Cyclone Center Talk

Other scene types??

  • fezzik by fezzik

    After looking at a few storms, aren't there other scene types (besides curved, eye, embedded and shear)? Why only those four listed? I've seen some that appear to be none of the above (such as the first image in Linda). If you could name/describe a new scene type, what would it be?

    Posted

  • Struck by Struck moderator, translator

    A good question, but I think the options to categorize or to classify a storm-picture are efficient enough to follow the really good intention of 'Cyclone Center'.

    These options can describe every element and every feature of a storm in a significant way.
    In addition to this we have to choose always an example image of each category, so at the moment I think, we have a good way to describe these kinds of storms.

    In my point of view, maybe more example images could be useful, too, or an other option, called 'No answer/Can not identify' could be realistic.

    Posted

  • rainmanhi by rainmanhi in response to Struck's comment.

    Struck
    A good question, but I think the options to categorize or to classify a storm-picture are efficient enough to follow the really good intention of 'Cyclone Center'.
    These options can describe every element and every feature of a storm in a significant way.
    In addition to this we have to choose always an example image of each category, so at the moment I think, we have a good way to describe these kinds of storms.
    In my point of view, maybe more example images could be useful, too, or an other option, called 'No answer/Can not identify' could be realistic.

    In addition, the Dvorak technique only includes these 4 types. If you expand to other scene types, you'll run into problems correlating an intensity (i.e. new scene = ?? kts). There are limitations in the Dvorak technique when you encounter "hybrids" such as monsoon depressions in the west Pac and subtropical cyclones which often have much less central deep convection and more active peripheral banding features.

    Posted

  • cch001 by cch001 scientist

    Fezzik, rainmanhi provides a good answer to your question. Early in storm lifecycles you will always find images that are "other/no storm", which meteorologists term "too weak to classify". In the first image of Linda you presented, there looks like enough organization to categorize it into a scene type. But as you noted, it is difficult to choose which one (#embedded-center? #curved-band?). Typically you will find that the intensity that comes out of your choices will be very close regardless of the scene type that you eventually decide on (at least in the early stages of storm development). However there could be problems if you mistakenly identify an "#eye-storm" rather than an embedded center, for example. Then you may end up with a much stronger storm than it really is.

    Thanks for the questions and I hope you keep finding good examples!

    Posted

  • Casna51 by Casna51

    I've read the above but I still wonder- can the same storm have different #scene types at different stages of its life.? Sometimes I end up designating 3 #scenes for different pictures of the same storm.

    Posted

  • fezzik by fezzik

    Hi casna51
    You're right. As the storms develop, they will transition from one scene type to another (for example from curved bands to eyes). You could likely use all scene types on a storm depending which images you see.

    I was just asking are there other possible scene types. How about: multiple cores (where a few strong cold tops exist)? or split bands (where you have two big curved bands instead of one)? or sea star (with a nod to seafloorexplorer) where there are 4-5 small bands spiraling in? others? the science team seems to have stuck with the Dvorak types, but what can us citizen scientists come up with?

    Posted

  • jjrennie by jjrennie moderator

    It is a very interesting question. Because Dvorak only uses the 4 classifications (eye, embedded-center, shear, curved-band), we are sticking with those for now. However, this is one of the reasons why we let users share pictures and discuss. It can bring up great debates, as well as great finds.

    Who knows, down the road we may be able to distinguish new classifications, but we are nowhere near that yet!

    Posted

  • cch001 by cch001 scientist

    Fezzik, it would be very interesting and useful to catalog different scene types and gather as much additional information about the storms as possible (e.g. size), even if they are not part of the Dvorak technique. We thought hard about asking additional questions of classifiers for this very purpose, but it was ultimately decided to stick with the main goal of the project - to be able to get good intensity estimates.

    Of course we encourage you to catalog and organize all of the interesting images that you find - you never know when you will come across something that has not been seen before or that could lead to other areas of research. If you want to organize them by scene types that you come up with, please do. We would love to see and examine them. Happy classifying! -Chris

    Posted

  • shocko61 by shocko61

    Hi everyone , casna51 I classify many storms like that 2 or 3 types in one storm sometimes only one but if the image is ,say, embedded , or shear or any type , that is all you can do . But I am not an expert I learned from being in the weather all day and looking very closely at the weather patterns around me . Ian shocko61

    Posted