She's gonna be Annular....

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
Mac

#21 Postby Mac » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:01 am

canegrl04 wrote:From what I here,they expect Rita to be a cat 4.That tells you about the conditions that lie ahead of her in the GOM.Hold on.Rita's in for some serious bombing soon :blowup:


I do think she'll bomb, but not until she hits 90W. Until then, she's going to be dealing with slightly cooler SSTs due to upwelling from Katrina. But once she hits 90W, shes going to be hitting extremely warm SSTs. Barring shear above 10 knots and provided the anticyclone sits in above her, I expect to see explosive development once she hits 90W and points west and north of there.
0 likes   

oneness
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:21 am

Re: She's gonna be Annular....

#22 Postby oneness » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:06 am

Mac wrote:The only reason that we are seeing more of them over the past few years is because we are seeing more intense hurricanes.



Does the NHC or Met Office reports/stats from other tropical countries suggest that? If there are more hurricanes in a year or during a more active (5 to 10 year) cycle, then the chances are that more of those storms which form will be intense (in total numbers of 3, 4 and 5 storms), but that does not mean all hurricanes are becoming generally more intense.

Is that what you meant?
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4430
Age: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#23 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:08 am

There is no doubt in my mind now that she is Cane...Looks better than Katrina ever did at landfall in Miami..

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/radar/loop/DS.p ... kamx.shtml

Looks like a 85 MPH at the least to me
0 likes   

User avatar
cjrciadt
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1616
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Kissimmee, FL

#24 Postby cjrciadt » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:16 am

I dont believe she will become that kind of beast. Katrina flurted with annular status, still have to find the infared that showed her in that state.
0 likes   

Mac

Re: She's gonna be Annular....

#25 Postby Mac » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:18 am

oneness wrote:
Mac wrote:The only reason that we are seeing more of them over the past few years is because we are seeing more intense hurricanes.



Does the NHC or Met Office reports/stats from other tropical countries suggest that? If there are more hurricanes in a year or during a more active (5 to 10 year) cycle, then the chances are that more of those storms which form will be intense (in total numbers of 3, 4 and 5 storms), but that does not mean all hurricanes are becoming generally more intense.

Is that what you meant?


When you look at the numbers extrapolated over time, we are not in a cycle of seeing more hurricanes. We are in a cycle of seeing more intense hurricanes. The biggest factor attributing to this trend seems to be a mean increase in SSTs of about 1 degree. That doesn't seem like a lot, but the ocean is capable of storing an extreme amount of heat energy. It is this energy which hurricanes feed off of. The past few years we have seen a lot of hurricanes, but we have also seen a lot of intense hurricanes. As you see more intense hurricanes, you'll see more annular hurricanes (since only the most intense of hurricanes become annular). But whether we are in a cycle of more intense hurricanes or whether this is a continuing trend remains to be seen.
0 likes   

oneness
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:21 am

Re: She's gonna be Annular....

#26 Postby oneness » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:38 am

Mac wrote:
oneness wrote:
Mac wrote:The only reason that we are seeing more of them over the past few years is because we are seeing more intense hurricanes.



Does the NHC or Met Office reports/stats from other tropical countries suggest that? If there are more hurricanes in a year or during a more active (5 to 10 year) cycle, then the chances are that more of those storms which form will be intense (in total numbers of 3, 4 and 5 storms), but that does not mean all hurricanes are becoming generally more intense.

Is that what you meant?


When you look at the numbers extrapolated over time, we are not in a cycle of seeing more hurricanes. We are in a cycle of seeing more intense hurricanes. The biggest factor attributing to this trend seems to be a mean increase in SSTs of about 1 degree. That doesn't seem like a lot, but the ocean is capable of storing an extreme amount of heat energy. It is this energy which hurricanes feed off of. The past few years we have seen a lot of hurricanes, but we have also seen a lot of intense hurricanes. As you see more intense hurricanes, you'll see more annular hurricanes (since only the most intense of hurricanes become annular). But whether we are in a cycle of more intense hurricanes or whether this is a continuing trend remains to be seen.



