Atlantic Tropical Action 2012 - Part II

[Srain]

Do any of the models develop the blob of convection in the southern Caribbean?

Just some storms firing along and W of an inverted trough. Winds are screaming out of the SW, so wind shear is not conducive for any development at this time.

[Mike.Ventrice]

It appears that we will see the 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season end with a bang. While the intraseasonal state is still in a favorable state for Atlantic tropical cyclogenesis (~MJO phases 2-3), the extra-tropical response to Sandy has forced anticyclonic wavebreaking over the northern Atlantic, as can be seen in Kyle Griffin's DT on pressure maps.

According to the dynamic tropopause map on pressure surfaces (above link), a tropical upper-tropospheric trough has manifested over the northern tropcial Atlantic, which is increasing vertical wind shear over the MDR. Further, increased upper-level westerlies over the GOM and Caribbean suggests that those regions are proteced from new genesis there.

That being said, I think it is a fair assessment to state that the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season has come to an end. This forecast is in conjunction to the transition to an unfavorable intraseasonal state that shall remain over the Western Hemisphere through the latter half of November. If an extremely late-season tropical cyclone were to develop over the Atlantic, it would most-likely occur around the end of November-early Dec... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Therefore from the 19 tropical cyclones this season, more than half (10) were at least a category 1 hurricane in intensity, with only 1 major hurricane (Michael). As it stands the Atlantic season numbers are 19/10/1, which tie 1995, 2010, and 2011 as the 2nd most active season in the observational era. Let's not dig up those seasonal forecasts first issued prior to the start of the season...

[am19psu]

This has been my least favorite season since the active period began. The 19/1 ratio is the worst ratio possible for a private meteorologist.

[Mike.Ventrice]

This has been my least favorite season since the active period began. The 19/1 ratio is the worst ratio possible for a private meteorologist.

What makes it even stranger is that that only major hurricane was north of 25N, right about 30N. And only 1 hurricane was in the Gulf of Mexico!

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

This has been my least favorite season since the active period began. The 19/1 ratio is the worst ratio possible for a private meteorologist.

We've had three seasons in a row with 19 named storms... which is odd. I remember when everyone freaked out because 1995 had 19 named storms... and now we have 4 seasons with 19 named storms tied for third most active numbers wise.

One was 19/10/5 with no US landfalls of note.

One was 19/6/3 with a billion tropical storms an one somewhat interesting but disappointing US landfall.

One was 19/10/1 with a sad lack of strong storms, a pretty amazing US landfall, and a somewhat interesting US landfall.

I think the middle one is more annoying.

[am19psu]

I think the middle one is more annoying.

Depends how much of your day you have to devote to making meaningless operational forecasts, doesn't it?

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Depends how much of your day you have to devote to making meaningless operational forecasts, doesn't it?

You had more interesting US landfalls this year, though.

[am19psu]

You had more interesting US landfalls this year, though.

But I had 5 months of meaningless forecasts punctuated by two good events for 2 weeks. It was a giant time sink for no value added. It's not like my only responsibility is tropical forecasting.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

But I had 5 months of meaningless forecasts punctuated by two good events for 2 weeks. It was a giant time sink for no value added. It's not like my only responsibility is tropical forecasting.

Compared to 5 months of meaningless forecasts punctuated by one good event for 1 week.

[phil882]

The 1 major hurricane in the grand scheme of things is just a statistical artifact considering Gordon, Kirk, and Sandy were all on the brink of Cat 3 designation. When 5-10 knots is the difference between having 1 major in a hurricane season vs. 4, you really don't always get a good sense of the overall activity. The atmosphere being in a more La Nina like state really threw most forecasters for a loop when trying to get a sense of the seasonal activity in advanced.

In terms of ACE, you get a much more interesting perspective on the season. We currently are at 121(⁴kt²) units, which puts us tied with last year. However, the most significant contributor to high ACE this year by far is Nadine (thanks to its long duration). In fact, the strongest storms this year only take up 2nd (Michael), 4th (Sandy), 6th (Gordon), and 8th (Kirk). While I think ACE is a more useful metric to give a sense of how active a season was, it would be even more useful if it was normalized on some metric such as storm radius. That would give us a more true aspect on the overall energy contribution of each storm. In this sense, it is likely Sandy would have been the most powerful storm in terms of overall energy.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

The 1 major hurricane in the grand scheme of things is just a statistical artifact considering Gordon, Kirk, and Sandy were all on the brink of Cat 3 designation. When 5-10 knots is the difference between having 1 major in a hurricane season vs. 4, you really don't always get a good sense of the overall activity. The atmosphere being in a more La Nina like state really threw most forecasters for a loop when trying to get a sense of the seasonal activity in advanced.

