Roger Smith

Well as you probably know there are not often tropical storms in the South Atlantic Ocean, I believe there have only been two in modern times, and that is probably down to the water temperatures rarely exceeding 25 C there, as well as the size of the basin (but it's larger than the Arabian Sea which manages a few). The weather in the glacial maximum must have been quite extraordinary in general, maybe there were a few hurricanes but confined to the tropical latitudes.

Here is that same table reformulated so that sunspot maximum years are always in year 10 of the table. This leads to row entries of different lengths. My protocol was to begin each row 9 years before the sunspot peak year and either add extra years or remove years as required. The extra years are placed in otherwise blank YR 6 and YR 7 of a 13-year collection that represents 11 years in most cases. <<< COUNTS in YEARS of 11-YEAR CYCLE (N Altantic basin) >>> Cycle starts __YR 01 _YR 02 _YR 03 _ YR 04 _YR 05 _ _YR 08 _YR 09 _YR 10 _YR 11 _YR 12 _YR 13__ Cycle ends 1851 ________ 6 3 1 __ 5 5 1 __ 8 4 2 __ 5 3 1 __ 5 4 1 __ 6 4 2 __ 4 3 0 __ 6 6 0 __ 8 7 1 __7 6 1 __ 8 6 0 __ 1861 1862 ________6 3 0 _ 9 5 0 __5 3 0 __ 7 3 0 __7 6 1 __ 9 7 1 ___ 4 3 0 _ 10 7 1 __ 11 10 2 _ 8 6 2 _5 4 0 __ 1871 1873 ________ 5 3 2 _ 7 4 0 __6 5 1 ___5 4 2 __8 3 1 _ 12 10 2__ 8 6 2 _ 11 9 2 __ 7 4 0 __ 6 4 2 __ 4 3 2 __ 1883 1884 ________ 4 4 1 _ 8 6 0 _12 10 4__19 11 2 _ 9 6 2 __ 9 6 0 __ 4 2 1 _ 10 7 1 __ 9 5 0 __12 10 5 __7 5 4 __ 1894 1895 ________ 6 2 0 _ 7 6 2 _ 6 3 0 __ 11 5 1 __10 5 2 __7 3 2 __13 6 0 __ 5 3 0 _ 10 7 1 __ 6 4 0 ___5 1 1 ___ 1905 1906 ________ 11 6 3 _ 5 0 0 _10 6 1 _ 12 6 4 _ 5 3 1 __ 6 3 0 ___ 7 4 1 __ 6 3 0 __ 1 0 0 __ 6 5 3 _ 15 10 5 __ 1916 1917 ________ 4 2 2 __ 6 4 1 _ 5 2 1 __ 5 4 0 _ 7 5 2 __ 5 3 1 ___ 9 4 1 __ 11 5 2 __ 4 1 0 __11 8 6 __ 8 4 1 ___ 1927 1928 ________ 6 4 1 __ 5 3 1 _ 3 2 2 __13 3 1 _ 15 6 4 _20 11 6 __13 7 1 __ 8 5 3 __17 7 1 __11 4 1 __ 9 4 2 ___ 1938 1939 ________ 6 3 1 __ 9 6 0 _ 6 4 3 _ 11 4 1 _ 10 5 2 _ 14 8 3 __11 5 2 __ 7 3 0 __10 5 2 __10 6 4 __16 7 3 ___ 1949 1950 ________16 11 6__12 8 3__11 5 2 __14 7 3_ 16 7 3 _ 13 9 4 __12 4 1 __ 8 3 2 _ 12 7 3 __14 7 2 __ 8 4 2 ___ 1960 1961 ________ 12 8 5 _ 7 4 0 _ 10 7 3 _ 13 7 5 _ 10 4 1 _ 15 7 3 _ 15 6 1 __ 8 5 0 _ 18 12 3__14 7 2 _ 13 6 1 ___ 1971 1972 ________ 7 3 0 __ 8 4 1 _ 11 4 2 __ 9 6 3 _ 10 6 2 __ 6 5 1 _ 12 5 2 __ 9 6 2 _ 11 9 2 __12 7 3 __ 6 2 1 ___ 1982 1983 ________ 4 3 1 _ 13 5 1 _ 11 7 3 __ 6 4 0 __ 7 3 1 __12 5 3 __11 7 2 __14 8 1 __ 8 4 2 __ 7 4 1 __ 8 4 1 ___ 1993 1994 ________ 7 3 0 _ 19 11 5 _13 9 6 __8 3 1 __14 10 3 _12 8 5 _ 15 8 3 _ 15 9 4 _12 4 2 _ 16 7 3 _ 15 9 6 ___ 2004 2005 _______28 15 7_ 10 5 2 _15 6 2 _16 8 5 __ 9 3 2 __19 12 5 _19 7 4 _ 19 10 2_ 14 2 0 _ 8 6 2 _ 11 4 2 ___ 2015 2016 _______ 15 7 4 _ 17 10 6 _15 8 2_ 18 6 3 _30 14 7_ 21 7 4 _14 8 2 _ 20 7 3 _ 18 11 5 _ 13 5 4_ (2026) ================= The means are now aligned with the most recent cycle so that year 10 is always the peak solar year. No year is counted twice and where not obviously aligned it is averaged in with closest solar equivalents. Years 1 and 2 in this analysis are 2 and 3 years after solar peaks (year 11 is one year after). Years 3 to 9 are counted from before solar peaks only, any years not included are then averaged into best fits. means _____ 8 5 2 __ 9 5 1 __ 8 5 2 __ 9 5 2 __ 12 7 3 _ 11 6 2 __ 9 5 1 ___ 9 6 1 __ 12 6 2 _ 9 5 2 _ 9 6 2 (1928-pres) 11 6 3 __13 7 2__ 11 6 3 _ 12 5 2 _ 14 7 3 _ 13 6 3 _ 12 6 2 _ 12 6 2 _ 14 7 2 _ 11 6 2 _ 13 6 2 While there are a few differences from the straight-line eleven year averages, these solar-oriented averages take on essentially the same pattern, like the solar maximum there seems to be a biennial second order frequency wave evident especially in the more active recent portion. Overall, it could be argued that these frequency counts are within the ranges allowable by random variability, there is no huge forcing evident. I would invite anyone with a hypothesis to advance it, as to why Atlantic hurricane frequency appears to peak at two opposite portions of the 11-year solar cycle whether robustly forced by actual solar data, or passively forced by the mean. I am aware that at solar maximum, heat energy from the Sun is generally a bit higher (despite the cooler sunspots, the more active solar wind accounts for this), and perhaps at solar minimum there could be an argument for stability of subtropical highs which cannot hurt the count. One final look at the situation ... here are the more active years placed against a stylized solar cycle ... x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[][]1988-89xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1936[][][]xxx[][][][]1969x1780 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxx1916[][]xxxxxx1893xx[][][][]1949xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxx1846[][]xxxx2011-12xxxxxxxxxxx[][][]2004xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxx[][][]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[][][][][]2005xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x xxxx1954[][][][]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[][][][][][]1887xxxxxx x x x x x2020[][][]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[][][[][][][]xxxxxx1933 1878[]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[][][][][][][][]1995 I would contend what this shows is that high climbers are all over the mountain scattered at random. (2011-12 and 1893 are placed within the mountain profile to represent near peak but lower altitude peaks of solar activity. I added 1846 and 1780 which are recognized to be "big seasons" outside the framework of my analysis otherwise. 1900 would be about where 1878 is situated.

