WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Are Category 4 and 5 hurricane increasing globally? (Part II)

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:04 PM GMT on March 31, 2006

In my blog for Monday, I opened the discussion of whether Category 4 and 5 hurricanes were increasing in number globally. Here's Part II of that discussion:

Northwest Pacific typhoon intensities questioned
The question of the integrity of the typhoon intensity data in the Northwest Pacific is critical, since this ocean basin accounts for fully 46% of the global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1970. Dr. Gray and Dr. Knaff both question typhoon intensities measured by reconnaissance aircraft in the Northwest Pacific during the 1973-1986 period. The technique used to determine typhoon intensities during this period (the "Atkinson-Holliday" or AH technique), is thought to have significantly underestimated the maximum winds. Looking at a plot of all Category 4 and 5 activity since 1945 in the Northwest Pacific (Figure 6), one can that intense typhoons were about as common in the 1950s and 1960s as they were during 1990-2004, but took a major dip in the 1970s and 1980s during the period the AH technique was used. I asked Dr. Webster and Dr. Holland about the intense typhoon activity back in the 1950s and 1960s, and they argued that this activity was the result of high SSTs in the Northwest Pacific during that period. On his website, Kerry Emanuel argues that typhoon intensities were overestimated in the 1950s and 1960s. However, Knaff and Zehr (2006) make some convincing arguments that typhoon intensities during the 1973-1986 period were too low due to measurement error, and the number of Category 4 and 5 storms in the region have been roughly constant for the past 50 years. This paper has been accepted for publication in Weather and Forecasting, and will likely be published late this year. Dr. Knaff and Charles Sampson of the Naval Research Laboratory have performed a preliminary re-analysis of maximum typhoon intensities for the period 1966-1987 based on the Knaff and Zehr (2006) results, and this re-analysis will be presented at the upcoming 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (April 24-28, 2006). They show that after correcting for the AH technique errors, the number of Category 4 and 5 typhoons during the 1966-1987 period increased by 1.5 per year, leaving only a slight upward trend in Category 4 and 5 typhoons during the period 1970 - 2004. The 16% increase in Category 4 and 5 typhoons found by Webster et al. during the past 15-year period is reduced to just 3%. Based on this new research, the results of Webster et al. may have to be modified. In particular, their global increase in storms from 1990-2004 compared to 1975-1989, as presented in that paper will be reduced from 57% to 42% if Dr. Knaff's typhoon re-analysis is accepted.

Figure 6. Number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Northwest Pacific Ocean since reliable records began in 1945. Data taken from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center "best track" database. Typhoon intensities from the period 1973 - 1986 were estimated using the "Atkinson-Holliday" (AH) technique, which may have underestimated typhoon intensity.

Northeast Pacific
Dr. Gray formulates the reasonable hypothesis that if one compares global major hurricane activity for the most recent ten years (1995-2004) with the previous ten years (1985-1994), one should see a significant difference, since global surface temperatures increased about 0.4� C between the two periods. He shows that the number of Category 3-4-5 hurricanes stayed exactly the same between these two periods--218 for each time period--if one excludes the Atlantic. I tabulated the results for just Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, and the results were very similar--135 storms storms globally (excluding the Atlantic) from 1985-1994, and 142 for 1995-2004. As most of you are aware, the Atlantic has seen a big increase in the number of intense hurricane the past ten years. Dr. Gray attributes to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a natural cycle I discussed in an earlier blog. Dr. Gray offers another comparison, but just for Category 4 and 5 storms. The most reliable comparison one can make is using data from the Northeast and Northwest Pacific from the past 20 years. This excludes the issues of dealing with the natural AMO cycles in the Atlantic, and the poor data quality in the other ocean basins. Again, the data show essentially no difference between time periods. Indeed, when looking at the plot of Category 4 and 5 hurricane for the Northeast Pacific--the ocean area off the west coast of Mexico (Figure 7), and responsible for 19% of the world's Category 4 and 5 hurricanes--one sees no increasing trend in recent years.

Figure 7. Number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean since reliable satellite intensity estimates began in 1970. Data taken from the National Hurricane Center "best track" database.

