JB is confused and so am I....

[caneflyer]

Drezee,

What you don't seem to understand is the issue of representativeness. Understanding this concept is essential to sound meteorological analysis. Measurements can be completely accurate but entirely non-representative of the feature of interest. In this case, it is the maximum 1-min sustained wind associated with the cyclone circulation that is of interest. Any particular dropsonde observation MAY or MAY NOT be representative of that. Similarly for an aircraft wind. Or a Dvorak classification. Or a ship report.

The point is, as others have tried to make before me, that it is the job of the hurriane specialist to take ALL the observations into consideration and arrive at the best possible intensity estimate. If you've ever actually done this sort of thing, you would appreciate that it's like putting together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle where the parts don't exactly fit together. Some pieces will get more weight, some less, and the weights will vary from time to time, as appropriate. This is all quite the way it should be. If this doesn't always get conveyed in a Tropical Cyclone Discussion, it is because there is limited time available to write them, and other topics - like the forecast - are frankly more important to most readers and the forecasters know this.

And lastly, if 5 kt uncertainty in a TC intensity estimate bothers you, you'll just have to get over it. NHC has often said that their intensity estimates are likely good to only about 10%.

[cycloneye]

nhc.public.affairs@noaa.gov

drezee,above is the email addy of the NHC.You can contact them with your questions that you have about this theme.

[drezee]

Drezee,

What you don't seem to understand is the issue of representativeness. Understanding this concept is essential to sound meteorological analysis. Measurements can be completely accurate but entirely non-representative of the feature of interest. In this case, it is the maximum 1-min sustained wind associated with the cyclone circulation that is of interest. Any particular dropsonde observation MAY or MAY NOT be representative of that. Similarly for an aircraft wind. Or a Dvorak classification. Or a ship report.

The point is, as others have tried to make before me, that it is the job of the hurriane specialist to take ALL the observations into consideration and arrive at the best possible intensity estimate. If you've ever actually done this sort of thing, you would appreciate that it's like putting together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle where the parts don't exactly fit together. Some pieces will get more weight, some less, and the weights will vary from time to time, as appropriate. This is all quite the way it should be. If this doesn't always get conveyed in a Tropical Cyclone Discussion, it is because there is limited time available to write them, and other topics - like the forecast - are frankly more important to most readers and the forecasters know this.

And lastly, if 5 kt uncertainty in a TC intensity estimate bothers you, you'll just have to get over it. NHC has often said that their intensity estimates are likely good to only about 10%.

What you have just described is problem solving...many disciplines have similar and in most cases harder issues to deal with.

What you forget is perception is someone's reality...if it is +-10%, then place it in your public advisories. For example, for the "new" hurricane forecast they use a range. They should do the same thing in that case.

Instead of saying that it is 75 mph sustained...say it is 65 - 85 mph sustained. To that point, you have truly represented what your level of understanding is. I agree that it is uncertain and often maddening...but as a 30% chance of rain...it must be represented correctly...

I am not sure using the word "near" conveys that point

[drezee]

nhc.public.affairs@noaa.gov

drezee,above is the email addy of the NHC.You can contact them with your questions that you have about this theme.

I have close friends that write those forecasts at the NHC, and we have had this discussion before.

[drezee]

Before this discussion goes any further, my opinion is that there are inconsistences in providing data to the public. I feel that there don't have to be. That is all...This is the last comment I will make about this subject

[x-y-no]

Before this discussion goes any further, my opinion is that there are inconsistences in providing data to the public. I feel that there don't have to be. That is all...This is the last comment I will make about this subject

I still don't see it. All the raw recon is available. All the sattelite imagery is available. All the model output except for the proprietary FSU ensemble is available.

So what's inconsistent? We have all the data we could possibly use and it's all provided without any bias or distortion or censorship whatsoever.


The advisories and discussions are not data. They are the best interpretation of the data by skilled and experienced professionals, provided for the purpose of informing the decisions of the public and public officials. And much as one might wish that such a best interpretation could be produced by a rigorous deterministic algorithm, it can't. To insist that it be done in that way would be to deliberately degrade the quality of these products for the sake of purity. It just doesn't make sense.

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, Meteorology is a science-FORECASTING is an art. I actually, can't think of too many things that could be harder than in trying to characterize a hurricane considering that although organized they are also the epitome of chaos.

Steve

[caneflyer]

Instead of saying that it is 75 mph sustained...say it is 65 - 85 mph sustained. To that point, you have truly represented what your level of understanding is. I agree that it is uncertain and often maddening...but as a 30% chance of rain...it must be represented correctly...

I am not sure using the word "near" conveys that point

Frankly, while putting in a range might make you happy, it would serve no other truly useful purpose. One might also ask that the present speed be given as 8-12 mph instead of 10 mph, and the extent of tropical storm force winds be given at 100-150 instead of 125 miles. Putting in error bars on every parameter would only make the advisories longer and more confusing to the public. For starters, if the winds were given as 65-85 mph, the first question the public would have is, "Is it a hurricane or isn't it?". What good would that do?

[shaggy]

I kinda of agree with Drezee as far as intensity rating goes. No system is static the winds in the eyewall of a hurricane can flucuate quite a bit and peak gust vs average per min speed can be 20-40 mph apart in stronger systems or in different quads of the storm. I would like to see a system of rating a storm based more on the likely damage and death potential. Maybe a system that focused on damage and death potential would be better if you have a storm say 130 mph and above, then they should not focus on 170 vs 150 it should be if anything over 130 is coming get out now or die.

I know this is going to be a touchy subject and I actually found it strange to see someone else saying what I was thinking but using "sustained winds" is IMO the least effective way to classify a system as IMO there are never hurricanes with static sustained winds they almost always are ramping up or falling off so the exact best guess at sustained winds is less supierior than say a D5 which is a highly destructive storm that will cause massive damage and loss of life. Anyways just my 2 cents worth.