On 10/29/2025 at 4:16 PM, GaWx said:

 Hey Roger,

  I’ve noticed what seemed like a (slight?) partial correlation between high sunspot months (say 130+) and low ACE with possibly a couple of weeks of lag. One hypothesis is that the increased solar energy heats up the upper atmosphere more than the lower, which if true could lower instability in the tropics.

Is there actually increased solar energy during the peaks of the cycle?    From all I've seen those peaks are the peak of *activity* (magnetic fluctuations resulting in sunspots), not actually energy peaks.   Wouldn't the actual solar energy received by the earth be *lower* during periods of peak sunspot activity?   (Given that a sunspot is a "cool spot" where less energy is being output)

I know there are more CMEs during the peaks, resulting in more-frequent aurora peaks; but it seems like that would be just noise in what might otherwise be a general lower level of overall energy from the sun.

Not an expert on the subject - just putting out a "seems to me" theory.

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

In one school of philosophy ... this is actually a good thing -

"Climate change inaction costs millions of lives each year, report warns"

( https://phys.org/news/2025-11-climate-inaction-millions-year.html )

It's always been about population.  Too many human beings.   It's callous perhaps to put it in such terms, but reality and math and logic ...?  they are dispassionately true like that.  When there are 8 and some odd billion in population pumping out Industrial volatile chemistry as exhaust... it overwhelms the Earth's physical processes.  If our species is going to survive by producing all that exhaust, there needs to be far fewer of us.  It's interesting that  we are being forced to make a choice between inaction and death, vs action when part of that action requiring less births/controlling population.  Either way, less people

The population correction is already begun, folks - it's just not striking everyone's streets at the same time. 

Some of which is happening unwittingly, by the way.  It is now either too socially disadvantageous for younger child rearing, or there's gamete potency problems manifesting in general male population - the latter is cited/scienced.  Birthing rates are empirically dropping at an alarming rate around the world.  Whether it is socioeconomic, environmental, or some aspect of both ( probably both..) it seems the ultimatum cannot be escaped.  And while that spectrum of causes isn't related to climate change, exactly, again ... too much population.

 

And yet worldwide life expectancy continues to rise.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/805060/life-expectancy-at-birth-worldwide/

Something doesn't jive.   Methinks it's the information in these "reports".

(So much for the "good thing" of mass die-off)

14 hours ago, TriPol said:

Hats off to Jamaica for taking Melissa on the chin like that. There aren’t hundreds or thousands dead like I feared. 

Unfortunately the end toll will probably come in that high.   It's early.

Saving grace is they had lots of warning.   However unlike the US most people just don't have the ability to evacuate, at least in terms of going somewhere hundreds of miles away in another state that's safe.

16 hours ago, Hotair said:

And add to the fact that this isn’t a large country with thousands of roofing companies willing to travel to a disaster area.  The workforce there is limited as are the tools (cranes, materials, etc).  Many of those places will not be rebuilt for at least 3 years or longer.   
 

Now also consider that the percentage of homes covered by insurance in Jamaica is roughly under 5%.   

Yeah very sad situation there; and good points about being an island.   Saving grace perhaps is that the most-built areas of the island - around Kingston - was not as hard hit.   But yeah as you say it's not like Katrina etc. where people can be driving there from other states to help with cleanup and rebuild; it's a much harder thing on an island like that, even for people that have a vested interest.

I would encourage everyone to donate some $ - there are already charities collecting funds for use for Jamaica.

15 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Must have been some poor group of vessels in the path of it? 

Reading up - it does seem like a vessel or two - including S.S. Phemius and the schooner Abundance - that got caught in it and I guess got accurate enough measurements.   Poor sods.   Though it seems like they had to do a lot of extrapolating to come up with the 78-hour number.

50 minutes ago, FPizz said:

The ones above it on the list encountered land too or they could have been longer as well.  It's what happens

Nah - most of those went below Cat 5 before being affected by land - e.g. the other 4 besides Melissa over the last two years.

What I'm wondering about is how they knew the 1932 was Cat 5 for so long.   We didn't have satellite or even radar back then; nor did we have C130's to do fly-throughs.    Can't do post-hoc damage analysis on the water.   So how did they know?

17 minutes ago, adk said:

Two things - one, you are likely seeing a lot shells. Everything inside is shredded and there is no confidence the shell isn't damaged. Two, what isn't / wasn't concrete is gone. So you might be seeing 30% of the pre-existing structures. 

Yeah this.   Despite having the look of most-structure-still-standing - I would venture those videos are showing well over 90% actual destruction.   When you include the cost of cleanup - it may cost more to clear-out-and-rebuild those areas than it cost to build them in the first place.

