Hey Mike, on another substack where the proposed addition of a Cat 6 to the hurricane scale was discussed, I proposed that it might be useful to introduce a Category rating system for atmospheric rivers. The reasoning was that the category system for hurricanes was and remains based on wind speeds. However hurricane damages are primarily hydrological: storm surges, torrential rains and flood damages.
Since atmospheric rivers are also hydrological events and on a larger scale, can cause more damage, are more sustained and impact significantly large regions when they make landfall- for all those reasons it makes every sense to set up a category system for them as well. The atmospheric river that hit southern California earlier was probably a Cat 5. The one that hit us here in Oregon earlier was probably a Cat 2.
Hey Mike, on another substack where the proposed addition of a Cat 6 to the hurricane scale was discussed, I proposed that it might be useful to introduce a Category rating system for atmospheric rivers. The reasoning was that the category system for hurricanes was and remains based on wind speeds. However hurricane damages are primarily hydrological: storm surges, torrential rains and flood damages.
Since atmospheric rivers are also hydrological events and on a larger scale, can cause more damage, are more sustained and impact significantly large regions when they make landfall- for all those reasons it makes every sense to set up a category system for them as well. The atmospheric river that hit southern California earlier was probably a Cat 5. The one that hit us here in Oregon earlier was probably a Cat 2.
Thanks for Nature Beat. I look forward to receiving future editions. Bruce.Rosove@rogers.com
Thanks Bruce. I'm glad you like it.