The global tropical cyclone season of 2010: record inactivity
The year 2010 was one of the strangest on record globally for tropical cyclones. Each year, the globe has about 92 tropical cyclones--called hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, typhoons in the Western Pacific, and tropical cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere. But in 2010, we had just 68 of these storms--the fewest since the dawn of the satellite era in 1970. The previous record slowest year was 1977, when 69 tropical cyclones occurred world-wide. Both the Western Pacific and Eastern Pacific had their quietest seasons on record in 2010, the Atlantic had its 3rd busiest season since record keeping began in 1851, and the Southern Hemisphere had a below average season. As a result, the Atlantic, which ordinarily accounts for just 13% of global cyclone activity, accounted for 28% in 2010--the greatest proportion since accurate tropical cyclone records began in the 1970s. Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) for 2010 was the lowest since the late 1970s (ACE is a measure of the total destructive power of a hurricane season, based on the number of days strong winds are observed.)
Figure 1. Visible satellite image of 2010's strongest tropical cyclone: Super Typhoon Megi at 2:25 UTC October 18, 2010. A reconnaissance aircraft measured a central pressure of 885 mb and surface winds of 190 mph in the storm, making Megi the 8th strongest tropical cyclone in world history. Image credit: NASA.
A record quiet 2010 Northwest Pacific Typhoon Season
The Western Pacific set records for fewest number of named storms (fifteen, previous record seventeen in 1998) and typhoons (nine, tied with the previous record of nine in 1998. Note that Tropical Storm Mindulle was upgraded to a typhoon in post-analysis after the season was over.) Reliable records began in the mid-1960s. For just the second year in history, the Atlantic had more named storms and hurricane-strength storms than the Western Pacific. The only other year this occurred was in 2005. Ordinarily, the Western Pacific has double to triple the amount of tropical cyclones of the Atlantic. One other notable feature of the 2010 season was the lack of a land-falling typhoon on the Japanese mainland. This is only the second such occurrence since 1988.
In 2010, there was only one super typhoon--a storm with at least 150 mph winds--in the Western Pacific. However, this storm, Super Typhoon Megi, was a doozy. Megi's sustained winds cranked up to a fearsome 190 mph and its central pressure bottomed out at 885 mb on October 16, making it the 8th most intense tropical cyclone in world history. Fortunately, Megi weakened significantly before hitting the Philippines as a Category 3 typhoon. Megi killed 69 people on Taiwan and in the Philippines and did $700 million in damage, and was the second deadliest and damaging typhoon of 2010. Category 3 Typhoon Fanapi was the deadliest and most damaging typhoon of 2010, doing over $1 billion in damage to Taiwan and China and killing 105.
The record quiet typhoon season in 2010 was due, in part, to the La Niña phenomena. During such events, the formation region for Western Pacific typhoons moves northwestward, closer to China. Thus, storms that form in the Western Pacific spend less time over water before they encounter land, resulting in a lesser chance to become a named storm, and less time to intensify. They also accumulate a lower ACE due to their shorter duration. Since the Western Pacific is responsible for 35% of the world's major tropical cyclones, the global ACE value is strongly tied to year-to-year variations in the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
Figure 2. Statistics for the global tropical cyclone season of 2010. The two numbers in each box represent the actual number observed in 2010, followed by the averages from the period 1983-2007 (in parentheses). Averages and records were computed using the December 23, 2008 release of NOAA's International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship.
A record quiet 2010 Eastern Pacific Typhoon Season
In the Eastern Pacific, it was also a record-quiet season. On average, the Eastern Pacific has 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, and 3 intense hurricanes in a season. In 2010, there were 8 named storms, 3 hurricanes, and 2 intense hurricanes. The previous record quietest season since 1966 was the year 1977, when the Eastern Pacific had 8 named storms, 4 hurricanes, and zero intense hurricanes. La Niña was largely responsible for the quiet Eastern Pacific hurricane season, due in part to the cool sea surface temperatures it brought. It is quite remarkable that both the Eastern and Western Pacific ocean basins had record quiet seasons in the same year--there is no historical precedent for such an occurrence.
