Ed Lizard Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I understand M-F's old school displeasure with gales of tropical origins being labelled storms, but do we wanna get too complex, tropical depressions, tropical gales, tropical storms, hurricanes, super-hurricanes? Besides, look back on Hurricane Humberto, and see how quickly that tropical gale spun up into a hurricane. An extra couple of hours over water, or landfall 50 miles down the coast (or both), that could have been a big deal. Not super enthusiastic about marginal systems like Cindy getting a name, but if it meets the accepted criteria, well, what can they do? If they didn't name it someone else would complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Kinda old, but NHC is recognizing kush's "fake Cat 4" problem http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/feedback/2011/sshws.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil882 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Frank comes from a heartier generation; one that defines "storm" as more than some nickel and dime disturbance that after microscopic examination is found to have a few acres of 35kt winds. Outside the limited tropical cyclone world, the word "storm" refers to serious weather. When folks in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast (or most the world for that matter) see a gale get upgraded to a storm, they know they're in for some big-time weather. The word "storm" has a place in everyday vernacular; and more specifically, for mariners and coastal residents the word "storm" refers to cyclones with winds 50 knots or greater. But in the tropics? As soon as there's a cluster of clouds people pull out their magnifying glasses in search of any spot with 35 knot winds - and whey they find it they bestow a name on it, no matter how wretched the creature is. I've seen tropical storms make landfall in the Gulf states with winds no stronger than what I may get from a stiff sea breeze on a hot summer day! What's happened over the years is the "tropically anal" people have diluted the meaning of the word "storm" down to a minimal threshold; they've so diluted the test that almost anyone can pass. Well.....school wasn't always that way. You do bring up an interesting point... why is 35 knots or 39mph designated as the tropical storm threshold. If mariners were only concerned with "storms" that got above 50 knots, why didn't we (the scientific community) put the tropical storm threshold at that value? Perhaps its worth digging up why the value was choosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil882 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 And back to today... our Atlantic wave is looking a bit more convective consolidated today. The Euro still suggests some development north of Hispaniola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Frank comes from a heartier generation; one that defines "storm" as more than some nickel and dime disturbance that after microscopic examination is found to have a few acres of 35kt winds. Outside the limited tropical cyclone world, the word "storm" refers to serious weather. When folks in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast (or most the world for that matter) see a gale get upgraded to a storm, they know they're in for some big-time weather. The word "storm" has a place in everyday vernacular; and more specifically, for mariners and coastal residents the word "storm" refers to cyclones with winds 50 knots or greater. But in the tropics? As soon as there's a cluster of clouds people pull out their magnifying glasses in search of any spot with 35 knot winds - and whey they find it they bestow a name on it, no matter how wretched the creature is. I've seen tropical storms make landfall in the Gulf states with winds no stronger than what I may get from a stiff sea breeze on a hot summer day! What's happened over the years is the "tropically anal" people have diluted the meaning of the word "storm" down to a minimal threshold; they've so diluted the test that almost anyone can pass. Well.....school wasn't always that way. <img src="http://208.71.34.143/public/style_emoticons/default/pimp.gif" /> This is a profoundly stupid post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUmet Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Not very enthused with the future prospects of the Atlantic wave. Westerly shear should increase in a couple days as this gains latitude and the low-level easterly flow accelerates due to a combination of the subtropical ridge strengthening and the suppressed, easterly phase of the Kelvin wave. There's also an upper-level trough feature down the road as well. The global model support is lacking, and this faces a potential interaction with Hispaniola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I don't post much on TC's but I wanted to chime in on the whole 70's debate. It seems that with the technology we have now we are better able to identify TC's. Why in the world would we not want to start classifying them correctly. In 20-30 years we will have a whole new set of good data to compare hurricane seasons against each other with. The idea we should not scrutinize TC's to accurately identify their strength is ludicrous. If we continue to use old technology we will never have accurate season totals to compare with. With the way we look at storms today at least we will eventually have accurate numbers. Sure it will take time to get enough years of correct data but so what, it is better than the alternative imo. Why continue to classify storms incorrectly when we are perfectly capable of doing a better job today. As Phil said look at the correct data as far back as we can and eventually things over time will work themselves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I understand M-F's old school displeasure with gales of tropical origins being labelled storms, but do we wanna get too complex, tropical depressions, tropical gales, tropical storms, hurricanes, super-hurricanes? Besides, look back on Hurricane Humberto, and see how quickly that tropical gale spun up into a hurricane. An extra couple of hours over water, or landfall 50 miles down the coast (or both), that could