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
D Böehm
November 3, 2012 3:48 pm

The cheese eating surrender monkey says:
“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.”
Wrong. That is like a Martian landing on a city street, and seeing a man pass by. Then he sees a woman pass by, and thinks to himself: “They have different structures. Therefore, they must be different species!”
Claiming that Sandy was ‘unprecedented’ is plain dishonest. And the onus is on those who make the assertion that Sandy was “unprecedented” to prove their point. Good luck with that.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 3:49 pm

DB
“Unprecedented” is not mentioned in the article,…’
Things are getting fairly desperate when you are reduced to engaging in sophistry rather than science.
The article states:
‘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.’
‘Unique’ means one of a kind, which means there has been no other one like it, which means that it is ‘unprecedented’.
Rather than getting hung up about Hurricane Sandy being unprecedented, people would be advised to ask, ‘Why is Hurricane Sandy unprecedented’?

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 4:00 pm

DB
The cheese eating surrender monkey says: …menadacious… dishonest…
When people descend to personal abuse I know that they have given up on the science…

D Böehm
November 3, 2012 4:02 pm

CESM:
Speaking of science, “unprecedented” is an untestable conjecture, and as such it is only an opinion.
Try to stick to science, instead of issuing untestable and unfalsifiable conjectures, which are only pseudo-science — a staple of the alarmist crowd.

eric1skeptic
November 3, 2012 4:03 pm

Now you are just parsing words. All storms are unique combinations of familiar ingredients. “People” are motivated to ask why other people are so eager to declare unique weather events to be “unprecedented” knowing full well that the word has connotations to people less familiar with the history of storms and storm effects in NYC. The main connotation is that it could never happen without added CO2.
If you do insist on using the word “unprecedented”, please clearly state what specific structure or process or effect of the storm is or are unprecedented so we can evaluate each claim.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 4:10 pm

e
If you do insist on using the word “unprecedented”, please clearly state what specific structure or process or effect of the storm is or are unprecedented so we can evaluate each claim.
This has already been done in the article. It is all there. Go for it.
Hurricane Sandy is unprecendented.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 4:12 pm

DB
I am ready to resume a reasonable dialogue with you when you withdraw your vicious and baseless personal allegations.

D Böehm
November 3, 2012 4:31 pm

eric1skeptic,
Correct, as usual. The use of “unprecedented” is a complete misnomer. It implies that we know all the parameters of past hurricanes. If the phrase used was “unprecedented since 1938” or something similar, that would be acceptable. But then the alarmist crowd would sound even sillier than they usuallly do.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
November 3, 2012 4:33 pm

Every individual thing possible will be unprecedented once, when it first appears.
But much like the first appearance of 12.7×6.35mm precision-cut home fries made from Minnesotan red skin potatoes deep fried in fresh Welsh lamb lard and sprinkled with Moroccan sea salt that was finely crushed between rollers made from authentic Maine speckled granite, the use of “unprecedented” comes with an impression of undeniable uniqueness and specialness that may be far from deserved.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 4:43 pm

k
Every individual thing possible will be unprecedented once, when it first appears.
Agreed, within the limits of known measurements.
The real issue is not that Hurricane Sandy is unprecedented to the best of our knowledge. That is not an ‘impression’. Nor is it ‘alarmism’ whatever that means.
The real issue is, what does the unprecedented nature of Hurricane Sandy ‘mean’?

November 3, 2012 4:53 pm

For those determined to make this a global warming event, the tropical cyclone itself was below hurricane strength before landfall and its encounter with a COLD FRONT made it a super storm. We may see more of this in a cooling climate where cold fronts like this, reaching down this far, this early can contribute to a storm like this. Note the most fearsome October hurricanes to hit the East coast and travel northwest and north numbered 6 between 1954 and 1960 – gee wasn’t that a cold period, back when we were worrying about the coming ice age (probably with 95% confidence).

philincalifornia
November 3, 2012 5:06 pm

Just as the phrase “think of the children” already has, the word “unprecedented” is rapidly approaching joke status.
Carry on.

D Böehm
November 3, 2012 5:30 pm

philincalifornia says:
“Just as the phrase ‘think of the children’ already has, the word ‘unprecedented’ is rapidly approaching joke status.”
Yes, the use of “unprecedented” is a joke, and those like the CESM who continue to use it are merely amusing; they are being anti-science. “Unprecedented” in this context is unfalsifiable and untestable. Therefore the CESM is spouting pure pseudo-science. When you eliminate the pseudo-science from the alarmist crowd’s arguments, all that is left is their wild-eyed Belief.

