James Franklin
@franklinjamesl.bsky.social
Former Chief, Hurricane Specialist Unit, National Hurricane Center, NOAA/NWS (retired). Mostly weather posts, with occasional forays into grammar and usage, word play, and south Florida sports.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything other than “interested in”. Until now, anyway.
November 11, 2025 at 5:20 AM
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything other than “interested in”. Until now, anyway.
I said I thought the deal was a cave and I was ashamed of it. I also thought a long shutdown was foreseeable. And I believe the party and country overall would be better served without this deal at this time. Disagree? Fine. But please show me where I demanded anything of anyone.
November 10, 2025 at 3:24 AM
I said I thought the deal was a cave and I was ashamed of it. I also thought a long shutdown was foreseeable. And I believe the party and country overall would be better served without this deal at this time. Disagree? Fine. But please show me where I demanded anything of anyone.
That’s true, the ones I went through weren’t this long. On the other hand, all Feds have to know that shutdowns are a fact of life with this job, and Trump shutdowns are longer than most. Something one could readily foresee and attempt to prepare for.
November 10, 2025 at 3:01 AM
That’s true, the ones I went through weren’t this long. On the other hand, all Feds have to know that shutdowns are a fact of life with this job, and Trump shutdowns are longer than most. Something one could readily foresee and attempt to prepare for.
I was a Fed for a long time and went through many shutdowns, at various stages of my career and at different levels of financial well being. Sometimes fighting for important things involves hardship. Backpay always came, even if deferred. This was a cave and I’m ashamed of my party.
November 10, 2025 at 2:48 AM
I was a Fed for a long time and went through many shutdowns, at various stages of my career and at different levels of financial well being. Sometimes fighting for important things involves hardship. Backpay always came, even if deferred. This was a cave and I’m ashamed of my party.
Is that even possible? As I understand it, GDM intensities aren’t extracted from the members directly, but instead there’s a second training against the best track. So it’s not clear to me that there’s a realistic physical connection between the forecast structure and the final answer. \_(ツ)_/
November 9, 2025 at 2:17 AM
Is that even possible? As I understand it, GDM intensities aren’t extracted from the members directly, but instead there’s a second training against the best track. So it’s not clear to me that there’s a realistic physical connection between the forecast structure and the final answer. \_(ツ)_/
So many penalties. Sigh.
November 7, 2025 at 3:28 AM
So many penalties. Sigh.
Here's a general description of the interpolator from a recent manuscript. I don't think NHC's actual taper parameters are documented anywhere but I don't think they're exactly secret either. Let me see if there's any objection to sharing them.
November 6, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Here's a general description of the interpolator from a recent manuscript. I don't think NHC's actual taper parameters are documented anywhere but I don't think they're exactly secret either. Let me see if there's any objection to sharing them.
Very nice! Not sure if you've tried to do something similar with intensity but if so, be aware that the operational interpolator has some extra parameters that govern how long the initial offset is applied (i.e., the offset can be tapered to zero).
November 6, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Very nice! Not sure if you've tried to do something similar with intensity but if so, be aware that the operational interpolator has some extra parameters that govern how long the initial offset is applied (i.e., the offset can be tapered to zero).
Digressing slightly, I’d like to better understand why they and others think an increase of peak winds from, say, 160 to 170 kt, would produce “exponentially” more damage. Once a structure is destroyed by wind, how does adding even more wind dramatically increase damage?
November 6, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Digressing slightly, I’d like to better understand why they and others think an increase of peak winds from, say, 160 to 170 kt, would produce “exponentially” more damage. Once a structure is destroyed by wind, how does adding even more wind dramatically increase damage?
I can’t speak to the modeling behind their estimates, but the summary seems to have been written with great care and appreciation for the scope of the problem and the complexities. A good first impression for me, yes.
November 6, 2025 at 1:43 PM
I can’t speak to the modeling behind their estimates, but the summary seems to have been written with great care and appreciation for the scope of the problem and the complexities. A good first impression for me, yes.
Same. West coast trips make me unfondly recall when I was working shifts.
November 5, 2025 at 2:27 AM
Same. West coast trips make me unfondly recall when I was working shifts.
