The bizarrely active hurricane season of 2012 draws to a close
The long and highly destructive hurricane season of 2012 has finally drawn to a close. The hurricane season of 2012 will long be remembered for spawning Hurricane Sandy--a freakish storm that was the largest, most powerful, and second most destructive Atlantic hurricane on record. But this year's hurricane season had a number of unique attributes, making it one of the most bizarre seasons I've witnessed. Despite featuring a remarkable nineteen named storms--tied for the third highest total since record keeping began in 1851--this year's hurricane season had just one major hurricane. That storm was Hurricane Michael, which stayed at Category 3 strength for a scant six hours. This is the least number of major hurricanes in a season since the El Niño year of 1997, which had only Category 3 Hurricane Erika. There were no Category 4 or 5 hurricanes in 2012, for just the 3rd time since the active hurricane period we are in began in 1995. The only two other years since 1995 without a Category 4 or stronger hurricane were the El Niño years of 2006 and 1997. Both of those seasons had around half the number of named storms of 2012--nine in 2006, and eight in 1997. The relative lack of strong storms in 2012 helped keep the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) down to 128, about 30% above average.
Figure 1. Hurricane Sandy at 10:10 am EDT October 28, 2012. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.
A near-average year for number of tropical cyclones hitting the U.S.
Since the active hurricane period we've been in began in 1995, the U.S. has averaged getting hit by 4 named storms per year, with an average of 1.7 of these being hurricanes, and 0.6 being major Category 3 and stronger hurricanes. This year, we were hit by 3 named storms (Beryl, Debby, and Isaac). One of these was a hurricane (Isaac). Sandy didn't count as a hurricane strike on the U.S., since it transitioned to an extratropical cyclone a few hours before landfall. No major hurricanes hit the U.S., making 2012 the 7th consecutive year without a major hurricane strike. The only other time we've had a streak that long occurred between 1861 - 1868, during the decade of the Civil War.
Figure 2. Vertical instability over the tropical Atlantic in 2004 - 2012 (blue line) compared to average (black line.) The instability is plotted in °C, as a difference in temperature from near the surface to the upper atmosphere (note that the same scale is not used in all the plots, making the black climatological line appear different, when it is really the same for each plot.) Thunderstorms grow much more readily when vertical instability is high. Instability was near average during the August - October peak of hurricane season in 2004 - 2009, but was much lower than average during the hurricane seasons of 2010 - 2012. There was an unusual amount of dry, sinking air in the tropical Atlantic during 2010 - 2012, and the resulting low atmospheric instability reduced the proportion of tropical storms that have intensified into hurricanes. Vertical instability from 2004 - 2011 is taken from NOAA/RAMMB and for 2012 from NOAA/SSD.
Unusually stable air over the Tropical Atlantic in 2012
For the third consecutive hurricane season, 2012 featured an unusual amount of dry, sinking air over the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean Sea. Due to warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures and an active African Monsoon that generated plenty of African waves, a remarkably high number of tropical storms managed to form, but the unusually stable air in the hurricane genesis regions made it difficult for the storms to become strong. When we did see storms undergo significant intensification, it tended to occur outside of the tropics, north of 25°N, where there was not as much dry, sinking air (Sandy's intensification as it approached landfall in Cuba was an exception to this rule.) If we look at the last nine hurricane seasons (Figure 2), we can see that the hurricane seasons of 2010, 2011, and 2012 all featured similar levels of highly stable air over the tropical Atlantic. This is in marked contrast to what occurred the previous six years. The past three seasons all featured a near-record number of named storms (nineteen each year), but an unusually low ratio of strong hurricanes. Steering patterns the past three years also acted to keep most of the storms out to sea. Is this strange pattern something we'll see more of, due to climate change? Or is it mostly due to natural cycles in hurricane activity? I don't have any answers at this point, but the past three hurricane seasons have definitely been highly unusual in a historical context. I expect the steering currents to shift and bring more landfalling hurricanes to the U.S. at some point this decade, though.
Figure 3. Sea water floods the Ground Zero construction site at the World Trade Center, Monday, Oct. 29, 2012, in New York City. Image credit: AP.
Most notable events of the Hurricane Season of 2012
Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States. Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds, and no hurricanes has. Sandy's area of ocean with twelve-foot seas peaked at 1.4 million square miles--nearly one-half the area of the contiguous United States, or 1% of Earth's total ocean area. Most incredibly, ten hours before landfall (9:30 am EDT October 30), the total energy of Sandy's winds of tropical storm-force and higher peaked at 329 terajoules--the highest value for any Atlantic hurricane since at least 1969. This is 2.7 times higher than Katrina's peak energy, and is equivalent to five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. At landfall, Sandy's tropical storm-force winds spanned 943 miles of the the U.S. coast. No hurricane on record has been wider; the previous record holder was Hurricane Igor of 2010, which was 863 miles in diameter. Sandy's huge size prompted high wind warnings to be posted from Chicago to Eastern Maine, and from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Florida's Lake Okeechobee--an area home to 120 million people. Sandy's winds simultaneously caused damage to buildings on the shores of Lake Michigan at Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore, and toppled power lines in Nova Scotia, Canada--locations 1200 miles apart!
