Dr. Philip Klotzbach writes via email:
Discussion of near impossibility of actually recording strongest winds in a hurricane
Brian McNoldy and I wrote a blog for Capital Weather Gang yesterday where we called out Matt Drudge about his claims that the National Hurricane Center was over-estimating the winds in Hurricane Matthew. As you know, it is nearly impossible to measure the strongest winds in a hurricane due to a variety of factors. Brian and I covered these in some detail in this blog.
Matt Drudge commented on our story last night, and since then, there have been hundreds of comments from individuals claiming that NHC is just a cog in the “global warming” machine. As you know, I’m certainly not a fan of over-hyping climate change and have published several papers showing no trends in intense hurricane activity over the modern observational period.
I feel that it would be incredibly useful for a well-respected climate skeptic website to pick up this story and give some additional credence to it. If the eyewall of Hurricane Matthew had been 50 miles further west, it would have been devastating for the east coast of Florida! We may not be so lucky next time, and I don’t want people to become armchair meteorologists and think the winds are much less than NHC reports.
Happy to help – Anthony
Hurricane intensity is not exaggerated to scare people, and here’s how we know
By Phil Klotzbach and Brian McNoldy
Hurricane Matthew brushed the East Coast as a Category 4 in early October. It scoured the Florida coast with a storm surge that washed out roads and flooded homes and businesses. It dumped over a foot of rain on the Carolinas and triggered deadly flooding. And before all of this, Matthew devastated Haiti and killed at least 600 people — it’s possible we’ll never knowthe final death toll.
But the hurricane’s deadly encounter with Haiti and multibillion-dollar brush with the East Coast wasn’t bad enough for some people — mainly, Matt Drudge, a political commentator and news aggregator, who tweeted skepticism about Matthew’s actual intensity as it barreled toward Florida. Perhaps, he suggested, the National Hurricane Center was overhyping the storm’s maximum winds.
Drudge deletes his tweets regularly, so here’s a screenshot from the morning of Oct. 7:
“The deplorables are starting to wonder if govt has been lying to them about Hurricane Matthew intensity to make exaggerated point on climate,” Drudge mused. (“The deplorables” refers to supporters of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.)
Then this (image saved by the BBC):
Drudge argued the point based on data from Caribbean weather stations and buoys that were not reporting winds as strong as what the National Hurricane Center used in its advisories. But the National Hurricane Center uses a lot of different methods to determine a hurricane’s actual peak intensity, and there are some serious issues with relying simply on weather stations and buoys.
The National Hurricane Center — or NHC — uses a variety of satellite-based tools to estimate a hurricane’s winds when the storm is far from land, and as the storm moves closer to land, additional devices are employed.
Hurricane Hunter aircraft are dispatched to investigate the storm in more detail. These planes measure winds both at flight-level, which is approximately 10,000 feet, as well as at the surface through the use of a device called a stepped-frequency microwave radiometer which measures radiation transmitted from the ocean surface back up to the airplane. When high winds churn up the ocean surface, the amount of microwave radiation measured is diffused compared with the amount of radiation measured when the ocean surface is calm.
NHC also utilizes devices called “dropwindsondes” that are dropped from the aircraft at about 10,000 feet and measure temperature, humidity, pressure and wind speed as they descend to the surface. When a storm nears shore, radars can also be utilized to estimate wind velocity.
All of these different measurement devices, combined with surface observations from ships and buoys, are combined to assess a storm’s intensity.
There are several reasons buoys are likely to underestimate a hurricane’s wind.
First, buoys utilize an eight-minute average maximum wind, and NHC uses one-minute average wind. The shorter the wind averaging time, the stronger the reported winds will be. The adjustment factor would be approximately 0.90, which means if a buoy measures 80-mph eight-minute average winds, the one-minute average wind would be about 89 mph.
A more significant bias in the buoy data is the insanely severe ocean conditions that it’s reporting from. Waves in a major hurricane can be as high as 50 feet, and consequently, a buoy experiences very large crests and troughs as the hurricane passes over. When a buoy is on the crest of a wave, it is exposed to the full force of the surface winds, but when it is in the trough of a wave, it is going to be sheltered from the strongest winds. These weaker winds measured in the trough of a wave get averaged into the eight-minute averaging period measured by the buoy, which therefore gives the buoy’s estimated wind speed in a hurricane a low bias.
