Record Breaking Hurricane Season

[RU4Real]

I don't like this thread. I don't understand the point of the OP and I don't understand the tone of his replies. Is there something I am missing here or is this thread a total waste of space and time. Is the OP telling me not to worry about storms like Sandy...I don't get it...

There hasn't been a landfalling Cat 3+ in the US since Wilma in '05.

NOAA says this is likely due to a cooling AMO cycle and that we may be in for a period of further decreased Atlantic tropical activity.

It's a weather thread.

The banter over what constitutes a severe storm is A) not my doing, b) not the point.

Don't overthink it.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Weather weenies getting their panties in a bunch.... but they are correct.

Everyone knows there have been plenty of damaging storms. But if you are going to specify "hurricane", it has a very specific definition. So if you are just counting "hurricanes", the OP is correct.

Perhaps those that oppose the OP factoid should provide some facts about the frequency of tropical storms hitting landfall over that same period. Is it less or more than the previous similar time period? Less or more than similar "nino" or "nina" occurrences?

I have no idea if the time period mentioned means anything. I do suspect all political entities will try to use it, or attack it, to advance their arguments in order to press their agendas. Its what they do and is much more predictable than hurricanes.

In the meantime, here is ten years of weather.. 2003-2013

 

[RUChoppin]

There hasn't been a landfalling Cat 3+ in the US since Wilma in '05.

And there hadn't been a landfalling Cat 5 in the Atlantic Basin since 1992... until we got 2 in 2007.

Limiting to the the human-defined borders of the US is pointless.

 

[RU4Real]

And there hadn't been a landfalling Cat 5 in the Atlantic Basin since 1992... until we got 2 in 2007.

Limiting to the the human-defined borders of the US is pointless.

I didn't write the myriad articles on the topic.

Apparently NOAA disagrees with you.

 

[RUChoppin]

I didn't write the myriad articles on the topic.

Apparently NOAA disagrees with you.

I'm not disagreeing with the factoid - just saying that it's really not that meaningful.

A New Mexico fan could say that they outgained us in overall yardage and dominated time of possession on Saturday, too... and those would be accurate factoids. They leave out the fact that NM lost, but still... accurate statements, technically.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

I didn't write the myriad articles on the topic.

Apparently NOAA disagrees with you.

I would add this.. the whole point of the "factoid" is as it relates to the USA. It is silly to start expanding the area discussed.

I am sure some brainy actuaries have specific data on various places as it relates to telling their clients.. insurance companies, how much they need to charge for insurance against hurricanes and the like.

If they are talking about the rates for New Jersey.. and someone brings up the risks to Florida.. well, it is not the point, is it?

Similarly, discussing Hurricanes hitting the continental US has little to do with stuff that hits Mexico or Puerto Rico or Bermuda or anywhere else. If some who disagree can make a case that hurricanes that hit nearby locales strike at a fixed rate compared to those that hit the USA then show your work. If they think Hurricanes hitting elsewhere should count for something when discussing the USA, prove it.. and show your work.

 

[RUChoppin]

I would add this.. the whole point of the "factoid" is as it relates to the USA. It is silly to start expanding the area discussed.

I am sure some brainy actuaries have specific data on various places as it relates to telling their clients.. insurance companies, how much they need to charge for insurance against hurricanes and the like.

If they are talking about the rates for New Jersey.. and someone brings up the risks to Florida.. well, it is not the point, is it?

Similarly, discussing Hurricanes hitting the continental US has little to do with stuff that hits Mexico or Puerto Rico or Bermuda or anywhere else. If some who disagree can make a case that hurricanes that hit nearby locales strike at a fixed rate compared to those that hit the USA then show your work. If they think Hurricanes hitting elsewhere should count for something when discussing the USA, prove it.. and show your work.

Discussing the number of major hurricanes hitting the continental US has little to do with overall storm activity in the region.

 

[RU4Real]

I'm not disagreeing with the factoid - just saying that it's really not that meaningful.

A New Mexico fan could say that they outgained us in overall yardage and dominated time of possession on Saturday, too... and those would be accurate factoids. They leave out the fact that NM lost, but still... accurate statements, technically.

You might consider that, on average, there might be X number of major hurricanes and that, again, on average, Y/X of those storms will landfall in the U.S.

So if NOAA picks an historical period in which there have been none, that would be below the average and therefore statistically significant.

Where the others land is not, as Good'ol says, germane to the discussion.

 

[RUChoppin]

You might consider that, on average, there might be X number of major hurricanes and that, again, on average, Y/X of those storms will landfall in the U.S.

So if NOAA picks an historical period in which there have been none, that would be below the average and therefore statistically significant.

Where the others land is not, as Good'ol says, germane to the discussion.

See Atlantic Storm activity chart above. Just because a storm doesn't hit the US, doesn't mean it doesn't form. Since 1851 there have been just 20 years with 15 or more named storms.... 11 of them have been since 2000.

