• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Misc 2021-22 Fall/Winter Whamby Thread

NoSnowATL said:
This year has been a C-. Very boring “ active “ year.
Click to expand...
A third of this years storms shouldn't have ever been a storm, and another 4 that were just junk.

Anna, Bill, Danny, Julian, Mindy, Odette, Teresa. All less than 48 hours in life, and if you remove Mindy, the remaining 6 were less than 36 hrs.

Storms like Claudette, spent more time as a classified tropical system on land than it did over water...

Then you have "storms" like Kate, Peter and Rose, who's LLC spent more time exposed than it ever did under the CDO.
 
smast16 said:
A third of this years storms shouldn't have ever been a storm, and another 4 that were just junk.

Anna, Bill, Danny, Julian, Mindy, Odette, Teresa. All less than 48 hours in life, and if you remove Mindy, the remaining 6 were less than 36 hrs.

Storms like Claudette, spent more time as a classified tropical system on land than it did over water...

Then you have "storms" like Kate, Peter and Rose, who's LLC spent more time exposed than it ever did under the CDO.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t been many MCS events either. A lot of our storms have been mainly heavy rain, not as much severe weather, limited thunderstorms.
 
smast16 said:
A third of this years storms shouldn't have ever been a storm, and another 4 that were just junk.

Anna, Bill, Danny, Julian, Mindy, Odette, Teresa. All less than 48 hours in life, and if you remove Mindy, the remaining 6 were less than 36 hrs.

Storms like Claudette, spent more time as a classified tropical system on land than it did over water...

Then you have "storms" like Kate, Peter and Rose, who's LLC spent more time exposed than it ever did under the CDO.
Click to expand...
I think its fair to question how many more storms would have been named in the past if we had the same tools we have today.
 
SD said:
I think its fair to question how many more storms would have been named in the past if we had the same tools we have today.
Click to expand...
I've thought about this too, if the increased naming was more of an agenda related thing (and I know we don't need to go there haha) or in fact if we would've had more storms in the past but lacked the technology to confirm them. If the latter is true, which seems very plausible to me, then makes me wonder if maybe the criteria for naming should be adjusted. For instance, do we really need to name a storm that by the definition is a TC but is located in middle of the ocean and only expected to remain a TC for a few days, with no land threat at all?
 
metwannabe said:
I've thought about this too, if the increased naming was more of an agenda related thing (and I know we don't need to go there haha) or in fact if we would've had more storms in the past but lacked the technology to confirm them. If the latter is true, which seems very plausible to me, then makes me wonder if maybe the criteria for naming should be adjusted. For instance, do we really need to name a storm that by the definition is a TC but is located in middle of the ocean and only expected to remain a TC for a few days, with no land threat at all?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's a little of both. Let's look at 1914 for example there was one storm ? but it was also in the middle of WW1 and ironically the one storm in the record hit Florida...

Also if you go back into history the only reason they knew some storms existed away from land was a ship ran into it... Things were a lot different before satellite. That's why a lot of these records only mention the satellite era
 
metwannabe said:
I've thought about this too, if the increased naming was more of an agenda related thing (and I know we don't need to go there haha) or in fact if we would've had more storms in the past but lacked the technology to confirm them. If the latter is true, which seems very plausible to me, then makes me wonder if maybe the criteria for naming should be adjusted. For instance, do we really need to name a storm that by the definition is a TC but is located in middle of the ocean and only expected to remain a TC for a few days, with no land threat at all?
Click to expand...

Spit balling some ideas.

1. Increase Minimal TS winds from 40mph to 50mph (45 Knots).
2. Has to retain the TS winds for 24hrs or greater.
3. Has to be, or expected to be within 1,000 Km of land.
4. A different designation for weak fishy's or quick spin up that die out in 48 hours. Maybe TTC's. Temporary Tropical Cyclones.
 
smast16 said:
Spit balling some ideas.

1. Increase Minimal TS winds from 40mph to 50mph (45 Knots).
2. Has to retain the TS winds for 24hrs or greater.
3. Has to be, or expected to be within 1,000 Km of land.
4. A different designation for weak fishy's or quick spin up that die out in 48 hours. Maybe TTC's. Temporary Tropical Cyclones.
Click to expand...
Not bad at all
 
smast16 said:
Spit balling some ideas.

1. Increase Minimal TS winds from 40mph to 50mph (45 Knots).
2. Has to retain the TS winds for 24hrs or greater.
3. Has to be, or expected to be within 1,000 Km of land.
4. A different designation for weak fishy's or quick spin up that die out in 48 hours. Maybe TTC's. Temporary Tropical Cyclones.
Click to expand...
Sign me up!
 
^ Don’t like it. Some TD can be monsters. I would rather give rain totals some factor in naming too.
 
Just like with the CAT system, include surge to weigh more than wind.
 
Also some nice discussion about September’s weather over the last few days
 
  • Like
Reactions: SD
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top