The Atlantic contributes only 9% of the world's Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, so is not much of factor when considering global numbers of these storms. Dr. Gray shows that the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic has remained constant when one compares numbers from the past 15 years with an earlier active period from 1950-1964. However, this is a poor comparison. The period 1950-1964 fell entirely within a time when the warm phase of the AMO dominated the Atlantic, and had significantly enhanced intense hurricane activity (see Figure 8). The period 1990-2004 includes five years from the cold phase of the AMO, when intense hurricane activity was significantly down. Thus, comparison of 1950-1964 with 1990-2004 in the Atlantic is poor. One should make the comparison between data from the 11 years from the most recent warm phase of the AMO (1995-2005), and the previous warm AMO period we have good data for (1944-1969). This comparison shows that Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic have increased by 60% in the past 11 years compared to the previous active period 1944-1969. One can make a similar comparison for the cold phase of the AMO, contrasting the years 1970-1982 with 1983-1994. This comparison show no increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the later period with warmer SSts. I asked Dr. Landsea about the 60% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes during the most recent warm phase of the AMO, and he thought that at least part of the increase could be explained by inadequate information from the Hurricane Hunters during that period. He explained that during that time, it was common in intense hurricanes for the Hurricane Hunters to get close enough to the eye to fix the storm on radar, but not actually penetrate through the eyewall into the eye. Who can blame them! The older aircraft like the DC-6 used during that time period were not safe to fly into Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Dr. Landsea is working on a re-analysis project for the entire Atlantic hurricane database, but has only made it to the 1930s, and hopes to have a more definitive answer on the intensities of hurricanes during the 1950-1969 period in a few years.

Figure 8. Number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean since reliable aircraft reconnaissance intensity estimates began in 1944. Data taken from the National Hurricane Center "best track" database and not corrected for any suspected biases. The warm AMO periods are associated with enhanced intense hurricane activity, and are thought to be part of a natural decades-long cycle that affects only the Atlantic Ocean (as far as hurricane activity is concerned).

So who's right? Given the uncertainties in estimating tropical cyclone intensity presented by Drs. Gray, Landsea, and Knaff, plus the very large disagreement with the theory of hurricane intensification, it is unlikely that the large 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes found by Webster et al. is real. There does appear to be some increase, but it is likely much smaller. Many troubling questions need to be answered, such as why comparison of the most recent ten years (1995-2004) with the previous ten years (1985-1994) shows almost no increase in Category 4 and 5 storms globally, during a period when a substantial increase in SST occurred.

All the scientists involved in this debate have stated the need for a rigorous re-analysis of all historical tropical cyclone data. However, there is currently little funding for such work. Dr. Knaff told me that his typhoon re-analysis work was unfunded, and that he did it because he felt strongly that the results of Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. were inaccurate and needed to be challenged. Dr. Landsea's reanalysis of Atlantic storms is funded, but something he can only devote time to when his duties at NHC allow him. Dr. Knaff wrote me, "While I realize there are plans to reanalyze the Atlantic, the West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, and Indian Ocean are all being done piece by piece as part of several unfunded projects with little general support. If people are going to use the data for global studies, then NOAA, NSF or some other entity should fund a global reanalysis." I agree completely! Before I am willing to conclude that Category 4 and 5 hurricanes are indeed showing a significant increase, I want to see the science done with a better dataset, and covering a longer period of time. The NOAA Office of Global Programs or National Science Foundation needs to step in and fund this research.

While Category 4 and 5 hurricanes may indeed be increasing in frequency globally, one cannot yet say that global warming is the cause. Webster et al. close with the sentence, "attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state." Furthermore, global warming cannot be cited as the cause of recent intense storms, such a Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Wilma, or Australia's Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Glenda.

Webster, Holland, and Curry have submitted another paper for publication titled, "Testing the Hypothesis that Greenhouse Warming is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity". I'll be sure to review the paper when it comes out. In addition, earlier this month, the authors published another paper linking increasing SSTs to higher numbers of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. The paper was called, "Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity", and I plan to say more about this paper in my next blog on the global warming-hurricane intensification debate. Later on this Spring, I'll also talk about the 2005 paper by Dr. Kerry Emmanuel of MIT in Nature that found increases in global hurricane duration and power dissipated due to increasing SSTs.

