Hurricane Irma

[dudog84]

That is very much dependent on how you evaluate "worst" (and somewhat also "history"; your earlier statement about "recorded history" is almost certainly incorrect. It should have been "in record" or "in the historical record" or similar).

Certainly, Harvey caused a great deal of destruction and Irma will as well. The closeness in time of Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Katia is another potential measure.

IIRC though, several years back there was a season in which the weather service ran through roughly the whole list of pre-determined names, but they were largely weak storms that didn't make landfall. Should highest count of identified storms be the metric of choice? How well does that metric stand up to changes in storm categorization and the efforts at tracking over the period of record?

Consider the 2004-2005 hurricane seasons, which were very active. They had multiple destructive storms, including several hitting the same areas and not too far apart in time. They were the last actually destructive seasons in the US until recently. I'm not sure we've yet passed those (or Andrew alone in '92) is terms of destruction during the season, although I'd have to look up the figures and I don't recall the extent of their impact in the Caribbean.

Overall though, the measurements for the average energy of the storms have been lower than in the mid-20th century, at least according to my understanding. Should the storms be evaluated by on their thermodynamic properties?

Should "worst" be the hypothetical destruction of a storm based on normalized levels population density, etc, or should we just go by dollar value of destruction? I believe destruction as measured in relation to GDP, even with the more destructive storms like Harvey, has been comparable over many decades.

I'm not sure there is a best way to evaluate how bad a hurricane season is. I think we need to specifically decide our target metric lest we fall into vague hyperbole.

That said, when deciding the worst hurricane in American history, I'd probably have to go with The Great Hurricane of 1780.

Aha, but now we have to define 'American' history vs. 'U.S.' history. Because I was thinking of Isaac's Storm (see budwom's post in Harvey thread, I also recommend the book). I hadn't heard of the 1780 storm, those deaths were in the islands, not the U.S., but what an incredible loss of life. And don't even get me started on typhoons.

Only partially tongue-in-cheek (unfortunately), the worst hurricane is the one that affects you. In almost 30 years in Florida, before Matthew I had only dealt with 1 hurricane (and that was barely a category 1 in 2004). Now the second major hurricane in less than a year. I'm a bit ticked, and slightly terrified that this is the new normal. Not enough to move, but I will be massively trimming back my beautiful big sycamores.

I used to just sneer at the global warming deniers. I will be significantly more mouthy in the future.

[gus]

IIRC though, several years back there was a season in which the weather service ran through roughly the whole list of pre-determined names, but they were largely weak storms that didn't make landfall. Should highest count of identified storms be the metric of choice? How well does that metric stand up to changes in storm categorization and the efforts at tracking over the period of record?

Epsilon and Zeta

[Indoor66]

Aha, but now we have to define 'American' history vs. 'U.S.' history. Because I was thinking of Isaac's Storm (see budwom's post in Harvey thread, I also recommend the book). I hadn't heard of the 1780 storm, those deaths were in the islands, not the U.S., but what an incredible loss of life. And don't even get me started on typhoons.

Only partially tongue-in-cheek (unfortunately), the worst hurricane is the one that affects you. In almost 30 years in Florida, before Matthew I had only dealt with 1 hurricane (and that was barely a category 1 in 2004). Now the second major hurricane in less than a year. I'm a bit ticked, and slightly terrified that this is the new normal. Not enough to move, but I will be massively trimming back my beautiful big sycamores.

I used to just sneer at the global warming deniers. I will be significantly more mouthy in the future.

It is no more the new normal than was your prior experience. I have FL experience dating from 1949 and there is no " normal." Weather has no plan or memory.

[dudog84]

It is no more the new normal than was your prior experience. I have FL experience dating from 1949 and there is no " normal." Weather has no plan or memory.

Keep telling yourself that.

[alteran]

...I have FL experience dating from 1949 and there is no " normal." Weather has no plan or memory.

This applies to non-weather aspects of Florida as well.

[Indoor66]

This applies to non-weather aspects of Florida as well.

VERY true. Mostly not for the better.

[alteran]

VERY true. Mostly not for the better.

http://floridaman.com/

I wouldn't be shocked if that website has some Irma-related additions soon.

[OldPhiKap]

AccuWeather is calling for sustained winds of upper 50's here, with gusts over 100 mph. gulp. And I'm over 100 miles inland from Savannah.

Weather.com only calling for 50-70 mph. So that's nice.

[BLPOG]

Attachment 7622

For the sake of comparison - Irma v. Andrew. This feels like end of days type stuff...

Hurricane size doesn't necessarily correlate with intensity or general destruction. For states unprepared for the storms, larger ones can be worse because they tend to bring more rainfall.

The rainfall usually isn't that much of an issue in Florida. Floridians are used to it. Andrew caused destruction because it spawned some crazy number of powerful tornadoes. There is only so much you can do to withstand 200 mph winds, especially if you live in a trailer park.

[BLPOG]

Keep telling yourself that.

