Dr. Frank- inflated number of storms?

[Ed Mahmoud]

Are the number of declared tropical storms being inflated, and will it cost you money if you live near the coast?

[Ed Mahmoud]

"They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."

Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.

Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.

The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity.

[HURAKAN]

Just throw more gasoline into the fire and we will have a warm Christmas!

[cycloneye]

If this revelation is true,it may hurt the credibility of the National Hurricane Center from the people who haved been following for many years what they do and haved trusted all their forecasts.I think its time for the NHC to have a full job director who can take charge of all the operations and not get back to the Proenza debacle.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Just throw more gasoline into the fire and we will have a warm Christmas!

I like Dr. Frank. Although he has the least 'showy' graphics of any of the HOU TV mets, he gives good forecasts, and he still has the same buzzcut he had back during his NHC days.


And, the prime time anchor woman, a recent transplant from NY area TV, Lucy Noland is plenty easy on the eyes.

[Squarethecircle]

What I hate most about this story is not that it means anything bad or good storm-wise, but that people will purposely misinterpret to their liking. If you notice some of the comments, it seems that righties are showing this as proof that global warming is a scam, however, there was no specific mention that any of these weren't storms, only that before they might not have been classified as one. I believe it's important to follow the scale to the letter, and central pressure is not the official measurement, wind speed is.

[HurricaneRobert]

Melissa and Jerry might both be in the questionable category, but they were in areas of the Atlantic that the NHC didn't give a flip about when Dr. Frank worked there.

[HURAKAN]

I agree with your opinion. Moreover, I think that technology has changed a lot from the time Frank was the director of the NHC. Now we have more tools that allow the forecasters decide whether a system is tropical, subtropical or non-tropical, and a lot more ways to measure their intensity.

[tolakram]

My quote from the other thread:

People in hurricane zones will complain it's all an insurance scam.

So that didn't take long.

[Frank2]

I think that technology has changed a lot from the time Frank was the director of the NHC.

Moi?

Kidding - sure, the technology (even the science of forecasting) has changed during the "Frank" period at the NHC (ahem), but...

I was having this very discussion yesterday morning here in the office, with one of my superivisors who's also a hurricane "fan", and, mentioned to him the quote from the movie "Twister":

"...he has the [technology] but, he doesn't have the instincts..."

now, I'm not saying today's NHC forecasters lack good instincts, but, as with everyone in the world today, it seems many people (especially those under 40 who live in high-tech countries such as the U.S.) seem almost ashamed to admit that the real knowledge comes from the heart - the God given knowledge to know when to go proceed, stand still, or, turn around...

Many seem not to understand that weather forecasting, though considered a science unto itself, similar to geology, oceanography, or, any of the other "ologies" in the world of science, still requires the knowledge of the heart, similar to fishing and farming...

How exactly does a fisherman know when to drop his nets, or, when does a farmer know the exact day or time to plant seed? While technology does help, it will never replace the human heart and mind when it comes to knowing the exact thing to do, at the right moment to do it...

As my former Director would say, God does speak to the heart, and, similar to the Producer at KHOU speaking to Dr. Frank in his ear piece, God directs by inspiration when to do something at the very right moment, whether it be farming, fishing or weather forecasting - or anything else in life (the key, as the St. Francis prayer states, is the wisdom to know the difference, since our own hopes or fears can be another form of "inspiration" - or even the word from the one who desires to destroy)...

Still, while the argument of upgrading a system based on wind alone is a valid one, perhaps it would have been better to wait another cycle or two before upgrading - which would have meant that at least two or even three systems possibly would not have been upgraded at all, considering that several did have a very short life while at tropical storm status...

Frank

[Derek Ortt]

I'd say that the opposite is true

Dr Frank's NHC, IF they used pressure, to be frank (no pun intended) were using incorrect methods of classifying storms, and may be the reason why the climatological record is as bad as it is. It is known that they did with with Gloria, inflating its intensity based solely upon the pressure (and classifying SS categories based upon pressure and not wind).

TCs are classified based upon wind and not pressure. To not call something a storm when it has TS winds due to a high pressure, raises some serious meteorological red flags for myself. In have to agree 100% with Bill Reed In fact, in my M.S. Thesis, I had to justify why I used pressure to evaluate intensity CHANGE instead of winds. I did not have to change in the end, in part, due to some wind speed inconsistencies, as this article suggests

[Ed Mahmoud]

What I hate most about this story is not that it means anything bad or good storm-wise, but that people will purposely misinterpret to their liking. If you notice some of the comments, it seems that righties are showing this as proof that global warming is a scam, however, there was no specific mention that any of these weren't storms, only that before they might not have been classified as one. I believe it's important to follow the scale to the letter, and central pressure is not the official measurement, wind speed is.