Be sure to tune in Tuesday, when the Colorado State University forecasting team founded by Dr. Bill Gray releases their updated 2006 hurricane season forecast.

Jeff Masters

Emanuel, K.A., "The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate", Nature, 326, 483-485, 1987.

Emanuel, K.A., "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, 436, 686-688, 4 August 2005.

Hoyos, C.D., P.A. Agudelo, P.J. Webster, and J.A. Curry, "Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity", www.scienceexpress.org, 16 March 2006, 10.1126/science.1123560.

Knaff, J.A., and R.M. Zehr, "Reexamination of Tropical Cyclone Wind-Pressure Relationships", accepted to Weather and Forecasting, 2006.

Knutson, T.R., and R.E. Tuleya, "Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization," Journal of Climate 17, 18: 3477-3495, 2004. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/20 04/tk0401.pdf

Virmani, J.I., and R. H. Weisberg, "The 2005 hurricane season: An echo of the past or a harbinger of the future?", Geophysical Research Letters 33, L05707, 2006 doi:10.1029/2005GL025517.

Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry, and H.-R. Chang, "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment", Science, 309, 1844,1846, 16 September 2005.

Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments


: JeffMasters

when is your next blog updat and is there a part 3 on my we are seeing more cat 4 or 5 hurricane


i been want to ask you where are all your blogs from 2004?
JeffMasters one more ?

are we ever going to see a update on oh been Retired from 2005?
I noticed last season hurricanes seemed to reach a higher intensity than forcasters expected. I would read forcastes that predicted a storm to reach cat-3 with lots of seemingly sound reasons why it should be any higher only to read later it was a 4 and growing stronger.

Wind shear in particular seemed to have less of an effect than expected last season.

Any ideas on why this might be going on?
may be this year there will be no Wind shear
Very good blog Dr Masters

Thank you

i can never seem to be first.
awesome blog Dr. Masters... lots and lots of wholesome information thank you
im wondering whats your take on a hurricane strike in southern new england.. talk in the local papers and weather anchor's are saying the probability is likely this upcoming hurricane season
Stop -ing us with your tunnels. If Dr. Masters has anything to say, it will be that they will not work. Also, even if sea surface temperatures rise by 10 degrees, wind shear in the winter will prevent year-round hurricane seasons (temperatures are definetly warm enough right now for hurricanes to develop). The only way that could happen is a record breaking La Nina, and even then, I don't think that it would have enough of an effect.

By the way, if anybody is interested in how many places online that cyclonebuster (also known as cyclonekiller) is posting, look here.
im wondering whats your take on a hurricane strike in southern new england.. talk in the local papers and weather anchor's are saying the probability is likely this upcoming hurricane season

There is a reason New England is hit by hurricanes so rarely. Even if the general late summer pattern is more conducive than usual it still takes a hurricane in the right place with a specific east coast/New England synoptic setup to get a hit. It is certainly possible there could be one this year, but anyone who says it is "likely" is really stretching it.
That prediction was made by accuweather. I'm not really sure what they're looking at, since nothing I see shows any tendency towards New England - if anything, they point away.

Cyclone, SSTs are NOT the reason we don't have year round hurricane seasons. 1 degree of water temp increase would add 10% or so to storm totals, and they'd be somewhat stronger. Last year, most of the SSTs across the atlantic were 1-2C above normal, and we saw the result of that along with extremely favorable conditions otherwise.

What's up with that link (to the mint error page)? Are you saying that your tunnels would prevent mint errors? :-)
lol, jeffb.

But anyways, wind shear is just way too high over the Atlantic during the winter. A tropical cyclone cant develope in 20kt+ of wind shear, even if the SSTs are 90 degrees.
We had some interesting weather here (here being Plainfield Indiana) a few hours ago. We were even placed under a tornado warning for a little bit. We didn't actually have a tornado here, but some areas to the East of Indianapolis did. In all there were 3 reports of tornadoes in Central Indiana, including 1 which knocked a loaded 18 wheeler off the road. Fortunately there have been no reports of any serious injuries with these storms so far.
My point is wind shear is EVERYWHERE in the winter. The lowest area of windshear right now is 20kts, while the highest is over 100kts. A tropical cyclone simply cant develope in 20kt+ of windshear, which is present 99% of time during winter.
Check out the wind shear map I provided. There isn't anywhere that wind shear is below 20kts. The low areas of wind shear are in the S. Hemisphere where it is summer going into fall. As fall and winter happen in the S. Hemisphere, windshear will rise there and it will begin to fall in the N. Hemisphere as we go into summer.
I doubt summer will be year long. The tilt of the Earth causes the seasons and I dont think even a warming of 10 degrees would cause winter to go away.

