Storm Classification (bring on the Greeks) - 2005 vs 2020 vs Standards?

[tolakram]

Starting this to head off some debates filling up individual storm threads.

Personally I also believe that there's a few storms that should have not been given names, but the comparison to naming criteria alone is not as straight forward as I thought it was.

First, 2020 is no 2005, I agree with that statement who heartedly, but because of strength of storms, SO FAR, not numbers. 2005 had some very short lives storms as well, many that I forgot about.

2005


2020


So do we have any storms in either years that should not have been named? Civil discussion only please.

[CrazyC83]

Starting this to head off some debates filling up individual storm threads.

Personally I also believe that there's a few storms that should have not been given names, but the comparison to naming criteria alone is not as straight forward as I thought it was.

First, 2020 is no 2005, I agree with that statement who heartedly, but because of strength of storms, SO FAR, not numbers. 2005 had some very short lives storms as well, many that I forgot about.

2005
https://i.imgur.com/KNJV7dG.png

2020
https://i.imgur.com/VLIEZtg.png

So do we have any storms in either years that should not have been named? Civil discussion only please.

All of them were legit. Perhaps in 2005 there was a storm or two that should have been named that wasn't?

[NXStumpy_Robothing]

There hasn't been a single storm that hasn't merited the designation or name it received when it did. Maybe some arguments can be made about the duration of its existence (such as for Kyle and Alpha, for example), but every system that has gotten a name in either year has earned that name.

I would rather have the NHC being confident enough in their tools to issue out advisories on systems that would've been missed in years prior than to ignore said systems because they may have not gotten the recognition they would have deserved if they had formed in the past.

[Aric Dunn]

Physics is Phyiscs no matter how long the storms last.. any debate is nothing but personal opinion.

[tolakram]

I'm always a little surprised what storms get debated. Alpha, for example, seems like a good call, no doubt. Some of the smaller and very short lived storms in the middle of the Atlantic are the ones I usually question, but even in 2005 you had these smaller storms getting classified.

I certainly agree that any storm that meets classification criteria should get classified. Have classification criteria changed since 2005? Was STS new post 2005?

[NXStumpy_Robothing]

I'm always a little surprised what storms get debated. Alpha, for example, seems like a good call, no doubt. Some of the smaller and very short lived storms in the middle of the Atlantic are the ones I usually question, but even in 2005 you had these smaller storms getting classified.

I certainly agree that any storm that meets classification criteria should get classified. Have classification criteria changed since 2005? Was STS new post 2005?

As far as I'm aware, subtropical storms began getting names from the regular list in 2002. They used to just be designated as "Subtropical Storm One", etc., and they have been recognized since 1968.

In regards to classification criteria, I'll have to defer to those with more knowledge of the NHC's inner workings than myself. I haven't really noticed any change in the past 10 or so years in terms of methodology if that helps, but that's anecdotal.

[tolakram]

Physics is Phyiscs no matter how long the storms last.. any debate is nothing but personal opinion.

There's plenty of room for classification discussion, and of course it's a persons opinion. If you'd like to give your classification criteria this is the place.

[tiger_deF]

While I think a cognizant point can be made on the quality of this year's storms versus 2005, I'm tired of seeing so many people trying to politicize the NHC, as if the quality vs quality of this year's storms is indicative of some grand climate change conspiracy. Hate to bring politics into this but no doubt it has gotten worse the last 4 years

[tolakram]

While I think a cognizant point can be made on the quality of this year's storms versus 2005, I'm tired of seeing so many people trying to politicize the NHC, as if the quality vs quality of this year's storms is indicative of some grand climate change conspiracy. Hate to bring politics into this but no doubt it has gotten worse the last 4 years

I don't think it's very widespread. A few forecasters (on twitter especially) have routinely done this and Twitter has this bad way of making everything seem widespread.

The NWS definition of Tropical Depression isn't helping.

Tropical Depression
A tropical depression is a tropical cyclone that has maximum sustained surface winds (one-minute average) of 38 mph (33 knots) or less.

Tropical Cyclone
A tropical cyclone is a low pressure system (not associated with a front) that develops over tropical and sometimes sub-tropical waters and has organized deep convection with a closed wind circulation about a well-defined center.

Tropical Disturbance
A tropical weather system with organized convection (generally 100-300 miles in diameter) originating in the tropics or subtropics, having a non-frontal migratory character and maintaining its identity for 24 hours or longer. It may or may not be associated with a detectable perturbation of the wind field.

Lots and lots of wiggle room.

