TampaBayBee wrote:Coaster wrote:Request providing the particular Link in Global Models thread that GCANE was referring to.
Link to p. 62 in Global Models:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121679&start=1220
TampaBayBee
Thanks for providing the link.
Moderator: S2k Moderators
TampaBayBee wrote:Coaster wrote:Request providing the particular Link in Global Models thread that GCANE was referring to.
Link to p. 62 in Global Models:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121679&start=1220
AlphaToOmega wrote:This is still at 30%. What could the NHC be using to justify those percentages? Global models certainly indicate a high chance of formation.
AlphaToOmega wrote:The ensembles show development off the east coast due to Invest 91L.
underthwx wrote:AlphaToOmega wrote:The ensembles show development off the east coast due to Invest 91L.
Do you mean like a cut off low or something like that?...
Iceresistance wrote:underthwx wrote:AlphaToOmega wrote:The ensembles show development off the east coast due to Invest 91L.
Do you mean like a cut off low or something like that?...
No, it's the pre-existing circulation of 91L from the GoM . . . I've tracked it with the models
gulf701 wrote:I know Gulf County, Florida is wet and any tropical activity has the potential to generate flooding problems. I suspect other Panhandle counties are also wet. If it were to tract into the Panhandle, hopefully it will be low moisture system.
panamatropicwatch wrote:gulf701 wrote:I know Gulf County, Florida is wet and any tropical activity has the potential to generate flooding problems. I suspect other Panhandle counties are also wet. If it were to tract into the Panhandle, hopefully it will be low moisture system.
53.15 inches of rain at my house in Panama City so far this year. 91L is definitely not welcome.
AlphaToOmega wrote:I am surprised the NHC has not mentioned the possibility of this reforming over the Gulf Stream.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests