The Atlantic Hurricane season starts today, June 1st, 2013.
While NOAA predicts an active Atlantic Hurricane Season, it is useful to note this other milestone of hurricane drought, a duration not seen since 1900.
As of today, it has been 2777 days or 7.6 years since the US has been hit by a Cat 3 or greater hurricane. The last such hurricane was Wilma on October 24th, 2005. Each day forward will be a new record in this drought period.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. summarizes:
The graph above provides an update to data on the remarkable ongoing US “intense hurricane drought.” When the Atlantic hurricane season starts next June 1, it will have been 2,777 days since the last time an intense (that is a Category 3, 4 or 5) hurricane made landfall along the US coast (Wilma in 2005). Such a prolonged period without an intense hurricane landfall has not been observed since 1900.
Dr. Pielke also has some other thoughts related to hurricane Sandy
We live in interesting times.
great……even if we get one hurricane….we’re going to have to listen to all the hype about how they are increasing
True, but pointing out the drought is a good way to cut across the misinformation.
And the big push to phase out hurricane clips is on the way!
The longer the “drought”, the more likely that we will hear “unprecedented” when a hurricane finally reaches shore.
Headline … Cat [3,4,5] Hurrincane slams US for the first time in X years …. this unprecedented occurrence is more proof that Global Warming is creating more Exteme Weather!!
What is likely from the Alarmists is a new system for describing and classifying hurricanes. Watch for it.
About 15 years or so, we had the remains of a Pacific hurricane come through here in Colorado. It rained about 3 days straight. With our drought here in Colo. Springs, we could certainly use one of those right now (except for the people in the Waldo Canyon burn scar area, who are worried about flooding).
Somebody ought to write a parody about how global warming is killing the hurricane, natures weather regulators. Without hurricanes to redistribute temperatures more regularly, and stir up the oceans to keep currents flowing normally, how can we survive?
Unfortunately, Bayes theorem says that it is increasingly likely this won’t last. And the NHC is predicting a more active Atlantic season than normal for pretty solid reasons.
Get it into the MSM as thoroughly as you can, before the first of the season arrives.
Tropical storm Barbara morphs into the first tropical depression of the 2013 hurricane season: Andrea. Andrea quickly develops into a category 1 and makes a run at the northern part of Cuba.
Eventually the ‘alarmists’ will notice that although the intensity of storms is not increasing, per se, the size (geographical area) of the storms are, the development of storms are very fast, and that storms die out slowly and last longer. Another swan song of ‘alarmists’ will be the ‘new’ trend of the blending together of multiple depressions, especially that of continental and oceanic.
…it will be more apparent this season that developing storms tend to take over entire basins, then move up the Gulf Stream and blend with one of a continuous series of continental depressions with interesting affects.
We are basically at the top of a slight warming period, everything is sort of stable and balanced.
Unfortunately, as temperatures drop slightly over the next decade or so, that may not remain the case.
There is an intriguing correlation between the N. Atlantic’s hurricane index (ACE) and past Arctic atmospheric pressure
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAHs.htm
As you can see it suggests further drop in the ACE index, well below 100, while in 2000 it was around 250.
Gary Meyers in Ridgecrest says (June 1, 2013 at 11:49 am): “Somebody ought to write a parody about how global warming is killing the hurricane, natures weather regulators.”
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of hurricanes at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. — parody of Kevin Trenberth
Obviously the missing hurricanes are hiding in the deep ocean or Middle Earth, I forget which. 🙂
As other cynics like me have pointed out. this won’t matter once NYC or Boston gets slammed with another 1950’s style hurricane this season. Or next. They’re coming. Conditions are ripe. Look out below.
What does it matter what the alarmist say? No matter what happens, they will say it is our fault.
dang vukcevic, that’s a tight fit….
