The hybridization of hurricane Sandy

by Bob Henson, NCAR News with contributions from Dr. Ryan Maue

Every so often, a quiet corner of research suddenly grabs the spotlight. Such was the case this week when a Category 1 Atlantic hurricane morphed into Superstorm Sandy (note- it wasn’t a hurricane when it made landfall, it was an extratropical cyclone – Anthony), wreaking tens of billions of dollars in damage and taking scores of lives in the eastern United States. 

Satellite image of Hurricane Sandy offshore
While still a hurricane on Sunday afternoon, October 28, Sandy was already beginning to show extratropical characteristics, including strong winds far north of its center and a huge outflow plume stretching from the southeast U.S. coast into eastern Canada. (GOES-13 image courtesy NASA Earth Observatory.)

Sandy’s destiny as a hybrid storm was flagged to the public several days before landfall, when the irresistible name “Frankenstorm”—coined by a NOAA meteorologist—went viral. (Of course, in the original Mary Shelley novel, it was the scientist rather than the monster who was dubbed Frankenstein, as Bay Area meteorologist Jan Null pointed out to me.)

While there have been hybrid storms before, Superstorm Sandy was a creation distinct in meteorological annals, as it pulled together a variety of familiar ingredients in a unique way. Sandy could be the storm that launches a thousand dissertations—or at least a few—and some of its noteworthy aspects have implications for hurricane warning in general. Warning: there’s a bit of unavoidable weather geekery in the material below, although I’ll try to keep it as accessible as possible.

When a hurricane shapeshifts

Extratropical transition is the formal name for what happened in the 12 to 24 hours before Sandy crashed ashore near Atlantic City on Monday evening, 29 October. “Extratropical” means “outside the tropics,” so technically speaking, it would apply to any cyclone (low-pressure center) that’s located in the midlatitudes or polar regions. But there’s a more basic distinction used by meteorologists: whether a low is warm-core or cold-core.

A hallmark of tropical cyclones (known as hurricanes, typhoons, or cyclones in various parts of the world) is that their circulations revolve around a core of warm air. Hurricanes draw energy from oceanic heat and moisture, and they thrive when the surrounding air is uniformly warm and humid and upper-level winds steering the storm are relatively weak.  In contrast, an extratropical low is typically positioned at or near the intersection of a cold front and warm front. Such a low is helped rather than hindered by temperature and moisture contrasts and the accompanying strong winds of the polar jet stream.

Model depiction of the ERICA IOP-4 storm over Atlantic, January 1989

A much-studied storm

One of the strongest extratropical lows in Atlantic history occurred in January 1989 during the ERICA field project. It was one of the most intense wintertime storms ever observed in that region: air pressure at the surface dipped as low as 928 millibars (27.40 inches of mercury), comparable to the pressure in a Category 3 or 4 hurricane.

The graphic above shows winds at the 850 hPa level, about a mile above the sea surface, with a warm seclusion visible as an eye-like feature on the west side of the storm. (Click on image for an enlarged version, including wind speed legend.)

The YouTube visualization linked below illustrates the evolution of this cyclone.

(Image above courtesy Ryan Maue, WeatherBell; visualization below by Mel Shapiro and Alan Norton, NCAR, and Ryan Maue.)

Here are three of the routes that warm- and cold-core systems can take as they evolve:

