Named storm Andrea May 2019

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Argyle38

... The 2nd question is how often since '53 has a force 8 'storm' been named before June 1st?

As far as I know, six (or seven)
Andrea May 2019
Alberto May 2018
Arlene April 2017
Alex January 2016
Ana May 2015
Beryl May 2012
? Zeta December 2006
Climatologically speaking, approximately about 97 percent of tropical cyclones that form in the North Atlantic, develop between the dates of June 1 and November 30 (the “season”).
This is fifth consecutive year that a tropical system has been named before the season officially begins June 1.
There's been no change in naming policy, just a (apparent) shift towards an earlier, longer season.
The first tropical cyclone of the 1938 Atlantic hurricane season, which formed on January 3, became the earliest forming tropical storm and hurricane. There were also Unnamed Storms in May 17, 1887, and May 26, 1908

Earliest tropical storm formed: Subtropical Storm One, January 18, 1978, through January 23, 1978, 45 mph. Excluding this subtropical storm, the Groundhog Day Tropical Storm of 1952 February 2, 1952-February 3, 1952 with 50 mph winds was the earliest formed in a calendar year.
Earliest Hurricane formed in a calendar year: March 6, 1908 Hurricane
Earliest Category 3+ hurricane : Hurricane Able, May 15, 1951 (In May/June 1825 there was a major hurricane also, but there is less information available about it due to the records of the time.)
Earliest hurricane in existence in a calendar year: Hurricane Alice, January 1-6, 80mpg 1955 (and December 31, 1954), formed the previous year. The earliest tropical storm was Tropical Storm Zeta on December 30, 2005 -thru-
January 7, 2006.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't believe any of it!

Do you know anybody from Bielefeld?
Have you ever been to Bielefeld?
Do you know anybody who has ever been to Bielefeld?
If the answers to those three questions were all “no” – as is extraordinarily likely – I’ll spare you a Google.
Bielefeld is a city in north-western Germany, with a population of about 323,000. It’s in the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia, and is the 18th largest city in Germany, with a large university and hospital, a historic castle, and a fairly typically Germanic-looking church.
Or at least that’s what they want you to think. The evil, conniving, manipulating, Machiavellian elites of the Illuminati.
Because the truth – the shocking truth, the red-pill MSM-defying truth – is that Bielefeld doesn’t exist.
It is in fact a mirage cooked up by those who would wish to keep us – the people – shackled up in our chains. An elaborate exercise in mass psychological and evidential fabrication and manipulation that serves as an experiment into the limits of control that the mighty can exert over the masses.
You’re Googling it now, aren’t you?
Those maps? Doctored. Photographs? Videos? CGI.
And if you’re one of the few people who believes they’ve been to Bielefeld – congratulations. You’ve been selected to be subjected to some very nifty hypnosis, or a ground-breaking psychosomatic drug administered discreetly in gas form. Forget Hillary’s emails, this – THIS – is the exposé of the century.

Gord, Gord, Gord


By convention storms are supposed to be named with a person's name not a place name. And as every JK Rowlings fan knows - Bieleford is Voldemort, but one isn't supposed to ever speak of that Lord by his real name, hence you say Bieleford, in a hushed tone.

But if they were to begin naming storms after places then I can't wait for them to use names like those listed below, which are so easy to pronounce and not likely to ever cause confusion among the general populace as to which storm is being discussing.

And any of those names would make great names for a boat, albeit one had better have a wide transom, and be ready to spell it out over the VHF radio using the standard phonetic alphabet: Alpha, Bieleford, Constantinople, Dip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah-Day, . . . Trump, . . . Voldemort, . . . and last but not least ending with Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah.

Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapiki maungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu, New Zealand

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch, Wales

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg, United States

Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein, South Africa

Azpilicuetagaraycosaroyarenberecolarrea, Spain

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Argyle38

That answers the first question. Thanks!

The 2nd question is how often since '53 has a force 8 'storm' been named before June 1st?

As to the designation of Force 8 would that be a measure on Gord's Bieleford scale or Francis Beaufort's scale?

[SV Sailfish]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

What about the Weather Channel (and all the weather-related sites and organizations they've bought up) naming every snowstorm, for dramatic effect? And greedy news outlets fanning the flames of hysteria by following that convention.

Pretty soon we'll be hearing about "rain storm Sally" and "fog bank Bob."

