WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

New Orleans tornado and tropical update

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:18 PM GMT on February 03, 2006

While the groundhogs slumbered before their big prognosticating efforts Groundhog Day morning, two tornadoes ripped through the New Orleans metro area, adding to the misery and fright of a city still deeply wounded by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. One tornado hit Armstrong International Airport. Here's the official NWS damage report from that event:

Weather observer observed funnel cloud at the same time that substantial damage occurred to Concourse C. 20 x 8 foot glass window along with metal frame were sucked out in walkway area just past security checkpoint. Four jet bridges were damaged. Section of temporary roof was blown away. The airport reported a peak wind gust of 43 mph at 236 am. Warehouse building reported damaged across the highway from airport.

Two other tornadoes were reported nearby. Here's the official damage reports from those events:

Ground survey indicated tornado touched down initially along River Road at Iris Ave near Oschner Hospital. Several structures had roofs removed. Warehouses damaged and power lines/poles snapped. The tornado traveled north northeast for approximately 0.75 miles. Damage width 150 yds.
Several trailers near Oschner Hospital in Metairie, Jefferson Parish, sustained roof damage...roofs were torn upwards from their base.

Ground survey indicated strong tornado moved on a north northeast path across the Lakeview area of New Orleans. Several houses heavy damaged...other houses with lighter damage and power poles snapped. Former State Police troop B communications tower was knocked down on Veterans Blvd near Fleur de Lis. Damage path approximately 2.5 miles. Width approximately 150 yards. Further ground survey and investigation may result in consolidating Lakeview tornado with tornado near Oschner Hospital.

While the damage from these tornadoes will probably amount to just a few million dollars, their psychological toll will no doubt be high. At a lecture Tuesday at the American Meterological Society Annual Meeting, Dr. Anna Marie of the Weather Channel presented a talk titled, "Health Effects of 2005 Hurricanes". She presented results of a study that showed that 40% of the population of New Orleans was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. This is much higher than the 25 - 28% rate reported for the victims of Hurricane Andrew. A study of the psychological state of 2000 Katrina victims is being performed by the Harvard Medical School, and an update of their condition is due to be released in late February.

Are Category 4 and 5 hurrricanes increasing in frequency?
I heard the authors of the paper claiming this connection speak Tuesday at the American Meteorological Society conference, and they presented new evidence supporting their conclusion. However, Dr. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center presented evidence disputing their conclusions. It will take me at least a week to incorporate the new material into the blog piece I'm working on about this, pardon the delay!

Jeff Masters


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

Thank you Dr. Masters.

Central Florida getting ready to get socked today.
Boloetse is really amazing now! 105mph winds, 954mb pressure - watch out Madagascar.

I think Boloeste is doing what we call here in the states, "blowing up." I wonder when it will level off...
Well looks like the next major discussion on this blog is going to be are Cat 4 and 5 increasing.

My personal opinion is that the number of Cat 4 and 5 are increasing as well as the amount of storms in general is due to:

1. Natural pattern (and may be part of a mega pattern we just don't know about due to lack of detailed records of weather)
2. More sensors, sats and data coming in that allows us to detect strenght of storms with more detail (also probably why we are able to see more storms as well)
Yeah, I'd agree with your second theory more then your 1st oriondarkwood. I think its obvious that with more sensors we have a better chance of finding the storm. I would say today there is <1% that we wont detect a storm.

As far a natural pattern goes, Im not so sure. Patterns are usually exhibited by cyclone basin and when one basin is active there's usually one or more other basins that are not as active.

A personal reason I believe that storm numbers (total canes % major canes) are rising is due to global warming. Whether it be human induced or not, I believe that the warming of the oceans are leading to more active seasons. NOW IM NOT SAYING ITS TOTALLY CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING. Just that its making the world as a whole more productive in general for tropical cyclone formation. So when we have a super-active season in the Atlantic, instead a below-average season in the N. Pacific, S. Pac, and Indian Ocean basins, we are having normal seasons everywhere with our 27 storms in the Atlantic, making 2005 the most productive season for storms ever.

So its my personal belief that as the oceans warm it becomes less and less likely to see below-average seasons around the world (I know there are many other factors, but no one will disagree that warm SSTs will make a surface low extremely tenacious and unwilling to die) So Im not saying all basins will see a super-active season in the same year, but that a super-active season in one basin will correspond with average season in the others basins; where normally a super-active season in one basin leads, or is caused by, a below-average season in one or more other basins.
- someone on the blog a few days ago had an analysis of worldwide numbers of Cat4/Cat5's, sowed them up significantly even while the total number of hurricanes stayed roughly the same...
The debate goes on about rising intense hurricane numbers. Personlly, I dont think we have enough information to determine whether Cat 4 & 5 hurricanes are increasing. Data is only reliable to 30 years in Pacific and even less in other basins. Plus, outside the Atlantic no one does aircraft recon anymore, so who really knows how strong that typhoon is in the middle of the Pacific. We would have probably never called Wilma a Cat 5 unless recon went out there and measured it. Im pretty sure Dvorak ratings were still in the Cat2/3 range.

Well said, I respect a person that instead of flaming takes the time to form a rebuttal against a person. And I shall reply in kind.

As reguards to the cyclical nature of hurricanes (ie current thinking is 15 - 30 year active periods with roughly the same amount of lulls). Is that weather records (detailed ones) have only been around for the last 120ish years, we didn't have sats and hurricane hunters until the late 50's. As far as proof that this is a factor I offer none, and your comment about in theory if one hurricane zone has a active season then others should not is sound. For now I concede that my theory of a mega pattern is flismy as best (for now, I will have to research the mater).

For you theory of global warming. I will readily admit to a climatelogical change happening. And I will admit to the theory that we are still coming out of a ice age and that the earth has been warming that it is currently in times past.

However I do not accept that theory of globabl warming because:

1. We do not understand the Earth climate cycles well enough to really offer proof postive of a warming or cooling trend

2. If humans have warmed the earth, have we already reached the point of no return or will mother nature repair itself. Remenber as we go forward in our path of discover we will ulimately begin to use things that will not dirty the air as much (ie coal-steam-nuclear-fusion, gas-hybirds-bio-diesl-hydrogen-fusion)

3. And if global warming is occuring is it directly due to humans or indirectly since its a well know fact that animals produce more pollultion that humans can

4. Why now, why not 50 -100 ago when coal was king
There is little doubt about Cat 4s and 5s increasing in the Atlantic basin since 1995, but it is hard to draw long term conclusions from that.
I dunno about animals producing more waste then humans. I've never seen any other animal create landfill miles in area that is made completely of waste or burn coal, oil, and anything else that we can get energy from.

And we can say there is a trend in the warming or cooling of the Earth, just that it's a short trend. What we can debate over is how much these short 'trends' really impact the climate of the Earth.

And as far as mu opinion on global warming. I dont know if we are causing it or not. I can say we certainly aren't helping the Earth, but to say we are solely responsible for global warming is rediculous IMO. We simply dont have the data or historical perspective to say that this particular warming trend is caused exclusivly be humans despite it happening millions of time before.

Your "global hurricane mega pattern" is interesting. Its very possible that the earth goes throgh "mega cycles" and its been proposed by another scientist, too. I dont remember if he said this was just for the Atlantic or the globe, but that not only do we have 15-45 year cycles, but that we have around 1500 year cycles, which are much more important and have a freater effectthen the decadal cycles. He says that we are coming out of a 1500 year lull in hurricanes and entering a 1500 year active cycle, right at the same time we are entering a active decadal cycle. Not good in my opinion.
It is true that the biosphere cycles through about 15 times as much CO2 as we humans add to the air from burning fossil fuels. However, only about half of the additional CO2 that people add to the air is absorbed by the oceans, so the amount of CO2 is rising. This is the reading from Mauna Loa observatory. Link
Excactly, St.Simons. With the proposed AMO cycles, it would make sense that we have entered a more active period in the Atlantic and that we would have more powerful hurricanes, and more of them! Now if the rest of the basins continue with normal/above normal season while we continue with these above-average seasons, then we can possibly say that global warming is the ENTIRE reason, but right now I just dont think we have enough data to determnine if this is 'abnormal'
Myles, people add about 15 gigatons of CO2 to the air each yea from burning fossil fuels. So that is where the statistic of animals (or the biosphere) generating that much more pollution comes from. However it is the 15 gigatons that people generate that is important, because the 200 gigatons that animals generate is balanced by the absorbtion of equal amounts by plants. It is the extra CO2 that we are adding that is building up.
And the past seasons have really been more abnormal than other busy periods have been--in two years (2004 and 2005) more major hurricanes made landfall in the US (7) that in the entire decade of the 1960s (6) which is often refered to as part of the 'busy' period at the middle of the last century.
That's a good stat there St.Simons, but I think the 60's are when the last AMO cycle was winding down. From the 30-60's I belive was the whole cycle and before the mid 50's we really have no way of determining the accurate strength of hurricanes. It's very possible that in the 30's or 40's that hurricanes were Cat 5's despite us think they weren't. Thats why we need more reliable data to come to those kinda of conclusions. Because 4 Cat 5's in 2 years IS AMAZING, but we dont have that much accurate data to compare it to.
But one thing, lets not compare stats to what hit the US or any other country. Lets take numbers as a whole since the hurricane season doesn't care about which nation it hits or whether its hits any country at all, it just wants to release as much energy as possible by making hurricanes as strong as possible. It's just luck, or lack there of, that we get hit.
it's amazing that Boloetse has strengthened so significantly in such tight quarters of the Mozambique Channel.
After doing some tedious research (god I hate just looking through records!) I found the statistics on total major hurricanes from 1960-70 and 1995-2005.

For 1960-70 there were:
17 Cat 3
8 Cat 4
6 Cat 5
Total = 31 major storms

17 Cat 3
21 Cat 4
8 Cat 5
Total = 46.

So in the last decade their have been 15 more storms, the majority difference in Cat 4, with 13 more Cat 4 from 1995-05. Can we say this is a significant difference??? I dont know. It does average out to 1.5 MORE major hurricanes per season compared to the 60's to 70's. These stats dont take into account ENSO, or any other kind of pattern, jusr pure numbers. Also, it would be good to see how other decades compare, then we could really see if this is abnormal. It's be great if before 1950's they were assurdly accurate, but we can only go by the info we have, which isnt that much.

