable reports were on Cat 5 hurricanes while in the Atlantic Ocean 172 years ago.

Beaced may be able to give you an eyewitness account.

 

[RUChoppin]

What about all the other hurricanes that weren't observed with 1850's technology? Just because they weren't observed doesn't mean they didn't happen. And if the happened but aren't included in the data presented in the Tweet then the Tweet is misleading - AKA Crap.

The tweet didn't claim that it's the farthest southeast that ever happened, just that has ever been observed.

Not sure what your beef is with that - the word "happened" and the word "observed" are different words with different meanings. Reading one and thinking it's the other is on the reader, not the writer.

 

[RU848789]

View embedded media

There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That's not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.

Yes, I always get my climate science input from 5 year old articles from Investors Business Daily and the RealClimateScience Blog run by Tony Heller that MediaBiasFactCheck rates as follows: "Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism." Not to mention, but this wingnut also thinks the 2020 election was stolen, lol. And posting crap in bold font doesn't hide the fact that it's crap.

This kind of completely biased reporting, none of which has been published in a peer reviewed journal, because it's absolutely made up crap, is the kind of thing you post all the time on the CE board and it should've stayed there. The 2nd link exposes the efforts to impugn the historical temperature records and NOAA as scientific fraud, showing how there have been essentially an equal number of increases and decreases in the historical temperature record, plus NOAA is only responsible for a modest portion of the temperature record and wouldn't have the ability to alter temperature records worldwide even if they wanted to (which they don't).

Finally, congrats on derailing a perfectly good thread on Hurricane Lee, which had nothing to do with climate science, per se.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/#google_vignette

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/

 

[iReC89]

If there was a cat 5 in the same area 172 years ago I guarantee that someone in that area would have observed it, but the relevant records are at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[RU848789]

What about all the other hurricanes that weren't observed with 1850's technology? Just because they weren't observed doesn't mean they didn't happen. And if the happened but aren't included in the data presented in the Tweet then the Tweet is misleading - AKA Crap.

You're off-base on this one. The quote is, "Lee is the farthest southeast we've ever observed a Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic since records began 172 years ago." It's hard to go into gory details of measurement history in a tweet, but it should be obvious that records from the pre-satellite era and especially pre WWII (from the early 1940s onward the US and other countries started flying into hurricanes to gather data) are going to be a bit less reliable and less complete.

So what? One can only go with the data one has and we probably have about 55 years of great data on storms, another 30 or so years of good data fand then probably another 90 years of spotty data, pre-1940, mostly from ships and land stations. It is what it is. And while it's a near certainty that 1-2 weak/short-lived named storms per year probably wouldn't have ever been observed before satellites, it's hard to believe a major hurricane or especially a Cat 5 hurricane would've been "missed" before 1940, since there has always been a pretty decent rate of shipping in the Atlantic Basin and the ships would not have missed any decent sized storm.

 

[RUtix4me]

If there was a cat 5 in the same area 172 years ago I guarantee that someone in that area would have observed it, but the relevant records are at the bottom of the ocean.

Sorta like if a bear shits in the woods

 

[RUScrew85]

The tweet didn't claim that it's the farthest southeast that ever happened, just that has ever been observed.

Not sure what your beef is with that - the word "happened" and the word "observed" are different words with different meanings. Reading one and thinking it's the other is on the reader, not the writer.

My point is that it's misleading. It's presented as a meaningful measure when it's isn't.

 

[RUScrew85]

You're off-base on this one. The quote is, "Lee is the farthest southeast we've ever observed a Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic since records began 172 years ago." It's hard to go into gory details of measurement history in a tweet, but it should be obvious that records from the pre-satellite era and especially pre WWII (from the early 1940s onward the US and other countries started flying into hurricanes to gather data) are going to be a bit less reliable and less complete.

So what? One can only go with the data one has and we probably have about 55 years of great data on storms, another 30 or so years of good data fand then probably another 90 years of spotty data, pre-1940, mostly from ships and land stations. It is what it is. And while it's a near certainty that 1-2 weak/short-lived named storms per year probably wouldn't have ever been observed before satellites, it's hard to believe a major hurricane or especially a Cat 5 hurricane would've been "missed" before 1940, since there has always been a pretty decent rate of shipping in the Atlantic Basin and the ships would not have missed any decent sized storm.

I'll post it again. The Tweet is, in my opinion, misleading.