have been a big deal. Not super enthusiastic about marginal systems like Cindy getting a name, but if it meets the accepted criteria, well, what can they do? If they didn't name it someone else would complain. Oh I wasn't suggesting we change the nomenclatures (that would be more trouble than it's worth,) I was just noting how the criteria (itself subjective) has changed. And my comment was not directed towards anything this year (because I've paid scant little attention to the junk out there so far) but to storms in years past when I did follow closely even the bottom of the barrel stuff. When one refers to a storm (tropical or otherwise) one is describing a thing. And the definition needs be useful to people. Since the dawn of civilization, people have come to know what a storm is. I could say "it snowed yesterday" or I could say "we had a snowstorm yesterday"; and anyone who knows anything about snow would know the difference - despite the fact there is no scientific difference (it's all in the vernacular of course.) With oceanic systems we have a bunch of categories. We place delimiters (or definitions) on them but in the end their application is subjective and arbitrary. Small craft advisory today? "Well...the winds meet the criteria but they won't be sustained long enough to generate seas dangerous for small boats....so let's just skip it." Judgment calls like that are made every day. Gale warning or Storm warning? Ditto. Tropical Storm or not a Tropical Storm? Does it have a broad wind field that meets criteria or is it 35kts in a tiny area and 15kts everywhere else? How much of a wind field is required? Is it producing unusual seas? If so, how high and in how many quadrants? See where this is going? I would suggest that throwing a name on something simply because an obscure 35kt wind is found somewhere out in the middle of nowhere...is not science, it is nonsense. A storm is not a formula, it's a dynamic physical thing. By putting every disturbance under a magnifying glass and tossing out humanity's view of what a storm is - we end up creating a new reality just to satisfy record keeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 See where this is going? I would suggest that throwing a name on something simply because an obscure 35kt wind is found somewhere out in the middle of nowhere...is not science, it is nonsense. A storm is not a formula, it's a dynamic physical thing. By putting every disturbance under a magnifying glass and tossing out humanity's view of what a storm is - we end up creating a new reality just to satisfy record keeping. I could not disagree more with this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I don't post much on TC's but I wanted to chime in on the whole 70's debate. It seems that with the technology we have now we are better able to identify TC's. Why in the world would we not want to start classifying them correctly. In 20-30 years we will have a whole new set of good data to compare hurricane seasons against each other with. The idea we should not scrutinize TC's to accurately identify their strength is ludicrous. If we continue to use old technology we will never have accurate season totals to compare with. With the way we look at storms today at least we will eventually have accurate numbers. Sure it will take time to get enough years of correct data but so what, it is better than the alternative imo. Why continue to classify storms incorrectly when we are perfectly capable of doing a better job today. As Phil said look at the correct data as far back as we can and eventually things over time will work themselves out. No one is suggesting we use old technology. That we find more storms today due to better technology is a simple fact. And as you noted, the data will average out over time. The only question some people have is; just exactly what is a storm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUmet Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I would suggest that throwing a name on something simply because an obscure 35kt wind is found somewhere out in the middle of nowhere...is not science, it is nonsense. A storm is not a formula, it's a dynamic physical thing. By putting every disturbance under a magnifying glass and tossing out humanity's view of what a storm is - we end up creating a new reality just to satisfy record keeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 No one is suggesting we use old technology. That we find more storms today due to better technology is a simple fact. And as you noted, the data will average out over time. The only question some people have is; just exactly what is a storm? Again I'm new to the science of TC's but the way I understand it there is specific criteria. A closed circulation with x amount of wind speeds is how they are classified. It actually seems quite simple and not subjective at all given enough data. Warm Core/Cold core comes into play also but again with the amount of data we can gather today it's pretty straight up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If a system meets the scientific definition of a tropical storm, then it gets classified as such and gets a name... period... and that's the way it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Again I'm new to the science of TC's but the way I understand it there is specific criteria. A closed circulation with x amount of wind speeds is how they are classified. It actually seems quite simple and not subjective at all given enough data. Warm Core/Cold core comes into play also but again with the amount of data we can gather today it's pretty straight up. I think it was a couple of years ago, JB was all inflamed, there was something off the SE Coast not upgraded after recon because NHC declared it was frontal, despite having a warmer center flight level, and no obvious wind direction/dewpoint/temp discontinuities which suggested a front anyway from scanning the HDOBs. I don't remember which year, but I'm guessing either 2007 or 2009, if that rings any bells. (Not his 'Jersey Devil') JB is always closed circulation, gales over one quad, over water warmer than 25 or 26ºC, name it. Which is funny, because I made a point of checking his Twitter and he thought Cindy shouldn't be upgraded and was a waste of a name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCANE Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Shear is expected to be low, over the next 72 hrs, for the wave currently at 50W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I could not disagree more with this post. It merely reflects my personal view. Of course you have yours and so on across the board. If I made a few people pause and think (even if off on a tangent) then it was worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I was not aware that a 35kt barb is all that's needed for upgrade. MF, teach us more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riptide Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If a system meets the scientific definition of a tropical storm, then it gets classified as such and gets a name... period... and that's the way it should be. I completely agree. A TC should be identified if it exists anywhere in the ocean because it gives us a more realistic history of what actually happened. Identifying all TC's in any given season is also important for calculating the Tropical ACE index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtg947h Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Terrible post. Please recant before the Gods see this. <note my address> Yes, this. Keep anything more than a moderate TS away... we don't need that kind of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmx Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 It merely reflects my personal view. Of course you have yours and so on across the board. If I made a few people pause and think (even if off on a tangent) then it was worth my time. That's why we need science...objective guidelines, not personal opinions... I don't want to research and need to check if it was a storm for someone specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurricaneman Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I understand M-F's old school displeasure with gales of tropical origins being labelled storms, but do we wanna get too complex, tropical depressions, tropical gales, tropical storms, hurricanes, super-hurricanes? Besides, look back on Hurricane Humberto, and see how quickly that tropical gale spun up into a hurricane. An extra couple of hours over water, or landfall 50 miles down the coast (or both), that could have been a big deal. Not super enthusiastic about marginal systems like Cindy getting a name, but if it meets the accepted criteria, well, what can they do? If they didn't name it someone else would complain. and heres how I would classify each category tropical depressions 20mph to 35mph tropical gales 40mph to 50mph tropical storms 55mph to 70mph hurricane 75mph to 110mph major hurricane 115mph to 145mph super hurricane 150mph+ how would that be Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I completely agree. A TC should be identified if it exists anywhere in the ocean because it gives us a more realistic history of what actually happened. Identifying all TC's in any given season is also important for calculating the Tropical ACE index. Of course; who would disagree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icebreaker5221 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 It merely reflects my personal view. Of course you have yours and so on across the board. If I made a few people pause and think (even if off on a tangent) then it was worth my time. and heres how I would classify each category tropical depressions 20mph to 35mph tropical gales 40mph to 50mph tropical storms 55mph to 70mph hurricane 75mph to 110mph major hurricane 115mph to 145mph super hurricane 150mph+ how would that be Ed What's going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riptide Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Of course; who would disagree with that? You did....or perhaps you were saying(lulz, "typing") that Tropical Storm Cindy did not reach the qualifications of a TC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCANE Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Recon may go Sunday for P07L WEATHER RECONNAISSANCE FLIGHTS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER, MIAMI, FL. 1100 AM EDT THU 21 JULY 2011 3. ADDITIONAL DAY OUTLOOK: POSSIBLE LOW LEVEL INVEST AT 24/1800Z NEAR 21.0N 69.0W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riptide Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Recon may go Sunday for P07L WEATHER RECONNAISSANCE FLIGHTS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER, MIAMI, FL. 1100 AM EDT THU 21 JULY 2011 3. ADDITIONAL DAY OUTLOOK: POSSIBLE LOW LEVEL INVEST AT 24/1800Z NEAR 21.0N 69.0W. http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/get-goes?satellite=GOES-E%20HURRICANE&lat=13&lon=-52&info=vis&zoom=1&width=1024&height=768&type=Animation&quality=90&numframes=10 Looks pretty legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil882 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 There is a reason why they are called MAXIMUM sustained winds, not most of the winds are around this value. Why does it make logical sense? Because this way, you can warn individuals about the worst potential threat, rather than guessing that most people will be affected by the less threatening part of the storm. You can argue all you want about what wind threshold is considered dangerous to a person, but using maximum sustained winds (be it gusts or wind averages) to identify a storm is pretty much accepted universally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The difference between today's conversation and yesterday's is striking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 and heres how I would classify each category tropical depressions 20mph to 35mph tropical gales 40mph to 50mph tropical storms 55mph to 70mph hurricane 75mph to 110mph major hurricane 115mph to 145mph super hurricane 150mph+ how would that be Ed The current system works well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 TC's are defined by more than a wind threshold...those who are complaining about things seem to be ignoring the other parts of the criteria for a TS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.