…I happen to agree with it too
NHC has overshot their mark
But with regard to the frequency of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, does it make any difference if the basin is in an ‘active’ period or a ‘quiet’ period? The surprising answer is ‘not much at all’. For the state of Florida there is a slightly greater risk during an active phase, but for the entire coastline from Brownsville, Texas, to Eastport, Maine, the risk is actually slightly higher when the Atlantic basin is in a period of lower tropical cyclone activity.
http://flhurricane.com/cyclone/showflat.php?Board=tb2013&Number=94287&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&fpart=1
littlepeaks says (June 1, 2013 at 11:46 am) wrote:
About 15 years or so, we had the remains of a Pacific hurricane come through here in Colorado. It rained about 3 days straight. With our drought here in Colo. Springs, we could certainly use one of those right now (except for the people in the Waldo Canyon burn scar area, who are worried about flooding).
I remember it well, Hurricane Nora, Sept 1997. Most of western AZ received more than their normal annual rainfall in 1 day.
When was the last time they predicted a less than average season?
Philjourdan, actually last year 2012. And NHC was right.
But one of the fewer than normal was Sandy, which happened to make landfall where fewer hurricanes do even in an above average active year.
The NYT and Bloomberg Businessweek ‘forgot’ and blamed Sandy on AGW. They also forgot the Midnight Monster of 1893 and the Long Island Express of 1938.
Jeez, back before AGW even hurricane names were cooler!
@Rud Istvan – I believe I said “less than average. In 2012, they predicted an AVERAGE season:
.
“I know that it may be hard to believe, but both hurricane damage and climate hype are set to increase dramatically in the years to come.” (from RP Jr.’s link in the article above)
Thank goodness! I thought I had been preaching to deaf ears. In almost every article on WUWT dealing with hurricanes over the past couple of years (essentially all about the hurricane drought) I commented (with alarm!) that it was only a matter of time (60 yrs after the 1950s cool period) skeptics were going to be caught crowing about the “drought” when we get hit with a multi-hurricane season. I admonished that if we didn’t take possession of the hurricane narrative and predict coming strong hurricanes (I would even like to see some predictions based on past history and climatic factors), then the very desperate, on-the-ropes, back-pedaling warming political scientists would, giving succour and new life to the Agenda that would take another generation of skepticism, coming from behind to eradicate. Can you imagine how skeptics would sound – “Oh, we knew this was going to happen!”, precisely the kind of gruel being dished out by the “retrospective predictions” of the walking dead.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/in-retrospect-we-predicted-global-warming-would-slow/
I did the heavy lifting(perhaps) on the hurricanes are coming back meme . I strongly suggest that a real hurricane expert make predictions on likely hurricanes (big and small, landfall and offshore). If someone doesn’t, I will try to do this using statistics relating to the temperature record, etc.
philjourdan says:
June 1, 2013 at 3:40 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/noaa-predicts-active-2013-atlantic-hurricane-season/#comment-1315745
@Kajajuk – Respectfully, “normal” is not less than average.
^Gary Pearse:
Joe Bastardi has been predicting a return to 1950’s weather pattern and hurricane frequency for several years now.
Further to my worry that skeptics would rest on their laurels on the hurricane drought and hand the initiative back to the grasping-at-straws warmists when hurricanes returned with a vengeance: a lot of the complacency of late has rested on low ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) figures. Note in Dr. Ryan Maue’s chart of ACE from a WUWT post of last October:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/maue_ace_by-year.png
that ACE can jump as much as 100 points in a year. 2009 -2010 jumped from approximately 40 to 135 (Oct 1 data) and then fell down in 2011 and 2012 to ~100. Also, the very busy hurricane season of 2005 that spawned Katrina and an entire alphabet of other storms, the ACE was ~175 but dropped to about 75 in 2006 – the beginning of the hurricane doldrums. Hurricane droughts are not a safe haven for skeptics.
Gary Pearse says:
June 1, 2013 at 4:21 pm
“….skeptics were going to be caught crowing about the “drought” when we get hit with a multi-hurricane season……[….]…take possession of the hurricane narrative and predict coming strong hurricanes ….”
Hi Gary,
I can’t see where you are coming from here.
The central issue is most of the recent (pro CAGW) reporting has been over dramatic reporting and outright lying about the issue.
The ‘skeptical’ approach has been to report the facts as they happen and point out the historical significance (or lack thereof) of the events.
