WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Chan-hom Makes Final Landfall in North Korea

By: Bob Henson and Jeff Masters 3:33 PM GMT on July 13, 2015

After nicking the coast of China as a Category 2 typhoon on Saturday afternoon local time, Tropical Depression Chan-hom made landfall on Monday morning just south of Pyongyang, North Korea, according to the final advisory from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC). The mountains of North Korea brought a rapid end to Chan-hom’s life as a tropical cyclone. Damage in China’s coastal province of Zhejiang has been estimated at more than $400 million US, with total losses nationwide estimated at close to $1 billion. One fatality and several injuries were reported in the city of Ningbo, near Chan-hom’s path, where the ceiling of a hotel room reportedly collapsed. Ningbo reported 217 mm (8.54”) of rain from the typhoon. Chan-hom also caused dozens of injuries in Japan, as it passed between the southern islands of Okinawa and Miyako-jima while at Category 4 intensity. On the plus side, the huge urban area of Shanghai and its 23 million residents dodged a bullet with Chan-hom, as a track just slightly further west could have brought a record storm surge into the city. More than 1 million people in China evacuated during the approach of Chan-hom, which was the strongest typhoon to pass within 100 miles of Shanghai in at least the past 35 years.


Figure 1. MODIS image of Typhoon Nangka, taken at 0140 GMT on Monday, June 13, from NASA’s Terra satellite. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.

Nangka intensifies in northwest Pacific
Japan may face a serious threat late this week from a revitalized Typhoon Nangka, which reached super typhoon status with 155 mph winds late last week before weakening to Category 1 strength over the weekend. Nangka is again looking impressive on satellite, with a very symmetric circulation and a double-eyewall structure now evident on water vapor imagery from the MTSAT satellite. This structure indicates an eyewall replacement cycle, after which Nangka will have ample time to strengthen further. Peak winds are estimated at 120 mph. Wind shear is low (5 – 10 knots) and there is plenty of oceanic heat content ahead of Nangka. Nangka is expected to follow a somewhat unorthodox path toward Japan: the typhoon has already recurved, now moving almost due northward at around 10 mph, but a ridge to its north is expected to strengthen and bend Nangka back toward the northwest. The latest JTWC forecast brings Nangka close to the threshold of super typhoon status by Wednesday night local time, with top sustained winds predicted to reach 125 knots (145 mph). The GFS and ECMWF models are both bullish on Nangka, keeping the cyclone close to its peak strength until just before landfall. This appears most likely to occur in or near Japan’s large western islands of Kyushu and Shikoku, with impacts possibly extending east toward Honshu and the large cities of Kyoto, Kobe, and Osaka, as noted by The Weather Channel’s Jon Erdman. As with the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast, most typhoons approaching Japan are moving toward the northeast. An approach from the southeast, more perpendicular to the coastline, would bolster Nangka’s destructive power, much as Hurricane Sandy’s unusual approach from the southeast in 2012 increased the damage it wreaked on New York and New Jersey.

Halola nears hurricane strength in Central Pacific
A record-smashing burst of activity continues over the Central Pacific as Tropical Storm Halola continues to gradually strengthen. Halola should reach hurricane strength by Monday night, making it one of the earliest central Pacific hurricanes on record in the NOAA database. The JWTC projects Halola to be a Category 3 storm by the end of the week, moving just south of Wake Island as a strong Category 2 hurricane. The last major hurricane to strike Wake Island was Ioke, which brought sustained winds estimated at 155 mph and a minimum central pressure measured at 934 mb on August 31, 2006. Elsewhere in the Central Pacific, Tropical Depression Iune is now dissipating over open water several hundred miles southwest of Hawaii. In the Eastern Pacific, we have two active named storms, neither of which is expected to hit land: Tropical Storm Enrique and Tropical Storm Dolores.


Figure 2. A conga line of tropical cyclones straddles the Pacific this morning on Weather Underground’s tropical cyclone home page.