Climate change and the 2008 global tropical cyclone season
We only have about 30 years of reliable global tropical cyclone data, and tropical cyclones are subject to large natural variations in numbers and intensities. Thus, it will be very difficult at present to prove that climate change is affecting global tropical cyclone activity. (This is less so in the Atlantic, where we have a longer reliable data record to work with.) A common theme of many recent publications on the future of tropical cyclones globally in a warming climate is that the total number of these storms will decrease, but the strongest storms will get stronger. For example, a 2010 review paper published in Nature Geosciences concluded: "greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2 - 11% by 2100. Existing modeling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6 - 34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modeling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre." Last year, I discussed a paper by Bender et al that concluded that the total number of Atlantic hurricanes is expected to decrease by the end of the century, but there could be an increase of 81% in the number of Category 4 and 5 storms. The net effect of a decrease in total number of hurricanes but an increase in the strongest hurricanes should cause an increase in U.S. hurricane damages of about 30% by the end of the century, the authors computed, assuming that hurricane damages behave as they did during the past century. A new paper just published by Murakami et. al predicts that Western Pacific tropical cyclones may decrease in number by 23% by the end of the century, primarily due to a shift in the formation location and tracks of these storms.
In light of these theoretical results, it is interesting that 2010 saw the lowest number of global tropical cyclones on record, but an average number of very strong Category 4 and 5 storms. Fully 21% of last year's tropical cyclones reached Category 4 or 5 strength, versus just 14% during the period 1983 - 2007. Most notably, in 2010 we had the second strongest tropical cyclone on record in the Arabian Sea (Category 4 Cyclone Phet in June) and the strongest tropical cyclone ever to hit Myanmar/Burma (October's Tropical Cyclone Giri, an upper end Category 4 storm with 155 mph winds.) It is too early to read anything into this year's global tropical cyclone numbers, though--we need many more years of data before making any judgments on how global tropical cyclones might be responding to climate change.
Figure 3. Visible satellite image of Tropical Cyclone Phet on Thursday, June 3, 2010. Record heat over southern Asia in May helped heat up the Arabian Sea to 2°C above normal, and the exceptionally warm SSTs helped fuel Tropical Cyclone Phet into the second strongest tropical cyclone ever recorded in the Arabian Sea. Phet peaked at Category 4 strength with 145 mph winds. Only Category 5 Cyclone Gonu of 2007, which devastated Oman, was a stronger Arabian Sea cyclone. Phet killed 44 people and did $700 million in damage to Oman.
Figure 4. Visible MODIS satellite image of Tropical Cyclone Giri taken at 2:55am EDT October 22, 2010, just prior to landfall in Myanmar/Burma. At the time, Giri was a Category 4 storm with 145 mph winds. Giri killed 157 people and did $359 million in damage. Image credit: NASA.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 — Blog Index
I feel your pain, 19.
Plenty cape... but no rain.
:)
oh i got mine
proof earth is warming:
proof co2 causes warming and causes more warming with greater concentrations:
proof co2 levels are increasing:
That is why I agree with everybody. One lives longer.
GREAT!
TORNADO WARNING
BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NASHVILLE TN
219 PM CDT MON APR 4 2011
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN NASHVILLE HAS ISSUED A
* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
EASTERN DAVIDSON COUNTY IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE...
SOUTHERN SUMNER COUNTY IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE...
TROUSDALE COUNTY IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE...
WILSON COUNTY IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE...
* UNTIL 245 PM CDT
* AT 214 PM CDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO. THIS DANGEROUS
STORM WAS LOCATED NEAR LAKEWOOD...OR 5 MILES NORTHEAST OF LP
FIELD...AND MOVING EAST AT 65 MPH.
* LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE...
GALLATIN...LEBANON...HARTSVILLE...GREEN HILL...HENDERSONVILLE...
MOUNT JULIET...BELINDA CITY AND WATERTOWN.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
TAKE COVER NOW. MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF A
STURDY BUILDING. AVOID WINDOWS. IF IN A MOBILE HOME...A VEHICLE OR
OUTDOORS...MOVE TO THE CLOSEST SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER AND PROTECT
YOURSELF FROM FLYING DEBRIS.
&&
LAT...LON 3644 8613 3643 8606 3637 8605 3634 8610
3629 8613 3597 8601 3598 8608 3597 8610
3602 8637 3604 8638 3610 8650 3605 8656
3608 8672 3630 8679 3646 8616
TIME...MOT...LOC 1918Z 239DEG 56KT 3623 8661
$$
BOYD
I don't get how a tornado can survive in those mountains. Anybody know? Will it just slam into one and stop?
unless he can prove it wrong...which won't happen. so yes its over for now until someone else brings it up.
Well then I stand corrected. Your position seems more moderate than I had previously thought before this post and I agree with you mostly.
I just want a level playing field and right now the playing field is HEAVILY tilted toward corporations.
That is realism, not extremism.
I was going to write something about the dreaded back door front and how while it may be 90 at the masters this weekend it may snow in the I-90 corridor in the northeast but then Joe D Aleo sent me this:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/set tled-science-masters-vs-masters-vs-hansen-vs-noaa/
knowing it would wave a red flag in front of me and off I go.
The amazing thing is that the high priests of high temps keep claiming co2 is the cause, then admit its not because of the obvious relationship of the enso to global temps! Its simple to see that when the nino comes on, the earth warms, the nina comes on its cool. I dont understand why they can not, through simple deducation, understand that the warm PDO ( 1978 to 2007) leads to a warming of the globe, especially when there is part of that time the amo is warm) and the cooling will follow when the PDO turns colder, as it is now? In addition we have to remember that alot of these folks ( NOT Dr. Jeff Masters who is trying to nail the forecast here though he does see different from me on AGW) but some of the non meteorologists in the field, simply dont understand that its tough to sustain a warm enso in a cold PDO. And that the cold Enso is much more likely. Actually they WILL NOT SEE IT because it means they were wrong about the eternal warmth, the feedback, everything. More preposterous is the supposition that a trace gas needed for life on the planet, a very minor weight in the atmosphere as it is, would influence the ocean, which is far more important in total energy contribution to the planet than the atmosphere, or anything we are putting into the atmosphere. Do the math good friend.. take the weight of the ocean and atmosphere together and the energy implications of the gas and
the liquid and then stack co2 against it. The only rout bigger than that is a wrestling match between me and Cael Sanderson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cael_Sanderson
not much of a chance either way.
But again, arent you admitting that the first leg of my triple crown of cooling ( oceanic cycles) is the main driver.
Lets just look at this folks. First the Multivariate enso index, which is
Wolters baby, shows the warmth from the late 70s till recently
Warm PDO, ( then AMO) what do you think the result is. But look there is more! At 600 mb, which is a good measuring point for the troposphere we are near record cold, the most recent coldest in 2008 and way the heck under where we were. The blue line is last year, the red this year, the yellow 08 , the orange average the purple is the record low:
In this case, the red line is 08, the yellow last year, and you can see we are in the middle of the pack, biased low. But the amazing thing about the nino forecast is THE PROOF OF MY POINT THAT IT IS THE OCEANS, since we can see the warmth that developed as the nino roared on last year, and the cool that has responded this year to the cooling. What is interesting is how close we have been to 2008 at 600mb, when we are a bit less cool in the ocean. So here is what you have to believe.. Yes it is the oceans but their actions are being caused by a trace gas essential for life on the planet.
