• Member Statistics

    15,889
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    bmoremdwx
    Newest Member
    bmoremdwx
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
the ghost of leroy

Hurricane Flo Banter Thread-no fun allowed, no saying the storm isn’t that bad plz

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DPeterson said:

Reading some of the comments of this thread makes me wonder if inventing the Internet was such a good idea after all...

I couldn’t agree more. This thread made me cringe then puke in my mouth. 

Anyone we thinks this storm did not live up to the hype has no understand of meteorology and really should read more and post less. Almost doubling a states previous record for rainfall in a single tropical cyclone. Easily a 1000 year event. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn’t agree more. This thread made me cringe then puke in my mouth. 
Anyone we thinks this storm did not live up to the hype has no understand of meteorology and really should read more and post less. Almost doubling a states previous record for rainfall in a single tropical cyclone. Easily a 1000 year event. 
Check out @NWSWilmingtonNC’s Tweet:


This one tweet says it all...

I've read a lot/posted little with a rudimentary understanding of the general mechanics of tropical systems and for the last week have been pushing my friends/family in the area to pay attention to the surge and flooding potential.

I don't understand the vitriol. I really don't. Why are people being so damn negative? For real, I wish someone would explain their position rationally.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so they broke the record in 1877. I would say more than likely this is easily a 300 year event. So there is a .33% chance of this hapenning every year for the next 300 years. Me winning the lottery or a mega tusnami wiping out the eastern seaboard in the next 300 years is like .00001%. Am sorry, but it's all about numbers bro. A minor event in the large scale of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hickory said:

Ok so they broke the record in 1877. I would say more than likely this is easily a 300 year event. So there is a .33% chance of this hapenning every year for the next 300 years. Me winning the lottery or a mega tusnami wiping out the eastern seaboard in the next 300 years is like .00001%. Am sorry, but it's all about numbers bro. A minor event in the large scale of time.

bro you should go into finance with that sort of math wizardry in your brain

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hickory said:

Ok so they broke the record in 1877. I would say more than likely this is easily a 300 year event. So there is a .33% chance of this hapenning every year for the next 300 years. Me winning the lottery or a mega tusnami wiping out the eastern seaboard in the next 300 years is like .00001%. Am sorry, but it's all about numbers bro. A minor event in the large scale of time.

i gotta say, this is a top notch troll

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so they broke the record in 1877. I would say more than likely this is easily a 300 year event. So there is a .33% chance of this hapenning every year for the next 300 years. Me winning the lottery or a mega tusnami wiping out the eastern seaboard in the next 300 years is like .00001%. Am sorry, but it's all about numbers bro. A minor event in the large scale of time.
I completely understand that, on a timeline that large, small impact. Cool.

How does that factor into the average life span for the country/region? People who have migrated into the state from regions that don't have storms like this regularly, if ever? Isn't it a bit too objective to look at this situation from that much of a macro? The numbers and data meteorologists and weenies focus on are all fine and good, that's more or less why I'm as interested as I am. I constantly struggle with remembering that that data often has very real life-changing and life-threatening impacts downstream.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weaponxreject said:

I wanna ask you this, with no disrespect intended...

What would you have done, if you were at the NHC or any of our NWS offices (RAH, ILM, etc) if coming into Wed/Thurs last week all/majority guidance indicated the intensity projected? iirc nothing was showing the potential for southerly wind shear, series of EWRC, and the dry air. How would you have worded AFDs, and how would you have communicated that guidance to the media and the public?

I genuinely want to know, not to prove a point or attack you for your posts. I hope to, within the next 5-10 years, be working at the NHC or in the private sector wrt tropical systems. Communication of threats and dangers related to these storms is crucial to ensuring preparation and protection of life and property. Intensity forecasting confidence definitely lags behind track forecast confidence, and after reading discussions by those like DT and Cranky and Allan, it's been interesting to the the debates between those who focus on models and those who focus on synoptic/observational for forecasting.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

I would have toned it down.

Yes, preparation is great, but leading the governor in NC to say its the storm of a lifetime is a problem. Why? because people who weren't that effected will stay next time.

I think the NHC should know by now that model intensities are terrible. Need to tread lightly. The stall and crawl and just climo in general argued heavily against a CAT 4 or even a CAT 3 coming in.  I'd even say a CAT 2 was a stretch. But people on here even started whispers of a CAT 5. THE NHC put out that people should expect winds of up to 120MPH. They forecasted a CAT 4 moving in at one point. That was overkill IMO.