  • It’s not unusual at all for a tropical cyclone to shift from warm-core to cold-core. In an average year, one or more hurricanes will evolve into extratropical storms in a fairly straightforward manner as they move into the North Atlantic. As colder, drier air intrudes into the warm core, the storm typically loses symmetry and begins tilting toward the coldest upper-level air.
  • It’s also possible for an extratropical cyclone to develop what’s known as a warm seclusion. In this case, a pocket of warm, moist air is drawn into the cold-core circulation, then pinched off through a complicated set of dynamics involving air pulled down from the stratosphere. This is dubbed the Shapiro-Keyser process, after veteran researchers Mel Shapiro (now at NCAR) and Daniel Keyser (University of Albany, State University of New York). Some of the Atlantic’s most intense storms of any type have emerged from warm seclusions (see animation above). These are most common in winter over the far North Atlantic, but rarely do they move onto the mid-Atlantic coast, especially in mid-autumn.
  • Once in a while, an extratropical cyclone will get a boost of energy by absorbing the remnants of a hurricane. Well east of New England, the iconic “perfect storm” of October 1991 was fueled by heat and moisture from the late Hurricane Grace. While it never moved ashore, this great storm still pushed destructive surf into much of the U.S. East Coast.

And then there’s Sandy . . .

Meteorologists are still parsing the maps, but it appears that Sandy may have incorporated elements from all three of the above processes. While Sandy was still a hurricane, the storm’s outer edges began to reveal some aspects of an extratropical cyclone, with an enormous zone of strong surface wind and “a great chimney of upper-level outflow,” as Shapiro puts it (see satellite image.) The storm’s warm core briefly intensified about a day before landfall (see diagram).

Then, a few hours before landfall, Sandy began a sharp curve toward the west, moving toward the heart of the approaching midlatitude trough of low pressure. In Shapiro’s view, this marked an apparent warm seclusion trying to take place on top of the storm’s fast-decaying warm core.

I asked Shapiro how often he’s seen a storm like Sandy. He replied, “Never.”

The one that may come closest in Shapiro’s view is the “Long Island Express” hurricane of 1938, which killed hundreds of New Englanders as it slammed ashore virtually without warning. “There was a dramatic upper trough coming in from Canada, just like there was with Sandy,” says Shapiro. The 1938 storm raced northwards at speeds of close to 70 mph, making it the fastest-moving hurricane on record, and hooked northwest after landfall. While not as much of a speed demon, Sandy did accelerate to a forward motion of nearly 30 mph as it curved west and approached New Jersey. Upper-air observations from the 1930s are sparse, however, so it might not be possible to pin down the commonalities between the two events.

Satellite photo of Sandy's eyewall forming
At 0245 UTC on Monday, 29 November—about a day before Sandy struck New Jersey—the storm began carving out a thin eyewall (indicated by red arrow), a sign of hurricane intensification, even as the outer part of the storm increasingly resembled an extratropical cyclone. (GOES-13 image courtesy U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.)

Two storms in one?

Chris Davis, head of NCAR’s Advanced Study Program, has carried out extensive research on how warm- and cold-core processes interrelate. Like Shapiro, Davis finds Sandy an intriguing case. “It seems to have had a remnant inner core that was somewhat tropical, embedded in a much larger nontropical structure,” says Davis. He notes other cases where a remnant warm core can persist well into a storm’s extratropical life. “You end up with two definable structures at once,” he says. “There was a point where you had a huge arc of cloud over land, but you also had a complete eyewall surrounding the inner core.”

Sandy’s vast wind field provides more evidence for the warm-within-cold theory. Along with a small central core of winds near hurricane force, focused on Sandy’s south side, there was a second maximum of high wind well to the north. It pounded portions of New England with wind gusts as high as 86 mph in Rhode Island. This outer wind band later moved into Long Island and New York City.

This dual wind structure isn’t a common occurrence with hurricanes. Fortunately, computer models predicted the unusual outer band of high wind more than a day ahead of time. And upper-air observations caught its development several thousand feet above ground a few hours before the winds mixed down to the surface. As a result, the National Weather Service provided a specific “nowcast,” putting people in the New York area—especially those in skyscrapers—on alert that dangerous hurricane-force gusts could occur in a window of several hours on Monday evening. Gusts reached 90 mph at Islip, in central Long Island, and 79 mph at John F. Kennedy International Airport, in Brooklyn.