I'll concede it's a fine point. But it's a valid one.

How many wooden sailing vessels in 1850 would have even survived an encounter with a CAT 3, 4, 5 fish storm to report them? By posting the info the way it was presented - even saying observed - is misleading.

 

[RU848789]

Back to Lee, which experienced some shear (somewhat unexpected - forecasting is hard, lol) on its SW side this morning, weakening the storm a bit, as the winds were down to 155 mph (almost Cat 5) in the 11 am NHC advisory. Lee isn't expected to restrenghten to the 180 mph forecast last night before this morning's shear, but a borderline cat 4/5 storm is still pretty formidable.

No really significant changes in today's 12Z models, although the Euro's not out yet. Still looking like an eastern Canada landfall (Nova Scotia or Newfoundland) or a miss to the east of there, with a small chance of a LI/New England landfall (and close to zero chance of landfall west of LI).

FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS

INIT 08/1500Z 18.2N 54.5W 135 KT 155 MPH
12H 09/0000Z 19.0N 56.1W 135 KT 155 MPH
24H 09/1200Z 20.0N 57.9W 130 KT 150 MPH
36H 10/0000Z 20.8N 59.4W 125 KT 145 MPH
48H 10/1200Z 21.5N 60.8W 125 KT 145 MPH
60H 11/0000Z 22.1N 62.0W 125 KT 145 MPH
72H 11/1200Z 22.7N 63.1W 125 KT 145 MPH
96H 12/1200Z 23.5N 65.5W 120 KT 140 MPH
120H 13/1200Z 24.8N 67.5W 115 KT 130 MPH

 

[RUChoppin]

My point is that it's misleading. It's presented as a meaningful measure when it's isn't.

Nonsense.

Usain Bolt holds the world record for the 100m dash. But not every 100m dash ever run has been officially observed, so that's not a meaningful measure? He may have beaten that time in an untimed workout outside of official competition, but it doesn't change the fact that his time is the fastest recorded.

Saying that measures aren't meaningful because all possible things haven't been observed is just being obtuse.

 

[NickRU714]

I'll post it again. They Tweet is, in my opinion, misleading.

I'll concede it's a fine point. But it's a valid one.

How many wooden sailing vessels in 1850 would have even survived an encounter with a CAT 3, 4, 5 fish storm at sea to report them? By posting the info the way it was presented - even saying observed - is misleading.

This has long been a pet peeve of mine.
Words matter.
People (not talking about this tweet or storm but in general) are quick to say "hottest day ever" or similar hyperbole.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for approx 4 seconds of that. "Recorded history" is a miniscule fraction of that.
One of my favorite timeline based facts is: T-Rex lived closer to today than they did to the Stegosaurus. That's how long dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Of course, maybe it's morbid to acknowledge and think about just how much of a tiny blip "humanity" will be on the timeline of the earth.
And perhaps that's why people intentionally or unintentionally ignore it?

 

[RU4Real]

I'll post it again. They Tweet is, in my opinion, misleading.

I'll concede it's a fine point. But it's a valid one.

How many wooden sailing vessels in 1850 would have even survived an encounter with a CAT 3, 4, 5 fish storm at sea to report them? By posting the info the way it was presented - even saying observed - is misleading.

Honestly? Most of them. Every major storm absolutely brings some number of losses, but the standard tactic of trailing warps and being blown to leeward under bare poles leads to survivability for some shockingly small vessels - as in ~30'.

 

[RUScrew85]

This has long been a pet peeve of mine.
Words matter.
People (not talking about this tweet or storm but in general) are quick to say "hottest day ever" or similar hyperbole.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for approx 4 seconds of that. "Recorded history" is a miniscule fraction of that.
One of my favorite timeline based facts is: T-Rex lived closer to today than they did to the Stegosaurus. That's how long dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Of course, maybe it's morbid to acknowledge and think about just how much of a tiny blip "humanity" will be on the timeline of the earth.
And perhaps that's why people intentionally or unintentionally ignore it?

The ones that bother me are all the "Could..." tweets and headlines. They mean nothing except to generate clicks or mislead.

"New discovery could erase cancer!"

Yeah so COULD my used socks.

 

[RUScrew85]

Nonsense.

Usain Bolt holds the world record for the 100m dash. But not every 100m dash ever run has been officially observed, so that's not a meaningful measure? He may have beaten that time in an untimed workout outside of official competition, but it doesn't change the fact that his time is the fastest recorded.

