Cape Verde Blues

[HurricaneJosh]

To bring it back to the original post...

You wrote:

From the perspective of ~35N and north, CV cyclones are the best chance, by far, for a major landfall (indeed, probably the only chance with some very rare exceptions), and also the best chance for any landfall at all.

Of the 3 known majors to hit the Northeast USA in the 20th century, 1 was a CV cyclone. The other 2 were not. So a CV cyclone is not the Northeast's best or only chance for a major. When you look at all 8 hurricane landfalls in the Northeast USA in the 20th century (not just majors), 3 were CV cyclones. So a CV cyclone isn't even the Northeast's best chance for any hurricane.

Can't make it any clearer than this.

P.S. Here are the landfalls being referenced. Majors are bolded, CV cyclones are colored.

Long Island Express 1938

Great Atlantic Hurricane 1944

Carol 1954

Edna 1954

Donna 1960

Belle 1976

Gloria 1985

Bob 1991

[Drz1111]

Edna's origin is unknown. It may be a CV, it may not. The Great Atlantic Hurricane is a Cape Verde storm to all but you, Josh.

The important thing to remember is that Landsea himself doesn't advertise the record he is creating as the word of God, especially when you get into the middle of the basin. Josh is ascribing a level of accuracy to the datasite that the creators themselves would disagree with.

Additionally, Josh ignores the emptiness of the W. Carribean. To explain it with data - these are the population densities for the W. Carribean compared with the NE US (I can't get it quite as granular as I would like, so this includes inland locations, but should convey the idea:

Yucatan – 130/sq mi

Belize – 38 /sq mi

Honduras – 166/ sq mi

New Jersey – 1189 / sq mi

Long Island – 5402 / sq mi

Connecticut – 739 / sq mi

Rhode Island – 1006 / sq mi

Massachusetts – 840 / sq mi

To bring it back to the original post...

You wrote:

Of the 3 known majors to hit the Northeast USA in the 20th century, 1 was a CV cyclone. The other 2 were not. So a CV cyclone is not the Northeast's best or only chance for a major. When you look at all 8 hurricane landfalls in the Northeast USA in the 20th century (not just majors), 3 were CV cyclones. So a CV cyclone isn't even the Northeast's best chance for any hurricane.

Can't make it any clearer than this.

P.S. Here are the landfalls being referenced. Majors are bolded, CV cyclones are colored.

Long Island Express 1938

Great Atlantic 1944

Carol 1954

Edna 1954

Donna 1960

Belle 1976

Gloria 1985

Bob 1991

[HurricaneJosh]

Edna's origin is unknown. It may be a CV, it may not. The Great Atlantic Hurricane is a Cape Verde storm to all but you, Josh.

The important thing to remember is that Landsea himself doesn't advertise the record he is creating as the word of God, especially when you get into the middle of the basin. Josh is ascribing a level of accuracy to the datasite that the creators themselves would disagree with.

I'm not ascribing any level of accuracy to the dataset. I'm saying it's the best we have to work with, and I am not going to let you fabricate data points on top of that to support your personal Cape Verde mythology.

You made a factually incorrect statement. I showed you why it is not true using the available, most-accurate-known statistics. And yet we go around in this circle.

Bizarre.

Additionally, Josh ignores the emptiness of the W. Carribean. To explain it with data - these are the population densities for the W. Carribean compared with the NE US (I can't get it quite as granular as I would like, so this includes inland locations, but should convey the idea:

Yucatan – 130/sq mi

Belize – 38 /sq mi

Honduras – 166/ sq mi

New Jersey – 1189 / sq mi

Long Island – 5402 / sq mi

Connecticut – 739 / sq mi

Rhode Island – 1006 / sq mi

Massachusetts – 840 / sq mi

You implied that human being aren't impacted by hurricanes in the W Caribbean. That is not true. Whole cities (Chetumal, Belize City, etc.) have been obliterated by hurricanes in the W Caribbean.

[am19psu]

I'm not ascribing any level of accuracy to the dataset. I'm saying it's the best we have to work with, and I am not going to let you fabricate data points on top of that to support your personal Cape Verde mythology.

You made a factually incorrect statement. I showed you why it is not true using the available, most-accurate-known statistics. And yet we go around in this circle.

But Josh, how do you know??!?! Edna COULD HAVE started in the MDR. You don't know for sure. Therefore, Drz is right and you're wrong. Meanie.

[HurricaneJosh]

But Josh, how do you know??!?! Edna COULD HAVE started in the MDR. You don't know for sure. Therefore, Drz is right and you're wrong. Meanie.

