From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

I was involved in a weather debate on the so-called Nor’easter this weekend (you will see why I say so-called below), and it was refreshing to see there was no one blaming climate change for that storm.

I believe this storm should have been classified as such because it transitioned from a subtropical to a tropical system. I offered objective analysis to support my point. There was no question it was non-tropical at the start, but the system converted while over abnormally warm water (above the 26c threshold) that was so far north this year. What I do now, to try to avoid bias, is go to the AI, feed it the information, and see what it comes up with.

So here is just a bit of the evidence I fed the AI:

Presented with this 850mb (which shows the warm center)

700mb (10,000 feet; also, a warm center)

and 1000-500 mb thickness and surface pattern (circular warm core at the center)

Is this a warm-core feature?

Yes — this is a warm-core feature. The 850 mb map shows a clear warm anomaly in the center of the circulation (yellow core, ~15–18 °C, versus much cooler air wrapping around it over the ocean). The 700 mb map is consistent with that structure: The core is relatively warm compared with the cooler air to the west and shows no cold-core signature. The 1000–500 mb thickness field and surface pattern reinforce this. Thickness values are locally higher near the center of the tight 992 hPa low, and the precipitation shield is wrapped around a compact, quasi-circular circulation rather than being displaced well ahead of a cold-core mid-latitude cyclone.

Note the actual pressure was lower, making the 1000-500 mb thickness even warmer.  The higher the thickness, the warmer the column of air from the surface to 500mb (18000 feet)

Taken together, the mid-level temperature fields, thickness, and surface appearance indicate a warm-core (tropical or subtropical) cyclone rather than a cold-core extratropical low.

There has to be a reason the objective FSU cyclone phase evolution actually has a warmer look than Gonzalo.

No Name nor’easter:

Gonzolo:

I use AI to make sure I am not biased.

A recon report could have settled the argument. Yet no recon into a storm, in a year of no storms, to a feature that likely did 1-2 billion dollars of damage. I’m showing you all this to show I had my reasons to say this should have been classified.

Now, let’s look at the sat pics of all the storms this year at their strongest points and see which has the best presentation.

Our tropical season, so far, picture gallery (all are near the time of max intensity):

Arthur

This did have gales on the east side.

Bertha was interesting because its strong winds were associated with a feature that appeared southwest of the center.

Cristobal. Slim pickings.

Dolly. Tried to develop in the Main Development Region, and guess what, homie don’t play that (for all you In Living Color fans); it was dead a day later.

Eduoard. Give it another 6 hours and it would have been a hurricane. Good-looking storm.

Fay. It will be interesting to see if either of these storms in post-analysis get their intensities upped, which would of course mean the record for no hurricanes through Oct 1 would no longer apply if either is upgraded to a hurricane. Point is, both of these looked good.

Gonzalo. This was almost laughable, but again, gales were off to the east in one quad.

Hanna. The center is way behind the thunderstorms.

No name Nor’Easter. Arguably the best-looking of the bunch. Plus, it was impacting people.

We’ve seen the infamous winter bomb cyclones do this, though not as tight as this. But the difference is that a bomb cyclone is not over water that is still 80 degrees; it’s 20-30 degrees lower. The energy over the warmer water, once entrained in a system, can lead to rapid feedback and rapid conversion. Sometimes, when I see the gawking at how fast storms do this, I think it’s a lack of respect for what the weather is capable of. And the fact that it weakened over cooler water was a sign of its true nature.

There have been many storms over the years that fell between the cracks.

But the fact is, no recon went in, so there is plausible deniability. It’s like the whole geothermal argument. I get told I have no proof, yet they have no proof it’s not, because we have no idea how much heat input is coming from the bottom of the ocean from underwater activity. There are no observations there, and saturating the ocean floor near known vents would end the argument one way or the other. Until then, whoever controls the information wins, and the rest of us who question it get pushed aside.

But it was a good old weather fight with people disagreeing with me, and they all had reasons; they weren’t saying anything about climate change. It was all offering ideas that supported the non-naming. But again, because of my reputation as a Warren Zevon Excitable Boy when it comes to the weather, AI’s and actual profiles do a lot to either support or counter the arguments.  And it was on my side.

I still think this whole naming thing can be simplified. If you have a closed rotary circulation attaining the required intensity over water at 25 °C or greater, name it and keep the name on it until it dissipates. No classroom arguments, which frankly are like theologians arguing over how many angels they can stick on the head of a needle.

But here is what this proved — something I have been saying for many years. No matter what occasional tiff I have with the NHC, they are completely above board on climate. Think about it: They could have named this. And it would have been the furthest north in that part of the ocean to get named — a real testament to the ocean’s warmth and the changing climate. That it did so much damage would have been a huge day for agenda-driven media, but NHC did not. And to show I am above board, I realize what a naming would have led to with people who simply want to prostitute any weather pattern for their own purpose, yet I thought it should have been named. But the real point is that we both had competing weather ideas, as we should, and it had nothing to do with climate change. They are the hurricane center, so no matter what, I am Western Michigan, and they are Michigan.

Of course, there are the usual rumblings that man-made climate change contributed to the storm being so strong. Here was a tweet Sept 18th on what was coming:

“Let’s see. Big highs moving off the East Coast. A disturbed weather area is developing off Florida this weekend; an upper trough is trying to pick it up next week over warm water. What could possibly go wrong with that? May get pulled back in for at least a nor’easter for the NE next weekend (if not a hybrid howler)”

What is more remarkable is that there have been no landfalling hurricanes on New England or Long Island in 35 years, and in the previous 53 years, there was an average of 1 every 7 years.

I will have another blog on the lack of Atlantic hurricanes this year. Again, we have to think globally. The EPAC is likely to break its ACE record for the most ACE units. People have not been watching the Western Pacific, which has averaged about the same number of below-normal ACE units over the past 5 years (100) as the Atlantic will this year. The point is that a large-scale shutdown pattern is evident and is showing up in other basins. This year, the combination of an unfavorable SST configuration in the Atlantic and, of course, El Niño has shifted it down.

Meanwhile, the EPAC is going wild, and as we said in the preseason, recurving features are helping dent the Southwest drought (the appetizer before winter, as the El Niño will continue to do that). There is likely to be a strong Pacific hurricane later this week hitting Mexico again, which, when it rains itself out, will try to help the drought.

And the Atlantic is down. But I am sure if we get another big hitter in Mexico, no one will say boo.

See, look at that: already two positive aspects of the big bad Niño. Though no one is going to bring that up. They will with Mexico, though.

BTW, watch the Gulf this week. Not over yet.