Tropical Depression 25 forms in the Atlantic!!! That breaks the record!

[Up2Late]

Thankfully, it's only forecast to become a Tropical Storm.



<http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/tracker/dynamic/N.html>

The bad news is, because of all the deforestation in Haiti, this could still be a problem for the people of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.



<http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/tracker/dynamic/200525N.html>

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. but, but, but the earth is not warming

it is just our collective imagination, really

[rosesaylavee]

5. You beat me to it but I am grateful too that

this is not caused by our collective greed and addiction to SUVs and other pollution causing agents. :sarcasm:

[jobycom]

6. Please don't use this to argue for global warming

If we have a slow season next year, the conservatives will say that proves we are wrong. Neither proves global warming. That evidence comes from careful scientific study, not anecdotal impressions based on one season of phenomena that we've only been able to measure this accurately for 60 years.

[Fovea]

10. I think the trend is strong evidence.

If we are waiting for empirical proof before engaging wise policy, then we will start doing something about the time we start entering the next ice age, in the year or two following the Atlantic thermo-halide collapse.

[jobycom]

21. I think so, too, but it's not proof. There's a big difference.

And my concern is that we will oversell this as proof, then when it doesn't pan out, the general public won't take it us as seriously.

[Fovea]

25. I think Rove and his descendants

will say we are selling it as 'proof,' but again, we need to sell
the probability, and the dire evidence, with that clearly said, things are starting not to look very good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. It's the trend

comobined with melting of ice caps and other cute things.

[jobycom]

22. Again, I agree, but

claiming this is proof of global warming will cause a letdown when other seasons are more mild.

[tammywammy]

12. Thank you

You keep saying this in all the threads about global warming and this year's hurricane season.

I want to thank you. You are exactly right, if next year we have a very slow hurricane season, the conservative will say that it disproves global warming.

[jobycom]

20. We saw that a couple years ago with heat waves

People claimed they were the result of global warming. Then we had a few cold snaps, and the public joke was "what global warming?" We are setting ourselves up for that.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. I don't remember storms starting right up off the coast of Florida...

ever. I'm probably wrong, but still I say... I have never seen storms start right up off the coast as they have this year....

[LongTomH]

15. More severe - not necessarily more numerous

The current models do predict more severe hurricanes and tropical storms, not necessarily more numerous. There's an ongoing discussion on the RealClimate blog, maintained by real climate scientists!

Actually, you'll get better data Googling on: "climate science" or "climate scientists" rather than "global warming." Googling on "global warming" will get you a lot of right-wing and corporatist sites trying to prove that nothing is really happening; it's all "natual" climate cycles.

[jobycom]

19. Yeah, that's right

It may be the same web page, but someone here recommended an article (maybe you?) about the increase in Potential Destruction Index of hurricanes over the last decade. It wasn't conclusive, but it was very suggestive.

Still, the PDI is only accurate post 1945 (I confirmed this with the authors, in fact). We still don't know for sure that the 1933 season, or even pre-1900 seasons, weren't worse. It's too new an index, based on modern measuring systems not available previously.

Also, it bears mention, that no storm measured as a Cat 5 has struck the American coast since Camille. Andrew was honorarily voted one based on damage, but did not measure up to one. We have no way to be sure that other giant Cat 5s weren't formed in 1900, say, and then weakened before they hit the coast.

I agree that the increase looks like GW, but I won't say it's absolute proof until I see a better scientific model to prove it. I think, from the reading I've done, that the majority of meteorologists say roughly the same thing (only with more authority, of course, since I'm not a scientist).

[Up2Late]

35. Whoa Nelly!!! Hold on there! I count at least 4 totally wrong statements

in this "Yeah, that's right" post!

Listed by severity of error:

1) "...Andrew was honorarily voted one based on damage..."

A) NO! Andrew was named a Cat 5 based on wind speed and central pressure. I was originally judged to have made landfall as a Cat.4, but it was upgraded to Cat. 5 in 2002, "...Because of a better scientific understanding of the structure of the windfield in the violent eyewall of strong hurricanes..." <http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/andrew.html>

<http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1992/ANDREW/track.dat>


2)"We have no way to be sure that other giant Cat 5s weren't formed in 1900, say, and then weakened before they hit the coast."