[Drz1111]

I'm not ascribing any level of accuracy to the dataset. I'm saying it's the best we have to work with, and I am not going to let you fabricate data points on top of that to support your personal Cape Verde mythology.

You made a factually incorrect statement. I showed you why it is not true using the available, most-accurate-known statistics. And yet we go around in this circle.

Bizarre.

You implied that human being aren't impacted by hurricanes in the W Caribbean. That is not true. Whole cities (Chetumal, Belize City, etc.) have been obliterated by hurricanes in the W Caribbean.

That's a nice qualitative statement. It doesn't take away from the fact that, to take two extreme examples, population density in Belize is 2 orders of magnitude less than Long Island. Many storms in the W. Carribean affect about as many people as a nice CV fish that splits the uprights.

[The Dude]

The important thing to remember is that Landsea himself doesn't advertise the record he is creating as the word of God, especially when you get into the middle of the basin. Josh is ascribing a level of accuracy to the datasite that the creators themselves would disagree with.

Taking your claim at face value that the pre-satellite data set is inadequate to determine storm origins, how exactly do you propose substantiating your claim that the "CV cyclones are the best chance, by far, for a major landfall"?

[HurricaneJosh]

That's a nice qualitative statement. It doesn't take away from the fact that, to take two extreme examples, population density in Belize is 2 orders of magnitude less than Long Island. Many storms in the W. Carribean affect about as many people as a nice CV fish that splits the uprights.

Your statements remain incorrect.

[HurricaneJosh]

Taking your claim at face value that the pre-satellite data set is inadequate to determine storm origins, how exactly do you propose substantiating your claim that the "CV cyclones are the best chance, by far, for a major landfall"?

It's almost like he's saying that in the pre-satellite era, we should just assume every cyclone came from Africa, since we can't know or prove for sure that they didn't.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Oh, it's accepted! In that case.

The accuracy of the pre satellite dataset is directly proportional to the distance from land of the supposed storm track. Appealing to the "accepted" dataset for records in the central tropical Atlantic is meaningless handwaving.

The other technique you use is to define CV so narrowly as to exclude storms that everyone else thinks of as being Cape Verde.

Wait what? Seriously? You do realise how many ships were out in the open Atlantic during this period to collect observations, right?

There is absolutely zero evidence, for example, that Edna was a CV cyclone. Zero. However, there is plenty of evidence showing Edna forming near the Lesser Antilles.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

That's a nice qualitative statement. It doesn't take away from the fact that, to take two extreme examples, population density in Belize is 2 orders of magnitude less than Long Island. Many storms in the W. Carribean affect about as many people as a nice CV fish that splits the uprights.

There is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

[Ed Lizard]

I'm still curious what Dr. Z's doctorate is in. Just for background.

[Ed Lizard]

Mitch and Fifi would be examples of very high impact Western Caribbean storms.

[Drz1111]

But Josh, how do you know??!?! Edna COULD HAVE started in the MDR. You don't know for sure. Therefore, Drz is right and you're wrong. Meanie.

Look, I'm not talking out of my ass. I was all-but-dissertation in paleoclimatology before I quit my Ph.D program, and coming out of grad school, I was accepted to work with the Brown team whose paper was cited up thread (but turned them down for another program).

I get that Josh has social capital on this board, and I enjoy his chase threads as much as anyone, but he's not a scientist and he doesn't think like one. The Landsea dataset is the best we have, but it is biased in cabined, well-understood ways that create the illusion of fewer Cape Verde storms in the pre-satellite era. This isn't really a matter for dispute. So citing it to establish that pre-satellite storms didn't form much east of the Antilles isn't a proper use of data - it's just folding the bias of the dataset into your argument to prove a point that you have an emotional attachment to.

Josh's work is sloppy and biased by his personal preferencees, but there are a few truths we can probably all agree on. First off, for a myriad of reasons, the further east in the Atlantic a cyclone forms, the less of the chance it makes landfall. That's certainly true. On the other hand, storms in the Carribean Sea and GoM almost never affect the NE Coast as hurricanes. And certainly, for material impact on a significant population, the interesting areas of origin are the ones that spawn storms that hit the Atlantic coast of FL, which is both densely populated and capable of experiencing a storm at peak intensity. I don't know what regions "feed" S. Fl landfalls, but I suspect CV is only part of the mix.

I'll walk back from something I said earlier - its possible to get a storm forming in the Bahamas that reaches the NE Coast as a Major, b/c I agree that Carol proves that, but I look at the same dataset as Josh does and I see nearly all storms of CV origin. (I refuse to dignify a storm during which my then-65 year old grandmother fixed shingles on her roof at the height of the storm as a significant landfall, but your mileage with Belle may vary - and I recognize that I'm not being very rigorous by arguing "my grandma", but, hell, that's what happens when your family lived by the ocean BitD.)

