No hurricane watch?

#21 Postby **Canelaw99** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:38 pm

I, personally, understand the meaning behind the hurricane watch, however I would hate to see them put on up this close to landfall. I know that here in S. FL, there are certain marinas, just as an example, that require you to move your boat when a hurricane watch is put up (my father-in-law went through this a couple of years ago). If there are places like that in the potential watch area, think of the damage/loss/etc. if people were forced to move things, store things, etc. this close to landfall....

Just playing devil's advocate here.

#22 Postby **sweetpea** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:39 pm

Air Force Met wrote:
hurricanedude wrote:cant upgrade to hurricane status just because, if it aint a cane, it aint a cane

Yeah...but they usually will put up a Hurricane watch even if it's not expected. We're only talking 5 mph here. Considering the deepening that has taken place already...and the fact it still has some time over water...I would think they would issue a watch at least. I've seen them put up warnings for less threat.

They really ought to put up a watch. There are people that just think it is just a tropical storm we will be fine and not pay attention. But if they heard huricane watch, they might pay more attention and make sure they have taken care of thier possessions and families. I hope they put one up soon. :eek:

#23 Postby **Wpwxguy** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:41 pm

I'm sure they'll issue the hurricane watch at 4 PM. If they have 70 then theres gusts well above. That would warrant a watch.

Agua · #24 Postby **Agua** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:37 pm

I find this odd myself. It would seem that the course of least regret would have counseled in favor of issuing a watch, anyway.

#25 Postby **dhweather** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:40 pm

Agua wrote:I find this odd myself. It would seem that the course of least regret would have counseled in favor of issuing a watch, anyway.

I agree - I still find this extremely odd.

And for what its worth, the storm does appear to be moving right a
little more, so that would mean more time over water.

#26 Postby **Ivanhater** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:47 pm

i just dont get it! cindy is already 10 mph stronger than arlene, and arlene had a hurricane WARNING , and cindy has been going up every advisory, i would really like to know the reason behind not posting at least a watch!

Ixolib · #27 Postby **Ixolib** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:54 pm

ivanhater wrote:i just dont get it! cindy is already 10 mph stronger than arlene, and arlene had a hurricane WARNING , and cindy has been going up every advisory, i would really like to know the reason behind not posting at least a watch!

Couldn't be a watch anyway. Because of the timing, it would have to be a warning.

A HURRICANE WARNING issued for your part of the coast indicates that sustained winds of at least 74 mph are expected within 24 hours or less.
Once this warning has been issued, your family should be in the process of completing protective actions and deciding the safest location to be during the storm.

#28 Postby **Ivanhater** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:56 pm

true, but i still dont understand why they havnt issued one, i mean its only 4 mph away!

Thunder44 · #29 Postby **Thunder44** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:59 pm

ivanhater wrote:true, but i still dont understand why they havnt issued one, i mean its only 4 mph away!

Probably because they didn't forecast this storm to be anywhere near hurricane strength at landfall. Stewart is there this evening, so maybe things will be different.

No hurricane watch?

Who is online