Fine, but they're using a term with a technical meaning in a correct way. They could have written "Longest spell...without hurricane with estimated 1-minute wind speeds greater than 95 kts...." The big problem with the statement isn't with the "major hurricane," it's with the emphasis on US landfall. The expectations for climate change impacts have much less to do with the speeds at US landfall than they do with the winds anywhere on the path.
It is interesting that Gov. Cuomo said soon after Sandy that the hurricane deductible on homeowners policies would not apply in NY because Sandy wasn't a hurricane when it struck.
WTFUWT was very quick to point out that Sandy wasn't a real hurricane when it made landfall. When the evidence is against them, they resort to nitpicking.
There are some good arguments against the somewhat hysterical tone of Climate Depot...but to take them to task for differentiating between Hurricane Sandy ( a major storm which just missed the classification of hurricane) and a MAJOR hurricane makes YOU look somewhat overwrought, I think. Still, if you really think that this kind of post on your blog is useful in some way, carry on.
15 comments:
David, lying was their very first tactic.
Best,
D
Major hurricanes are category 3 and higher. Sandy wasn't a cat 3 hurricane at landfall.
Given how much damage Sandy did, it's categorization was clearly suspect.
The damage is what matters, not some number assigned to the storm that was clearly, in this case, misleading.
Like I said, lying.
In fact, a month ago I went to a colloquium by an ex-director of NCAR who said Sandy was causing people to rethink the Saffir-Simpson scale....
Fine, but they're using a term with a technical meaning in a correct way. They could have written "Longest spell...without hurricane with estimated 1-minute wind speeds greater than 95 kts...." The big problem with the statement isn't with the "major hurricane," it's with the emphasis on US landfall. The expectations for climate change impacts have much less to do with the speeds at US landfall than they do with the winds anywhere on the path.
Some researchers have proposed a new metric for storms (to be used along with the others) - Track Integrated Kinetic Energy.
Apparently, Sandy topped this metric historically.
http://www.wunderground.com/news/scientists-develop-new-classify-hurricane-20130508
A science writer should know the scientific definition of a "major" hurricane.
A journalist should know when to retract.
It is interesting that Gov. Cuomo said soon after Sandy that the hurricane deductible on homeowners policies would not apply in NY because Sandy wasn't a hurricane when it struck.
see: http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/10312012hurricane-deductibles
Correction: did not have the sustained winds of a hurricane.
Play word games if you want, but clearly by their damage and impacts both Katrina and Sandy were major hurricanes.
I guess you mean Gov. Cuomo should not play word games. I was just referencing him.
Clearly, these policies are poorly written, since the storm's classification and damages correlated poorly. See my latest post.
WTFUWT was very quick to point out that Sandy wasn't a real hurricane when it made landfall. When the evidence is against them, they resort to nitpicking.
There are some good arguments against the somewhat hysterical tone of Climate Depot...but to take them to task for differentiating between Hurricane Sandy ( a major storm which just missed the classification of hurricane) and a MAJOR hurricane makes YOU look somewhat overwrought, I think.
Still, if you really think that this kind of post on your blog is useful in some way, carry on.
Post a Comment