Biases of storm naming

[arkestra]

Hi!

I have two questions in one:

1.
I wonder if the recent move of NOAA in naming storms quite earlier or faster than before can create biases in the long-term stats (naming is not an exact science)...

2.
Anyway, if it doesn't have an impact on stats (which are based on facts), naming more storms has an impact on the media. With the global change debate, I wouldn't be suprised if people say "look, for the period 2000-2009 we have 13 named storms a year, and in the past decades it was only 11".

[RL3AO]

Its a fact that there are storms getting named now that would not of in the pre-satellite era. There are storms that get named today that would not of in the 80s even. The NHC just has more tools to use. They have high resolution satellites, buoys, Quikscat, hurricane hunters, and just more knowledge overall. I think it is best to ignore the number of tropical storms when comparing to the past. Use number of hurricanes and major hurricanes. Hurricanes were not missed in the past like weak tropical storms were.

Same thing for tornadoes. The number has tripled since the 80s, but its because of better radar and more spotters. If you look at the number of violent tornadoes ([E]F4/5'), the number has stayed the same...maybe even dropped from the 70s and 80s.

[senorpepr]

The one thing I DO have a beef with when it comes to the naming practices are the topic of subtropical cyclones. Does ANY other RSMC name subtropical cyclones? No. Then why should Miami?

[Aslkahuna]

I agree with senorpepr, I do not understand the rationale for naming ST cyclones since it basically renders all TC climatology for the ATL obsolete. Padding the numbers to make the ATL seem more active than it is in terms of TROPICAL Cyclones seems to be the only reason.

Steve

[MGC]

More named systems means more budget. Simple as that......MGC

[Aslkahuna]

Well, that could be the reason but considering that it only takes one major hit to make for a bad season one would think that would be reason enough for budget purposes. However...(can't say anything further as it would be an unabashed political attack)

Steve

[HarlequinBoy]

Its a fact that there are storms getting named now that would not of in the pre-satellite era. There are storms that get named today that would not of in the 80s even. The NHC just has more tools to use. They have high resolution satellites, buoys, Quikscat, hurricane hunters, and just more knowledge overall. I think it is best to ignore the number of tropical storms when comparing to the past. Use number of hurricanes and major hurricanes. Hurricanes were not missed in the past like weak tropical storms were.

Same thing for tornadoes. The number has tripled since the 80s, but its because of better radar and more spotters. If you look at the number of violent tornadoes ([E]F4/5'), the number has stayed the same...maybe even dropped from the 70s and 80s.

Right. They find many more weak tornadoes now that would have gone unnoticed years ago.

[arkestra]

So... I have strong doubts about the reliability of those stats in the debate of global change... And I don't see the relevance of naming storms if rules for naming them change often...

Naming Arthur in May makes already 2 named storms for 2008. I doubt it would have been the case during the past decade.

[Aslkahuna]

Well certainly if you are looking to claim that Climate Change is increasing the numbers of storms then your claim is seriously undermined if we are having storms named now that wouldn't have been 10 years ago or for that matter even being warned. It's actually not just NHC but I remember some really questionable calls in WPAC while JT was still calling the shots-Tokyo is by and large more conservative.

Steve

[Frank2]

Dr. Neil Frank (before he retired from KHOU) mentioned that he thought the naming process had become flawed, but, as others mentioned, due to advances in technology, the process is faster, but, I'd have to agree with him that a few systems last year seemed to be named too soon, since they weakened below storm status soon afterwards....

The old rule was to wait at set amount of time, to see if any increase in activity or organization was an actual trend, versus just something similar to a noctural peak in convection, so, while the technology used is helpful, in the end the naming process still requires the decision of the forecaster on duty...

[Cryomaniac]

Well certainly if you are looking to claim that Climate Change is increasing the numbers of storms then your claim is seriously undermined if we are having storms named now that wouldn't have been 10 years ago or for that matter even being warned.

Exactly.

[Derek Ortt]

Dr. Neil Frank (before he retired from KHOU) mentioned that he thought the naming process had become flawed, but, as others mentioned, due to advances in technology, the process is faster, but, I'd have to agree with him that a few systems last year seemed to be named too soon, since they weakened below storm status soon afterwards....

The old rule was to wait at set amount of time, to see if any increase in activity or organization was an actual trend, versus just something similar to a noctural peak in convection, so, while the technology used is helpful, in the end the naming process still requires the decision of the forecaster on duty...