Eric Blake (National Hurricane Center) and Phil Klotzbach (Colorado State University) called attention this weekend to some remarkable statistics. Since Thursday, we’ve seen three tropical storms develop in the central Pacific, all of which broke early-bird records in the period of reliable data that extends back to 1949:



Earliest tropical storm during hurricane season: Ela (July 9).
Previous record: Wali, July 17, 2014
2nd earliest tropical storm during hurricane season: Halola (July 11).
Previous record: Maka, Aug. 11, 2009
3rd earliest tropical storm during hurricane season: Iune (July 11).
Previous record: Moke, Sep. 4, 1984

Sea-surface temperatures over the central Pacific are substantially warmer than average, a result of the potent El Niño event that continues to intensify. This is allowing far more activity than usual over the basin, which does not usually host many hurricanes. The closest analog to this year’s record burst of central pacific activity is in 1982, just prior to the intense 1982-83 El Niño event. That year, the central Pacific saw a record total of four named storms for the season and a record three named storms in an 18-day period (that mark has been just broken with the three-day streak noted above). A powerful Madden-Julian Oscillation is moving across the central Pacific, likely adding to the very favorable conditions for tropical cyclone formation. According to NOAA’s weekly update (see PDF), the MJO is expected to remain in place or perhaps even retrogress over the next few days, which should help keep the central Pacific uncharacteristically active.

Update: Tropical Storm Claudette forms in northwest Atlantic
Disturbance 92L was upgraded to Tropical Storm Claudette by the National Hurricane Center at 1:00 pm EDT Monday, after ASCAT scatterometer data showed winds of tropical storm force within a well-defined circulation. Claudette's top sustained winds are now estimated at 45 knots (50 mph), with a center of circulation about 330 miles south-southeast of Nantucket, Massachusetts. Claudette is heading northeast at 15 mph, and its forward motion should increase over time. By Tuesday afternoon, wind shear will rise to a very high 25 - 30 knots and ocean temperatures will fall below 24°C, likely bringing Claudette below tropical storm strength no later than Wednesday morning.

Bob Henson and Jeff Masters

Hurricane

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

is that a rain cloud?
no way in the caribbean
Quoting 264. GeoffreyWPB:




Dolores has continued to become better organized during the past
several hours. Microwave imagery indicates that a mid-level eye
has formed, and first-light visible images are showing a hint of
eye development as well. The initial intensity is increased to 75
kt based on a combination of subjective Dvorak Technique and AMSU
intensity estimates.
Quoting 461. StormHype:



Keeping up? Maybe it's because some of us have productive lives where we work and can't waste time on this blog all day living on SSI disability checks for ADD or work comp settlements. FWIW, this article came from Huffington Post, a very liberally biased left-leaning site on par with being the polar opposite of Fox News. (Which I never watch anyway.) It's only a paper, but its based on scientific research and goes to show again you can use science and cherrypicked data to claim just about anything. If it happens (and you are still around) I expect you'll say this anomalous solar activity is also man-caused. ;-P


Wait a minute - so when you post on here, you're a hard-working citizen who's sharing valuable scientific information with the larger community, but when other people post to explain to you why your information is wrong, suddenly they're lazy good-for-nothings who should be mocked and pitied?

Please tell me you at least appreciate the irony of posting on this blog a comment about how people who post on this blog are losers.
Delores is a beautiful looking storm at the moment and may reach major cat status over the next 48:


HURRICANE DOLORES DISCUSSION NUMBER 13
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL EP052015
900 AM MDT TUE JUL 14 2015

Dolores has continued to become better organized during the past
several hours. Microwave imagery indicates that a mid-level eye
has formed, and first-light visible images are showing a hint of
eye development as well. The initial intensity is increased to 75
kt based on a combination of subjective Dvorak Technique and AMSU
intensity estimates.

After its earlier westward turn, Dolores has resumed a
west-northwestward motion of 290/6. The hurricane is currently
being steered by a low- to mid-level level ridge over northern
Mexico. The dynamical models suggest the ridge should strengthen
during the next 48 hours of so, which should cause the storm to
move a bit faster toward the west-northwest. After 96 hours, the
ridge should weaken as a trough moves southward along the coast of
California. This evolution should allow Dolores to turn
northwestward by 120 hours. The new forecast track is similar
to, but a little faster than, the previous forecast. It lies near
the center of the guidance envelope through 96 hours and a little
left of the center of the envelope at 120 hours.

Dolores should continue to intensify through the next 36-48 hours
in an environment of warm water and light vertical wind shear, with
the biggest question being how strong will it get. The official
intensity forecast during this time follows the SHIPS model, which
is at the upper edge of the intensity guidance. However, the SHIPS
Rapid Intensification Index shows a 30 percent chance of a 30 kt
increase in intensity during the next 24 hours, so the current
intensity forecast could be conservative.
Regardless of the actual
peak intensity, the cyclone should start a steady weakening trend
after 48 hours as it encounters cooler waters.
NHC is calling for major status; this might be the first major of the E-Pac season:

[Image of 5-day forecast and coastal areas under a warning or a watch]
Very nice structure with Delores:


Goes to show that sometimes even the popular press gets it partly right when confronted with reality:

IFLScience on Monday, July 13:

Thanks To Reduced Solar Activity, We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030

Life on Earth has always been dependent on the conditions of the Sun, so scientists spend a lot of time studying its activity. A recent announcement from solar scientists suggests that the Sun may soon enter a period of significant reduced activity, possibly causing a mini ice age by 2030 – just 15 years from now.

-----------------------

IFLScience on Tuesday, July 14:

There Probably Won't Be A “Mini Ice Age” In 15 Years

Since our article yesterday about how reduced solar activity could lead to the next little ice age, IFLScience has spoken to the researcher who started the furor: Valentina Zharkova. She announced the findings from her team's research on solar activity last week at the Royal Astronomical Society. She noted that her team didn't realize how much of an impact their research would have on the media, and that it was journalists (including ourselves) who picked up on the possible impact on the climate. However, Zharkova says that this is not a reason to dismiss this research or the predictions about the environment.
Quoting 491. aquak9:

Qouting MrNatural (not to be confused with MrPerfect or MrHappy)

The scope and speed of this cycle does not relate well to previous cycles. What this cycle does extremely well is to match up to the scope and size of the changes of CO2 that are caused by humans.

There. What he said.


That is not true. "LargoFL" discusses the variability in cycles. What I added was the state of the current climate, not the past or future. Understanding current events has helped us understand why the climate has changed. And this was predicted as far back as the 1970's when the "Club of Rome" think tank discussed the future changes in climate. By the way this is a weather blog, not a place to mock my username and avatar.


Lots of storms across FL today.
Atlantic pretty much shut down. However, by mid July, look for those fronts in the Southeast. They can spin up fast. I would not be surprised if we were to have another named storm before the end of the month. That would be for systems before August 1.
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
Quoting 499. Grothar:



Captain, there be pouches. #4 looks good.





Thanks Gro. We'll see if anything can develop in that misfit region.
Quoting 450. LAbonbon:


Oops...was it your birthday yesterday? Belated Happy Birthday, Tim!


Ditto
In case any of you missed it. Check out this video from Hutchinson, Kansas yesterday of an incredibly photogenic supercell and tornado.






Quoting 497. JNFlori30A:

hmmmm.. maybe time to upgrade to Windows 98


You joke, but I have an exhibit here that runs on Windows 98!
Quoting 383. tlawson48:



What's super depressing, is that the most likely scenarios that could reverse the warming in a very short period of time (the ones listed above), would probably kill us all in horrible gruesome ways.