[al78]

While I think a cognizant point can be made on the quality of this year's storms versus 2005, I'm tired of seeing so many people trying to politicize the NHC, as if the quality vs quality of this year's storms is indicative of some grand climate change conspiracy. Hate to bring politics into this but no doubt it has gotten worse the last 4 years

Such people basically have their own agenda, and they are trying to project an agenda onto others. Best thing to do is ignore. In the end, ignoring or denying the truth doesn't change the truth.

[Hammy]

I don't personally think there's any systems that shouldn't have been upgraded that were, though there are a few that I think were missed and should've been upgraded (but I have a thread for that when I get to the satellite era years)

I think really what sets this year apart is that something in the background is making conditions far more favorable for formation than even in 2005--literally every system that had a decent shot has spun up into something, systems that would usually be almost there but not quite in other active seasons. Plus 2005's July being uniquely active.

[Chris90]

Something I've seen, and this is just my opinion, but sometimes I see people talk about the NHC like they had better standards "back in the ole' days" and speak like the NHC got a whole brand new crop of forecasters with little experience and only a college education. From what I understand, turnover isn't super high there, and the older forecasters spend time with the newer ones training, it's not like they brought in a whole new crop of forecasters and they just developed their own classification practices. I'm not an expert about the NHC, but I know I saw on a twitter post earlier this year that Eric Blake got promoted to senior hurricane specialist, and I believe it said he's been working there since 2000? I mean, he was there during the 2005 season too. I get the impression that there is a line of succession there, and the more experienced forecasters train the younger, and "pass the torch" you could say. I just don't understand the talk like the NHC of today lacks the standards of the good ole' days. I believe some of these forecasters have been around for a long time, it's not like the staff rapidly changed in the past 5 years, at least from what I understand. Didn't Avila just retire like last year after having been there for a long time? And hasn't Stewart been there awhile? I just don't think the NHC has suddenly changed classification standards in the past 5-10 years.

Sure this year has been exceptionally busy, developing things at a faster rate than 2005, and I can see how that raises eyebrows, but I don't think storms are getting classified unnecessarily. If this was a trend where they were classifying things faster with less requirements, I think we'd see a big trend over the last 5-10 years of consistently getting deeper into the name list. As it is, quite frankly, more often than not some of us are saying we think something deserves classification that the NHC hasn't given it to yet.

I think this year just feels so topsy-turvy to many of us. We're already 2 names deep into the Greeks, but we've only had 2 majors officially. 2005 pulled off 4 Category 5s with names from the regular list. I won't count Teddy out, but I highly doubt he reaches Cat 5, which therefore means any Cat 5 we get this year will be a Greek name. Can you imagine Cat 5 hurricane Mu in the W.Carib, while tropical storm Nu spins off in the subtropics? That would be so very strange.

I think the lack of ACE generation is what has people doubting this season and questioning classification. 1933 and 2005 were recognized not just for high storm count, but also several intense storms, and they also produced intense storms early on. This season has been rapid fire, but the intensity factor was lacking, with only Laura really bombing out. I think we've ushered in a new phase of the season though with Sally and Teddy. I think this season may end up being remembered for being heavily back loaded in regards to intensity, similar to 2016.

[EquusStorm]

Here's the thing, I think NHC is actually a lot more conservative and careful than they used to be. It's just that super primitive technology of past years led to numerous missed storms that should have been classified. Yeah, maybe subtropical cyclone classification standards are more generous now, but that's a whole different thing.

Forecast discussions from NHC are available all the way back to 1983 on Iowa State Mesonet; it's clear we've come a dramatically long way in forecasting and analysis reading these. Amazing how many discussions for tropical depressions in the 1980s essentially begin with "well there's a circular looking blobby cloud with a tropical wave in the tropics on low res IR that looks like a depression so we'll forecast a hurricane because waters are warm" and then two advisories later, "well we sent a plane out and there is no evidence whatsoever of a closed circulation or any organization whatsoever and probably never was so, uh, final advisory"; other storms go straight from depression or weak TS to hurricane with a discussion like "well the blob we thought was a depression got an eye so oops it's a hurricane now I guess" - the extreme difficulty in locating centers not under convection without daytime visible imagery led to a lot of nighttime complete uncertainty where forecasters essentially just said "well gotta wait for morning to know if we even have a circulation or where the center would even be if it's actually a TC"; forecast track and intensity errors were constant and tremendous with some storms, but really no fault with the forecasters who were certainly extremely knowledgeable and very well versed in tropical weather, just very primitive technology to help with that.