A) Yes we do, they are called Ships and Islands. People have been charting and keeping records of Tropical Storms and Hurricanes for 154 years, since 1851. Here's a NOAA web page with a report on Historic Hurricanes. <http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/index.html> And here's a web page with the data from 1851 to 2004: <http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/>

Here's the Track chart for the year 1900


<http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1900/index.html>

3) "We still don't know for sure that the 1933 season, or even pre-1900 seasons, weren't worse."

A) Sure we do, here's the data and a report, you can make up your own mind. Be sure to scroll down to see the individual tacks and recorded data.

1933 Track Data <http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1933/index.html>



<http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/index.html>

4) "...no storm measured as a Cat 5 has struck the American coast since Camille..."

A) Well, I can name 3, Two from the last few months, Katrina, Rita and of course Andrew in 1992. Katrina and Rita made landfall at less than Cat. 5, but they most definitely were Category 5 hurricanes and will be recorded in the records as such.

You may think I'm "nit picking" on this one, but if you are going to make absolute statements and tell the folk here they are wrong about certain things here, you better be sure you use precise language and have some data to back up what you say, otherwise, you'll get smacked down every time.

More links below to lots of good and easy to read data, oh and here is the 1851 storm tracking chart, you can read what is written at the pages this comes from to see how this data was assembled:

<http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1851/index.html>



<http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/>

<http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html>

<http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/index.html>

[geomon666]

38. Whoa whoa whoa

A) Well, I can name 3, Two from the last few months, Katrina, Rita and of course Andrew in 1992. Katrina and Rita made landfall at less than Cat. 5, but they most definitely were Category 5 hurricanes and will be recorded in the records as such.

Where did you get that from? Talk about having the data to back what you are saying. Did you know they may downgrade Katrina to a 3? Katrina wasn't a 5 and neither was Rita.

[Up2Late]

41. Where did you get that from? From the data. Yes I do know, and did say...

"...Katrina and Rita made landfall at less than Cat. 5, but they most definitely were Category 5 hurricanes and will be recorded in the records as such...." in response to the statement "...no storm measured as a Cat 5 has struck the American coast since Camille..." which, as written, is a false statement. Maybe they left out some punctuation that they thought all would assume, but as written it's wrong.

I did NOT say they made land fall at Cat. 5.

A correct statement would have been, "No storm has struck the American coast, since Camille, as a Cat 5."


If you go to the link below, you will see this years data, as it will be in the record books, unless they decide to revise or upgrade the data, like they did with Andrew.

<http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005/index.html>

The list I'm talking about is under the graphic and the words:

Individual Storm Summary

Winds in knots, pressure in millibars, category is based on Saffir-Simpson scale.

Unfortunately, lists like this don't post well here, (or I don't know how to do it right, it ends up looking like a jumble mess), so you'll have to go to that link to see it correctly.

12 Hurricane KATRINA 23-31 AUG 150 902 5

18 Hurricane RITA 18-26 SEP 150 897 5

24 Hurricane WILMA 15-23 OCT 150 882 5 Active

The lines I'm talking about are above, but like I said, they are all smashed together, and I don't know how to fix that here.

Unfortunately, NOAA doesn't update it's web page with the historical data until the season is over, or I wold give you that link too.

[jobycom]

45. So everyone who understood the sentence was wrong

But you are right because you misunderstood it?

[geomon666]

46. I apologize

I thought you were saying they struck as 5's.

[Up2Late]

47. No problem. Good luck and stay safe tonight/tomorrow...

Even though Wilma is forecast to hit your area as "only" a Cat. 1 or 2, don't let that fool you, those are still dangerous to be out in.