Figure 4. Hurricane Isaac lit up by moonlight as it spins towards the city of New Orleans, LA, on August 26, 2012. The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) satellite captured these images with its Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). The "day-night band" of VIIRS detects light in a range of wavelengths from green to near-infrared and uses light intensification to enable the detection of dim signals. Image Credit: NASA/NOAA, Earth Observatory.
Hurricane Isaac hit Louisiana as a Category 1 hurricane with 80 mph winds on August 28, but the storm's massive wind field brought a storm surge characteristic of a Category 2 hurricane to the coast. A storm surge of 11.1 feet was measured at Shell Beach, LA and higher surges were reported in portions of Louisiana. Fortunately, the new $14.5 billion upgrade to the New Orleans levee system kept the city dry. Isaac killed 9 people in the U.S., and 29 in the Caribbean.
Hurricane Ernesto hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula as a Category 1 hurricane with 85 mph winds on August 7. The storm killed 12 and did at least $250 million in damage.
Tropical Storm Debby formed on June 23, the earliest formation date on record for the season's 4th storm. The previous record was Dennis, on July 5, 2005. Debby killed seven and did over $300 million in damage, but helped relieve drought conditions over Northern Florida and Southern Georgia.
Tropical Storm Beryl, which made landfall on May 28 near Jacksonville Beach, FL with 70 mph winds, was the strongest tropical storm to make landfall in the U.S. prior to June 1. Beryl killed two but did minimal damage.
Nadine lasted for 21.75 days as a named storm, the 5th longest-lasting tropical storm in the Atlantic basin.
It was the 3rd year in a row with 19 named storms.
No named storms existed during the month of July and November, but we still managed big numbers.
Only 7 seasons have had more hurricanes than 2012.
The season had two named storm before the official June 1 start of hurricane season, only the 3rd time that has occurred.
Eight named storms formed in August, which tied 2004 for the most to form in that month.
Typhoon Bopha a threat to the Philippines
In the Western Pacific, where typhoon season commonly brings several storms in December, we have impressive Typhoon Bopha. Bopha is expected to head west-northwest and intensify over the weekend, potentially arriving in the Philippines on Tuesday as a powerful Category 3 typhoon. Bopha formed at an unusually low latitude for a tropical cyclone--near 4°N. Storms forming that close to the Equator don't get much help from the Earth's spin to get spinning, and it is rare to see a tropical cyclone forming southwards of 5°N.
The Colorado State University hurricane forecast team, led by Phil Klotzbach and Bill Gray, has a more in-depth summary of the 2012 hurricane season.
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 — Blog Index
Thanks Dr. Masters.
Really? Is that all it would take? Someone telling you politely what the science shows us before you are willing to accept the science? ... Everyone here that denies the science now, but would accept the science if it was presented politely, just say the single word "YES!", in the next post you make here.
I will be the first to admit that Neapolitan can be a bit abrasive in his delivery of the science. The science is sound and many choose to attack the messenger instead of the message that the science brings us. That is fair in a popularity contest, but the science is not based on how popular it will be received.
There are those that will claim that they present their "evidence" and then bemoan the fact that the "evidence" has already been "debunked" many times and by more than just a few that actually know the science behind the discussion. This only becomes a frustration to both sides of the science and abrasive conversations will ensue from there. ... Such is human nature.
Let us end the haggling back and forth between us. Those that are skeptics of the science should present the science that calls into question the theory being discussed. There must be a scientific reason for the skepticism or it only becomes a denial based argument. Those that deny the science need to disprove the science behind the scientific theory. I would be the first to rejoice that the AGWT has been proven to be an invalid scientific theory!
Here is where the denial industry must concentrate its efforts to have their "evidence" validated by the scientific community:
1. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Physics.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
2. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Thermodynamics.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
3. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Chemistry.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
4. Show how CO2 does not behave as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
5. Show how anthropogenic CO2 emissions' chemical properties prevents these CO2 emissions from behaving as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
6. Show how mankind's activities are not emitting tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...
7. Show how mankind's activities have not destroyed a meaningful portion of the natural carbon sinks. Meaningful in the sense that the natural carbon sinks cannot sequester the carbon we emit at a rate that would compensate for the CO2 we emit.
Only one of these tests needs to be satisfied to show that our actions are not adding any degree of significance to the current climate warming trends we are witnessing today. Unless you can accomplish at least one of these tests, then you are simply in denial for reasons well beyond the scientific reasons. You may satisfy your egos this way, but it does not satisfy the science behind the AGWT.
This post may sound abrasive to a few, but how many times does it need to be said that the stove is hot before you quit trying to touch the stove? After a while, the conversation just becomes frustrating to all involved.
Disprove the AGWT or quit complaining that you cannot and taking it out on the others that do understand the science behind it. Really, it is that simple. Disprove the theory, develop a better theory or quit complaining that the theory itself best explains the warming trends we are witnessing.
the idea of squelching opinion because it might be useful to propagandists is a bad one, imo, because encouraging self-censorship is one of the ways abusers intimidate.