I don’t see how the advent of a future season which matches historical seasons will change anything; again, it will simply be a matter of pointing out that it has all happened before. Predicting it (or even ‘projecting’ it!) is rife with the risk of getting it completely wrong, and I cannot see it would achieve anything or what discussion would ensue with such a prediction.
However, no doubt an ‘unprecedented’ season would provoke some discussion, but I’m not sure making random predictions would preempt that.
markx says:
June 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Gary Pearse says:
June 1, 2013 at 4:21 pm
“I don’t see how the advent of a future season which matches historical seasons will change anything; again, it will simply be a matter of pointing out that it has all happened before.”
Right on. If we have a “normal” hurricane season then the change is simply natural variation.
Of course the Alarmist crazies will bring out an old worn Tarbaby and start punching away at it. They will argue that natural variation is not a cause. They will argue that this increase in annual hurricane activity is unprecedented, all the while ignoring that the preceding year has better title to “unprecedented.” They will punch and punch and punch. And the New York Times and MSNBC will amplify all of it. What a bore it is to live at a time when the all mighty MSM thumbs its nose at science and at genuine news (the hurricane drought).
No doubt someone will mention that there has been no drought in the Atlantic, just a drought of hurricanes coming ashore in North America. There are a lot of hurricanes in the Atlantic because the Alarmists have revised their descriptions and rating systems for hurricanes.
Gary Pearce writes: “Thank goodness! I thought I had been preaching to deaf ears. In almost every article on WUWT dealing with hurricanes over the past couple of years (essentially all about the hurricane drought) I commented (with alarm!) that it was only a matter of time (60 yrs after the 1950s cool period) skeptics were going to be caught crowing about the “drought” when we get hit with a multi-hurricane season.”
Couldn’t agree more. I think these hurricane drought posts are short-sighted. I keep saying essentially the same thing. We saw what they did with “superstorm” Sandy last year. Crowing about a hurricane drought is not smart since it has to end, likely this year.
REPLY: Who’s crowing? Its a statement of fact.- Anthony
the Irish see no letup!
30 May: Irish Times: Cormac O’Raifeartaigh: No relief as climate change accelerates
Is there any letup?
(Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh lectures in physics at Waterford Institute of Technology and writes science blog Antimatter)
As pointed out in a recent article in the Economist, global surface temperatures have not risen appreciably in the last 10 years. This leads the Economist to question our understanding of the response of the earth to a rise in greenhouse gases…
This attractive idea has been widely cited, but the Economist is not a scientific authority and it is probably a false hope. In the first instance, a decade is a very short time in climate science. Second, it is only surface temperatures that have stabilised somewhat in recent years…
Third, temperature is not always a good measure of heat…
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/no-relief-as-climate-change-accelerates-1.1410069
I found it odd that the news here in Florida reported that the NOAA sequester furloughs were slated to occur specifically in the June to September time-frame. Has anyone else heard this?
If so, why wait until hurricane season starts? More posturing maybe?
Well said, philjourdan. An ‘average’ almost never happens. It comprises a compilation and computation of highs and lows.
It is supremely irritating to listen to MSM discussions about weather events which focus on something being above or below average, as though it is significant in itself.
will we ever return to sanity on weather matters?
in Australia, all polls have the Opposition Coalition Party winning the national elections in September. many people believe the Opposition are CAGW sceptics!
31 May: Port Macquarie News: Melissa Pretorius: Climate Change no con
HUMAN induced climate change is not a conspiracy or a con, but a real and serious threat to Australia, Parliament agreed this week.
Australia’s scientific community has praised the move.
It comes as Federal Independent MP Rob Oakeshott moved a motion for the House of Representatives to confirm the science community was right and climate change posed serious problems for Australia.
“Let us see where the bums land, from all members of parliament, in support of the very best advice in the science community,” Mr Oakeshott said this week.
“The advice is real and the question for the House today is whether or not we accept it.” Labor, the Liberals and the National Party supported the motion unanimously…
Mr Creamer (president of Climate Change Australia’s Hastings branch) said the show of confidence was heartening for activists and Mr Oakeshott had again showed leadership on this “critical issue”…
“It’s essential that this scheme – and all of its component parts – be retained by the next government and not replaced with less-effective measures.”…
Mr Oakeshott said the motion finally endorsed the work of Australia’s science community in confirming man-made climate change was not a con.