There’s still much to digest about the physics of this remarkable weather event, not to mention the host of societal issues it’s raised. What’s heartening to researchers is that computer models, by and large, predicted many of Sandy’s most unusual features days ahead of time. That gave forecasters confidence in predicting unprecedented impacts to the most densely populated part of the nation, regardless of whether Sandy was dubbed a hurricane, an extratropical storm, a hybrid, or—in the label that now seems to be winning out—a “superstorm.”

Sandy’s circuitous life: This “phase diagram” from Robert Hart (Florida State University) shows how the storm’s characteristics changed from point A (0000 UTC on October 22, when Sandy was forming in the Caribbean Sea) to point C (1200 UTC on October 31, when Sandy’s remnant low had moved near Lake Erie). Dots are indicated every six hours; warmer colors denote lower pressure and thus a stronger system. Beginning at point A with the structure of a typical hurricane (symmetric warm-core), Sandy became asymmetric as it grew in size. The storm quickly became an asymmetric cold-core low near landfall and a symmetric cold-core low as it decayed. The kink in the curve at upper right corresponds to the strengthening of Sandy’s inner core about a day before landfall. Click on image to see the full diagram. The phase diagrams are explained in a 2003 article in Monthly Weather Review. Find more background and other phase diagram examples here. (Image courtesy Robert Hart, FSU.)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

79 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 3, 2012 9:22 am

Sandy: a fascinating specimen.

Günther Kirschbaum
November 3, 2012 9:29 am

Impressive contributions by Ryan Maue!

Steve
November 3, 2012 9:46 am

Isn’t the traditional term for Sandy “Nor’easter”?

eric1skeptic
November 3, 2012 10:23 am

Interesting but may be only noticed because Sandy pivoted back westward. I’m sure many other hurricanes have done similar things but nobody cared because they were out in the Atlantic. Sandy’s characteristics came from the related cold front, the storm drank a huge amount of dry air after the cold front passed through Florida. That eventually formed a dry slot that completely encircled the core so even while the core was tropical, the rest of the convection was spreading out and widening the storm.
While the warm gulf stream was a factor in the strengthening a day before landfall, the bigger factor was the baroclinic forcing from the collision with the cold air. We never got out of the 40’s in my part of Virginia despite being just a few miles from the storm track.

DirkH
November 3, 2012 10:29 am

For the record. In the neighbourhood of the beautiful storm model animation, Youtube had this video narrated by “NCAR scientist Jerry Meehl” explaining how CO2 is the steroids of the climate system. It’s kind of skeptical sicence/ George Soros level science communication. Just so you know what your stimulus dollars buy you.

eqibno
November 3, 2012 10:58 am

With another Nor-easter in the cards for the region, it may get worse before it gets better…

November 3, 2012 11:06 am

Attribution to the CO2 increase has no convincing evidence, while the attribution to the solar input could be traced via changes in the advance Arctic atmospheric pressure and the advance Arctic geological observations, as it is shown here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ANASTACE.htm

November 3, 2012 11:34 am

There is an obvious fact about Sandy that appears to have been ignored in this article. Northern Hemispheric hurricanes and Typhoons general have their strongest winds and most intense storm surges in their right forward quadrant. Normal hurricane trajectories in the Atlantic have hurricanes starting in Tropical waters and moving westerly. As they approach the Carribean they tend to follow the gulf stream and move northerly ( some continue westerly ). As they get to higher latitudes they tend to continue northerly or move notheasterly.
That trajectory keeps the right, forward wuadrant facing seaward and sheilds the US northeast coast from the most damaging effects. The unusual thing about Sandy was that it took a sharp westerly turn (for whatever reason).. That turn caused that right forward quadrant, with its most intense winds and storm surge, to impact directly on the shoreline at right angle to it. For normal trajectoires of such hurricanes, storm surges and high winds come from the west quadrants, and give only a glancing blow to the shore. The turn to the west for Sandy resulted in a direct, full frontal impact of the high winds and intense storm surge on the coast line.
That is what made Sandy so anomalous and damaging. There is no evidence whatever that human emission of C)2 played any role in the formation of that hurricane or in determining its trajectory.
Dr Martin Hertzberg
coauthor of “Slaying the Sky Dragon….”, Stairway Press, 2011

