Hurricane Wilma - Cat. 5

[6SpeedTA95]

You know the funny thing is TV weather people still today say "and if you add the forward speed"

Yeah, I saw Jacqui Jeras on CNN a few minutes ago that if Wilma is moving 40 mph and is 100 mph at landfall, it would create 140 mph winds on the south side.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

Journalist are idiots they sensationalize everything from a hurricane to grass growing I dont know why its hard for people to grasp the concept that 100mph winds are 100 mph winds it doesn't matter how you chop it up. 60+40, 80+20, 95+5, 100+0 they all EQUAL 100, the nhc figures in forward speed, why? Because if you dont you dont get an accurate reading.

[Brent]

You know the funny thing is TV weather people still today say "and if you add the forward speed"

Yeah, I saw Jacqui Jeras on CNN a few minutes ago that if Wilma is moving 40 mph and is 100 mph at landfall, it would create 140 mph winds on the south side.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

and she's a meteorologist... ugh.

[HurricaneGirl]

where is the holy crap?

Holy Crap!!

[cinlfla]

Ok but it looks better than before.

IMO, It looks better then earlier I think she will be a strong cat 2 possibly a weak 3.

[Scorpion]

95mph, try 110mph + with gusts up to 120mph.

Add 20 mph of forward speed to that figure Chris.

I'm just worried this sucker could wobble NNE and a lot of folks in Charlotte and Sarasota County will wake up to a very very big suprise.

Forward speed is already accounted for in the wind speeds you see on NHC advisories. We live in the real world, not the theoretical world, so that all is automatically applied

However that might be why she won't weaken much, wind-wise, as she makes landfall. If her actual intensity dropped by 15mph, but her forward speed increases by 15mph, she will remain the same intensity, max winds.

100 mph winds are 100 mph winds

Right. If you take a stationary hurricane and measure max winds of 100mph, then you take the same exact hurricane and move it 15mph forward speed, you are going to measure 115mph winds relative to the earth, or the plane. So the intensity would be set at 115, factoring in the forward speed.

No, because the recon winds are just that, the winds. It doesn't matter what the forward speed is, the winds they find are the winds they find.

[jkt21787]

You know the funny thing is TV weather people still today say "and if you add the forward speed"

Yeah, I saw Jacqui Jeras on CNN a few minutes ago that if Wilma is moving 40 mph and is 100 mph at landfall, it would create 140 mph winds on the south side.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

Journalist are idiots they sensationalize everything from a hurricane to grass growing I dont know why its hard for people to grasp the concept that 100mph winds are 100 mph winds it doesn't matter how you chop it up. 60+40, 80+20, 95+5, 100+0 they all EQUAL 100, the nhc figures in forward speed, why? Because if you dont you dont get an accurate reading.

The sad thing is Jacqui Jeras is not a journalist, she's a meteorologist.

[6SpeedTA95]

You know the funny thing is TV weather people still today say "and if you add the forward speed"

Yeah, I saw Jacqui Jeras on CNN a few minutes ago that if Wilma is moving 40 mph and is 100 mph at landfall, it would create 140 mph winds on the south side.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

and she's a meteorologist... ugh.

It's not like fox and cnn and the other places hire real mets. The national news mets suck, sometimes I wonder if they have even taken classes on meteorology or if they just get up there and read the high temps accross the nation and say there's a chance of rain blah blah blah.

[jkt21787]

Ed Rappaport just said Jacqui Jeras is wrong, said no addition of winds is neeeded. Thank you, Ed.

[Brent]

It's not like fox and cnn and the other places hire real mets. The national news mets suck, sometimes I wonder if they have even taken classes on meteorology or if they just get up there and read the high temps accross the nation and say there's a chance of rain blah blah blah.

Chad Myers on CNN is good... as is Sean McLaughlin on MSNBC, but don't even get me started on those "Foxcasters".

[shorrock]

You know the funny thing is TV weather people still today say "and if you add the forward speed"

Yeah, I saw Jacqui Jeras on CNN a few minutes ago that if Wilma is moving 40 mph and is 100 mph at landfall, it would create 140 mph winds on the south side.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

I just want to support you in this Max Mayfiled yesterday stated (and showed graphics) that this is already caculated into the storm. it's why the right side of the path is worse with a storm, becuase you caculate the fwd speed with the winds. the left side you SUBTRACT the fwd speed from the wind speed. it's much better to be on the left side of the storm. I remember this becuase my wife and I were sittng here talking about this since they were talking about how fast the storm was moving. We both said, "well that answers our question now, doesn't it?"

Tom

[Stratosphere747]

Ed Rappaport just said Jacqui Jeras is wrong, said no addition of winds is neeeded. Thank you, Ed.

Just seen that...I wish we could have seen the look on her face, but sadly I think she is still confused..

"What did he just say"

[THead]

95mph, try 110mph + with gusts up to 120mph.

Add 20 mph of forward speed to that figure Chris.

I'm just worried this sucker could wobble NNE and a lot of folks in Charlotte and Sarasota County will wake up to a very very big suprise.

Forward speed is already accounted for in the wind speeds you see on NHC advisories. We live in the real world, not the theoretical world, so that all is automatically applied

However that might be why she won't weaken much, wind-wise, as she makes landfall. If her actual intensity dropped by 15mph, but her forward speed increases by 15mph, she will remain the same intensity, max winds.

100 mph winds are 100 mph winds

Right. If you take a stationary hurricane and measure max winds of 100mph, then you take the same exact hurricane and move it 15mph forward speed, you are going to measure 115mph winds relative to the earth, or the plane. So the intensity would be set at 115, factoring in the forward speed.

No, because the recon winds are just that, the winds. It doesn't matter what the forward speed is, the winds they find are the winds they find.

Sorry but that just isn't right. Even Bryan Norcross just perfectly explained what I just said up there ^^^^

[cycloneye]

Chad Myers is very good explaining in detail all the factors and in my view he is the best of all the national TV weather man.

[Aqua Teen Hunger Force]

[Brent]

Ed Rappaport just said Jacqui Jeras is wrong, said no addition of winds is neeeded. Thank you, Ed.

Just seen that...I wish we could have seen the look on her face, but sadly I think she is still confused..

"What did he just say"

Alex Witt asked Ed Rappaport earlier if there was a difference in the wind and surge between a Cat 2 and a Cat 3. Hello?

*bangs head on desk*

[jkt21787]

Sorry but that just isn't right. Even Bryan Norcross just perfectly explained what I just said up there ^^^^

I think you said it right. Recon will measure 115 mph winds in the storm if its 100 mph moving 15 mph, and recon wil measure 100 mph winds in the storm if its 100 mph moving 0 mph.

[DESTRUCTION5]

12z gfs?

[Scorpion]

Looking much better on IR. Cat 3 is definitely a possibility.

[Brent]

LOL! He's bending as much as the palm trees.

[jkt21787]

Chad Myers is very good explaining in detail all the factors and in my view he is the best of all the national TV weather man.

Agreed (IMO). I also liked Orelon Sidney on CNN, but for some stupid reason they decided to get rid of her.