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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
Give it time. Change can not be immediate but let’s see how it goes
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.
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.