I did some poking around just a quick google-wack (contray to popluar belief I actually work from time to time ). I couldn't find anything but I did find some interesting newsblips:

check em out people






As far as the animal waste thing I stand corrected (snip taken from http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/climate/causes.htm )

".. Methane is another important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. About of all methane emissions are said to come from domesticated animals such as dairy cows, goats, pigs, buffaloes, camels, horses, and sheep. These animals produce methane during the cud-chewing process. Methane is also released from rice or paddy fields that are flooded during the sowing and maturing periods. When soil is covered with water it becomes anaerobic or lacking in oxygen. Under such conditions, methane-producing bacteria and other organisms decompose organic matter in the soil to form methane. Nearly 90% of the paddy-growing area in the world is found in Asia, as rice is the staple food there. China and India, between them, have 80-90% of the world's rice-growing areas..."
poor floridians,


i mean, seriously now...like they need that now...
Here's that link snowboy~ It was NOVA ScienceNow. The hotter oceans, fiercer storms audio clip is a must. Bunch of great graphes, charts~ with all the data to compare through the years, (they're copyrighted of I'd probibly had of already posted them). To the left you can view the 6 min segment I had caught on PBS.
As far as the models today on a possible Alberto~ Ukmet's back on board as a impressive (for this time of year) tropical storm at end of 144hrs, the gfs has weakened it's intensity some, as well as shifted back toward the west & south, (general area of Ukmet). Nogaps ~ keeps it more of a weak-subtopical storm, closer to Africa. They are, today, more in agreement on ~ storm formation around 90-96 hrs.
I think this is the graph u were referring to:

Table 1. Change in the number and percentage of hurricanes in categories 4 and 5 for the 15-year periods 19751989 and 19902004 for the different ocean basins.


Basin 19751989



Number Percentage Number Percentage


East Pacific Ocean 36 25 49 35
West Pacific Ocean 85 25 116 41
North Atlantic 16 20 25 25
Southwestern Pacific 10 12 22 28
North Indian 1 8 7 25
South Indian 23 18 50 34

Hmmmmm, All I will say is interesting figures to say the least!!!!!
Thats a bad comparision though! Thats 15 years during the end of an AMO negative cycle that was bad for hurricane development compared to 15 years going into an AMO postive cycle that is good for hurricane development. I think the comparisions I made above are more repersentitive. They compare the 10 year number of major hurricanes between 1960-70 and 1995-2005. I say its a better comparision because they are both in a theorized AMO positive cycle.
Apologize for the last post. Didn't take into account the rest of the ocean basins. Obviously the AMO does significantly effect the Atlantic ocean, I dont really know about how the other basins are effected. Once again sorry about the above post, I feel like a fool.
I feel a Wilma coming on...Boloetse now 100kt/115mph winds, 944mb pressure:

Credit image to NOAA~ they made it offical today ~ we are in La Nina. Maybe into the summer...

Myles~ you check out the NOVA graphes(link in above blog)? Can easily compare them through the years, not just one period to the next.
Actually it was official yesterday :P
32. Inyo
To whoever said animals create more 'pollution' than people.

-as someone else stated, the CO2 and methane naturally released by animals is balanced by that taken in by plants and other sinks. This is not to say that other life forms have no effect on the planet - animals and plants do indeed effect climate. However, at this point, humans, and only humans, are actually re-releasing CO2 which has been buried for millions of years. This is adding to the CO2 already in the system. If there were no CO2, we'd probably have the oceans freeze over and all die. However, if we re-release all the co2 from the hot, swampy dinosaur era, we could in theory tend the climate more towards that

-a huge amount of the animal-released methane comes from cows. Cows as they are now are not 'natural', they are domesticated animals and would not exist in their current form and abundance if it werent for humans.
is that the weather ball???????????????
I definitly want to see more of this thing
Posted By: HurricaneMyles at 9:01 PM GMT on February 03, 2006.
Apologize for the last post. Didn't take into account the rest of the ocean basins. Obviously the AMO does significantly effect the Atlantic ocean, I dont really know about how the other basins are effected. Once again sorry about the above post, I feel like a fool.

Don't worry about it.. I usually feel like a fool when I am posting here LOL. Alot of really smart people here for sure.
Posted By: oriondarkwood at 4:07 PM GMT on February 03, 2006.
Well looks like the next major discussion on this blog is going to be are Cat 4 and 5 increasing

Last season would be a good place to start looking for info LOL
That's not the weather ball, just a graphic.
38. Inyo
Also... it is cold-core but the storm moving into Washington and Vancouver Island apparently has hurricane-force winds. There is a 'hurricane force wind warning' for the outer waters. The storm is expected to smash into the Northwest, bringing more rain to soaked areas and none to drought-stricken areas further south.

look like more a hurricane to me then a storm dos it have a eye

I notice someone has added a feature to the Blog Listing Page.

It now shows the number of posts and images for the latest blog.

That's a great feature. Thanks to whomever is doing the programming here to keep upgrading and making it better.

Well, Cyclone, the first thing you need is a viable idea.

The second thing you need is lots of stuff to convince the public it will work.

