From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

The naming of Karen in the North Atlantic as a subtropical storm is laughable to me, but it has now become a talking point for people pushing missives about climate change — this, despite a season that has fallen short of the means of the last five seasons, one of them with a strong El Niño.

It underscores what I have been trying to push for close to two decades. If you want to name these systems that develop a warmer core within the realm of a colder environment, then you need a two-tier season. That you would have something like this, which has a nice structure but is a warmer feature within the colder environment

and over water temps that are 2-4°C below the threshold of 26°C we use for storms, is a joke to me.

We are naming storms that never would have been named before, and it skews the numbers. I have to actually try to account for how many storms will be named that I would not name when I put out my numbers, so they are always a bit above what my raw score gives me.

In the meantime, look at this from September 16 — from a storm that developed over the Gulf Stream:

It did this to SE Va, along with causing the collapse of houses into the ocean on the Outer Banks.

It was totally ignored by the National Hurricane Center. This has been going on since I can remember. I will watch storms get named in the middle of nowhere (we call them “ham sandwiches” at weatherbell.com) where no one can actually see what they do. But then we see features like this — which are enough to feed back and convert rapidly to at least subtropical systems and hit people — and no one says boo.

But an overhaul has to be done at the National Hurricane Center (NHC). There is too much subjectivity, and that shackles people relying on their expertise — which, by the way is considerable — on these matters. It’s akin to having a football team with immense talent, but the game plan is not being used right.

I have been pushing the power and impact scale overhaul for years, and you saw that call in previous blogs. Each storm has to be reanalyzed, where the message of the power and impact scale THAT SIZE MATTERS is taken into account.  There is simply too much snapshot propaganda involved with the climate change agenda — not by NHC, but by people who take what they say and twist it. To be fair, while it’s mostly from alarmists, my side plays the game also (cherry picking this hurricane season because of no landfalls is an example). So now alarmists get to use Karen as the furthest north a storm has ever been named, when it was named over waters that are 2-4°C degrees lower than the objective threshold.

We see storms all the time that become so intense that, relative to the surroundings, they develop a warm core. Which looks better to you, the Karen in the North Atlantic or this storm?

This IS THE PRESIDENTS DAY BLIZZARD OF 1979 (which btw did have gusts near hurricane force on the coast to go along with 2 feet of snow).

This is too much like being in a classroom where the teacher gets to dictate what is said and done and can not be questioned. Why is that important? Well, suppose your insurance policy has a provision for a tropical storm or hurricane and your house falls into the ocean on September 16 because of a storm with an eye that was not named by the government agency? Or you are covered for a hurricane but not a “Superstorm,” even though Sandy was a hurricane while it was causing much of its damage until two hours before landfall? And what of the actual historic record?

So, my proposal is simple. If you have a feature with a closed circulation over water at or over 26 °C, you classify it and keep the classification until it’s no longer producing those gales. Even when it comes over colder water, the call to it being “non-tropical” is so subjective that we keep it on. I like to use the Florida State cyclone phase chart, because it has no dog in the fight. For Karen, which is being looked at as a record-breaking storm since it got named so far north, the phase diagram said it was cold core (the pink to the right is the warm core)

This way,  you don’t have Sandys that were certainly warm core (for instance, the 100-500 mb thickness at Atlantic City was over 600 with the pressure and height consideration and that is comparable to what a major hurricane has) that get downgraded at the last minute.

That same Florida State Product, from Dr Robert Hart is my go-to for determining objectively what should be named and what should not be.

https://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/It

First of all, I want it over warm water — greater than 26°C — when we classify, not something in the middle of nowhere over cooler waters.

But take this storm that is rearranging some beaches in the Sunday-Tuesday period.

https://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase

The model shows it has warm core features for a time:

It tracks right over the heart of the Gulf Stream and is going to batter the coast.

It’s likely to develop an eye-like feature. We all know that rapid feedback with the MJO is in the correct phases, where it is now.

But no one is looking for this.

Yet we have some models with the eye-like feature.

Right over the outer banks:

And another storm that may send houses into the ocean with this kind of wind.

So you mean to tell me there is not a 20% chance this could acquire at least the same characteristics as the record-breaking Karen in the cold north Atlantic, except it’s over warmer water and actually battering our coast?

This hurricane season has been very interesting in that the red zone we outlined has seen a lot of action but no landfalls. But you pay the price, whether named or not, as the pattern has been ripe for storminess between the coast and out toward around Bermuda, with some major systems moving through there. These unnamed features (which I would have named, but not Karen) are taking their toll.

But there has to be some kind of overhaul. My proposals are for a two-tiered season to allow for these storms, where there is room for discussion — not just a yes or no, depending on whatever is being dictated at the time. Above all, you need to serve the public, and naming storms in the middle of nowhere over cold water while ignoring similar evolution storms that actually hit people is unacceptable, IMO.

You replace the Saffir-Simpson Scale with our Power and Impact Scale.

The classification of the storm status is based on an objective scale, and like I said, I love what Dr. Bob Hart at FSU has done and use it.

But you can see not only is this practical for improving information to the public, but also in countering the kind of spin you hear when storms develop so far north they would have never been named before.