dseagull

He was looking for information on a topic that interested him, and was berated as a result. The intolerance here is astounding. It's supposed to be a forum for discussion, not bashing. He explained that he has been a lurker for many years and is a noob. He was looking for information, not trolling. Jeez.

Land subsidence is also an issue for a city that is already below sea level. Rates of subsidence have increased from 1cm/year UP 2in/year in some locals. Take it for what it's worth, but when engineering the new levees, this increased rate was not planned for. The project itself was contracted to be a continuously updated project. Another topping event, in a worst case scenario would not bode well for a city that already has it's fair share of problems.

I can respect that. I've never followed the guy closely. I much prefer cut and dry forecasts with scientific explanation. Weather manipulation used to be a hot topic, but as you said, conclusive findings haven't been made public to my knowledge. Going down that path seems like a slippery slope.

Also here. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1965/nsb1265.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjD3pqAo9TyAhWHMd8KHfdaA6UQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1N16tM1Nl_lHmD0rPHKPbs

In the future, these things may be possible, but its theoretical science at best. As far as Bastardi is concerned, not many people on this forum will respect anything he says, simply because his political ideation doesnt line up with theirs. I.e. He is a conservative who doesnt believe in significant anthropogenic climate change. The climate change section of this site is probably a better place for such discussions. Weather manipulation is fascinating for sure, but one doesn't have to think too hard to see what negative ramifications could result.

Maximum Sustained Wind Overall (mph): 140 mphMaximum Sustained Wind at Landfall (mph): 125 mphPressure at Landfall (mb): 957mbLandfall Location: Holly Beach, 7.5 miles West of Cameron

You seem like a bitter individual. I never claimed to be any of what you suggested. I offered my opinion. Sorry to offend you or inconvenience your weather forum experience. I wont post anymore.

Absolutely. I posted in response to another outlandish post. Mistakenly, I believed I was in the "banter," section. I took the time to explain perspective from a former COE employee. I wholeheartedly believed that would benefit others. Crazy I am I guess. Learn something new even in old age.

The responses to my opinion speak volumes. It was an OPINION. If you wish to censor opinions, feel free to do so, but at least acknowledge that debate leads to progress. Would it be fair to assume that you are progressive? If you censor and ignore opposing viewpoints, how will you ever attain progress? It is quite disturbing that you feel I am to be labeled a climate change denier. I never denied climate change. I simply deny that humans have any "real" effects on such. I'll leave you guys to it. Sorry for offering a professional perspective.

Define "crazy." I thought I expressed my opinion in a rather eloquent fashion. So sorry to offend you.

I guess my post was deleted in the IDA thread, and my apologies for responding to a post that was made in that thread, that was banter itself... let me try posting it here... in hope that it wasnt being deleted because I dknt believe in negligible anthropogenic climate change. You're kidding me right? I worked for the Army Corps of Engineers for MANY YEARS; If there is one thing I learned during that red-taped beurocractic phase of my life, it's that nothing of use was completed. While I may be a disgruntled ex-employee (RETIRED AND HAPPY), I certainly grasped what federal employment has become since WW2, with regards to the corps. Patching one issue and mitigating one disaster, only to create several more... that was the MO... create job security by F'n up one project after the next. (From beach replenishment to shoddy dam repairs) Just like most federal projects, the NOLA repairs were a cluster F, from start to finish. I couldn't even document over the required 65% of weekly construction inspections because supervisors for projects were always, "on leave." This is a joke... Nobody thought another, "Katrina" would happen during their career, so they didnt worry about accountability. This is a disaster in the making, and instead of the Fed owning up to it, they will fall back on their "fail-safe," CLIMATE CHANGE. Intense storms have always existed, and periodic climate changes have always lead to more active tropical seasons during such. The only absolute, is that more humans inhabit the earth, particularly along coastal regions, near coastal cities, near major ports (shipping ports.) This particular city happens to be below sea level. (Not great odds for disaster mitigation) Ignoring obvious political chaos from this "imminent," disaster, is shear ignorance. This will lead the political left (climate alarmists,) to further push massive spending to "avert" our "climate crisis" and perpetuate our country's downward fiscal spiral. CONCLUSION Storms happen, they always have, they always will. There are more people, especially on coastlines. More people will be affected and more people will die. Regulating carbon output from the US will not make a difference. (Regulating worldwide carbon output would have a negligible effect on climate change. ) Our existence on this planet is a mere blip in "time." We will die long before the planet "dies." The only thing that will kill the human race is F'ed up legislation that makes us suffer, so that those in power can prosper and be "In control. " Got it? Most weather enthusiasts can understand this... its gonna be a bad storm, dont let the politicians steal the limelight, like they always do... have fun chasing. RANT OVER.

Thread is fairly dead, so my contribution is an observation based on my fishing out of Barnegat Inlet this morning. Scrapped an inshore (40 mile) run to the tuna grounds last night. Wasnt concerned about wind or chop, but didnt want to go back through the inlet on an ebb tide with a big SE swell. Instead, pushed off the dock at 0545 to catch the second half of the flood near the inlet for fluke (summer flounder.) Buoy 16.2 miles off had 3.4 at 14 seconds. I was pissed I didnt go offshore... inlet and surrounding bars looks glassy with minimal swell. Did well fishing, and quit at slack around 10. Swell actually dropped off. Looked at cameras up and down the coast and confirmed the same. Talked to friends who went offshore and said the long period swell was slowly building, but it was otherwise just light showers and beautiful. I figure the swell will pick up as the storm makes it's way north, but I know a lot of fisherman that err on the side of caution, are kicking themselves for not pushing off deep. I know a lot of surfers that had sunrise surf expectations that were let down too. This is a compact storm, and interaction with the trough was tough to pinpoint. Like fishing, the unknown and unpredictability, is what keeps us coming back for weather obs..

Gotta agree. What observations or intel did they use? If anything, the storm looks like it is becoming more decoupled. I waited for the most recent vis. Satellite imagery, and it's not healthy looking at all. IR imagery is likewise, deteriorating near the core. Maybe forward motion north will help with alignment, but I'm confused.

You may want to lay off the psychoactive stuff there guy.

Haven't posted in years. Came in to catch up on what's going on, and got quite the chuckle. Pretty sure I'm witnessing an alcohol fueled bender, with a side of meth. I feel spun just from reading that nonsense.