Paul Coppin
November 3, 2012 11:36 am

“That gave forecasters confidence in predicting unprecedented impacts to the most densely populated part of the nation,”
Ok, we were doing great until we got to there…. Sure that isn’t supposed to read, “That gave forecasters unprecedented confidence in predicting impacts …”
I wish… I do, I really do, that scientific and pseudo-scientific types would lose the “unprecedented” schtick… We have, and are developing the capacity further, to observe weather phenomena in a timeline, scale and complexity that we have never had before recent times. Historical note-writers often give anecdotal glimpses of prior weather experiences, but these are simply anecdotal mostly, relative to modern technological observation, and often written by street or sea savvy individuals who still remain scientifically naive, in the modern context.
We can’t even say, with any accuracy, that the current use of the word “unprecedented” is, in fact, unprecedented. Enough, already.

P. Solar
November 3, 2012 11:47 am

vukcevic says: Attribution to the CO2 increase has no convincing evidence,
http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
Main linkage would seem to be the natural variation in AMO, with some room to hypothesise the increase in the height of the current peak as a AGW signal.
Though I would agree that would not on it’s own constitute convincing evidence, it is interesting and may give a more realistic idea of the proportion of any AGW effects.

eric1skeptic
November 3, 2012 11:52 am

“Sandy … took a sharp westerly turn (for whatever reason)” The reason was simply in the right place to be pivoted west by the short wave rounding the base of the upper jet. Pure coincidence.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
November 3, 2012 12:59 pm

I find it amusing that folks are so astonished by Sandy turning left.
News flash folks! — there have been occasions where hurricanes and large storms have gone in full loops coming back over the same area more than once, and reversed course. Although tropical storms and hurricanes tend to follow certain families of tracks they can literally do most anything and turn in just about any direction. Nothing unusual only a bit less common than other motions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Elena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Storm_Danielle_%281992%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earl_1986_track.png
Hurricane Alex turned both right and then left in the gulf where they typically turn right into the southern U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Alex_%282010%29
Larry

Terry Jackson
November 3, 2012 1:38 pm

There are the common storms, the 100-year storms, the 1,000-year storms, so doe not this imply the possibility of the 10,000-year storm? One much stronger than any ever known to have been observed?
It would be most interesting to see a model of the strongest possible storm arising from the most extreme instances of known influences, and it’s impact on landfall in the worst possible place.
Good article, and much will be learned here.

Jeff
November 3, 2012 2:01 pm

This could certainly explain what I witnessed while monitoring the radar the night the storm came ashore. As I indicated in that post, a distinct eye appeared on the precipitation map due east of Philadelphia, about 30 minutes after the “center” of the storm was reported as coming ashore in south Jersey, with a projected path supposedly passing south of the city. It was during the next hour that most of the tree/power damage occurred north of Philadelphia.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 2:45 pm

I note that some posters are still reacting disproportionately term ‘unprecedented’.
In this case the author has explained why, to the best of his knowledge, no other known hurricane has had all the attributes of Sandy. In his opinion, it is without precedent. He also points out that there may have been precedents but it is difficult to say because not all like-for-like measurements were taken at at time when the most likely similar hurricane occurred some time before World War Two.
If posters want to argue the toss about ‘unprecedented’, they would have to demonstrate that there are other hurricanes which have had the same qualities as Sandy.
Failing that, on the evidence available, Hurricane Sandy is an unprecedented hurricane.
What that ‘means’ is a whole other conversation.
It is just as well that the author did not mention the dread phrase ‘carbon dioxide’ or the stimulus-response auto function would have gone into the usual manic overdrive.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 2:46 pm

LL
I find it amusing that folks are so astonished by Sandy turning left.
Which scientists have expressed ‘astonishment’?
Or are you doing strawman for your own amusement?