The third thing you need is a way to convince Congress it will benefit them in some way.
44. Inyo
oops, sorry... that was a visual satellite :/

heres the water vapor. it looks like it has a small eye-like feature at this hour. But like a true cold-core storm, just about all the convection is to the north and east

How common has it been in previous years for the models to predict the possible formation of a tropical storm during the off-season?
47. Inyo
the models are no good lately. last year they predicted dry all winter and it rained and rained. this year they are predicting rain and nothings happening
Based upon the last few lines of the Norman OK forecast discussion from Feb 3rd, I guess they would kinda agree with you Inyo...kinda funny...


This may be the article to which Jeff was referring above, co-authored by Chris Landsea. The text of the abstract is here, followed by links to the paper itself, and other works by Landsea.


Comments on “Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity
and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Scheme”

Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
New Hope Environmental Services, Inc., New Hope, Virginia
NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida
(Manuscript received 26 October 2004, in final form 14 April 2005)
In a simulation of enhanced tropical cyclones in a warmer world, Knutson and Tuleya make several assumptions that are not borne out in the real world. They include an unrealistically large carbon dioxide growth rate, an overly strong relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity, and the use of a mesoscale model that has shown little to no useful skill in predicting current-day hurricane intensity.

After accounting for these inaccuracies, a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane intensity in response to growing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels during this century becomes unlikely.

This Paper (PDF)

Other Publications by Landsea
HurricaneMyles..... The Most Interesting Thing about Those Statistics to me is How Many Cat 4s and 5s we
have had in just the last 2 years. Accounting for over
half the 15 year statistic Total Average In Just 2 The
Last 2 Seasons. Good Job On The Research. A Fact That
Many Have Let Go Unoticed Is That We NEVER Seen so Many
Major Hurricanes In Such A Short Period Of Time.
If Something Similiar Happens Again This Season I think
it will be Fair To Say It Is More Than an Up Cycle. lol

That last couple years have been interesting, however, they're a short term stat. Over the short term there can be EMTREME variations from the average. Over the long term is when things are supposed average out, so yes, if we continue to see super-active season with multiple Cat 4 & 5's it would be way off average. However, about more then a cycle, I already thing that global warming, whether induced or not, is having an effect on hurricanes around the would. Read my first posts about it, I explain better then I feel like now. But basivly I think global warming is making it less likely to see a below-average season, not really have a direct role in a specific hurricane or event.
Hi everyone.

On one of the local news stations the local weather man was talking about a possible huge pattern change next week. They said there where 2 possibilities.

This is the first and more likely possibilitie...

High pressure builds in the west. Near record warth builds in for most of the Southwest and possibile another strong Santa Ana Wind event into So Cal as a cut off low with no moisture sits off the coast. Washington and Oregon would dry out. As it kicks the jet stream way into Canada and then spills cold air into the mid west and the northeast.

Here is the less likely one...
Jetstream splits into 2 branches. One northern 1/2 stays where it has been most of the year. The Southern 1/2 dips into the South west. Bringing a few storms into the southwest. If this where to happen then it could be the week where the dry streak could end in Phoenix,AZ.

From the type of winter we have had here if anything the first one looks the most promising. But I feal that this very dry tranquil weather for the south west has to end sometime.
The first option does look the most likely, expecially looking back earlier during Nov/Dec when we had a simalar ridge that built in the west and the jet stream stayed well north with nothing making it under the strong high pressure.
BTW, anyone taken a look at Boloeste lately? Looking pretty ragged. Went from a pretty good eye to what barely looks like a hurricane anymore. Probably be extra-tropical soon.
gippgig~ I take a little different approach to the models forecasting a tropical storm to form in the offseason, as compared to a few that have posted. The models did well in 2003 with TS Ana (April), TS Peter & Odette (Dec). They did well hinting at Zeta 5 days in advance. The ukmet has done well, last year, early spotting the late season east Atlantic storms~ with the other models eventually following suit. I speak only of forecasting formation though. & the trick is~ the models agreeing~ a tropical storm will form in the same general area in the same general way, in the same time frame. Well this info, double checked against forecasted shear maps, SST & the like ~ to make sure they aren't just way off. Models alone, aren't the best forecast. Then there is the other catagory of way less certainty. For example~ a few weeks ago, possible Alberto alert, this was from one of the Universities. The cmc was forecasting a tropical storm in the Carribean, while 2 others had one forming marginally a little too close to Africa. The 4th was all over the place. NWS, followed up to the other report, that models weren't in agreement, it was a period of more unstable tropical weather & though it wasn't likely, it wasn't impossible. Since the modern day equipment, we haven't been total caught off gaurd, but model promised storms (particularly when not in agreement), have at times, failed to materailize.
55. Inyo
Yeah, i think the dry scenario is more likely just beacuse once we get stuck in these dry patterns they tend to remain around for a while. my prediction (which may be very wrong) is for a dry feburary and a slightly wetter than average march/april with a few thunderstorms. This is because in the last few years we've had as much fall/spring rain as winter rain in some cases, and just a gut feeling. I would also expect a relatively active summer monsoon in the southwest because la nina is somewhat linked to a strong monsoon (probably because much of that moisture comes from the gulf of Mexico, because warm SSTs in the atlantic increase the monsoon, and beacuse lately it's been rather active. Maybe in the San Gabriel Mountains that will make up for this rather dry winter. (but sometimes it just brings dry thunderstorms and lots of fires)
As for the models & Alberto forming in the next 86 hrs~ The models remain in fair agreement for a weak storm to form in the east Atlantic by 86 hrs. All the 12Z runs aren't out, only the Nogaps. Which is in near identical to the 06Z gfs, except the gfs shows a larger intensity of tropical nature earlier. The ukmet shows a more one sided storm earlier on, like Ephilon & Zeta. My personal thoughts~ I'd say 45% chance we see at least an Sub-tropical Depression in about 3-5 days.
57. Inyo
oh yeah.. i almost forgot... here is a graph of LA's rainfall over the last 125 years or so.. if you notice, most wet years (notably 1883-1884) are followed by dry years. 1883-1884 was the wettest year in history, and 1884-1885 was the second driest (however this is just in LA... there are anectdotal reports from Santa Barbara that no more than an inch of rain fell that year, but there was not yet a weather station there). Last year was the second wettest year in LA Civic Center history, and in some areas was probably wetter than 1883-1884. Note that 1997-98 was also followed by a dry year. So, it would make sense for this year to be dry.