But stats show the US clearly is within a new cycle of more hurricanes, in recent years.

Such multi-year cycles are not new and these cycles are recognised to occur all over the world.

I doubt reliable stats, with sufficient data even exist from modern times (say since 1960, where data availability and precision is reasonably good) to conclude that there has been a general increase in the intensity of hurricanes (though you did mention extrapolation).

Who, or what agency is it that specifically presents data which establishes this, beyond question? Do you have a report, which you could link? Thanks.
0 likes   

Mac

Re: She's gonna be Annular....

#27 Postby Mac » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:47 am

oneness wrote:
Mac wrote:
oneness wrote:
Mac wrote:The only reason that we are seeing more of them over the past few years is because we are seeing more intense hurricanes.



Does the NHC or Met Office reports/stats from other tropical countries suggest that? If there are more hurricanes in a year or during a more active (5 to 10 year) cycle, then the chances are that more of those storms which form will be intense (in total numbers of 3, 4 and 5 storms), but that does not mean all hurricanes are becoming generally more intense.

Is that what you meant?


When you look at the numbers extrapolated over time, we are not in a cycle of seeing more hurricanes. We are in a cycle of seeing more intense hurricanes. The biggest factor attributing to this trend seems to be a mean increase in SSTs of about 1 degree. That doesn't seem like a lot, but the ocean is capable of storing an extreme amount of heat energy. It is this energy which hurricanes feed off of. The past few years we have seen a lot of hurricanes, but we have also seen a lot of intense hurricanes. As you see more intense hurricanes, you'll see more annular hurricanes (since only the most intense of hurricanes become annular). But whether we are in a cycle of more intense hurricanes or whether this is a continuing trend remains to be seen.



But stats show the US clearly is within a new cycle of more hurricanes, in recent years.

Such multi-year cycles are not new and these cycles are recognised to occur all over the world.

I doubt reliable stats, with sufficient data even exist from modern times (say since 1960, where data availability and precision is reasonably good) to conclude that there has been a general increase in the intensity of hurricanes (though you did mention extrapolation).

Who, or what agency is it that specifically presents data which establishes this, beyond question? Do you have a report, which you could link? Thanks.


I have recently read a couple of research articles regarding the reason for the increase in hurricanes/intensity of hurricanes. The reports basically concluded that the occurence of stronger hurricanes was due to higher SSTs of about 1 degree on average. No big surprise there, since we all know that SSTs are the primary diet of hurricanes.

Here's the thing you have to understand about cycles vs. trends. It is impossible to know whether we are in a normal cycle or if we are in the midst of a trend at this point. If it's a cycle, it will eventually end. Only then will we be able to definitively say it was a cycle. Yes, there have been such cycles in the past. But that does not necessarily mean we are in a cycle now. If the global warming theorists are correct, then we are in a trend that will only continue--and presumably increase--in the future. If the cyclical theorists are correct, then this cycle will eventually end.

Personally, I believe we will see a compromise. I believe global warming is affecting hurricane intensity (but I am not yet convinced that human behavior, rather than normal global cycles, are to blame), and that we are in the midst of a cycle. In other words, I believe we will see cycles of more intense hurricanes, with each decade-long cycle or so producing more intense hurricanes than the previous cycle. I believe this will continue to occur as long as global warming continues. How long global warming continues will likely depend upon whether it's occuring because of natural or man-made phenomena.

If I happen accross those articles I referenced earlier, I'll provide links. I don't have time to search for them right now.
0 likes   

oneness
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:21 am

Re: She's gonna be Annular....

#28 Postby oneness » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:02 am

Mac wrote:
oneness wrote:
Mac wrote:
oneness wrote:
Mac wrote:The only reason that we are seeing more of them over the past few years is because we are seeing more intense hurricanes.



Does the NHC or Met Office reports/stats from other tropical countries suggest that? If there are more hurricanes in a year or during a more active (5 to 10 year) cycle, then the chances are that more of those storms which form will be intense (in total numbers of 3, 4 and 5 storms), but that does not mean all hurricanes are becoming generally more intense.

Is that what you meant?


When you look at the numbers extrapolated over time, we are not in a cycle of seeing more hurricanes. We are in a cycle of seeing more intense hurricanes. The biggest factor attributing to this trend seems to be a mean increase in SSTs of about 1 degree. That doesn't seem like a lot, but the ocean is capable of storing an extreme amount of heat energy. It is this energy which hurricanes feed off of. The past few years we have seen a lot of hurricanes, but we have also seen a lot of intense hurricanes. As you see more intense hurricanes, you'll see more annular hurricanes (since only the most intense of hurricanes become annular). But whether we are in a cycle of more intense hurricanes or whether this is a continuing trend remains to be seen.



But stats show the US clearly is within a new cycle of more hurricanes, in recent years.

Such multi-year cycles are not new and these cycles are recognised to occur all over the world.

I doubt reliable stats, with sufficient data even exist from modern times (say since 1960, where data availability and precision is reasonably good) to conclude that there has been a general increase in the intensity of hurricanes (though you did mention extrapolation).

Who, or what agency is it that specifically presents data which establishes this, beyond question? Do you have a report, which you could link? Thanks.


I have recently read a couple of research articles regarding the reason for the increase in hurricanes/intensity of hurricanes. The reports basically concluded that the occurence of stronger hurricanes was due to higher SSTs of about 1 degree on average. No big surprise there, since we all know that SSTs are the primary diet of hurricanes.

Here's the thing you have to understand about cycles vs. trends. It is impossible to know whether we are in a normal cycle or if we are in the midst of a trend at this point. If it's a cycle, it will eventually end. Only then will we be able to definitively say it was a cycle. Yes, there have been such cycles in the past. But that does not necessarily mean we are in a cycle now. If the global warming theorists are correct, then we are in a trend that will only continue--and presumably increase--in the future. If the cyclical theorists are correct, then this cycle will eventually end.

Personally, I believe we will see a compromise. I believe global warming is affecting hurricane intensity (but I am not yet convinced that human behavior, rather than normal global cycles, are to blame), and that we are in the midst of a cycle. In other words, I believe we will see cycles of more intense hurricanes, with each decade-long cycle or so producing more intense hurricanes than the previous cycle. I believe this will continue to occur as long as global warming continues. How long global warming continues will likely depend upon whether it's occuring because of natural or man-made phenomena.

If I happen accross those articles I referenced earlier, I'll provide links. I don't have time to search for them right now.



I would just add that the thing you also have to understand about cycles v trends is that it is impossible to know whether long term global SSTs have actually increased. Satellites have not been around long enough or measuring long enough to say that with confidence. Thus you also can not assume that hurricanes have generally increased in intensity by extrapolation of that relationship. You also can not, thus far, unambiguously detect there is an upward SST trend. So you also can't extrapolate that there will be more annular cyclones (~2% of all storms, and mostly ocean basin phenomena, rather than land falling).

Personally, I don’t buy much the global warmers say. I say “much”, because I don’t discount every 'evidence' they present just the great majority of it.
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4430
Age: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#29 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:51 am

:Bump:

It was written on the friggin wall....
0 likes   

Mac

#30 Postby Mac » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:55 am

DESTRUCTION5 wrote::Bump:

It was written on the friggin wall....


She's not annular. Not even close. She may become annular at some point. But not yet.
0 likes   

jwayne
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:33 pm

#31 Postby jwayne » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:57 am

she's definitely already a pain in my annular.
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4430
Age: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#32 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:01 am

Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote::Bump:

It was written on the friggin wall....


