Hurricane Emily Advisories

x-y-no · #121 Postby **x-y-no** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:23 pm

hicksta wrote:i didnt say everystorm.. and if im correct they had him moving NW towards galveston

No, you said:

name one storm that stayed WNW for 5 days straight..

You have now been given three examples which did that.

Jan

jkt21787 · #122 Postby **jkt21787** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:24 pm

hicksta wrote:
Scorpion wrote:Ok I looked at the sat loop doesnt look Cat 2 to me. Sorry guys I just like hard data please dont bash .

true looking at the satalite photos it doesnt look near 3..

Are you saying you don't think its a 3 either!?

We need to show people what cat 3s look on satellite. You'd see the same presentation as we see now with Emily.

#123 Postby **HURAKAN** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:24 pm

She's looking good and tiny. I think ST TIP would need binoculars to see Emily. Like Iris, tiny but powerful!

James · #124 Postby **James** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:25 pm

Hey, in 1998 Bonnie looked worse as a Category 3 than Emily does now.

hicksta · #125 Postby **hicksta** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:25 pm

jkt21787 wrote:
hicksta wrote:
Scorpion wrote:Ok I looked at the sat loop doesnt look Cat 2 to me. Sorry guys I just like hard data please dont bash .

true looking at the satalite photos it doesnt look near 3..

Are you saying you don't think its a 3 either!?

We need to show people what cat 3s look on satellite. You'd see the same presentation as we see now with Emily.

I KNOW ITS A 3. just looking at it does it look like a catagory 3 storm..

Matt-hurricanewatcher · #126 Postby **Matt-hurricanewatcher** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:25 pm

Storms that looks like that are Ivan,Dennis like...There is no quastion that recon will find that the nhc is right. In once that eye clears expect this to shoot up to cat4.

gkrangers · #127 Postby **gkrangers** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:26 pm

Scorpion you are bordering on trolling.

Keep this up and you will not last long here or Eastern. Go bother the people at Wright Weather.

#128 Postby **cycloneye** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:27 pm

Scorpion · #129 Postby **Scorpion** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:28 pm

I just said that it did not look like a Cat 2, and I meant that it looked much stronger. If that is trolling, then fine, I am guilty.

jkt21787 · #130 Postby **jkt21787** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:28 pm

hicksta wrote:
jkt21787 wrote:
hicksta wrote:
Scorpion wrote:Ok I looked at the sat loop doesnt look Cat 2 to me. Sorry guys I just like hard data please dont bash .

true looking at the satalite photos it doesnt look near 3..

Are you saying you don't think its a 3 either!?

We need to show people what cat 3s look on satellite. You'd see the same presentation as we see now with Emily.

I KNOW ITS A 3. just looking at it does it look like a catagory 3 storm..

OK, it does look like a 3 on satellite though, thats what NHC is obviously basing the intensity on so that should tell those who don't believe it...

Website · #131 Postby **Brent** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:28 pm

Extrapolitating the track would give South Texas some squalls.

#132 Postby **Andrew92** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:28 pm

gkrangers wrote:Scorpion you are bordering on trolling.

Keep this up and you will not last long here or Eastern. Go bother the people at Wright Weather.

I wouldn't even consider that an acceptable reply. Just ignore Scorpion if he's trolling....the mods and admins will deal with him. Granted, I'm guilty of not ignoring him earlier, so I should watch what I'm saying.

-Andrew92

gkrangers · #133 Postby **gkrangers** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:28 pm

What part of that doesn't look like a major hurricane? The tight symetrical eye or the very cold topped symetrical tight CDO?

#134 Postby **Dean4Storms** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:29 pm

It is very reasonable to think that Emily has strengthened being that she has been doing so since 24hrs ago and a bump up of 15 mph is not much in the grand scheme of things guys. Still it is always best to have a Recon. measurement to insure the estimates and that will be coming soon enough.

Scorpion · #135 Postby **Scorpion** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:30 pm

Looks like 110 knots to me. Sorry I didnt look at a sat pic before I said that. Now I agree its at least a strong 3.

Hyperstorm · #136 Postby **Hyperstorm** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:31 pm

People, why do we put so much time to prove someone wrong? If he doesn't want to go by "hard" data as he calls it, then so be it. Let him think what he wants as long as he doesn't enforce his view onto anyone else...

gkrangers · #137 Postby **gkrangers** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:32 pm

Hyperstorm wrote:People, why do we put so much time to prove someone wrong? If he doesn't want to go by "hard" data as he calls it, then so be it. Let him think what he wants as long as he doesn't enforce his view onto anyone else...

I find it entertaining.

jkt21787 · #138 Postby **jkt21787** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:33 pm

Hyperstorm wrote:People, why do we put so much time to prove someone wrong? If he doesn't want to go by "hard" data as he calls it, then so be it. Let him think what he wants as long as he doesn't enforce his view onto anyone else...

Very true. I will try to ignore him, Its just hard to believe people can directly contradict the recon reports this morning, thats when it really all started...

But I am threw with it now. We have a major hurricane on our hands so its time to get serious!

#139 Postby **cycloneye** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:37 pm

Ok folks plain simple lets ignore Scorpion Period.

Website · #140 Postby **Brent** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:37 pm

gkrangers wrote:
Hyperstorm wrote:People, why do we put so much time to prove someone wrong? If he doesn't want to go by "hard" data as he calls it, then so be it. Let him think what he wants as long as he doesn't enforce his view onto anyone else...
I find it entertaining.

I know I've been having fun today. :lol:

Hurricane Emily Advisories

Who is online