Iceman56 wrote:Don't get me wrong. Overall the thesis looks good and there's some great stuff in there. My point is that you cannot take a hypothesis from a thesis (that lack of wind shear prevents dry air intrusion, which he states in his summary is, indeed, only a hypothesis), and claim it as an absolute, as he did here.
Thus, "dry air cannot get into a storm if there is no shear" does not equal "it was hypothesized that strong shear allows the dry air to penetrate into the inner core region of the TC."
Suffice to say that I'm a professional met, have been for a long time (longer than I'd like to admit), and although I won't claim to be one of the TC "gods" by any stretch, I'm quite well qualified to discuss tropical cyclones.
Get a "Blue Nic" then by contacting the admins. When I see two pro-mets disagree, I try to watch and learn.
When I see what I assume is a well informed amateur doubting a pro-met, I assume the pro-met is correct. Especially if the pro-met is Derek, who, along with senorpepr, is one of two pro-mets who regularly visits the sports forum here during the off-season.
If they had a petroleum engineering forum, and people argued over rock mechanic properties or whatever, I'd want the blue nic so people would know I am the voice of experience.