Re: For only the third time on record (since 1851)
Posted by
Chris in Tampa on 8/22/2023, 9:16 pm
I was reading Bob Henson and Jeff Master's blog and saw this:
From:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/08/harold-hits-south-texas-franklin-heads-for-hispaniola/
I like consistency. At this point if the NHC is consistent, or as close as they can be, I guess that's the best option. But it does mean you can't compare activity to before the satellite era. And the quality of the imagery matters, so not even much of the satellite era can you compare. And then you also need reanalysis to make sure you spot what was in the imagery. And you just won't have anywhere close to the amount of data you have now to make a determination, and even now it is sometimes hard, like when a satellite pass observing winds misses the storm.
But then you still get to what if something existed for 6 to 12 hours let's say. Do you consider it an unnamed storm and rewrite the record? I don't know. But as long as they try to be consistent moving forward, from now on would be comparable. Well, kind of.
There is still subjectivity though. One forecaster might say 6 hours is enough. Maybe another wants to wait 12 hours. It could be gone by then. Or it could be 20 to 30 mph stronger by then. Do you do something different closer to the coast than you do out in the middle of the Atlantic? That might be somewhat consistent in that you treat things closer to land with more urgency to upgrade, but then you're treating storms differently to some extent.
It's just hard. I just don't think we'll ever be able to compare easily in terms of the number of storms to back then. As you say, too many missed previously. Had to have a boat nearby or no one would know. Going forward it will be comparable. It's just hard to know how climate change impacts the number over a long period when you only have more short term data that is rather complete and somewhat consistent. |
1
In this thread:
Post A Reply