flacaltenn
Diamond Member
No. The articles I have been quoting are the links YOU provided. They indicate that the Flipino weather services take longer averages when measuring wind speed and thus come up with lower numbers. By the standard US and otherwise international methodology, winds at first landfall were sustained 195 mph with gusts to 235 mph (314 kph and 378 kph).
Why are you arguing this point? Are you trying to minimize the strength of this storm? If so, you have a couple thousand meteorologists you need to sort out first, cause they're all pretty convinced this may have been the most powerful storm of all time. And I don't think they're all suffering from a weakness in metric conversions.
The point of longer measurements is accuracy. All local and regional reporting speaks to the more accurate measurements and the fact that the winds were no where near 195 mph. Sustained winds at first landfall were just under the category 5 definition at some 155 mph.
Why do you have a problem with accurate measurements?
You don't even know the meaning of the word. The length of time over which the wind speed is averaged HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on how accurate the measurement might be. It is simply a different measurement. We could average it over a day or a week or a month or a year. Yes, the windspeed in that storm was only 7 knots (averaged over a year).
The Safr-Simpson scale specifies how wind speed (both sustained and gusts) are measured. You cannot measure by a different technique and then apply Safr-Simpson to it.
I'm done talking to you about this. You're a waste of time.
And why is no one getting on HIS case for failing to give a thought to the victims? Nothing political in THAT miss, was there.
Wow . You probably SHOULD leave the conversation if you dont understand the importance of time series length to accuracy of establishing an average.. Go. Scat.. Study...