As much as you want to shout to the world that we will see year-long hurricane seasons in the Atlantic soon, there simply isnt any evidence to support it right now. And if we are going to have a year-long hurricane season it's going to be because of a fundamental shift in winds in the Atlantic, not because SST have gotten to a certain point.
Cyclone there is no way that SST change can change the magnitude of wind shear. Wind shear changes with the passing seasons. In the winter, the upper level winds are much stronger, and the jet stream is farther south, causing lots and lots of shear. In the summer, the jet moves north and upper level winds weaken, leaving strong ridges over the tropics which generaly have low wind shear in them.
They might cause that shift. There is no evidence either way because no one has studied it.
The main cause of wind shear is the jetstream, which moves south in the winter; it is possible that global warming could weaken it because there will be less of a difference between the polar regions and the tropics (measured warming so far is most pronounced in the arctic regions). Also, I read that the number of South Atlantic storms could increase because of reduced wind shear from warming; however, this does not necessarily mean that it will also happen in the North Atlantic.
Cyclone, higher SST's might slightly enhance a tropical cyclone's ability to survive wind shear, but it will not change wind shear values unless SST's become at least 10 degrees hotter.
Cyclone how could more vapor change wind shear?
There may be evidence for a weaker jet stream: there have not been many strong (F4-F5)tornadoes which, along with other factors, need a strong jet stream in the last 6-7 years; the past two years have had only 1 F4-F5 tornado each (and weak F4s at that). Also, the increasing number of late season storms could mean that wind shear is dropping (remember that during Epsilon wind shear was found to have been overestimated; Epsilon was not as strange as some thought).
I dont remember hearing that wind shear was lower over Eplison then estimated. As far as I knew Epsilon simply wasent deep enough, with convection into the upper levels of the atomsphere, to be affected by the high level wind shear which forecastors expected it to be affected by.
In the official report for Epsilon, it says in the forecast critiqe section, "The SHIPS model, which had even larger biases than the official
forecast, likely overestimated the actual shear directly over Epsilon."
By the way, did anybody look at AccuWeather yet?
Oh, I thought you were saying that the NHC believed that sat derived wind shear was over estimated. I think the model was taking into account the high level of upper atmospheric shear despite Epsilon not being effected since it lacked clouds in the upper atmosphere.
MichaelSTL why link?
Cyclone eye do you know that hurricane help maintain Global heat balance by tranfering heat from the tropics to polar regions. Also they biological activity by mixing up the water in there wake.
What paticularly are you referring to on AccuWeather, MichaelSTL?
AccuWeather says that a massive blizzard will strike.
The April Fools joke?
Has anybody heard about Hurricane Alberto yet?

11 AM AST SAT APR 1 2006










AT 5 PM AST...
MichaelSTL...two more weeks and you won't need to be April foolin'.
Yes, that is an April Fool's Day joke! By the way, the advisory I put up is from Tropical Storm Ana. Link
frist cat 5 storm of the year and it is going to hit new york as a cat 5 storm hehehe
Cat 5? It says 75 mph... and no hurricanes will hit New York unless SSTs rise 10 degrees.

IT IS JUST A JOKE (along with AccuWeather's blizzard headline)!
Interesting Feature north of Puerto Rico this Saturday afternoon.

Convection, spin.