She's not annular. Not even close. She may become annular at some point. But not yet.


Ohh she's close...Won't be long now
0 likes   

Mac

#33 Postby Mac » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:03 am

DESTRUCTION5 wrote:
Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote::Bump:

It was written on the friggin wall....


She's not annular. Not even close. She may become annular at some point. But not yet.


Ohh she's close...Won't be long now


No, she's not. She has a ragged eyewall. The strong convection isn't wrapped completely around the eye on IR. And the eye is small. We won't even have a hint at whether she will go annular until AFTER she goes through an ERC. To suggest she's going annular at this point is pure guesswork.
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4430
Age: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#34 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:06 am

Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote:
Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote::Bump:

It was written on the friggin wall....


She's not annular. Not even close. She may become annular at some point. But not yet.


Ohh she's close...Won't be long now


No, she's not. She has a ragged eyewall. The strong convection isn't wrapped completely around the eye on IR. And the eye is small. We won't even have a hint at whether she will go annular until AFTER she goes through an ERC. To suggest she's going annular at this point is pure guesswork.


The core of this storm resembles a friggin Krispy Creme...As soon as the ERWC is done today she is going to 160+...
0 likes   

superfly

#35 Postby superfly » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:07 am

The eye is tiny compared to annulars. She may well become a cat 5, but that doesn't mean she'll be annular. Inversely, annular aren't always even major hurricanes.
0 likes   

Mac

#36 Postby Mac » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:09 am

DESTRUCTION5 wrote:
Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote:
Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote::Bump:

It was written on the friggin wall....


She's not annular. Not even close. She may become annular at some point. But not yet.


Ohh she's close...Won't be long now


No, she's not. She has a ragged eyewall. The strong convection isn't wrapped completely around the eye on IR. And the eye is small. We won't even have a hint at whether she will go annular until AFTER she goes through an ERC. To suggest she's going annular at this point is pure guesswork.


The core of this storm resembles a friggin Krispy Creme...As soon as the ERWC is done today she is going to 160+...


It's possible she'll become annular after her ERC. But it's premature at this point, IMO, to definitively say she's going annular. I'll be sure to check back with you later on it though. :wink:
0 likes   

jaysonx
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 5:19 pm
Location: Mays Landing, NJ

#37 Postby jaysonx » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:33 am

Why is it that every time we have a hurricane over a category 2, someone always comes out of the woodwork and posts that it is going to be annular. :roll:
0 likes   

leonardo
Tropical Low
Tropical Low
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:48 pm

#38 Postby leonardo » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:37 am

annular seems to be term of the year, or at least the month, replacing RIC and SAL...

an annular storm as a very large eye and very limited, hardly any banding. Right now, this storm is about as far from annular as can be. Isabel was annular. this is not.
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4430
Age: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#39 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:42 am

jaysonx wrote:Why is it that every time we have a hurricane over a category 2, someone always comes out of the woodwork and posts that it is going to be annular. :roll:


Hey I just was in Mays landing this month...

And on the Cane front its only when thier going to be Annular...
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4430
Age: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#40 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:33 pm

Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote:
Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote:
Mac wrote:
DESTRUCTION5 wrote::Bump:

It was written on the friggin wall....


She's not annular. Not even close. She may become annular at some point. But not yet.


Ohh she's close...Won't be long now


No, she's not. She has a ragged eyewall. The strong convection isn't wrapped completely around the eye on IR. And the eye is small. We won't even have a hint at whether she will go annular until AFTER she goes through an ERC. To suggest she's going annular at this point is pure guesswork.


The core of this storm resembles a friggin Krispy Creme...As soon as the ERWC is done today she is going to 160+...


Almost there Mac...

It's possible she'll become annular after her ERC. But it's premature at this point, IMO, to definitively say she's going annular. I'll be sure to check back with you later on it though. :wink:
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MarioProtVI, TheHurricaneGod and 62 guests