I know there are a lot of misuses of the SSHWS, but I find it tremendously helpful for our own preparation. We don't live in a surge zone, so our go/no-go decision purely follows the wind threat. If the core of a forecast 4 or 5 is coming, based on the track, we go. C3 or less, we stay.
November 3, 2025 at 9:04 PM
I know there are a lot of misuses of the SSHWS, but I find it tremendously helpful for our own preparation. We don't live in a surge zone, so our go/no-go decision purely follows the wind threat. If the core of a forecast 4 or 5 is coming, based on the track, we go. C3 or less, we stay.
As for a SSHWS Category 6, my earlier comment was that I viewed it as a marketing gimmick (for climate change). In real time, I don't see how a 6 helps anyone prepare, and potentially hinders responses to the now lower categories.
November 3, 2025 at 8:54 PM
As for a SSHWS Category 6, my earlier comment was that I viewed it as a marketing gimmick (for climate change). In real time, I don't see how a 6 helps anyone prepare, and potentially hinders responses to the now lower categories.
I was trying to argue that the SSHWS could be used to provoke a response to the wind hazard as hurricanes approach, while the EF scale had no real-time function (being assigned only afterwards). (½)
November 3, 2025 at 8:54 PM
I was trying to argue that the SSHWS could be used to provoke a response to the wind hazard as hurricanes approach, while the EF scale had no real-time function (being assigned only afterwards). (½)
I imagine that’s part of it, but as far as I know they were developed completely independently. Also, dividing up the range of possible hurricane 1-min winds and the range of tornadic gusts into 5 bins each is bound to yield different thresholds.
November 1, 2025 at 9:55 PM
I imagine that’s part of it, but as far as I know they were developed completely independently. Also, dividing up the range of possible hurricane 1-min winds and the range of tornadic gusts into 5 bins each is bound to yield different thresholds.
I’m thinking they manage to lose five of the next four.
November 1, 2025 at 9:48 PM
I’m thinking they manage to lose five of the next four.
Another difference is that the SSHWS is a preparedness tool, in that it’s a shorthand for the upcoming wind threat. EF serves no real time function since it’s only quantified after the event.
November 1, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Another difference is that the SSHWS is a preparedness tool, in that it’s a shorthand for the upcoming wind threat. EF serves no real time function since it’s only quantified after the event.
So many damn penalties.
November 1, 2025 at 7:44 PM
So many damn penalties.
Not sure I follow. SSHWS is based on 1-min mean winds and only estimates potential damage. (Actual damage not required.) EF scale, on the other hand, is a damage scale that only estimates winds (in the form of gusts). So they’re different in both purpose and duration of the winds involved.
November 1, 2025 at 6:39 PM
Not sure I follow. SSHWS is based on 1-min mean winds and only estimates potential damage. (Actual damage not required.) EF scale, on the other hand, is a damage scale that only estimates winds (in the form of gusts). So they’re different in both purpose and duration of the winds involved.
Not in the public ATCF decks in real time. Added after the season is done.
November 1, 2025 at 2:33 AM
Not in the public ATCF decks in real time. Added after the season is done.
Michael, it's questions like this that make me wish I was still getting paid to do stuff like this. ;-)
I'll take a look and report back.
I'll take a look and report back.
October 31, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Michael, it's questions like this that make me wish I was still getting paid to do stuff like this. ;-)
I'll take a look and report back.
I'll take a look and report back.
And a puzzler - why is the GFS deterministic run so much worse than the GFS ensemble mean (AEMI)? I don't think I'm used to seeing that kind of discrepancy.
October 31, 2025 at 5:08 PM
And a puzzler - why is the GFS deterministic run so much worse than the GFS ensemble mean (AEMI)? I don't think I'm used to seeing that kind of discrepancy.
Another thing that's gratifying to me is to see HCCA (the corrected consensus based on past model trends) beating IVCN and TVCN. I worked on the fringes of that effort for many years and pleased to see HCCA adding value. HFIP supported that work.
October 31, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Another thing that's gratifying to me is to see HCCA (the corrected consensus based on past model trends) beating IVCN and TVCN. I worked on the fringes of that effort for many years and pleased to see HCCA adding value. HFIP supported that work.