Derek Ortt wrote:those who were saying this would bomb in the GOM were -removed-, or not basing their forecasts on the met data. What data suggests RI in the GOM at the present time? The NHC forecasts had a very minor amount of intensification.
Things could change as they have started to do now with the latest sat signature and recon reports. However, when nearly all models show little intensification, then that cannot be taken lightly
I'd like to clarify a couple of things...
First of all, I never called your ability to forecast into question. I wouldn't do that to any of the mets on here - y'all know infinitely more than I do, and the biggest reason I come here is to learn from you. I wouldn't ask you questions if I did not respect your opinion. If others did that - they were only speaking for themselves.
Second, I never said that Em would "bomb" in the Gulf - though many have speculated that she would. My question/concern was with the contrast in the wording of the two discussions, one of which forecasted intensification and "at least" a Cat 3, and the other which flatly shut the door on any intensification, large or small. I simply asked you if there was something Avila was seeing that the others weren't - if something had changed in the Gulf that would prohibit even steady intensification.
I understand completely that people make mistakes. I think the only reason why anyone jumped to correct you was because you accused those of us who had issues with the discussion of "-removed-" and "seeing what we want to." As I understand it, calling others "people I disagree with" in these forums is something the mods frown upon - and doing it is especially ridiculous when the issues the poster is raising are viable concerns or questions - which this was.
Honestly, I was only seeking your opinion on the change in the NHC's tone. I didn't expect a bunch of accusations. God only knows I dont want a major in the Gulf ....
