Ptarmigan wrote:Is this from Invest 98L by any chance because I remember it in the same location.
I was thinking the same
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Ptarmigan wrote:Is this from Invest 98L by any chance because I remember it in the same location.
HURAKAN wrote:Invest:
A weather system for which a tropical cyclone forecast center (NHC, CPHC, or JTWC) is interested in collecting specialized data sets (e.g., microwave imagery) and/or running model guidance. Once a system has been designated as an invest, data collection and processing is initiated on a number of government and academic web sites, including the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (UW-CIMSS). The designation of a system as an invest does not correspond to any particular likelihood of development of the system into a tropical cyclone; operational products such as the Tropical Weather Outlook or the JTWC/TCFA should be consulted for this purpose.
Ivanhater wrote:This one looks like it would develop if it was just a little east into the water. This is just another sign that things will be popping soon enough...
fci wrote:Ivanhater wrote:This one looks like it would develop if it was just a little east into the water. This is just another sign that things will be popping soon enough...
Where are you seeing any correlation between this obvious short-lived Invest 99 and the season to come?
fci wrote:I respect your opinion, you probably have more formal knowledge than me however I don't see the leaps you are taking in extending 99L to be any kind of indicator. Also, IMO there is no basis to be "sure" that if 99L were further east it would develop. Just my opinion.
HURAKAN wrote:Although I fully understand the definition of invest, I think this is the 1st time I see an invest tagged inland that it's not expected to develop
Steve wrote:Thanks man. I'm of the same opinion. No doubt, many of us will spend several sleepless nights trying to make sense of something we have no control over. The threats look to be set up like bowling pins.
>>No need for that kind of tone IMO...
Who were you talking to - me or vboutex? If it was me, I didn't have a negative tone whatsoever. I was answering his point as to what Ivanhater saw as an "indicator." Again, he wasn't saying that an inland storm portended a lot of activity in the Western Gulf. He was saying that what you see in that inland storm (as well as 95L - I added Bonnie and Alex to the mix) is ripe conditions for legitimate scares down the road. I see it too. Obviously it is my opinion and appears to be his as well that things are looking sketchy. We live in the areas we're concerned about and have enough history with recent storms to heed what we're seeing.
If you were talking about vboutex, he wasn't being condescending or anything. He said was that, in different words, that it sure looks like the **** has a pretty good opportunity to hit the fan and wishing that away wasn't being true to what he sees. As for suggesting he email the NHC to ask them, I doubt there's anyone on the forum that wouldn't like to get their rationale. I sure would.
If it was some other post that got deleted, sorry about seeming to over-clarify things.
MiamiHurricanes10 wrote:I believe that there could only be 1 reason that this invest was designated.
1) The Mexican weather service requested it to be tagged to see where the models take it to get an accurate idea of where the moisture would go. Sounds reasonable to to me since they were impacted by 98L, 02L, and Alex.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests