Nineteen Atlantic tropical storms 3 consecutive years: a very rare event
The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season closes this Friday with another top-five tally for named storms--nineteen. This is the third consecutive year with nineteen named storms in the Atlantic, which is a remarkable level of activity for a three-year period. The closest comparable three-year period of activity occurred during 2003 - 2004 - 2005, when each season had fifteen-plus named storms. Since 1851, only two seasons--2005 (28 named storms) and 1933 (20 named storms)--have been busier than 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Figure 1. Preliminary tracks of the nineteen named storms from 2012. Image credit: National Hurricane Center.
How rare are 3 consecutive top-five hurricane seasons for named storms?
It is tremendously rare to get three consecutive top-five years in a database with a 162-year record. This would occur randomly just once every 34,000 years--assuming the database were unbiased, the climate were not changing, and a multi-year climate pattern favorable for active seasons were not present. However the database IS biased, the climate IS changing, and we have been in an active hurricane period that began in 1995. So, which of these factors may be responsible for recording three consecutive years with nineteen named storms? It is well-known that prior to the arrival of geostationary satellites in December 1966 and aircraft hurricane reconnaissance in 1945 that tropical storms in the Atlantic were under-counted. Landsea et al. (2004) theorized that we missed up to six named storms per year between 1851 - 1885, and up to four between 1886 - 1910. Landsea (2007) estimated the under-count to be 3.2 named storms per year between 1900 - 1965, and 1.0 per year between 1966 - 2002. Other studies have argued for lower under-counts. So, if we assume the highest under-counts estimated by Landsea et al. (2004) and Landsea (2007), here would be the top ten busiest Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1851:
2005: 28
1887: 25
1933: 23
1995: 20
2012, 2011, 2010, 1969, 1936: 19
So, 2012, 2011, and 2010 would still rank as top-five busiest seasons since 1851, but the odds of having three consecutive seasons with nineteen named storms would drop from a 1-in-34,000 year event to "only" a 1-in-5800 year event. More recently, Landsea et al. (2010) showed that the increasing trend in North Atlantic tropical storm frequency over the past 140 years was largely due to the increasing trend in short‐lived storms (storms lasting 2 days or less, called “shorties”), after the 1940s (Figure 2, top). They did not detect a significant increasing trend in medium‐ to long‐lived storms lasting more than 2 days. They wrote that “while it is possible that the recorded increase in short‐duration TCs [tropical cyclones] represents a real climate signal, we consider it is more plausible that the increase arises primarily from improvements in the quantity and quality of the observations, along with enhanced interpretation techniques.” Villarini et al. (2011), in a paper titled, "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", agreed. They attempted to correlate increases in tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures in recent decades to the increase in short-lived Atlantic tropical storms, and were unable to do so. They wrote: using statistical methods combined with the current understanding of the physical processes, we are unable to find support for the hypothesis that the century‐scale record of short‐lived tropical cyclones in the Atlantic contains a detectable real climate signal. Therefore, we interpret the long‐term secular increase in short‐duration North Atlantic tropical storms as likely to be substantially inflated by observing system changes over time. These results strongly suggest that studies examining the frequency of North Atlantic tropical storms over the historical era (between the 19th century and present) should focus on storms of duration greater than about 2 days. So, let's do that. If we look during the past three hurricane seasons at how many "shorties" were observed, we see that a large number that stayed at tropical storm strength for two days or less: six storms in 2010, six in 2011, and seven in 2012. This leaves the hurricane seasons of 2010, 2011, and 2012 with twelve to thirteen tropical storms that lasted more than two days. This doesn't stand out that much when looking at trends since 1878 (Figure 2, bottom); there are now 25 years in the 135-year record with twelve or more long-lived tropical cyclones. However, there are no previous occurrences of three consecutive years with at least twelve long-lived tropical storms, so 2010, 2011, and 2012 still represent an unprecedented level of tropical storm activity in the historical record, and we would expect such an event to occur randomly about once every 157 years. That's a pretty rare event, and it is possible that climate change, combined with the fact we are in an active hurricane period that began in 1995, contributed to this rare event.
Figure 2. Atlantic tropical cyclones between 1878 - 2012 that spent two days or less at tropical storm strength (top) and more than two days at tropical storm strength or hurricane strength (bottom.) Figure updated from Villarini, G., G. A. Vecchi, T. R. Knutson, and J. A. Smith (2011), "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", J. Geophys. Res., 116, D10114, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493.
References
Landsea, C. W., C. Anderson, N. Charles, G. Clark, J. Dunion, J. Fernandez‐Partagas, P. Hungerford, C. Neumann, and M. Zimmer (2004), "The Atlantic hurricane database re‐analysis project: Documentation for 1851–1910 alterations and additions to the HURDAT database," in Hurricanes and Typhoons ‐ Past, Present, and Future, edited by R. J. Murnane and K. B. Liu, pp. 178–221, Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
Landsea, C. W., (2007), "Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1900," Eos, 88(18), 197-202.
