After the past weekend’s silliness over a snowstorm that wasn’t all that much different than Nor’Easters of the past, I can imagine some CNN anchor using the phrase badly in the not too distant future, like suggesting sending in a drone or robot to “defuse it”. /sarc On the serious side, this paper looks at the ingredients that must come together to form a stronger than usual and rapidly deepening cyclone, much like a rogue wave has to have many smaller waves come together in synchronization – Anthony
From AGU highlights:
Global climatology of explosive cyclones
Explosive cyclones, which have rapidly intensifying winds and heavy rain, can seriously threaten life and property. These “meteorological bombs” are difficult to forecast, in part because scientists need a better understanding of the physical mechanisms by which they form. In particular, the large-scale circulation conditions that may contribute to explosive cyclone formation are not well understood.
Black and Pezza analyzed broad-environment energetics in creating a global climatology of explosive cyclones. They identify global hotspots for explosive cyclones and find that explosive cyclones in different geographical locations share a similar characteristic energy-conversion signature that can easily be identified in satellite data. The study could help improve storm track prediction.
A universal, broad-environment energy conversion signature of explosive cyclones
Abstract
[1] This study presents the first analysis of the Lorenz energetics associated with a global climatology of explosive cyclones. Energy budgets of the large-scale environment are calculated for 32 year climatologies (1980–2011) of explosive cyclones within four of the most active regions in the world: the Northwest Pacific, the North Atlantic, the Southwest Pacific, and the South Atlantic. A robust signature in the Lorenz energy cycle is observed; anomalous energy conversions commence 48 h before explosive cyclone development and remain strong (i.e., significantly above background noise) for 120 h. Remarkably, the calculated signature of energy conversion is virtually identical for all four geographical regions. While the conversions imply a classic baroclinic growth cycle, they are not seen in regular cyclones that undergo a deepening of less than half that exhibited by explosive cyclones. This finding opens a new avenue of exploration of explosive storm behavior based on the large-scale environment.
Source: Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/grl.50114, 2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50114/abstract
Tom Bearden gives a good explaination to what they can do hear http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/newenergy/newenergy13.htm
Fits nicely with this http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalarwar06.htm
Perhaps I didn’t look deeply enough, but I didn’t see the study connect to Global Warming. Isn’t it just a study of rapidly developing storms?
These storms have been called “bombs,” “bombogenesis,” and “explosive” for quite some time, mostly because it can be downright amazing how swiftly they blow up. One wonderful bit of reading I did was a fisherman’s description, back in the age of sail, of fishing on a balmy spring day, and having the Blizzard of 1888 develop right overhead. The sky got black; there was thunder; it suddenly got windy and abruptly colder, he barely made it back to port through blinding snow, and so on and so forth. When he stated the storm winds quickly blew up, he was talking about wind, but “blew up” also suggests an explosion.
This is not to say Alarmists will not, (and haven’t already started to,) make the term “explosive” sound like such storms are “unprecedented.” You have to persistently and patiently point out that such storms are not new, and present them with the facts. For example, last weekend’s blizzard was only the fifth worst is Boston’s “history,” and that “history” only goes back to 1934.
(I suppose, before 1934, Bostonians were too busy surviving winters to make “official” measurements of how deep the snow was. You can find measurements, but they aren’t “official.”)
Already happening. Here in Seattle, the local weather guys on one station (as far as I know) call every front that moves through a “storm”. Seriously. Even if all we get is 5/100ths of an inch of rain. For those in the Seattle area who watch Kiro 7 news, you know what I mean.
The NHC hurricane commentaries talk of ‘explosive deepening’ of tropical cyclones on occasion, with a clear definition of 2.5mb per hour decrease in sea-level central pressure for at least 12 hours or 5mb decrease for at least 6 hours.
To use the term ‘explosive cyclone’ is, however, a little bit silly.