ALso, here is a tree-ring representation of moisture in the desert Southwest. Note that it's so chaotic that it is very difficult to pick up trends, but that there appears to be a cycle and the Southwest is actually in a relatively wet time. (however it is important to remember that the desert southwest/four corners climate is not that strongly linked with that of coastal California)
I'll second your prediction of a dry Febuary, Inyo. I don't expect that we'll get much of anything this month (though if we do, Murphy's Law says it'll be between the 15th and the 21st during Estrella War (huge re-enactment event just outside Phoenix. 7000-10,000 person camping event.))

I personally don't think we will be getting any real rain here if it doesn't come in Febuary until July. Even in a good year, the weather patterns just don't favour moisture in the spring here.
Pretty crazy looking at those models skye! Bet the people in NW africa and surrounding provinces would be rather amazed. Quite active around those parts lately.
Inyo I agree with what you said. Once there is a Santa Ana Wind event if feals that dry weather stays around for weeks. I hope we will see 2-3 weeks at best of some rain/thunderstroms mybe a low pressure or two will cut off from the jet stream and pic up some moisture from the tropics. I remember the April 1st surprise thunderstorms rolled into the San Gabriel valley and Mountains. I remember that day cause I remember are city got the most rain that day. What I would like to see happen is another March Merical thow the odds are rather slim for that one this year.

As for summer I thoguht a weak La Nina kills off the monsoon. With the cooler then average water temps in the Pacific it kills of a lot of the moisture before high pressure can pic it up. As for last year it was the 2nd latest time in the summer before the monsoon kicked up. I might be wrong on that.
The monsoon was a full three weeks late last year marking the second lastest start here in Tucson. I don't know if the stats are quite the same for y'all in SoCal.
Yeah ProgressivePulse, quite active around NW Africa, particularily last month. Storms would keep forming off the tails' of cold fronts, but right on top of them. If it keeps up we shouldn't see the dust we did last year.
i hop this is the last we see of Tropical Cyclone Boloetse i am geting try of see this how mean time now?
Well, just to add some more good news

The new-born La Nina is taking effect:

And on the developing system in the Atlantic, stay tuned:

Ahh, teh broken link of doom!

Oh and one more thing - yesterday was the fourth wettest ever in Tampa.
Yeah, yesterday's rain was amazing. That line of thunderstorms must have sat over the Tampa/St. Pete area for over 6 hours. I was just staring at it wondering when it was going to smash into us here in Ft. Myers. We got ours, but it did't stay over us for hours like it did Tampa, just a lot of heavy rain, lightning, and some gusty winds - nothing too out of the ordinary.

her is some news i would like ever one to take a look at and at this time 2006 is not looking to good so is any one see this like drop me a e mail or drop me a post in my blog
For sure Skye, I am a card player and I would fold for sure.
71. Inyo
the monsoon was late last year but it wasn't la nina. also i know although it was late it was rather wet, at least on the california end.

and i read somewhere that most monsoon moisture comes from the gulf of mexico, not the gulf of CA. thus the cooling pacific temperatures have less of an effect on the monsoon than the warming atlantic and increased hurricane activity. but i'm not sure on this. i dont believe the la nina --- monsoon link is strong either way and la nina may be gone by august anyway.

but la nina might favor more monsoon in New Mexico and less in California... i'm not sure.
All models still point to Alberto Middle of the week, interesting to see if it materializes.
Models now showing a warm-core system *rolls eyes*

I've issued a discussion on our developing storm.

Tropical Weather Discussion
Amateur Hurricane Center
Tropical Weather Discussion - Noon February 5, 2006

The GFS, UKMET, and NOGAPS all agree now on the development of a symmetric warm-core low in the eastern atlantic in the next couple of days. The system is shown developing just south of the Azores, and moving southeast through the Cape Verdes islands and on towards Africa. Needless to say, it seems unlikely - but when all the models agree in such a way, it's hard to argue. Stay tuned.
How often have Atlantic tropical storms (not counting extratropical remnants like Delta) hit Africa?
105 PM EST SUN FEB 05 2006

Today the cmc has jumped on board as the most intense in it's forcast, for our possible 1st STD or TD of the season. The 12ZNogaps is quickest to develop at 48hrs. 12Zcmc, 00Zukmet & 12Zgfs all call for development around 60hrs. The gfs (again) & ukmet have shifted slightly more toward the NW coast of Africa. If this trend to move development east continues & into reality, we wouldn't see a TD as it would be too close to land to develope. Also the 72hr SST forecast. Before last year we didn't think warm core systems would form with these SST. Shows how little we know.