Villarini, G., G. A. Vecchi, T. R. Knutson, and J. A. Smith (2011), "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", J. Geophys. Res., 116, D10114, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index
See, this is why people get angry. Three statements, and every one of them a fabrication. They just go on like this incessantly, and there's no let up from them, no matter how many times their false claims are refuted.
Most 'hockey stick' graphs I've seen, and there are many by different research groups, show the Medieval Wam Period clearly.
The UEA Climate Research Group was completely exonerated by an independent panel of scientists from outside the field of climatology.
No one claims that all sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
But they'll be back tomorrow with the same nonsense.
Help me with the over hype on ocean ph...
A preschooler can take a piece of litmus paper check the ph on on a glass of ice water then blow some CO2 through a straw a while & then check it again & see it get more acid. You can do this in a way more controlled way with a tank of CO2 & even compare how colder water will hold more CO2 & turn more acidic compared to warmer water when all other conditions are the same.
What NOAA presented to Congress in 2009 was disturbing enough. Snail shells are already being dissolved at much higher rates than predicted near the poles. Acidity in oceans is already a Bad trip for Washington's economy..
And now like the Arctic sea ice models it's apparent we didn't predict it fast enough..
ABSTRACT Nearshore waters of the California Current System (California CS) already today have a low carbonate saturation state, making them particularly susceptible to ocean acidification. Here, we use eddy-resolving model simulations to study the potential development of ocean acidification in this system up to 2050 under the SRES A2 and B1 scenarios. In both scenarios, the saturation state of aragonite %u03A9arag is projected to drop rapidly, with much of the nearshore regions developing summer-long undersaturation in the top 60 m within the next 30 years. By the year 2050, waters with %u03A9arag above 1.5 have largely disappeared and more than half of the waters are undersaturated year-round. Habitats along the seafloor become exposed to year-round undersaturation within the next 20 to 30 years. This has potentially major implications for the rich and diverse ecosystem that characterizes the California CS.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-06-ocean-ph-falling-rapi dly.html#jCp
A H & O3 morning tune..named Corona.
The especially silly thing is that ClimateGate doesn't even address the actual data-- the only thing the batch of out-of-context statements from the emails does is impugn some scientists and demonstrate that they're not always gentle and nice; in fact, some of them have enormous egos. That's completely irrelevant to whether or not the globe is warming due to anthropogenic carbon emissions. If photos surfaced tomorrow that prove that Phil Jones propositions nuns and kicks puppies, that doesn't touch the actual data. Even if Al Gore is insufferable, it doesn't touch the data.
As far as the Medieval Warming Period goes, it doesn't help, since temperature records and proxies demonstrate that it was a regional, not global, warming event.
yeah, well nobody's proved him wrong yet, either.
kind of hard to when he dodges a debate...
That's just one of the ways the CO2 "goes away" ... by damaging marine ecosystems.
Think of your liver processing excessive amounts of alcohol. The alcohol goes away at the expense of your health.
That's the fast part of the CO2 "going away".
"Dissolution into ocean water sequesters 70-80% of the CO2 release on a time scale of several hundred years. Chemical neutralization of CO2 by reaction with CaCO3 on the sea floor accounts for another 9-15% decrease in the atmospheric concentration on a time scale of 5.5-6.8 kyr."
I was talking about Greenland and sea level rise. And it is on this subject that I would expect a response.
But thank you for the whole nine yards.
upwelling of water due to increase of storms...happens in an active cycle.. i can agree with that...
"Snail shells are already being dissolved at much higher rates than predicted near the poles. Acidity in oceans is already a Bad trip for Washington's economy.."
With the increased amount of CO" in the atmosphere, along with increased atmospheric temps the additional rainfall caused by the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water will eventually inevitable result in more acidic rain.
As most of the acidic rain will either acidify the land or seas which it falls on, the the result must be a more acidic world.
It is from an academic point of view not too important whether its the snails in the sea or the ground which their cousins slither on that is on the receiving end of all this, the academic conclusion must be that there is a problem with the basic ecosystem and that CO2 is causing it. I'm sure that as it becomes known that the acid rain is eating the concrete of buildings, then the general background society will probably take a lot more notice of it but by then as probably in fact now it will be too late.
Now on to the SEC Championship
Looks like great weather in the Atlanta Area:
GO DAWGS!
SO2 is a much more important cause of acid rain.
Edit: and NOx's. Wikiwonderland:
"Acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acids. Governments have made efforts since the 1970s to reduce the release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere with positive results. Nitrogen oxides can also be produced naturally by lightning strikes and sulfur dioxide is produced by volcanic eruptions. The chemicals in acid rain can cause paint to peel, corrosion of steel structures such as bridges, and erosion of stone statues."