For 2005 specifically, looking closely at loops, everything that should have been classified probably was, though there was an interesting nor'easter type system off the East Coast in May that could possibly be considered a subtropical system today. I think the standards are pretty much the same at least for tropical cyclones, but more generous with subtropical storms now that we can analyze them better. 2005 just had a ton of quality storms and less high latitude brief stuff than we have the last couple years.

It's not that we're getting more now, it's that we've missed a ton in the past; just eyeballing some 1980s seasons show multiple high latitude systems all year that would likely get named with better analysis techniques. Even as recently as 1992, 1994, and 1997 it's highly likely we missed 2-3 storms that should have been classified. So it's pretty asinine to force today's far more advanced classification ability to hold itself back to a time with primitive technology that would miss numerous storms just because we simply couldn't analyze them properly... yeah, a few subtropical storms now certainly may not have gotten named a while back, but a check on the 1970s seasonal maps show numerous subtropical storms classified over the open Atlantic, so we certainly classified a lot of them at some point. Consistency would be nice, but hey, no database is perfect. It's simply impossible to compare modern seasons to past seasons when technology is so different!

For the record I am of the full belief that any >35kt warm core cyclone with a closed center and associated convection, or the subtropical equivalent thereof, should be classified no matter the latitude or duration. Ignoring them is a complete disservice to science and climatology. There are zero named storms that should not have been named (a few cases like Colin and Jerry that come up frequently, possibly borderline given the inconsistency of the surface center) but I can think of several that probably should have been, just subjectively weren't due to strict standards. Classifying more weak storms with better tech probably means the named storm to hurricane ratio gets significantly skewed in modern seasons, but that just means the new ratio is a far more accurate picture of the actual true ratio of basin activity, given how many weak storms we used to miss.

[Chris90]

Here's the thing, I think NHC is actually a lot more conservative and careful than they used to be. It's just that super primitive technology of past years led to numerous missed storms that should have been classified. Yeah, maybe subtropical cyclone classification standards are more generous now, but that's a whole different thing.

Forecast discussions from NHC are available all the way back to 1983 on Iowa State Mesonet; it's clear we've come a dramatically long way in forecasting and analysis reading these.

I would absolutely love a link to the NHC forecast discussions from Iowa State Mesonet if you would be so kind. I did a google search and didn’t find them. Also, I hope your family is doing well and starting to recover from Sally!

EDIT: I found it!

[USTropics]

Here's the thing, I think NHC is actually a lot more conservative and careful than they used to be. It's just that super primitive technology of past years led to numerous missed storms that should have been classified. Yeah, maybe subtropical cyclone classification standards are more generous now, but that's a whole different thing.

Forecast discussions from NHC are available all the way back to 1983 on Iowa State Mesonet; it's clear we've come a dramatically long way in forecasting and analysis reading these. Amazing how many discussions for tropical depressions in the 1980s essentially begin with "well there's a circular looking blobby cloud with a tropical wave in the tropics on low res IR that looks like a depression so we'll forecast a hurricane because waters are warm" and then two advisories later, "well we sent a plane out and there is no evidence whatsoever of a closed circulation or any organization whatsoever and probably never was so, uh, final advisory"; other storms go straight from depression or weak TS to hurricane with a discussion like "well the blob we thought was a depression got an eye so oops it's a hurricane now I guess" - the extreme difficulty in locating centers not under convection without daytime visible imagery led to a lot of nighttime complete uncertainty where forecasters essentially just said "well gotta wait for morning to know if we even have a circulation or where the center would even be if it's actually a TC"; forecast track and intensity errors were constant and tremendous with some storms, but really no fault with the forecasters who were certainly extremely knowledgeable and very well versed in tropical weather, just very primitive technology to help with that.

For 2005 specifically, looking closely at loops, everything that should have been classified probably was, though there was an interesting nor'easter type system off the East Coast in May that could possibly be considered a subtropical system today. I think the standards are pretty much the same at least for tropical cyclones, but more generous with subtropical storms now that we can analyze them better. 2005 just had a ton of quality storms and less high latitude brief stuff than we have the last couple years.

It's not that we're getting more now, it's that we've missed a ton in the past; just eyeballing some 1980s seasons show multiple high latitude systems all year that would likely get named with better analysis techniques. Even as recently as 1992, 1994, and 1997 it's highly likely we missed 2-3 storms that should have been classified. So it's pretty asinine to force today's far more advanced classification ability to hold itself back to a time with primitive technology that would miss numerous storms just because we simply couldn't analyze them properly... yeah, a few subtropical storms now certainly may not have gotten named a while back, but a check on the 1970s seasonal maps show numerous subtropical storms classified over the open Atlantic, so we certainly classified a lot of them at some point. Consistency would be nice, but hey, no database is perfect. It's simply impossible to compare modern seasons to past seasons when technology is so different!

