NHC News Item (1/2/08)
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
NHC News Item (1/2/08)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/weathe ... b01_layout
This reminds me of when "Little" Russ Thompson quoted his Dad, in the movie "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" - "The bigger the guy the bigger the moon [appears]".
In a similar way, the thinking, "The warmer the Earth, the bigger the hurricane" is too simplistic a view of what might happen - the Earth is far too complex to make that general statement...
P.S. I'm not very tall, either...
LOL
This reminds me of when "Little" Russ Thompson quoted his Dad, in the movie "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" - "The bigger the guy the bigger the moon [appears]".
In a similar way, the thinking, "The warmer the Earth, the bigger the hurricane" is too simplistic a view of what might happen - the Earth is far too complex to make that general statement...
P.S. I'm not very tall, either...
LOL
Last edited by Frank2 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
Re: News Item (Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming)
They did say hurricanes have gotten stronger since 1970.
0 likes
Re: News Item (Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming)
True, though there were already signs of intense hurricanes before '70, such as the 1935, 1947 and 1969 hurricanes, so, it's possible that these were already related to a warming of the atmosphere, but, in reality it might be due to this and other factors as well - I sincerely believe it's not just related to warmer temperatures due to pollution...
0 likes
- Tampa Bay Hurricane
- Category 5
- Posts: 5597
- Age: 37
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg, FL
NHC News Item (1/2/08) (Hurricane Intensity)
Here's a related article that appeared in today's Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/weathe ... b01_layout
however, one segment is way wrong:
"...Things have changed since Neil Frank's era," said Chris Landsea, the center's science and operations officer. "I would agree with him that we're naming more now than we did then. But I would also argue we're naming them correctly. We just have more tools to do it correctly."
Among those tools: geostationary and polar orbiting satellites, which, in addition to providing detailed imagery, allow forecasters to pinpoint the strongest tropical-force winds as well the temperatures in the atmosphere around them, he said...."
Whoa - either the reporter misquoted (or wrote around what he said), or, Dr. Chris Landsea must think Dr. Frank was there back in the 1950's - in fact, he was NHC Director until mid-1987 - and had full use of Geostationary satellites for a number of years.
In fact, more advanced means of satellite interpretation (such as McIdas) were already being used well before Neil Frank retired, so, the above statement is incorrect...
My own humble guess - I do believe storms are being named too quickly, if nothing else - the old way of "waiting for a forecast cycle or two" just to make sure the system was developing, versus a misleading short burst of activity, seems to make more sense, and, helps to ensure that what they are naming is actually going to be a viable storm, and, not just a very short lived system - considering several systems this year seemed to have a shelf life of less than one forecast cycle, the thought of waiting to make sure seems to make sense...
And, that does not mean that anyone would be endangered by not quickly naming a system over the open ocean, since the High Seas and Aviation forecasts constantly issue updated forecasts or SIGMETS for developing tropical disturbances, so, to wait a cycle or two (6-12 hours before naming) would still be a reasonable option, as it was in decades past...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/weathe ... b01_layout
however, one segment is way wrong:
"...Things have changed since Neil Frank's era," said Chris Landsea, the center's science and operations officer. "I would agree with him that we're naming more now than we did then. But I would also argue we're naming them correctly. We just have more tools to do it correctly."
Among those tools: geostationary and polar orbiting satellites, which, in addition to providing detailed imagery, allow forecasters to pinpoint the strongest tropical-force winds as well the temperatures in the atmosphere around them, he said...."
Whoa - either the reporter misquoted (or wrote around what he said), or, Dr. Chris Landsea must think Dr. Frank was there back in the 1950's - in fact, he was NHC Director until mid-1987 - and had full use of Geostationary satellites for a number of years.
In fact, more advanced means of satellite interpretation (such as McIdas) were already being used well before Neil Frank retired, so, the above statement is incorrect...
My own humble guess - I do believe storms are being named too quickly, if nothing else - the old way of "waiting for a forecast cycle or two" just to make sure the system was developing, versus a misleading short burst of activity, seems to make more sense, and, helps to ensure that what they are naming is actually going to be a viable storm, and, not just a very short lived system - considering several systems this year seemed to have a shelf life of less than one forecast cycle, the thought of waiting to make sure seems to make sense...
