{"id":325490,"date":"2024-05-02T12:54:25","date_gmt":"2024-05-02T10:54:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=325490"},"modified":"2024-05-02T12:54:29","modified_gmt":"2024-05-02T10:54:29","slug":"cat-6-hurricanes-are-just-more-hysterical-climate-gibberish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=325490","title":{"rendered":"Cat 6 hurricanes are just more hysterical climate gibberish"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Joe Bastardi<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, \u201cthere they go again,\u201d as Ronald Reagan would say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.msn.com\/en-us\/weather\/topstories\/you-re-gonna-need-a-bigger-number-scientists-consider-a-category-6-for-mega-hurricane-era\/ar-AA1nI6CQ<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Category\u00a0 6 crowd is at it again. We all know they would like to declare a climate emergency during the hurricane season. But the idea of Cat 6 is to make you think storms are worse now than ever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want to do this, there are other storms from the past that should already be there. And on the power and impact scale, I advocate for several.  But it\u2019s the usual worse-than-ever jibberish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was called for before. Hurricane Florence in the Atlantic had nothing but near-record warm water in front of it and was already a major hurricane, so there was speculation it would hit the coast and would be in a different category of its own. This was nonsense, and I pointed out why it would weaken beforehand (apparently, they know nothing about what happens when hurricanes slow coming to the coast in an unfavorable Madden Julian Oscillation). In short. 1) the bigger the storm, the more energy it needs, and is more likely to draw in conditions that will limit it. 2) There are limits to how strong a storm can get, such as friction. 3) The very fact the storm is so strong means it\u2019s cooling the water it is over, also a self-limiting factor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why the Saffir Simpson scale should be replaced by our power and impact scale. We use Saffir Simpson as the basis for a pressure and wind at the center, but in our power and impact scale, we take pressure tendencies over a period of time (for instance, if the storm is intensifying quickly, you add a category because conditions are favorable for the transport of strong winds to the surface. It may be 90-95 % of the strongest flight-level winds; if weakening, quickly subtract, as it is in an environment opposite, so it may be as little as 50% when friction is factored in. Lili in 2002 and Idalia last year were classic weakeners, and both hit well under what they were portrayed as). But we use the radius of hurricane-force winds (the sum of the extent in the 2 greatest quadrants);; 50 and 34-knot winds also are factored in. For mariners, we add a radius of 12-foot seas. (There needs to be work on rainfall totals, but that is more a function of speed of movement and interaction with nontropical processes.) This gives us more variables that can evaluate the total power of the storm. How do you think a storm like Sandy, with only 80 mph winds at the center, did so much damage so far away.? Because it was large. Long Island is 100 miles from where Sandy made landfall in NJ. Look at the damage with Charley, a cat 4 that hit Florida in 2004, 100 miles away. You would not have known there was such a strong storm. So what they are doing is getting rapid development in close storms that are essentially fists of fury that are all occurring in phase 2 or 3 of the MJO and claiming they are stronger. When in reality, energy-wise, they are not as strong as some of the great storms of the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have put our forecast on many times. It was made in December and called for 25 to 30 storms, and interestingly enough, that is now the mean of the forecasts out there with Dr. Manns group, with 33 being the highest. (He has a range of 27-39, which is over. 35% of the total mean number.) We have a 5 (or about 18%) range for a lesser number because of uncertainty over the naming of storms in the middle of nowhere. If it were before the era that we see all the naming, it would likely be 25, but I have learned to adjust up).\u00a0 But the NUMBER IS A RED HERRING. It is where they go and how strong we are pioneering, and no one takes a stand the way we do and have done since I came to Weatherbell.com in 2011. Of course, despite all the appearances and forecasts for all those years, Wikipedia does not mention us. Gee, now, why would that be?<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The red area is the opposite of last year, where we had less-than-average.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the link to what was put out on Dec 7, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.weatherbell.com\/hurricane-season-from-hell-first-look<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last year\u2019s hurricane season is below; you can see almost all the activity out at sea. 4th most active as far as names, but who cares on land? They are all out at sea. Very little in the area we have targeted this year.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Except for Idalea, which fell apart as it got to the coast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An active season is if you get hit. For instance, for the US, which is the more important season, what happened last year or this, 1985?<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Six landfalling hurricanes, this is different from impact. For instance, suppose a hurricane stays just offshore like Helene in 1958, yet cat 3 or 4 conditions occur on the coast\u2026 well, you got hit by a cat 3 or 4)\u00a0 This is the record, tying 1886.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Imagine, if this were today, how many there would be as you would be able to see them in the middle of nowhere \u2014 likely almost 2x the 12 we saw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And perhaps more like 2020, the other year with 6 (31 total).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we are forecasting this year would mean a challenge to that record. That is much more significant than the total number, but we play the total number game because it\u2019s what everyone looks at. But like so many things, it is a sideshow. No one is going to have low numbers this year ( we just said it first). But last year proved what I have been saying for years: it\u2019s a moot point if they hit nobody (except for mariners).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And no one in this meteo misinformation media will make a big deal about the major climate signal, the western Pacific, and its lack of storms again this year relative to averages. (We think 60% of normal.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is part of the Weaponization of Weather in the Phony climate war. In this case, it is the old \u201cThis is Spinal Tap\u201d routine of turning up the amp to 11 by putting another category in despite no change in the actual sound.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n