SST/Intensity Relationship...a very good read.

[mempho]

I apologize if this has already been posted, but it is a very informative read for any of you that have not seen this. Please discuss if you'd like.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/05/10/major-hurricanes-more-but-not-stronger/

[terstorm1012]

Interesting read. Thank you.

Now...I may be confusing things (and to be honest I've stayed out of the climate debate), but I could have sworn I read something earlier this year that says rising SSTs will not make more 'canes but make the ones that form stronger.

I know this area of research is new and has some poor data sets to work with, so this may be why I'm confused.

[Stratusxpeye]

Interesting read thank you. 83 deg F is the threshold for a major. And nothing over that temp effects the Strength of the storm, only other atmosphere conditions will effect it. Hmmm. Dunno where to stand on this one..

[mempho]

Interesting read. Thank you.

Now...I may be confusing things (and to be honest I've stayed out of the climate debate), but I could have sworn I read something earlier this year that says rising SSTs will not make more 'canes but make the ones that form stronger.

I know this area of research is new and has some poor data sets to work with, so this may be why I'm confused.

I think what they are saying is that there will be more majors, not more named storms per se. The 83 degree threshold is almost a requirement for a major cane to form; however, temperatures exceeding 83F do not make much of a difference in intensity. At that point, other factors like shear make the difference.

That said, if more hurricanes become major, there probably will be a few more Cat 5s...just a statistical extrapolation. Bottom line is that Katrina, Rita, and Wilma did not become superstorms because of high SSTs...once you reach 83F SST is not much of a factor.

[terstorm1012]

Interesting read. Thank you.

Now...I may be confusing things (and to be honest I've stayed out of the climate debate), but I could have sworn I read something earlier this year that says rising SSTs will not make more 'canes but make the ones that form stronger.

I know this area of research is new and has some poor data sets to work with, so this may be why I'm confused.

I think what they are saying is that there will be more majors, not more named storms per se. The 83 degree threshold is almost a requirement for a major cane to form; however, temperatures exceeding 83F do not make much of a difference in intensity. At that point, other factors like shear make the difference.

That said, if more hurricanes become major, there probably will be a few more Cat 5s...just a statistical extrapolation. Bottom line is that Katrina, Rita, and Wilma did not become superstorms because of high SSTs...once you reach 83F SST is not much of a factor.

OK Gotcha, NOW it makes sense. So the water could be 98 degrees and not make much of a difference....ok.

[curtadams]

This is bad. They provide very poor statistics for the claim that "temps above 83F make no difference" - they just put up a messy scatterplot and claim it. They need the regression, at least, and a power analysis since it's noisy data over a narrow range of the independent variable. Basically, they make the (common) mistake of assuming a relationship not significant by Fisher's arbitrary cutoff means no relationship *exists*, which is very wrong. Further, using the data to define a cutoff biases their estimate for effects over 83 degrees downward (the cutoff has to be a temp with spuriously high windspeeds in order to be a cutoff) and they need some kind of Monte Carlo to estimate that effect. So they're using an inadequate evaluation of a biased data set.

[GeneratorPower]

This is bad. They provide very poor statistics for the claim that "temps above 83F make no difference" - they just put up a messy scatterplot and claim it. They need the regression, at least, and a power analysis since it's noisy data over a narrow range of the independent variable. Basically, they make the (common) mistake of assuming a relationship not significant by Fisher's arbitrary cutoff means no relationship *exists*, which is very wrong. Further, using the data to define a cutoff biases their estimate for effects over 83 degrees downward (the cutoff has to be a temp with spuriously high windspeeds in order to be a cutoff) and they need some kind of Monte Carlo to estimate that effect. So they're using an inadequate evaluation of a biased data set.

Very good analysis. I was thinking something similar but I like the way you put it.

[terstorm1012]

This is bad. They provide very poor statistics for the claim that "temps above 83F make no difference" - they just put up a messy scatterplot and claim it. They need the regression, at least, and a power analysis since it's noisy data over a narrow range of the independent variable. Basically, they make the (common) mistake of assuming a relationship not significant by Fisher's arbitrary cutoff means no relationship *exists*, which is very wrong. Further, using the data to define a cutoff biases their estimate for effects over 83 degrees downward (the cutoff has to be a temp with spuriously high windspeeds in order to be a cutoff) and they need some kind of Monte Carlo to estimate that effect. So they're using an inadequate evaluation of a biased data set.

oy vey! I shoulda paid more attention in statistics class!

But yes I do see what you mean. The data set may be off.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I agree. I think your analysis pretty much nailed it. I hate what I call "messy science", (stating something is fact when you can not clearly determine it as such) and that article seems to have at least of couple glaring examples of such.