Too funny Capt Tom. And so true.

In my career as an Emergency Manager, I was stationed in Florida for hurricane season one year and witnessed Jim Cantori of the Weather Channel and his crew on the beach one day. His crew was pounding 2 pieces of rebar into the sand at a 45 degree angle. Then Jim ran the rebar up his pant legs so that he could stand leaning over into the wind. The wind we clocked using our own instruments at the time was 32 mph with gusts to 44. He went live and was telling the sheep tuned in that it was blowing "hurricane force" strength. He asked us 3 times if we would please leave but we just kept on watching and laughing at the idiot do his broadcast. It was a hoot!

[Montanan]

We don't use person's names for storms in Montana, we just call it snow.

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by SV Sailfish

Too funny Capt Tom. And so true.

In my career as an Emergency Manager, I was stationed in Florida for hurricane season one year and witnessed Jim Cantori of the Weather Channel and his crew on the beach one day. His crew was pounding 2 pieces of rebar into the sand at a 45 degree angle. Then Jim ran the rebar up his pant legs so that he could stand leaning over into the wind. The wind we clocked using our own instruments at the time was 32 mph with gusts to 44. He went live and was telling the sheep tuned in that it was blowing "hurricane force" strength. He asked us 3 times if we would please leave but we just kept on watching and laughing at the idiot do his broadcast. It was a hoot!

Haha - maybe they were just preparing some footage in advance, for use only IF or when it went to hurricane force??? (I don't think so).

Seriously, this thread is a worrying commentary/reminder of the integrity of the data on which critical decisions are based.

Aside from the insurance consequences, if some comments here are correct, and strong winds are getting named as storms, or the length of the season for naming them has become longer, more inclusive, then that feeds the Climate Change response impetus. Or Gord is correct (which he appears to be) and the Official naming policy for wind strength has not changed, but the hype still has.

[AllenRbrts]

It apparently has not changed in a long time. They use the following definition of maximum sustained wind, which some might consider gusts.

Maximum Sustained Surface Wind:
The standard measure of a tropical cyclone's intensity. When the term is applied to a particular weather system, it refers to the highest one-minute average wind (at an elevation of 10 meters with an unobstructed exposure) associated with that weather system at a particular point in time.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

It apparently has not changed in a long time. They use the following definition of maximum sustained wind, which some might consider gusts.

Maximum Sustained Surface Wind:
The standard measure of a tropical cyclone's intensity. When the term is applied to a particular weather system, it refers to the highest one-minute average wind (at an elevation of 10 meters with an unobstructed exposure) associated with that weather system at a particular point in time.

Exactly!
NHC Definitions ➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml

[dwedeking2]

I follow the NOAA page on Facebook. It's a good headsup for me to pay particular attention to a storm.

Any ways they've been doing a lot of PR work the last week. "Little storms matter" - "fish storms matter" - explaining why the named a little storm etc.

Seems like the overdramatization over the last few years is coming home to roost. The general public is internally downgrading their warnings.

I thought I read last year that the changed where in the storm they measure the winds to determine whether to name the storm. Something like "not measuring at the water surface but rather at xx elevation"

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

I follow the NOAA page on Facebook. It's a good headsup for me to pay particular attention to a storm.

Any ways they've been doing a lot of PR work the last week. "Little storms matter" - "fish storms matter" - explaining why the named a little storm etc.

Seems like the overdramatization over the last few years is coming home to roost. The general public is internally downgrading their warnings.

I thought I read last year that the changed where in the storm they measure the winds to determine whether to name the storm. Something like "not measuring at the water surface but rather at xx elevation"

I.e., all the storms called Wolf.

It huffs, and it puffs, and it may blow a house down.
Or NOT!

[Bean Counter]

Probably what has happened is the means of measuring wind speed anywhere in the Atlantic from a satellite or plane by interpolation (i.e. the measurement is not physically undertaken at 10m above sea level by a ship for example) then there will be much more data than say 1950, 1900, 1850 etc with which to name storms. So as better information comes to light there will be more reporting of storms that are in the middle of no where. I don't know whether a ship sailed through TS Andrea to actually record the wind speed.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

... I thought I read last year that the changed where in the storm they measure the winds to determine whether to name the storm. Something like "not measuring at the water surface but rather at xx elevation"

There've been NO recent changes to the wind measurement altitude.


