I've heard the reference in news reports, If I recall it was said to be the forth strongest (by wind strength) ever recorded but the strongest to make land fall.
That is also what the wiki page for the storm states, and they give the source as the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) with a wind strength of 315 km/h (196 mph) beating the old record by 10 km/h, a record set by Hurricane Camille in 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Hai...
Maybe it didn't happen at all as Kano claims to be there but has had no trouble posting here even when the Philippines has major infrastructure issues, I'm surprised he hasn't posted again about how quite the hurricane season has been as he did a while ago, again funny he seemed then to also not notice the several major storms that have hit the Philippines in the last few years, two within just weeks of each other, it's almost as if he wasn't their at all.
It had the highest classification of any storm at landfall. It was rated at the highest Dvorak classification by three different offices. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center "averaged" these ratings and came up with their official rating, which put it as the highest.
Stronger winds have been measured in other storms, but that doesn't mean that Haiyan wasn't the strongest. Typhoons and hurricanes don't choose their spots to go ashore by where the most appropriate instruments are located. The world record for wind speed would almost undoubtedly be set in a tornado, but direct wind speed measurements for tornadoes are rare, even the late Tim Samaras had a very difficult time doing that.
I think there are a couple of points that should not be in dispute:
1. What Jeff Masters reported was absolutely correct--there was no politics at all involved in it. Those people criticizing him should really think twice, he spent 5 years as an on-board meteorologist with the Hurricane Hunter aircraft AND he has a Ph.D. in meteorology, you can't really get better credentials than that.
2. Haiyan unfortunately proved that those people saying it was a very dangerous storm were absolutely correct. If people haven't seen the video of the storm surge coming in, take a look at that, and see if you think its dangers were being exaggerated.
3. You can argue about how accurate Dvorak ratings are, but it is the standard method for rating storms that don't have penetration by aircraft. That means that even people like Ryan Maue are going by the Dvorak classification. If you have a better idea, write it up and get it published, I'm sure people would love to see it. But if you look at the image of that storm just prior to landfall, it's easy to see why it had the very highest rating--it was a beautify and frightening storm.
To answer the question, everyone in the Main Stream Media, the ones who reach 95% of the voters .....just do a 5 minute Google search.......
now a 10 minute Google search will find Dr Jeff Masters, who just loves Global Warming and the End of the World, but who has the scientific honesty to say :
".......Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), which uses their own techniques to estimate typhoon strength via satellite imagery, put Haiyan’s peak strength at 125 knots (145 mph), using a 10-minute averaging time for wind speeds. The averaging time used by JTWC and NHC is 1-minute, resulting in a higher wind estimate than the 10-minute average winds used by JMA and PAGASA in their advisories."
So maybe it wasn't the strongest in history. Maybe it was 'just' 125 knots, which is a strong Cat 4...of which I have been through 2.......now of course in the US, and not the Philippines ;and not to belittle the horrific damages......but if indeed Haiyan was 'only' a Cat 4 and not the 'strongest in the history of the World' as presented to the citizenry, then there is sloppy journalism and / or outright dishonesty afoot.
The Philippines are cursed by one major event during the typhoon season and that is the regular occurrence of typhoons. They happen every year and they always vary in the amount of damage they cause but they always occur. Can't get away from the brutes. Typhoon Haiyan is responsible for many thousands of lives but this has happened before and it is not the strongest in history. It has killed a lot of people but far from the strongest.
It's easy to find many MSM news outlets claiming Haiyan was the strongest in recorded history. E.g. http://www.examiner.com/article/super-ty... Way too easy in fact.
This of course is typical of the MSM skipping out on the qualifier that it was actually called the strongest storm to make LANDFALL in recorded history (well some actually state that so bully for them). The source of this claim comes mainly from Jeff Masters who made a chart and actually labelled it "Earth's Strongest Tropical Cyclones at Landfall": http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/cyc...
Here is Master's description of how he put Haiyan on top when he created that chart:
"Haiyan hit Guiuan, on the Philippine island of Samar, at 4:40 am local time November 8, 2013 (20:40 UTC November 7.) Three hours before landfall, 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. The previous record was held by the Atlantic's Hurricane Camille of 1969, which made landfall in Mississippi with 190 mph winds."
Of course, what not mentioned is that the record of Camille's winds are described by the US National Hurricane Center as: "The actual maximum sustained winds will never be known, as the hurricane (Camille) destroyed all the wind-recording instruments in the landfall area. The estimates at the coast are near 200 mph."
Sorry for digressing a bit there. Let's get back to your question. Who is making what claims. Well other than Jeff Masters, I'd say most of the MSM probably all of the alarmist blogs and media.
There is one ray of hope however from Discover Magazine. Here is a good history of at least this outlet backtracking on its initial claim: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo...
Keep in mind as well that that the 195mph winds at landfall is an estimate from satellite data using the Dvorak Method which even pegminer acknowledges has large uncertainty. Estimates from other stations like Japan were lower as were actual on the ground measurements by Philippine meteorology stations.
So your claims of all this being a "denailist straw man argument" are just the opposite as this whole situation has been an alarmist circle jerk.
_______________________________________...
Edit: Oh wait, I'm not done yet. Let's hear from the head honcho of the UN:
"We have seen now what has happened in the Philippines. It is an urgent warning. An example of changed weather and how climate change is affecting all of us on Earth."
So really?? Straw man or circle jerk??
_______________________________________...
Edit2: "According to your links, the winds were the strongest ever measured. It sounds pretty legitimate"
Sure it sounds legitimate. However, if you read through my answer you realize the large "record-setting" figure of 195mph was not a measurement at all but an estimate. The only measurements were made (since they don't have cyclone hunter aircraft) by the Philippine meteorologists. Go ahead look up their max wind speed at landfall MEASUREMENTS.
I thought you sciency guys put measurements by people on location above estimates by people thousands of miles away?
There is no denier conspiracy to make alarmist look ridiculous with claims that AGW is responsible for all that is bad in the world. What we get for pointing out the ridiculous is, the source lacks credibility, they were taken out of context, no scientist is making the claim or well that is just one scientist opinion not peer reviewed, and no matter how ignorant the claim or how many other causes are ignored alarmist will embrace a link no matter how tenuous simply because they're not smarter than a scientist.
I hate to sound uninformed about it but it hit at a time when I wasn't able to watch much news or read about it and I heard it was the most powerful ever. I was with my Mother-in-Law's ex caretaker when she called home to Philippines and I know she was pretty scared about it but I don't know many facts about it. I was skeptical like I am of everything I hear from the MSM. I knew for certain it was quite strong and possibly the strongest ever recorded. I am guessing you are suggesting it really wasn't.
How is it a straw man to point out facts? Alarmists are buffoons who will try to link any unusual weather event to man made global warming.
http://www.examiner.com/article/super-ty...
http://www.wbur.org/npr/243736249/super-...
Of course there have been strong hurricanes and typhoons before and there will be in the future. Alarmists try to ignore the ones in the past and will claim any occurrences in the future are linked to climate change.
Dana Nuccitelli is claiming it at the Guardian, albeit qualifying it with maybe. Is this aother one of those statements that will be chalked up as meaningless as it is not said by a scientist?
CBC http://ph.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A2oKmK...
http://ph.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A2oKmL...
http://ph.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A2oKmL...
and many more
Antarcticice. I told you where I live Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, which was outside the track of the typhoon, I was no more effected by it than you were, so what do I have to post about
Is it true or is the claim that people are making such a claim a denailist straw man argument?
