Dude, where are my hurricanes?

[SkyDekker 1,129]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Flipping a coin would have been more economical.

BTW they gave only a 10% chance of a below average season.  Average is six hurricanes we have had only four.

Florida is a prime example of a below average season. They are doing so much better that the last few years!

Regardless, latest research seems to indicate not an increase in number of hurricanes but an increase in severity/impact of hurricanes.

[brenthutch 384]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Florida is a prime example of a below average season. They are doing so much better that the last few years!

Regardless, latest research seems to indicate not an increase in number of hurricanes but an increase in severity/impact of hurricanes.

Hurricanes are more damaging because there is more to damage.  Folks are fleeing NY, CT, MA, and IL and moving to Fl and TX for a warmer climate (and a better political environment). The result is that a given storm will do more damage today than a similar storm would have in the past. 

 

[SkyDekker 1,129]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Hurricanes are more damaging because there is more to damage.  Folks are fleeing NY, CT, MA, and IL and moving to Fl and TX for a warmer climate (and a better political environment). The result is that a given storm will do more damage today than a similar storm would have in the past. 

 

Yeah it is generally measured by wind speed, speed of movement of hurricane, and amount of precipitation.

[brenthutch 384]

27 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yeah it is generally measured by wind speed, speed of movement of hurricane, and amount of precipitation.

Not exactly 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

[SkyDekker 1,129]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Not exactly 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

I am missing where it says that is the only measurement used. Can you point it out please?

[brenthutch 384]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

I am missing where it says that is the only measurement used. Can you point it out please?

Can you show me where the “wetness” of a hurricane is a well established metric?Generally the amount of rainfall on a given location is a function of speed of movement.  The “wetness” metric did not appear until after Harvey, when it go trapped around Houston between two fronts of nearly identical strength (rare but not unprecedented) and the press was clamoring to tie it to climate change.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

49 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Can you show me where the “wetness” of a hurricane is a well established metric?Generally the amount of rainfall on a given location is a function of speed of movement.  The “wetness” metric did not appear until after Harvey, when it go trapped around Houston between two fronts of nearly identical strength (rare but not unprecedented) and the press was clamoring to tie it to climate change.

Considering water is by far the leading cause of deaths associated with hurricanes I would think it has always been a part of the measurements of those hurricanes that make landfall. Hurricanes without rainfall would be significantly less deadly or damaging. Hence if global warming would lead to more moisture in the air and therefor higher rainfall rates it would have a material impact on the outcome/damage done by hurricanes, everything else remaining equal.

Edited October 18, 2022 by SkyDekker

[billvon 2,404]

59 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Can you show me where the “wetness” of a hurricane is a well established metric?

Sure.  Here are two graphs showing estimates of two kinds of "wetness" (rainfall and storm surge):
 

[brenthutch 384]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Considering water is by far the leading cause of deaths associated with hurricanes I would think it has always been a part of the measurements of those hurricanes that make landfall. Hurricanes without rainfall would be significantly less deadly or damaging. Hence if global warming would lead to more moisture in the air and therefor higher rainfall rates it would have a material impact on the outcome/damage done by hurricanes, everything else remaining equal.

Actually hurricanes without wind would bee even less destructive.

[wmw999 2,126]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Actually hurricanes without wind would bee even less destructive.

Depends; that applies to force 5 and strong force 4 ones maybe, but the wisdom on hurricanes from hurricane country is (unless you live in a trailer), you run from flooding, and withstand the winds.

Most of the serious wind damage in Houston when I lived there was from tornados that were spawned by the hurricane, not the hurricane itself. In three noticeable storms, the only damage to any house my family owned was part of a 20-year-old fence that we were already discussing 

Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 1,129]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Actually hurricanes without wind would bee even less destructive.

I tend to care more about human life than property damage. Water is overwhelmingly the deadliest part of a hurricane.

[brenthutch 384]

56 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I tend to care more about human life than property damage. Water is overwhelmingly the deadliest part of a hurricane.

I think you mean storm surge, which is a function of wind.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I think you mean storm surge, which is a function of wind.

No, I meant water. 

[gowlerk 1,915]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No, I meant water. 

Many places in FL are still flooded. Even though the wind has died down somewhat.

[brenthutch 384]

40 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No, I meant water. 

“Storm Surge

Storm surge is the abnormal rise of water generated by a storm's winds. This hazard is historically the leading cause of hurricane related deaths in the United States. Storm surge and large battering waves can result in large loss of life and cause massive destruction along the coast.”

No wind, no storm surge 

Edited October 19, 2022 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,129]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“Storm Surge

Storm surge is the abnormal rise of water generated by a storm's winds. This hazard is historically the leading cause of hurricane related deaths in the United States. Storm surge and large battering waves can result in large loss of life and cause massive destruction along the coast.”

No wind, no storm surge 

There are quite a few hurricanes and tropical storms where freshwater flooding is the leading cause of death.

Secondly, you asked about "wetness" being a metric. I think we can now agree that wetness/water is the predominant issue regarding the destruction associated with hurricanes. Hence if climate change does indeed result in hurricanes that move slower and generate more rainfall, that would have a very high impact. Probably more so than just more hurricanes.

 

[brenthutch 384]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

There are quite a few hurricanes and tropical storms where freshwater flooding is the leading cause of death.

Secondly, you asked about "wetness" being a metric. I think we can now agree that wetness/water is the predominant issue regarding the destruction associated with hurricanes. Hence if climate change does indeed result in hurricanes that move slower and generate more rainfall, that would have a very high impact. Probably more so than just more hurricanes.

 

Can you share any peer reviewed studies that conclusively show that the speed of tropical cyclones have slowed, or are you still getting your “science” from left wing media?

[billvon 2,404]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No wind, no storm surge 

You haven't thought this through, have you.

Let's say Tampa Bay gets 20 inches of rain.  Do you think it hits the ground and magically disappears?

Sure, it's small in comparison to 9 feet of wind based surge.  But almost 2 feet of water doesn't magically go away just because you don't believe in science.

 

[wmw999 2,126]

Really, Bill -- those are Brent's goalposts. Only he gets to assign them, only he gets to move them.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Can you share any peer reviewed studies that conclusively show that the speed of tropical cyclones have slowed, or are you still getting your “science” from left wing media?

Kossin

Kossin

Emanuel

[olofscience 422]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Can you share any peer reviewed studies

You've already shown your inability to read scientific papers here.

Good luck getting past the titles...

Edited October 20, 2022 by olofscience

[brenthutch 384]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

You haven't thought this through, have you.

Let's say Tampa Bay gets 20 inches of rain.  Do you think it hits the ground and magically disappears?

 

No, it drains and evaporates without killing lots of folks.

[brenthutch 384]

11 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Kossin

Kossin

Emanuel

As I thought, nothing conclusive.

[olofscience 422]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As I thought, nothing conclusive.

translation: Brent couldn't read the paper. Didn't make it past the title.

edit: and also: as a consequence of the above - he doesn't have any idea whether they're conclusive or not.

Edited October 20, 2022 by olofscience

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

translation: Brent couldn't read the paper. Didn't make it past the title.

edit: and also: as a consequence of the above - he doesn't have any idea whether they're conclusive or not.

Not quite, I skip the title and read the conclusion.

Meanwhile in the Atlantic 

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Edited October 20, 2022 by brenthutch