Not to derail, but if you are blaming these storms on climate change you are taking a historically and statistically unsound position. The storms, and present trends, are consistent with AGW. They are also consistent with no AGW. That is because there are no valid statistical inferences to draw about the relationships with the kind of data set involved.

I lived through the hellish 2004 and 2005 seasons and then witnessed no major storm hit Florida for ten years. That's just how these things go. It's not a meteorological issue or a climate issue. It's a matter of the statistical spread and clustering of low-frequency cyclical events.

[dudog84]

Not to derail, but if you are blaming these storms on climate change you are taking a historically and statistically unsound position. The storms, and present trends, are consistent with AGW. They are also consistent with no AGW. That is because there are no valid statistical inferences to draw about the relationships with the kind of data set involved.

I lived through the hellish 2004 and 2005 seasons and then witnessed no major storm hit Florida for ten years. That's just how these things go. It's not a meteorological issue or a climate issue. It's a matter of the statistical spread and clustering of low-frequency cyclical events.

Statistics be damned. If you think hurricanes are not getting stronger and more frequent when it's a scientific fact that tropical storms gain strength from warmer water, that's your right. But you'd be wrong.

Statistically and historically, we've never had 3 storms at the same time with sustained winds of 155, 150, and 105 at the same time. So there's that.

It has nothing to do with whether they hit your specific location more often. Although come to think of it, if they are more frequent and have a greater areal extent, I suppose statistically you will get hit more often wherever you are.

I don't know, maybe people think because we're melting glaciers and the ice caps that we're adding ice cubes to the water. I'm suddenly thirsty for a scotch on the rocks. And I'm out.

[BigWayne]

AccuWeather is calling for sustained winds of upper 50's here, with gusts over 100 mph. gulp. And I'm over 100 miles inland from Savannah.

Weather.com only calling for 50-70 mph. So that's nice.

You are unlikely to have a problem where you are.

The latest release has some weasel wording to make sure people in Florida don't turn their cars around, but they are hinting that there is half a chance that the thing weakens significantly from hitting Cuba.

If it does stay close to the forecasted/modeled track, it will probably run straight up the middle of Florida and quickly get downgraded. If it misses Cuba, it's just a question of which part of Florida gets hit the most.

[mattman91]

Just saw Jose is now a category 4. Sheesh.

[Bob Green]

Just saw Jose is now a category 4. Sheesh.

Fortunately, current forecast has Jose moving Northeast:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphi...e_and_wind.png

[Indoor66]

Statistics be damned. If you think hurricanes are not getting stronger and more frequent when it's a scientific fact that tropical storms gain strength from warmer water, that's your right. But you'd be wrong.

Statistically and historically, we've never had 3 storms at the same time with sustained winds of 155, 150, and 105 at the same time. So there's that.

It has nothing to do with whether they hit your specific location more often. Although come to think of it, if they are more frequent and have a greater areal extent, I suppose statistically you will get hit more often wherever you are.

I don't know, maybe people think because we're melting glaciers and the ice caps that we're adding ice cubes to the water. I'm suddenly thirsty for a scotch on the rocks. And I'm out.

You are dealing with small sample sizes on all of it. Maximum period of records is since 1870. 147 years are infantismal in geologic time.

[JasonEvans]

Fortunately, current forecast has Jose moving Northeast:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphi...e_and_wind.png

And it is supposed to strengthen back to being a Cat 5 monster just before slamming into the Keys... yay!

[OldPhiKap]

You are unlikely to have a problem where you are.

The latest release has some weasel wording to make sure people in Florida don't turn their cars around, but they are hinting that there is half a chance that the thing weakens significantly from hitting Cuba.

If it does stay close to the forecasted/modeled track, it will probably run straight up the middle of Florida and quickly get downgraded. If it misses Cuba, it's just a question of which part of Florida gets hit the most.

So . . . Rush was right?

(I keed! I keed!)

[Bob Green]

And it is supposed to strengthen back to being a Cat 5 monster just before slamming into the Keys... yay!

My post is in reference to Jose not Irma.

[BigWayne]

So . . . Rush was right?

(I keed! I keed!)

There's a lot to read between the lines of the discussion statements. They have Lixion Avila do most of them now and he has become more guarded in his wording than these things used to be 20 years ago when most people didn't know how to find them. They used to come right out and say the predicted path is A, but they gave the media B to get people to evacuate. They would call it the path of least regret or something like that. Back then they could count on only weather geeks reading their writeups.

The current forecast is actually a little odd as it has the path up the west coast of FL. However, the discussion says it slowed down, though it doesn't say that was unexpected. If it slows down more than expected, then the point it turns north is likely to be more to the east and increase the chance of the path being up the east coast of FL or even offshore a bit.

[BigWayne]

And it is supposed to strengthen back to being a Cat 5 monster just before slamming into the Keys... yay!

That is in the data points sent to the media, but is not consistent with the discussion page. That is a CYA forecast.