Surface stations also have significant measurement challenges in hurricanes.
Often during strong wind speeds, the anemometers break. Storm surge can also wash away weather stations before the strongest winds come ashore.
Importantly, a hurricane’s wind field is a wide swath, and the strongest winds may only be found in a small region of the hurricane. The number of surface stations in any area struck by a hurricane is likely not dense enough to accurately measure the strongest winds. For example, one 2014 study found that on average, “a single perfect anemometer experiencing a direct hit by the right side of the eyewall will underestimate the actual peak intensity by 10-20% percent. Even an unusually large number of anemometers (e.g., 3-5) experiencing direct hits by the storm together will underestimate the peak wind speeds by 5%-10%.”
The number of surface weather stations reporting hurricane-force winds, even in notoriously strong United States landfalling hurricanes are surprisingly small. For example, in NHC’s post-storm report on Hurricane Katrina (2005), a Category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Wind Scale, only five surface weather stations reported sustained hurricane-force winds, with the strongest sustained hurricane-force winds reported being 86 mph. Many of the surface stations reporting the strongest winds were also flagged by NHC as being incomplete, indicating failure of the station before the strongest winds likely occurred. For reference, NHC estimated Katrina’s Louisiana landfall to have had maximum winds of 125 mph and its Mississippi landfall to have had maximum winds of 120 mph.
The peak winds in a hurricane are confined to a small region of the storm called the eyewall, which is the ring of thunderstorms that surround the eye. Beyond the eyewall, the wind speed drops off relatively quickly.
In the case of Hurricane Matthew, while the southeast United States suffered significant flooding damage due to both storm surge and heavy rain, the east coast of Florida dodged a huge bullet. Had Matthew tracked 50 miles farther to the west, the eyewall of the storm would have come ashore, causing much more extensive flooding as well as significant wind damage.
In any case, Matthew’s strongest winds would likely not have been measured by a weather station. The National Hurricane Center provides the best analysis that science can offer.
Dr. Philip Klotzbach,
As an Engineer, I am disappointed in your article, since I know for a fact that structures are not designed for the maximum velocities recently reported by NOAA. There are groups of engineers that look at the wind data and have specified the design wind velocity for every portion of the US and the structure design wind velocities are less than the NOAA reported 165 MPH velocities. The maximum design velocity is 150 mph in the Gulf which reduces to 120 mph in the NY Harbor region. See document below.
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/003/asce.7.2002.pdf These are 3 second gusts at 33 feet above ground level and the design formulas clearly adjust the load for the elevation,
I suspect the maximum velocities reported by NOAA are not the velocities at ground level and are likely misleading or exaggerated for ground level. Perhaps you can please clarify and explain why there is a difference.
As an engineer I have designed and checked commercial tall and ground structures for wind loads and nothing like 165 mph is used for the east coast. For example the design wind velocity for structures close to NY harbor are designed for about 120 mph as I recall. Keeping in mind, that the force on the structure is proportional to the wind velocity squared, the load difference is huge if the NOAA reported loads are used rather than those in the referenced document, and there would be numerous failures if those loads were actually experienced.
I do recall that several decades age the design wind velocities were increased after one of the Hurricanes in the Gulf, and some commercial structures were beefed up to handle the higher loads although I doubt that all commercial structures were upgraded. I recognize that many older homes especially the roof is not per the latest codes.
Also I was disappointed at the casual dismissal of ground station data because I suspect many are designed to handle the loads and many gave reports without failures.
Otherwise thanks for your article.
As I mentioned before, anemometers usually fail in high winds, either due to the winds themselves or due to the storm surge. The article describes why, in Hurricane Katrina, the maximum sustained surface wind reported was 86 mph (79 knots). You can go through the report here and see:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL122005_Katrina.pdf
Similarly in the case of Hurricane Camille (1969), no weather stations near the coast survived to report max winds. Colombia, MS (about 80 miles inland) reported max winds of ~115 mph:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00137.1
I spent a considerable amount of time doing post-storm reports for some wind engineers after Hurricane Ike (2008), and in that case, virtually all of the NWS stations close to the coast failed during the event. I ended up pulling Weather Underground stations to find higher max winds, but of course, the siting of Weather Underground stations could be suspect.
