CNN are plain wrong WRT NO-NAME

stu · #1 Postby **stu** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:10 pm

This beggers belief :grr:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/03/27/b ... index.html

BritBob · #2 Postby **BritBob** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:15 pm

stu wrote:This beggers belief

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/03/27/b ... index.html

What the report, or the source?

#3 Postby **Hurricanehink** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:18 pm

Wow

I can't believe CNN would publish something like that. Extratropical systems don't have that much convection near the center, extratropical systems don't look that that organized, and extratropical systems aren't tracked by the good people of Storm2k. What's worse is that the storm didn't even hit land yet. :lol:

#4 Postby **wxman57** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:20 pm

Besides that, it hasn't even hit the coast yet! The Brazilian government is obviously not prepared for such a rare event, and they're on total denial of its existence.

chadtm80 · #5 Postby **chadtm80** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:20 pm

CNN

WXBUFFJIM · #6 Postby **WXBUFFJIM** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:22 pm

wxman57 wrote:Besides that, it hasn't even hit the coast yet! The Brazilian government is obviously not prepared for such a rare event, and they're on total denial of its existence.

Makes you wonder what the causality rate could potentially be from such an event. This is unheard of in this part of the world. It looks more like a hurricane in my eyes. Doesn't seem that it's extratropical. It looks strong though.

Jim

stu · #7 Postby **stu** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:23 pm

"Winds and rains will not be significant, so we don't need to alarm the population," Escobar said by telephone.

Err I predict a weak CAT2 making landfall at Cricuma in about 12 hours time - Sat IR loop show this to be the case.

Escobar need to look again IMO

WXBUFFJIM · #8 Postby **WXBUFFJIM** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:23 pm

chadtm80 wrote:CNN

Yea, the politics station, not the weather station. Figures!!! :roll:

Stormsfury · #9 Postby **Stormsfury** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:39 pm

chadtm80 wrote:CNN

Agreed ...

And what I posted yesterday about the Brazilian Mets being more than competent to handle the situation has just cast many doubts now upon me ...

#10 Postby **wxman57** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:47 pm

Clueless
News
Network

#11 Postby **MWatkins** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:01 pm

Whoops...didn't see this thread before posting...sorry about that.

MW

Rainband · #12 Postby **Rainband** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:17 pm

Very irresponsible from a news network. Opps I forgot CNN isn't a news network :lol:

Anonymous · #13 Postby **Anonymous** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:20 pm

The source of that article is the Associated Press (AP) and not CNN. The article is probably everywhere since many newspapers and news sites used the Associated Press. http://www.ap.org This doesn't make any less wrong of course.

Thunder44 · #14 Postby **Thunder44** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:41 pm

Oh, boy some of people just like to pick on CNN. I mean at least they have reports on the storm on their site There is story on MSNBC site about it at this link...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4614595/. I can't find a story on it on Fox News site. All the cable news networks are bad, but if you want to do a comparsion CNN is best when it comes to the weather.

Update on the story this afternoon. This is directly from CNN now. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/03/27/h ... index.html

CNN are plain wrong WRT NO-NAME

CNN are plain wrong WRT NO-NAME

Re: CNN are plain wrong WRT NO-NAME

Not Actually CNN Article

Who is online