U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather > Hurricanes
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-10-2019, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Near the Coast SWCT
73,296 posts, read 56,762,409 times
Reputation: 12869

Advertisements

A 6 point scale.

The scale uses the Saffir Simpson 5-point scale, but also adds an additional rating of "Less than 1" to categorize storms which are still destructive.

https://twitter.com/capitalweather/s...29874600615937
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2019, 02:58 PM
 
2,484 posts, read 806,375 times
Reputation: 3457
All about " Climate Change " A Cat - 5 is not bad enough, we need a Cat -6. Snow will not be measured in inches but centimeters to get larger numbers..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2019, 04:54 PM
 
384 posts, read 155,788 times
Reputation: 565
Is a Category 6 addition really necessary? The only storms I can remember offhand that were Cat 5's at landfall were Andrew in 1992, Camille in 1969, and the Lake Okeechobee Hurricane in 1928. As devastating as Katrina was (possibly the worst in my generation) it was a strong Category 4 at landfall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 07:13 PM
 
4,330 posts, read 2,192,496 times
Reputation: 1586
6-point scale but that's <1, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in AccuWeather's scale based on multiple factors (not just wind as Saffir-Simpson is). No need for a current Saffir-Simpson scale Cat6 imo as when you reach Cat5 it really doesn't matter but tornado ratings have higher wind scales so that's probably the only arguable point to one.

Although several have reached briefly to a Cat5, only 3 have been known to hit the US at a 5 rating: 1935 Labor Day Hurricane (FL Keys), Camille 1969 (Mississippi) and Andrew 1992 (S FL). Although the Lake Okeechobee hurricane was rated as a 5 at one point its believed to have hit S FL as a Cat4. Katrina made landfall as a Cat3 LA/MS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 07:32 PM
 
Location: USA
1,600 posts, read 787,555 times
Reputation: 1512
Accuweather scale has merit. It will take time to sink in for it to gain traction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 07:56 PM
 
4,330 posts, read 2,192,496 times
Reputation: 1586
I think AccuWeather's scale is both good and bad.

Good in that we can finally get more traction instead of just talk to get away from the current official Saffir-Simpson scale (Rates hurricanes from 1 to 5 based on wind speed at one specific point alone in a storm that's hundreds of miles across with multiple other hazards that are historically more deadly then just the wind).

Potentially bad in that now with two scales floating around does the public get confused...ie: oh its a 5, wait its a 2 its weakening, or wait its not, what? etc. and also is it worse of a rating based on if hitting a larger population versus smaller one...so if large city rated higher on scale but if small coastal few homes it rates low and no one leaves when they should have due to misleading rating perhaps? Some of this can be cleared up in how their system works more and communication but two scales means confusion will enter at some degree at some point.

There's been talk of switching to some other scale that better defines the hazards for several years, mainly with systems that combine potential hazard ratings into a new rating or break it up into each hazard having its own rating, but past talk and suggestions no one has really tried to push forward in the bigger weather sector until now. Some have argued ditch the current Category system and just focus on impacts instead of any ratings.

In the end it still boils down to communicating risk and education, especially on the variety of impacts hurricanes bring, preferably on a what does it all mean for me here level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Near the Coast SWCT
73,296 posts, read 56,762,409 times
Reputation: 12869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychoma View Post

Potentially bad in that now with two scales floating around does the public get confused....
I believe unless the public is watching Accuweather on DirecTV most forecasts including through media and news stations will be through NHC. So the scale we're familiar with.

Kinda interesting how we have companies fighting to make themselves known more.

TWC naming winter storms
Accuweather with new hurricane scale and now on a network with big Satellite company.

Maybe one day one of them will take over NWS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 08:55 PM
 
Location: USA
1,600 posts, read 787,555 times
Reputation: 1512
Give it time. Change can not be immediate but let’s see how it goes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather > Hurricanes
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top