Changes of tropical cyclone size in three oceanic basins of the northern hemisphere from 2001 to 2021

doi:10.1007/s11707-022-1064-4

Front. Earth Sci.

2024, Vol. 18

Issue (2) : 312-323 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-022-1064-4

Changes of tropical cyclone size in three oceanic basins of the northern hemisphere from 2001 to 2021

Banglin ZHANG^1,²(

), Jeremy Cheuk-Hin LEUNG¹, Shengyuan LIU^1,³, Jianjun XU⁴

¹. Guangzhou Institute of Tropical and Marine Meteorology/Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Regional Numerical Weather Prediction, CMA, Guangzhou 510640, China
². College of Atmospheric Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China
³. College of Ocean and Meteorology, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang 524088, China
⁴. CMA-GDOU Joint Laboratory for Marine Meteorology & South China Sea Institute of Marine Meteorology, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang 524088, China

Download: PDF(10283 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

In this study the changes of tropical cyclone (TC) size from 2001 to 2021 are analyzed based on linear and quadratic curve fittings of the National Hurricane Center (NHC) / Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) best track data, based on the radius of maximum wind (RMW) and the average radius of 34-kt wind (AR34), in three oceanic basins of the North Atlantic (NATL), the Western North Pacific (WPAC) and the Eastern North Pacific (EPAC). The computations are done separately for two categories of tropical cyclones: tropical storms (TS) and hurricanes (HT). Size changes of landfalling and non-landfalling TCs are also discussed. Results show that there is a great inter-basin variability among the changes in TC sizes. Major conclusions include: 1) overall, the inner cores of TSs have become larger in all three basins, with the increasing tendencies being significant in the NATL and WAPC, while those of HTs mostly get smaller or remain similar; 2) meanwhile, comparatively large inter-basin differences are observed for the TC outer core sizes, and the sizes of landfalling TCs; 3) particularly, a significant decrease in landfalling HT outer core size is observed over the EPAC; 4) in contrast, significant increases in landfalling TS inner core size are found over the NATL and WPAC. The presented analysis results could benefit future research about TC forecasts, storm surge studies, and the cyclone climate and its changes.

Keywords tropical cyclone storm size frequency intensity duration

Corresponding Author(s): Banglin ZHANG

Online First Date: 29 February 2024 Issue Date: 19 July 2024

Cite this article:

Banglin ZHANG,Jeremy Cheuk-Hin LEUNG,Shengyuan LIU, et al. Changes of tropical cyclone size in three oceanic basins of the northern hemisphere from 2001 to 2021[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2024, 18(2): 312-323.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-022-1064-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2024/V18/I2/312

Fig.1 Time series of the storm days (a) averaged over the three basins, and over the (b) NATL, (c) WPAC, and (d) EPAC from 2001 to 2021. The blue, red, and green solid curves indicate the TS, HT, and ALL storms, respectively. Dotted and dashed lines respectively show the best fit linear and quadratic tendencies. The linear tendency values are shown in the figure legends, with the asterisk (*) and hashtag (#) symbols denoting linear and quadratic fittings that are statistically significant with at least 90% confidence level.

Fig.2 Time series of the (a) RMW (unit: nm), (b) AR34 (unit: nm), (c)

A r e a M W R

(unit: nm²), (d)

A r e a A R 34

(unit: nm²), and (e)

A r e a ′ A R 34

(unit: nm²) from 2001 to 2021 averaged over the three basins. The blue, red, and green solid curves indicate the TS, HT, and ALL storms, respectively. Dotted and dashed lines respectively show the best fit linear and quadratic tendencies. The blue, red, and green bars indicate the sample sizes of the TS, HT, and ALL storms of each year. The linear trend tendencies are shown in the figure legends, with the asterisk (*) and hashtag (#) symbols denoting linear and quadratic fittings that are statistically significant with at least 90% confidence level.