Yeah wow - rapid re-formation:

4 minutes ago, GaWx said:

We’ll see. There has been video of catastrophic floodwaters coming off the mountains this afternoon in many places in Jamaica including Mandeville.

 Hurricane Mitch, the 2nd deadliest Atlantic basin hurricane on record, caused 11-18K fatalities, mainly from catastrophic flooding and landslides due to epic rainfall amounts.

Well - Mitch made landfall with 80 mph winds; Melissa of course was over double that.   Orders of magnitude more damage from 180 mph wind.

26 minutes ago, RaleighNC said:

There is no other place to build there, and Helene's flood was orders of magnitude bigger than any prior flood, so it reached areas that had been assumed to be safe. Much like what is about to happen to Jamaica. 

 

And landslides happen where you never think a flood will happen. To say Helene didnt have any "wiped off the map" damage as one poster said, is just wrong. Ask Chimney Rock and Bat Cave and Minneapolis and any number of other communities. When the mountainside comes down, everything is gone.

I pray for these poor people in the way of this one. 

Here's the thing - I've driven through Chimney Rock, which was probably the worst-hit place, just a few months ago.   Roughly half the downtown was wiped out.   But generally that's about it; and it's a quite-small downtown actually.   I have relatives that live right there in Lake Lure, and they - along with about 95% of the area - were relatively unaffected, aside from lost power, some downed trees, and some road washouts.   The vast majority of structures were generally unaffected.  You see the spectacular devastation of the areas hardest hit and assume that's the majority of places, but it's not; it's media selection bias.

Contrast with the eye wall of a hurricane - of this force - which will wipe out almost everything; leaving almost no structure at least undamaged, and completely destroying a high percentage.

Part of the reason I say that is due to the poverty of Jamaica - they just don't have the hurricane wind standards that the US does.

(Just to reiterate - not trying to understate the fact that there will be massive rain-flood damage; I'm just asserting that I think the wind damage will likely be worse, along with the storm surge flooding.)

Edit to add: the "wiped off the map" verbiage was mine - but I specifically qualified it with "large areas"; what I meant was for instance miles-wide swaths.   In Chimney Rock's case, for instance, the swath was roughly 300-500 ft wide (you can see on google maps).    Melissa's eye wall is about 300x that wide.

Definite eye breakdown / contraction going on.

Just now, gallopinggertie said:

Not sure about this. In the geology video I linked to, the geologist actually compares Jamaica during Melissa to the Blue Ridge Mountains in Helene…and he says that this situation is actually worse. Jamaica’s river valleys are smaller but more prone to landslides because the rock is actively being uplifted by a fault, making the rocky slopes steeper and more fragile/prone to crumbling. The rock itself collapses - versus in the Blue Ridge, the slides are soil and debris. Also he says that the rivers in Jamaica are really large in terms of flow, despite not being very long. 

True enough - I wasn't really addressing landslides, just flooding water volume.   In that respect yeah - the landslides will certainly be worse.

River flow is a direct function of land area X rainfall rate/level right?   While the normal flow might be higher on a per-land-area-served basis; presumably that's due to Jamaica getting more rain during normal periods than NC; given an equal amount of heavy rainfall though they both would flow the same of course.   

That said - one key difference here may simply be the very *fast* dumping of rain in certain areas; moreso than Helene where the rate of rainfall wasn't as fast as Melissa.    So tributaries will probably be worse-off for short periods than Helene.

FWIW - I've driven through a lot of the Helene areas.    While the damage was really bad; it wasn't "wipe large areas off the map" bad.   The bad thing about Helene was that the damage was spread over a *huge* area - like several dozen Jamaicas.

9 minutes ago, MonumentalNole said:

This is simply not true.  Michael was strengthening right up until landfall and got to cat 5 as it was making landfall (160mph).  Andrew in 1992 did the same.  

Yeah there have actually been over a dozen Cat 5 landfalls.   So - asserted stat is just wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes#Landfall

12 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

Again the rain will be the story. Core of strongest winds will impact a small area. 

Perhaps, but in both case total destruction generally only happens in a small area; in the case of winds it's around the eye; in the case of rainfall it's low-lying areas - along rivers and such.   River damage is only a couple hundred yards wide typically though; this eye is 20 miles wide.    A house that's not along a creek or river will see no damage from rainfall but tons of damage from wind.

Reality will be both of course.

Bad hurricane flooding typically comes from storm surge.   Helene was an exception last year of course - but that's mostly because the watershed areas are quite large for the rivers that did the big damage.    E.g. the watershed for the French Broad in NC is about 10,000 sq miles.   In Jamaica the watershed for say the Black River is about 100 sq miles, so even twice the rainfall as Helene would result in only 1/50 the flow.   It's one of the advantages of being an island - it'll drain better.    

Not saying there won't be some catastrophic flooding - the will be, but I think wind will probably cause more overall damage.