In the case of Matthew, I wouldn’t expect to see Category 3/4 winds on land anyway, as the eyewall did not come ashore until Matthew was weaker. The best example of what we would have seen was an 107 mph wind gust reported at an elevated platform in Port Canaveral. The western part of the eyewall was within about ~10 miles of Port Canaveral as it scraped by the coast.
If you want to see more what ground-based observations look like in recent hurricanes (e.g., Ivan, Wilma, etc.), I encourage you to check out the NHC post-storm reports:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/
A gust is not a hurricane. Plenty of photos of Mathew damage show tropical storm force winds. The surface wind speeds recorded by surface anemometers are consistent over the entire path of the storm at below hurricane category 1. NDBC buoys recorded winds are consistently confirmed by nearby land based anemometers. Not one surface station shows any recorded sustained winds reaching category 1. You have no surface data anywhere from Florida to N. Carolina that show hurricane winds.
Sounds like instead of spending billions against “climate change” we should spend a few million beefing up NWS anemometers to survive 150mph winds. This has to include battery power and radio transmission. I was trying to follow weather stations during Matthew’s sidle along Florida, and was disappointed that several of them stopped reporting. Of course, it could be that certain authorities realized they weren’t going to report anything dramatic, so took them offline to avoid the emabarrassment. That’s a cynical view I know, but so much bad stuff has gone down in the CC arena that it’s hard not to be. I’ll be interested in reading a post-Matthew report on what happened to those stations.
Rich.
Phil,
Mathew did not In fact destroy any anemometers. buoys frequently survive cat one and two storms. Not so much major storms which tends to lend weight to the overhyping of the storm. one huge wind gust in one corner of the Hurricane does not a major storm make!
My observations of wind speed came from weather stations on Wundermap and well as https://earth.nullschool.net.
I make no claims regarding their accuracy.
It appears from those sources’ indications that media reported max wind speeds that were occurring at and above 850 hPa.. whatever altitude that would be in a hurricane. Two or three thousand feet?
At the surface, or on the ground… wind indications were much much lower in this and in previous featured hurricanes with those two sources. (Nullschool.net also reports wave heights.) It’s likely disagreement could happen if people are comparing observations devoid of altitude info.
its not the wind at 10,000 feet that kills you.
Are you suggesting that they fly the planes at 2 meters instead?
I suggest you look for your car keys under the street light, as that is where the light is.
BW that as it may, sir, but the results speak for themselves: consistently over blown and inaccurate cries of disaster and doom. Stop beating up on those who point out that reality and start doing something about those who make you look less than credible: the ignorant media hacks, rent seeking activists, and opportunistic politicians. They are the ones doing you and those who claim to be responsible the damage.
…Be that as it may……
If the money spent on “renewables” and the “research” to prove that Human activity changes global climate had been spent on developing hurricane-resistant buildings and civil infrastructures, we might actually have benefited the economy and the coastal populations simultaneously.
Hitlery would have been just as correct to state that the hurricane was made worse by “deplorables”.
Oops, I triggered the spam disposal. meant to say
Hitlary would have been just as correct to state that the hurricane was made worse by “deplorables”.
Sorry, forgot what thread I was on. That comment was meant for Dr. Frank on the previous essay.
The evidence is strong that coastal structures will be destroyed by storms long before being inundated by climatic sea level rise. We are on the wrong track, progressive dolts!
I know you were well meaning with your article but my reading of it further cemented a part of Drudge’s point: we really have little idea what the winds at ground level will be when a hurricane comes ashore. Our estimates are bad and purposely intended to measure high.
The other piece of Drudge’s point…intent…that one I feel much better about after reading the article. I always try to avoid attributing something to malice when “incompetence” will do. “incompetence” in quotes here because it’s clear how difficult managing the complexities of measuring hurricane wind speed can be.
If you want to improve how you give data to the public report the expected ground level wind speeds with a confidence number. Every image of the hurricane published should include an overlaid map of these speed estimates and confidences as the storm moves along its path. This way we could see how small that 120MPH field is expected to be and how large that 50MPH field is.
Yes, hurricanes should be rated on multiple scales.