In terms of ACE, you get a much more interesting perspective on the season. We currently are at 121(⁴kt²) units, which puts us tied with last year. However, the most significant contributor to high ACE this year by far is Nadine (thanks to its long duration). In fact, the strongest storms this year only take up 2nd (Michael), 4th (Sandy), 6th (Gordon), and 8th (Kirk). While I think ACE is a more useful metric to give a sense of how active a season was, it would be even more useful if it was normalized on some metric such as storm radius. That would give us a more true aspect on the overall energy contribution of each storm. In this sense, it is likely Sandy would have been the most powerful storm in terms of overall energy.

I was actually wondering about this very thing wrt storm radius. I would not doubt that, in the future, storm radius is added as a factor for ACE. No doubt Sandy had more energy than any of the other storms this year.

[Chaser25973]

I really think it's time to overhaul the SS scale with something more definitive. While Sandy was a Category 1 storm, she behaved more like a Category 3 storm with storm surge and pressure. How do you have a 940 mb storm with only 75 mph winds and 9 foot surges? Not everything fits perfectly into one pre-defined category and unfortunately, only people in Zone A in the Tri-State Area were evacuated. Why? Because it was only a Cat 1 hurricane - no big deal.

If we said: "Ok, it has Cat 1 winds, but a cat 3 surge and cat 3 pressure, and therefore, this a Category 1C and you need to plan for X and X" well that would be better. So I think maybe they should add subcategories to the SS Scale.

Oh and I'll add this: For those of you who think the public is too stupid to understand what that would mean and we need to simplify things for them, look at the demographics of the people who live in coastal communities. They're not lower class people without an education and even those that are, I think understanding a subcategory when they can navigate Amazon.com isn't too much of a reach.

[dan11295]

Have felt that minimum center pressure is in much better gauge of general destructive potential than just the wind speed alone. Of course you also have to look at the population density and vulnerability of the affective area, and topgraphical effects when it comes to surge. I think there is generally a very good correlation between pressure and damage. Larger storms tend to result in more damage also due to damage being more localized in small storms (like Hurricane Charley for example).

[HurricaneJosh]

I really think it's time to overhaul the SS scale with something more definitive. While Sandy was a Category 1 storm, she behaved more like a Category 3 storm with storm surge and pressure. How do you have a 940 mb storm with only 75 mph winds and 9 foot surges? Not everything fits perfectly into one pre-defined category and unfortunately, only people in Zone A in the Tri-State Area were evacuated. Why? Because it was only a Cat 1 hurricane - no big deal.

If we said: "Ok, it has Cat 1 winds, but a cat 3 surge and cat 3 pressure, and therefore, this a Category 1C and you need to plan for X and X" well that would be better. So I think maybe they should add subcategories to the SS Scale.

Oh and I'll add this: For those of you who think the public is too stupid to understand what that would mean and we need to simplify things for them, look at the demographics of the people who live in coastal communities. They're not lower class people without an education and even those that are, I think understanding a subcategory when they can navigate Amazon.com isn't too much of a reach.

They already have made the overhaul-- they now refer to the SS scale as a "wind scale".

Have felt that minimum center pressure is in much better gauge of general destructive potential than just the wind speed alone. Of course you also have to look at the population density and vulnerability of the affective area, and topgraphical effects when it comes to surge. I think there is generally a very good correlation between pressure and damage. Larger storms tend to result in more damage also due to damage being more localized in small storms (like Hurricane Charley for example).

I don't think I agree with this. Destructive potential is mostly a function of size and wind speed. The pressure is an indirect indicator.

[Cheeznado]

I am total agreement in totally overhauling the basic hurricane scale that is included in advisories etc- the S-S scale is pretty much useless in many cases in gauging how much impact/damage will actually occur as was amply demonstrated by Ike, Katrina, Sandy etc. Using some sort of damage potential index is a much more useful way to convey to the public and government officials what actions they should take. No more "well, it was"only" a cat 2, how come it did so much damage?

[HurricaneJosh]

I am total agreement in totally overhauling the basic hurricane scale that is included in advisories etc- the S-S scale is pretty much useless in many cases in gauging how much impact/damage will actually occur as was amply demonstrated by Ike, Katrina, Sandy etc. Using some sort of damage potential index is a much more useful way to convey to the public and government officials what actions they should take. No more "well, it was"only" a cat 2, how come it did so much damage?