Again, there needs to be a balance. People need to take it seriously, but they get too carried away with the hype and ignore climo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I would have toned it down.
Yes, preparation is great, but leading the governor in NC to say its the storm of a lifetime is a problem. Why? because people who weren't that effected will stay next time.
I think the NHC should know by now that model intensities are terrible. Need to tread lightly. The stall and crawl and just climo in general argued heavily against a CAT 4 or even a CAT 3 coming in.  I'd even say a CAT 2 was a stretch. But people on here even started whispers of a CAT 5. THE NHC put out that people should expect winds of up to 120MPH. They forecasted a CAT 4 moving in at one point. That was overkill IMO.
Again, there needs to be a balance. People need to take it seriously, but they get too carried away with the hype and ignore climo.


Per the "up to 120mph", definitely didn't happen sustained wise, and gusts were mostly in the ~100mph range, so the guidance wasn't off much for those on the coast imho. Agreed, the Cat5 talk needed to be toned down. Especially when, per the SS scale and keeping in mind the general public's knowledge, there isn't really a huge difference between a 4 and 5 wind wise, and one could potentially argue that after a TC reaches a 3 the Cat is irrelevant.

I understand keeping a balance. Idk, maybe I didn't hear/see any of the fear-mongering you're referring to because I was mentally balls deep in the meteorological side versus public side.

Per the climo though... I've seen it referenced over and over by experienced Mets and by weenies on forums like these that this wasn't a storm one could really compare to climo because of the stack of statistical anomalies involved. Were they all wrong? Were they all focusing too much on those outliers versus the larger synoptic picture, so to speak? I want all input and perspectives because it could very well be me one day writing a FD for dissemination by the NHC... Conversations like these matter, but the hyperbole from both sides damages the goal, I feel, of properly conveying threat to life and property.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, weaponxreject said:


 

 


Per the "up to 120mph", definitely didn't happen sustained wise, and gusts were mostly in the ~100mph range, so the guidance wasn't off much for those on the coast imho. Agreed, the Cat5 talk needed to be toned down. Especially when, per the SS scale and keeping in mind the general public's knowledge, there isn't really a huge difference between a 4 and 5 wind wise, and one could potentially argue that after a TC reaches a 3 the Cat is irrelevant.

I understand keeping a balance. Idk, maybe I didn't hear/see any of the fear-mongering you're referring to because I was mentally balls deep in the meteorological side versus public side.

Per the climo though... I've seen it referenced over and over by experienced Mets and by weenies on forums like these that this wasn't a storm one could really compare to climo because of the stack of statistical anomalies involved. Were they all wrong? Were they all focusing too much on those outliers versus the larger synoptic picture, so to speak? I want all input and perspectives because it could very well be me one day writing a FD for dissemination by the NHC... Conversations like these matter, but the hyperbole from both sides damages the goal, I feel, of properly conveying threat to life and property.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Climo wasn't a help with this storm.

Underforecast and underanalyzed shear in a shallow region under the outflow layer on the SW side of the storm about 2 days out from landfall helped disrupt the inner core just enough to bring it down a notch.

A cat 3/4 landfall was the best call at the time, given the data available. I'm not sure the surge or flooding problems would've been any less even without the weakening period though.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the story behind this pic is. I saw my 1992 cub scout trophy floating away. I jumped into the river and saved it. You can call me a hero if you want too. #hero 

(The shirt is ripped because of the raging flood waters)

20180917_004914.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hickory said:

Ok the story behind this pic is. I saw my 1992 cub scout trophy floating away. I jumped into the river and saved it. You can call me a hero if you want too. #hero 

(The shirt is ripped because of the raging flood waters)

20180917_004914.jpg

Does anyone need any more proof that the invention of the Internet was a really bad idea?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mdecoy said:

I would have toned it down.

Yes, preparation is great, but leading the governor in NC to say its the storm of a lifetime is a problem. Why? because people who weren't that effected will stay next time.

I think the NHC should know by now that model intensities are terrible. Need to tread lightly. The stall and crawl and just climo in general argued heavily against a CAT 4 or even a CAT 3 coming in.  I'd even say a CAT 2 was a stretch. But people on here even started whispers of a CAT 5. THE NHC put out that people should expect winds of up to 120MPH. They forecasted a CAT 4 moving in at one point. That was overkill IMO.

Again, there needs to be a balance. People need to take it seriously, but they get too carried away with the hype and ignore climo.