Since we only have annual counts from 1851 on, and some more anecdotal reports on seasonal severity before 1850, it occurs to me that any given 11-year cycle of any origin will correlate with the solar variability cycle which has never strayed far from a regular 11-year pulse since about 1837 (before that it also kept to that sort of frequency after the long downturn of the Maunder except for a speeding up to 9-10 years late in the 18th century followed by a slowdown to 12-13 years in the Dalton minimum). So just for the sake of exploring that solar-neutral 11-year concept, I arbitrarily used this progression and worked out average counts ... peak of cycle (for whatever reason) 1849, 1860, 1871, 1882, 1893, 1904, 1915, 1926, 1937, 1948, 1959, 1970, 1981, 1992, 2003, 2014, 2025. The average position of these years in the somewhat variable 10.5 year solar cycle is at peak year plus one, the specific displacements being +1, 0, +1, -1, 0, -1, -2, -2, 0, +1, +2, +2, +2, +3, +4, +1, 0?? at end. This reflects the fact that the solar cycles picked up in frequency in the later 20th century and have recently returned to a longer-period average closer to 11 years in this less active (so far) century. It should be mentioned that the 1905 peak for solar activity was in reality a flat-topped low-moderate peak from 1905-07 and also the 1968 peak was very indistinct between 1967 and 1972, so these "displacements" are more approximate. And if one were to go back the peaks of this steady 11-year cycle are 1838, 1827, 1816, 1805, 1794, 1783, 1772, 1761, 1750, 1739, 1728, 1717, 1706 which also resembles the actual solar peaks except in the period before the Dalton minimum when again more intense cycles sped up (the actual peaks in this interval going back are 1837-38 (about equal), 1829-1830, 1816, 1801-04 (a weak flat-topped peak), 1787 (may have had a strong secondary around 1795), 1778, 1769, 1761, 1749-50, 1738, 1717, and 1705 (a weak peak coming out of the Maunder minimum). So here are the hurricane data re-arranged to fit this 11-year cycle; since the first year of data is 1851, the data start at year 1 of an 11-year cycle in which the modulation years are at year 10 (and the mean of solar maximum years at year 9). <<< COUNTS in YEARS of 11-YEAR CYCLE (N Altantic basin) >>> Cycle starts __YR 01 _YR 02 _YR 03 _ YR 04 _YR 05 _YR 06 _YR 07 _YR 08 _YR 09 _YR 10 _YR 11 __ Cycle ends 1851 ________ 6 3 1 __ 5 5 1 __ 8 4 2 __ 5 3 1 __ 5 4 1 __ 6 4 2 __ 4 3 0 __ 6 6 0 __ 8 7 1 __ 7 6 1 __ 8 6 0 __ 1861 1862 ________ 6 3 0 _ 9 5 0 __5 3 0 __ 7 3 0 __7 6 1 __ 9 7 1 ___ 4 3 0 _ 10 7 1 __ 11 10 2 _ 8 6 2 __ 5 4 0 __ 1872 1873 ________ 5 3 2 _ 7 4 0 __6 5 1 ___ 5 4 2 __8 3 1 _ 12 10 2__ 8 6 2 _ 11 9 2 __ 7 4 0 __ 6 4 2 __ 4 3 2 __ 1883 1884 ________ 