Check the San Juan radar
Its got some convection, but I don't know about spin
If you are thinking that this feature NE of Puerto Rico is a tropical disturbance, then you havn't checked the maps. There is 90 KNOTS OF SHEAR OVER IT!!!. There is absolutely no way beyond any stretch of the imagination that this thing is of tropical origin or has potential to be a tropical disturbance.
55. MZT
It does have some low level circulation... but yes, the westerlies are clobbering it.
It may have circulation, but it is not a tropical system. It is cold core.
This does not even have anything on it.
Here is an idea...if this system is in fact tropical, and it is not a very deep system, then it might not be affected by the shear high high up. The shear lower down is only 15-20 knots, so it might have a chance to survive.
Yes Michael I noticed that earlier. It might be too weak to pick up yet.
By the way, GOES EAST satellite has been put in Rapid Scan Mode, probably for the severe weather outbreak this afternoon, though it is not that big of an outbreak to have Rapid Scan Mode for.
a 1013 mb low just NW of Puerto Rico
to 21n58w near a 1014 mb low continuing to 24n43w where a third
low sits along the trough near 22n47w. The trough is increasing
the pressure gradient to the N with an area of 20-25 kt winds

not a joke
Current surface map shows a 1013 mb low just north of Puerto Rico. The low is becoming disconnected with an old cold front that moved through a couple days ago.
Check out the 24-hour GFS. Look at that vort max ENE of Puerto Rico
Check out the 24-hour GFS. Look at that vort max ENE of Puerto Rico
That low isn't anything right now, but shear is dropping over it, now only 60kt. With a break after the next front, it is possible, if highly unlikely, that we'll see Alberto live a day or two.
There is a low level circulation with it on radar. This is very very interesting.
Either stop talking about your tunnels , or have Dr. Masters put up a post about them. Oh yes, it will be nice to see Dr. Masters say that your tunnels will not work because they will damage the environment (even if they could work). Why can't you prove that they will work?
Hurricanes damage the environment?! Where did you find that??? They are natural; the only thing that they damage is man-made structures and that is because people are dumb enough to live in hurricane prone areas (not that I am saying that anybody on this site who lives in such places is dumb for living there; the people who originally decided that the Gulf Coast and Florida were good places to live are).
I think we should all let the tunnel theory go. All its going to do is fire people up and then it will be flame war city.

Anyways how is everyone today? On another web site that deals with weather they have a total of 3.10 inches of rain coming for my area with 2-3 inches for most of Southern California. Looks like some of that subtropical moisture from the 50'th state could combine with a cut off low and slam the socal area with a lot of rain.

For the thunderstorms that might affect the area it should be interesting because I remember a situation a few years ago that looks like the one we might have on Monday. Where several areas reported small hail and a few areas around where I live reported a microburst. There was residual showers and thundershowers that lasted all day. Looks like it could be the big weather story this week.
Cyclonebuster if you destroy hurricane it would cause problem also because they transfer heat from the tropics north and there upwells are very benificial to marine amimals.
Your tunnels would Damage the enviorment even more you also need to know the benfical factors of hurricane they help the enviorment. What doesnt help is man made stuff ruining the enviorment like MichaelSTL they are natural. You actully dont know as much as you think about the enviroment.
Indeed the low north of Puerto Rico has no chance of developing into a standard tropical system, it could develop into a low-atmosphere hybrid. The intense convection wrapped around the center is impressive.
On sea surface temperatures, please look at the latest NOAA anomaly mapLink
I think that most of the world's oceans are near-normal, despite all the global warming publicity.
Ok then you should Find someone one that will endorse you and not have people argue because that just make some people frustrated and mad.
Wow... that loop certainly shows the effects of 90 knots of shear... notice all of the clouds blowing off to the northeast.
Any idea which direction that system will move?
What I find unusual is that if there were favorable shear, this system would develope. That is rare to have a system with potential to develope so early in the year.
Here is another nice satellite loop. This also shows the remains of the cold front that could develope similar systems like the one we are dealing with now. The latest GFS shows what I mean.
Maybe so.
The severe storms currently over the plains look more impressive than the Puetro Rico disturbance on satellite.

