When all is done I think it was a cat 2 at lanfall as said

Lockhart · #41 Postby **Lockhart** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:35 am

Here's the latest recon report I could find, from less than an hour ago. It says estimated maximum surface winds 119mph. I don't know whether that means sustained or not, but it's 120, not 100 or 110.

rdcrds · #42 Postby **rdcrds** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:37 am

when someone says they had wind gusts of over 110 mph lmk ok.

As for cat 4 in feeder bands please LOL

Anonymous · #43 Postby **Anonymous** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:37 am

I think we can all agree on 120 mph, it is reasonable and has the radar presence of a 120 mph cane.

manofsteele79 · #44 Postby **manofsteele79** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:38 am

and that was in the SE quad. NE quad is going to be higher.

rdcrds · #45 Postby **rdcrds** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:38 am

key word in there "estimated"

Tri-State_1925 · #46 Postby **Tri-State_1925** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:38 am

The NHC is usually conservative from what I've seen. Obviously the storm has weakened a bit over the last few hours, but the images from earlier this evening showed that this storm was legit.

Dmetal81 · #47 Postby **Dmetal81** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:39 am

rdcrds wrote:key word in there "estimated"

Did you want them to throw someone out of the airplane? :lol:

Lockhart · #48 Postby **Lockhart** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:39 am

Well, yes, they estimated them based on the 132.25 mph flight level winds... Aren't they always estimated?? They can hardly fly *on* the surface of the ocean...

dennis1x1 · #49 Postby **dennis1x1** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:39 am

if NE was higher they would have reported the NE wind...LOL...i love this stubborness...the strongest winds were in the SE quad all day.....another quirk to be studied with this storm...

Anonymous · #50 Postby **Anonymous** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:40 am

Also, for those who swore Ivan did not have a SW quad with TStorms, its filling in as the storm moves inland. Radar may be picking it up finally.

http://radar.weather.gov/radar/loop/DS. ... kmob.shtml

https://www.youtube.com/user/senorpepr · #51 Postby **senorpepr** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:41 am

Let me find the BS flag.

I will argue with you over this category 2 junk. I can buy the story of a category 3, simply based on recon reports. Recon WON'T lie. They had 120-125mph winds as it was making landfall. Don't go making bold statements unless you can fully back your story. Regardless of what your story is, though, recon proves you wrong.

rdcrds · #52 Postby **rdcrds** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:41 am

all im telling you is this is no cat 4 cane.Heck they still got power in places where the eye wall went.

If you want to argue it was a 3 then so be it but you will NOT get any reports that are legit of winds over 110 mph and yet they will say this was a cat 4 storm at landfall.

aumoore · #53 Postby **aumoore** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:41 am

That guy from CNN in Pensacola was staying out of the worst winds on purpose. He wanted no part of the real winds.

My Neighbors and friends who stayed in Pace, FL cannot be reached. Two hours ago I could reach them but now the phones are out including cell phones.

Does anyone have the Pensacola Naval Airstation readings?

#54 Postby **Windy** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:42 am

Dmetal81 wrote:
rdcrds wrote:key word in there "estimated"

Did you want them to throw someone out of the airplane?

Oooh! I know some reporters who would probably volunteer. "Rathersonde away! Cantoresonde away! "

dennis1x1 · #55 Postby **dennis1x1** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:42 am

the nhc is not conservative near landfall..that would be absurd...135 was higher than recon all day.

Dmetal81 · #56 Postby **Dmetal81** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:43 am

Windy wrote:
Dmetal81 wrote:
rdcrds wrote:key word in there "estimated"

Did you want them to throw someone out of the airplane?

Oooh! I know some reporters who would probably volunteer. "Rathersonde away! Cantoresonde away! "

Cantore does seem to have a deathwish sometimes......

ncsandman · #57 Postby **ncsandman** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:43 am

IM not implying that this is not a cat 4 storm, but where does the NHC get those winds extending out to 105 miles? Ive been keeping up with all sites possible, but, the highest winds Ive seen are 98 MPH gust!! Its on land now, and still its not as strong as they said it would be. But hey, its still way to strong for anybody!!! I was just wondering where they get the wind speed from. Its almost or near shore and I havnt seen anything that comes close to the winds that the NHC said. Just my question, and please dont flame me for it !!!

https://www.youtube.com/user/senorpepr · #58 Postby **senorpepr** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:43 am

rdcrds wrote:all im telling you is this is no cat 4 cane.Heck they still got power in places where the eye wall went.

If you want to argue it was a 3 then so be it but you will NOT get any reports that are legit of winds over 110 mph and yet they will say this was a cat 4 storm at landfall.

Here's your report of winds over 110mph.

Code: Select all

URNT12 KNHC 160610
VORTEX DATA MESSAGE
A. 16/0538Z
B. 29 DEG 55 MIN N
   87 DEG 53 MIN W
C. 700 MB 2604 M
D. NA
E. NA
F. 220 DEG 115 KT
G. 134 DEG 44 NM
H. 943 MB
I. 19 C/ 3060 M
J. 19 C/ 3058 M
K. 14 C/ NA
L. OPEN S
M. C40
N. 12345/7
0. 1/1 NM
P. NOAA3 4209A IVAN OB 38
   MAX FLT WND 115KTS SE QUAD 0523Z

115 knots = 132 mph x 90% = 119 mph. Otherwise known as category three.

#59 Postby **PurdueWx80** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:44 am

dennis1x1 wrote:if NE was higher they would have reported the NE wind...LOL...i love this stubborness.

They send the vortex messages as they fly through the eyewalls...NW to SE, and SW to NE or vice versa. :roll:

Lockhart · #60 Postby **Lockhart** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:45 am

Thanks, senorpepr. That's exactly the report I was quoting.

When all is done I think it was a cat 2 at lanfall as said

Who is online