Saying that measures aren't meaningful because all possible things haven't been observed is just being obtuse.

Cool bro. Do you want the win? Because I'll grant you the win on this important internet conversation. Now can we let the weather thread do weather?

Congrats on the big win. Your opinion is better than my opinion. I'm humbled. LOL

 

[RUChoppin]

This has long been a pet peeve of mine.
Words matter.
People (not talking about this tweet or storm but in general) are quick to say "hottest day ever" or similar hyperbole.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for approx 4 seconds of that. "Recorded history" is a miniscule fraction of that.
One of my favorite timeline based facts is: T-Rex lived closer to today than they did to the Stegosaurus. That's how long dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Of course, maybe it's morbid to acknowledge and think about just how much of a tiny blip "humanity" will be on the timeline of the earth.
And perhaps that's why people intentionally or unintentionally ignore it?

I agree. "Hottest day ever" is a very different thing than "Hottest day on record" - words definitely matter.

Context also matters - 10 minutes is miniscule in the context of the age of the Earth, but I wouldn't want to have to hold my breath that long. In the context of the average human's lived experience, a superlative event over a span longer than a human lifetime is significant.

When you zoom out too far, everything loses meaning. The greatest tragedies of human existence pale next to the numerous extinction events the Earth has experienced - but that doesn't mean they aren't still tragic.

 

[RU848789]

Honestly? Most of them. Every major storm absolutely brings some number of losses, but the standard tactic of trailing warps and being blown to leeward under bare poles leads to survivability for some shockingly small vessels - as in ~30'.

I know very little about sailing, but in about a minute I was able to find numerous sources on the interwebs discussing how large wooden sailing ships in the 1800s could survive hurricanes, as long as they had a good watertight boat and a good crew - and these boats were sometimes equipped with anemometers for measuring windspeed, although most probably just took notes using the old Beaufort scale (which kind of only goes up to Cat 1 winds). Certainly the data quality on hurricanes from 1870 is likely a far cry from what we get today, but it's not like we had nothing; in addition, at least the landfalling storms often also had good indications of wind speeds from instruments and/or damage.

 

[BIGRUBIGDBIGredmachine]

Yes, I always get my climate science input from 5 year old articles from Investors Business Daily and the RealClimateScience Blog run by Tony Heller that MediaBiasFactCheck rates as follows: "Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism." Not to mention, but this wingnut also thinks the 2020 election was stolen, lol. And posting crap in bold font doesn't hide the fact that it's crap.

This kind of completely biased reporting, none of which has been published in a peer reviewed journal, because it's absolutely made up crap, is the kind of thing you post all the time on the CE board and it should've stayed there. The 2nd link exposes the efforts to impugn the historical temperature records and NOAA as scientific fraud, showing how there have been essentially an equal number of increases and decreases in the historical temperature record, plus NOAA is only responsible for a modest portion of the temperature record and wouldn't have the ability to alter temperature records worldwide even if they wanted to (which they don't).

Finally, congrats on derailing a perfectly good thread on Hurricane Lee, which had nothing to do with climate science, per se.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/#google_vignette

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/

Yeh the same old shoot-the-messenger routine from the global warming alarmist crew...everybody and anybody that questions the unsettled science has to be a kook or a quack. MediaBiasFactCheck lol-a 2* (out of 5) credibility rating itself-- of course uses a methodology that relies on "peer-reviewed" confirmation--which we know doesn't happen in the climate science industry unless it aligns with the alarmist agenda. Talk about a load of crap. And since you found it important to mention, what exactly are Heller's views on 2020 election? You do know that even Bill Barr has agreed 2020 was rigged, no?

Anyway, your 2nd link is from a pro-climate change organization, which your pals at MediaBiasFactCheck rate "left of center" ha ha. Btw, just how accurate is the historical "raw temperature" that CarbonBrief used for its analysis from data "reconstructed" by Global Historical Climatology Network (started in 1992)?

Finally, no, I didn't derail a "perfectly good thread...which had nothing to do with climate science per se" lol. You slipped in your "global warming" narratives quite imperfectly. To be fair, a tad more subtlety than your political hyper-partisanship on display in your chicomvirus threads, but still apparent.

 

[RUScrew85]

Honestly? Most of them. Every major storm absolutely brings some number of losses, but the standard tactic of trailing warps and being blown to leeward under bare poles leads to survivability for some shockingly small vessels - as in ~30'.

