Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Swimdude wrote:jkt21787 wrote:texasheat wrote:the underground map is the southest model that i have noticed. rest show her going north of yucatan or just tiping it.
NHC does not believe in the north trend yet, check this map...
THIS IS THE OFFICIAL FORECAST:
It doesn't turn more west at the end. Sorry for that. Don't know why I said it.
Actually, yes it does. *Holds up a ruler to the screen*
Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
"southest" - I quote your buddy texasheat. They are putting out some real wizzes over there.Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.

Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.
gkrangers wrote:"southest" - I quote your buddy texasheat. They are putting out some real wizzes over there.Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.

Brent wrote:Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.
Who cares??? Average 5-day track error: THREE HUNDRED miles.

Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.
Who cares??? Average 5-day track error: THREE HUNDRED miles.
LOL That was exactly my point, Brent. At 96 hours out, the track is bound to be wrong to some degree. I wasn't claiming to be right...just that the NHC track is bound to be wrong at this point. Just a little levity.
Brent wrote:Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.
Who cares??? Average 5-day track error: THREE HUNDRED miles.
LOL That was exactly my point, Brent. At 96 hours out, the track is bound to be wrong to some degree. I wasn't claiming to be right...just that the NHC track is bound to be wrong at this point. Just a little levity.
Do you happen to live in Texas???
Brent wrote:Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.
Who cares??? Average 5-day track error: THREE HUNDRED miles.
LOL That was exactly my point, Brent. At 96 hours out, the track is bound to be wrong to some degree. I wasn't claiming to be right...just that the NHC track is bound to be wrong at this point. Just a little levity.
Do you happen to live in Texas???
Brent wrote:Mac wrote:Brent wrote:Mac wrote:That looks like the same map from the previous advisory. Hey! Something smells fishy.
Nope... it's slightly farther north and the 120-hour position is NW of the previous one.
I'll take your word for it. But the NHC track is wrong anyway, so there's no point splitting hairs.
Who cares??? Average 5-day track error: THREE HUNDRED miles.

Swimdude wrote:Scorpion wrote:Sorry about that. Just seems to me theres alot of Texans who want this coming to them .
*Sigh* There is. And I'd hate to make it worse, but that would make everybody satisfied. Win-Win.
Users browsing this forum: gib, jhpigott, MetroMike, Sciencerocks and 328 guests