This information is already available from NHC but only occasionally displayed from various news outlets. Regarding your other comment, I disagree. Devices such as stepped-frequency microwave radiometers are carefully calibrated to estimate surface winds. In addition, when storms get close to land, we also utilize radar imagery to estimate the surface wind speed. While admittedly these aren’t measured specifically at the surface, there are known adjustments that can be made to estimate surface winds. Of course, unless you are measuring the wind directly along the coastline or in an open field, you will likely get terrain sheltering effects and weaker winds.
Also, realize that the metric that is predicted by the National Hurricane Center in terms of the maximum wind has been (and probably will always be), the maximum one-minute sustained wind at any point in a hurricane. This is a very elusive quantity to measure specifically with a weather station, which is why these other methods are also employed.
“The National Hurricane Center provides the best analysis that science can offer.”
Poor babies. They are finally admitting that it is not an easy task to measure wind speeds, let alone forecast the actual path a storm takes. After this entire article telling us how hard it is to get an accurate measurement of the wind speed after criticizing Drudge for throwing the BS flag.
The National Weather Service, especially the National Hurricane Center, tries to do its job with the best tools it has. Unfortunately, the Television Weather Boffins are trying to look good to the home folks, and make a name for themselves, over-selling the crap out of hurricane models like they are some sort of religious experience.
Science has its problems. It is becoming more and more apparent everyday that there is nothing special about scientists. They grub for money just like everyone else, and as a group, climate scientists are not adverse to fudging their data and faking the results, just like described in the Climate Gate emails.
The issue is not the rear impossibility of measuring winds. It is the near impossibility of measuring any climatic attribute accurately.
Most of us have heard of or even seen some spectacular weather events, but this is a new one to me:
https://youtu.be/nJff3lLUMiA
Video courtesy James Loveridge Photography (also on the BBC website)
Unless you know otherwise lets call it : Dorset Fog-fall
I have woken up one fine morning and seen something similar in the Alps on a smaller scale. Just gorgeous! Imagine looking down to one side in a valley and seeing a mist flowing through and down a cliff like a slow motion water fall as it comes through a saddle like a river of mist between two peaks. . Then you look down the slope of the mountain your on and see a group of Red Deer peacefully grazing on high pasture. Then you look up slope on the mountain your on and there are smaller Roebuck working their way up through the rock. No camera can catch and record a thing like that.
The question of whether we’re still in a “major hurricane drought” is still important as a talking point to adress those who exaggerate. I understand that helping keep people safe is the primary function of the NHC, and I understand the reason for your complicated processes as you have described them.
But there is still a difference between the East Coast being “brushed” by a category 4 hurricane, as mentioned in the article, and a category 4 hurricane brushing *by* the East Coast. Based on the analysis of the NHC, are we still in Major hurricane drought, or not?
NOAA has already stated so.
NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”
https://nworeport.me/tag/noaa-u-s-completes-record-11-straight-years-without-major-hurricane-strike/
Correct, we’re still technically in a major hurricane drought, but obviously there are some technicality issues given that Ike (2008) may have been classified as a major hurricane in the earlier part of the 20th century when damage was often utilized to assess storm intensity. Ike was a high-end category 2 hurricane (95 knots) that had a massive surge associated with it given its large size. Also, the drought only continued this year given a very small wobble prior to a potential landfall with Hurricane Matthew.
I recently posted a figure though, relaxing the metric to Category 2-5 hurricanes, and showed that we’re currently at a 11-year running average low dating back ~160 years:
https://twitter.com/philklotzbach/status/790554758666792962
Ike was quite memorable. The damage ratings approach is interesting and full of promise, but the climate hype community rejected that because it requires adjusting for constant dollar values and increases in coastal development, and that once again shows a flat line storm change. Ask the Pielke’s who were hounded out of weather related research for pointing out that inconvenient truth.
“Major Hurricane Drought” I think of it more as a hiatus. A pause. Who could have predicted this great relief from these deadly storms.. Everyone should be thankful we in the lower 48 have been so fortunate. Even the Bozos that have claimed the opposite would happen or will happen. But we all know by their actions, deeds, and words, that there are some who are disappointed. Some who have minimized the rarity of such a pause. Some who almost seem to salivate every time a Major Atlantic hurricane forms that may come ashore here in the US. Now with the SOI indicating a major seasonal shift in the weather pattern coming old man winter looms large come the middle of November and thus the probability of a hit this year declines significantly. They will almost certainly have to wait for next year to await the storm they so much want to hold up as an example of what climate change can do and thus see the end of the “drought”. And if history and long range forecasting is any guide they are very likely to get it.