4 4 1 _ 8 6 0 _12 10 4__19 11 2 _ 9 6 2 __ 9 6 0 __ 4 2 1 _ 10 7 1 __ 9 5 0 __12 10 5 __7 5 4 ___ 1894 1895 ________ 6 2 0 _ 7 6 2 _ 6 3 0 __ 11 5 1 __10 5 2 __7 3 2 __13 6 0 __ 5 3 0 _ 10 7 1 __ 6 4 0 ___5 1 1 ___ 1905 1906 ________ 11 6 3 _ 5 0 0 _10 6 1 _ 12 6 4 _ 5 3 1 __ 6 3 0 ___ 7 4 1 __ 6 3 0 __ 1 0 0 __ 6 5 3 _ 15 10 5 __ 1916 1917 ________ 4 2 2 __ 6 4 1 _ 5 2 1 __ 5 4 0 _ 7 5 2 __ 5 3 1 ___ 9 4 1 __ 11 5 2 __ 4 1 0 __11 8 6 __ 8 4 1 ___ 1927 1928 ________ 6 4 1 __ 5 3 1 _ 3 2 2 __13 3 1 _ 15 6 4 _20 11 6 __13 7 1 __ 8 5 3 __17 7 1 __11 4 1 __ 9 4 2 ___ 1938 1939 ________ 6 3 1 __ 9 6 0 _ 6 4 3 _ 11 4 1 _ 10 5 2 _ 14 8 3 __11 5 2 __ 7 3 0 __10 5 2 __10 6 4 __16 7 3 ___ 1949 1950 ________16 11 6__12 8 3__11 5 2 __14 7 3_ 16 7 3 _ 13 9 4 __12 4 1 __ 8 3 2 _ 12 7 3 __14 7 2 __ 8 4 2 ___ 1960 1961 ________ 12 8 5 _ 7 4 0 _ 10 7 3 _ 13 7 5 _ 10 4 1 _ 15 7 3 _ 15 6 1 __ 8 5 0 _ 18 12 3__14 7 2 _ 13 6 1 ___ 1971 1972 ________ 7 3 0 __ 8 4 1 _ 11 4 2 __ 9 6 3 _ 10 6 2 __ 6 5 1 _ 12 5 2 __ 9 6 2 _ 11 9 2 __12 7 3 __ 6 2 1 ___ 1982 1983 ________ 4 3 1 _ 13 5 1 _ 11 7 3 __ 6 4 0 __ 7 3 1 __12 5 3 __11 7 2 __14 8 1 __ 8 4 2 __ 7 4 1 __ 8 4 1 ___ 1993 1994 ________ 7 3 0 _ 19 11 5 _13 9 6 __8 3 1 __14 10 3 _12 8 5 _ 15 8 3 _ 15 9 4 _12 4 2 _ 16 7 3 _ 15 9 6 ___ 2004 2005 _______28 15 7_ 10 5 2 _15 6 2 _16 8 5 __ 9 3 2 __19 12 5 _19 7 4 _ 19 10 2_ 14 2 0 _ 8 6 2 _ 11 4 2 ___ 2015 2016 _______ 15 7 4 _ 17 10 6 _15 8 2_ 18 6 3 _30 14 7_ 21 7 4 _14 8 2 _ 20 7 3 _ 18 11 5 _ 13 5 4_ (2026) ================= means _____ 8 5 2 __ 9 5 1 __ 8 5 2 __11 5 2 __ 11 6 2 _ 12 7 3 _ 11 6 1 __ 10 6 1 __ 11 6 2 _ 10 6 3 _ 9 5 2 (1928-pres) 11 6 3 __11 6 2__ 10 6 3 _ 12 5 2 _ 13 6 3 _ 15 8 4 _ 14 6 2 _ 12 6 2 _ 13 7 2 _ 12 6 2 _ 11 5 2 ANALYSIS This independent 11-year cycle seems very close to random to me, if we say the long term mean is 10 6 2, most years in the cycle are within 1 in all aspects of the count, and if we say the more recent (1928 to present) average is 12 7 2, there is a bit of a peak in the years generally aligned with solar minima (years 5-7 in this cycle), a trend that seems to be increasing slightly but not in a very significant way. So this supports the contention that N Atlantic tropical activity peaks slightly every eleven years and whether by coincidence (an independent cause and effect from solar) or by virtue of the general overlap and a solar cause and effect, this peak occurs near sunspot minimum. I also counted the years with three or more major hurricanes, the frequency there is 5 3 5 4 4 8 2 3 3 7 4 This shows more of a 5.5 year cycle with peaks at solar minimum and solar maximum. I will reformulate the table above to coincide exactly with solar peaks but I don't think it is going to show a different outcome. ...

