|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2015 13:04:13 GMT
You can hope Code. The PNW has had Hurricanes in the past, so one would expect it to happen again. Not a "normal" event, but a potential event non the less.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2015 16:29:51 GMT
Code: That is the one I was thinking about in my comment above.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 24, 2015 0:37:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 24, 2015 8:08:39 GMT
You can hope Code. The PNW has had Hurricanes in the past, so one would expect it to happen again. Not a "normal" event, but a potential event non the less. The water off the west coast tends to be warmer outside of 200nm to 300nm than inside. Inside cool waters dominate due to the California current. Technically, no hurricane has ever hit the US in the Pacific except Hawaii. A few hurricanes have tracked higher latitude than 40N but there has never been one that made landfall into the Pacific Northwest. the closest to a hurricane hit was a hurricane that hit Long Beach in 1939 at tropical storm strength.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Oct 24, 2015 14:14:06 GMT
Interesting. If you look here--http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=239.73,1.50,360, Patricia is already gone. Not a trace. Developed in 24 hours, dissipated in 12.. . Interesting
Code's Oregon storm is clearly visible though.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 24, 2015 15:30:55 GMT
Interesting. If you look here--http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=239.73,1.50,360, Patricia is already gone. Not a trace. Developed in 24 hours, dissipated in 12.. . Interesting Code's Oregon storm is clearly visible though. Patricia was projected to dissipate very rapidly as the storm approached mountains inland.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 24, 2015 19:55:03 GMT
It was a hurricane.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 24, 2015 20:48:52 GMT
The water off the west coast tends to be warmer outside of 200nm to 300nm than inside. Inside cool waters dominate due to the California current. Technically, no hurricane has ever hit the US in the Pacific except Hawaii. A few hurricanes have tracked higher latitude than 40N but there has never been one that made landfall into the Pacific Northwest. the closest to a hurricane hit was a hurricane that hit Long Beach in 1939 at tropical storm strength. True but I'm sure you are aware the Columbus Day storm did pack H3 winds with higher gusts. "At the Mount Hebo Air Force Station in the Oregon Coast Range, the anemometer pegged at its maximum 130 miles per hour (210 km/h) for long periods — the level of a Category 3 hurricane; damage to the radar domes suggested wind gusts to at least 170 miles per hour (270 km/h). Dome tiles were thrown down the mountainside; the 200-pound (91 kg) chunks tore through entire trees. At the Naselle Radar Station in the Willapa Hills of southwest Washington, a wind gust of 160 miles per hour (260 km/h) was observed." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962I don't know why they didn't call it an H when it sure seemed like an H. Unlike politicians professional forecasters have very specific definitions for hurricanes. : "Hurricane - An intense tropical weather system with a well defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 mph (64 knots) or higher. In the western Pacific, hurricanes are called "typhoons," and similar storms in the Indian Ocean are called "cyclones." www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/defining.htmlNote that it is a tropical weather system. Storms that have winds of hurricane force but are not tropical are called 'extra-tropical storms' but they do not get called hurricanes as their genesis is usually different not being based on extreme convection. The same argument was made when Sandy became an extra-tropical depression with severe storm force winds. The National Hurricane Center stopped providing hurricane watches and warnings as it was no longer a hurricane its winds were not being formed from severe convection it was just an intense storm. Such niceties are lost on politicians and the uninitiated.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 24, 2015 20:55:40 GMT
I had forgotten the tropic part. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 24, 2015 23:16:46 GMT
Speaking of "Tropical or Extra Tropical" We are getting pounded by the remnants of Patricia here in S.E. Texas and it looks like the low level remains of the storm are just clearing the coast off of Brownsville, TX. If it deepens it will not matter if it is technically a Tropical Storm etc. The results are the same. It's expected to follow the Texas coast and then pull toward the North East so for those of you in it's path get ready. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 25, 2015 10:11:51 GMT