I'll hold at my 45% chance.

Colby~ Ya beat NWS on a discussion by only an hour. Way to not jump the gun, and still look way on top of it:) But no one plays it down quite like Blake.
Hey you forgot about the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Our towns are just as devastated and we are also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mold allergies and depression and a host of other maladies. One of which is being forgotten...
79. Inyo
oh darn now we have to stick a bunch of tunnels off the Africa coast too

Posted By: HurryCane at 2:19 PM CST on February 05, 2006.

Hey you forgot about the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Our towns are just as devastated and we are also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mold allergies and depression and a host of other maladies. One of which is... Being Forgotten...

I agree, HurryCane, although I'm not sure anything would change if those here WERE more informed.

Perhaps you could post on a regular basis... info on what happened in various cities / communities, as well as current issues / progress / problems.

You have the power to keep them from being forgotten here on Wunderground. :)

LOL Inyo!

How often have Atlantic tropical storms (not counting extratropical remnants like Delta) hit Africa?

I do not believe that an atlantic storm has ever hit africa while tropical. Indian Ocean storms occasionally hit the eastern African coast, however.
For those of you who like to make your own prediction maps, I've made a nice tracking map for the GOM. It's up at my site (it's hosted on imageshack, and the bandwidth would run out real fast here)
ForecasterColby link to your web sits and tell me where to go
www.theahc.webhop.net is my site.

Not really weather related, but for those of you kind of into music, check out this site.
ForecasterColby the links you give me where the links to dr jeff blog lol
The Dome is going to be repaired and reoccupied! YEA
Cyclone, you are not using the physics correctly. The tunnels may or may not work, but not all storms pass through the Gulf Stream anyway. Think Opal.
Pandora is a nice site. Thanks for the link. I'm a pianist. .... bye Boloetse....Cyclonebuster, do you have a site that defines your tunnels. I have been reading past blogs and can't find where you fully describe the concept. I will have no opinion about the subject until I can look at some info.
Here's a post he made to TalkWeather [forgive the horrible format, it's a copy+paste]:

-----Original Message-----
From: Kerry Emanuel [mailto:@texmex.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:26 AM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: RE: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes

Pat: I have not had time to run calculations on your idea, but I do
not see an obvious reason why it might not work. The technical issue
would be with the volume of water required. Since you are effectively
mixing heat in ocean columns, you would be warming water at depth in
proportion to the surface cooling, and one should explore the
consequences of this.

As you may imagine, this past season's storms have renewed interest
in hurricane modification and quite a few proposals are being
fielded. I am working with some other faculty at MIT to initiate a
funding program for such proposals as yours; if we succeed I will let
you know and there would then be a mechanism for you to get funding
to work on this.

Yours, Kerry

At 01:36 PM 12/13/2005, you wrote:
> This idea of mine keeps coming back to you. What do you suggest I do?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Klotzbach [mailto:philk@atmos.colostate.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:18 AM
>To: Pat McNulty
>Subject: Re: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes
>Dear Pat,
>I would suggest contacting Kerry Emanuel at MIT:
>He is a brilliant dynamicist. If he cannot help you, he can probably point
>you in the right direction.
>Phil Klotzbach
>Research Associate
>Department of Atmospheric Science
>Colorado State University
>Phone: (970) 491-8605
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Pat McNulty"
>To: "'Phil Klotzbach'"
>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:03 AM
>Subject: RE: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes
> > Who might those persons be?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Klotzbach [mailto:philk@atmos.colostate.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:00 AM
> > To: Pat McNulty
> > Subject: Re: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes
> >
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > A couple of points:
> >
> > 1) When you submit a paper to a scientific journal, you don't cite
> > personal
> > references
> >
> > 2) I don't think I'm really the right person for you to be talking with,
> > since if you want constructive feedback, you should talk to someone who
> > has
> > a better dynamical view of hurricane genesis and intensification than I
> > do.
> > I mostly work with statistical prediction of tropical cyclones.
> >
> > Good luck with your idea.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Phil Klotzbach
> > Research Associate
> > Department of Atmospheric Science
> > Colorado State University
> > philk@atmos.colostate.edu
> > Phone: (970) 491-8605
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pat McNulty"
> > To: "'Phil Klotzbach'"
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:01 AM
> > Subject: RE: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes
> >
> >
> >> Would you like to see results of computer modeling of the idea?
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Phil Klotzbach [mailto:philk@atmos.colostate.edu]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:22 AM
> >> To: Pat McNulty
> >> Subject: Re: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes
> >>
> >> If you write up your idea and explain physically why it should work, they
> >> may publish it. We've had some papers rejected from both Science and
> >> Nature
> >>
> >> before, so it's no slam-dunk. But, if you want to see your idea go
> >> forward,
> >>
> >> it's worth a shot. That's about all the advice I have.
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >> Phil Klotzbach
> >> Research Associate
> >> Department of Atmospheric Science
> >> Colorado State University
> >> philk@atmos.colostate.edu
> >> Phone: (970) 491-8605
> >> -----------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >
> >


Kerry A. Emanuel Professor of Meteorology
Rm. 54-1620, MIT Phone: (617) 253-2462
77 Mass. Ave. Fax: (617) 324-0308
Cambridge, MA 02139 Email:

From: Michael Oppenheimer [mailtomichael@Princeton.EDU]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:40 AM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: RE: Bernoulli's equation used to modify hurricanes and tornados's

Sounds plausible. Questions I would ask include the cost of construction, cost of maintaining the system, side effects to the local marine environment. Whether it actually would work ought to be tested with some modeling. You could contact Kerry Emanuel at MIT to see what he thinks of the possibility of modeling it to see if it actually works as envisioned.


