No Hurricane Damage Yet, but Trouble Could Be Brewing
As predicted, the Atlantic hurricane season of 2010 has been stormy. To date, there have already been six hurricanes, and four of these — Danielle, Earl, Igor and Julia — reached massive category 4 status for a time (top sustained winds between 135 and 150 miles per hour). Fortunately, these powerhouse hurricanes have not impacted the mainland United States in any major way. Earl made a swipe at the East Coast in early September, but the strongest winds were well offshore, to the east of the center. The offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico have been spared any significant impact as well.
However, conditions are brewing in the Caribbean Sea that may signal the approach of a hurricane somewhere in the southeastern United States around the end of this month. Additionally, Tropical Storm Matthew is moving into Central America tonight. This storm will likely weaken over Central America this weekend and die.
A full-blown La Nina has blossomed in the Pacific Ocean. La Nina’s cooler waters have muffled the strong high altitude winds over the Atlantic that made last season, when there were only three hurricanes, so quiet. The Atlantic Ocean continues to be warmer than usual, creating more fuel. A steady train of tropical weather disturbances continues to migrate off the coast of Africa and plow westward. As they steadily traverse the Atlantic, they feed on the warm, humid air over the bathtub-like temperatures of the tropical Atlantic Ocean and grow stronger.
Hurricanes may have awesome power, but they have no control over their own destiny. A hurricane is imbedded in the ocean of air that is our atmosphere. It is this ocean of air that sweeps the hurricane along in its ever-changing current that eventually determines where and when a hurricane will or will not strike. The wind currents of the atmosphere are impossible to measure perfectly, even with today’s equipment — there are always going to be errors in our readings about how the ocean of air is behaving. Small errors in our initial measurements of the atmosphere can contribute to large errors in forecasts many days into the future.
Computer models are used to simulate the atmosphere’s behavior. These mathematical weather simulators have limitations. Although brilliant creations, they do not incorporate all of the subtleties that make the atmosphere work. In addition, the model predictions are highly dependent on how well we measure the initial state of the atmosphere. If we don’t measure all the significant atmospheric disturbances to start with, the models are immediately handicapped and will make inaccurate predictions. As a result, the models sometimes predict storms that never happen. Large and dangerous hurricanes have been generated by the models as much as 10 to 15 days into the future that turn out to be “computer dreams.”
One element we look for in the models is the persistence of a prediction. If a model predicts a storm over and over again from one forecast to the next, the possibility of it actually happening grows. If a hurricane is being forecast from the same model over a number of consecutive days, this is significant. It indicates there must be a disturbance in the atmosphere that is repeatedly being captured by our measurement, and is significant enough that the model can predict its future evolution. This persistence of prediction is enough to indicate a degree of credibility.
This superb article points out the uncertainty of computer models of extremely complex systems. People who have worked with complex models, if candid, must be as humble as this expert, and say, “sometimes we just don’t know.” It also repeats what we know; when a monster is spotted on the way, smart people flee. And, sadly, it exhibits the stupidity of our national energy policy: virtually all of our oil rigs sit on one bull’s eye. When the sea rages, they must shut down, and their crews flee for their lives. However, consider thousands of future rigs, billions in investment, which are machines designed to catch the wind, off shore wind generators. After the storm, most oil rigs are promptly re manned and start again. What would 4,000 wind generators look like after a cat 5 storm passed over them? When would we get the lights back on?
When Andrew, a maximum monster hit below Miami, two nukes at Turkey Point were hit square in the nose. Per procedure, they shut down, to be on the safe side, but shook off the blow, and came right back up, to aid the desperate need for reliable juice in Miami. Now imagine a flattened city, with no power, for two years.
There is a reason man stopped using sailing ships: weather can be cruel to the stupid.
No need to worry about the damage to 4000 wind generators after a Cat 5, after a storm passes the weather is usually fairly mild and calm so the wind generators would be useless even if undamaged. Depending on stochastic generating system requires a deep tolerance for long (weeks, months) blackouts.
A storm would be a problem but this late in the season, I’d start working on whether the La Nina conditions would increase the fog in the Houston Ship Channel, which slows shipping volume and within a week can raise gas prices.
JKB is, of course, correct. But I have learned to avoid a discussion of stochastic systems, as most readers glaze over, and one discovers that I screwed up the calcs. The truth is that wind generators only work about 20% of the time, in the best areas, in all normal weather. Thermal power plants run wide open all the time, except for outages, or when the load vanishes, e.g. a city shut down for a hurricane. The great comprehensible equalizer is money, your light bill, or your price at the pump. This covers La Nina fog, hurricane damage to off shore wind generators, and the summed stupidities coming out of Washington D.C. and Wall Street. To keep life sustaining energy cheap, we must diversify our assets, like our investments. Drill all over America, and its coasts for oil and gas, dig for its coal and uranium, and insist that captains in the Houston ship channel remain sober. If the good people in Nantucket like Yankee wind mills, and willing to pay a lot more for their juice, and suffer long black outs, so be it.
But I vote for JKB.
No Hurricane Damage Yet…????
Right about now the residents of Newfoundland would heartily disagree. Hurricane IGOR removed a lot of roads and bridges for starters….
Big deal!
What`s your point? Every season is ripe for nasty storms. If one hits a populated area, we`ll deal with it just as we deal with yearly tornadoes, mudslides, floods, heat, hail, earthquakes and democraps….
We will need 2 hurricanes a week hitting the U.S. to meet the NOAA predictions for 2010, if I’m not mistaken.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!!
Same crap from the eco crowd every year.
In case you have forgotten, hurricanes have been happening since long befroe man was around, so what? If people shoose to live in these regions, they know and should accept the consequences. Life is tough, deal with it.
Try passing a law against hurricanes, or try taking them for the damage they cause, let’s see how that works out.
Ryan Maue at Florida State University is of a different opinion: ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy – a comprehensive measure) is at a near record low at this point in the season – lowest since 1977. ACE aggregates intensity, length and time of a hurricane. And since only one quarter of the season remains, and since Sea Surface Temperatures in the Carribean are not high, this suggests a weak close to the season.
These models are caca. The folks think that they can solve n-dimensional non linear differential equations with undefinable boundary conditions. Great for study– perhaps they will work in the next century–if ever. God would have a hard time.