To put that in further perspective... from 1851-1999, there were just 9 years with more than 15 names storms (6%), and from 2000-2015 there have been 11 (69%).

 

[RU4Real]

See Atlantic Storm activity chart above. Just because a storm doesn't hit the US, doesn't mean it doesn't form. Since 1851 there have been just 20 years with 15 or more named storms.... 11 of them have been since 2000.

To put that in further perspective... from 1851-1999, there were just 9 years with more than 15 names storms (6%), and from 2000-2015 there have been 11 (69%).

First of all, the chart isn't relevant since it doesn't give precise numbers for analysis.

Second, anyone with any knowledge of storms knows that the first of the GOES satellites went up in 1975 and the first C-band ASCAT satellite, which allows the measurement of wind speeds from orbit, was launched in 2006. The historical record prior to '75 is unreliable with respect to storm totals, since non-landfalling storms could come and go without ever being observed, or identified. The arrival of ASCAT measurements has resulted in the naming of storms, in many cases, well before they would have been, otherwise - and doubtless the naming of a number of small "fish storms" that would have otherwise gone unnamed.

 

[rurichdog]

And how good were our ocean observations in that period beginning 1851? Care to imagine a scenario where countless storms were missed because there were no ships in the vicinity to record their presence? Heck, up until the surf kicked up and the winds started howling, there was no hurricane in Galveston in 1900 or Long Island Express in 1938.

 

[RU4Real]

And how good were our ocean observations in that period beginning 1851? Care to imagine a scenario where countless storms were missed because there were no ships in the vicinity to record their presence? Heck, up until the surf kicked up and the winds started howling, there was no hurricane in Galveston in 1900 or Long Island Express in 1938.

If you haven't, definitely read "Isaac's Storm" by Erik Larson. It's a terrific story that gives outstanding insight into how storms were detected - or not - back before there was any kind of electronic assistance.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Discussing the number of major hurricanes hitting the continental US has little to do with overall storm activity in the region.

There is nothing there that discusses effects on the USA. And this data ignores the idea that new satellites allowed finding more "fish storms" as time goes on.

Have not read Isaac Storm.. but the answer has to be observations of conditions by ships in the shipping lanes. Certainly satellites do a better job.

 

[RUChoppin]

First of all, the chart isn't relevant since it doesn't give precise numbers for analysis.

Second, anyone with any knowledge of storms knows that the first of the GOES satellites went up in 1975 and the first C-band ASCAT satellite, which allows the measurement of wind speeds from orbit, was launched in 2006. The historical record prior to '75 is unreliable with respect to storm totals, since non-landfalling storms could come and go without ever being observed, or identified. The arrival of ASCAT measurements has resulted in the naming of storms, in many cases, well before they would have been, otherwise - and doubtless the naming of a number of small "fish storms" that would have otherwise gone unnamed.

Doesn't give precise numbers? Looks pretty discrete, to me - we're not talking increments of thousands here, every unit is ticked off along the y axis.

Let's start at 1975, then, per the numbers in NOAA's chart:
1975-84: 93 named storms, 53 hurricanes, 18 major hurricanes
1985-94: 91 named storms, 49 hurricanes, 14 major hurricanes
1995-04: 142 named storms, 78 hurricanes, 38 major hurricanes
2005-14: 157 named storms, 74 hurricanes, 31 major hurricanes

 

[RU4Real]

Doesn't give precise numbers? Looks pretty discrete, to me - we're not talking increments of thousands here, every unit is ticked off along the y axis.

Let's start at 1975, then, per the numbers in NOAA's chart:
1975-84: 93 named storms, 53 hurricanes, 18 major hurricanes
1985-94: 91 named storms, 49 hurricanes, 14 major hurricanes
1995-04: 142 named storms, 78 hurricanes, 38 major hurricanes
2005-14: 157 named storms, 74 hurricanes, 31 major hurricanes

See previous discussion on detection.

 

[RUChoppin]

There are two discussions here - one is about a very discrete factoid about storms that were classified as Cat 3+ hurricanes when they made landfall on US soil, the other relates to overall hurricane activity in the Atlantic region.

"Fish storms" have nothing to do with the first discussion, but can't be discounted in the second.

There's still a third discussion, too, regarding the severity of storms outside their category rating. Sandy, for instance, wasn't even a hurricane when it made landfall... but it was one of the five most destructive storms in US history. It is not relevant to the factoid (and, really, by its existence, renders the factoid somewhat specious), but would be relevant to the broader topic.

 

[RU4Real]

There are two discussions here - one is about a very discrete factoid about storms that were classified as Cat 3+ hurricanes when they made landfall on US soil, the other relates to overall hurricane activity in the Atlantic region.

"Fish storms" have nothing to do with the first discussion, but can't be discounted in the second.

