2022 Indicators (SSTs/SAL/MSLP/Shear/Steering/Instability) and >Day 16 Models

[cycloneye]

All the discussions are about the MDR but other areas like the Caribbean Sea deserve atention regarding sst's.

 https://twitter.com/HurricaneManWx/status/1518392268591443970

[mixedDanilo.E]

I wouldn't put too much stock in the GFS and its enhanced MDR trades solution until proven otherwise.

The 90 day CFS agrees with the EPS. The CFS bands from the EQ to 7.5N/7.5N to 15N show very weak trades or even raw westerlies over the MDR east of 40W. Trades will be enhanced over the ECaribbean though, but that is to be expected.

https://i.imgur.com/uAQSThO.png

https://i.imgur.com/fNfqaM1.png

Anyone got the EPS long term forecast for the zonal wind anomalies?

[DorkyMcDorkface]

I wouldn't put too much stock in the GFS and its enhanced MDR trades solution until proven otherwise.

The 90 day CFS agrees with the EPS. The CFS bands from the EQ to 7.5N/7.5N to 15N show very weak trades or even raw westerlies over the MDR east of 40W. Trades will be enhanced over the ECaribbean though, but that is to be expected.

https://i.imgur.com/uAQSThO.png

https://i.imgur.com/fNfqaM1.png

Anyone got the EPS long term forecast for the zonal wind anomalies?

Here's the run from Thursday, although there will be a new one tomorrow evening so I can post that one as well if you'd like when it's available:

[skyline385]

I wouldn't put too much stock in the GFS and its enhanced MDR trades solution until proven otherwise.

The 90 day CFS agrees with the EPS. The CFS bands from the EQ to 7.5N/7.5N to 15N show very weak trades or even raw westerlies over the MDR east of 40W. Trades will be enhanced over the ECaribbean though, but that is to be expected.

https://i.imgur.com/uAQSThO.png

https://i.imgur.com/fNfqaM1.png

Anyone got the EPS long term forecast for the zonal wind anomalies?

Here's the run from Thursday, although there will be a new one tomorrow evening so I can post that one as well if you'd like when it's available:

Don't think you can put much weight into these long term forecasts. Just like the shear plots, these lose any validity after a few days as you can see the simulation gain equilibrium/stability with winds dying out everywhere. It's the same case with shear as well.

[Kingarabian]

Probably because each frame is a new addition to the 5 day average. My take from the 46 day EPS is that the MDR trade winds will weaken quite a bit after May1. 46 day EPS is noisy. But models are very good with their 850mb wind forecasts even 3-4 weeks out. 850mb winds can be affected by MJO/NAO/ERW's phases which models do very well in modeling.

[skyline385]

:uarrow: Probably because each frame is a new addition to the 5 day average. My take from the 46 day EPS is that the MDR trade winds will weaken quite a bit after May1. 46 day EPS is noisy. But models are very good with their 850mb wind forecasts even 3-4 weeks out. 850mb winds can be affected by MJO/NAO/ERW's phases which models do very well in modeling.

Here are a couple of examples from GEFS for the same timeframe from model runs a few days apart. This is an issue i have noticed only with ensembles as the different results start to blend together. The general result is consistent but you can see that as you go further into timeframes far away, the intensities of the anomalies began to die off. This difference in the intensities will be even more pronounced with model runs further apart than the ones i got from TT.

[NotSparta]

:uarrow: Probably because each frame is a new addition to the 5 day average. My take from the 46 day EPS is that the MDR trade winds will weaken quite a bit after May1. 46 day EPS is noisy. But models are very good with their 850mb wind forecasts even 3-4 weeks out. 850mb winds can be affected by MJO/NAO/ERW's phases which models do very well in modeling.

Here are a couple of examples from GEFS for two different timeframes from model runs a few days apart. This is an issue i have noticed only with ensembles as the different results start to blend together. The general result is consistent but you can see that as you go further into timeframes far away, the intensities of the anomalies began to die off. This difference in the intensities will be even more pronounced with model runs further apart than the ones i got from TT.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/a3dece21f650845a902345b640dcca44.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/dc6c57d3019cce0565c6fdc36c66be15.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/f36a3d05aca6ee601e8025455795bb9c.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/471ba5ec0fdd85255c9aa532c26c564a.jpg

This is the intended result. The ensemble plots just show the means of all the ensembles, and once you get far out you have more and more spread. Eventually things settle towards near normal and you get much less intense anomalies. If you were able to see the same frames for each individual ensemble you'd have anomalies still being intense far out for them, but in so many different ways that taking the mean washes things out

[skyline385]

:uarrow: Probably because each frame is a new addition to the 5 day average. My take from the 46 day EPS is that the MDR trade winds will weaken quite a bit after May1. 46 day EPS is noisy. But models are very good with their 850mb wind forecasts even 3-4 weeks out. 850mb winds can be affected by MJO/NAO/ERW's phases which models do very well in modeling.