From: Pat McNulty [mailto:stackgenerator@cableone.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 1:19 AM
To: 'Michael Oppenheimer'
Subject: RE: Bernoulli's equation used to modify hurricanes and tornados's

Here is how it will work. Anchor a large tunnel to the sea floor like a buoy but in several locations around the tunnel to hold it fast to the sea bed.
Position it to where one open end opposes the current at depth where the cool water is and the other open end at the surface faces away from the current. What happens is a difference in pressure is created at both ends and when a pressure difference is created flow occurs. That is the beauty of Bernoulli's principle. Cool water is bought up from below thus mixing with the warm water at the surface. The tunnel is neutrally buoyant with the top end just under the surface. Remember it can only work where there is a current. No current, no difference in pressure. Also, enough electricity can be generated for millions of people in Florida.

With the use of both of these principles combined no pumps are needed since the water will flow up the tunnel naturally. They can also be placed in the Yucatan and Caribbean currents thus cooling the Gulf of Mexico via the loop current thus saving the Gulf States, if placed SW of Key West They will save the whole East coast Of North America. The SSTs can be regulated to 70 to 80 degrees by the addition of a gate on the discharge end of the tunnel that regulates the flow of cool water flowing from them.

The idea does not eliminate the hurricanes it modifies them to a much weaker state no more than a catagory one by regulating the SSTs. The transfer of heat to the mid latitudes still occurs. The ocean temperature is regulated between 70 and 75 degrees and therefore as the storm crosses the cooler water it just weakens but it is not eliminated. BTW during the winter the temperature of the gulf is below 70 degrees so this should not harm sea life.
tornado's may not even form in the mid west because of the cooler temperatures in the Gulf thus cooling the warm air migrating to the North out of the Gulf Of Mexico. Since the air is cooler not as much lift is created in the atmosphere for tornados to form.

Pascal's principle:
F1 is the force of the gulf stream exerts on the mouth of the tunnel at depth.


Bernoulli's principle:
A negative pressure is created when the gulf stream rushs pass the exit of the tunnel near the surface.


All I did was combine both principles together to make the thing work with the tunnel. Any thoughts?


Pat McNulty


From: Michael Oppenheimer [mailtomichael@Princeton.EDU]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: RE: Bernoulli's equation used to modify hurricanes and tornados's

Interesting idea. Let me think about it some more. Generally, I'm skeptical of geo-engineering but maybe you've got something here.


From: Pat McNulty [mailto:stackgenerator@cableone.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:56 PM
To: omichael@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Bernoulli's equation used to modify hurricanes and tornados's


I have two neat ideas to modify hurricanes that will work physically. Bernoulli's Principle and underwater tunnels can weaken hurricanes just as the principle works on an airplanes wing creating lift. It works for fluids and gasses. They can create upwelling in the path of a storm thus weaken it. They can only work where a current exists such as the Gulf stream current or the Caribbean and Yucatan currents. The current that runs through the tunnels can be turned on or off and can restore proper temperatures to the oceans sea surface temperatures thus regulating them.

If placed in the proper locations these tunnels would reduce a hurricane or tornado's impact. It may even prevent a tornado from forming at all. These tunnels by product can produce enough electricity for the world without warming the planet. Wow imagine the effects when a billion more people buy cars and get electricity in just 15 years in China. Any thoughts??

This next email is from Hugh Willoughby.


As I wrote earlier, the loop current is hundreds of kilometers across and its position varies greatly from year to year. What makes the scoops not completely nuts as a proposal is the narrowness and fixed position of the Gulf Stream in the Straits and off Florida's SE coast. In terms of climatology, Greater Miami is the most vulnerable major city in the US. Only Miami has the configuration of a deep "western boundary" current directly offshore. Thus this scheme, if it proves feasible, would work only for Miami and only for Andrew-like storms. The city would remain vulnerable to late season storms, which approach from the SW, like WILMA


From: "Pat McNulty"
Date: 2005/10/23 Sun AM 12:15:36 EDT
Subject: RE: Scoops( Under water Tunnels) Isn't there
also a loop current in the central gulf? If so it may prevent one from
becoming organized and prevent rapid development thus the impact would
be less at landfall. Hopefully, ssts have been cooled by the other
storms this year. However, any big city that can be protected should be
protected if such technology exists. It is just going to get worse if
we just sit on our hands. I predict storms getting much worse than
they are now.

