Hurricane Otis' Wind Speed Increased by 115 mph in 24 Hours. That's Normal... Right?

[skookerasbil]

I'm laughing....

The OP is a rube.

A month ago, that huge hurricane in the Atlantic that went up and hit Nova Scotia was a Cat 5 in the Carribian.
The OP pointed out the same increase in wind speed in 24 hours....his head was exploding.

12 hours later, it had dropped to a Cat 3...lol..didn't hear shit from the OP.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So you are arguing that the conditions for rapid development could not have existed without AGW?

Because it's water temperature, wind shear and air moisture. That's it.

Yeah, he is a fool who goes bananas over a single storm.

 

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 852177

Rapidly Intensifying Hurricanes | Climate Central

Rapid intensification, usually found in major hurricanes, has likely increased in the Atlantic basin since 1970 and may become more common in a warming world.

www.climatecentral.org

View attachment 852178

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2020-11-15-atlantic-hurricane-season-ten-storms-rapidly-intensify

View attachment 852180
"Recent increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates"

Recent increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates - Nature Communications

Tropical cyclones that rapidly intensify are associated with the highest forecast errors and the strongest storms. This study shows that the proportion of tropical cyclones that rapidly intensify recently increased in the Atlantic basin, and that this trend is likely due to anthropogenic forcing.

www.nature.com

Gosh you ignored all the evidence of no increase in storminess, frequency and landfalling rates I posted to wet your pants over a MODELED based paper.

....Here, we utilize two observational datasets to calculate 24-hour wind speed changes over the period 1982–2009. We compare the observed trends to natural variability in bias-corrected, high-resolution, global coupled model experiments that accurately simulate the climatological distribution of tropical cyclone intensification.

bolding mine

The official data doesn't agree:

There has been an actual DECREASE in the number of major hurricanes in recent decade and in cyclone energy.

and frequency,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Stop ignoring the official databases.

 

[toobfreak]

Welcome to the new normal.

An occurrence of ONE does not a pattern make.

Much less "the new normal."

 

[Sunsettommy]

An occurrence of ONE does not a pattern make.

Much less "the new normal."

And it doesn't matter anyway since it is just a rare weather event of that magnitude that was borne in a time and place that was unusually favorable for it to grow powerful.

Now it is gone and the world goes on.

 

[Crick]

Gosh you ignored all the evidence of no increase in storminess, frequency and landfalling rates I posted to wet your pants over a MODELED based paper.

The topic of this thread and its conversations is rapid storm intensification. Nothing you posted applies to that topic. I posted data which did but you have ignored it. Let us know when you actually wish to discuss the thread topic.

 

[ding]

The topic of this thread and its conversations is rapid storm intensification. Nothing you posted applies to that topic. I posted data which did but you have ignored it. Let us know when you actually wish to discuss the thread topic.

So you are arguing that those conditions could not have existed unless the planet warmed up because of AGW?

Is that correct?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The topic of this thread and its conversations is rapid storm intensification. Nothing you posted applies to that topic. I posted data which did but you have ignored it. Let us know when you actually wish to discuss the thread topic.

My you lie so causally as the paper you posted is based on a MODEL

I am on topic it is the replies is based on the official data is giving you problems because you have misleading claim to promote.

 

[Crick]

So you are arguing that those conditions could not have existed unless the planet warmed up because of AGW?

Is that correct?

As usual, no.

The primary cause is elevated SSTs. Global warming has elevated SSTs. Ergo, global warming is increasing the incidence of rapid storm intensification.

 

[ding]

As usual, no.

The primary cause is elevated SSTs. Global warming has elevated SSTs. Ergo, global warming is increasing the incidence of rapid storm intensification.

So in other words it would be perfectly normal for an interglacial period which has elevated SST's. Which means this would be normal behavior for interglacial periods, right?

 

[otto105]

Welcome to the new normal.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/weather/hurricane-otis-rapid-intensification-climate/index.html

In our new climate reality yes.


Now queue the sun spot denier crowd of fuckups.

 

[otto105]

So in other words it would be perfectly normal for an interglacial period which has elevated SST's. Which means this would be normal behavior for interglacial periods, right?

What correlation can you prove to our current climate condition?

