Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: montanus
Way too high of a multiplier.

Powell & Black studies of dropsonde and bouy data suggest that 63% to 73% to be much more reasonable ratios that what is popularly promulgated. NHC has often come under criticism with their wind speed estimates. However, in the case of hurricane Mitch (1998), the wind speed profile was unique. More recent studies done by Hock & Franklin using GPS based dropwindsonde in 1999, gave the first clear cut view of eyewall wind profile (with accuracy of 15' and 1-4MPH).

See: Eye Wall wind-profiles

1,419 posted on 09/21/2005 11:55:57 AM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1358 | View Replies ]


To: raygun

If I'm reading that NHC document correctly, the .73 pertains to max winds (found at 1600 feet), with the .91 being applied to flight level winds (10,000 feet), which apparently are not max, but have been found to be typically 20 per cent lower than those found at 1600 feet. Which would explain why the NHC uses a .91 multiplier from flight level.

My experience in hurricanes is that the surface anemometers are usually destroyed at some point before greatest wind speeds can be recorded.


1,492 posted on 09/21/2005 12:17:19 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality - Miami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1419 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson