Rita Recon Reports

CajunMama · #1821 Postby **CajunMama** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:38 am

CUT IT OUT. THIS IS A RECON THREAD. YOU ALL KNOW THE RULES.

Bashing and flaming are not allowed here. Anyone looking for a vacation?

kevin · #1822 Postby **kevin** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:40 am

I can't believe someone just lamblasted Mr. Ortt. He's just a human being folks. Forecasters make mistakes, this isn't an exact science. And if you want to criticize and use personal attacks I suggest rereading the nice moderator lady's post above mine.

logybogy · #1823 Postby **logybogy** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:48 am

I was simply informing people of his track record with Rita. If he got major details about the storm wrong previous to this, why would people expect him to be right about this?

It's not a flame. It's facts.

djtil · #1824 Postby **djtil** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:51 am

the nhc did nothing but chase this storm also....both track and intensity. the strong high and subsequent rapid break down of it made forecasting this one tough.

i know dfw mets were puzzled just a day and half ago about the insistence of the models breaking down the high so fast and questioned whether it would happen.

attacking someones forecasting of this one based on the fact that he doesnt think the storm is as strong as you want it to be is rather low.

#1825 Postby **deltadog03** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:58 am

=officials FORECAST

:me?:

yea

logybogy · #1826 Postby **logybogy** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:02 am

Well at least the NHC didn't ignore GFS. Its track errors were much lower than Derrek's.

Look, I'm not trying to bash him. But his posting pissed me and a lot of people off.

He needs to learn how to handle criticism better and unpleasent events like this wouldn't happen.

#1827 Postby **deltadog03** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:06 am

hell, look at me...i was off by 60 miles or so...oh, well, stuff happens...i just we people could take critisim..even from a monday morning weather lover....

CajunMama · #1828 Postby **CajunMama** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:08 am

logybogy wrote:Well at least the NHC didn't ignore GFS. Its track errors were much lower than Derrek's.

Look, I'm not trying to bash him. But his posting pissed me and a lot of people off.

He needs to learn how to handle criticism better and unpleasent events like this wouldn't happen.

I'VE ASKED YOU TO STOP

superfly · #1829 Postby **superfly** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:23 am

Landfall likely will bet at 936mb

URNT12 KNHC 240715
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE
A. 24/07:03:20Z
B. 29 deg 38 min N
093 deg 39 min W
C. NA mb NA m
D. NA kt
E. NA deg nm
F. 184 deg 108 kt
G. 093 deg 047 nm
H. 936 mb
I. 9 C/ 3657 m
J. 19 C/ 3651 m
K. 9 C/ NA
L. OPEN SE-W
M. C24
N. 12345/NA
O. 0.02 / 1 nm
P. AF306 WX18A RITA02 OB 23
MAX FL WIND 111 KT SE QUAD 06:39:10 Z

Matt-hurricanewatcher · #1830 Postby **Matt-hurricanewatcher** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:26 am

So strengthing at landfall one millibar. Look at those cold cloud tops...

In 111 knots would equal to 114 mph at the surface. In that is the southeastern quad. Or at .8 at 102 mph. In thats the southeastern quad!

#1831 Postby **cycloneye** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:53 am

971
URNT12 KNHC 240809
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE
A. 24/07:55:40Z
B. 29 deg 46 min N
093 deg 48 min W
C. 700 mb 2588 m
D. NA kt
E. deg nm
F. 324 deg 067 kt
G. 223 deg 010 nm
H. EXTRAP 941 mb
I. 13 C/ 3051 m
J. 19 C/ 3056 m
K. 14 C/ NA
L. OPEN SOUTH
M. C18
N. 12345/ 7
O. 0.02 / 1 nm
P. AF309 2518A RITA OB 24
MAX FL WIND 111 KT E QUAD 07:20:30 Z
MAX FL TEMP 20 C, 223 / 10NM
SLP EXTRAP FROM 700 MB
CENTER 3 MILES INLAND, INTENSE EYEWALL CONVECTION ON RADAR

#1832 Postby **cycloneye** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:00 am

Well there will not be anymore recon missions as it is overland now so sticky will be taken off.

Rita Recon Reports

Who is online