• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does NOAA base hurricane wind speeds on actual measurements? No.

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...rricane-matthew-ever-get-anywhere-near-cat-5/

owever, as I have pointed out before, these categorisation of wind speeds are not based on actual measurements, as they would have been in the past. Instead, they are derived from Track History, which in NOAA’s own words is defined as:



Track history for each storm is created from the operational warnings that are issued every six hours by NHC, CPHC , and JTWC . The positions and intensities are best estimates of those quantities when the warning is issued. THESE ARE NOT BEST TRACKS – having not been reanalyzed in any systematic manner.


So, somehow, Matthew’s windspeeds are supposed to have risen precipitously not in actuality, but because that is what was forecast by NOAA.
 
KLATTU said:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...rricane-matthew-ever-get-anywhere-near-cat-5/

owever, as I have pointed out before, these categorisation of wind speeds are not based on actual measurements, as they would have been in the past. Instead, they are derived from Track History, which in NOAA’s own words is defined as:



Track history for each storm is created from the operational warnings that are issued every six hours by NHC, CPHC , and JTWC . The positions and intensities are best estimates of those quantities when the warning is issued. THESE ARE NOT BEST TRACKS – having not been reanalyzed in any systematic manner.


So, somehow, Matthew’s windspeeds are supposed to have risen precipitously not in actuality, but because that is what was forecast by NOAA.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about that, because when they were reporting 120 Mph winds the radar was showing below 100mph
I captured the image.
Melbourne_wind radar.jpg
 
KLATTU said:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...rricane-matthew-ever-get-anywhere-near-cat-5/

owever, as I have pointed out before, these categorisation of wind speeds are not based on actual measurements, as they would have been in the past. Instead, they are derived from Track History, which in NOAA’s own words is defined as:



Track history for each storm is created from the operational warnings that are issued every six hours by NHC, CPHC , and JTWC . The positions and intensities are best estimates of those quantities when the warning is issued. THESE ARE NOT BEST TRACKS – having not been reanalyzed in any systematic manner.


So, somehow, Matthew’s windspeeds are supposed to have risen precipitously not in actuality, but because that is what was forecast by NOAA.
Click to expand...

Hmm.....

Did you check the source the blogger uses? This doesn't smell right to me.

I have a hard time believing they don't actually measure them somehow.
 
Unless I read it wrong, the track is calculated and the estimates forecast of speeds are calculated.

Future speeds, not current.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Hmm.....

Did you check the source the blogger uses? This doesn't smell right to me.

I have a hard time believing they don't actually measure them somehow.
Click to expand...

It's right. In the 1990s it was just by Winds.. so Andrew was 4 and that's it.. nothing about wave heights or rain fall. But now they define Hurricanes by Surge, Rain, and Wind.
 
KLATTU said:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...rricane-matthew-ever-get-anywhere-near-cat-5/

owever, as I have pointed out before, these categorisation of wind speeds are not based on actual measurements, as they would have been in the past. Instead, they are derived from Track History, which in NOAA’s own words is defined as:



Track history for each storm is created from the operational warnings that are issued every six hours by NHC, CPHC , and JTWC . The positions and intensities are best estimates of those quantities when the warning is issued. THESE ARE NOT BEST TRACKS – having not been reanalyzed in any systematic manner.


So, somehow, Matthew’s windspeeds are supposed to have risen precipitously not in actuality, but because that is what was forecast by NOAA.
Click to expand...


Well, of course they rely on modeled wind speeds, how else to they get hurricanes to match their predictions?! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom