There have been many proposed changes/additions to the scales used to classify the intensity of tropical cyclones. Here's one brief article on the subject: AGU articleWe should always be open to revisiting classification schemes - I'm thinking about how the F-scale morphed into the EF for tornadoes.
I guess for wind alone, perhaps it might be useful to add an extra level...on the other hand, focusing on trying to define a scheme whereby the overall 'potential' for a tropical system to cause damage, or death, might be useful. For instance, many deaths from hurricanes/typhoons are from flooding, either from the rain, or surge...trying to incorporate these into a scale would be of use, especially when trying to communicate the risks, so that folks get away from the 'Oh, it's only a Cat 1, so it'll be fine', ahead of 35-45 inches of rain falling and giving catastrophic flooding.
I am not sure it is a "false narrative" with regard to hurricanes, especially with regard to their impact. With warmer oceans the frequency of strong storms may well be increasing, and certainly with higher sea levels and with an increased frequency of slow-moving storms (including Dorian, as mentioned above), the impact is increasing. Now I have no idea what the motivation might be behind the suggestion to add another category; it doesn't make much sense to me for the reasons others have mentioned. What I am reacting to here is the attempt to claim that the idea that global warming is influencing storms and their consequences is a "false narrative."I wonder of any of this is designed to bolster the idea of Global Warming? That is, storms (including tornadoes) are becoming stronger, which is a false narrative. Not that Jeff Masters is promoting this, but he's not the first to suggest raising storm rankings.
Totally agree and great points!Certainly an interesting discussion.
I could see some point in adding another level. (but then say you did add a 6 (and maybe 7 as the article mentioned) where do you stop, say for example all conditions were exactly perfect...and you got an extreme storm, well beyond those, and the likes of which has never been seen? Do you then add an 8 for such a beast? (something that would likely never happen again))
I think the biggest thing would be as others have mentioned...the public would start going "This one is only a Cat-4" I'm not going to worry about anything less than a 5 or 6.
I think in the case of Dorian you absolutely have to take into account that it parked there for a full day.
I know Tornadoes and the EF scale can't be directly compared to a hurricane(since its a damage scale, not simply a wind scale), but say you got a long lasting one not exceeding "EF4-level wind", and it moved at very minimal speed across a town, there's going to a whole lot less left of the place than if it whips through. Maybe even bad enough that it'd end up rated an EF5.
See the item linked below. Pretty much supports what I said, which was that the frequency of strong hurricanes MAY be increasing, and that the impact of tropical systems is increasing because of higher sea levels. And it is pretty clear that we have had a number of slower moving storms recently, which may be explained in part by a northward shift in the jet stream, resulting in weaker steering currents in the some of the areas where tropical storms occur, resulting in a greater propensity for the storms to stall. And I do not see how accusing people of "3rd grade insults" contributes to a useful conversation.Please post records showing there are more intense hurricanes. There have always been very strong hurricanes but most do not make contact with land. Nor is there direct evidence tornadoes are increasing in intensity. You might want to look up the terms "cap," "drought," and study the effects of dust coming off the western coast of Africa during the hurricane season, which could also relate to "global warning" and would have negative effects on severe weather as well. Again, post the actual data before making 3rd. grade, insults.