Yeah they are sure firing up out there. Shaping up to be a long night for people in the plains.
so far, only one tornado reported

currently 2 tornado warnings in OK?
Do any of you think that the Navy will upgrade this disturbance to an invest storm?
no, they wouldn't fly out if this was a Cat. 5. Because of its location, and its moving east.
I don't mean fly into it, I mean on their site will they name it an Invest storm which means a disturbance.
oh, sorry, I didnt read that right

I don't think they will unless this shear lightens up.
I agree, if the shear lightens to less than 50 knots, then I think it has a chance. I find it impressive that it is holding its own on radar. Very remarkable for being under 85 knot shear.
I have to go give the dog some time outside for a half hour. I'll be back as soon as I can this is very exciting!

her is the forcast for shear for the next few days
101. RL3AO
looks like the shear will lighten very little, from dark blue to light blue ;)
If this was June or later, it might have chance to develope once the trough leaves the area and shear weakens. This is a similar situation to how Wilma developed, except the trough was over the whole Caribbean, not just PR. However, since this is April, and shear is not going to weaken, this thing has <1% chance. And If I hadent witnessed 2005, I'd give it a 0% chance
Agreed HurricaneMyles, though it is interesting seeing something like this on the first day of April.
104. MZT
Those maps show shear to be fairly light off the Atlantic coast of Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico. So even this early in the year, if surface temperatures in those areas are warm enough, then....
Honestly, I'm not as impressed as you guys all seem to be. I think MichaelSTL put it well when he said the storms over the midwest look more impressive.

The flare up, to me, appears to be any other mid-level disturbance interacting with an upper trough. Like I said before, if this were June or later, a surface low could persist and out live the shear, but the shear simply wont relax enough during this time of the year for that to happen now.

I know everyone is anxious about the upcoming season, but it seems to me as though every little disturbance has been looked at as unprecidented. Its not unusual to see a few fair looking disurbances over the winter time. And unless I missed one, I think we've seen three.
I guess, like the rest of us, they dont believe your tunnels will do all the amazing things you say they do. I guess they, like all of us, need more evidence then speculation, too.
You're very good at switching to topic. Whatever their main goal may be these days, it's obvious that they doubt that your tunnels work just as much as most people here do. So please, stop spamming us with unsubstantiated claims.
I'm sure they said 'they work'. More likely they said they could possibly work. Anyways, please, just stop posting about it here. We've heard all you've had to say and you've failed to pursuade most, if not all, of us, so go somewhere else and try to win them over.
Everybody: cyclonebuster has posted virtually everywhere about his tunnels; even at places like Greenpeace. Link
No, I wont see it like you. You're like these people on that new reality show American Inventor. Those people are so blinded with the thought of this 'great' idea that is really nothing impressive. No matter what they're told they wont understand that there idea isnt practical.

This idea isnt pratical, either. Not in the math, nor the implementation. And with your seriously lacking argumentation skills, you're not doing anything to change that with me or anyone else here. In fact, the more you try to convince people the more you discredit yourself. Your opinion has no weight. You've made it obvious you lack the knowledge to truely understand what you're trying to do. By spouting things like the Earth will turn on itside if the poles melt, and that we will have year long hurricane seasons because of a 2C rise in SST, you make yourself look like a fool.

So please, stop. You wont succeed, except at really annoying people.
MichaelSTL mail for you
117. MZT
Myles, you're not the only one clicking the SPAM button.
annoying people he is doing it to me are we going to her about all of hurricane year 2006 that starts vary soon i hop that dr M can banned cyclonebuste so that way we will not her him talking about you no what all hurricane year 2006 if you all no what i mean so keep on hiting spam may be by time the start of hurricane year 2006 he will be out of this blog he will be annoying ever one with his you no what
I am just curious about what happens when you click on the "Spam" button - it does not seem to do anything except display a page saying that it has been flagged as spam.
The best thing to do with trolls is to ignore them.
is tonight day light saveing time and is it tonight that we set are clocks 1 hour up
yup, tonite at 2am you're supposed to change it to 3am. Of course you can do it at anytime.
Ignore him AND flag his tunnel posts as spam.
i this e mail JeffMasters and ask him to ban himbe for the 2006 hurricane year starts i wounder if he will do it

