I guess that the old Beaufort Scale might be better than SSHS due to the research results indicate that many weak TCs by SSHS  can cause many people die.

 But if the maximum sustaining wind is still used according to the old Beaufort Scale , the OGP still existed.  The key problem is that we must look for a quantity cover more area of a TC. I proposed a most direct impact area (MDIA) can solve the problem, but many editors and reviewers in USA are not willing to accept the facts: MDIA is better.

Due to most of my papers were published in Chinese, and due to I don't agree with global warming hypothesis, which previous president of China supported,

Chinese leading scientists and editors refuse me to publish my papers in high level quality journals in China

Dear Kenneth M Towe,

          Just now, I check back your question carefully and finally understand what you want to ask for is you don't know what Coching Chu talked about the old Beaufort Scale, and you consider that Chu said that old Beaufort Scale is not good? right?

     In my view, the meaning of Chu is that people define typhoons with too critical standard   is not necessary. At his early time in 1924, people use the he old Beaufort Scale to define a typhoon which its wind should be stronger than 12 class in Beaufort Scale.Chu considered this is wrong, a typhoon is a kind of weather system which has their similar feature and  structure: typhoon eye,warm core and occuring over ocean. Chu noticed that there were many typhoons which the value of the wind band arround the typhoon eye  were less than the strict standard as 12 class in Beaufort Scale.

     The reason is similar to what we define a human being:  a man who is short as 1.5 meter, can we said he is not a human?

     So the recent  naming system for typhoons is very stupid according to SSHS.

Since SSHS is even not reliable to define the intensity due to OGP problem, in Asia,

they say some weak typhoon is not a typhoon according to SSHS, it is a depresion. This kind way of definition of a typhoon is wrong and very stupid.

Tan... Maybe a stupid question, but what's wrong with the old Beaufort Scale?

 In science, if we want to investigate any scientific problem, major influence factors should be given more priority to be investigated. However, only one field is an exception: that is global climate warming. Many scientists ignore the major climate influence factors and consider greenhouse effect  due to human reasons to be the main reason , although they knew it is much smaller than the major climate factors.

     Their logic is that the recent unusual trend of land surface temperature is non-periodic, major periodic factors only cause periodic changes.

     Recently, after more than a half year's effort, we prove that the monthly anomaly of global land surface temperature can be fitted perfectly by a group of periodic functions, the verification results indicate that the correlated coefficients of more than 15,000 periodic functions are all more than 0.9.(Last year, I mentioned I found a function which its the correlated coefficient is 0.8)

    I send the paper to one of the toppest IF magazines, the editor said" we know  your reseach result is absolutely right,but many people already believe in this view, thousands of papers have already published , so we have to reject your paper. And we also tell you that  no magazine is willing to publish your paper".

    One anonymous email is send to me with the following word :

         "Birth is much, but breeding is more."

 In science, if we want to investigate any scientific problem, major influence factors should be given more priority to be investigated. However, only one field is an exception: that is global climate warming. Many scientists ignore the major climate influence factors and consider greenhouse effect  due to human reasons to be the main reason , although they knew it is much smaller than the major climate factors.

     Their logic is that the recent unusual trend of land surface temperature is non-periodic, major periodic factors only cause periodic changes.

     Recently, after more than a half year's effort, we prove that the monthly anomaly of global land surface temperature can be fitted perfectly by a group of periodic functions, the verification results indicate that the correlated coefficients of more than 15,000 periodic functions are all more than 0.9.(Last year, I mentioned I found a function which its the correlated coefficient is 0.8)

    I send the paper to one of the toppest IF magazines, the editor said" we know  your reseach result is absolutely right,but many people already believe in this view, thousands of papers have already published , so we have to reject your paper. And we also tell you that  no magazine is willing to publish your paper".

    One anonymous email is send to me with the following word :

         "Birth is much, but breeding is more."