Phil, in your comment about “if Matthew had been further west” you are still clinging on to your belief that it would have been at least Category 3, when all evidence from damage and recorded speeds in the Bahamas implies that it would have been in the TS to Category 2 range, so not a major hurricane.
Rich.
There was Cat 5 cyclone in Australia 6 years ago where the highest wind gust recorded before the stations were damaged were about 110 mph or 175 kph. Somehow anemometers from the early 20thC survived 220kph gusts. The experts guesstimated that it was Cat 5 at landfall despite there not being the damage even consistent with a Cat4. Its hard to trust experts when things like that happen.
Taking away any mention of the F word, there is still the issue that these cyclones/hurricanes are compared with others that only have what was probably a highest recorded windspeed significantly less than could have been measured in modern times. Not chance that cyclone Yasi would have been called a Cat 5 if it happened in the early 20thC but it is compared with earlier cyclones as if there is a trend of more severe storms due to climate change.
And the real worry is that people who came through a cyclone such as Marcia think that they survived a Cat 5 cyclone so they’ll be right next time- when the winds and damage e.g. here in Rockhampton were nothing like Cat 5. There’s a similar problem with Severe Storm Warnings. My suggestion is for well publicised estimates of cyclone or storm strength afterwards, when engineers can make estimates from building and vegetation damage.
The hype and continuously “adjusted” data, both current and historical make a
non metorologist like me distrustful of anything produced by “professionals.”
My favorite quote from the Weather Channel is “this wave is not developing
the way you would like to see it”.
From my non professional point of view, why not use ground station barometric
pressure to compare storms?
Pressure was used frequently when comparing Matthew with historical Florida storms. The lowest pressure in the eye is a much easier to measure quantity in a hurricane than is the maximum sustained wind speed at a single point.
And seems much more reasonable and objective- if your community will educate the media and public as to what it means. The over hype of storms is ultimately going to lead to “boy crying wolf” syndrome, where people will ignore all warnings, even the one where there really is a wolf.
I was working my way down to the bottom to say exactly that.
Air pressure is essentially the same across the eye, that’s much larger area than some narrow strip in the eyewall buffeted vortexes created in the eyewall.
I’m going to start talking up central air pressure in the future. Lessee, isn’t that a leading indicator anyway? I.e. a fall in air pressure precedes an increase in wind speed.
Phil, With the limitations you mention, it seems to me unlikely to achieve a measurement that satisfies the formal definition for sustained hurricane wind speed, and which happens to be measured at the point of highest wind speed. The best that can be done is to say the highest measured formally, and estimate the max from the other, non-formal measurements, using the alternative techniques.
That said, it seems to me that the winds occur in association with other physical facts that can be measured more reliably, that do not break the instruments or mis-measure if shaded by structures. Can we calculate the energy of the hurricane from eye latitude, eye air pressure, eyewall diameter and eyewall direction?
Thanks for your excellent article.
I guess I, like probably many others that have started learning this stuff relatively recently, have the feeling of having been misled for years. For years the NHC grading of storms has been presented in the general media as an absolute based on simply reading hard data. It is still presented that way today. In my ignorance I assumed that was the case only to learn over time that in fact their categorization is anything but absolute. The older I get, the more I learn, the more skeptical, I become. The trick is not becoming too cynical at the same time as one delves ever deeper into it.
I was working with Prof. Rozencrantz and Prof. Staelin when Phil did his stuff on wind speed estimation from microwave sounders. It is better than nothing, but it really relies on a lot of highly non-linear things in the variation of sea surface reflectivity in the microwave spectrum with wind speed. It is not as accurate as a dropsonde but it is a valid estimation technique.
So wind speed is measured, calculated, and estimated. How do you decide which to report for use by public?
Just to clarify, I don’t work for the National Hurricane Center, so I don’t make the final decision on what is reported to the public. When a storm is approaching land, it’s the best estimate of the National Hurricane Center forecaster on duty using a combination of satellite, aircraft, radar and in situ data.