D. Cohen
November 3, 2012 5:33 pm

Look, every time a backwoods town somewhere — or New York city for that matter — has a record low or high temperature for some date, it is by definition unprecedented. This just means that it has not been seen or known before. Yet everybody takes the continuing generation of these “unprecedented” record lows and highs in stride because everyone knows that statistically speaking they just keep on happening due to the random nature of weather and the relatively short period of time temperature has been exactly recorded. These storms have been thoroughly and exactly recorded for an even shorter period of time than temperatures, so the “unprecedented” label — while it may technically be true — means even less.
Heck, the first time scientists start measuring anything new about the weather, there very first dataset will by definition almost always contain measurements that are “unprecedented” in one way or another, and so what.
Unfortunately one thing that isn’t unprecedented is con artists trying to separate us from our money by claiming they can control the weather (like “superstorm” Sandy). A hundred years from now I suspect that the idea of reducing the number of Sandy-type storms by reducing atmospheric CO2 will seem as quaint and fraudulent as tales of 19th century con men descending on farming communities and offering — for a hefty fee, naturally — to set off massive fire works or repeatedly fire cannons in order to break a damaging drought.

mike g
November 3, 2012 5:46 pm

No other known hurrican has ever had all the known attributes of any other hurricane. They are all different. In that, this one was no different.

eric1skeptic
November 3, 2012 6:03 pm

Howskepticalment keeps asking “The real issue is, what does the unprecedented nature of Hurricane Sandy ‘mean’?”
Noting that he/she won’t tell us what is unprecedented or even define a time period as DB suggests, I will attempt to answer that question. If by unprecedented he means the surge never happened before, then he is wrong, but the answer is simple. For less than the cleanup cost of Sandy, NYC could build a barrier across the Verrazano Narrows (plus two other cheaper barriers). Here’s a link: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/climate/ocean-rise/against-the-deluge/15-verrazano_narrows_barrier.pdf Even the alarmist hero Masters admits that a barrier makes sense (while not admitting it makes a ton more sense than whining about gigatonnes of carbon as a “solution”.
If by unprecedented he means a hybrid storm, then he is simply does not track hurricanes. Earlier this year Leslie hit Newfoundland as large and powerful post tropical low and stayed powerful for days in the North Atlantic. Hybrid storms are common up there, not as common at our latitude.
If by unprecedented he means the lowest barometric pressure of a non tropical cyclone, he would be close. Sandy did have 28.01 pressure at Atlantic City at landfall and 28.21 was the prior record. However the record is sparse before this century since barometric pressures were not measured. Also as others have pointed out the 1938 hurricane had lower pressure and Sandy was arguably still tropical at landfall.
I’d welcome a definition of what is unprecedented about Sandy. Perhaps he means a combination of structure and effects, but that defines uniqueness not unprecedentedness. So far my answer is “nothing” since Sandy is not unprecedented.

philincalifornia
November 3, 2012 6:03 pm

D Böehm says:
November 3, 2012 at 5:30 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Yes, other worldwide joke phrases and words now include:
Polar bears
Global warming
Climate change
Climate crisis
Hockey stick
Trenberth ….
….. I’m gonna stop there as I don’t have the twelve hours to complete the list. I have a beautiful Saturday evening to enjoy, well removed from the people who can’t get real jobs.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 6:23 pm

e
Howskepticalment keeps asking “The real issue is, what does the unprecedented nature of Hurricane Sandy ‘mean’?”
Noting that he/she won’t tell us what is unprecedented or even define a time period as DB suggests, I will attempt to answer that question.

You have transmuted your red herrings into strawmen and knock them down.
Read the Henson post above and then refute Henson’s claim that Hurricane Sandy was ‘unique’, aka, unprecendented.
Until you can, you will just have to go along with Hurricane Sandy being unprecedented.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 6:24 pm

mg
No other known hurrican has ever had all the known attributes of any other hurricane. They are all different. In that, this one was no different.
The first point is valid, IMHO. If you read Henson’s post carefully you will discover that Hurricane Sandy was unprecedented in a quite specific way.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 6:31 pm

D Cohen
Good post, IMHO, on what the unprecedented nature of Hurricane Sandy might mean, until you leave the science and venture into what, in the absence of evidence, can only be construed as conspiracy theory.
I trust you are not saying that Henson is a con artist because he has demonstrated that Hurricane Sandy is unique, aka unprecedented?
Unfortunately one thing that isn’t unprecedented is con artists trying to separate us from our money by claiming they can control the weather (like “superstorm” Sandy).
Please provide a citation which demonstrates that any scientists are claiming to be able to ‘control weather’.
A hundred years from now I suspect that the idea of reducing the number of Sandy-type storms by reducing atmospheric CO2 will seem as quaint and fraudulent…
Suspicions? I thought this was a science blog.

Howskepticalment
November 3, 2012 6:37 pm

philincalifornia
Just as the phrase “think of the children” already has, the word “unprecedented” is rapidly approaching joke status.
In relation to the term ‘unprecendented’, it is not all that funny that people prefer sarcasm, logical fallacies, personal abuse and sophistry to rational discussion.

eyesonu
November 3, 2012 6:56 pm

Would it be “unprecedented” if Sandy caused a storm surge of 5 feet over the expected high tide level that included the effect the full moon? How will that affect the discussion? Someone has the details, I’m sure.

D Böehm
November 3, 2012 6:56 pm

Howskepticalment,
You need to get up to speed on the scientific method. The hypothesis conjecture is that Sandy was “unprecedented”. But by the standards cited, most storms are ‘unprecedented’. And since the information we have on previous storms is limited, your conjecture is untestable and unfalsifiable. Thus, it is not science.
The real question is: why do you keep using inappropriate terms? What is the matter with you?

philincalifornia
November 3, 2012 7:03 pm

Howskepticalment says:
November 3, 2012 at 6:37 pm
++++++++++++
I’ll have a rational discussion with you just as soon as you present any scientific evidence (from the purported overwhelming evidence, ha f***ing ha) that you, and the rest of you liars can never actually present.