Hurricane Emily: Texas Bound?

[SpursWoman]

Isn't one of our forum members in Cancun this week?

[CosmicCowboy]

Being from Corpus Christi, I remember well Carla 1961, Beulah 1968, & Celia 1970. Only Celia was a direct hit on Corpus but none of them were fun to go through. I went to work for SW Bell in 1962 and needless to say, we were kept busy.

I was in the 7th grade when Beulah hit...I was in football practice that day and got a really nasty break on my left leg (very long story)...it broke just a few inches down from my hip and then folded back...my cleats on the bottom of my shoe were touching my nose...I was really ed up...virtually all of the ambulances in San Antonio had been sent to the coast as part of the federal disaster team...They couldn't get an ambulance and were afraid to move me so I laid out there on the field while the storm hit...torrential rain and probably 60mph winds in San Antonio...they finally got one to pick me up several hours later...way after dark...

[travis2]

I was in the 7th grade when Beulah hit...I was in football practice that day and got a really nasty break on my left leg (very long story)...it broke just a few inches down from my hip and then folded back...my cleats on the bottom of my shoe were touching my nose...I was really ed up...virtually all of the ambulances in San Antonio had been sent to the coast as part of the federal disaster team...They couldn't get an ambulance and were afraid to move me so I laid out there on the field while the storm hit...torrential rain and probably 60mph winds in San Antonio...they finally got one to pick me up several hours later...way after dark...

So that explains you...

[MannyIsGod]

The next discussion comes out in an hour. That thing is getting stronger every second, I wonder if it's up to Cat 3 year.

[Das Texan]

You don't even know my position.

And don't throw around numbers you know not where they came from. Or categories, for that matter.

ok fine.

what is your position. considering you basically refuted what i said yesterday, i assumed it was the opposite of mine.

you are going to make me go get all my research and update it on this issue arent you?

[SWC Bonfire]

Before y'all get your panties in a wad over global warming, remember that a respectable amount of non-crackpot scientists thought that we were entering an ice age earlier in the century. Some believe the "global warming" data is not as convincing because of this; I believe that we all underestimate the power of nature to change.

[SpursWoman]

I believe that we all underestimate the power of nature to change.

Or overestimate our ability to think we can change it's course.

[MannyIsGod]

For the record, Humans far often than not, underestimate the impact their actions have on this world. There is the opposite of course, but not nearly as much as the underestimation.

[Manu20]

The next discussion comes out in an hour. That thing is getting stronger every second, I wonder if it's up to Cat 3 year.

It is now a Cat 3 with winds of 115 mph gust to 140 mph!

[MannyIsGod]

It is now a Cat 3 with winds of 115 mph gust to 140 mph!

Where did you hear that? Last I heard was 110mph winds.

[Manu20]

Where did you hear that? Last I heard was 110mph winds.

http://www.wunderground.com/tropical...0505_5day.html

[MannyIsGod]

I see. NHC won't update the damn discussion yet.

[cherylsteele]

Being from Corpus Christi, I remember well Carla 1961, Beulah 1968, & Celia 1970. Only Celia was a direct hit on Corpus but none of them were fun to go through. I went to work for SW Bell in 1962 and needless to say, we were kept busy.

Hate to rain on your parade.....but ....Beulah was in 1967 not 1968.

I was looking on line and Emily's track so far is quite similar to Gilbert in 1988.

[MannyIsGod]

Most of the 18Z model runs still show the storm crossing the far northern Yucatan, however
a few models, notably the UKMET, GFS and the GFDL keep the hurricane over
water, passing it through the Yucatan Channel. The GFDL brings the storm up to
CAT 4 intensity, but then slowly weakens it as it moves across the Gulf, finally reaching
the southern Texas coast as a CAT 2 or low end CAT 3 by mid week. Whether or not the
track is correct, the logic for the intensity forecast most certainly is. Once over the Gulf,
water temps have much lower total heat content than that of the Caribbean. The strong
CAT 4 hurricane will overturn the water to great depths, bringing much colder water to
the surface. The lack of a high heat content was ultimately the reason Hurricane Dennis
weakened during the final hours before landfall near Pensacola last week.

Bad bad news for South Texas.

[Manu20]

As of the 10 pm advisory Emily has winds of 125 mph with gusts to 155!!!
And the forecast track puts it just south of Brownsville!

[MannyIsGod]

Emily continues to intensify. Dvorak data T numbers at 00z were 6.0
from all agencies...corresponding to an intensity estimate of 115
kt. Aircraft reconnaissance data during the past couple of hours
indicate that the pressure and winds are not far behind the
satellite signature. The first fix at 2347z included a central
pressure of 962 mb...down 12 mb from about six hours earlier...and
a maximum 700 mb flight level wind of 100 kt in the northwestern
quadrant. The pressure had fallen to 958 mb at 0130z with maximum
flight level winds up to 125 kt in the northeastern quadrant...
supporting the advisory intensity of 110 kt. Not much seems to be
in the way of Emily maintaining major hurricane status...possibly
reaching category four...during its path through the Caribbean Sea.
The GFDL maintains a near-120 kt hurricane for the next three
days...and while the GFDL curiously weakens Emily in the southern
Gulf of Mexico...the SHIPS model forecasts a major hurricane beyond
72 hours...and the official forecast closely follows SHIPS late in
the forecast period.

