Hurricane Kyle caused a rainy and blustery night, but apparently “no major problems,” in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The brunt of the storm, such as it was, hit southwestern Nova Scotia, knocking “lots of trees down, power lines down” but otherwise causing little damage. At the storm’s height, some 40,000 customers lost electricity; that number is already down to 14,000. Alan Sullivan writes: “Nova Scotia is a stormy place, and this was nothing out of the ordinary. It is quite common for this outstretched piece of land to catch a dying tropical cyclone, but the winter storms are worse.”
[UPDATE: In a hot-off-the-presses post, Dr. Jeff Masters suggests that Kyle probably wasn't a hurricane at landfall: "Kyle did generate one hurricane force wind gust -- 77 mph at Baccaro Point, on the extreme southernmost point of Nova Scotia -- but it is questionable whether it really was a hurricane over Nova Scotia. Kyle weakened dramatically right at landfall. ... Even though Yarmouth was on the strong (right) side of Kyle where the highest winds should have been, the airport measured top winds of only 30 mph, gusting to 50 mph. Not even minor damage was reported there, according to news reports."]
Meanwhile, the National Hurricane Center has initiated advisories on Subtropical Storm Laura, out in the middle of nowhere in the North Atlantic. This is a “fish” storm, a threat only to shipping interests, so there’s not much to say, aside from debating whether its designation constitutes “count-padding.” Unsurprisingly, Sullivan says yes: “This is the most dubious call of the year for NHC, perhaps trying to salvage the broken forecast of a much more active season.” Just as unsurprisingly, I’m skeptical of that conclusion.
If the NHC wanted to pad the storm count, surely they would have given a name to the subtropical-ish system that made landfall in North Carolina a few days ago, about which Sullivan himself wrote: “I won’t grumble if NHC designates this hybrid cyclone.” If the NHC had done that, “Laura” would be “Marco” today. But the NHC didn’t do that, which, it seems to me, deflates the conspiracy theory a bit. Laura may be “marginal,” but surely reasonable people can disagree on such subjective close calls, particularly when there is now monolithic pattern of always erring in one particular direction.
In any case, for what it’s worth — and I’m on record, repeatedly, as stating that seasonal hurricane forecasts are overhyped and overrated — the consensus was that we’d have between 11 and 16 named storms, between 6 and 9 hurricanes, and between 2 and 5 major hurricanes. Right now, with two months left in the season, we’re sitting at 12, 6 and 3. So, if the season ended today (and it does appear to be winding down, climatology notwithstanding), we’d be just at the low end of the predictions, and just above the long-term climatological averages (9.6, 5.9 and 2.3).
Also, Dr. William Gray — the dean of seasonal hurricane forecasting, and, incidentally, a global warming skeptic — predicted an ACE of 150; we’re sitting at 120 (the average is 102). All things considered, I’d say it’s at least premature, and arguably just downright erroneous, to talk about “broken forecast[s] of a much more active season.” Marginally erroneous forecasts of a slightly more active season, maybe.
P.S. As an aside, I don’t think the “another weak season!” meme is going to get much traction, after a year in which we’ve seen, according to Wikipedia, 28 landfalls, 852 deaths (and counting), more than $50 billion of damage, and a string of 7 consecutive named storms hitting the U.S. mainland (Cristobal, Dolly, Edouard, Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike). Of course, those aren’t really legitimate measures of seasonal activity, meteorologically speaking. But as a practical matter, nobody’s going to buy the “weak season” argument in 2008. I’d be better, I think, for the skeptics to stick with playing defense against the “it’s all caused by global warming” meme, and not try to advance the competing, and equally misleading, “it was a weak season, which disproves global warming” meme.





PJM Home

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
2 Comments
1. Alan Sullivan:Brendan, you might have added context by quoting more than one sentence of my remarks about the North Carolina storm. I would have designated that, and not Laura, because the former was about to hit an unwarned coastline.
NHC is not a scientific agency. Sometimes the need to alert the public should outweigh the concern for proper scientific categorization.
BTW, the NC storm retained a highly banded structure on radar far inland, which indicates a name would have been fairly well justified.
Oct 1, 2008 - 6:23 am 2. Steve Sadlov:The real weather news will be this winter. Actually, it will start before winter, although, for all intents and purposes, conditions will be those of winter. I hope I am wrong, but that is my prediction.
Oct 1, 2008 - 5:28 pm