From: willough@fiu.edu [mailto:willough@fiu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:13 PM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: Re: Scoops( Under water Tunnels)
I bet those tunnels are cost effective now???? ANY THOUGHTS?
Pat McNulty
Interesting....How is the end near the surface going to hold up to 25ft and greater seas in a storm? From what I have read, the cables that holds the tunnel needs to be strong. Katrina beat up some rigs pretty bad in the gulf. Also, waves don't extend to a great depth unless there is a tsunami and the tunnel is near shallow water. The top of this thing is going to get tossed around while the other end is pretty stationary. This thing has to have some tensile strength to it. That takes lots of steel and concrete. Since water is flowing through it it won't have the buoyancy of a boat. The material has to be less dense than water or use trapped air to suspend the tunnel in the water. Then cost....doesn't look good to me
Any thoughts on what I have written.
my blog is update
The whole idea is flawed. He asks for it to be modelled, but it has been already. A guy at another webboard, who knows a lot more about that stuff then us, already did model it for him and showed it didnt work. Cyclonebuster tries to say the model is flawed because 'it says upwelling cant occur' when in reality the pressure difference between the two openings to the pipe dont create enough energy to overcome the density of the cold water trying to be forced above warm water. Hurricanes and cyclonebusters favorite, charelston hump, are competely different mechanisms for creating upwelling which add more energy then these tunnels.

Its a somewhat lengthy read, but no worse then a NHC report. Go here and you can read the whole thing.
Hey Dr. Jeff! The Houston Chronicle mentioend you in one of the paper's editorials today - here is the link:


The editorial said:

Feb. 4, 2006, 1:34AM

Gagged prophet
The Bush administration continues to ignore climate change while trying to silence government scientists
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

NASA's top climatologist, James E. Hansen, recently urged swift action to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. When he did, the agency's public affairs machinery went into overdrive.

NASA officials ordered Hansen to submit for review any lectures, Internet statements and journalists' requests for interviews. Hansen recently posted a widely quoted report on a NASA Web site stating that 2005 was the hottest year since comprehensive weather records were first kept.

A NASA political appointee, William Deutsch, nixed an interview with Hansen on National Public Radio. Deutsch reportedly told another NASA public affairs officer that NPR was "the most liberal media source" in the nation and that his job "was to make the president look good." If Deutsch said that, he is wrong. The job of government public affairs officials is to inform the public and make available public information.

Hansen, who holds a doctorate in physics, has been issuing warnings of the consequences of man-made pollution of the atmosphere for 15 years. He rightly refused to comply with the gag order. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he told The New York Times, noting that "public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." According to Hansen, many scientists within the government have been pressured to avoid public discussion of climate change.

Climatologist Jeff Masters, who blogs for the Weather Underground, denounced government censorship aimed at downplaying the dangers of global warming. "Our taxpayer salaried scientists should be free to speak out on more than just their scientific findings without the chilling oversight of politically appointed officials concerned with 'making the president look good.' Climate change is of critical importance ... and we should hear the opinions of those scientists who understand the issue the best."

The Hansen episode is just one more in a series of efforts by the Bush administration to maintain a position that global warming can be dealt with without imposing mandatory restrictions of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. emissions account for a quarter of the worldwide industrial output each year. After refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol mandating such limits, the U.S. and Australian delegations at the recent Montreal climate conference stood aside while the world's other industrial nations moved to limit industrial emissions.

Last year a White House adviser on the environment rewrote scientific reports on climate change issued by the government. The aide, Philip A. Cooney, was a former lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, a oil industry group that has strenuously opposed mandatory emission regulation. After the controversy became public, Cooney left his White House position.

If President Bush's State of the Union speech is any indication, global warming is still tucked away in an administration policy deep freeze. While the president called for independence from Mideast oil and found time to discuss the threat of "human-animal hybrids," there was no mention of climate change or any plans to work with international partners to defuse its harmful effects.

If our elected leaders will not educate the public on the ominous dangers posed by global warming, then that responsibility falls to pre-eminent scientists such as NASA's James Hansen. It is essential to maintain their freedom of speech and ability to produce research untainted by partisan politics.

Thanks for the link. ....Interloper has said it all. ....basically "not gonna happen"
Thats a good article. And congrats to Dr. Jeff who continuous his great work. I think even though the administration did not directly say they were going to make cutbacks and make amends witht he worlds treaty, I do think it was great progress for the government to even be mentioning the oil issue as they did. I think its going in the right direction and further progress will be seen.
101. haydn
I like the one in the storm the best.
Good Night

Do you even really understand conservation of momentum works, or just read that simplified article and think it directly applies here? Because even though it may apply here, as it does anywhere in the universe except the singularity of a black hole, conservation of momentum is completely canceled out by the energy required to move the cold water as many feet as you would like above the warm water. Your best bet to make these things work by using pumps or something else that requires added energy, because I think its very apparant that you dont have enough by your princples alone.
Today there is a Red Flag Warning for most of Southern California. Its 6:10 AM already several reports of brush fires. Its going to be a long day. Yesterday it was 86 where I lived. Today 85
HurricaneMyles wrote:

"Yeah, yesterday's rain was amazing. That line of thunderstorms must have sat over the Tampa/St. Pete area for over 6 hours. I was just staring at it wondering when it was going to smash into us here in Ft. Myers. We got ours, but it did't stay over us for hours like it did Tampa, just a lot of heavy rain, lightning, and some gusty winds - nothing too out of the ordinary."

Yeah...that rain was something, wasn't it? We drove from Tampa out to Clearwater the next day, and there were flooded fields and parking lots all over the place. Reminded me of 2004 when Frances came through.