I think people here tend to focus way too much on the last three disasters and then seek to draw universal "truth" from that. For some reason, the last few significant storms in the USA have been surge events with relatively low winds (Sandy, Ike, Katrina)-- so people have it in their minds that this is a hurricane. Most hurricane disasters in the USA are wind events (Andrew, Charley, Wilma, etc.) or combo wind/surge events (Hugo, Ivan, etc.). So to say the SS is "pretty useless" is pretty short-sighted.

If a Charley is coming your way, you need to hear "Cat 4". You need to know that what is coming is essentially a large tornado. It is just as dangerous to give some vague dollar-damage-potential score (that penalizes for size) to a violent microcane like Charley as it is to give an SS rating to a Sandy. In both cases, the whole story isn't told.

[am19psu]

If a Charley is coming your way, you need to hear "Cat 4". You need to know that what is coming is essentially a large tornado. It is just as dangerous to give some vague dollar-damage-potential score (that penalizes for size) to a violent microcane like Charley as it is to give an SS rating to a Sandy. In both cases, the whole story isn't told.

Agree 100%. I just don't know how to do that effectively. Both the intensity AND surge potential/size are important factors in terms of damage and potential loss of life, but I don't know how the public would ever be able to wrap their heads around it. It took 25 years for the S-S scale to become adopted.

[klw]

Just some storms firing along and W of an inverted trough. Winds are screaming out of the SW, so wind shear is not conducive for any development at this time.

Oh good. I thought I was seeing a little spin around 11N 77W.

http://www.ssd.noaa....l/loop-vis.html

[Supercane]

Agree 100%. I just don't know how to do that effectively. Both the intensity AND surge potential/size are important factors in terms of damage and potential loss of life, but I don't know how the public would ever be able to wrap their heads around it. It took 25 years for the S-S scale to become adopted.

I like the idea of having both the traditional wind scale and a separate size scale (based on the extent of gale-force winds). So Sandy for instance would be a category 1 on the wind scale and a level E on the size scale. You could overall call it a category 1E storm.

A very large tropical storm like Isaac would be something like a level B tropical storm. A powerful microcane like Charley would be a category 4A or 4B hurricane.

I feel like this would be pretty simple to convey to the public. Size is not that difficult of a concept and it would give people a better idea of what type of storm is headed their way. Size also plays a big role in determining storm surge potential, so I think the surge threat would be better understood with the separate size scale than with the wind scale alone.

[Juliancolton]

As I understand it, the Saffir-Simpson scale was designed mostly to try to describe the impacts of five different ranges of wind speeds on buildings in relations to principals of engineering. 75 mph is considered the lower limit of what can do actual structural damage, and once winds exceed the Category 5 threshold, it is understood that stuructural damage will be nearly complete regardless of any additional increase in velocity.

In that regard, the SSHWS works well; Sandy's winds were mostly in the Category 1 range, and the resulting damage (not including from ocean rises and flooding) reflected that. Quite a few gusts were higher, sure, but they were likely enhanced by non-tropical meteorological processes (which is theoretically a nod to the NHC's decision to treat Sandy as a non-tropical system at landfall).

I've said this before but I believe it's important to understand that you cannot accurately confer the dangers and severity of a hurricane with one scale. There are dozens of variables, and a good scale can only cover one or two at most.

[Windspeed]

The Cuba landfall was just gorgeous-- a beautiful eye and core as it crossed the coast-- and I'm sure the NHC is going to upgrade it to a major in postanalysis.

You're going to be correct. There is data to support that Sandy reached Category 3 right as it was coming ashore. We already knew the pressure was falling rapidly; but considering the size of the core and the gradiant, the winds were catching up fast and probably did get above 111mph sustained near the surface in the eastern eyewall. José Rubiera, the head forecaster at Cuba’s Institute of Meteorology, stated that the weather station on top of La Gran Piedra recorded wind gusts up to 152mph. At just shy of 4,000 feet, at just above 880mb pressure height, that is pretty stout. Microwave imagery, the rapid pressure falls and the images of the wind damage wrought on the Holguín province make Sandy a really good candidate for upgrade.

[CharlestonNYC]

Read the Irene threads. There were some hysterical claims Re: the historic nature of it-- due to some of the inland flooding.

Of course, Irene doesn't hold a candle to Sandy. Sandy is a huge event that will be discussed for decades to come.

