|
|
Post by jmg378s on Sept 14, 2018 22:04:13 GMT -6
I watched an interview of someone who was rescued from flood or surge waters say they thought they'd be ok because the "storm was downgraded to a category 2". I'm not sure there's any one good way of categorizing totality of impact (wind, surge, rain, etc.), but perhaps an alternate to just max wind is IKE (integrated kinetic energy). It's an approximate summation of the energy of the wind field. Florence (cat 1) had an IKE of 63 terajoules at landfall. (Note: the energy released by the atomic bomb at Hiroshima was also 63TJ). By comparison... Charley (cat 4) had an IKE of 20 terajoules at landfall. As far as I know these metrics are not included with any public advisory (not that the general public would understand anyway) but the IKE calculator webpage can be used in combination with data in the NHC forecast advisories to compute those values. www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/ike/Calculator_AllQuad.php |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Higgins on Sept 14, 2018 23:12:58 GMT -6
Ok, so the NHC botched the landfall intensity. We already know that. But, I went back and looked at the the track forecasts for a 5 day lead time (the maximum the NHC publishes) too. They were off with their landfall position by about 5 miles (or less). You win some and you lose some. Should have emphasized size of Wind field and surge early on...people hear category 4 down to category 2 and it's hard to convey the same message regardless of how good the track is. Also, seems about time to start categorizing storms by totality of impact vs. Simple max wind speed. A large and slow mover can do as much or more damage than a compact major hurricane that propagates quickly. I was toying with that today too. I think you need the intensity categories still. So the Saffir-Simpson is still valid. However...something that calculates and IMPACT category may be warranted. 1 - Minimal/Minor Impacts 2 - Significant Impacts 3 - Catastrophic 4 - Epic/historic Something along those lines. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Higgins on Sept 14, 2018 23:14:51 GMT -6
I watched an interview of someone who was rescued from flood or surge waters say they thought they'd be ok because the "storm was downgraded to a category 2". I'm not sure there's any one good way of categorizing totality of impact (wind, surge, rain, etc.), but perhaps an alternate to just max wind is IKE (integrated kinetic energy). It's an approximate summation of the energy of the wind field. Florence (cat 1) had an IKE of 63 terajoules at landfall. (Note: the energy released by the atomic bomb at Hiroshima was also 63TJ). By comparison... Charley (cat 4) had an IKE of 20 terajoules at landfall. As far as I know these metrics are not included with any public advisory (not that the general public would understand anyway) but the IKE calculator webpage can be used in combination with data in the NHC forecast advisories to compute those values. www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/ike/Calculator_AllQuad.phpThe problem with that is that Charley was a very destructive storm in the small core of its center...Punta Gorda. I'm afraid using the IKE in that way may give the wrong impression for the small area still expected to get clobbered. |
|
|
|
Post by Snowstorm920 on Sept 15, 2018 1:28:03 GMT -6
That is an absolutely unreal rain band that’s hitting the same areas in NC
|
|
|
|
Post by Worldserieschampions (Chicago) on Sept 15, 2018 3:41:01 GMT -6
Should have emphasized size of Wind field and surge early on...people hear category 4 down to category 2 and it's hard to convey the same message regardless of how good the track is. Also, seems about time to start categorizing storms by totality of impact vs. Simple max wind speed. A large and slow mover can do as much or more damage than a compact major hurricane that propagates quickly. I was toying with that today too. I think you need the intensity categories still. So the Saffir-Simpson is still valid. However...something that calculates and IMPACT category may be warranted. 1 - Minimal/Minor Impacts 2 - Significant Impacts 3 - Catastrophic 4 - Epic/historic Something along those lines. You could have a concentration impact rating. A Cat 5 that is very narrow would have a small swath of all red, while a large Cat 2 storm with combined impacts would have a large swath of all orange. The metric would basically be a conversion factor. |
|
|
|
Post by Tilawn on Sept 15, 2018 5:21:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by birddog on Sept 15, 2018 5:51:50 GMT -6
This is why I have totally given up on national media! |
|
|
|
Post by guyatacomputer - NE St. Peters on Sept 15, 2018 7:31:50 GMT -6
This is why I have totally given up on national media! It's why I think The Weather Channel is no longer a "weather authority." Along with the fact they do so much "non weather" programming. Remember when they said they were going to go back to doing more weather? What happened to that?