JeffMasters mail for you
cyclonebuster get lots now you are not welcome her on dr m blog you are ddring us all nets on your tunnel and we do not want to her them so get lots or you will be ban
sorry for my oopps

do any of you think i said that well?
No, I don't. I think you really need to slow down on your typing until you are capable of typing faster. Also, while I agree that all these posts about tunnels are getting annoying, I don't think it is your place to tell him to get lost (at least I think that is what that is supposed to say).
for get it then
your tunnels are getting annoying cyclonebuster Please STOP! talking about them we do NOT! want to her them thank you or we will start hiting SPAM! ever time you are talking about them so Please STOP!
well said or not will said?
I have sent Dr. Masters an email, asking if he could talk about whether cyclonebuster's tunnels could work.
Well said, David, but I think you've made your point. This is Dr. Masters' blog and it is up to him as to how he wants to handle the situation. In the meantime, please, everyone just ignore this guy (and click on Spam) when he starts up about the tunnels. Don't engage him in any more debate. When he doesn't get any attention, we can hope he will eventually go somewhere else.
Unfortunately, it seems that he has already been everywhere, based on the results of a Google search for cyclonebuster or cyclonekiller and tunnels.
cyclonebuster's if you want to talk about tunnels do it in your own blog not in her Please!
If 5 people push the spam button, the post is removed and reviewed by an admin.

System NE of PR is pretty much gone.
I know, he seems to just want attention. It's frustrating.

BTW, the wind is really howling out here in Denver. I can't help but think that with so much cool, dry air headed east, when it smacks into the warm, humid stuff things are going to really fire up. Hope it doesn't get too ugly around STL.
The SPC has a 60% hail risk for me, along with 10% tornado risk and 45% wind risk (significant hail and tornadoes expected).

How common are 60% risks?
not that march
There is an invest off the west coast of Australia:

I think it already has met the warm, wet air, check out the dryline:


That was a lot better.
There are already some severe storms:

AccuWeather says that 100 mph winds were recorded in Kansas yesterday.

MichaelSTL mail for you
When they say 100 mph winds, is that sustained or is it gusts?
Winds produced by thunderstorms are almost always gusts.
Ok, thanks.

Still, 100 mph wind gusts are incredible. I certainly would not want to be hit by that.
: MichaelSTL more mail for you
It doesn't look good for people in the St. Louis area today.
Yes, there too; however, the highest risk is right where I am:

(probability of severe hail)

See here for discussion and other probability maps.
I am in the 30 percent risk area.
It looks like the worst of the weather will reach my area between 12:00 AM and 2:00 AM.
was it me or did day light saveing time a little bit eary then it did last year at this time i think it sould be the 2nd week not on the frist week
I don't know. This is the first time ever for me to be on DST.
I get the bad weather tomorrow.
It's really to bad I have to be all the way up here in Alaska. I don't get the excitement of having bad weather coming my way like all of you do.
Don't you get big blizzards in Alaska?

MichaelSTL mail for you
Daylight Savings Time, David.

And Levi, you surely get blizzards up there pretty regularly, dont you?
did Daylight Savings Time come a little bit eary for any of you to where it sould be for
Daylight Savings Time comes on the first SInday in April, but next year it will come two weeks earlier. This says that it will be on March 11 next year.
SInday should be Sunday
: MichaelSTL help help help in my yahoo e mail
Looks like Global Cooling may be underway


Oceans have cooled noticeably since this time last year
Oops, I'll try again


Looks like the tropical Atlantic has cooled a bit versus last year at this time
Looks like there are still many places above normal (yellows to reds). Also, just as El Ninos raise the global temperature (think 1998, the previous hottest year on record), La Ninas make the Earth cooler - if we had a record hot La Nina year, that would be a real concern.

I'm in the 30%
Hi friends first I would like to say I dont like daylight savings at all. I like the dark.

Anyways looks like I might have jinixed the storm that is coming toward the south west...

"The GFS continues it's trend in keeping the main upper low a bit further north than the NAM, and the nam's precipitation output is a half inch to one inch lower than earlier runs"

That tells me that most of the heavy rain and thunderstorms will stay north. It sounds like the last storm. I wouldnt be suprised if they downed the rain fall totals to 1-2 inches.