The wind's speed is measured at a height of 10 meters because wind speeds increase as you climb higher, and it is here that they do the most damage.
Wind measuring has been standardized globally to reflect the winds at 10 metres (33 ft) above the Earth's surface, and the maximum sustained wind represents the highest average wind over either a one-minute (US-NWS) or ten-minute average time span (WMO), anywhere within the tropical cyclone.

The value of the highest one-minute sustained wind is generally about 14% greater than a ten-minute (averaged) sustained wind over the same period.

Surface winds are highly variable due to friction between the atmosphere and the Earth's surface, as well as near hills and mountains over land.

However, peak wind speed alone (Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale) isn’t a very good metric to judge a storm’s overall danger to people and property. Water, not wind, is the biggest threat to life and infrastructure in most tropical systems. From 1963 through 2012, only 8 percent of U.S. deaths from tropical storms and hurricanes were directly attributable to wind (for instance, via tree branches or flying debris). Drowning and other deaths related to coastal storm surge were 49 percent, and deaths attributable to inland flooding from rain made up 27 percent. More people died swimming, surfing and boating during a hurricane than from wind.

The Integrated Kinetic Energy (IKE) directly measures the destructive power of a hurricane by calculating the combined total energy, in terajoules, of all its winds above tropical storm force. Based on IKE, which takes into account a hurricane’s size, it’s much easier to estimate the amount of water it will push ashore as storm surge. Surge Destructive Potential, based on IKE, is a Saffir-Simpson-style 0-6 scale that gives a quick assessment of how unusual a given hurricane’s storm surge is likely to be.

Measures such as IKE and Surge Destructive Potential (SDP - another measure) are still based on wind speed, but they are much more comprehensive than just the single most extreme wind speed reading in the entire storm.

IKE & SDP Calculator ➥ https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/ike/Ca...or_AllQuad.php

SDP ➥ https://www.nws.noaa.gov/mdl/seminar...il_18_2006.pdf

IKE ➥ https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Powell/IKE.pdf

There are better ways to quantify how big and bad a hurricane is
➥ https://theconversation.com/there-ar...icane-is-40137

[bstreep]

NO! "Gusts" are NOT the same as "Maximum sustained winds". Not according to NOAA:



The Hurricane Center uses a 1 min averaging time for reporting the sustained (i.e. relatively long-lasting) winds. The maximum sustained wind mentioned in the advisories that NHC issues for tropical storms and hurricanes are the highest 1 min surface winds occurring within the circulation of the system. These "surface" winds are those observed (or, more often, estimated) to occur at the standard meteorological height of 10 m (33 ft) in an unobstructed exposure (i.e., not blocked by buildings or trees).


Since the inauguration of the Automatic Surface Observation System (ASOS) the National Weather Service has adopted a two minute average standard for its sustained wind definition. This is because the ASOS stations average and report their wind data over a two minute period. There is no conversion factor to change a two minute average wind into a one minute average wind, and it is pointless to try to estimate the highest one minute wind over a two minute period, as they are essentially the same.


Gusts are a few seconds (3-5 s) wind peak. Typically in a hurricane environment, the value of the maximum 3 second gust over a 1 minute period is on the order of 1.3 times (or 30% higher than) than the 1 min sustained wind.
One complication with the use of the 1 min averaging time for the standard for sustained wind in the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific tropical cyclone basins (where the United States has the official World Meteorological Organization tropical cyclone advisory responsibilities) is that in most of the rest of the world, a 10 min averaging time is utilized for "sustained wind". While one can utilize a simple ratio to convert from peak 10 min wind to peak 1 min wind (roughly 12% higher for the latter), such systematic differences to make interbasin comparison of tropical cyclones around the world problematic.


Reference
Powell, M.D., S.H. Houston, and T.A. Reinhold, 1996:"Hurricane Andrew's Landfall in South Florida, Part I: Standardizing measurements for documentation of surface wind fields." Wea. Forecast. v.11, p.329-349

[Bean Counter]

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...ndrea/70008336

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by Bean Counter

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...ndrea/70008336

Well, that's exactly on the point for the whole topic, isn't it? Good on yer Beanie.

Here's my key take out (my point of view only):

"When you compare the number of hurricanes based on how many named storms there were, keep in mind this in itself is not a sign of climate change. This is a sign of increased technology of detection.”

But then, it could be regarded as just the view of just another expert ...