4.7 Article

A Rapid Intensification Warning Index for Tropical Cyclones Based on the Analog Method

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022GL101951

关键词

analog forecasting; warning index; tropical cyclone; rapid intensification; Northern Atlantic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a rapid intensification warning index (RIWI) based on the analog method is developed using information from the early period following TC formation. The potential application of RIWI is verified through a 10-year cross-validation and data from Hurricane Ida (2021). Results show that RIWI can efficiently discriminate between RI and non-RI storms and has a significant positive correlation with the lifetime maximum intensity (LMI) of the TCs. By using this index, an early warning can be issued similar to 30 hr before the onset of RI, which is much earlier than the predictions made using the probabilistic Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction System RI index. In addition, by using the RIWI as a predictor, the prediction of LMI provides an early estimate of TC severity.
Prediction of the rapid intensification (RI) of tropical cyclones (TCs) remains challenging. In this paper, by using information from the early period following TC formation, the rapid intensification warning index (RIWI) is developed based on the analog method. A 10-year cross-validation and data from Hurricane Ida (2021) are used to verify its potential application. Results show that the RIWI can efficiently discriminate between RI and non-RI storms and has a significant positive correlation with the lifetime maximum intensity (LMI) of the TCs. By using this index, an early warning can be issued similar to 30 hr before the onset of RI, which is much earlier than the predictions made using the probabilistic Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction System RI index. In addition, by using the RIWI as a predictor, the prediction of LMI provides an early estimate of TC severity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据