Josh, I still gotta say, as more info. and pictures become available of the utter mess that is currently the tristate area...yes, I believe the scope of the damage left in this area is unprecedented.

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh, I still gotta say, as more info. and pictures become available of the utter mess that is currently the tristate area...yes, I believe the scope of the damage left in this area is unprecedented.

No, it is precedented.

I believe it may be the worst in NJ, but not NY and CT. No way.

First off, there's the 1938 hurricane. Take a little time and read up on it, watch some YouTube videos about it, etc. That cyclone was as monstrous and off-the-charts as everyone describes it-- and worse. Whole towns on Long Island, CT, and RI were wiped out in a couple of hours, and the larger cities-- like New London and Providence-- were flooded, smashed, and burned. New London looked like there'd been air raids. All of downtown Providence was underwater and many people in the city died. People in NY's Hamptons described a storm surge of 20 ft sweeping in like a tsunami. The geography of Long Island's East End was permanently altered. This aside, the storm wasn't just a water event-- it had winds over 100 knots, and you can see the evidence in the photos-- the upper floors of brick buildings smashed, trees defoliated, and so on. And then there were the hundreds of deaths-- piles of bodies in morgues on Long Island. The 1938 cyclone was simply nuclear.

Given this, for anyone to say Sandy is the worst ever in NY/NJ/CT means they simply haven't done their homework about 1938 and other past events.

Re: specific locations...

There's a possibility that Sandy might be the worst storm of the century for NYC-- I'll concede that, given some metrics like the Battery water level-- but not NY as a whole.

Re: NJ... A meteorologist who was on the NJ shore for the 1962 nor'easter says that that storm was worse than Sandy-- the level of inundation and destruction I haven't researched this-- just relaying what he said. And the 1944 hurricane was also a really huge blow for NJ-- so that should be researched as well.

People shouldn't just say Sandy is the worst ever and that it's unprecedented until they've taken the time to really learn about the century's other storms.

[BuffaloWeather]

No, it is precedented.

I believe it may be the worst in NJ, but not NY and CT. No way.

First off, there's the 1938 hurricane. Take a little time and read up on it, watch some YouTube videos about it, etc. That cyclone was as monstrous and off-the-charts as everyone describes it-- and worse. Whole towns on Long Island, CT, and RI were wiped out in a couple of hours, and the larger cities-- like New London and Providence-- were flooded, smashed, and burned. New London looked like there'd been air raids. All of downtown Providence was underwater and many people in the city died. People in NY's Hamptons described a storm surge of 20 ft sweeping in like a tsunami. The geography of Long Island's East End was permanently altered. This aside, the storm wasn't just a water event-- it had winds over 100 knots, and you can see the evidence in the photos-- the upper floors of brick buildings smashed, trees defoliated, and so on. And then there were the hundreds of deaths-- piles of bodies in morgues on Long Island. The 1938 cyclone was simply nuclear.

Given this, for anyone to say Sandy is the worst ever in NY/NJ/CT means they simply haven't done their homework about 1938 and other past events.

Re: specific locations...

There's a possibility that Sandy might be the worst storm of the century for NYC-- I'll concede that, given some metrics like the Battery water level-- but not NY as a whole.

Re: NJ... A meteorologist who was on the NJ shore for the 1962 nor'easter says that that storm was worse than Sandy-- the level of inundation and destruction I haven't researched this-- just relaying what he said. And the 1944 hurricane was also a really huge blow for NJ-- so that should be researched as well.

People shouldn't just say Sandy is the worst ever and that it's unprecedented until they've taken the time to really learn about the century's other storms.

You are honestly trying to compare the infrastructure of a 1938 Hurricane to 2012? Really? If this Hurricane hit in 1938 the entire city would of been wiped off the map.

[HurricaneJosh]

You are honestly trying to compare the infrastructure of a 1938 Hurricane to 2012? Really? If this Hurricane hit in 1938 the entire city would of been wiped off the map.

What are you talking about? Was NYC made of straw in 1938? Was Manhattan 20 ft lower in 1938? You are talking complete nonsense. How old are you?

Please do some research. Stop spouting. Read. Learn.

[HurricaneJosh]

I have to say, I'm kind of disappointed at the weenie-ish, over-the-top reaction to this event. It was bad. But it was not Katrina and it was not 1938. It just wasn't. People who clearly haven't taken the time to research are making silly comparisons.

Understanding a storm in its historical context requires objectivity. Ya can't fly off the handle about it because it just happened, because the images on TV are dramatic, or because you experienced it.