[HurricaneJosh]

Mitch and Fifi would be examples of very high impact Western Caribbean storms.

Janet 1955, Hattie 1961, Carmen 1974, etc. etc.

[Drz1111]

Wait what? Seriously? You do realise how many ships were out in the open Atlantic during this period to collect observations, right?

There is absolutely zero evidence, for example, that Edna was a CV cyclone. Zero. However, there is plenty of evidence showing Edna forming near the Lesser Antilles.

This is not true. From Landsea's paper:

"Major changes to both the track and the intensity shown in

Neumann et al. (1999). The system previously identified as Edna has

been reanalyzed to instead be two separate tropical cyclones: a previously

unrecognized tropical depression from September 1st to the 3rd and

the main cyclone which instead formed on the 5th and became the hurricane

that struck the United States. Evidence for these alterations comes from

the Historical Weather Map series, _Monthly Weather Review_, daily

Surface Weather Observations from NCDC, U.S. Weather Bureau six hourly

maps available via microfilm at NHC, aircraft observations available

from the Storm Wallets at NHC, the COADS ship database, Rhodes (1954),

Dunn and Miller (1960), Schwerdt et al. (1979), Ho et al. (1987),

Jarrell et al. (1992), and Boose et al. (2001)"

Landsea may or may not be right, but the above is, prima facie, evidence that the early track of Edna is not cut-and-dry.

[The Dude]

but I look at the same dataset as Josh does and I see nearly all storms of CV origin.

What specifically in the dataset supports your claim of CV origin?

[Ed Lizard]

Interesting primer on "missed cyclones" pre-modern era.

Not a comment either way on where Edna originated, since I have never paid attention. I have wondered where 1935 originated, but that is for a different thread...

[HurricaneJosh]

I get that Josh has social capital on this board, and I enjoy his chase threads as much as anyone, but he's not a scientist and he doesn't think like one.

My perceived social capital doesn't win me anything. I was clobbered in another debate about another topic a few days ago. Thanks for saying you enjoy my chase threads-- I appreciate it.

I absolutely am not a scientist-- not even an amateur one-- but I try to be diligent about forming my opinions based on the work of respected scientists.

The Landsea dataset is the best we have, but it is biased in cabined, well-understood ways that create the illusion of fewer Cape Verde storms in the pre-satellite era. This isn't really a matter for dispute. So citing it to establish that pre-satellite storms didn't form much east of the Antilles isn't a proper use of data - it's just folding the bias of the dataset into your argument to prove a point that you have an emotional attachment to.

If we restrict our discussion to the satellite era, my points still apply-- and your claim Re: CV cyclones is not true. In fact, in the satellite era, there's never even been a major hurricane of CV origins impacting the Northeast USA.

Josh's work is sloppy and biased by his personal preferencees, but there are a few truths we can probably all agree on. First off, for a myriad of reasons, the further east in the Atlantic a cyclone forms, the less of the chance it makes landfall. That's certainly true. On the other hand, storms in the Carribean Sea and GoM almost never affect the NE Coast as hurricanes. And certainly, for material impact on a significant population, the interesting areas of origin are the ones that spawn storms that hit the Atlantic coast of FL, which is both densely populated and capable of experiencing a storm at peak intensity. I don't know what regions "feed" S. Fl landfalls, but I suspect CV is only part of the mix.

But it's not my work. I am merely compiling the work of the most-respected scientists in this field.

Again, I showed you that most of the Northeast impacts were not of CV origins. Even if we accept the 1944 storm as CV, half of the impacts were not.

I'll walk back from something I said earlier - its possible to get a storm forming in the Bahamas that reaches the NE Coast as a Major, b/c I agree that Carol proves that, but I look at the same dataset as Josh does and I see nearly all storms of CV origin. (I refuse to dignify a storm during which my then-65 year old grandmother fixed shingles on her roof at the height of the storm as a significant landfall, but your mileage with Belle may vary - and I recognize that I'm not being very rigorous by arguing "my grandma", but, hell, that's what happens when your family lived by the ocean BitD.)

Belle was a legitimate Cat-1 landfall on W Long Island and it is included because-- again-- it is in the official data set. For people in Queens and Nassau Counties, it was one of the strongest they remembered. Where was your grandmother?

[icebreaker5221]

Well obviously Ike is a huge exception. Im not even sure there has been a hurricane that has taken a track like that in our records. Is there?

No other storm has ever made it that far north east of the Bahamas and made landfall in TX as a hurricane. So Ike was an unprecedented event.

[Ed Lizard]

Janet 1955, Hattie 1961, Carmen 1974, etc. etc.