Here are a couple of examples from GEFS for two different timeframes from model runs a few days apart. This is an issue i have noticed only with ensembles as the different results start to blend together. The general result is consistent but you can see that as you go further into timeframes far away, the intensities of the anomalies began to die off. This difference in the intensities will be even more pronounced with model runs further apart than the ones i got from TT.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/a3dece21f650845a902345b640dcca44.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/dc6c57d3019cce0565c6fdc36c66be15.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/f36a3d05aca6ee601e8025455795bb9c.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220425/471ba5ec0fdd85255c9aa532c26c564a.jpg

This is the intended result. The ensemble plots just show the means of all the ensembles, and once you get far out you have more and more spread. Eventually things settle towards near normal and you get much less intense anomalies. If you were able to see the same frames for each individual ensemble you'd have anomalies still being intense far out for them, but in so many different ways that taking the mean washes things out

Think you missed my original comment cause you are literally saying what i just did above - don't put too much weight in some of the 46 day EPS wind plots far out...

[cycloneye]

[mixedDanilo.E]

:crazyeyes:

https://i.imgur.com/0rzUbXc.png

Warming up a lot for sure.

[aspen]

That -NAO sure has made an impact.

CRW SSTAs:



OISST SSTAs:



Now we'll have to wait and see if the return to more normal trades will send the MDR back to below-average SSTAs, or keep them steady around +0.1-0.3 C.

[mixedDanilo.E]

That -NAO sure has made an impact.

CRW SSTAs:
https://i.imgur.com/B1GAOOY.png
https://i.imgur.com/okwhhkg.png

OISST SSTAs:
https://i.imgur.com/Ham4wf2.png
https://i.imgur.com/eUg40y5.png

Now we'll have to wait and see if the return to more normal trades will send the MDR back to below-average SSTAs, or keep them steady around +0.1-0.3 C.

Per the latest GFS zonal wind run it seems like the trades will be only a 1-2 day event. So I don’t see anything really keeping the warming from completely stopping from now.

[Kingarabian]

CFS has weak trades east of 40W but keeps them enhanced west of 40W. So it'll be an interesting to see. Should result in a warmer than normal MDR.

[Long John]

subtropics have been trending cooler since march [

[Shell Mound]

I’m expecting 2022 to have some unexpected limiting factor that becomes a major part of predictions for the following season. In 2020, it was an unusual typhoon-pumped TUTT during September (although that didn’t do anything to stop Oct-Nov). In 2021, it was a combo of unusual MJO-dependency and possibly the Atlantic Niño in Oct-Nov. Who knows what 2022 will bring. Triple-dip Ninas are already uncommon, and this will be the first season in the 2016-onwards active phase (which has behaved differently to 1995-2012) to take place during one.

By “limiting factor”, I mean hostile conditions that don’t stop the season from producing ridiculous NS numbers, but keeps down the quality of storms during certain parts of the year. If Maysak and Haishen never formed and recurved the way they did to enhance that TUTT, 2020 could’ve hit 200 ACE with Paulette and Rene becoming stronger, higher-ACE hurricanes. While the exact cause for 2021’s late-season slump is still kinda debated, whatever it was probably prevented an additional 10-20+ ACE from at least one Caribbean hurricane.

I remember one of the very casual, unscientific but nevertheless interesting ideas I've read from this forum earlier regarding 2010-13: it felt like the Atlantic was gradually "running out of steam", with each year being less impressive quality-wise. Some claimed this was due to the lack of an El Nino, which they say "recharges" the basin for subsequent years.

My own theory is that climate change has weakened and/or reversed the +AMO since 2010–13, but it’s an unpopular one on this site (I know, I am a contrarian ). Until we start seeing more hyperactive and/or quality-weighted seasons I will continue to argue that the -AMO has ended. Having a bunch of consecutive seasons basing much of their activity on marginal systems that wouldn’t have been classified a decade earlier does little to convince me that the +AMO is still around. Also, even if we are still in a +AMO, it means little for some areas if places such as metropolitan South Florida continue to dodge major bullets indefinitely.

[Category5Kaiju]

I’m expecting 2022 to have some unexpected limiting factor that becomes a major part of predictions for the following season. In 2020, it was an unusual typhoon-pumped TUTT during September (although that didn’t do anything to stop Oct-Nov). In 2021, it was a combo of unusual MJO-dependency and possibly the Atlantic Niño in Oct-Nov. Who knows what 2022 will bring. Triple-dip Ninas are already uncommon, and this will be the first season in the 2016-onwards active phase (which has behaved differently to 1995-2012) to take place during one.

By “limiting factor”, I mean hostile conditions that don’t stop the season from producing ridiculous NS numbers, but keeps down the quality of storms during certain parts of the year. If Maysak and Haishen never formed and recurved the way they did to enhance that TUTT, 2020 could’ve hit 200 ACE with Paulette and Rene becoming stronger, higher-ACE hurricanes. While the exact cause for 2021’s late-season slump is still kinda debated, whatever it was probably prevented an additional 10-20+ ACE from at least one Caribbean hurricane.

I remember one of the very casual, unscientific but nevertheless interesting ideas I've read from this forum earlier regarding 2010-13: it felt like the Atlantic was gradually "running out of steam", with each year being less impressive quality-wise. Some claimed this was due to the lack of an El Nino, which they say "recharges" the basin for subsequent years.