On the satellite imgae and the water vapor image last night it didnt look very impressive.
As far as DST, they are slowly starting it earlier. A few years ago (as it had been for at least the last 25 years) it began on Easter Sunday. Making it sooner has been an energy conservation issue, which I'm glad to see it come to pass. My general observation (& I'm sure there are exceptions:) Morning people prefer SDT, night owls like DST.
This is what I have coming at me right now:

NWS Link
That doesn't look good for you.
176. RL3AO
its about 60-80 minutes from you
177. RL3AO
St. Louis is getting pounded right now

St. Louis county is under a tornado warning
Looking really dangerous for St. Louis metro. I hope no tornadoes go through a crouded part of town
The storms are moving through St. Louis very fast. They are almost past.
Hey everyone,

I managed to find some time last night and today to finish my very extensive hurricane research into all direct landfalls on the U.S. coastline for the period of 1950-2005, that I will outline in great detail in a four part blog siries as time allows.

That being said, I have just posted Part One of this series focusing on all the La Nina hurricane landfalls categorized by the three AMO cycles that influenced hurricane activity during this period, as well as specifying each hurricane landfall by individual State and geographical locality.

Please see the link below for full details into the aforementioned data, which should help all of us better understand our Hurricane history as well as our vulnerability for furture hurricane seasons that are impacted by the "La Nina" phase of the ENSO cycle.

Naturally, we are currently in the La Nina phase of the ENSO cycle which is most likely to influence this upcoming Atlantic hurricane season.:)

I hope everyone has a great day and a good upcoming week.:)

Your friend,

Opening Day for Baseball, and there about to go into a rain delay once the rain picks up.
182. RL3AO
this first severe cell will miss the south side, but the squall line will be there soon
First wave didn't miss them, they still have a long way to go.
Looks like it was a bad line of storms... In the last 3 hrs it looks like some of the worst hit was~
NEWBERN DYER TN (1 fatality)
MILLSFIELD DYER TN (homes destroyed, injuries)
4 N HOPKINSVILLE CHRISTIAN KY (nurmous homes destroyed, gas fires)
FAIRFIELD WAYNE IL (widespread damage)
PIKE IN (widespread damage throughout county)
SOMERVILLE FAYETTE TN (damage/injuries)

Here's some highlights as to force of winds. Anyone want to guess intensitys?


There's a red trail of tornado reports drawing a line across NE TENN.

Storm Prediction Center(last 3 hours 186 preliminary reports)

509 reports since 6am
CNN Breaking News - "At least eight people were killed when a tornado slammed into northwestern Tennessee's Dyer County"
It's ironic, but as temperatures have warmed tornado intensities have seemed to decrease. There hasent been a F5 tornado in what...5 years, the longest stretch recorded without one? Not sure myself, but someone had the excact number around here.
How strong do we think tornodos can get??

When was the last F5 tornado? Answer: 1999; this is a record amount of time with no F5 tornadoes, and there has been only one F4 tornado this year (so far) and last year.
Thanks Michael! I thought it was you who had the excact stat on when the last F5 was.
Well, I just checked the preliminary reports. Turns out that there was a possible tornado touchdown within half a mile of several members of my family, a 60 mph wind gust near another relative, and an 82 mph wind gust in Indianapolis. This is all within 15 miles of my location. All I got was a brief downpour, 25-30 mph wind gusts, and a little bit of lightning. We were under a tornado warning for a little bit, but nothing happened here.

There have been several reports of trees and power lines down. Also, several windows were blown out of the upper floors of a bank tower (I think it was Regions Bank) in Indianapolis, and the winds caused the sprinkler system to go off.

Fortunately, despite all the damage, there have been no reports of fatalities, or any serious injuries in Indiana.
Ya, pretty much. There were bad storms pretty much everywhere, just not Plainfield, Indiana. It was actually a little boring here.
I have a summary of what I got on my blog.
I forgot to mention that around 5,200 people lost power in Indiana due to the severe weather.
Something like 500,000 people (assuming two people per electrical customer) lost power in the St. Louis metro area (and over 200,000 still don't have power). I had no power for 6 hours today.
Where do you live?
My zip code is 63129 (south of St. Louis City in St. Louis County).
Oh, well I was right earlier about the St. Louis area being in for it.
Local storm reports for my area can be seen here. The NWS has a summary as well here.
There have been 613 severe weather reports so far, including 62 tornado reports.
Wow, I found 8 reports of 4.25 inch diameter hail.