I lived in Western Scotland for several years the average wind was above 30 knots in places. The idea that people could get excited about winds of 45 knots was laughable. The storms in the western isles were called "severe storm force 12" which is as high as the Beaufort scale with qualifiers like 'severe' went. Winds were often above cat 1 hurricane force but it was just 'a little breezy out'. But because the winds were commonly strong everything that was not windproof blew away within days. You even learned to park into wind so your car doors weren't ripped open . In consequence the continual strong winds were annoying but seemed to have little effect. Here in Florida the average wind is not much above light and variable, a Scottish strength wind causes mayhem as structures both permanent and especially temporary are not built for it. (Although this house was built to withstand 140Kts and pass the 'Miami Dade Test' ) If you look at the current earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-100.33,29.53,423 You will see the pinprick hurricane/cyclone just East of Hawaii - and people will get all excited about the hurricane. But just South of Alaska the winds are just as strong and it is merely called ' a storm' same for the one in the mid-Atlantic just another 'depression' about to cross the UK. It is the media that get all excited about Hurricanes. 'Superstorm' (sigh) Sandy was no longer a hurricane being whipped up by convection but was a deep depression like the one South of Alaska but the politicians in the North East were more interested in Soda portion size and getting taxes from new builds close to the ocean than in building codes to withstand severe storms. Had it crossed Alaska or Scotland or even Florida nobody would have raised an eyebrow. So all that is to say that when I see 'Super' put in front of a weather description, I always judge what is being said as political. Otherwise the standard categories of weather descriptions can be used although they may not make as good headlines. Even then I still find it puzzling that hurricanes are treated with such excitement given names and counted when 'severe storm force 12" depressions and even derechios are not.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 25, 2015 10:14:41 GMT
Thank you I stand corrected. I lived in Western Scotland for several years the average wind was above 30 knots in places. The idea that people could get excited about winds of 45 knots was laughable. The storms in the western isles were called "severe storm force 12" which is as high as the Beaufort scale with qualifiers like 'severe' went. Winds were often above cat 1 hurricane force but it was just 'a little breezy out'. But because the winds were commonly strong everything that was not windproof blew away within days. You even learned to park into wind so your car doors weren't ripped open . In consequence the continual strong winds were annoying but seemed to have little effect. Here in Florida the average wind is not much above light and variable, a Scottish strength wind causes mayhem as structures both permanent and especially temporary are not built for it. (Although this house was built to withstand 140Kts and pass the 'Miami Dade Test' ) If you look at the current earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-100.33,29.53,423 You will see the pinprick hurricane/cyclone just East of Hawaii - and people will get all excited about the hurricane. But just South of Alaska the winds are just as strong and it is merely called ' a storm' same for the one in the mid-Atlantic just another 'depression' about to cross the UK. It is the media that get all excited about Hurricanes. 'Superstorm' (sigh) Sandy was no longer a hurricane being whipped up by convection but was a deep depression like the one South of Alaska but the politicians in the North East were more interested in Soda portion size and getting taxes from new builds close to the ocean than in building codes to withstand severe storms. Had it crossed Alaska or Scotland or even Florida nobody would have raised an eyebrow. So all that is to say that when I see 'Super' put in front of a weather description, I always judge what is being said as political. Otherwise the standard categories of weather descriptions can be used although they may not make as good headlines. Even then I still find it puzzling that hurricanes are treated with such excitement given names and counted when 'severe storm force 12" depressions and even derechios are not.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 25, 2015 14:54:35 GMT
Super Storm, Storm of the Century, The Perfect Storm, Strongest Ever...
Adjectives used by over saturated 24 hour news networks in search of profits. Patricia was not the "Strongest ever", Super Storm Sandy was bad but the Northeast has endured worse. The Storm of the Century wasn't and there have been multiple "Perfect Storms".
Case in point: The Weather Channel now assigns winter storms "names" if they meet certain criteria. Chiefly if they effect large populations.
Is a winter storm that dumps 6" inches of snow on Chicago really worthy of a name? I guess I would have a different outlook if was employed by The Weather Channel and my salary was dependent on advertising.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 25, 2015 14:58:23 GMT
The hype keeps on coming.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Oct 27, 2015 12:44:49 GMT
As do the " Gray Swan" events it would appear?
|
|