|
|
|
|
Post by jmg378s on Sept 15, 2018 7:43:17 GMT -6
I watched an interview of someone who was rescued from flood or surge waters say they thought they'd be ok because the "storm was downgraded to a category 2". I'm not sure there's any one good way of categorizing totality of impact (wind, surge, rain, etc.), but perhaps an alternate to just max wind is IKE (integrated kinetic energy). It's an approximate summation of the energy of the wind field. Florence (cat 1) had an IKE of 63 terajoules at landfall. (Note: the energy released by the atomic bomb at Hiroshima was also 63TJ). By comparison... Charley (cat 4) had an IKE of 20 terajoules at landfall. As far as I know these metrics are not included with any public advisory (not that the general public would understand anyway) but the IKE calculator webpage can be used in combination with data in the NHC forecast advisories to compute those values. www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/ike/Calculator_AllQuad.phpThe problem with that is that Charley was a very destructive storm in the small core of its center...Punta Gorda. I'm afraid using the IKE in that way may give the wrong impression for the small area still expected to get clobbered. Yep, totally agree. Andrew and Camille especially might be other counter examples where the impact was extreme in a smaller area and whose IKE was relatively low. In any case, the scientist in me thinks that however it's done it should to be objective, measurable, and forecastable. |
|
|
|
Post by Snowman99 on Sept 15, 2018 8:12:59 GMT -6
I DVR'd ch. 2 from 5-7 last night to catch Dave's final forecasts. Looks like he had a nice send off. The little story by Mandy was good. Lots of cake apparently, lol. He is defintely a very knowledgeable met and will be missed on the airwaves. Hopefully he graces us with his expertise and knowledge on here through the future.
Chris will always be the new chief met in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by REB on Sept 15, 2018 8:55:33 GMT -6
I DVR'd ch. 2 from 5-7 last night to catch Dave's final forecasts. Looks like he had a nice send off. The little story by Mandy was good. Lots of cake apparently, lol. He is defintely a very knowledgeable met and will be missed on the airwaves. Hopefully he graces us with his expertise and knowledge on here through the future. Chris will always be the new chief met in my mind. Thanks for writing this 99. I agree with you wholeheartedly. |
|
|
|
Post by STGOutdoors on Sept 15, 2018 9:33:01 GMT -6
I DVR'd ch. 2 from 5-7 last night to catch Dave's final forecasts. Looks like he had a nice send off. The little story by Mandy was good. Lots of cake apparently, lol. He is defintely a very knowledgeable met and will be missed on the airwaves. Hopefully he graces us with his expertise and knowledge on here through the future. Chris will always be the new chief met in my mind. I second this to the nth degree. Chris's post on Facebook yesterday was great as well. |
|
|
|
Post by jmg378s on Sept 15, 2018 10:29:50 GMT -6
I'm seeing a report of 30.58" of rain in Swansboro NC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Higgins on Sept 15, 2018 10:56:34 GMT -6
The problem with that is that Charley was a very destructive storm in the small core of its center...Punta Gorda. I'm afraid using the IKE in that way may give the wrong impression for the small area still expected to get clobbered. Yep, totally agree. Andrew and Camille especially might be other counter examples where the impact was extreme in a smaller area and whose IKE was relatively low. In any case, the scientist in me thinks that however it's done it should to be objective, measurable, and forecastable. Maybe we are going about it the wrong way? Rather than categorizing an entire storm... we categorize regions to be hit by the storm. "Expect Level 4 impacts from New Bern to Wilmington....with Level 3 impacts south from Wilmington to the NC/SC state line...then Level 2 impacts from the line down to Myrtle Beach...and Level 1 Impact from there south to Charleston." You could do the same with winter weather. Separate the size and strength of a storm from its potential impact in the messaging. "From a size/energy standpoint... this is a weak storm...but the timing/location of the events threaten to make this rush hour low QPF event and Level 4 impact along and just north of I-70." Maybe something like that? Or...a heavy wet snow with above 32f temperatures. "A major winter storm is going to bring up to 6" of heavy wet snow...mainly on grassy surfaces...making this a worst... a level 2 impact storm" |
|
snowcat
Junior Forecaster
Bowling Green, MO
Posts: 280 
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 15, 2018 11:29:49 GMT -6