If you believe that, then when I go into wrestling practice later today, perhaps this is my day to end the 159-0 Gold medalists domination.
I dont think so.
Now perhaps the NOAA model, which was forecasting a minor warming event a couple of weeks ago is still doing so. Two years ago, I had the nino called in Feb and predicted the non hurricane season. Last year again in Feb with the NINA, 18 STORMS, HOT SUMMER I dont see the hot summer this in the n plains and lakes, I see less storms, more US impact but most importantly to this post, I dont see an el nino. neutral cool, yes like 08, but I dont see the nino and I am not a model worshiper. The models are agreeing with me, because I said so before. There is no physical reason, in a cold PDO, to forecast a rapid return of enso warm conditions. Increased volcanic actions in the tropics could play a role, but that along with the sun are wild cards. And by the way, I have already been out publicly saying that the return of a weak to perhaps moderate warm event in 12-13 could lead to winters, because of solar and seismic considerations, that could rival the late 70s. So its not like I dont see the chance of the warm enso, its just not coming now.
The CFS, the reactionary model, which I call it since it reacts after most should see what is going on, is colder with the bulk of the recent runs colder than the means ( recent runs in blue)
but they show this is backing off, but no nino.
Let me again be clear. Dr Masters has a site that has done well because he is good at what he does, so its Michigan vs PSU, met on met, honest disagreement ( I have no PHD in meteo though, just a Bachelors. But though I disagree with Dr Masters on AGW, this is an honest forecast disagreement. I do think Dr. Hansen, an outstanding astronomer, is
forecasting this like a couple of the others without looking at the same thing Jeff and I are looking at.. Jeff’s ideas seem measured and taking into account things I see, but I have the other reasons listed. Hiding behind
all this though its the admission that the enso drives global temps, and the implication for AGW has to then be that co2 emissions are causing the
large scale cyclical changes in the ocean, which I just do not believe can be true, given what I know about gasses, liquids, and the fact that temps are a measure of energy and the composition and density of the measured gas or liquid increases as the amount of water vapor increases, or in the case of the oceans, a saturated body! But there is no malice intended here.
Actually it gives me hope that I can walk into that wrestling room at PSU and go after Cael
by joe b
going here http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?category_name=blog_ home_page
hi hydrus just goofing off and now have to get back to work. Anyway that front is naaasstty!!! Good thing it will slam into the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Link
There were about 11 different ice ages.
The ice ages were during the earth's 4.6 billion years of history.
The last ice age was called "The Great Ice Age" and was 11,000 years ago.
During the "Great Ice Age" over a third of the earth was covered in ice. During the ice age the air had less carbon dioxide in it.
Right now we are living in a mini ice age.
There are two explanations of why the ice ages might have occurred: 1.The temperatures were much colder so it never rained, only snowed. 2. The earth changed its tilt away from the sun.
your talking about the last 200 years and forgetting about the other 4.6 billion years maybe all the cavemen's fires melted it all think small and follow everyone elses opinion. or maybe it is the Rothschild's fault !
Here's the first paragraph just in case somebody didn't want to take the chance:
(CNN) -- The owner of the Gulf of Mexico oil rig that exploded last year, killing 11 workers and leading to what has been called the worst oil spill ever, said Monday that calling 2010 its "best year" in safety "may have been insensitive."
Transocean Ltd., in a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said hefty bonuses and raises to top executives were based in part on the company's "performance under safety" last year.
Just curious, where did you see that GE didn't pay any taxes?
They are rubbing our noses in it on a daily basis.
How stupid are we?
How many people have lost their jobs and their houses while they just keep on giving each other bonuses, patting themselves on the back, and keeping the real estate while getting taxpayer bailouts?
Not to mention buying themselves political offices (Florida Egghead Governor) and oh yeah, I forgot, our representatives belong to them too.
Tell me please when it's over.
I can't bear to watch anymore.
Hi Astro, yes, it's amazing.
(Sorry to bore the blog with the rant.