Right on. Yeah hopefully you guys will get some snow this winter out there in WI. My mom grew up in Milwaukee/Waukesha area so I always loved the times around the holidays visiting the grandparents and all the snow. We're back up into the low 80s this weekend here in Austin. No snowmen to be built here :)
I agree, though it does give the propagandists a way to divert attention from the real, long-term problems we face. Something some of our bloggers should consider.
Sort of related to your comment.
Where I work we collect the rainwater from the roofs of the buildings as there is no mains water supply, as in fact there isnt in many parts of the world.
Over the last 2 years I have noted that the collected water from the tanks causes quite a lot of lime scale. We collect about 50,000liters/12,000 gallons per year.
As the rainwater is just H2O water then where does the limescale come from?
The roofs of the building which collect the water are made from ceramic tiles and cement of good quality at a bout 4 to 1 mix, so its very hard, its not washing away.
My theory is that the rainwater is dissolving the cement and transporting it in liquid solution form to the holding tanks.
All pipes are made from seamless extruded plastic and we do not add anything to the water, either chemical or otherwise.
I remember form collage a long time ago that rainwater is sometimes called " carbonic acid" which is water with CO2 dissolved in it and the only conclusion I from a layman's/builders point of view can make is that the carbonic acid is eating the cement and concrete.
I will be the first to admit that Neapolitan can be a bit abrasive in his delivery of the science. The science is sound and many choose to attack the messenger instead of the message that the science brings us. That is fair in a popularity contest, but the science is not based on how popular it will be received.
There are those that will claim that they present their "evidence" and then bemoan the fact that the "evidence" has already been "debunked" many times and by more than just a few that actually know the science behind the discussion. This only becomes a frustration to both sides of the science and abrasive conversations will ensue from there. ... Such is human nature.
Let us end the haggling back and forth between us. Those that are skeptics of the science should present the science that calls into question the theory being discussed. There must be a scientific reason for the skepticism or it only becomes a denial based argument. Those that deny the science need to disprove the science behind the scientific theory. I would be the first to rejoice that the AGWT has been proven to be an invalid scientific theory!
Here is where the denial industry must concentrate its efforts to have their "evidence" validated by the scientific community:
1. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Physics.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
2. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Thermodynamics.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
3. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Chemistry.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
4. Show how CO2 does not behave as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
5. Show how anthropogenic CO2 emissions' chemical properties prevents these CO2 emissions from behaving as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
6. Show how mankind's activities are not emitting tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
7. Show how mankind's activities have not destroyed a meaningful portion of the natural carbon sinks. Meaningful in the sense that the natural carbon sinks cannot sequester the carbon we emit at a rate that would compensate for the CO2 we emit.
Only one of these tests needs to be satisfied to show that our actions are not adding any degree of significance to the current climate warming trends we are witnessing today. Unless you can accomplish at least one of these tests, then you are simply in denial for reasons well beyond the scientific reasons. You may satisfy your egos this way, but it does not satisfy the science behind the AGWT.
This post may sound abrasive to a few, but how many times does it need to be said that the stove is hot before you quit trying to touch the stove? After a while, the conversation just becomes frustrating to all involved.
Disprove the AGWT or quit complaining that you cannot and taking it out on the others that do understand the science behind it. Really, it is that simple. Disprove the theory, develop a better theory or quit complaining that the theory itself best explains the warming trends we are witnessing.
...The graphic in post 782 is not particularly relevant to the current discussion because is comparing two different physical quantities on incorrect timescales.
The hidden claim made by posting that graph is that monthly temperature anomalies should respond in a linear way to linear changes to climate forcings, and those changes will both occur and be noticeable on monthly timestep data. The second hidden claim is that because the first claim does not appear to be occurring (through visual "eye-balling"), the conclusion should be that CO2 is not changing climate. Climate does not behave this way. At all. If you know anything about climate, you would know this.
To do a proper comparison for relevant discussion, the temperature anomaly data should - at a minimum - be averaged over 5yr or 10yr time periods, and put into a bar graph. The same could be done with the CO2 data but it would not be expected. Also required would be information about the source of the temperature data so that proper caveats could be taken knowing the uncertainties and assumptions of that particular data set.
Replace the graph with a proper one and we'll discuss.
Currently the level at StL is -1 ft, expected to drop 4 ft in next two weeks, which will be at minimum level for barge traffic, they need 9 feet. Zero was set at a 14 ft level at Eads Bridge in 1863. Record low was -6.1 ft in Jan. of 1940. NWS expecting will hit that level later unless substantial rain north of StL occurs. It's not forecasted in that time frame.
Actually, there have been a couple of storms that have formed after the official end of the hurricane season. Most notably would be the 2005 season, when Hurricane Epsilon formed on November 29, and Tropical Storm Zeta which formed on December 29.
Viewing: 851 - 875
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index