There's still a third discussion, too, regarding the severity of storms outside their category rating. Sandy, for instance, wasn't even a hurricane when it made landfall... but it was one of the five most destructive storms in US history. It is not relevant to the factoid (and, really, by its existence, renders the factoid somewhat specious), but would be relevant to the broader topic.

The only intended discussion is about the AMO's effect on storms.

You're attempting to turn the discussion into something that it's not.

There is vast scholarly material on the correlation between AMO and storm frequency.

 

[rurichdog]

If you haven't, definitely read "Isaac's Storm" by Erik Larson. It's a terrific story that gives outstanding insight into how storms were detected - or not - back before there was any kind of electronic assistance.

I'll have to check this one out. I vaguely recall from lectures this was accomplished by evaluating pressure patterns over the course of several hours of coastal station observations. If pressure rapidly fell off and recovered over a short period of time, coupled with other observed conditions changes, it could be reasonably assumed a tropical cyclone had passed, and was heading in x direction relative to nearby stations. All figured out by years of observation, verification, and analysis by hand & slide rule.

 

[RUChoppin]

The only intended discussion is about the AMO's effect on storms.

You're attempting to turn the discussion into something that it's not.

There is vast scholarly material on the correlation between AMO and storm frequency.

That was the intended discussion? Glad you waited until your 6th post, 26 posts into the thread to even mention it.

You have any links for the AMO cold phase impacting 2016 that are more recent than May, or that say much more than "this bears watching"?

Most recent report I saw out of NOAA (August) was that 2016 was going to see an uptick in activity (which has borne out so far - 12 storms, 4 hurricanes, 1 major - already as much as last season, and we're just past half way through)

 

[RU4Real]

I'll have to check this one out. I vaguely recall from lectures this was accomplished by evaluating pressure patterns over the course of several hours of coastal station observations. If pressure rapidly fell off and recovered over a short period of time, coupled with other observed conditions changes, it could be reasonably assumed a tropical cyclone had passed, and was heading in x direction relative to nearby stations. All figured out by years of observation, verification, and analysis by hand & slide rule.

All true.

Joseph Cline was Isaac Cline's brother and assistant to Isaac's Chief Meteorologist role in Galveston. He was the first to sound the alarm (to his brother) in the hours leading up to the 1900 storm and the thing that tipped him off was long-period swells. He noticed that the sea state the morning before the storm was relatively calm but that periodically a very large wave would come crashing in. We now know all about the how and why of such things, but back then it was a fairly anomalous observation.

 

[RUsince52]

Doesn't have to be a major hurricane to be a major nuisance on the pain in the neck scale.

 

[Scarlet dollar]

All that this tells me, is we are overdue, and 4real just jinxed us.

 

[RU4Real]

All that this tells me, is we are overdue, and 4real just jinxed us.

No way.

The occurrence of actual hurricanes in NJ is an exceptionally rare thing. Sandy was a once in a lifetime storm. Buy that beachfront, it's all good.

 

[Scarlet dollar]

No way.

The occurrence of actual hurricanes in NJ is an exceptionally rare thing. Sandy was a once in a lifetime storm. Buy that beachfront, it's all good.

Believe me, I know. Been living here for 64 years, and I have only seen a few. Just poking fun!

 

[RU848789]

Wow, go away for a day and miss everything, lol. Only quickly skimmed the thread and thought I'd add one important point. While there hasn't been a major (cat 3/4/5) hurricane making landfall in the US, while it was still a major hurricane, since 2005, that doesn't mean there haven't been destructive storms during that period.

The most obvious is Sandy, which was the 2nd most powerful tropical system in the modern era (usually defined as the late 60s with the advent of satellites), as measured by integrated kinetic energy, which calculates the cumulative energy of a cyclone across its entire area of impact.

It certainly didn't have anywhere near the strongest winds, but it was friggin' huge, having tropical storm force winds extending nearly 500 miles from its center, which is unheard of. Those winds over a large area over a fairly long period, as it approached the NJ/NY coasts were what made for such an incredible impact, especially with regard to storm surge and inland damage to trees (and the power impact). The graphic, below, shows it well.

One other point: while Sandy was declared to be an extra-tropical system before landfall around AC (having merged to a certain degree with a powerful frontal system, leading to the storm acquiring some "cold core" characteristics, i.e., deriving its energy from temperature gradients across large areas, instead of purely from evaporation of warm ocean waters), that was purely semantics.

Sandy did have cat 1 hurricane force winds at landfall and the NHC never should've allowed those semantics to stop it from issuing hurricane warnings (those rules changed after Sandy, as we saw with Hermine, where TS watches/warnings were still kept in place after it had largely transitioned to being an extratropical system).

By the way, Irene was a Cat 3 major hurricane in the Bahamas, but it weakened to a strong TS by the time it made landfall in Little Egg, NJ and then NYC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...aa4e3c4-24f4-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html