For the record I am of the full belief that any >35kt warm core cyclone with a closed center and associated convection, or the subtropical equivalent thereof, should be classified no matter the latitude or duration. Ignoring them is a complete disservice to science and climatology. There are zero named storms that should not have been named (a few cases like Colin and Jerry that come up frequently, possibly borderline given the inconsistency of the surface center) but I can think of several that probably should have been, just subjectively weren't due to strict standards. Classifying more weak storms with better tech probably means the named storm to hurricane ratio gets significantly skewed in modern seasons, but that just means the new ratio is a far more accurate picture of the actual true ratio of basin activity, given how many weak storms we used to miss.

This is essentially my line of thinking as well. It's not that the standards for classifying a system have really changed in the past 20 years, technology has just improved dramatically. When I first started tracking systems in 2000 on Wunderground/Storm2k you had to wait an hour for just a single new satellite image. You had one source (NOAA's satellite division website) and there was a satellite eclipse from pretty much July-September that blacked out images for ~3 hours every night. Not to mention, the resolution was no where near what we have today. We now have the ability to pretty much capture any area in the world on satellite, most with ~5-10 minute updates (and with mesoscales we can even go to 30 second updates!). It's not as drastic as when we had an influx of radar coverage after WWII (imo the greatest advancement to weather observation/forecasting), but the recent evolution of satellite technology closely rivals this.

While we give them crap, the models have really improved since the 2000-2010 days well. We've literally doubled the number of dependable models now, which provides even more analysis. These tools are also readily available to be used by pretty much any amateur as well (you don't need to be a professional meteorologist to access 99% of these tools).

Most importantly, there's been a huge wave over the past 20-30 years of some very intelligent (and now experienced) meteorologists that SOLELY focus on tropical meteorology for their career. We've come a long way in our understanding of tropical cyclone characteristics and better understanding of mesovortices and their subtle nuances. In addition, research and discovery of CCKWs, MJO, dipoles, etc. have come A LONG way in the past 20 years. This is just for the past 20 years as well (my experience), some of the meteorology vets and seasoned amateurs can contest to how far we've come even before my time.

TL: DR we're more equipped with tools and knowledge/understanding of tropical characteristics with more dedicated professionals in the industry. Storms that were normally missed just aren't anymore.

[bob rulz]

I have to agree with the idea that better technology and continually improving knowledge about tropical cyclones is a major cause of these "borderline" cases that some people think shouldn't be classified.

I don't see anything that shouldn't have been classified. I think as someone above says, we've all just been really thrown off by the ridiculous amount of activity that 2020 has given us (especially when you take into account the low ratio of intense hurricanes to tropical storms). We can't believe that a season is actually producing this level of activity, where almost everything that can is spinning up into a system.

[AnnularCane]

Here's the thing, I think NHC is actually a lot more conservative and careful than they used to be. It's just that super primitive technology of past years led to numerous missed storms that should have been classified. Yeah, maybe subtropical cyclone classification standards are more generous now, but that's a whole different thing.

Forecast discussions from NHC are available all the way back to 1983 on Iowa State Mesonet; it's clear we've come a dramatically long way in forecasting and analysis reading these. Amazing how many discussions for tropical depressions in the 1980s essentially begin with "well there's a circular looking blobby cloud with a tropical wave in the tropics on low res IR that looks like a depression so we'll forecast a hurricane because waters are warm" and then two advisories later, "well we sent a plane out and there is no evidence whatsoever of a closed circulation or any organization whatsoever and probably never was so, uh, final advisory"; other storms go straight from depression or weak TS to hurricane with a discussion like "well the blob we thought was a depression got an eye so oops it's a hurricane now I guess" - the extreme difficulty in locating centers not under convection without daytime visible imagery led to a lot of nighttime complete uncertainty where forecasters essentially just said "well gotta wait for morning to know if we even have a circulation or where the center would even be if it's actually a TC"; forecast track and intensity errors were constant and tremendous with some storms, but really no fault with the forecasters who were certainly extremely knowledgeable and very well versed in tropical weather, just very primitive technology to help with that.

For 2005 specifically, looking closely at loops, everything that should have been classified probably was, though there was an interesting nor'easter type system off the East Coast in May that could possibly be considered a subtropical system today. I think the standards are pretty much the same at least for tropical cyclones, but more generous with subtropical storms now that we can analyze them better. 2005 just had a ton of quality storms and less high latitude brief stuff than we have the last couple years.