And, that does not mean that anyone would be endangered by not quickly naming a system over the open ocean, since the High Seas and Aviation forecasts constantly issue updated forecasts or SIGMETS for developing tropical disturbances, so, to wait a cycle or two (6-12 hours before naming) would still be a reasonable option, as it was in decades past...
0 likes
-
- Admin
- Posts: 20017
- Age: 62
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:23 pm
- Location: Florence, KY (name is Mark)
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
Naming storms is silly.
There is no other way around it.
A storm is not going to follow man made rules and the 'naming' of weather and this naming phenomena, including the fact that we're actually discussing it, distracts from the forecasting.
Conversely, naming is fun so stop sweating the details.
There is no other way around it.
A storm is not going to follow man made rules and the 'naming' of weather and this naming phenomena, including the fact that we're actually discussing it, distracts from the forecasting.
Conversely, naming is fun so stop sweating the details.
0 likes
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
Well, really it isn't silly, and, it's important to remember why names were given in the first place, since it denotes the line where a system goes from being not much more than an area of thunderstorms, to an organized or even powerful system that can threaten entire communities, so, naming systems, per human nature, is needed, since it gives the average person something to focus on, versus 100 years ago, when a tropical system was unnamed and hard to discern as to it's potential...
0 likes
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
This line speaks volumes (and is leading me to question Dr. Frank)
Further, Hurricane Felix, designated a ferocious Category 5, would have been deemed "a strong Category 4," according to central pressure measurements, said Frank.
So, he would basically be ignoring the wind reports from the aircraft (including the highest SFMR winds)? I am having major trouble understanding his line of thinking when it comes to ignoring wind data. That happened with Gloria and the entire EC thought they were about to be struck by a cat 3/4, not a 2 at Hat and barely a hurricane at Long Island (or Katrina would have been a cat 5 at Louisiana landfall... but don't get me started on that one)
Further, Hurricane Felix, designated a ferocious Category 5, would have been deemed "a strong Category 4," according to central pressure measurements, said Frank.
So, he would basically be ignoring the wind reports from the aircraft (including the highest SFMR winds)? I am having major trouble understanding his line of thinking when it comes to ignoring wind data. That happened with Gloria and the entire EC thought they were about to be struck by a cat 3/4, not a 2 at Hat and barely a hurricane at Long Island (or Katrina would have been a cat 5 at Louisiana landfall... but don't get me started on that one)
0 likes
it seems as if the article is correct Frank
Polar orbiting satellites really did not come into existence until July of 1987 with the F-08 SSM/I satellite. There was only one of these and the horizontal resolution was about 25km.
In 1991, we started having 2 satellites and in 1995 we had 3. In 1998, we also had the TRMM TMI satellite, with a resolution of 5km and a wider swath width (or relatively wider since the passes were from NE-SW not N-S or vice-versa). This allowed for the storm structure to be better resolved. Since then, we have had the SFMR (valuable for determining if the winds are at TS or cane force), higher resolution microwave imagery (WINDSAT, AMSR-E, etc.). The AMSU-B is also helpful for assessing whether or not a cyclone is warm core.
I disagree with the limit of 1005mb for naming a system as it is the difference in pressure that determines the windspeed, not the pressure itself (1005 has supported anywehre from a 75KT hurricane in 2000 Debby or barely is a low within a monsoon trough)
Polar orbiting satellites really did not come into existence until July of 1987 with the F-08 SSM/I satellite. There was only one of these and the horizontal resolution was about 25km.
In 1991, we started having 2 satellites and in 1995 we had 3. In 1998, we also had the TRMM TMI satellite, with a resolution of 5km and a wider swath width (or relatively wider since the passes were from NE-SW not N-S or vice-versa). This allowed for the storm structure to be better resolved. Since then, we have had the SFMR (valuable for determining if the winds are at TS or cane force), higher resolution microwave imagery (WINDSAT, AMSR-E, etc.). The AMSU-B is also helpful for assessing whether or not a cyclone is warm core.