 

[ding]

What correlation can you prove to our current climate condition?

That the planet is in an interglacial period which is in the middle of an ice age which began ~3 million years ago.

 

[Crick]

Welcome to the new normal.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/weather/hurricane-otis-rapid-intensification-climate/index.html

The OP's article was not the only work done on this topic

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/138/10/2010mwr3378.1.xml

Rapid intensification and the bimodal distribution of tropical cyclone intensity - Nature Communications

Tropical cyclones rarely achieve high intensities gradually. Here, the authors show that rapid intensification is relevant not only to short-term weather forecasting, but also to the relationship between tropical cyclones and climate.

www.nature.com

A potential explanation for the global increase in tropical cyclone rapid intensification - Nature Communications

This study shows intensification rates of tropical cyclones around the world have significantly increased, and environmental conditions around storms are becoming more favorable. Human-caused climate change is contributing to both trends.

www.nature.com

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.3744

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013435

 

[Sunsettommy]

A new Tropical storm in the area of where Otis developed isn't coming close to what Otis did at all.

Crisis averted Crick passes out.

LOL

 

[Crick]

A new Tropical storm in the area of where Otis developed isn't coming close to what Otis did at all.

Crisis averted Crick passes out.

LOL

It astounds me how much difficulty the lot of you are having understanding that the OP and this thread is attempting to communicate.

 

[ding]

It astounds me how much difficulty the lot of you are having understanding that the OP and this thread is attempting to communicate.

That this is normal for an interglacial period?

No, I got that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It astounds me how much difficulty the lot of you are having understanding that the OP and this thread is attempting to communicate.

It is astounding to everyone else how much difficulty YOU have over the understanding of a SINGLE storm that has happened before in past history.

You ignored abundant evidence of Tropical storm/Hurricane data I gave you HERE LINK because you are wedded to a cult belief of a doomsday future thus by reflex reject official data when it destroys your delusional belief in favor of a speculative MODELLED paper while YOU ignored this long-standing understanding at post 232 LINK

"Meteorologists have long known that favorable environmental conditions, including very warm surface waters and minimal wind shear, can generate rapid intensification and bring a cyclone to category 4 or 5 strength with sustained winds of 130 mph or higher. In their new paper, Judt and his co-authors referred to that mode of rapid intensification as a marathon because the storm keeps intensifying symmetrically at a moderate pace while the primary vortex steadily amplifies."

 

[Crick]

It is astounding to everyone else how much difficulty YOU have over the understanding of a SINGLE storm that has happened before in past history.

It is not the single storm. It is the trend of increasing instances of rapid intensification that the warming of the world's oceans - particularly the extreme warming that has taken place in the last year - will produce and which will, by this mechanism, lead to more intense and less predictable storms.

You ignored abundant evidence of Tropical storm/Hurricane data I gave you

I did not ignore it. You have presented it before but it had NO BEARING on the topic under discussion and I told you so. NONE of the data you presented said anything about rapid intensification or the conditions that produce it.

because you are wedded to a cult belief of a doomsday future thus by reflex reject official data when it destroys your delusional belief in favor of a speculative MODELLED paper while YOU ignored this long-standing understanding at post 232 LINK

That is false.

"Meteorologists have long known that favorable environmental conditions, including very warm surface waters and minimal wind shear, can generate rapid intensification and bring a cyclone to category 4 or 5 strength with sustained winds of 130 mph or higher. In their new paper, Judt and his co-authors referred to that mode of rapid intensification as a marathon because the storm keeps intensifying symmetrically at a moderate pace while the primary vortex steadily amplifies."

Interesting quote, but it refutes nothing I have posted and provides no support for any of your opposing claims.

 

[ding]

It is not the single storm. It is the trend of increasing instances of rapid intensification that the warming of the world's oceans - particularly the extreme warming that has taken place in the last year - will produce and which will, by this mechanism, lead to more intense and less predictable storms.

I did not ignore it. You have presented it before but it had NO BEARING on the topic under discussion and I told you so. NONE of the data you presented said anything about rapid intensification or the conditions that produce it.

That is false.

Interesting quote, but it refutes nothing I have posted and provides no support for any of your opposing claims.

So that doesn't happen in every interglacial period?