Richdo
November 3, 2012 2:52 pm

Paul Coppin – I wish… I do, I really do, that scientific and pseudo-scientific types would lose the “unprecedented” schtick…
+1

D Böehm
November 3, 2012 3:04 pm

Howskepticalment says:
“I note that some posters are still reacting disproportionately term ‘unprecedented’.”
That is because we are tired of the lies. There is nothing “unprecedented” in climate statistics. Every climate parameter currently observed has been exceeded repeatedly, and to a much greater degree throughout the Holocene and before.
Get up to speed on the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Today’s climate is truly a very mild “Goldilocks” climate, and it has been very beneficial to the biosphere over the past century and a half.
Mendaciously arm-waving over a local storm — which has been greatly exceeded, even within the past century — is not honest. Worse storms have happened regularly, when CO2 was far lower. There goes your “unprecedented” conjecture. It is falsified. So quit spreading lies.

Chuck Wiese
November 3, 2012 3:12 pm

The NCAR simulation is fantastic and very instructive on what happens to a tropical hurricane as it gets advected into a cold upper trough, thus collapsing the warm core and unspooling the surface pressure gradients. The modeling handled this storm very well. In the morning on the day of the storm, I used the 12Z GFS run 12 hour prognosis ( 00Z universal time or 8 PM EDT ) which had the center making landfall near Atlantic City NJ, and calculated the gradient wind speed from that projection. It was 84 MPH, almost dead on to peak wind gusts observed. So in terms of speed, it was a CAT 1 event, but the storm surge went over the hydrological projections of 7-9 ft that had even the lunar high tide factored in. I was looking for the best explanation of why this would be, and I think Dr. Hertzberg’s explanation above isexcellent. It would make sense that the strongest storm surge would pile up in the right front quadrant in these types of northward moving storms as the Coriolis force gets stronger and wants to deflect the gulf stream current at an increasing right angle to a southeasterly wind, thus building the wave height and storm surge.
I also completely agree with Dr. Hetzberg’s claim that CO2 emissions and global warming had nothing to do with this storms intensity because for starters , it has no historical perspective of being a stronger storm than many of the others that occured during the last cold phase PDO which warms the Atlantic. I heard an estimate today that total damage is now near $ 50 Billion. So for fun I dug up two tropical hurricanes during the last cold phase PDO. Those were Hazel in October of 1954 and Camille in August of 1969. Hazel was a CAT 3 storm, peak winds way over Sandy’s between 120-150 MPH with a storm surge greater than 15 ft. Damage in 1954 dollars was $ 136 million. Factored for inflation to 2012 dollars that becomes $ 1.16 billion. The per capita income for New York in 2010 was $ 48,021.00. In North Carolina in 154 it was $ 1,196.00 or 40 times less than New Yorks. Factor this in and Hazel’s true loss in 2012 dollars was really $ 48 billion, and that would be more with the equivalent New York real estate parked on its shore. Camille was a catastrophic CAT 5 storm with winds between 160-200 MPH. It completely destroyed Biloxi Mississippi at landfall. The storm surge was greater than 25 ft. Total damage in 1969 dollars was at $ 1.42 billion. Factored for inlation, that is $ 8.9 billion. Per capita income in Mississippi in 1969 was $ 1,925.00 or 25 times less than New York’s. Factored in, the real loss for Camille in 2012 New York dollars was $ 222.5 billion. And obviuosly more for the same real estate parked in Biloxi.
The usual nauseating climate alarmists began the fever pitch of climate hysteria about Sandy in the aftermath. This nonsense was pedaled from the same people, namely Bill McKibbon, Algore and Brenda Ekwurzel, from the Union of Concerned Scientists. I am thankful and greatful that Meteorologist Joe Bastardi successfully attacked their nonsense and rubbish on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News last Wednesday. He did a terrific job, and it was great to see Joe come aut swinging and hitting these jerks right where it counts with that hard cold facts about these tropical Atlantic Hurricanes and their true source of energy, the PDO shift.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