It's not that we're getting more now, it's that we've missed a ton in the past; just eyeballing some 1980s seasons show multiple high latitude systems all year that would likely get named with better analysis techniques. Even as recently as 1992, 1994, and 1997 it's highly likely we missed 2-3 storms that should have been classified. So it's pretty asinine to force today's far more advanced classification ability to hold itself back to a time with primitive technology that would miss numerous storms just because we simply couldn't analyze them properly... yeah, a few subtropical storms now certainly may not have gotten named a while back, but a check on the 1970s seasonal maps show numerous subtropical storms classified over the open Atlantic, so we certainly classified a lot of them at some point. Consistency would be nice, but hey, no database is perfect. It's simply impossible to compare modern seasons to past seasons when technology is so different!

For the record I am of the full belief that any >35kt warm core cyclone with a closed center and associated convection, or the subtropical equivalent thereof, should be classified no matter the latitude or duration. Ignoring them is a complete disservice to science and climatology. There are zero named storms that should not have been named (a few cases like Colin and Jerry that come up frequently, possibly borderline given the inconsistency of the surface center) but I can think of several that probably should have been, just subjectively weren't due to strict standards. Classifying more weak storms with better tech probably means the named storm to hurricane ratio gets significantly skewed in modern seasons, but that just means the new ratio is a far more accurate picture of the actual true ratio of basin activity, given how many weak storms we used to miss.

\


This kind of has me wondering just how quiet the "quiet period" in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s really was. Maybe still slower than it is now, but likely not as slow as was thought. Suppose we went back in time to that time period again, but with the technology we have now. I wonder what those seasons would look like.

[FrontRunner]

Great posts by everyone so far! A few thoughts, mostly building on what's already been said:

- Saying "2020 is no 2005" is fine, but it needs the qualification of how one is comparing seasons.  Once you set the criteria, there's really no debate: 2005 clearly had lots more ACE, clearly more/worse majors.  As someone else put it in a separate thread, "the big ones were bigger" or something to that effect.  Similarly, 2020 clearly has lots more named storms to date, period, no debate.  At this point in the season I think we're ahead by 6 storms, and no one is going to be able to pick out 6 storms this year that are debatable or that wouldn't have been named in 2005.  

 - Disagreements arise because of how one defines "organized deep convection" and "well-defined center".  There are always going to be cases where one person's organized is another person's disorganized, but for the most part these debates are irrelevant (i.e. one can argue exactly when a storm should be declared alive or dead, but there are very few storms who don't clearly meet the threshold at some point in their lives).  There are certain people, including a meteorologist or two on this board, who can't seem to handle it if a storm doesn't "look" the right way, which is irrelevant and brings me to my next point...

 - I don't understand the snarky comments by a couple posters (or poster) on this board who seem to take personal offence with certain NHC's classification decisions.  Harrumphing about with cries of "RIDICULOUS!" aren't really productive, and simply clutter the board rather than generating a meaningful discussion.  As another person alluded to, I agree it stems from a "back in my day...." attitude -- and they probably walked uphill to school both ways too!

 - In a sense having a season like 2020 (so far lots of NS, few majors, relatively low ACE), isn't that surprising.  2005 was so unique b/c it had both lots of majors/5s as well as tons of storms.  But it stands to reason that eventually you'd get a season that generates tons of storms but with fewer big ones.  And at some point maybe we'll see a season with 8 majors, 5 cat 5s (beating 2005s records), but "only" 15 named storms -- and we'll get to have a whole new debate about how to compare 2005 vs. 2020, vs 20xx!  

[CyclonicFury]

In my opinion, if a disturbance meets the criteria of a tropical or subtropical cyclone, regardless of its location, it should be classified. It can be very disorganized, but if ASCAT, recon, or surface observations support tropical storm intensity. We shouldn't just not name a system because it is no threat to land or doesn't "look" worthy of it when it meets the criteria of a tropical storm.

"Organized deep convection" is subjective, and "well defined circulation" could be somewhat subjective as well. For instance, how circular does the LLC have to be, and how close to the center does deep convection have to be? I think all 23 named storms deserved their names. Vicky certainly did not *look* like a 45-knot tropical storm, but ASCAT data confirmed it was.

[Nuno]

I recall wxman57 in another thread mentioning that Neil Frank had mentioned how classification over the years had gotten more liberal, but he didn't elaborate how or why. I'd be curious to hear about this in more detail.

I personally think we just have better tools at detection.