Another factor is this takes place in an atmosphere of general distrust of media, and now anything objectionable can simply be dismissed as "fake news" 

Plus, some outright frauds in the weather reporting, such as Mike Seidel, who actually did produce fake news, pretending that he can't stand up when others are walking casually in the background. And lying about the windspeed being 60 MPH when meanwhile it says on their own live broadcast that the speed is 29 MPH. That's not an exaggeration, it's an outright lie. The Weather Channel hasn't fired Seidel despite his clown act becoming an internet meme with millions of views  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PressureDrop2017 said:

Another factor is this takes place in an atmosphere of general distrust of media, and now anything objectionable can simply be dismissed as "fake news" 

Plus, some outright frauds in the weather reporting, such as Mike Seidel, who actually did produce fake news, pretending that he can't stand up when others are walking casually in the background. And lying about the windspeed being 60 MPH when meanwhile it says on their own live broadcast that the speed is 29 MPH. That's not an exaggeration, it's an outright lie. The Weather Channel hasn't fired Seidel despite his clown act becoming an internet meme with millions of views  

They fire people on a dime there, so I suspect it was top brass who put him up to that stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another can of worms, these "curfews" where it is illegal to assemble on public property. They are unconstitutional. Government has been using them more and more. They literally closed an entire barrier island and the people who remained would be ticketed for leaving their house.

Sorry. Not legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mdecoy said:

Another can of worms, these "curfews" where it is illegal to assemble on public property. They are unconstitutional. Government has been using them more and more. They literally closed an entire barrier island and the people who remained would be ticketed for leaving their house.

Sorry. Not legal.

Congrats on passing the bar!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, the ghost of leroy said:

Congrats on passing the bar!

I am not sure why, but its an issue that just really gets me so angry.

Don't tell me I can't walk on public property. If you want to tell me that I am on my own and no rescue help will be available, that's totally fine, but law enforcement telling someone they can't peacefully assemble on public property is a huge rights violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mdecoy said:

I am not sure why, but its an issue that just really gets me so angry.

Don't tell me I can't walk on public property. If you want to tell me that I am on my own and no rescue help will be available, that's totally fine, but law enforcement telling someone they can't peacefully assemble on public property is a huge rights violation.

Don’t forget not being allowed to collect your own rain. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mdecoy said:

I am not sure why, but its an issue that just really gets me so angry.

Don't tell me I can't walk on public property. If you want to tell me that I am on my own and no rescue help will be available, that's totally fine, but law enforcement telling someone they can't peacefully assemble on public property is a huge rights violation.

It's not as clear as you think.

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened.

 Zemel v. Rusk,381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jburns said:

It's not as clear as you think.

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened.

 Zemel v. Rusk,381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965).

Huh, that is interesting. I mean I do get the public safety argument. But it just feels a bit too far. Essentially, Hurricane chasing is illegal in this country. I wonder how Josh bypasses that law. Would be interesting to find out.

Because it now seems like a common practice that if a Hurricane is coming to somewhere, it suddenly becomes illegal to so much as be there. You can't get a hotel, they close it. You can't hang out in a car, they will knock on your window and tell you to leave or else. Basically the only way is if you actually own property on location, even then, they are going to highly encourage you to get out.

It just seems like a bit of a stretch to me to be able to arrest someone for such reasons. Feels like the government might be coming close to violating constitutional rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, the ghost of leroy said:

he's a centrist hillary dude and we all know they think they're above the law.

 Zemel v. Rusk,381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965).

Moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody breaks a law every now and then. Did you know it's illegal to mow your grass towards the road (NC).  Also you can still whip your wife on the steps of the Durham courthouse on Sunday. So my men out there with a disobedient wife you can start whipping

1 hour ago, the ghost of leroy said:

he's a centrist hillary dude and we all know they think they're above the y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to personal endangerment I would argue that it should be up to the individual not the government as to if someone should head towards a life threatening situation. That is assuming they have a sound mind (as sane as someone heading towards a hurricane can be considered :arrowhead:), are a legal adult, and are not taking anyone else who is a minor or against their will. The person who heads towards said life threatening situation should not expect the immediate aid of first responders and know the risks heading towards the dangerous situation will entail.This is just my half of a cent's worth of an opinion I'm not well versed in whatsoever.  Immediately 4 types of people heading towards a storm pop into my mind. 1) People desperately attempting to convince their family members to leave or help leave. 2) Weather enthusiasts, weenies, and thrill seekers. 3) Those trying to take advantage of the disaster possibly participating in burglaries or other criminal activity. 4) Mere civilians who want to ride out the storm and help first responders and locals with the situation. If you disagree then state why you do. I have a feeling as soon as I submit this I'm going to get heavily criticized. :yikes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, the ghost of leroy said:

Lol

Bro dont even go there he has a reputation in SE forum. My best advice is to walk away. No need to get banned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.