Quote:
Quote:
Random,
You make a very valid and correct statement about my posts. I guess I need just a little more to back it up. But here is my point, what if the NHC comes back with an update that says Wilma wind's have increased to over 130 MPH. do we as hobbyist's tell the NHC that what proof do you have when they said otherwise that this would occur. That is why it's called an open discussion. I will rest and get back to the storm itself. If I offended anyone on this forum, well, please accept my sicere apologies.
I find this a very interesting issue. Certainly wild "no science" predictions from some nut case peering into a cyrstal ball don't belong on this forum. But some of us use long range models, research previous paths of October storms, looks at water temps and can come up with great forecast like Force 2005 did in this case. I'm better with Cape Verdes storms and accurately determined Isabel's landfall within 50 miles, 8 days out. I guess it's hard for a moderator to decide the basis for these predictions, but maybe the rule could be relaxed if the person posting a prediction adds a little background info into how and why (ie science) he's coming up with the forecast.
Most people here I believe,forecast with enough info to support there forecast. I will say that person is a nut case if they say that Wilma will suddenly vanish the next few hours. any forecaster from a Cat 1 hurricane to Cat 5 hurricane is good for now if they have good proof
|
Re: Vortex message