I think we are entering in the Peak of the NAO, and the high activity era is far to end, at least until 2030, just in a neutral to borderline el nino this season produced 19 TS and 10 hurricane and we were lucky of the stable atmosphere in our region, with only one major hurricane.
Noting what is said at:-7. Some1Has2BtheRookie
This is at Post 7.
All these comments and blogging about how much a particular storm will have cost pale into insignificance against what the content of Post 7 is going to cost!
It may be a human condition to reduce almost everything to its financial gains or losses but what does cash mean to a water snail or a near extinct species? At the end of the last blog people were arguing about if its right to mention possible causes of climate change! Some of us might not be the winners or losers in the damage claims, what is significant is that there was damage in the first place!
That hurricane Sandy will have caused more damage than can be assessed for many years to come and now the cost of preventing its successors from doing the same thing is being debated.
In the near future 19 storms might be the norm and Sandy might just become par for the course.
Its about time to consider that prevention might be better than 'human remedial solutions' to the planet. The planets how it is, we are tampering with things we dont understand and then giving the problems we have created to future generations to live with.
If we look at the last nine hurricane seasons (Figure 2), we can see that the hurricane seasons of 2010, 2011, and 2012 all featured similar levels of highly stable air over the tropical Atlantic. This is in marked contrast to what occurred the previous six years. The past three seasons all featured a near-record number of named storms (nineteen each year), but an unusually low ratio of strong hurricanes.
That is really a remarkable statistic which bears watching over the next several seasons. We also noted a faster than usual trade wind pattern in parts of the lesser Antilles-Caribbean this year keeping several storms (Ernesto comes to mind) from realizing their full potential in these regions due to vertical stacking issues as these waves/storms cruised through at 20-25 mph.
"Fascinating" as Spock would say........Everyone have a safe and sound weekend.
Catch more flies with honey.
Edit: Catch more bears, too. LOL
BEGIN
NHC_ATCF
invest_al912012.invest
FSTDA
R
U
040
010
0000
201211301826
NONE
NOTIFY=ATRP
END
INVEST, AL, L, , , , , 91, 2012, DB, O, 2012113012, 9999999999, , , , , , METWATCH, , AL912012
AL, 91, 2012113000, , BEST, 0, 230N, 426W, 25, 1014, DB, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0,
AL, 91, 2012113006, , BEST, 0, 237N, 427W, 25, 1014, DB, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0,
AL, 91, 2012113012, , BEST, 0, 243N, 428W, 25, 1013, DB, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0,
AL, 91, 2012113018, , BEST, 0, 248N, 429W, 25, 1012, LO, 34, NEQ, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1013, 150, 60, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, M,
As noted in the last blog, I cringe that anti-science is no longer a hyphenated term. A good view of how it is mainstream, to our detriment.
broke link
"The hurricane season of 2012 will long be remembered for spawning Hurricane Sandy--a freakish storm that was the largest, most powerful, and second most destructive Atlantic hurricane on record."
Am I reading this wrong? I didn't think it was anywhere near the largest or most powerful on record.
It is the largest in the atlantic basin, but I think Wilma is still the most powerful.
Thanks...I probably shoulda amended my post to question whether it was the most powerful. Kinda forgot how big it was.
Good Point Gal!
He does qualify with "Atlantic".
...the total energy of Sandy's winds of tropical storm-force and higher peaked at 329 terajoules--the highest value for any Atlantic hurricane since at least 1969. This is 2.7 times higher than Katrina's peak energy, and is equivalent to five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs"
Sandy was 2.7 times more energetic--that is, more powerful--than Katrina. I'd say the former already surpassed the latter. And then some.
Link
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id= antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy
Will any of these work?
www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=3179
The Demon Haunted World. Sagan's best book. Ever.
Wilma still has the lowest pressure in the basin.
The "battle" over climate change isn't about convincing the unconvinceable; if it were, generous helpings of sugar and spice and everything nice would indeed be called for, and you'd likely see nothing but polite and politically-correct commentary all around. But this isn't that. No, this is a battle between those who support established science and want to see action to prevent a CO2 catastrophe, and those who've proven they will stop at nothing to prevent that science from being heard just so the fossil fuel-only paradigm can be perpetuated. So, yes, there is harsh rhetoric at times, but that's only because opprobium has been earned. And, yes, there is ridicule, but that's only because denialists are deserving of ridicule.
Plutorising makes a great point, and one with which I agree: blunting one's blades in fear that the opponent might get cut works only in favor of the opponent.
This might be a dumb question but how is a storm's energy calculated? Is it the wind energy spread over the diameter of the entire cyclone or just tropical storm force + wind zone? Also is rain energy part of the mix? when you have hundreds of millions of gallons of water convecting up and back down the storm I'd think that would be part of the energy output as well. Now if there was a way we could just capture all that in the form of electricity that would be awesome.
keep calling for that 5 alarm blaze when in reality it is only smoldering....
I think that is one of the funniest remarks I have ever read from the anti-AGW cohorts. ". . . it is only smoldering".
How are we supposed to take you seriously when all you do is insult us?
Viewing: 1 - 51
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 — Blog Index