17 minutes ago, NeonPeon said:

Straight line winds.

OK then follow-up - why would non-straight-line winds be more destructive than straight-line?   Same force isn't it?

Perhaps it's that tornadoes' winds tend to swirl upward, and thus tend to lift more debris, than hurricane winds?

6 minutes ago, TheSnowman said:

No Storm, Not Camile, Not the Labor Day of 1932, Not Allen, Not Andrew, Not Michael - Has ever OFFICIALLY Recoded Category 5 Sustained Winds in a Landfall Before.  So TECHNICALLY, There has NEVER BEEN a Category 5 Landfall.  THIS may be it.  

 

Labor Day was Cat 5 when it made landfall.   And it was 1935 not 1932.

Official "landfall" is when *center* of the eye hits right?   Seems like this eye wall  - the strongest winds - is already making landfall right now, right?  (based on the satellite loops)

5 minutes ago, MANDA said:

West Pac material here.

https://www.meteo.psu.edu/ewall/PSUGOES_MESO1/loop180i.html

Wow.   Just... wow.

One telling thing - put your mouse in the center of the eye at the beginning of the sequence, and watch what happens by the end.

Ruh roh Shaggy.

What comes to mind is that scene near the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark - where Belloch watches what's unfolding and declares "It's beautiful!!!".... right before his face gets ripped off.

7 hours ago, ATDoel said:

I posted a link to the study in the other thread, here it is.  Effects of Solar Variability on Tropical Cyclone Activity - Nayak - 2024 - Earth and Space Science - Wiley Online Library

To me the most obvious trend here is the increasing number of Cat 5s, regardless of solar activity.  We've had 11 in the last 10 years, 17 in the last 20.  There's no other 20 year period that even comes close to that.  That has nothing to do with the solar cycles.

I don't think it's an either/or thing.    We can have both correlation with solar cycles AND increases due to AGW.

Some people try to explain away general increase by saying there isn't really a general increase - what you're seeing is solar cycles.   But if you believe there is a general increase you shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water and assert that therefore there *isn't* correlation with solar cycles.    Based on what appears to be cyclical nature of bursts of Cat 5's it seems to me it's clear there is some there.    (That jives with the paper actually; though the timing appears to be different to me.)

1 minute ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Well go ahead and bookmark this

 

The tail end of that is just... scary.

Amazing.   Have there ever been eye photos and videos like this?

3 minutes ago, Interstate said:

Still moving due west for the most part.

That is a really good thing.   The further west it goes, the less the key population areas like Kingston get hit - with wind and rain.

Go West, young storm, go West.

17 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I think MN Transplant mentioned this, but this has me worried for western Jamaica and resorts as well as Montego Bay. That place has a lot of people. 

There and Savanna-la-Mer, on the SW portion - will get the worst of the wind and storm surge.    Montego Bay at least will be somewhat protected by the mountains; though will certainly get mudslides and such.

37 minutes ago, ATDoel said:

Extreme tropical cyclones are least likely to occur during the solar maximum.

Not what I'm seeing (e.g. we're at a peak right now, and we've had five Cat 5's in the last two years).   Spun off a separate thread though so as to not derail this one.

Prompted by Hurricane Melissa  - what's the correlation of extreme hurricanes and AGW, and solar cycles?

When looking strictly at Cat 5's - they  definitely seem to be getting more frequent over time, but also seem to correlate heavily with the solar cycles; specifically being more frequent during peaks of solar cycles, with perhaps some lag (more frequent on the "back side").

Here's list of Cat 5's by year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes

Haven't charted yet, but there definitely seems to be strong correlation with the peak and/or back side of the peak of solar cycles; specifically cat 5 frequency peaking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Haven't charted the correlation (maybe someone else has) but it definitely seems to be there; looking at the list of Cat 5's at least.   The correlation seems to be strongest in recent years:

1924
1928  - solar cycle 16 peak
1932  - solar cycle 16 backside
1932
1933
1933
1935
1938  - solar cycle 17 peak backside
1944  - off-cycle
1953  - off-cycle
1955
1961  - solar cycle 19 peak backside
1961
1966
1967
1969  - solar cycle 20 peak
1971
1977
1979  - solar cycle 21 peak
1980
1988
1989  - solar cycle 22 peak
1992
1998
2003  - solar cycle 23 peak backside
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2007
2007
2016  - solar cycle 24 peak backside
2017
2017
2018
2019
2022
2024
2024
2025  - solar cycle 25 peak
2025
2025
 

Odd thing is that a google search mentions *anti-correlation* of hurricane activity and solar cycles - but that's not what I see here, at least looking at the Cat 5's.   Perhaps during peak periods there are less overall hurricanes, but more Cat 5's (?).