Put me on ignore; I don't mind.
I'm talking to myself most of the time anyway.)
On every news channel except for the formerly GE owned NBC.
Interesting, since the public annual report says otherwise.
Yes ma'am. Which illustrates the point I was trying to make. GE, however, did get rebates due to alternative energy R&D. I don't mind that as alternative energy will only become a reality if the private sector has an incentive to make it so. It's the countless other loopholes, especially the outsourcing of jobs, that allow corporations to avoid such ridiculous amounts of tax liability. Oh, but the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world? Uh,no. Which is why it really makes my blood boil when I hear that we subsidize oil companies to the tune of $53 billion a year. We also subsidize corporations for advertising abroad to the tune of $150 billion a year. That adds up to $203 billion annual savings. An interesting number considering the budget wrangling we're seeing in Washington right now. I wonder who can afford to lose their subsidies less, lower and middle income Americans or corporations? Hmmm...
Uh... when you LOSE money, how can you pay INCOME taxes?
Also, GE paid 2.6 BILLION in taxes internationally in 2010, per their annual report.
Welcome back Peniscola Doug!
Yes, they get cheap airfare. And thats about all they get."
Nope, SouthWest also has the best customer service through happier and thus more pleasant workers.
"Inconvenient/small/congested airports, no international flights, no assigned seats."
And ya hafta pay extra for assigned seating on the other majors.
"I see Southwest as a big reason why the airlines went to the ala carte route, with fees for everything. They [the other airlines] didn't have the foresight to pre-purchase fuel (their [the other airlines'] own fault for not doing so), so they [the other airlines] have more overhead. With more overhead, you have to find ways to generate new revenue. If you [as the other airlines] can't raise airfare because of one stubborn airline [SouthWest], you [as the other airline] turn to nickel and diming everyone to death.
Of course, now that the cat is out of the bag, the nickel and diming - and Southwest's stubborn attitude [against raising fares, and against gouging for services] - is here to stay."
Some of the reasons that the other airlines have high overhead are their executives' many deliberate choices to ignore obvious foresight (eg their failure to buy when fuel is cheaper).
But MOST especially, the causes are the HIGH interest rates they have to pay on the loans that they used to buy mergers with competitors in the hope that they could use their local(effective)monopolies at major airports to gain profit by gouging the "ain't got no choice" air traveler.
SouthWest buys planes and other airlines with their own stock and their own cash reserves -- no interest payments -- and often gave another choice to flyers... though admittedly, often enough, through takeoffs&landings at slightly less popular/convenient airports.
Yep, it's all SouthWest's fault for having good leadership who care about their employees and customers, rather than having rapacious thieves running the ship to line their own pockets like the other majors.
Tax dodge
Where is your evidence that oscillatory cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO) are sufficient to trump any directional trend (GHG-induced warming)? Sure, the oceans store massive quantities of excess heat during a La Nina and release it again during an El Nino, but this simply adds a lag time to longer-term trends and the overall mechanism of the ocean-atmosphere forcing on climate and even weather is still not well understood.
I've never had to pay extra for an assigned seat on a Continental flight. Actually, I couldn't choose to NOT get an assigned seat.
Several airlines fly with low debt loads - aircraft are the most expensive "debt" they have, but they tend to be newer. SW is still flying with quite a few 737-300 and 737-400, which are becoming aged and more fuel-hungry, as compared to newer 737-800/900 and A320/A321s.
As for flying into and out of smaller airports, I know some people don't mind paying less for flying into/out of a tiny airport, but I'm not going to drive an hour and a half to save $50 on airfare, when I have an airport 20 mins away, with more amenities and connections.
Updated: Mon Apr 4 20:00:03 UTC 2011
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NYT-GE TAX SPAT: They're Both Full Of Crap!
Off topic I guess...only posted it because there already was quite a bit discussion on the subject, but this will be the only post on it from me.