Dr. K, your discussion of wind speed measurement challenges and limitations is fascinating. However you apparently missed the point millions and millions of Americans, including Drudge, notice: The over hype and catastrophism that dominates and distorts weather reporting. Most on this forum, and most Americans, get it: it is tough to measure weather systems. That has nothing to do with the shallow, reactionary, panic mongering *based on your work* by media and political leaders that you and your community have so far declined to forcefully address. Matthew was no exceptional in track, strength, impact, risk, etc . Where is your moralistic Op-Ed condemning the hype and anti-science idiocy of those who falsely claim that this minor storm (in terms of impact) was unique, unusual, caused by “climate change”, etc. That would be a bold move. Blaming Drudge is low hanging fruit in a forum like WaPo. How about holding classes for media and politicals so they can learn how to understand your work product- its features, benefits, short comings, etc.?
Respectfully,
hunter
A couple of points here… Matthew was an incredibly devastating storm for portions of the Caribbean as well as portions of the eastern United States. With most hurricanes, the real killer isn’t the winds… it is the water. 45 people died in the United States from a storm that didn’t make landfall until it was a weakening Category 1.
NHC doesn’t engage in fear-mongering tactics… had the storm come ashore in Florida, its results would have been devastating. In addition, I would hardly claim that Hurricane Matthew had minor impacts in the southeast United States. Insured damage estimates currently run from $3-$7 billion dollars. I would argue had Matthew tracked 50 miles further to the west, the insured damage estimates could have been 5 to 10 times as high. There is a large difference between a hurricane’s outer bands hitting a 100-200 mile stretch of coastline than if the western eyewall had actually come ashore.
If the hurricane had come ashore and associated sustained winds in the 80-110 mph ballpark ensued, I expect Drudge would be singing a different tune.
(1) Given wind speed and pressure differentials, the value apportioned to damage is a consequence of development density and the sophistication of technologies that are damaged and destroyed, refer Pielke Jr for a fuller explanation.
(2) Argue all that you like, but this storm did not track 50 miles further west and as such your argument is merely supposition unless you are an expert in construction technologies and cost … as am I.
(3) Drudge then, is not singing a different tune.
Phil, at the time I was really pleased that Matthew missed Florida. But now I’m regretting it, as I really would like to have known how bad it could turn out. And I don’t buy your estimate of 80-110 mph.
To justify my rude contradiction of you, please consider your own graph of Buoy 42058. Now, I agree that sustained winds are suspect, so let’s ignore that. But the maximum gusts were 80 knots, and the symmetry either side of the eye passing shows the buoy got a good look at two edges of the eyewall. 80 knots is 92mph. From that gust, what would you estimate the sustained speed to be? Presumably not 110mph :-).
Do you think that Matthew would have been stronger at Florida landfall than it was when it passed over Buoy 42058? I will accept a “yes”, but only if accompanied by credible data.
Thanks in anticipation,
Rich.
“IF” something had happened other than the way it did, then you would look better.
But it didn’t. So right now, I’d say you don’t look very good.
Andrew
‘I’m certainly not a fan of over-hyping climate change’
You certainly wouldn’t want to over-hype hype.
As with any story, hurricane or otherwise, always utilize at least two sources. I use the NHC and earth.nullschool.net. The NHC/Media never wants to get caught understating a weather event, so they end up overstating. Consistently overstating ones case, puts one in the same dilemma as the boy who cried wolf.
NHC’s estimates of max wind and minimum pressure are their best estimates. They aren’t overstating the case in their advisories. In the case of Matthew, you had an incredibly difficult forecast of a major hurricane tracking parallel to a coastline. Had the storm tracked 50 miles further east, it could have been a virtual non-event for Florida. Of course, if the storm had tracked 50 miles further west, the results would have been absolute devastation.
Nullschool is not a data source. If I understand correctly, they display the results of the GFS models, not physical data.
They do make great eye candy and do a nice job of showing motion of large air masses.
I am not a weather scientist. Neither am I blessed with an over abundance of I.Q., but I do know what i trust. Earth.nullschool.net does have beautiful images. Nullschool does let me zoom into large weather events, like Hurricane Matthew, and check average wind speeds. It allows me to see how the hurricane wind speed vary from the leading edge to the trailing edge. The color coding is just stunning.
It seems that we have a version of the Wizard of Oz playing out before us. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I do not want to lose faith in the NHS and the media, but when I suspect they are not being straight with me, I cannot help it.
