When all is done I think it was a cat 2 at lanfall as said

Psychonaut777 · #61 Postby **Psychonaut777** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:46 am

You guys are arguing semantics. The thing is pretty huge regardless of exact windspeeds. Gary isn't stepping out from the shelter of that building and he said himself that this thing is way stronger than Frances. Power is out all over, extreme damage on the coast is most likely.. and the thing just landed. Lets wait and see.

Considering that 90% of news on TV is old or even from 5+ hrs ago, there is no way to tell how serious this thing is from a couple of radar images, a pressure indicator, and approx. wind speeds..

rdcrds · #62 Postby **rdcrds** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:46 am

nhc leaves it at 135 to cover thenselfs IMO as there was nothing to support that claim.

Look i was not trying to get people to think this storm was nothing.Sure many who lose there home don't care if it was a 1 2 3 4 or whatever i just want to see a report of any winds over 100 mph sustained.

#63 Postby **PurdueWx80** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:49 am

You aren't even likely to see reports like this until tomorrow. There will probably be other independent reports from chasers and such that take days to be publicized. The NWS offices will publish gusts and sustained winds later, but this info isn't available in real time from most of their sfc stations.

#64 Postby **Pebbles** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:49 am

rdcrds wrote:nhc leaves it at 135 to cover thenselfs IMO as there was nothing to support that claim.

Look i was not trying to get people to think this storm was nothing.Sure many who lose there home don't care if it was a 1 2 3 4 or whatever i just want to see a report of any winds over 100 mph sustained.

The point is you said CAT 2 when it's all over....you have proof from recon that this storm is not Cat 2.

End of Story... You Lose *game buzzer* Bye Bye now!

#65 Postby **vbhoutex** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:49 am

rdcrds wrote:nhc leaves it at 135 to cover thenselfs IMO as there was nothing to support that claim.

Look i was not trying to get people to think this storm was nothing.Sure many who lose there home don't care if it was a 1 2 3 4 or whatever i just want to see a report of any winds over 100 mph sustained.

You may not see any reports like that till later in the morning. Most of the areas we were pulling reports from are now without power!!!

manofsteele79 · #66 Postby **manofsteele79** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:50 am

rdcrds......

I've got family in two locations in Baldwin county (county of landfall) and neither have had power since 9:00PM in robertsdale and 9:45PM in loxley. The power is OUT in baldwin county and has been for hours.

yoda · #67 Postby **yoda** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:50 am

Pebbles wrote:
rdcrds wrote:nhc leaves it at 135 to cover thenselfs IMO as there was nothing to support that claim.

Look i was not trying to get people to think this storm was nothing.Sure many who lose there home don't care if it was a 1 2 3 4 or whatever i just want to see a report of any winds over 100 mph sustained.

The point is you said CAT 2 when it's all over....you have proof from recon that this storm is not Cat 2.

End of Story... You Lose *game buzzer* Bye Bye now!

LOL Pebbles! :lol:

Dmetal81 · #68 Postby **Dmetal81** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:51 am

You're not likely to find those reports... most of the weather stations fail before 100 mph. the NAS in Pensacola failed at 96 I think. I know in Frances, Daytona Beach's station failed at 87 and at 72 or so in Charlie. West Palm beach went out hours before France's eyewall hit. Most data from the area is currently not available, especially where the highest winds are. I would be willing the bet that the weather centers that are around Mobile and Pensacola have had communications knocked out as there has been no updates or weather statements from there on the NWS page for hours.

rdcrds · #69 Postby **rdcrds** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:52 am

you have winds listed anywhere on the GROUND of over 100 mph?

rdcrds · #70 Postby **rdcrds** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:53 am

they just lowered it to 130 show me where they got 130 at? they are not there.

Psychonaut777 · #71 Postby **Psychonaut777** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:53 am

Are you omnipotent or just idiotic. I'm curious.

dennis1x1 · #72 Postby **dennis1x1** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:54 am

man...give up on the 100mph thing...pick something reasonable like 115 vs the cat 4 people

:wink:

ncsandman · #73 Postby **ncsandman** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:55 am

rdcs,
The highest I can find is a gust of 98 at Dalphin Island, BUT, the station may be down!

#74 Postby **PurdueWx80** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:55 am

I smell a troll who gets kicks out of tickin' people off.

rdcrds · #75 Postby **rdcrds** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:56 am

ok ill not argue with you anymore but to watch these morons talking about a cat 4 storm when its not so is insane.

I am glad for the people in its path but this storm is no charlie like they were saying all nite long.

as they said on cnn it looks like the worst might be over.

Chilly_Water · #76 Postby **Chilly_Water** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:58 am

Ohhhhhh, but where does CNN get THAT information? I smell a conspiracy.

themusk · #77 Postby **themusk** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:59 am

I'm no meteorologist. I'm not even an educated amateur. But I didn't sleep through that part of my physics class that covered the law of conservation of energy. If Ivan was, as noted in direct observations by dropsondes, a category 4 just a short while ago, then in order for Ivan to be a category 2 right now, Ivan would have to have expended a lot of energy. I'd expect to see evidence of all that energy being dissipated, and the most reasonable way my little physics student brain can concoct to dissipate that much energy is for the storm to significantly expand in area. And I don't see that expansion, or anything else that screams out "I'm rapidly blowing off bizillions of megajoules of energy right before your eyes".

Now, as I said above, I'm no meteorologist, so persons with actual meteorological training are welcome to correct my reasoning. But barring such a correction, or someone else pointing out where those bizillijoules have been expended, I just can't believe that the storm plummeted two categories in such a short time.

https://www.youtube.com/user/senorpepr · #78 Postby **senorpepr** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:59 am

rdcrds wrote:you have winds listed anywhere on the GROUND of over 100 mph?

Have you not caught on to what we're saying? You won't see this data because a majority of wind sensors fail WAY before they reach 100mph. Additionally, the accuracy of these sensors are poor at these levels. We won't know exactly what it was for a while. HOWEVER, we DO know that recon FOUND 120-125mph winds. They FOUND it. They didn't make it up. Real calibrated sensors were dropped into Ivan and they picked these winds up.

ncsandman · #79 Postby **ncsandman** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:00 am

Hey Purdue,
Which one is the troll, because I love freerepublic.com, and they whack em quick!!!

#80 Postby **MBismyPlayground** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:00 am

rdcrds wrote:they just lowered it to 130 show me where they got 130 at? they are not there.

Geez dude,
You just don't stop do ya??? Let me explain it to you in very simple terms that you might be able to understand.

They are saying that until this thing is totally OVER, KAPUT,FINI, this kind of information will not be available accurately. The only info that is reliable is the info from the recon.

Obviously there is a point to your whole conversation. It has NOTHING to do about wind speed but to push the point that the news, weather stations are using this wind speed to get attention. Instead of attacking people in this forum, why don't you go to TWC or which ever station you are having the problem with and rant there. You have a problem with the media and NOT the wind speed so....build a bridge and get over it.... Thanks

When all is done I think it was a cat 2 at lanfall as said

Who is online