Although the hurricane took a slight jog to the left...or south...of
the previous forecast track during the past few hours...an initial
motion of 285/17 seems to have resumed. Model guidance is tightly
clustered during the next three days on continuing this general
motion. However...especially beyond that time...the overall
guidance envelope has shifted quite significantly to the north.
The official forecast is adjusted to the right of the previous
track...by an increasing amount beyond 48 hours...but remains on
the left side of the dynamical models.


Forecaster Knabb

[tw05baller]

damn manny say that again in not so smart person terms

[MannyIsGod]

It's getting stronger and heading this way.

[tw05baller]

thank u

[tw05baller]

i seriously think u could take jenniffer broomes job

[tw05baller]

u just got to use the signature bill taylor excessive hand gestures

[travis2]

ok fine.

what is your position. considering you basically refuted what i said yesterday, i assumed it was the opposite of mine.

you are going to make me go get all my research and update it on this issue arent you?

I said I disagreed with you. That only implies the opposite if there are two possible sides to this issue.

Does my disagreeing with you mean that I think global warming is not happening? No, because the issue is not black and white. Further, even if global warming is occurring, it does not mean that human activity is necessarily the cause.

As it turns out...I am currently undecided but open-minded on both parts of that question...whether it's occurring and whether human activity is the cause.

The high-and-mighty IPCC has already been proven to be a politically-motivated body, less interested in the science involved than with public policy. See, for example, their treatment of Chris Landsea, a (former) member of the IPCC and subject matter expert in hurricanes and their formation...and how members of his committee used their positions to push positions in the media that had no basis in current science. Further, there is definitely a bias towards CO2 release as "causing" global warming. Why? Because the US is the major contributor. They are completely ignoring the effects of methane (CH4)...and why? Because the US doesn't produce much atmospheric methane...but Europe does. Gee, coincidence? I think not.

More to the science...I don't have a background in atmospheric science. However, if you check the backgrounds of your purported "95%", you'll see that most of them don't either. Science...yes, for the vast majority. But not directly related to atmospheric studies.

My background is in engineering...measurement and data analysis, specifically. I've spent the better part of 20 years doing field test/measurement and/or analyzing the results. And I'm currently working on a PhD with a concentration in statistical signal processing.

When I dig into something at least resembling a measurement report (not a political summary) I don't come to the conclusion that there is anything near enough evidence. And certainly there is no discussion of the uncertainties involved in either the measurements or the models. (I am using uncertainty here in its mathematical sense...and not to be confused with accuracy, precision, or error, which are different (but related) concepts)

Are there some trends? Sure...and they are not as severe as the majority of models claim they should be. Further, the modeling of the upper atmosphere response has been completely off. There has been discussion over the proper way to calibrate different satellite-based temperature measurements. There is disagreement over what some measurements mean, or when values are agreed upon, how they got to be that way.

And what of the models...how good are they? Is science driving the models...or are the models driving the science? I have nothing against models...they are necessary in a case like this where the system under measurement is so complex and non-linear...but we need to remember that the model is not the system.

In short...I am open-minded on the subject, but I refuse to be bull-rushed into some apocalyptic panic by politicians and other politically-driven puppets who have pushing their agenda placed higher on the priority list than advancing the science.

[Mr Dio]

If you remember in the previous hurricane thread, someone mentioned that the energy was gone from the Gulf and the Carribean due to Dennis. I said that was incorect and it seems that water temp readings are proving this.

Well, have read & just saw on tv as well that if another storm happens in the Gulf this season it will all but drain the Gulf of the energy needed to sustain a high Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane.

Hate to make an ass of my son but...

I beleive it was posted that much/most of the energy was gone from the GULF.
Was the Carribean mentioned?..Please review.

I also think ANOTHER STORM means, another IN' storm.

Dennis at landfall was a strong catagory 3 and you all saw what that did.

Dennis came ashore & dissipated rather rapidly.
Losses were MUCH lower than expected.

So, in summation......With Emily coming from the Yucatan area into the GULF it should drain the remaining energy needed to strengthen/build a major Hurricane.
Hindsight is 20/20 but I should placed "forms" in place of "happens."

Emily can get as strong as it wants, because she is the storm I was speaking of.

ANOTHER

one more
an additional
a different
not the same
one of the same sort
some other

It is going to be interesting to see if someone on this board steps up to the plate & CORRECTS himself.

[Mr Dio]

BTW, The Yucatan has jack to do with where this thing goes.

You're right about that CC. The Yucatan will weaken anything that goes over it

OK, so is it heads or tails? Black or White? Right or Wrong?
Oh well, like I said, hindsight is 20/20.

[Mr Dio]

drain the energy?

Nice edit, try the ENTIRE sentence.