Would say the core is likely to pass very close to Santiago de Cuba which is a city of over half a million people. It will be a diagonal landfall so the impacts on Guantanamo province further east will also be very strong. And then it's on to Great Inagua in Bahamas. They could have a cat-3 impact by early morning.

Looks like the track has been deflected towards the ENE and the core is heading for Gitmo. It is also visibly accelerating now, will probably make landfall in Cuba within 3-4 hours. As bad as that was for western and central Jamaica, can you imagine the carnage if the core had moved across Kingston and that part of the country?

When they say "ever recorded" they forget that in 1780 there were two hurricanes that may have been even stronger, one hit Savanna-la-Mar with a 20' tidal surge (on Oct 1), and another one around the 8th-9th killed multiple thousands of people on Barbados, Guadeloupe and Martinique. Now obviously back then there would have been little warning and people were living in relatively primitive buildings, but one has to wonder what the meteorological readings for either of those would have been. Also Camille in 1969 was quite intense at its core at landfall, and while the wind speed record may be based on overall hurricane data, I was under the impression that Andrew had some tornadic wind streaks that may have been above these record values being quoted, and those happened to hit a populated area at sea level.

Looks to be in the zone where eastern eyewall might just clear him for moments, or he may stay in the eyewall without a clearance, center of eye track likely to be 10 to 15 miles west; as you know this means he is going to see the strongest winds and the surge there will likely be at its max also, think he may be above that but only just.