I DVR'd ch. 2 from 5-7 last night to catch Dave's final forecasts. Looks like he had a nice send off. The little story by Mandy was good. Lots of cake apparently, lol. He is defintely a very knowledgeable met and will be missed on the airwaves. Hopefully he graces us with his expertise and knowledge on here through the future. Chris will always be the new chief met in my mind. Hear, hear! Very well said. Chris, your post re Dave on FB last night was super...made me cry a little! Best wishes as you take over the morning slot. |
|
|
|
Post by guyatacomputer - NE St. Peters on Sept 15, 2018 11:56:20 GMT -6
Yep, totally agree. Andrew and Camille especially might be other counter examples where the impact was extreme in a smaller area and whose IKE was relatively low. In any case, the scientist in me thinks that however it's done it should to be objective, measurable, and forecastable. Maybe we are going about it the wrong way? Rather than categorizing an entire storm... we categorize regions to be hit by the storm. "Expect Level 4 impacts from New Bern to Wilmington....with Level 3 impacts south from Wilmington to the NC/SC state line...then Level 2 impacts from the line down to Myrtle Beach...and Level 1 Impact from there south to Charleston." You could do the same with winter weather. Separate the size and strength of a storm from its potential impact in the messaging. "From a size/energy standpoint... this is a weak storm...but the timing/location of the events threaten to make this rush hour low QPF event and Level 4 impact along and just north of I-70." Maybe something like that? Or...a heavy wet snow with above 32f temperatures. "A major winter storm is going to bring up to 6" of heavy wet snow...mainly on grassy surfaces...making this a worst... a level 2 impact storm" It does seem like an apples and oranges comparison when, in the case of the Carolinas, you compare a Cat 3 storm that moves quickly up the coast just off shore vs a Cat 1 storm like Florence that strikes the coast perpendicular. With the lesser winds, but at a different angle they create a different kind of danger and damage. And then difference between a storm that moves quickly inland moves on or dissipates and one that just crawls inland is also the difference between night and day |
|
|
|
Post by jmg378s on Sept 15, 2018 13:55:01 GMT -6
Yep, totally agree. Andrew and Camille especially might be other counter examples where the impact was extreme in a smaller area and whose IKE was relatively low. In any case, the scientist in me thinks that however it's done it should to be objective, measurable, and forecastable. Maybe we are going about it the wrong way? Rather than categorizing an entire storm... we categorize regions to be hit by the storm. "Expect Level 4 impacts from New Bern to Wilmington....with Level 3 impacts south from Wilmington to the NC/SC state line...then Level 2 impacts from the line down to Myrtle Beach...and Level 1 Impact from there south to Charleston." You could do the same with winter weather. Separate the size and strength of a storm from its potential impact in the messaging. "From a size/energy standpoint... this is a weak storm...but the timing/location of the events threaten to make this rush hour low QPF event and Level 4 impact along and just north of I-70." Maybe something like that? Or...a heavy wet snow with above 32f temperatures. "A major winter storm is going to bring up to 6" of heavy wet snow...mainly on grassy surfaces...making this a worst... a level 2 impact storm" Was kinda thinking along those lines myself...categorize by region. And of course one of the limitations of Saffir-Simpson is that it doesn't account for surge. Seems like that needs to be accounted for somehow. I think most of us would agree that Katrina while it was a category 3 by wind it's surge of 28ft was more like category 5. |
|
|
|
Post by cozpregon on Sept 15, 2018 23:59:51 GMT -6
The NE wind was perfect for around here today... 6 or 7 balloons landed around Lindbergh & Gravois. One actually landed in someone's backyard just up from Sappington @ Gravois   |
|
|
|
Post by cozpregon on Sept 16, 2018 0:06:20 GMT -6
Took some skill with all the wires around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snowstorm920 on Sept 16, 2018 0:26:15 GMT -6
I thought this was pretty funny. Applies to tropical and winter storms  |
|
|
|
Post by Worldserieschampions (Chicago) on Sept 16, 2018 9:00:24 GMT -6
I know I recommended Ryan Maue's feed for Hurricane Florence, but I am highly disappointed in how far he veers from the weather.
Extremely unprofessional in my opinion. His feed went from mostly insightful weather commentary to basically Fox News as the storm went on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Higgins on Sept 16, 2018 11:33:51 GMT -6
Closing down this thread. Figure a new shift merits a new thread. Standby! You'll like what it shows  |
|
