west movement

#121 Postby **storms in NC** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:34 pm

Sanibel wrote:No. I'm sure now it is definitely more west.

Why do you think this? the Pros are saying NW. I am with you on what I see.

hurricanefloyd5 · #122 Postby **hurricanefloyd5** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:34 pm

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/RT ... -loop.html

#123 Postby **Ivanhater** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:34 pm

i think it is further south of the track, we will see what will happen at 5, for now folks sit back and enjoy this insane storm

#124 Postby **Air Force Met** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:35 pm

Sanibel wrote:No. I'm sure now it is definitely more west.

Back it up with data. The data shows a 297 movement. The GHCC loop (30 frame) confirms it (as I posted earlier...and was only 4 degrees off).

jkt21787 · #125 Postby **jkt21787** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:36 pm

Air Force Met wrote:I also want to add that as of right now...Irene is a WHOLE 2 MILES south of the official track.

I rarely look much at the sats because I don't want to get tangled into the constant arguing that occurs with movement and other issues like we're seeing now, but if its really only 2 miles south, thats pretty laughable. I'll have to take a look...

#126 Postby **Air Force Met** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:36 pm

ivanhater wrote:i think it is further south of the track, we will see what will happen at 5, for now folks sit back and enjoy this insane storm

I'm telling ya that I have it zoomed in and it's 2 miles off. Guess I'll have to take a screen shot proving it since everyone wants to believe it's not there.

southerngale · #127 Postby **southerngale** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:36 pm

boca_chris wrote:all of this arguing...it's quite amusing...I say it's moving WNWWNW. lol.

You're wrong.

It's clearly wsn.

Steve H. · #128 Postby **Steve H.** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:36 pm

Again the data is flawed because you are comparing an estimated position to an actual position. There can be a high degree of error there.

#129 Postby **WeatherEmperor** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:44 pm

...we will be at this all day....

<RICKY>

Sanibel · #130 Postby **Sanibel** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:46 pm

More west, but by only a few degrees. The center is under the convection moving along near 295* maybe towards 300*

OR it has slowed down in forward speed and the shifting convection makes it look like it is curving left but it isn't.

If you look at the visible loop, to the east the clouds are being drawn seaward up the trough. Irene is pretty close to this divide. It doesn't look like she is so far into the ridge that she will track west.

#131 Postby **Air Force Met** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:46 pm

Steve H. wrote:Again the data is flawed because you are comparing an estimated position to an actual position. There can be a high degree of error there.

I understand that completely. I am just saying that between the advisory and the recon position...it's 297. That's a fact.

Also...as of right now...it's 2 miles south of the track (but too slow)...and that's a fact. GHCC zoomed in seems to show a 300-305 movement of the sfc center while a lot of the upper clouds have been pushed east. That is observation but can't be fact until a new recon.

ThunderMate · #132 Postby **ThunderMate** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:47 pm

Air force met... may i ask you something? why don't you want this to hit land?

Mac · #133 Postby **Mac** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:49 pm

ThunderMate wrote:Air force met... may i ask you something? why don't you want this to hit land?

I would like to officially nominate this post for "Silliest Post of the Day" award.

#134 Postby **deltadog03** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:49 pm

we need to measure NOW!!!! becuase we didn't really have a clear cut coord on the 11am adv...so, my challenge to you is lets start right when we got the recon coord....can we do that??

southerngale · #135 Postby **southerngale** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:50 pm

ThunderMate wrote:Air force met... may i ask you something? why don't you want this to hit land?

Are you kidding me? I've already deleted one post from this thread. Keep it a civil discussion and show a little respect for the mets who offer their thoughts and expertise on here for free, taking time away from their jobs and lives.

You don't have to agree, but that is nothing but an insult above. He's posting fact, whether it agrees with those who want a landfall or not.

jkt21787 · #136 Postby **jkt21787** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:51 pm

Mac wrote:
ThunderMate wrote:Air force met... may i ask you something? why don't you want this to hit land?

I would like to officially nominate this post for "Silliest Post of the Day" award.

agreed.

I haven't see AFM trying to push this out to sea if/when it isn't. Whether it happens or not, I would hope most everybody wants this to not hit land.

#137 Postby **Air Force Met** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:51 pm

Here's the image...

#138 Postby **Frank P** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:52 pm

Mac wrote:
ThunderMate wrote:Air force met... may i ask you something? why don't you want this to hit land?

I would like to officially nominate this post for "Silliest Post of the Day" award.

I think the term "silly" is being way to kind to this post....

mobilebay · #139 Postby **mobilebay** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:52 pm

I'm really enjoying this because in the long term this could mean absolutely nothing. :lol:

jkt21787 · #140 Postby **jkt21787** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:53 pm

Frank P wrote:
Mac wrote:
ThunderMate wrote:Air force met... may i ask you something? why don't you want this to hit land?

I would like to officially nominate this post for "Silliest Post of the Day" award.

I think the term "silly" is being way to kind to this post....

Also agreed. I believe it was completely and totally inappropriate, and that may still be too nice.

BTW, AFM, thanks for posting. Hopefully that will settle some of these issues.

west movement

Who is online