In the midst of the ongoing disaster in the southeast, Dr. Roy Spencer has some comforting words.

Ribbit74

To those of you who have had to evacuate, or are attempting to hunker down and weather the storm (please be safe), take solace in the fact that the hurricane "drought" continues unabated!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/4001-days-the-major-hurricane-drought-continues/


You see, this hurricane has not yet met the technical definition of landfall, which is the center of the eye crossing into land. So per Spencer's defined criteria, Matthew doesn't count.
Never mind that what's happening now is WORSE than landfall, because the hurricane is inflicting damage along a much greater stretch of shore due since it's staying over water, which is its source of energy. Over land, it would quickly dissipate into a mere rain event.

That's why superstorm Sandy, and Matthew, well they simply don't count. Just ignore all the damage they've caused-- it means nothing.

tadaaa

waves hands slowly

"this is not the hurricane you are looking for"

citizenschallenge

"This morning it looks like Matthew will probably not make landfall along the northeast coast of Florida. Even if it does, its intensity is forecast to fall below Cat 3 strength this evening. The National Hurricane Center reported at 7 a.m. EDT that Cape Canaveral in the western eyewall of Matthew experienced a wind gust of 107 mph.
(And pleeeze stop pestering me about The Storm Formerly Known as Hurricane Sandy, it was Category 1 at landfall. Ike was Cat 2.)"

Insane is as insane does.

citizenschallenge

I'm curious, does anyone know if someone
keeps record of how many false hurricane warnings have been given?

Spencer makes it sound like it's regular thing.

Sou

The warning wasn't false. (No warning is.) The warnings were real and clear. Greg Laden has written about this.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/10/07/getting-matthew-wrong/

The problem with a lot of science deniers is that they suffer binary thinking. They think that if the eye of a hurricane doesn't cross the coastline then there was no hurricane. They think that what they call an eleven year drought means that there haven't been any hurricanes in the Atlantic.

This time the predicted path was virtually identical to what has happened. Some early forecasts indicated the hurricane would move east (off the coast) sooner than it has, and not go as far up the coast (to South Carolina) like it is. But overall the forecast track was very close to what is happening.

Sou

Another thing is that people in the area have other things on their mind with storm surges and high tides. Lots evacuated - for those who didn't there are curfews in place, roads are closed, and the power is out (to more than one million homes), so not many photos or videos. On top of that, the media isn't going into dangerous areas. They are relying on twitter and youtube and weather reports.

PG_Antioch

Sandy was an EXTRA-tropical cyclone (also called "post" tropical) (a "hurricane that 'ate' a nor'easter"). ETCs are completely different from TCs & should not be judged by the same criteria (e.g. "Sandy was only a category 1 hurricane"). Briefly,
1. ETCs get their energy from cold air above, while TCs get their energy from warm water below. This means different structures.
2. ETCs tend to be less well-organized, with lower pressures & slower winds than TCs.
3. ETCs can be much larger than TCs.
4. ETCs tend to occur slightly later in the season.

Sandy resembled the Perfect Storm of 1991 & an unnamed storm in November 1950, but it was larger & more powerful than both, the largest, most powerful storm OF ITS TYPE to ever hit the US (according to Louis Uccellini, the head of the NWS). Calling it insignificant because it was "only a category 1" is disingenuous in the extreme. Spencer HAS to know these things, HAS to know the differences between ETCs & TCs. He's just LYING (AGAIN). He should be ashamed of himself (AGAIN).

This is something from Hong Kong that explains some of the differences:

http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu01met/01met_tropical_cyclones/ele_typhoon3_e.htm

John Seers

Just a small point. I think I read somewhere that the criteria for a storm making landfall was the leading edge of the eye touching land. Not the centre. I do not know which is correct, though the centre does feel neater to me.

citizenschallenge

I wish I was more of a mental gymnast, seems to me this forced focus on "landfall hurricanes" and some artificial "hurricane drought" nonsense is an example of "Seepage" at work.

We are concerned with our global climate engine and it's various components.  Atmospheric patterns sweep over land and water.  The dynamics of increasing warmth, and moisture and energy within the system is transforming the character of global cyclone events from what we've been used to back when we were in a cooler climate regime.  

To nit-pick over the landfall luck of the draw seems another indication of the general disconnect and downright craziness that's overtaken society. 

Oh and NO storm these days is without the imprint of the global warming embedded within it !!!  Nor is that reality impacted by the ability, or inability, to measure that AGW component - it has nothing to do with the fundamental physical reality that all storms spawned within our warmed system will reflect that heat.

Misanthroptimist

Florida got lucky with Matthew. I evacuated. It proved to be overly-cautious, but given the same information and circumstances I'd do the same thing again. A twenty mile more westerly course would have brought the eye of Matthew right over this house. To address Spencer's babbling, however, it should be noted that Matthew "missed" FL by two or three miles.