“No more games,” he said. “Today Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott were joined at the hip on climate change,” Mr Oakeshott said.
“Today, the unprecedented attacks on our science community come to an end.”
http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1539100/climate-change-no-con/?cs=257
——————————————————————————–
Has “The Weather Channel” been copied on this memo?
philjourdan says:
June 1, 2013 at 6:37 pm
————————-
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130523_hurricaneoutlook_easternpacific.html
Was lazy (still am) with research…
Since i expect that someone has predicted a less than average season somewhere.
Will check the farmer’s almanac next…lol
@Kajajuk
Thank you. You also blew my bubble apart. When I made the statement, I was only thinking of the Atlantic. But as you demonstrated, there are 5 regions for storms (Atlantic, Eastern, Central, and Western Pacific, and Indian).
I guess I should have said “Atlantic hurricane prediction”, but that they did predict one anywhere that was to be below normal is a surprise to me.
AND then, Louis Lerner, government employee receiving government pay for performing government work will refuse to answer government questions about her involvement with her government work by pleading the fifth to the body granted government oversight responsibility … Oh, wait. Wrong agency …
Maybe after this is all over with we can ask some questions of the group ‘picking’ these numbers, as in, what is their basis and how does their ‘process’ work to come up with these numbers in the face of a non-debatable ‘dearth’ of hurricane activity. To paraphrase John Boehner, “Who’s going to jail over this ” … -er- well maybe that’s a little extreme …
.
Well philjourdan…
You were correct in your insinuation; the NOAA has never predicted a below average hurricane season for the Atlantic basin.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane-archive.shtml
And as it happens their 50% chance of a near normal hurricane season in 2012 was WRONG…
“The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season was extremely active, tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, and 2011 for having the third-most named storms on record.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Their best chance was in 2009 when it was a below-average season:
“The 2009 Atlantic hurricane season was a below average Atlantic hurricane season that produced eleven tropical cyclones, nine named storms, three hurricanes, and two major hurricanes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Atlantic_hurricane_season
But alas they predicted another near normal season at 50% chance and below seasonal at 25%.
Damn probability so uncertain…
Glad to be wrong (sometimes) 😉
Barbara 13 is pulled apart by wind sheer; watch her demise…
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2013/h2013_Barbara.html
Latitude,
Jim
Re: hurricane index correlation (http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAHs.htm )
Hi
‘Correlation’ I found, I discussed with one of the well known hurricane experts (adviser to insurance companies). Reply was positive but with reservation that the 15 year lag is the main challenge here and a plausible explanation is required. I look into various climate data as a hobby, it is up to professional scientists to sort out a meaningful physical mechanism, providing there is one. Considering the importance of long tern projection it may be their worth while to do so.
Why is a graph of hurricanes that hit the US coast significant as a measure for hurricane activity in general? Why not make a graph of hurricane activity irrespective of its path towards the US?
On somewhat different (but related) subject, May’s sunspot count according to SIDC = 78.7, slightly up on April’s 72.4
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Chris Schoneveld says:
It appears that most if not all of the N. Atlantic hurricanes head for the USA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Retired_Atlantic_hurricane_tracks.png
Increasing hurricane activity is yet another example of an alarmist prediction that turned out to be completely wrong.
So far, the alarmist crowd is batting 1.000 in failed predictions. They have not gotten one single prediction right yet: Arctic ice disappearing, ocean ‘acidification’, catastrophic AGW — or even any measurable AGW, coral reefs going extinct, failed IPCC predictions, etc., etc. Not one alarmist prediction has come to pass.
In any other branch of science, they would be publicly ridiculed for their complete incompetence. But not in Climastrology, where wrong predictions are A-OK — just so long as the grant money keeps flowing.
Remember a couple of years back they were screaming that we had just had the ‘hottest decade on the record’, yet it has been “2777 days or 7.6 years since the US has been hit by a Cat 3 or greater hurricane.”
