Hours of Reading: Abstracts From the Monterey Hurricane Conf

[Derecho]

http://ams.confex.com/ams/27Hurricanes/ ... ed_339.htm


Not sure if this particular link had been posted, a few threads based on popular media articles about the conference have been started.

Basically every presentation has an abstract and many have quite long PDF mini-papers.

I've only begun to read the most interesting ones, would take hours and hours just to read all the abstracts.

Man, I would have loved to see the debate between Landsea and the GW-hurricane folks.

[Aquawind]

Nice linkage...

That debate would be good fun..

[Clint_TX]

Thanks man

[milankovitch]

Man I wish I could have gone to that. Though with four huge semester projects to do and missing a week of class I probably would have had a nervous breakdown.

[Aslkahuna]

The section on databases and particularly the papers on reanalysis of WPAC storm data have great import WRT the current debate about GW and Hurricanes.

Steve

[Derecho]

The section on databases and particularly the papers on reanalysis of WPAC storm data have great import WRT the current debate about GW and Hurricanes.

Steve

There are many references, both directly, and indirectly, by people studying issues related to storm databases, to the severe problems that these databases have....

One paper mentions the drastic discrepancies between JTWC and Japanese intensity estimates in the WPAC...

Karl Horoau (who I'm told is one of the top Dvorak estimators in the world) mentions the possible overinflation of AODT estimates. I also understand he's extremely dubious of the accuracy of any Indian Ocean intensity databases.

And this one: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/108554.pdf

Specifically decides not to use any data for worldwide TCs prior to 1985 for his study because the data is so bad

[Aquawind]

Specifically decides not to use any data for worldwide TCs prior to 1985 for his study because the data is so bad

That sounds similar to what Phil K said about TC data prior to the 80's at the national hurricane conference..

[LaPlaceFF]

what's an abstract?

[x-y-no]

I just read through Dr. Gray's extended abstract.

I'm going to run it past my dad this weekend just to be sure I'm not being overly harsh, but I'm afraid there are a number of embarrassingly fundamental errors. I'll do a detailed commentary based on my dad's input sometime next week.


As a preview, one glaring issue which I find quite stunning, considering how fundamental the thermohaline circulation is to Dr. Gray's ideas:

Here are his figures 3 and 4 purporting to show in generalized form the flow of the THC in opposite phases of his postulated Atlantic multidecadal oscillation:



Figure 4 shows a situation which never obtains. at no time and under no conditions is there upwelling in the northern high latitudes.

Figure 3 is equivalent to the old Stommel box model of the THC:



with upwelling in the tropics. This idea has long been discarded in favor of the Rooth model: (yes, there is a relationship)



Which correctly represents the real world. That Dr. Gray should believe there is any significant upwelling of abyssal waters in the tropics is beyond baffling to me, and calls his understanding of the ocean dynamics far more into question than I had imagined possible.

Both these figures are so completely wrong that I'm still struggling to find some alternative interpretation to reconcile them with reality.

[Derecho]

what's an abstract?

It's a thumbnail summary of a long scientific paper...usually with most of the technical language and equations deleted.

Most science journals online provide free abstracts but you have to pay out the nose (or go to a university with a subscription) to read the full article.

[Aslkahuna]

Derecho, I have printed out the long files of the three papers on Reanalysis of the WPAC TC database including Hoaru's paper and my initial read is that there's enough slop in the database WRT to intensities to make it doubtful that one could really make a definitive statement about Global TC intensities at this point in time and until such reanlysis is complete. There is certainly a great discrepancy between JMA and JTWC WRT to intensities from Dvorak. Even using a conversion from 10 minute to 1 minute winds, JT will show Cat 5 at a T of 7.0 while JMA barely has Cat 5 at T8.0. An example used is Vamei which JTWC had as a TY (75kt) based upon in situ surface reports and Dvorak while JMA never took it above 45kt. This can also affect the naming of storms. Ironically, there are those of us who felt that TY Irma in 1974 was UNDERestimated by JT because of how hard it hit us at Clark AB ( Last recon 18 hours prior to landfall had indicated the completion of an ERC and falling central pressure but later recon never went in because of aircraft problems).

Steve

[OuterBanker]

Great link Derecho. I think you can get 1.5 credit hours for just reading the agenda. After spending about an hour on some of the links I feel like the kid in the Far Side cartoon raising my hand and saying "Can I be excused, my brain is full"