wxman57 wrote:Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:I don't understand why there needs to be a CDO like feature developing over the LLC to be upgraded. Arlene or many other systems had exposed LLC's and where tropical storms. I keep hitting my head against the table trying to figure this out.Some even scattered convection but with a well defined LLC...I thought that a tropical storm needs to have the convection over it with at least 35 knots of max winds. If pro's want to tell me why this is not so, I want them to tell me why.
Also if a quickscat where to come out in put the LLC under that convection, I would think that would be enough there to go for it.
The NHC won't upgrade something unless they're reasonably sure it has a chance to survive - OR unless it is currently posing an imminent threat to lives or property. Thus the requirement for persistent deep convection for a system far out to sea. But there is a double standard when it comes to downgrading an already-named storm. The NHC is notoriously slow to downgrade systems. Back in 2000 recon couldn't find any hurricane force winds for over 24 hours before the NHC finally downgraded it. And I've seen many naked swirls still called tropical storms or depressions. I'd like to see a bit more consistency in naming/downgrading, myself.
As for QuikSCAT, the resolution is not that good sometimes. I saw some QuikSCAT data from when Katrina was a Cat 5 southeast of Louisiana on August 28th indicating the center was 50-100 miles to the south of where the giant eye was clearly visible. Unfortunately, QuikSCAT can't see through rain so it has a very hard time finding an LLC when there is rain around.
Ok, now it's really time for bed. Sure does look pretty good on satellite now, assuming the center is anywhere near that convection...
I strongly agree with a lot of your thinking, I some times don't like the quickscat and don't trust much of the data. So I pretty much try to compare and contrast with a system that had recon and lots of data and try to make a guest what a system may have. Pretty much SAB,Cimss,Taft and quickscat, and your past knowledge is pretty much what you are lefted with without surface data or recon. Every system in the middle of the ocean is very debatable on how strong it is.
Also, I agree with you about the upgrading and the standards. I feel that it would take away a lot of confusion if the nhc better defined what is a "depression" and what is a "tropical storm", I also feel that they should inform the public of it to. Because a informed public is one that can get out of the way of a cyclone...Also To provent confusion a one layer standard just about like what the planentary people did last summer to defined what is a planet, but we could defined what is a tropical depression or storm in our case. Maybe we can set the standard since there is a much larger area that needs to have a "Cdo" like feature, so we make it more or less how we upgrade cyclones for all the Atlantic.
Remember the Nws can still warn people of the badly shear systems like Alison, Barry 2001, Lee's 2005, or any storm like this. But if the nhc made the choice to make this rule I would then know what a cyclone is and would try hard to agree with the new rule.
I trust the nws can do a fine job of warning people with the sheared systems. In we would have a straight forward system to use! That most basins on earth already use. In no more debate on this issue, because it will be set.
Or maybe the nhc can call them sheared cyclones?