David Borth
November 3, 2012 3:13 pm

DirkH says:
November 3, 2012 at 10:29 am
“Re: Steroids, baseball, and climate change”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for posting this gem. What a deceitful little analogy. My comments below are based on a quick scan of internet literature (yes – some wikipedia). It could use some enhancement by someone with a bit more actual knowledge, but heck, if NCAR scientist Jerry Meehl can play with literary devices, why cant I do a little human endocrinology? He took English 100 at school and I Biology 100 (I had a wee bit of organic chem too) so I think we should both be at the same level of expertise.
The main issue I have with his analogy is that anabolic steroids are not the same chemical composition as their natural human cousin – human testorene. Similar but not the same. C02 is, well, C02. The whole thing falls apart right there.
But the use of analogy does have some merit, but not how Jerry applied the facts. “Normal” male testosterone levels in the blood operate in a range from 160 to 880 ng/dl, although the lower ranges can be problematic for normal physiological function. Higher levels are generally “better”, with “healthy” averages being in the 600 to 700 ng/dl range.
I find it a rather interesting coincidence that the nominal values for human male testosterone bracket the current nominal value for the earth’s C02 at 400 ppm and that there’s all indications that mother earth’s plant life would probably be quite healthy – if not healthier – at nominal values between 600 and 700 ppm.
My version of the video could use the same premise but with a twist on the plot. Just like testosterone is critical to human physiology – male and female – it can have a wide range and still be “normal” and that higher numbers are less worrisome than low.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 3:22 pm

D
‘Quit spreading lies’ and ‘mendacious arm waving’. Tsk tsk. How unscientificment!
The discussion in this string is not about ‘worst’ storms as such.
It is about the physical structure and dynamics of Hurricane Sandy, which, according to the author, are unprecedented.
I do hope you are not applying your term ‘mendacious’ to him?
If so, you would need to demonstrate that other hurricanes had a similar physical structure and set of dynamics to Hurricane Sandy and then demonstrate that he is deliberately seeking to hide the truth by lying.
Hurricane Sandy is unprecedented.

eric1skeptic
November 3, 2012 3:24 pm

All of Sandy’s effects have precedent (e.g. 1893). Hybrid storms like Sandy have precedent many times a season in the Atlantic. Who cares if a hybrid storm never took this same path or not? Only someone trying to score points with the word “unprecedented”.

John Godfrey
November 3, 2012 3:28 pm

In terms of magnitude, how does the hurricane which destroyed Galveston in 1900 measure up to Sandy?

D Böehm
November 3, 2012 3:40 pm

“Unprecedented” is not mentioned in the article, which states:
The 1938 storm raced northwards at speeds of close to 70 mph, making it the fastest-moving hurricane on record, and hooked northwest after landfall. While not as much of a speed demon, Sandy did accelerate to a forward motion of nearly 30 mph as it curved west and approached New Jersey.
The 1938 storm was a true hurricane, not a tropical storm. It was a monster storm with cat-3 winds of 120 mph, and it far exceeded the parameters of tropical storm Sandy. Thus, Sandy is not “unprecedented”, and labeling it as such is mendacious and self-serving climate alarmism.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 3:43 pm

e
What you need to do is to demonstrate that, in the terms described by the author, there have been storms with the same structure as Hurricane Sandy.
In the context of that discussion, the ‘effects’ are irrelevant, the ‘magnitude’ is irrelevant, the ‘hybrid’ nature of the storm is irrelevant and the ‘same path’ is irrelevant. It is useless to try and score points by cobbling together a list of red herrings.
There is absolutely no need for people to get hung up about the use of the term ‘unprecendented’ when it is the best that science can do with the available information.
As I noted above, what the unprecedented nature of Hurricane Sandy ‘means’ is a whole other conversation.

1 2 3 4