Is the NHC overestimating tropical storm wind speeds lately?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

So they've officially updated TS Lala in the Central Pacific to 60mph 1-minute sustained winds. However, I checked the raw data from the Hurricane Hunter mission which was just finished, and there is not even 45mph 10-second winds in the raw data. Here's a sample of the raw data.

Well, trust me. Go to Tropical Tidbits dot com and click on the recon data for LaLa and look at the cross-sectional graph of the raw data. The strongest winds they found was 40mph 10-second winds, which should not even qualify this as a Tropical Storm. Normally, you'd need to find 45 to 50mph 10-second winds before the 1-minute average was 40mph sustained.

It' seems like weak storms are being over-reported in recent years. When I was a child and teenager, fi they reported a 60mph Tropical Storm coming, you had to clean up the lawn and stow away all your stuff, because it was going to be blown away if you didn't. Now, the storms they report as 60mph sustained end up doing close to zero damage.

I don't know why they do this. They exaggerate weaker storms, and for some stupid reason low-ball the worst of the worst storms. Example: They under-reported Melissa's max wind speeds of both sustained and gusts until 6 months after the fact, etc, and this pattern has been going on for a long, long time now.

[strateguy632]

good point! "The strongest winds they found was 40mph 10-second winds, which should not even qualify this as a Tropical Storm."

[RachyRach]

Do you think it's some societal manipulation? Keep the fear high lol

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The theory has to do with homeowner's insurance not covering most hurricane damage. You are required to have "hurricane insurance" to cover the wind and treefall damage, and you are required to have "flood insurance" to cover any ground- up water damage, while top-down water damage is supposed to be covered by the "Hurricane insurance".

It's basically a scam so the insurance company can refuse to cover basic damages to your home and property through this convoluted loopholes. If you lack one of the three coverages, they will always claim the new damage should have been covered by whichever one you lack. It should just be one type of home insurance and it should cover all damage, but it's a loophole system so the insurance company never pays for the damages.

[RachyRach]

Ah got you!

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I'm not making this up. After Katrina and Ida in Louisiana, a lot of people got screwed by these loopholes in the insurance programs. A rooftop hanging out of a tree got called "flood damage" even though it was 40 feet in the air and the homeowner was like, "The water never got that high, obviously, but they are calling it "flood damage" becaue the homeowner didn't have Federal flood insurance. So by calling it "flood damage" the insurance company didn't pay anything towards his virtually destroyed home and properties.

This stuff really happened. If you don't live in a hurricane prone area, count your blessings. Hopefully you don't live in an EArthquake zone either, because there you must have special earthquake insurance or the damage doesn't get covered.

By the way, I'm licensed to sell life insurance and health/medical insurance, so I'm familiar with some of these gimmicks although I suck at sales, because I refuse to lie or exaggerate the product. If a product doesn't sell itself on it's own merit, I'm not lying or exaggerating to help sell it.

[RachyRach]

Lol I believe you