I disagree with the limit of 1005mb for naming a system as it is the difference in pressure that determines the windspeed, not the pressure itself (1005 has supported anywehre from a 75KT hurricane in 2000 Debby or barely is a low within a monsoon trough)
0 likes
-
- Admin
- Posts: 20017
- Age: 62
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:23 pm
- Location: Florence, KY (name is Mark)
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
Frank2 wrote:Well, really it isn't silly, and, it's important to remember why names were given in the first place, since it denotes the line where a system goes from being not much more than an area of thunderstorms, to an organized or even powerful system that can threaten entire communities, so, naming systems, per human nature, is needed, since it gives the average person something to focus on, versus 100 years ago, when a tropical system was unnamed and hard to discern as to it's potential...
Then why not name everything that's organized enough to cause mass carnage? Many depressions can result in loss of life due to flooding yet they aren't named because they don't fit the description of a tropical storm. I think we're missing the target. It becomes increasingly apparent when we start arguing about warm core, or sub tropical or extra tropical while the people on the ground are dealing with the effects of the 'thing'.
Noel was a great example. It's a hurricane but then it becomes kind of sort of mostly extra tropical and the NHC drops it like a hot potato. People on the ground or in the path of the storm could care less. So we name storms to "gives the average person something to focus on" yet sometimes these storms are no longer tracked due to things the average person doesn't understand.
I call it silly.
If naming is good then do it more often.
0 likes
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 3420
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: East Longmeadow, MA, USA
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
Well, another reason for naming systems is because there can be multiple storms at one time. In 1998, we had 4 hurricanes occuring at the same time. Naming them helps avoid miscommunication and confusion.
0 likes
-
- Category 3
- Posts: 812
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:31 pm
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
It is less ambiguous than naming it after the feast day of a saint or the holiday on which it struck. The Labor Day hurricane only refers to the day it stuck the Florida Keys, and not when it hit the Bahamas or Florida's Gulf coast.
0 likes
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
Derek,
Thanks for correcting me on that issue - I was incorrectly thinking of the TIROS polar-orbiting satellies of the 1960's, which were used for hurricane forecasting, but, were primitive by today's standards, and, as you mentioned, used the old N/S orbit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIROS
guess I'm dating myself...
P.S. While looking up the TIROS information, I found this important GOES update on wikipedia:
Communication was lost to GOES-12 on Dec. 4, 2007 when it performed a standard station-keeping maneuver. Current outage is scheduled to last "until further notice" and GOES-11 initially took "full disk" images to cover the lost data until a contingency plan could be implemented. On Dec. 5, 2007, GOES-10 was moved from South America operations to temporarily replace GOES-12 as the GOES-EAST operational satellite. On 9 December, communication with GOES-10 was also temporarily lost, but communication was resumed via a backup antenna. GOES-12 was successfully reactivated and moved back to normal operation following a thrust maneuver on 17 December.
Thanks for correcting me on that issue - I was incorrectly thinking of the TIROS polar-orbiting satellies of the 1960's, which were used for hurricane forecasting, but, were primitive by today's standards, and, as you mentioned, used the old N/S orbit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIROS
guess I'm dating myself...
P.S. While looking up the TIROS information, I found this important GOES update on wikipedia:
Communication was lost to GOES-12 on Dec. 4, 2007 when it performed a standard station-keeping maneuver. Current outage is scheduled to last "until further notice" and GOES-11 initially took "full disk" images to cover the lost data until a contingency plan could be implemented. On Dec. 5, 2007, GOES-10 was moved from South America operations to temporarily replace GOES-12 as the GOES-EAST operational satellite. On 9 December, communication with GOES-10 was also temporarily lost, but communication was resumed via a backup antenna. GOES-12 was successfully reactivated and moved back to normal operation following a thrust maneuver on 17 December.
0 likes
- Aslkahuna
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Contact:
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
I would date myself even because I first began using satellite data when the first operational satellites went up in 1966 (we were using APT data). In the mid 1970's at Clark AB we were using the DMSP Polar Orbiters which had 1km resolution in the visible imagery (and by 1979 1/2 km). The first Geosynchronous operational satellite came in the mid 70's but data from the experimental birds was available before then for limited operational use.
Steve
Steve
0 likes
- MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5903
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
Re: NHC News Item (1/2/08)
Yea, those DMSP birds took some beautiful pictures. I use to just stare at them whenever I was called to the weather shack to fix some of their equipment. Still can fix those old fax machines in my sleep. Yep, high tech 75 Baud FSK, the good ole days......MGC
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: AnnularCane and 27 guests