[jobycom]

39. You need to learn to count, then.

My point was obvious to anyone not trying to be obtuse that no storm has hit America as a Cat 5 since Camille. Andrew was not measured as a Cat 5, it was voted that way later. "Surviving wind observations and measurements from aircraft reconnaissance, surface pressure, satellite analysis, radar, and distribution of debris and structural failures were used to estimate the surface winds."
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/NOAA_pr_8-21-02.html

There was and is disagreement in the scientific community as to whether this was accurate. For instance:

"I disagree with the estimate of Andrew as a Cat 5 storm during any point of its history when over shallow water or land. I believe that Andrew's wind speeds were consistent with a strong Cat 4 storm at landfall in south Florida, or ~ 132 kts (152 mph). However the uncertainty of this estimate is high, +/- 26 kts (30 mph), since we know very little about sea surface roughness in extreme winds."
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/august01/Powell_summary.html

In case you wonder if there was a monetary consideration involved: " One example of a very practical aspect of the outcome of Andrew's re-analysis is the potential impact on building codes and insurance rates." http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/summary.html

And your tracking pictures are misleading. We have tracked storms by island and ship since 1851, so of course you can find data on storm tracks of storms we knew existed, but if a storm didn't move over an island or pass a ship it went undetected, and our ability to measure storms we did know about was much weaker. Now we have satellite images that spot depressions as soon as they form.

From the same page you linked: "The goals of this project are to extend the database back in time and to revisit and possibly revise all of the tropical storms and hurricanes back to 1851 of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea" and "recent efforts led by the late Jose Fernandez-Partagas to uncover previously undocumented historical hurricanes in the mid-1800s to early 1900s have greatly increased our knowledge of these past events, which also had not been incorporated into the hurricane database." and "However, with Andrew being re-classified as a Category 5, this is the only one to have struck the area in (at least) 100 years. ("At least" because records before 1900 are too sketchy for confidence in the intensity of hurricanes that hit south Florida.)" This latter comment would apply to all regions, but they were talking specifically about Florida.

[Up2Late]

43. I was not trying to be obtuse, your statement about Andrew...

...was simply wrong, and the historical data, that I pointed to, shows that. Here's the data link: <http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1992/ANDREW/track.dat>

If you look at the NOAA advisories #28 and #29, you will see that Andrew did become a Category 5 Hurricane, as recorded in 1992. The graphic below shows that also. The part of the track that is White is when it became a Category 5 Storm:



Arguing that, because it didn't hit land as a Category 5 storm, so it should not be considered a category 5 Hurricane, would me like me arguing that Camile was not a Category 5 storm either because, if you look at Camille's graphic storm track (below)


Camille was a Category 3 when it hit Mississippi. The White stops at the coast, and if you look at the data, even this graphic is misleading, it had actually dropped at that point (advisory # 15) to a Category 3 storm. Did it hit the tip of the Mississippi River Delta as a Cat 5? Not that I can tell from this computer graphic, and the only witness statements I've ever heard are from people in Mississippi and the inland parts of Louisiana. I don't know were to find the still frame satellite picture of Camille at landfall, not that it would settle the argument anyway.

A Hurricane is always recorded as it was at it's maximum, not as it later became. Why, because ALL Hurricanes eventually dissipate.

Should we remember Hurricane Camille as a Tropical Storm, which is how it was last recorded in the Atlantic, No, of course not. It will be remembered as it was recorded in it's advisory #14 when it's winds were 165 knots and it's central pressure was 909, or #10, when it winds were only 140 knots but it's central pressure was at it's lowest point of 905? I've repeatedly heard it referred to as having it's central pressure at 905, so take you choice.

As for the rest of it, if you want to remain a skeptic, good for you, that's your choice. But if you just want to argue with someone, argue with the scientists at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, here's their address and phone number:

4301 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149

305.361.4450
Here's the link to their e-mail page: <http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/outreach.html>

Arguing with me about this is pointless, nothing you say to me will change any of it, I simply agree with them and accept their reasoning.

My choice is to listen to what the scientists had to say, consider the reasons they gave for for making the changes they did to the historical record, (which I find logical and well reasoned as to why they believe they were wrong in 1992) and why they believe a correction was in order. Who am I to tell the scientist who made this decision, that they are wrong, I'm not a professional scientist and as you said earlier, neither are you.

The rest of what you wrote, I don't see the point of arguing about either, and if you really want my opinion of your "undetected storm theory," which I'm sure you won't agree me on, if you can be more precise on how big of a storm you are talking about, that could have gone completely un-noticed by commercial or passenger shipping companies, fishermen, and naval vessels (hint: big storms cause big waves and heavy seas, they don't occur in a vacuum), I'd be glad to give you my Opinion on it, other wise, I don't see the point of pursuing that question either.