So you are saying a 1850's sailing ship made of wood and canvas would survive measuring 175MPH winds in a CAT 5 on the open ocean? LOL. Sure skipper.

 

[RU848789]

Back to Lee, which experienced some shear (somewhat unexpected - forecasting is hard, lol) on its SW side this morning, weakening the storm a bit, as the winds were down to 155 mph (almost Cat 5) in the 11 am NHC advisory. Lee isn't expected to restrenghten to the 180 mph forecast last night before this morning's shear, but a borderline cat 4/5 storm is still pretty formidable.

No really significant changes in today's 12Z models, although the Euro's not out yet. Still looking like an eastern Canada landfall (Nova Scotia or Newfoundland) or a miss to the east of there, with a small chance of a LI/New England landfall (and close to zero chance of landfall west of LI).

FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS

INIT 08/1500Z 18.2N 54.5W 135 KT 155 MPH
12H 09/0000Z 19.0N 56.1W 135 KT 155 MPH
24H 09/1200Z 20.0N 57.9W 130 KT 150 MPH
36H 10/0000Z 20.8N 59.4W 125 KT 145 MPH
48H 10/1200Z 21.5N 60.8W 125 KT 145 MPH
60H 11/0000Z 22.1N 62.0W 125 KT 145 MPH
72H 11/1200Z 22.7N 63.1W 125 KT 145 MPH
96H 12/1200Z 23.5N 65.5W 120 KT 140 MPH
120H 13/1200Z 24.8N 67.5W 115 KT 130 MPH

As of 5 pm, Lee was still a 150 mph storm, having weakened a bit due to shear on its SW side that has been much more than forecast and which, now, appears to have seriously eroded the core structure of the hurricane, such that recent recon is now showing the pressure having risen from the low 940s to the high 950s, which might mean the storm is barely a Cat 3 (maybe 130 mph winds). Nobody was expecting this and it just underscores that meteorology can still be full of surprises. Let's see if this weakening might have any impact on the storm's future track. Stay tuned.

 

[retired711]

So you are saying a 1850's sailing ship made of wood and canvas would survive measuring 175MPH winds in a CAT 5 on the open ocean? LOL. Sure skipper.

I don't want to intrude on a private argument here, but by the 1850s ships were powered by steam. I would think -- you guys would know better -- that would have an effect on how well a ship could weather a bad storm.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Update = Still just a meaningful fish storm

 

[RU4Real]

So you are saying a 1850's sailing ship made of wood and canvas would survive measuring 175MPH winds in a CAT 5 on the open ocean? LOL. Sure skipper.

Well, you can take "canvas" right out of the equation. Under those conditions you would run (downwind) under bare poles - all of the sails would be taken down and stowed.

The existential hazard to a sailing vessel in a severe storm has absolutely nothing to do with the wind. I can't stress that enough. Don't even think about the wind speed because it means absolutely shit in a "survival storm". You can't sail, period.

What you're concerned about is capsize. Since ocean-going sailing vessels have weighted keels, they're a lot more stable in large waves than a motor vessel of similar size but capsize is a risk.

The key point, there, is that sailboats are only capsized by breaking waves on the beam, i.e. coming from one side or the other. The size of a breaking wave necessary to capsize a boat is a matter of math - there's a Capsize Screening Formula that we use to determine how resistant a boat is to capsize.

The easiest way to avoid having to worry about math is to not risk breaking waves on the beam. In a hurricane, that's pretty easy since the wave direction always tracks with the wind direction.

Even a Cat 5, in the North Atlantic, will only generate significant wave heights of about 40 to 50 feet. If you're traveling downwind, with the waves, then you have to worry about boarding seas from the stern. All those old sailing vessels were designed with a lot of freeboard in the stern (height from the deck to the water) specifically for that reason.

It's worth remembering that those same vessels routinely plied the "tea trade", which meant rounding Cape Horn against the wind. Don't know if you know anything about Cape Horn but it's not unusual to see 100 mph winds and 60 to 90 foot waves.

The boats that were most likely to encounter severe conditions where built specifically for that purpose.

 

[RU4Real]

I don't want to intrude on a private argument here, but by the 1850s ships were powered by steam. I would think -- you guys would know better -- that would have an effect on how well a ship could weather a bad storm.

Very few of them, in terms of the overall fleet populations.

The US Navy still had sailing vessels in the Civil War.