The bolded portion means that they were at storm status; thus, must be named. The old method had some major flaws. Take 1994 Debby. It was first called a TD when BT found it was a 60KT storm. This was a mere couple of hours before passsing over Martinique, and it brought 85KT gusts to the island

[jinftl]

agree...just because the science and technology weren't what they are now in the past doesn't mean we should continue with the old methodolgies for the sake of continuity. That said, it also needs to be understood that newer technology has also led to an increase in the number of named storms...nothing to do with climate change, active cycles, etc.

Dr. Neil Frank (before he retired from KHOU) mentioned that he thought the naming process had become flawed, but, as others mentioned, due to advances in technology, the process is faster, but, I'd have to agree with him that a few systems last year seemed to be named too soon, since they weakened below storm status soon afterwards....

The old rule was to wait at set amount of time, to see if any increase in activity or organization was an actual trend, versus just something similar to a noctural peak in convection, so, while the technology used is helpful, in the end the naming process still requires the decision of the forecaster on duty...

The bolded portion means that they were at storm status; thus, must be named. The old method had some major flaws. Take 1994 Debby. It was first called a TD when BT found it was a 60KT storm. This was a mere couple of hours before passsing over Martinique, and it brought 85KT gusts to the island

[Squarethecircle]

More named systems means more budget. Simple as that......MGC

That seems a little out there. I don't think I've ever heard something like that, and the reasoning isn't quite there either (why would they need more funding for more storms if they never get more than three at once?).

[jinftl]

if that is the reasoning, it certainly has not worked...funding for NOAA's Hurricane Research Division has gone down during the last decade.

More named systems means more budget. Simple as that......MGC

That seems a little out there. I don't think I've ever heard something like that, and the reasoning isn't quite there either (why would they need more funding for more storms if they never get more than three at once?).

[Aslkahuna]

Unfortunately, there are those (including a fat politician from TN) who DO take the fact that we are getting more named storms due to a change in procedures (and the fact that we are now naming ST systems as well) as prima facie evidence for climate change and loudly say so. This despite the true facts in the matter. Within the global database, the ATL WAS in the best shape but now with the changes mentioned, we have skewed it and unless the reanalysis rectifies that and also indentifies ST systems as well, it's now as useless for climate change studies as the rest of the World's.

Steve

[weatherguru18]

I agree with most of the above statements. I think there are storms that are named (subtropical storms) that have helped manipulate the numbers in the Atlantic. But think about this: Pre satellite era (say late 1800s and early 1900s) who's to say that a storm that passed over, for lack of a better example say Galveston, produced 50 mph winds, knocked a tree down, blew a window out and caused some flooding--who's to say that that was a tropical system? It could have been just an intense low (cold core and or hybrid) or a stalled out front with lots of convection. But being that it produced a 50 mph wind and caused superficial damage, they called it a tropical system. Is that possible?

[mitchell]

More named systems means more budget. Simple as that......MGC

That seems a little out there. I don't think I've ever heard something like that, and the reasoning isn't quite there either (why would they need more funding for more storms if they never get more than three at once?).

It doesn't seem "out there" to me at all. People acting in their own self interest (i.e. overstating -or at least doing a better job documenting - risk to justify program budgets) is pretty endemic to government programs. Anyone familiar with the Army Corps benefit-cost analyses to justify flood control projects will know exactly what i'm talking about. I'm not saying its happening - just that it would be rational.

[Squarethecircle]

More named systems means more budget. Simple as that......MGC

That seems a little out there. I don't think I've ever heard something like that, and the reasoning isn't quite there either (why would they need more funding for more storms if they never get more than three at once?).

It doesn't seem "out there" to me at all. People acting in their own self interest (i.e. overstating -or at least doing a better job documenting - risk to justify program budgets) is pretty endemic to government programs. Anyone familiar with the Army Corps benefit-cost analyses to justify flood control projects will know exactly what i'm talking about. I'm not saying its happening - just that it would be rational.

But arguing that point would be akin to conspiracy theory, as in they are disregarding the issue of public concern (and even safety) for more money (which, as someone else has stated, they are not getting). The entire purpose of the NHC is to monitor tropical storms for not only science but to ensure the safety of the public. If they can't do that, they're certainly not doing their jobs well enough for a pay increase.

[Thunder44]

I agree with senorpepr, I do not understand the rationale for naming ST cyclones since it basically renders all TC climatology for the ATL obsolete. Padding the numbers to make the ATL seem more active than it is in terms of TROPICAL Cyclones seems to be the only reason.

Steve

What if they forecasted a below normal season? What would be the reason then?