* * *
As an aside, I just noticed that if you are in the "Rich Text" mode the "Link" button doesn't seem to work. Just an FYI in case someone else finds themselves with this problem. Toggling back to Plain Text allows the "Link" to work again.
National Weather Service New Orleans la
1127 am CDT Monday Apr 4 2011
Discussion...overall things are going along as expected. Sndg did
have a strong cap right at 850 mb and we will do an 18z sndg to see how
that is doing. We had a weird feature move in from the south out of
the Gulf that appeared like a Gravity wave but wasnt what you would
typically consider a Gravity wave. It did have subsidence on the
back side which helped clear out some of the clouds. The additional
heating from more sun reaching the surface has made it easier for the
stronger winds to mix down to the surface and with winds becoming more
unidirectional with time we should have no problem mixing down quite
a bit of wind gusts near the 35 to 40 miles per hour range possibly even
higher. With winds already sustained in the 20 to 25 miles per hour range in
about half of the County Warning Area and higher winds expected this afternoon we
have issued a wind advection for all of the County Warning Area through 00z. As for the
severe aspect...as of yet thinking is still the same. We are currently
getting a lot of sun so we may become more unstable than initially
expected but we are still likely going to have to wait on the front
and trough to get convection going and this should begin b/T 17-19z.
Cap is still an issue but this cap will erode as the day wears on so
expect to see much more activity along the front this afternoon. Current
timing of convection/front near btr around 19z pushing to i55 around
20-22z...and then the South Shore and MS coast b/T 21-00z. Npw for
the wind advection is already out and zones and grids will be out shortly.
/Cab/
&&
Synopsis...
latest upper air analysis showed the trough axis Hudson Bay to
northern New Mexico. Jet analysis at 250mb showed a 100 to 110 kts
jet streak of 130 kts from Texas Panhandle to Wisconsin and
another jet streak on the back side of the trough from west
Montana to north Utah. Regional precipitable water plots showed generally around
an inch to 1.3 from eastern Oklahoma to Texas/Louisiana coast.
Surface analysis showed the deep 988mb low over Lake Michigan with
the trailing front southwest through southeast Missouri to north
central Texas
To throw in my two cents here--and these are a pair of well-used and often thrown pennies--it's not so much the amount of heating, but how quickly it's taken place. All those other cooling (and subsequent heating) cycles of which you wrote too place over the course of 5,000 to 20,000 years or so; what's happening now is much quicker than that. In fact, we've caused atmospheric CO2 to rise as much in the past 100 years as it normally does over thousands of years.
To summarize:
1) The planet's heating rapidly;
2) That rapid heating is due mostly to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the air;
3) Those increasing concentrations of CO2 are due mostly (or, according to some estimates, wholly) to both the direct and indirect effects of our impeded burning of fossil fuels.
Until and unless someone can scientifically refute any of those three basic tenets, the theory of AGW stands, and is--for all practical purposes--absolutely correct.
Auto-refresh is set to every minut
With regards to Joe B's post,
ENSO influences global temperatures, but in no way mimics them. PDO on the other hand, mimics global temperatures, but does not influence them. If it does, it is minimal, and is yet to be proven. To say the PDO is entirely what drives our entire global climate is proposterous. Yet that is essentially what Joe is trying to claim since when you look at these two charts
they mimic each other, almost identically.
The only problem is, the PDO is a measurement of SSTs. No different then the global temperatures we use to compile the global temp graph in the first place. See what I am getting at?
The PDO mimics global temperatures because it is a measure of global temperatures (over the Pacific). PDO doesn't cause global climate change. PDO reflects global climate change. It's an index dependent on SSTs. If global temperatures are rising, it would only make sense that the PDO would reflect that.
Not to mention, Joe B provides zero evidence on how the PDO causes global climate change, merely shows that there is a correlation.
Correlation =/= Causation.
Viewing: 651 - 701
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 — Blog Index