Reply
Veerasamy has made several comments concerning the results and methods presented in a recent article by the authors titled “Reexamination of Tropical Cyclone Wind–Pressure Relationships. ” One comment concerns the terminology and definition of the environmental pressure. Another comment suggests the...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2007
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.669.9907 http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/resources/docs/Knaff%26Zehr2008.pdf |
| Summary: | Veerasamy has made several comments concerning the results and methods presented in a recent article by the authors titled “Reexamination of Tropical Cyclone Wind–Pressure Relationships. ” One comment concerns the terminology and definition of the environmental pressure. Another comment suggests the merits of a simpler approach developed by Veerasamy in 2005 that utilizes the radius of 1004 hPa to determine the “proper ” wind–pressure relationship. The third comment concerns the performance of the Knaff and Zehr wind–pressure relationship [their Eq. (7)] during the well-observed North Atlantic Hurri-canes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma during 2005. The final comment suggests that the techniques discussed in Knaff and Zehr are more difficult to apply than an operational method developed by Veerasamy and used in Mauritius. These comments are addressed individually along with some of the lessons learned since the publication of the Knaff and Zehr methodology that are important to the tropical cyclone community. 1. |
|---|