I think we should agree to disagree, and leave it at that so that we can stop wasting each others time. What do ya say?

[jobycom]

44. You really have no idea

what you are talking about, do you? You're acting like facts are a matter of opinion, and just making stuff up out of your head. You've done this before in other threads, too.

As I stated clearly twice, and provided evidence for from the very page you cited as a link to try and prove otherwise, Andrew was not measured as a Cat 5 hurricane when it hit land, nor was it estimated as a Cat 5 using standard methods from that time. The rating was later revised, based on amount of destruction and on debris patterns, as well as other factors.

Camille was a Cat 5 when the eye came ashore. No one disputes that. Estimates range between 175mph to 190mph sustained, using the same formulae that estimated Andrew as a Cat 4. Even your graph shows Camille as a 5 as it goes ashore in Mississippi.

As for your obtuse comments at the end, what can I say? It wasn't me claiming storms were undetected, it was NOAA. It wasn't me describing the inaccuracy of storm measurements, it was NOAA.

I won't agree to disagree with you any more than I'd agree to disagree with someone who told me that liquid was solid. You don't know what you're talking about, and at this point you are arguing to save face. You were wrong. Just admit it. It won't hurt. No one will even notice but me.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. But if you add it to other weather-related info, like the rate at

which we are losing glaciers and permafrost, things look worrisome.

[Feron]

32. I agree

Here is an article I found while browsing the WWL site this morning:

Arredondo: Busy, intense hurricane seasons should continue but global warming not the culprit

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL102105arredondo.118002292.html

And no, he is not a global warming naysayer.

[Strelnikov_]

42. Let Them Say It.

The climate could be approaching that of Venus and the 'conservatives' would be saying we were living underground because of free market innovation eliminating the need for roofs.

At some point, we really need to just ignore the peanut gallery.

I mean, what is the purpose of science if we have to wait until the hammer has hit us in the head for the idiots among us give their blessing that, yes, there was a hammer blow coming in the direction of our head.

Warm, moist air is the energy source of hurricanes. If the earth is warming, the oceans will become hotter, and as a result hurricanes will become stronger.

With the shutdown of the thermohaline convection, the GOM, Caribbean, and mid-Atlantic will become hotter. As a result, hurricanes will become stronger.

I don't think an increase in hurricane strength necessarily proves global warming. But when considered with all the other observations (arctic climate change, glacial melt, etc.), and that all of the above observations are consistent with computer models predicting the effect of a warming climate, it appears to be a slam dunk to me.

[jobycom]

2. Doesn't it have to become a storm before it breaks the record?

I could be wrong. I didn't think depressions counted.

[Dudley_DUright]

3. You are right

It needs to hit storm status before it earns the name Alpha and breaks the record.

[Up2Late]

4. I might be jumping the gun a little, it's forecast to become a TS in...

...a few hours, but I think Tropical Depressions count too.

This will be Tropical Storm Alpha.

[jobycom]

18. Eh, just consider it a prediction rather than a report, and you'll be fine

[hootinholler]

23. TS Alpha advisory # 2 was issued at 5pm EST. n/t

[Up2Late]

27. Yup, and it's not Magic, it's SCIENCE!

At this point, I bet we'll see Beta and Gamma also.

Predicting Delta might be pushing it.

[jobycom]

34. LOL

Who knows when it will end? Hurricanes don't watch the calendar. The conditions could last longer than the season, the way things are going.

[dkofos]

7. And 6 weeks to go!!

[Up2Late]

16. Not necessarily, sometimes we get "post-season" storms too...

...that they do count.

In 2003, we had 2 in December (Odette and Peter) <http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/docs/TSRATL2003Verification.pdf> (on page 2)

and 1 (Otto) in 2004 <http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/docs/TSRATL2004Verification.pdf> (also on page 2).

[PATRICK]

8. Is there ever

a word breathed about the absolutely inevitable future of WORSE storm seasons since the Guulf is just getting hotter?