NOAA has proven it’s willingness to alter data to better match global warming theory. Moreover, NOAA actively supports the theory and the associated government grab for more power and money. Thus, those who understand science have recognized NOAA’s willingness to put political policy positions ahead of science. The NHC is part of NOAA and now suffers the results of being associated with an untrustworthy institution.
Think of this way, if you knew someone was a con man, would you trust their best friend’s investment advice?
Sorry NHC, but it’s perfectly reasonable to assume any reports you issue are questionable.
A good excuse + a bad result is not equal to a good result.
Unlike meteorology, in my business the numbers actually have to add up.
There was a signiicant delta between what we heard on the news and what was actually measured, which is a valid reson for complaint for any number of reasons.
And this: “But the hurricane’s deadly encounter with Hati and multibillion-dollar brush with the East Coast wasn’t enough for some people” does not lend credence to your article, nor does it increase my respect for your opinion. Here in New Jersey we were evacuating the shore, and didn’t even receive the equivalent of a good thunderstorm. Many businesses suffered as a result, as the tourists that make up their customer base stayed home.
This may come as a surprise to NHC, but accurracy is important.
NHC never posted tropical storm watches/warnings for the East Coast of the United States north of North Carolina. Model forecast skill has improved significantly over the past 50 years, and NHC’s forecasts have improved as well:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/figs/ALtkerrtrd.jpg
While the early tracks showed Matthew coming up the coast, I don’t think the timing was short enough to warrant NJ evacuation orders. Wasn’t some of the out-to-sea effects from weather systems entering the US west coast while Matthew was in Haiti or the Bahamas?
I live on a boat in Florida. The problem with over stating the hurricane wind speeds is that the general public does not appreciate that the pressure from the wind goes up exponentially with the wind speed. Once someone rides out a published 2,3 or 4 hurricane they think they can do it again.
We are on part of the coast that got hit by Mathew. Afterwards everyone that did not evacuate was saying how easy it was. My wind instrument recorded the highest gust at 59kts. That is a long way from what was stated for the storm.
Also, the problem with surface winds is that a storm that hits the coast will often see the bottom of the storm slow down and the top will tend to slide off. The upper level winds will become the ground winds very quickly with some power provided by the sheer. This can be bad!
As for the hurricane hunters – not sure what the sampling interval is for their data (just don’t remember). It appears from the raw data that a single hit will set the wind speed. It could be that their sampling interval is set long enough where one hit equals their “sustained” wind speed period. They should have to record several data points to rate sustained winds.
Having a very large vested interest in getting the hurricane predictions correct, I track the hurricanes almost all summer (Mike’s Spaghetti Weather page is probably the best amalgamation of the available data). There have been what I call ‘pretend’ hurricanes predicted. These are storms that the data does not seem to support the sustained winds that are advertised.
This over inflating of the hurricane wind speeds gives boaters and homeowners a false sense of security. More of them are staying put when a hurricane is forecast because ‘the last cat X storm was not that bad.’ This over-forecasting is as dangerous (perhaps more) than under-forecasting. Either way is bad!
The goal of any forecaster should be to provide reliable and understandable forecasts. Right now that does not seem to be happening.
The eyewall of Matthew did not come onshore, so I wouldn’t expect that winds would be that strong along the coast. As I’ve stated multiple times before, when major hurricanes do come onshore, anemometers very rarely record the strongest winds. They either fail or are destroyed by storm surge. The strongest sustained wind that I could find any U.S. hurricane was a sustained wind of 126 mph in Hurricane Andrew, which equates to a Category 3. In storms like Camille and Katrina, storm surge wiped out pretty much everything standing along the coastline.
In the case of Matthew, virtually all stations in the Bahamas stopped reporting at some point during the storm. The one station that managed to report impressive winds was the Exuma International Airport, which reported a sustained wind of 119 mph and a gust to 144 mph.
Details on hurricane hunter measurements are here:
http://www.hurricanehunters.com/plane.html
Flight-level winds are not what is used for the surface wind. These winds are averaged in 30-second intervals. These winds are then adjusted downwards to account for the weakening of winds from flight level (~10000 feet) to the surface. Dropsondes assist in determining how much the winds are weakening with height. In addition, the SFMR device measures surface emissivity from waves to assess surface winds. When nearing land, radar can also significantly assist in assessing just how strong the winds.