#250 Postby benny » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:07 pm
"IMO, in best track, if there is a debate regarding the wind speeds, one should always go with the lower value, so that next time residents know that if a 2 could do this, a real 3 will be many times worse. However, for the advisories, always go with the higher value so that nobody lets their guard down"
This is not an acceptable philosophy for science, IMO. The best track is about providing the best intensity for a given storm, not to give guidance to residents. Can we really even tell the difference between 95 and 100 kt anyway?
As far as Rita goes... on the LEFT side of the storm there was 82 kt sustained winds at a reliable tower. This observation was taken overland without marine exposure. It is certainly possible if not likely that on the RIGHT side of the storm (where typically the maximum is located) that the winds were higher, given any motion assymetry to the storm AND marine exposure considerations. As far as I know, we rarely if ever measure the maximum winds at the surface because the instruments are just too far apart. I would love to know what the max winds were in Cameron Parish at the coast because I don't think Port Arthur captures all of it. 105 kt may have been a little too high at the time but I don't see any compelling evidence that suggests it was a Cat 2. It is especially difficult given the ridiculously high storm surge near the coast of LA.
0 likes