And if for some strange reason the sun stopped putting out enough heat to counteract global warming and bring us into a mini ice age for 10 years in the 2030's, I'm pretty sure that the much reduced level of sunlight reaching the earth required to bring an event to fruition would throw most of the plant life on this planet into total chaos.
That is depressing.
Quoting 412. Neapolitan:

Is it that some of you don't look back several comments before posting? Or do you have everyone who makes sense on ignore? Because the subject to which you're referring has been discussed here in this forum as recently as, like, five minutes ago.

But let me give you Dr. Masters' probable take on this: the denialist author of the conference paper (not study) in question has seriously overstated her findings in regards to an "ice age". Any solar minimum will be barely noticeable in the long-term rise of the planet's surface temperature. Period.



Normally, I have the greatest respect for what you say, but here I think there is a lot of assumption in play. If you read the article in Wired (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mi ni-ice-age-earth-sunspots) linked to a few comments back, it says that the authors calculated that the sunspot minimum would drop to the lowest level since the mini ice age due to two seperate 11 year sunspot cycles coinciding at a minimum for the first time in over 300 years.

"... new research suggests a second force -- or "wave" -- is at play. Two waves, operating at different layers in the Sun's interior, are now believed to drive solar activity. When these waves are desynchronised, temperatures on Earth fall.Both waves work on 11 year cycles and fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. When the waves stay in phase we see high levels of solar activity such as sunspots, and when out of phase we see low activity."

The paper states (as quoted by Science Daily) that " When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago." That is not remotely the same as saying we will have the same atmospheric condition as as existed during the Maunder Minimum, just that sunspot activity is predicted to be the same. Calling the authors 'deniers' based on that is pretty sloppy. In no way is this stating that rising CO2 levels caused by human activity does not result in rising temperature.
Quoting 456. pipelines:



why would it? an ice age caused by a reduction in solar energy is unrelated to anthropogenic climate change and does not disprove it in any way. The issue with this theory of a coming ice age is lack of evidence. If the evidence rolls in, a consensus is developed in the scientific community, we'll all start paying attention. Until then, this stuff is just click bait.
Hi Pipe, not according to all the so called AGW experts on here, we will never have another ice age because of a minor trace gas in the atmosphere. I still find it hard to believe that the sun has less of an impact on the Earth's temps, than a minor trace gas. I believe we as a species have an effect on the Earth Temps but not as much as some people believe. Lets work on fixing a few very big problems that we can control, like air and water pollution, and the biggest problem of all overpopulation. You solve these 3 problems and I bet we will all be a lot better off as these are actual things we can control.
Quoting 518. NativeSun:

Hi Pipe, not according to all the so called AGW experts on here, we will never have another ice age because of a minor trace gas in the atmosphere. I still find it hard to believe that the sun has less of an impact on the Earth's temps, than a minor trace gas. I believe we as a species have an effect on the Earth Temps but not as much as some people believe. Lets work on fixing a few very big problems that we can control, like air and water pollution, and the biggest problem of all overpopulation. You solve these 3 problems and I bet we will all be a lot better off as these are actual things we can control.

I'm not sure if anyone will see this because the blog's moved on but ...

The Sun is the single most important source of heat on Earth but we've been monitoring it continuously from satellites for about 30 years and pretty intensely from the ground and balloons since the 1950s. Before that the measurements are more sketchy but it was Joseph Fourier in 1824 who discovered that incoming energy from the Sun alone wasn't enough to account for how warm the Earth was. It was later discovered that some gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane and some others absorbed in the infrared spectrum then in 1896 Svante Arrhenius quantified the relationship between temperatures and CO2. His equation is still in use today.

In all the time we've been studying the Sun its output hasn't varied much more than 0.1-0.2%. That alone isn't enough variation to cause the sort of temperature changes we've been seeing.

We have proxies for solar activity that go back thousands of years. We have what astronomy knows about a G class main sequence stars. From all of that we have no reason to expect that the Sun will all of a sudden become much more variable than what we've already observed.

So thinking the Sun is the direct cause of the warming isn't reasonable given all we know about it.