How many private donation funds can be sustained before the singers lose their voices, the people lose sympathy and the money that governments whould have using to prepare runs out? In fact it already is, witnessing the cutting off of the India Pakistan earthquake donations.

Thought for the future is a sign of human intelligence.

[cliss]

9. Memo from Mother Nature to humans:

"Since you refuse to change your ways, neither am I".

[KyndCulture]

14. I got this tshirt on today....

[adarling]

17. does it go over the bermuda triangle

i bet if it does it explodes and then turns into a massive super storm and heads toward the US. Wow, just went off the deep end for fun. Hey you never know? Also could head for spain like that other one did almosts.:think:

[Baclava]

26. I don't think it will come to that

[Up2Late]

37. Cool web site, but have you checked out the site they have a link to?

Storm2k!!!

<http://www.storm2k.org/wx/> This site is amazing!

They not only do they have all the stuff most of the new weather sites have, but they also have a interactive Weather Advisory page that is just SWEET! Here's the link: <http://www.storm2k.nhcwx.com/hw3.php?forecast=pass&pass=warningmap&s=us&size=640x480&key=0>

You just click on the state you want to get the Weather Advisories for, then click on the County and BOOM! Here's the page for Loxahatchee, Florida: <http://www.storm2k.nhcwx.com/hw3.php?map.x=269&map.y=158&minlon=-88.8685293430235&maxlon=-78.7881326442812&minlat=24.230207024551&maxlat=31.7905045486078&mapwidth=320&mapheight=240&state=fl&forecast=closestwarning&dpp=0>

What will they think of next?

[Baclava]

40. That's cool...check this out...

Here's everything you need on one page

http://www.crownweather.com/tropical.html

[Up2Late]

28. Vince did make landfall at the southern most border of Portugal and...

...Spain. Most Northern and Eastern a TS had ever formed in the Atlantic basin, first to ever make landfall in Spain, and first Atlantic Tropical Cyclone ever to be given a "V" name.

<http://hurricane.accuweather.com/hurricane/storms.asp?partner=accuweather&ocean=atlantic&storm=Vince>

<http://www.terradaily.com/2005/051011190620.48hh225v.html>

[hootinholler]

24. OMG the impact on Atlantic shipping will be felt.

The 48 hr projections at skeetobite weather have Alphs on the same latitude within about 20 mins of Wilma, and about 10 degrees apart in longitude. At the Equator 10 deg, is 600 NM. Lineal feet per minute of longitude is a sine function of latitude so the distance will be somewhat less at 25 deg. This means they are projected to be within 600 NM of each other and moving along the Atlantic seaboard.

Remember perfect storm? This will delay shipping big time.

Edit to add the surge from Alpha could feed the surge intake of Wilma and the NC surf will be awesome. They could see 30' breakers at Hatteras.

-Hoot

[Up2Late]

31. Agreed. looks like one giant mess, look at all this green!

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT25/refresh/AL2505_PROB34_F120_sm2+gif/211203.gif

<http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at5+shtml/211203.shtml?tswind120>

[Up2Late]

33. Here's the Graphic and link specifically for the Mariners' 1-2-3 Rule

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb_latest/refresh/danger_atl_latestBW_sm2+gif/211203123_sm.gif

<http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at5+shtml/211203.shtml?basin>

[Jose Diablo]

29. Hmmm, I wonder what the coastline would look like

If the sea level were about 40-50 feet higher. If the polar caps completely melted, how high would the sea level go?

If the average global temperature went-up 5 degree F, would that extend the temperate regions all the way to the polar caps? To melt them in the summer, with a relatively small amount of ice in the winter. In other words, no year round ice at the caps.

Looks like it's pretty hard to forecast what would happen if the global temperature goes-up. What becomes a desert and what becomes a new jungle. Even what the wind patterns would be in a specific area. Would the world become a new Jurassic period, with a lot tropical jungle or deserts with the Arctic regions becoming temperate?

I think I'll google some stuff.

[Up2Late]

36. Here's the 2005 Storm Tracking Chart, just now found it.

<http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005/index.html>

I wonder if they will make the chart bigger because of Vince? It currently goes off the chart.