Named storm Andrea May 2019

[Scotty Kiwi]

As far as the Media, here in NZ, on the Weather Forecast and News, just a few years back (maybe ... 8?) I first heard the term "Weather Bomb", as in "A Weather Bomb is coming".

I'm imagining the term was coined by some meteorologist with enough spare time on their hands to get a second degree in creative writing and while filling in for the senior crew who were recovering from too much weekend.

Whatever the origins, it sure caused concern among all who listened - near panic for a few - and then, over a few years, news was regularly describing approaching Little Puffs as "Potential Weather Bombs". And the effect wore off. Have not heard that scary term for quite some time.

It's the potential for inconsistency .... that's the problem.

[AllenRbrts]

That conclusion is only applicable for data before 1970, most storms after that were probably noticed by satellites. That said, the graph I posted earlier didn't seem to have obvious trend of increasing numbers of Atlantic tropical storms in May.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

As far as the Media, here in NZ, on the Weather Forecast and News, just a few years back (maybe ... 8?) I first heard the term "Weather Bomb", as in "A Weather Bomb is coming".

I'm imagining the term was coined by some meteorologist with enough spare time on their hands to get a second degree in creative writing and while filling in for the senior crew who were recovering from too much weekend.

Whatever the origins, it sure caused concern among all who listened - near panic for a few - and then, over a few years, news was regularly describing approaching Little Puffs as "Potential Weather Bombs". And the effect wore off. Have not heard that scary term for quite some time.

It's the potential for inconsistency .... that's the problem.

Apparently bomb cyclone has been a term for quite awhile in meteorology... 70 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_cyclogenesis
But interestingly use in New Zealand is outside the usual definition according to the Wikipedia article.

[sterlinghuff]

Niel Franks, the former head of the nhc, said that when he was with the center a storm had to last at least a couple of days before it was named. We now have the first named storm. In the 60’s and early 70’s no one would have even known this one existed. A little more common sense and less hysteria, please.

[billdomb]

Fergit all the conspiracy collusion involving insurance companies.

The first dictum of any bureaucrat it Protect Yer Butt.

Always better to err on the side of caution and scream about the world ending.

If it doesn't, you just haveta deal with a few 'rich' boater folks' carping.

[smacksman]

"Wind speed at 10m above ground level ..."
So with the weather buoys in the ocean sending back data in (not uncommon) 6m/20' swells, do the weather offices extrapalate between the crests and the troughs?
When sailing in a big swell caused by wind far away, the sails can back in a trough with a wind drop more than the few mph difference between a tropical depression and a tropical storm.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by sterlinghuff

Niel Franks, the former head of the nhc, said that when he was with the center a storm had to last at least a couple of days before it was named. We now have the first named storm. In the 60’s and early 70’s no one would have even known this one existed. A little more common sense and less hysteria, please.

I have long wondered what the personnel at a National Hurricane Center do when it is not hurricane season. Seems like a very seasonal profession.

[Montanan]

As to making a name list that everyone could agree upon, shouldn't we just make it easy and stick to the adjective, Damn.

As in that damn storm!

And include additional languages with equivalent expressions, such as Zut in French.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by sterlinghuff

Niel Franks, the former head of the nhc, said that when he was with the center a storm had to last at least a couple of days before it was named ...

I could find no reference to that comment, but I didn't try very hard.

None of the following proves that Dr. Neil Frank is wrong, about anything. I offer it in order to provide context for his opinions.

Neil Frank, PhD, is a meteorologist, a broadcast journalist, an evangelical Christian*, and a climate skeptic (& a frequent contributor to WUWT blog).

Dr. Frank joined the National Weather Service in 1961, and was designated a Hurricane Forecaster, in the newly formed National Hurricane Center in 1968. Frank was director of the National Hurricane Center from 1973-1987, and joined Houston's CBS affiliate, KHOU-TV (1987 - 2008).

This is the same Neil Frank, who wrote (2014) that “there has been no warming of the globe for the (last) 17 years” (between 1997 and 2014".
He disagrees with the basic conclusions that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming.
"It's a hoax... maybe we're living in a carbon dioxide-starved world. We don't know." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006)

Frank is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming*, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting."

When you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth. It’s a planet where global warming isn't happening; or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.

* Evangelical declaration on global warming ➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20120830...lobal-warming/


FWIW: History of NWS Forecast Office Miami, FL
➥ https://www.weather.gov/mfl/floridahistorypage

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by smacksman

"Wind speed at 10m above ground level ..."
So with the weather buoys in the ocean sending back data in (not uncommon) 6m/20' swells, do the weather offices extrapalate between the crests and the troughs?
When sailing in a big swell caused by wind far away, the sails can back in a trough with a wind drop more than the few mph difference between a tropical depression and a tropical storm.