For 50 to 60 years after the Savannah first crossed the Atlantic in 1818, most "steam ships" were in fact "packet ships", which were sailing vessels with steam engines and either screws or retractable paddle wheels. The rise of the purely engine-drive transatlantic liner didn't begin until 1860 and didn't gain serious momentum until the turn of the century.

A good book on the topic is "The Sway of the Grand Saloon" by John Malcolm Brinnin, which tells the story of transatlantic passenger service from Colonial times until the heyday of the Cunard Queens in the mid-20th c.

 

[RUScrew85]

WHERE ARE MY DAMN SPAGHETTI CHARTS!!??

 

[RU4Real]

WHERE ARE MY DAMN SPAGHETTI CHARTS!!??

Mike's Weather Page... powered by Firman Power Equipment!

spaghettimodels.com

 

[Purple-Ed]

This has long been a pet peeve of mine.
Words matter.
People (not talking about this tweet or storm but in general) are quick to say "hottest day ever" or similar hyperbole.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for approx 4 seconds of that. "Recorded history" is a miniscule fraction of that.
One of my favorite timeline based facts is: T-Rex lived closer to today than they did to the Stegosaurus. That's how long dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Of course, maybe it's morbid to acknowledge and think about just how much of a tiny blip "humanity" will be on the timeline of the earth.
And perhaps that's why people intentionally or unintentionally ignore it?

Wait-what? I thought the earth was 6000 thousand years old.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Update = Still just a meaningful fish storm

Put this guy on ignore. Recommend others do as well

 

[mikemarc1]

Update = Still just a meaningful fish storm

Get a hobby, my man.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Get a hobby, my man.

Anything untrue with my update? Just trying to provide everyone with the current facts.

 

[RU848789]

As of 5 pm, Lee was still a 150 mph storm, having weakened a bit due to shear on its SW side that has been much more than forecast and which, now, appears to have seriously eroded the core structure of the hurricane, such that recent recon is now showing the pressure having risen from the low 940s to the high 950s, which might mean the storm is barely a Cat 3 (maybe 130 mph winds). Nobody was expecting this and it just underscores that meteorology can still be full of surprises. Let's see if this weakening might have any impact on the storm's future track. Stay tuned.

View embedded media

Lee was actually all the way down to 115 mph at 11 pm last night, so that shear really shredded the storm significantly and Lee is still 115 mph as of 5 am. However, the shear is expected to ease up today and the NHC has Lee restrengthening back up to 140 mph in a couple of days, but then back down to about 120 mph at the end of the 5-day forecast period. As usual, intensity forecasts are signficantly less accurate than track forecasts, so let's just see what happens, since nobody was seeing the weakening yesterday - although to be fair, the rapid intensification we saw earlier this week was pretty well forecast.

More importantly, we're finally starting to see the forecast turn from WNW to NNW in about 4-5 days in response to being on the SW edge of the western Atlantic ridge that has been steering the storm for days, combined with the approaching US trough by mid-next week. Where from there is the $64,000 question, but we're still 8-9 days from potential landfall in Canada, as the GFS and CMC show (as a cat 2/3 storm in Nova Scotia), given the slowdown in speed of the storm over the next few days, while the Euro shows Lee missing Canada completely to the east.

And a small percentage of ensemble members (maybe ~5%) still show a US landfall (Maine mostly, but Mass on a couple), so given how far we are from that time, a US landfall still can't be ruled out, but a landfall in our area is an extremely low probability. The folks on AmericanWx usually post the ensemble spaghetti maps if interested and Tropical Tidbits has them for the GFS/CMC, as well as the operational plots.

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/59538-major-hurricane-lee/page/25/

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/storminfo/

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at3.shtml?start#contents

FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS

INIT 09/0900Z 19.7N 57.4W 100 KT 115 MPH
12H 09/1800Z 20.4N 58.7W 95 KT 110 MPH
24H 10/0600Z 21.2N 60.1W 95 KT 110 MPH
36H 10/1800Z 21.8N 61.4W 105 KT 120 MPH
48H 11/0600Z 22.4N 62.6W 115 KT 130 MPH
60H 11/1800Z 22.8N 63.7W 120 KT 140 MPH
72H 12/0600Z 23.2N 64.8W 120 KT 140 MPH
96H 13/0600Z 23.9N 66.8W 115 KT 130 MPH
120H 14/0600Z 25.7N 67.8W 105 KT 120 MPH