[BuffaloWeather]

What are you talking about? Was NYC made of straw in 1938? Was Manhattan 20 ft lower in 1938? You are talking complete nonsense. How old are you?

Please do some research. Stop spouting. Read. Learn.

How old are you? This is 74 years ago...3/4 of a century. Buildings were built completely different and dunes were not put on every single vulnerable beach on the East Coast like they are today. Yet Sandy still eclipsed them easily. Comparing the two is impossible, this was clearly worse. Tropical Storm winds going out 1000 miles is unheard of and will most likely never happen again. Not to mention perfect timed high tide with max moon cycle. Manhatten was not 20 feet lower but did Battery park had its broke the record surge by 3 feet, absolutely insane.

[HurricaneJosh]

How old are you? This is 74 years ago...3/4 of a century. Buildings were built completely different and dunes were not put on every single vulnerable beach on the East Coast like they are today. Yet Sandy still eclipsed them easily. Comparing the two is impossible, this was clearly worse. Tropical Storm winds going out 1000 miles is unheard of and will most likely never happen again. Not to mention perfect timed high tide with max moon cycle.

Dear Child:

Do you think all of the buildings and all of the infrastructure in NYC was built after 1938? Have you been to NYC? Whole neighborhoods are from before 1938-- and most of them got through Sandy without a scratch. My mother's house is over 100 years old. It survived Sandy fine.

Did you know that most of Manhattan is so high, a 1,000-mi-wide Cat 4 wouldn't flood it-- now or in 1938? Did you know that? Apparently not.

Going back a step in this conversation, this post undermined your credibility:

If this Hurricane hit in 1938 the entire city would of been wiped off the map.

It made me realize that this discussion is silly. Just take a break from posting and research past events. You might enjoy it. Hurricane history is fun!

[HurricaneJosh]

Re: past NJ storms, these two stand out as benchmarks. Was Sandy worse than these? It's very possible.

Ash Wednesday Storm 1962

Since I'm really only interested in tropical cyclones, I know very little Re: the so-called Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962, except that it was a big nor'easter that devastated the Mid-Atlantic region. I Wikipedia'd it and was surprised at how heavy the impact was-- especially in NJ, where an unbelievable amount of property was destroyed:

In New Jersey, the storm ripped away part of the Steel Pier in Atlantic City. Avalon, New Jersey lost 6 blocks. Long Beach Island was cut through in several places. The decommissioned destroyerMonssen was washed ashore near Holgate. In New Jersey alone, an estimated 45,000 homes were destroyed or greatly damaged.

Great Atlantic Hurricane 1944

This is also a benchmark storm for NJ. Reanalysis indicates it was a strong Cat 2 (95 kt) as it passed just off NJ and when it made landfall on Long Island. NYC had a 5-min sustained wind of 70 kt in Central Park! From Wikipedia:

The hurricane was infamous for the amount of damage it caused along the New Jersey coastline. The shore towns on Long Beach Island, as well asBarnegat, Atlantic City, Ocean City, and Cape May all suffered major damage. Long Beach Island and Barnegat Island both lost their causeways to the mainland in the storm effectively cutting them off from the rest of New Jersey. Additionally both islands lost hundreds of homes, in particular the Harvey Cedars section of Long Beach Island where many homes in the town were swept out to sea. In Atlantic City the hurricane's storm surge forced water into the lobbies of many of the resorts famous hotels. The Atlantic City boardwalk suffered major damage along with the citys famous ocean piers. Both the famed Steel Pier and Heinz Pier were partially destroyed by the hurricane with only the Steel Pier getting rebuilt. Ocean City and Cape May also lost many homes in the storm with Ocean City's boardwalk suffering significant damage. Larry Savadove devotes a whole chapter in his book Great Storms of the Jersey Shore to the hurricane and the imprint and lore it left on the Jersey Shore.

[am19psu]

I have to say, I'm kind of disappointed at the weenie-ish, over-the-top reaction to this event. It was bad. But it was not Katrina and it was not 1938. It just wasn't. People who clearly haven't taken the time to research are making silly comparisons.

Understanding a storm in its historical context requires objectivity. Ya can't fly off the handle about it because it just happened, because the images on TV are dramatic, or because you experienced it.

You know I agree with you from a purely tropical/max sustained wind point of view, but as I've argued with you offline, this storm was very nearly the worst case scenario for the Northeast as a whole. The only thing that was missing was a Cat 3 core. From a surge perspective, it will likely never be worse than this storm given the angle of approach, wide wind field, and timing at high tide.