Mitch and Fifi were the huge killers that immediately come to mind, I wasn't excluding others. Obvious bias about what constitutes high impact in the Caribbean and what constitutes high impact in the US.

[HurricaneJosh]

Landsea may or may not be right, but the above is, prima facie, evidence that the early track of Edna is not cut-and-dry.

No, it's not cut and dried. Nothing from that era is. But I don't know how you get from there to claiming that Edna was a CV cyclone. It seems that in your mind, everything came from Africa unless we have evidence to the contrary.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

This is not true. From Landsea's paper:

"Major changes to both the track and the intensity shown in

Neumann et al. (1999). The system previously identified as Edna has

been reanalyzed to instead be two separate tropical cyclones: a previously

unrecognized tropical depression from September 1st to the 3rd and

the main cyclone which instead formed on the 5th and became the hurricane

that struck the United States. Evidence for these alterations comes from

the Historical Weather Map series, _Monthly Weather Review_, daily

Surface Weather Observations from NCDC, U.S. Weather Bureau six hourly

maps available via microfilm at NHC, aircraft observations available

from the Storm Wallets at NHC, the COADS ship database, Rhodes (1954),

Dunn and Miller (1960), Schwerdt et al. (1979), Ho et al. (1987),

Jarrell et al. (1992), and Boose et al. (2001)"

Landsea may or may not be right, but the above is, prima facie, evidence that the early track of Edna is not cut-and-dry.

LOL, what? The "unrecognized tropical depression" from September 1-3 was very close to the Lesser Antilles. That is not a CV cyclone. The SEPARATE system that was Edna formed further to NW.

Come on.

[Normandy]

Question:

Say a tropical wave comes off africa and only develops once it reaches the Antilles. Would that be considered a CV cyclone, or does it actually have to become a tropical cyclone to then be distinguished as a CV cyclone?

[wxmx]

No other storm has ever made it that far north east of the Bahamas and made landfall in TX as a hurricane. So Ike was an unprecedented event.

Andrew was close...missed TX by a few miles though

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Question:

Say a tropical wave comes off africa and only develops once it reaches the Antilles. Would that be considered a CV cyclone, or does it actually have to become a tropical cyclone to then be distinguished as a CV cyclone?

That would not be considered a CV cyclone because the majority of tropical cyclones that form in the Atlantic come from easterly waves that roll off Africa... but they may not form until the western Caribbean, for example.

[wxmx]

Question:

Say a tropical wave comes off africa and only develops once it reaches the Antilles. Would that be considered a CV cyclone, or does it actually have to become a tropical cyclone to then be distinguished as a CV cyclone?

Even the vast majority of EPac hurricanes are from CV origin (as Tropical Waves).

[HurricaneJosh]

Question:

Say a tropical wave comes off africa and only develops once it reaches the Antilles. Would that be considered a CV cyclone, or does it actually have to become a tropical cyclone to then be distinguished as a CV cyclone?

It needs to become an actual cyclone before reaching 40W. Lots of African waves traverse the NATL and become cyclones much later on, and those are not considered CV cyclones.

[Eduardo]

DRZ, if you would like to reject the Landsea/best track data as inadequate, flawed, etc, then I guess that's your own (misguided) prerogative.

However, I think everyone (myself included) loses you because you essentially cut off your explanation of the methods of your madness once you make this rejection clear. I think you fly off the rails when it comes to: (1) the parameters and specifics of your (re)definition of what constitutes a CV cyclone; and (2) the evidence you have to back up your assertions that cyclones hitherto labeled as non-CV were erroneously classified as such.

I think it fair and reasonable to place upon you the burden of demonstrating for us a sufficient alternative to prevailing best track data, which, as Josh correctly points out, is the best we seem to have despite its universally-acknowledged shortcomings. You correctly point out that Landsea recognized the imperfection of the data, but discarding it on that basis alone is akin to dispensing with general relativity because Einstein felt there was more work to be done.

It then follows that your hasty rejection of the prevailing data and the accounts of past events premised upon it is hardly a freestanding justification for your reclasification of past storms as CV ones. If there are some alternate ground on which you are doing so, none of us seem to see it. Put it in crayon for me if you must; my lack of 'parchment' seems to be rearing its ugly head again. ;-)

I don't think anybody here is apt to dismissing alternative theories, explanations, narratives, etc. I personally relish the prospect of new, better accounts displacing old, antiquated ones. But if the minimal, scientific standards of clarification, revelation of evidence, etc cannot be met, then perhaps recourse to David Hume's suggestion is appropriate: "To the flames!"

[HurricaneJosh]

Eduardo should post more.