And the 2005 season and Katrina is held up by people like Vice President Gore as evidence of global warming. Taking Vince for an example, even though it did hit land, would a storm hitting Portugal in, say, the pre-satellite era, like 1933, be identified as a tropical cyclone? What about the pre-season 'A' storms of 2005 and 2007?


If better technology allows identification of more tropical cyclones, than people should at least recognize an apparent increase in storms may at least partly be due to better technology, and not just further proof of global warming.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I'd say that the opposite is true

Dr Frank's NHC, IF they used pressure, to be frank (no pun intended) were using incorrect methods of classifying storms, and may be the reason why the climatological record is as bad as it is. It is known that they did with with Gloria, inflating its intensity based solely upon the pressure (and classifying SS categories based upon pressure and not wind)

I did not know that? I'd assume a large storm with the same central pressure as a smaller storm would have a less tight gradient, and winds, and I'm pretty sure similar sized storm with a higher pressure can be as strong as a storm with lower pressure if the pressure outside the storm is higher.


About Gloria, was this when the storm was over cooler water (which would imply a more stable surface layer and less turbulent mixing)?

[Derek Ortt]

it is the difference between the environmental pressure and the central pressure that causes the winds, not just storm size.

Take the case of two identical storms with a 200km radius and a 1020 environmetnal presusre. Storm a has a 50 km wide eye and storm b has a 20km eye (both eye pressures are identical and constant throughout the eye for this example). Storm a will have the tighter pressure gradient between the eye and the environment; thus, it will have the higher winds.

A TS can have a pressure of >1015 if it is embedded within background pressures of 1025mb (see Danny of 2003 ). Some storms require pressures <1000mb (October Caribbean storms embedded within the monsoon trough)

As for Gloria, it was also undergoing ET transition and was all spread out. It would not surprise me if on the reanalysis, it is dropped to a TS at landfall as the only hurricane force winds wer reported well above the surface (it is currently a 75KT cat 3... thanks to the policy of classifying storms based upon pressure)

This is why winds are used as pressure is relative to the environmental pressure

[Ed Mahmoud]

A 70 knot sustained wind in Gloria was measured near Boston (Scituate - 120' above MSL and Blue Hill, which is probably a hill) and USCG Chatham had 58 knots ( reading photographed copy of post-storm report on NHC web site), fairly far North of the Long Island landfall. So Gloria might have been a Cat 1. Based on winds, anyway.



I was in the Navy and out in the Pacific somewhere during Gloria, but I remember Hurricane Bob from watching TV (I had a summer job in Mississippi), and I'm a little surprised that 'Bob' was retired. I suspect a bias towards more densley populated areas, like the Northeast, for things like that.

[Derek Ortt]

when Bob struck, it caused 1.5 billion worth of damage (or about 3 billion today)

Back then, it was one of the most destructive hurricanes in history (as an aside, it may have been the last time NYC was under a Hurricane Warning). Bob was also the strongest landfall for New England since at least Donna, if not Carol and is likely one of the 4 worst New England hurricanes ever (maybe 3rd only behind 1938 Long Island and Carol)

[Ed Mahmoud]

when Bob struck, it caused 1.5 billion worth of damage (or about 3 billion today)

Back then, it was one of the most destructive hurricanes in history (as an aside, it may have been the last time NYC was under a Hurricane Warning). Bob was also the strongest landfall for New England since at least Donna, if not Carol and is likely one of the 4 worst New England hurricanes ever (maybe 3rd only behind 1938 Long Island and Carol)

OK, I guess it was bigger than I remember from the news (Bob, I mean) with several 90 mph wind reports and a cool looking satellite presentation.

[RL3AO]

I think most of the named storms were upgraded because of direct recon measurements and Jerry had 45+ kt Quikscat readings, the only question was if it was tropical. So what can you complain about?

[senorpepr]

This article doesn't surprise me at all. For a few years now, many of the respected meteorologists in the weather community that I work with (and I tend to agree with them) have mentioned that a few storms each year were not name-worthy.

This year seemed to be rather ridiculous.

[Derek Ortt]

which storms did not deserve a name, Mike

The only one I can think of was Jerry, and with the current practice of naming subtropicla storms, it probably did qualify