My own theory is that climate change has weakened and/or reversed the +AMO since 2010–13, but it’s an unpopular one on this site (I know, I am a contrarian ). Until we start seeing more hyperactive and/or quality-weighted seasons I will continue to argue that the -AMO has ended. Having a bunch of consecutive seasons basing much of their activity on marginal systems that wouldn’t have been classified a decade earlier does little to convince me that the +AMO is still around. Also, even if we are still in a +AMO, it means little for some areas if places such as metropolitan South Florida continue to dodge major bullets indefinitely.

I mean, I think someone may have said it before (cannot remember if it was here or on the AMO thread), but if we keep getting Cat 4+ landfalls on the CONUS during an -AMO period (assuming, that is, we are indeed in a -AMO period now), we may as well be in a +AMO period

[InfernoFlameCat]

Irma was an absolute monster and only weakened because it rode the northern coast of Cuba for 24 hours. There’s no real ambiguity there.

Even Matthew and Dorian. Those hurricanes could have easily hit Florida as major hurricanes, it just so happened that the steering currents present when they happened allowed them to miss the state. This is not a reliable pattern imho but rather chance/luck, and chance alone cannot dictate the actual threat/risk presented toward a given region over a longer period of time.

Exactly my point. Apart from very fortunate steering currents on approach to FL, we are dealing with multiple Cat 4/Cat 5s in a short period of time. Using Irma to question the vulnerability of the US coastline to Cat 4+ impacts is a poor choice imo

Besides, Irma made landfall with 931mb and Harvey with 937mb. You cannot just cast those out because they were "borderline cat 4" King James is correct IMO.

[crownweather]

That’s if one believes that all those “Cat-4+” hits were really Cat-4+. Michael and Ida were/are unambiguous. However, Harvey and Irma were marginal/debatable and even Laura has been questioned (by people such as Audrey2Katrina who know firsthand experiencers). Get rid of those three and we have only seen two undeniable Cat-4+ hits on the CONUS in the intervening seventeen years (2004–21) since Charley. By contrast, the seventeen-year -AMO period from 1970–87 likely featured as many or more Cat-4+ hits on the CONUS (besides Celia, arguably Eloise and Frederic were low-end Cat-4s at landfall). There is a lot of expert-worship on this forum—and by no means do I intend to denigrate those fine folks, but merely point out that they are not infallible!—and a tendency to regard “official” statements/data as “set in stone,” and by nature I am a contrarian who naturally opposes “group-think,” so I sense not only a right but also a duty to “go against the grain” on some topics. Anyway, my point still stands: on balance just about every season since 2010–13 has been heavily weighted toward quantity vs. quality, so until proven otherwise I am going to argue that we have been in a -AMO since then. Until we start seeing more quality-weighted seasons, that will be my default stand (and no offence intended toward those that hold otherwise).

You can't just "get rid of those three" and act like they didn't happen. Besides, the ones you dropped were most definitely Cat 4+ and had the wind damage to back it up too. I don't really know why you keep trying to say Laura wasn't a Cat 4, unless I'm missing something, some of the wind damage pics I've seen from Laura are worse than what I've seen from Ida (just wind damage, not including flood).

As far as "quality" seasons go, we've seen 6 consecutive above average seasons, likely to be 7 after this year, with 2 of those being hyperactive. Out of those 6 seasons, only two of them had less than 4 majors. What more could you want for "quality"? Every season setting a new record for ACE and majors? Not a single season during the -AMO phase from 1970 to 1994 had over 3 majors, and only 4 of those even had 3. You can't just base your argument over the number of Cat 4+ landfalls on the CONUS, especially when you just randomly throw some out for no reason.

There's no way we're in a -AMO

Also, I will add that in 2016, it was Matthew. In 2017, it was Maria. In 2018, it was Michael. In 2019, it was Dorian. In 2020, it was Iota. In 2021, it was Sam. Heck, I'll add 2015's Joaquin here. Notice how the strongest storm of each season has consecutively been a 155 mph+, very high end Cat 4 or solid Cat 5 storm. This, at least according to historical records, has never happened in so little time. Did the period from 1970-1994 feature this? I do not think so.

From a operational weather forecaster's perspective that has been forecasting tropical systems since the early to mid 1990s, the at least once per season major to very major hurricane landfall in either the Caribbean or on the US coast since 2015 is unprecedented to me. I've never had to pull out the catastrophic wording so many times in such a short period of time. Prior to 2015, I only used the catastrophic damage wording three times - Opal in 1995, Katrina in 2005 and Ike in 2008.

This, to me, says to me one of two possible things - (1) we are still very much in a +AMO phase in the Atlantic or (2) If we are in fact now in a -AMO phase, then the warming climate may actually be offsetting that -AMO leading it to act very much like a never ending +AMO.

[tolakram]

Apologies for having to remove a number of posts. I think it's best we change the topic back to 2022 indicators. Thanks.

[cycloneye]

 https://twitter.com/philklotzbach/status/1519009429537972224