Moderator: S2k Moderators
Category5Kaiju wrote:Also, take a look at these:
2017 EPAC
2008 EPAC
1998 EPAC
Then look at what the Atlantic did afterwards.
USTropics wrote:Category5Kaiju wrote:USTropics wrote:
You're 100% correct, typically EPAC seasons that feature higher percentile ACE years (+180 ACE) correlate to lower ACE values in the Atlantic:
https://i.imgur.com/wn9aEPY.png
However, there is more of a correlation between high ACE values in both the EPAC + WPAC comparative to the Atlantic:
https://i.imgur.com/BQSfLwg.png
We're not currently seeing that type of activity in the WPAC, and while the EPAC ACE is high for mid-July (~40 compared to 22 for 1991-2020 climo period), storm count is at the climatological mean (5th storm typically forms July 15th in the EPAC). As you stated, EPAC would have to continue to churn ACE to the tune of 180+ (so 140 more ACE) to start to see the correlation between lower ACE values in the Atlantic. Typically we would also see some type of driving force to substantiate this (such as ENSO state). You can see this has the highest correlation below with ONI plot for ASO of each year:
https://imgur.com/qQYuGIv.png
Given the relative higher latitude position of the ITCZ compared to previous seasons, once the background state in the Atlantic turns more favorable, these waves (or storms in the case of Bonnie) that are continuously crossing over Central America and into the EPAC to act as seeds will begin to lift more north into the Caribbean or North Atlantic.
I published these as interactive charts if you want to see specific values:
EPAC + ATL ACE: - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... nteractive
EPAC + ATL + WPAC ACE - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... nteractive
EPAC + ATL ACE + ONI (ASO) - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... nteractive
Very good analysis there USTropics! Yeah, what I find particularly odd here is how the EPAC remains active but the WPAC is very quiet. In fact, it's looking very likely that we'll see 6 total NSs in the EPAC soon while the WPAC remains quiet with no strong model backing for any major system there anytime soon. Even in unusually active years like 2011, the WPAC had considerable amounts of activity that had happened and were happening as the EPAC was churning up storms in the June/July months. At least this year, there definitely seems to be a disconnect between EPAC and WPAC activity.
I would have to dig a bit further into this, but given how both 2021 and 2022 featured extremely anomalous rising motion over the Eastern Atlantic/Western Africa in June (see charts below) and both seasons have exhibited active Junes/July in the EPAC, I would say that has some correlation (would need to look at other seasons with -VP anomalies and + EPAC June/July activity):
https://i.imgur.com/ZWJNn31.png
https://i.imgur.com/cnmYB3S.png
Even in the suppressed phase, the ITCZ and wave train has remained convectively active:
https://i.imgur.com/orJLDqz.jpg
InfernoFlameCat wrote:Due to the difference in the subtropic pool and tropic SST's, I believe that atmospheric conditions will play a greater role in determining a cyclone's strength rather than water temperatures compared to previous years. I especially think Dmin and Dmax will have a more pronounced effect on cyclones than when compared to previous years. A good analogue to what the storms will do in my opinion will be like 2019, when both Dorian and Lorenzo became Cat 5 during Dmax. (Especially Lorenzo.)
skyline385 wrote:Long range EPS cyclones from today, everything seems to be in play beginning August
toad strangler wrote:I personally don’t put an ounce of stock in ECMWF anything. How could anyone given it’s awful recent history in the tropics of being blind sometimes 48 hours out? Let alone 45 days?
But it’s one of the big globals and a tool nonetheless. So it must be in the conversation. I suppose
The signals are on the table. That’s what the longer range models are decent at. Activity will come. Never forget 2017!
SFLcane wrote:toad strangler wrote:I personally don’t put an ounce of stock in ECMWF anything. How could anyone given it’s awful recent history in the tropics of being blind sometimes 48 hours out? Let alone 45 days?
But it’s one of the big globals and a tool nonetheless. So it must be in the conversation. I suppose
The signals are on the table. That’s what the longer range models are decent at. Activity will come. Never forget 2017!
I here ya, 2017 had a much, much warmer Atlantic than we have this year. Just saying...
SFLcane wrote:toad strangler wrote:I personally don’t put an ounce of stock in ECMWF anything. How could anyone given it’s awful recent history in the tropics of being blind sometimes 48 hours out? Let alone 45 days?
But it’s one of the big globals and a tool nonetheless. So it must be in the conversation. I suppose
The signals are on the table. That’s what the longer range models are decent at. Activity will come. Never forget 2017!
I here ya, 2017 had a much, much warmer Atlantic than we have this year. Just saying...
captainbarbossa19 wrote:SFLcane wrote:toad strangler wrote:I personally don’t put an ounce of stock in ECMWF anything. How could anyone given it’s awful recent history in the tropics of being blind sometimes 48 hours out? Let alone 45 days?
But it’s one of the big globals and a tool nonetheless. So it must be in the conversation. I suppose
The signals are on the table. That’s what the longer range models are decent at. Activity will come. Never forget 2017!
I here ya, 2017 had a much, much warmer Atlantic than we have this year. Just saying...
That could actually make this year more dangerous for land. If disturbances fail to develop over the tropical Atlantic, they may find more favorable conditions further west like the Caribbean and Gulf where water temperatures are very warm. Something like this would be similar to 2020 or 2005 in terms of where the majority of activity took place.
toad strangler wrote:I personally don’t put an ounce of stock in ECMWF anything. How could anyone given it’s awful recent history in the tropics of being blind sometimes 48 hours out? Let alone 45 days?
But it’s one of the big globals and a tool nonetheless. So it must be in the conversation. I suppose
The signals are on the table. That’s what the longer range models are decent at. Activity will come. Never forget 2017!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 154 guests