I just paid a trip to the Hurricane Research Division website and it is hard to say hurricane activity is doing anything but increasing in the Atlantic Basin. If you click on the graphs for Major Storms, Hurricanes and Major Hurricanes…. numbers are heading one way and that’s up. Sure major hurricanes aren’t back up to the level in the 50′s, but they are headed that way. The other two graphs are well past any historic comparison.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
philjourdan on June 1, 2013 at 3:40 pm
When was the last time they predicted a less than average season?”
Good question. Probably never. If one keeps predicting an active hurricane season, eventually they will be right. And lucky for them that the public has severe ADD and won’t remember the past many times they were wrong.
johanna on June 1, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Well said, philjourdan. An ‘average’ almost never happens. It comprises a compilation and computation of highs and lows.
It is supremely irritating to listen to MSM discussions about weather events which focus on something being above or below average, as though it is significant in itself.”
……………………
Couldn’t agree more! I hate that too, and hate the additional “average high” and “average low” nonsense as well, or the proclamations of great significance of a heat wave lasting 3 of 4 days. Flip a quarter, count how many time you get heads in a row 4 times. It happens. Doesn’t mean anything.
Simon says on June 2, 2013 at 1:48 am:
Strangely enough, I was just there, I’m going berserk trying to find ACE data elsewhere.
Next time, before getting alarmed, actually read what the page says at top:
Got that? Before 1966 the numbers are crap. As has been mentioned MANY times before, it only looks like there’s a dramatic increase in tropical storms and hurricanes starting with the 2nd half of the 20th century, because before there was normally no one to see them. Before satellites there were lots of “fish storms” that never made landfall that were never recorded because no one saw them.
I found the slopes of the linear trend lines with my spreadsheet. I started from 1970 because that’s a nice looking start number on the graph. Hurricanes have risen only 0.099 per year. That is within the frequently-vocal observations that more storms these days are called “hurricanes” when their wind speeds are barely past the threshold for mere minutes.
Major Hurricanes are even better, only 0.068 per year increase.
But the eye-opener is Named Storms, up 0.211 per year. This is well within the likewise-reported observations that they’re naming storms that only briefly hit the tropical storm threshold.
Nothing happening there but better detection, and better measurement taking allowing more frequent wind speed measurements thus more storms rated at levels they never would have gotten in the past.
Simon says:
June 2, 2013 at 1:48 am
“& Landsea et al. (2010) documented a rather large increase in short-lived tropical storms and hurricanes in the last decade, which is likely due to improved monitoring capabilities, that may be influencing the climatological average number of TCs in the Atlantic basin. With the artificial jump in the 2000s in the frequency of short-lived systems, a more realistic estimate of the long-term climatology may be closer to 13 tropical storms and hurricanes per year.”
Kadaka beat me to it!
MichaelS said on June 2, 2013 at 3:36 am:
Did not! We copied different sections. We complemented, not overlapped.
“REPLY: Who’s crowing? Its a statement of fact.- Anthony”
Disingenuous. Sure it’s a fact. And you love putting it out there. Which is fine. I understand why you would. It’s a damn good counter-argument to all this extreme weather baloney. However imo it would be smarter to also try and get out ahead of what’s coming. If it were my blog I’d be putting up several posts with all the current predictions for an active hurricane season with explanations as to why this is likely so.
My objection isn’t substantive but tactical. Ultimately, this is all PR. It’s the way they’re playing the game and we should be responding in kind. You’re setting yourself up for a pretty big slam when we get a Cat 3 crossing Cape Cod later this summer.
I was very surprised to see Roger Pielke say at his blog that Sandy was of hurricane strength at landfall. As noted on the WUWT thread at the time, I looked very carefully for evidence in National Weather Service measurements that anywhere on land saw sustained winds of 74mph. I can’t remember what the highest was, but it was something like 55mph. No-one refuted my analysis and pointed to proper evidence of hurricane strength.
I would have left this comment at Roger Pielke’s blog, but apparently you need some sort of “profile” to comment there.
Rich.
Without a doubt, this is an EXTREME length of time !!. 😉
ala Phil Jones — We’ll just have to redefine what Cat [3,4,5] hurricanes are!
pokerguy says: June 2, 2013 at 4:15 am
“REPLY: Who’s crowing? Its a statement of fact.- Anthony”
“…. If it were my blog I’d be putting up several posts with all the current predictions for an active hurricane season with explanations as to why this is likely so….”