Looking at google earth there are very few settlements inland along the track this seems most likely to take, which is approximately White House to Falmouth. The terrain rises to about 3000' but a large portion of the interior is an area known as the Cockpits which are limestone depressions and karst topography, there are perhaps a thousand people at most living in the 40-mile wide stretch where core conditions will come and go, then the exit over Falmouth by which time possibly the intensity will be down to cat-3. It's very close to Montego Bay but they will probably have the slightly less violent western eyewall or just outside of that, on the current track. Josh is located hopefully inland as Crawford seems to consist of two parts, one on the inland highway and one being a housing development closer to the ocean. Even at the inland road the elevation is only about 10 meters. It looks to be a wooded area with better construction than some parts of rural Jamaica. The larger town of Black River is a few miles east of Crawford, and Santa Cruz inland may be in the forward eyewall. Those places are facing considerable if not total destruction; this small hurricane intense core situation reminds me of Andrew when it devastated portions of Homestead FL in 1992, as people have been commenting, F5 tornado conditions are being reported in the eyewall. As bad as this is going to be, there were worse possible tracks in terms of total damage potential and consequent human tolls, 25-50 miles west would have been a lot worse, and 50-75 miles east would have brought these peak conditions into the greater Kingston area where I would imagine it's pretty rough but will perhaps peak at cat-2 intensity or less.

I was looking at some details of Jamaica's population and geography, would say if they have to take a hit from the core of this hurricane, the central third is perhaps less populated than the western third and certainly less than the eastern third. There is a central bisecting track that might spare Montego Bay, Negril and Savanna-la-Mar from worst case wind and surge damage, while keeping Kingston also out of the core. If it does go a bit further west and makes landfall around Savanna-la-Mar, unlike most of the south coast as well as west to northwest coasts, the land around there is very flat for miles inland. The town is on a peninsula that rarely rises above 5 metres asl. Negril is a bit more hilly and most of the town is well above surge limits (also the exposure is not as conducive to a major surge). There are parts of the south coast that are quite rugged and uninhabited, there are small towns across most of the inland south but the total population looks to be perhaps 5% of the total of Jamaica if the core were to take that track. The western third is a little hilly and the central third more so, but those higher Blue Mountains are all to the northeast of Kingston. I would not want to be anywhere near this monster storm but Josh does, anyone know where he chose to set up?

175 mph = 288 km/hr = 288,000 m/ hr = 200 m/sec = 100 m in half a second. Took Usain Bolt 9.6 seconds to run that far.

This may be how the Great Red Spot formed.

Another interval not fitting too well would be 1953-54 with numerous major hurricanes (even if not cat 5) at a solar minimum. By 1955 it was early stages of an eventual very large solar maximum.

True, my comments were only for the N Atlantic seasons.

The anti-correlation idea may have come from 2004-05 which does not fit the theory. I noted in the hurricane Melissa discussion that 1780, a very bad year in the Caribbean, was also two years after a large solar peak in 1778, and the Long Island express (1938) while not a cat-5 was a year after a solar peak. Rather active years that came before a solar peak would include 1916, 1936, 1944 and 1998, as well as 2020. 1887 is closer to a solar minimum like 2004 and 2005. 1893 was a very active tropical year and there was a solar peak in 1893-94. The least active season in recent times, 1910, came at a solar minimum. I would include Andrew on the basis of the 1989 cycle peaking rather broadly from 1988 to 1991, the "1989" designation is only barely valid, and in fact also the 1968 peak had a very well defined secondary peak in 1972 (Agnes). Perhaps if there is a correlation, it is not because the solar conditions induce stronger hurricanes to form, but because some mechanism in the solar system peaks at that time and is responsible for these two different effects. Clearly it is not a necessary condition given the number of counter-examples. But it seems relatively robust over about twenty solar cycles, before 1780 we probably don't have enough data to form any conclusions.

Savanna-la-Mar was apparently destroyed by a major hurricane in 1780 (a 20 foot tidal surge), the worst season on record especially for the Caribbean. There were thousands killed in western Jamaica and at sea. And that was also a year on the downswing of a solar cycle (peak was 1778). Speaking of that, I would include Andrew (1992) because the 1989 peak had a secondary peak in 1991, and also Agnes (1972) fits because of a large secondary peak in 1972. One could also mention the 1938 New England Long Island express (solar cycle peaked 1937).