Yes, they use some form of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) wind flow modeling.

Nominal Anemometer Heights for ODAS/NOMAD marine buoys:
3 Meter Discus ODAS Buoy = 5 meters
1.7m ODAS Buoy = 3.3m
6m NOMAD ODAS Buoy = 5m
Winds are adjusted to 10m using a “stability independent logarithmic profile”
➥ Logarithmic velocity profile - AMS Glossary (Whatever this means )

“THE ACCURACY OF MARINE SURFACE WINDS FROM SHIPS AND BUOYS” ~ Peter K. Taylo et al.
From 2.3 Buoy Data: “Wind speeds from meteorological buoys are believed to be biased low in strong winds ...”
➥ https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/m...2.1_Taylor.pdf

“Methods to homogenize wind speeds from ships and buoys” ~ by Bridget R. Thomas et al.
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...hips_and_buoys

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I could find no reference to that comment, but I didn't try very hard.

None of the following proves that Dr. Neil Frank is wrong, about anything. I offer it in order to provide context for his opinions.

Neil Frank, PhD, is a meteorologist, a broadcast journalist, an evangelical Christian*, and a climate skeptic (& a frequent contributor to WUWT blog).

Dr. Frank joined the National Weather Service in 1961, and was designated a Hurricane Forecaster, in the newly formed National Hurricane Center in 1968. Frank was director of the National Hurricane Center from 1973-1987, and joined Houston's CBS affiliate, KHOU-TV (1987 - 2008).

This is the same Neil Frank, who wrote (2014) that “there has been no warming of the globe for the (last) 17 years” (between 1997 and 2014".
He disagrees with the basic conclusions that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming.
"It's a hoax... maybe we're living in a carbon dioxide-starved world. We don't know." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006)

Frank is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming*, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting."

When you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth. It’s a planet where global warming isn't happening; or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.

* Evangelical declaration on global warming ➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20120830...lobal-warming/


FWIW: History of NWS Forecast Office Miami, FL
➥ https://www.weather.gov/mfl/floridahistorypage

Helpful context, except for failing to mention all the meterologists, physicists, and yes, a not insignificant number of climatologists who's opinions fall into one or more of the above categories of skepticism you list. Including at least a few, I should add, who are devout Christians but whose scientific credentials are beyond (honest) rebuke. Or all the Evangelical Christians who undoubtedly don't fall into one of those same categories, but who instead are fully onboard with more mainstream views. A parallel Earth indeed, but one created not by those who are skeptical, but instead by those who are intolerant of contrary views.

You certainly seem keen on instigating yet more CC debate into various threads, the purpose for which escapes me.

[smacksman]

@GordMay
So a bit like Neil Frank - not actual data but extrapalated/approximate/modified data. So aircraft at 12000m measures temperature which number crunches to temperature at 10m.
I read a paper by a uni prof on output of solar panels. I checked his calculations at each paragraph and all was fine till he multiplied his measured output per hour by 24 to give the daily output! He then went on multiply up for average house roof area, etc. etc. to achieve a national power supply. I expect his figure was then used by other eminent men to prove their argument for something else. And so on.
ie. if you wished, you can manipulate data (even erroeous data) in any way to match your argument.
I must say, having sailed across oceans, the world is so big and we are so small, it is hard to believe we have much impact on climate to any great extent.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by smacksman

@GordMay
So a bit like Neil Frank - not actual data but extrapalated/approximate/modified data. So aircraft at 12000m measures temperature which number crunches to temperature at 10m...

How to Measure Outdoor Temperature
Temperature is generally measured at 1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) off the ground. This will prevent ambient ground temperature from affecting the reading.
The sensor should be in a shady location, that remains protected from precipitation, but it should not be too close to a building because the inside temperature may affect readings. NWS standards say the sensor should be placed a distance four times the height of the nearest building.
The sensor should be located where neither direct, nor indirect solar radiation will shine on it, if possible.
The sensor should be placed in a flat area, where air moves freely and not in an area sheltered from airflow, or at the base of an incline.
The sensor should be at least 30 meters (100 feet) away from paved roadways and sidewalks. Locations above dirt or grass are ideal.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

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 ...

Um, no. The correct statement would be "If you observe an increase in the number of hurricanes based on how many named storms there were, keep in mind this could be a consequence of climate change, or it could be a consequence of increased technology of detection, or both.”

And if you see no other evidence of climate change, then increased technology of detection is the more likely explanation.

[smacksman]

Originally Posted by smacksman

@GordMay
So a bit like Neil Frank - not actual data but extrapalated/approximate/modified data. So aircraft at 12000m measures temperature which number crunches to temperature at 10m.
....

Sorry, my brain fart! I should have said 'wind speed' not 'temperature'.