Well, this concept baffles the hell outta me.
Why on earth does anyone need to be out-predicting official forecasters and the alarmists?
We have been fed a load of tripe re worsening weather, and more extreme weather, and have been treated like fools by pronouncements that every weather event is “…proof of global warming, oops sorry climate change…” when it is soon revealed by a few minutes searching that none of them can be regarded as unusual in any way.
So what can possibly be gained by trying to predict the outcome of the upcoming season? It may be right at the bottom of the range, which as a single event, would be meaningless. It may be right off the top of the scale, which, as a single event would also be meaningless . If it goes off either the top or bottom of the scale every four or five years in the next two decades, it may be time to start drawing some conclusions.
And, undoubtedly most are going to land somewhere in the middle.
I’d be pleased if someone could explain to me what pokerguy is talking about.
In August 1983 I was at Ft Irwin, CA for 30 days of desert training. Over a 7 day period they got more rain than the previous 10 years combined. Training had to be suspended several times, and we moved all our vehicles and personnell to higher ground. I don’t remember what the cause was.
Very well said. To Simon, when are you gonna realize you have been played like a fiddle by the catastrophicists? Now go change your diapers.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 2, 2013 at 3:32 am
Simon says on June 2, 2013 at 1:48 am:
“But the eye-opener is Named Storms, up 0.211 per year. This is well within the likewise-reported observations that they’re naming storms that only briefly hit the tropical storm threshold.”
Great report. The Alarmists now count more storms from the same data.
pokerguy says:
June 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm
“Couldn’t agree more. I think these hurricane drought posts are short-sighted. I keep saying essentially the same thing. We saw what they did with “superstorm” Sandy last year. Crowing about a hurricane drought is not smart since it has to end, likely this year.”
You are not evaluating the fact of the “drought” in scientific terms. It clearly falsifies everything Alarmists had written about hurricanes and increasing CO2. Once falsified is forever falsified. Writing about the drought points to the unscientific nature of Alarmist work. A recovery from the drought does nothing to remove the falsification of Alarmist work. Once falsified is forever falsified.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) [June 2, 2013 at 3:32 am] says:
“Got that? Before 1966 the numbers are crap. As has been mentioned MANY times before, it only looks like there’s a dramatic increase in tropical storms and hurricanes starting with the 2nd half of the 20th century, because before there was normally no one to see them. Before satellites there were lots of “fish storms” that never made landfall that were never recorded because no one saw them.”
Also, consider technological advances. For a long time after 1966, the satellite images were more like hand assembled mosaics on photographic paper and less like streaming video.
OT
If you were in Canada or the northern USA states you may have seen unusually strong lilac aurora instead of more common greenish one. It looks as Earth was swept by sharp transition between North and South IMF polarity
IMF polarity
is Dr.S around ?
Terming long-term absence of Cat-3 to Cat-5 hurricanes a “drought” is a thoughtless solecism. In English, the word should be “dearth,” not “drought.”
See – owe to Rich said in part June 2, 2013 at 4:54 am:
“I was very surprised to see Roger Pielke say at his blog that Sandy
was of hurricane strength at landfall. As noted on the WUWT thread
at the time, I looked very carefully for evidence in National Weather
Service measurements that anywhere on land saw sustained winds of
74mph. I can’t remember what the highest was, but it was something
like 55mph. No-one refuted my analysis and pointed to proper evidence
of hurricane strength.”
When Sandy made landfall, the storm’s strongest sustained winds were
reported by the NHC to be 80 MPH.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al18/al182012.update.10300002.shtml?
In the 1st advisory after landfall, the strongest sustained winds were reported
to be 75 MPH, east of the center, and over water.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al18/al182012.public.031.shtml?
Link to a page with links to archived NHC Sandy advisories and other
NHC products:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/SANDY.shtml?
Ah, so you are saying that one doesn’t need hurricane force winds on land at landfall to say that a hurricane (or post-tropical hurricane force storm) hit? Has such a definition always been the case, or is it another example of “adjustments”? And I’m afraid I don’t trust the NHC estimates from radar. The trouble with becoming an alarmist outfit is that you get tarred with a brush. Observations on land or at weather buoys at sea are the only things I would trust, and you haven’t given me any data from those.
I seem to remember Willis Eschenbach complaining about the same thing with Tropical Storm Irene.
Rich.
I commented earlier when See – owe to Rich said on June 2, 2013 at 4:54 am:
“I was very surprised to see Roger Pielke say at his blog that Sandy was of hurricane strength at landfall. As noted on the WUWT thread at the time, I looked very carefully for evidence in National Weather Service measurements that anywhere on land saw sustained winds of 74mph. I can’t remember what the highest was, but it was something like 55mph. No-one refuted my analysis and pointed to proper evidence of hurricane strength.”
Since then, I found this:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf
Towards the bottom of page 5, I see mention of a 65 (75 MPH) knot sustained wind measured at Gull Island, near Long island. (Although at 18 meters above surface, and the standard elevation for wind measurement is 10 meters above the surface.) Also mentioned is a 53 knot sustained wind measured 2.25 meters above the surface near Long Beach NJ. This extrapolates to 68 knots (78 MPH) at 10 meters.
Figure 14 on page 139 shows maximum sustained winds in knots 24 meters or less above the surface. Multiply by 1.15 to convert these to MPH. It appears to me that sustained (1-minute-average) winds 64 knots or more barely occurred 10 meters above the surface in only a few spotty areas. However, if the storm is a tropical cyclone, and the National Hurricane Center determines that sustained winds 74 MPH or more occurred 10 meters above the surface – even if measured indirectly or extrapolated from available measurements at other elevations – then the storm is officially a hurricane.
Donald L. Klipstein says:
June 2, 2013 at 12:41 pm
These are not the figures that were on the internet immediately before and after landfall.
Donald – I have no doubt that the storm was “officially a hurricane”. My doubt is that it was actually a hurricane.
Rich.
See-Owe 2 Rich is correct. As the “Sandy” storm came ashore, I clicked onto the exact buoy data reports. Where I checked. on those buoys both north and south of Cape May, I could not find buoy data noting winds at or above 75mph. I believe I saw wind as high as 55MPH.
The technical definition for hurricane status is not what is estimated by a satellite, or by an airplane flying near, or in the hurricane. It is not by a satellite or weather plane detecting winds way high up that are 75 mph. That is ridiculous. There is almost always a wind at 75mph plus high in the atmosphere.
The technical defn for a hurricane is the wind speed at 20 meters. The weather buoys directly measure 10M, and the corresponding wind speed at 20M is estimated by a known, recognized, formula published in a scholarly article, I seem to recall, or some recognized technical specification pulbication.
I commented about this on WUWT soon after landfall. I noted my method for finding the buoy data.
As far as I know, there are three places where the weather service could get the original / source / raw data upon which to make this judgment. First is the exact buoy data I was looking at. The second is to take the buoy data and manipulate it somehow – possibly a different 10M to 20M formula that the official formula. The third is to ignore the buoy data and depend upon what a satellite read somewhere in the storm other than 20M, or an airplane determined at some elevation other than 20M.
Any method other than the recognized method, ought to add an asterisk to the “hurricane.”
I looked all of this up for myself based on various comments at WUWT and other places. I was determined
This is really good for sailors, and very bad for those who believe in the bermuda triangle.
Theo Goodwin, You’re exactly right. Everytime the data doesn’t conform to the myth, the “scientists” go about formulating a new complicated index for tracking. The number of large tornadoes has been decreasing since the seventies, so they developed a new tornado index, which relies on many assumptions that make it increase over the years. Since we couldn’t track the number of small tornadoes as well in the past, the assumptions ensure the number of small tornadoes increased over time (making up for the fact that the large ones decreased). So now they have another nice little index that confirms their myth.
How many Cat 3+ US landfall storms in 2013 would it take for us to end the drought and revert to trend?
tmlutas says:
June 3, 2013 at 7:25 pm
——————————-
Until the infrastructure is build to divert flood waters, especially flash ones, to re-charge aquifers, drought will continue. And as long as some are getting rich via other’s misery change will be slow to manifest, regardless.