In article ,
Mike1 wrote:
Anyone have a source? Was it at flight-level, or a surface-extrapolated
number from an even higher gust at flight-level?

It was a wind from a GPS dropwindsonde, an actual measurement.

I'll use this opportunity to again suggest that tropical system reports
include maximum gust-encountered wind speeds along with MSW speeds,
since it is the gusts which do the majority of the wind-caused
structural damage. As force exerted by wind increases by the square of
wind-speed, a 237mph gust would exert over twice the force upon a
structure as 160mph winds. A strong building that might stand up all day
creaking and groaning at 160 could be destroyed in seconds by 200+.

The wind was well above the surface and would not have been felt at the
surface. NHC forecast advisories already include gusts.

Insufficiently-informative MSW-labeling schemes lead to goofy
revisionist business like a burst-phasing hurricane Andrew being altered
after the fact to a cat5 due to extreme gusts well in excess of the cat4
145MSW at landfall causing catastrophic damage.

Andrew was revised upward to a category 5 based on maximum sustained
winds. The category only depends upon sustained winds, not gusts.
--
Guns were not for girls. They were for boys. They were invented by
boys. They were invented by boys who had never gotten over their
disappointment that accompanying their own orgasm wasn't a big BOOM
sound. Lorrie Moore

(Sim Aberson) wrote:

NHC forecast advisories already include gusts.


Given my sampling of public (esp. televised) update statements, I'd say
that not enough effort is being made to promote gusts as an important
piece of information.


Insufficiently-informative MSW-labeling schemes lead to goofy
revisionist business like a burst-phasing hurricane Andrew being altered
after the fact to a cat5 due to extreme gusts well in excess of the cat4
145MSW at landfall causing catastrophic damage.

Andrew was revised upward to a category 5 based on maximum sustained
winds.


Measured by what, when? If the info was of a timely nature, you'd figure
the upgraded classification would have made the news while the storm was
still winding toward Louisianna, yet I recall nothing of the sort.

(Have MSW time-duration requirements softened, such than winds formerly
classified as gusts are now labeled MSWs?)

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

In article ,
Mike1 wrote:
(Sim Aberson) wrote:
NHC forecast advisories already include gusts.

Given my sampling of public (esp. televised) update statements, I'd say
that not enough effort is being made to promote gusts as an important
piece of information.

You should contact your local media to include this information.

Insufficiently-informative MSW-labeling schemes lead to goofy
revisionist business like a burst-phasing hurricane Andrew being altered
after the fact to a cat5 due to extreme gusts well in excess of the cat4
145MSW at landfall causing catastrophic damage.

Andrew was revised upward to a category 5 based on maximum sustained
winds.

Measured by what, when? If the info was of a timely nature, you'd figure
the upgraded classification would have made the news while the storm was
still winding toward Louisianna, yet I recall nothing of the sort.

Since 1992, we have developed the GPS dropwindsonde that measures winds
in the strongest part of the hurricane - the eyewall. We never
previously had that capability. We also now have the SFMR, stepped
frequency microwave radiometer, that also measures surface winds on
research aircraft. With these two new instruments, we are able to
estimate surface winds from flight level winds of past storms far better
than we could before. Given the new knowledge, it became clear that
Andrew was a category 5 hurricane instead of category 4 as previously
found. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/clanalysis.html

Other storms are also being reassessed.

(Have MSW time-duration requirements softened, such than winds formerly
classified as gusts are now labeled MSWs?)

Nope. Sustained winds are (and have been) defined as one-minute mean
winds at 10 m above the surface.
--
Guns were not for girls. They were for boys. They were invented by
boys. They were invented by boys who had never gotten over their
disappointment that accompanying their own orgasm wasn't a big BOOM
sound. Lorrie Moore

In article ,
Scott Lindstrom wrote:
Sim Aberson wrote:
[snip stuff about reassessment]

Other storms are also being reassessed.

Have any storms been reassessed downwards in intensity?

Yes. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/project2003/hurdat.html
--
Guns were not for girls. They were for boys. They were invented by
boys. They were invented by boys who had never gotten over their
disappointment that accompanying their own orgasm wasn't a big BOOM
sound. Lorrie Moore

Sim Aberson wrote:
In article ,
Scott Lindstrom wrote:

Sim Aberson wrote:
[snip stuff about reassessment]

Other storms are also being reassessed.

Have any storms been reassessed downwards in intensity?


Yes. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/project2003/hurdat.html

I sent off my question before I completely formulated it.
What I should have asked was:

Have any storms been reassessed downwards in intensity
based on actual reanalysis of data from the GPS dropwindsonde
and/or the SFMR. Or, are relationships derived from
observations taken by these instruments in storm A
used to re-estimate winds in storm B. I mean, there
weren't these new dropwindsonde data in '92 -- so
is it "just" (I'm not overlooking the tremendous
amount of work done) a matter of reanalysing the
old data based on the new relationships found with
the new instruments? Did I read through the links
in the above link correctly? So it's not like new
data has been found the old storms like Andrew,
right?

Scott, maybe confused

In article ,
Scott Lindstrom wrote:
Have any storms been reassessed downwards in intensity
based on actual reanalysis of data from the GPS dropwindsonde
and/or the SFMR.

Yes. The operational intensities are reassessed after the season to
make the best track, what is in the hurdat data base. NHC gets the
dropwindsonde and SFMR data in real time now, but post-processing of the
data can reveal new information that causes the intensity to be raised
or lowered. It is probably just as often that intensities get raised as
lowered in the post-processing.

Or, are relationships derived from
observations taken by these instruments in storm A
used to re-estimate winds in storm B. I mean, there
weren't these new dropwindsonde data in '92 -- so
is it "just" (I'm not overlooking the tremendous
amount of work done) a matter of reanalysing the
old data based on the new relationships found with
the new instruments? Did I read through the links
in the above link correctly? So it's not like new
data has been found the old storms like Andrew,
right?

Right, no new data, just a reanalysis of the old data.
--
Guns were not for girls. They were for boys. They were invented by
boys. They were invented by boys who had never gotten over their
disappointment that accompanying their own orgasm wasn't a big BOOM
sound. Lorrie Moore

(Sim Aberson) wrote:

Given my sampling of public (esp. televised) update statements, I'd say
that not enough effort is being made to promote gusts as an important
piece of information.

You should contact your local media to include this information.


guffaw

When Isabel makes it past Lock & Dam #7 on the Mississippi, I'll be sure
to get on the line to the idiots at Channel 4 in Minneapolis.

In the meantime, the government agencies involved should be doing that
on a national basis, because I'm not seeing peak-gusts reported in the
regular updates from the big-4 and TWC.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce