djones65 wrote:Wxman57, are you agreeing that the NHC should not have named this storm Andrea?
I agree with Extremeweatherguy that if a cyclone meets criteria designated for tropical cyclone classification or subtropical classification it should be done. No more argument. However, just because the system weakens after advisories are initiated or produces no significant changes to sensible weather over land should have NO influence on classifying a tropical cyclone.
It was not a waste of taxpayer's money.
Perhaps we should not name any tropical cyclone until they affect land areas of the U.S.???
Any tropical cyclone over water should be considered strong storms that marine interests should deal with? Let's not waste any taxpayer's money on storms that don't affect land. Isn't that the argument?
I am always stunned when people seem disappointed that a named tropical cyclone doesn't produce significant damage and then blame the NHC or the government for doing its job. Sending out recon was the appropriate response. Naming the cyclone was also the correct thing to do based on the data obtained.
Should Franklin, Harvey, Irene, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, Vince, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, or Zeta been named during the 2005 season? Should we have wasted taxpayer's money sending reconaissance planes to investigate Franklin, Irene, Philippe, or Gamma, and if so, why? Franklin was headed northeast away from land, Irene was in the middle of the Atlantic, Nate was moving away from Bermuda, Philippe was becoming absorbed by monstrous upper level low hundreds of miles northeast of Puerto Rico, and Gamma was over the NW Caribbean in late November when upper level shear was high and water temps cooling. What are y'alls thoughts?
I think it's questionable as to whether Andrea had enough tropical characteristics to be classifed an STS. The recon plane found it was cold core almost all the way down to the surface. Just a hint of warming in the lower levels. So it was very borderline. But the NHC's job is to protect the general public, so they can't be dismissive of any potential threat, no matter how small. Because of that, I'd agree with the naming of such a questionable system which still might pose some threat to public safety and might gain more tropical characteristics.
However, it could be argued that the storm had already done its damage by the time the NHC named it. Strongest winds, biggest waves, highest tides along the coast were 2 days before it was named. We were putting out bulletins on it as early as Friday morning (not calling it "Andrea", just a strong storm system developing). Therefore, if the NHC felt it HAD to name the storm Andrea to get the public's attention, then the NWS needs to re-examine its warning system.