Fig.3 (a)–(c) Time series of the RMW (unit: nm) from 2001 to 2021 over the (a) NATL, (b) WPAC and (c) EPAC, respectively. (d)–(f) Same as (a)–(c), except of the

A r e a M W R

(unit: nm²). The blue, red, and green solid curves indicate the TS, HT, and ALL storms, respectively. Dotted and dashed lines respectively show the best fit linear and quadratic tendencies. The blue, red, and green bars indicate the sample sizes of the TS, HT, and ALL storms of each year. The linear tendency values are shown in the figure legends, with the asterisk (*) and hashtag (#) symbols denoting linear and quadratic fittings that are statistically significant with at least 90% confidence level.

Fig.4 (a)–(c) Time series of the AR34 (unit: nm) from 2001 to 2021 over the (a) NATL, (b) WPAC and (c) EPAC, respectively. (d)–(f) Same as (a)–(c), except of the

A r e a A R 34

(unit: nm²). (g)–(i) Same as (a)–(c), except of the

A r e a ′ A R 34

Fig.5 Time series of the (a) RMW (unit: nm), (b) AR34 (unit: nm), (c)

A r e a M W R

(unit: nm²), (d)

A r e a A R 34

(unit: nm²), and (e)

A r e a ′ A R 34

(unit: nm²) from 1988 to 2021 over the NATL. The blue, red, and green solid curves indicate the TS, HT, and ALL storms, respectively. Dotted and dashed lines respectively show the best fit linear and quadratic tendencies. The blue, red, and green bars indicate the sample sizes of the TS, HT, and ALL storms of each year. The linear tendency values are shown in the figure legends, with the asterisk (*) and hashtag (#) symbols denoting linear and quadratic fittings that are statistically significant with at least 90% confidence level. Results are based on the EBT data set.

Fig.6 Time series of the (a) AR50 (unit: nm), (b) AR34 (unit: nm), (c)

A r e a A R 50

(unit: nm²), (d)

A r e a ′ A R 50

(unit: nm²), (e)

A r e a A R 34

(unit: nm²), and (f)

A r e a ′ A R 34

(unit: nm²) from 1977 to 2020 over the WPAC. The blue, red, and green solid curves indicate the TS, HT, and ALL storms, respectively. Dotted and dashed lines respectively show the best fit linear and quadratic tendencies. The blue, red, and green bars indicate the sample sizes of the TS, HT, and ALL storms of each year. The linear tendency values are shown in the figure legends, with the asterisk (*) and hashtag (#) symbols denoting linear and quadratic fittings that are statistically significant with at least 90% confidence level. Results are based on the JMA RSMC best track data.

Fig.7 Same as Fig. 3, except for landfalling TCs only.

Fig.8 Same as Fig. 4, except for landfalling TCs only.

Fig.9 Same as Fig. 3, except for non-landfalling TCs only.

Fig.10 Same as Fig. 4, except for non-landfalling TCs only.

Fig.11 A scatter plot summarizing the linear tendencies of TC size over different basins from 2001 to 2021. Triangles, circles, and squares respectively denote TCs over the NATL, WPAC, and EPAC. Green, blue and red colors respectively denote ALL, TS, and HT. Solid circles denote all TCs without considering whether they make landfall, while centers filled with yellow and white colors respectively denote landfalling and non-landfalling TCs. Symbols with 100% opacity denote the tendencies of both

A r e a A R 34

and

A r e a R M W

are significant at the 90% confidence level; that with 50% opacity denote only one of the two linear tendencies is significant at the 90% confidence level; that with 10% opacity denote both linear tendencies are statistically insignificant.

1	S M Barbosa (2011). Testing for deterministic trends in global sea surface temperature.J Clim, 24(10): 2516–2522 https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3877.1
2	C, Carrasco C, Landsea Y Lin (2014). The influence of tropical cyclone size on its intensification.Weather Forecast, 29(3): 582–590 https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-13-00092.1
3	K T F, Chan J C L Chan (2015). Global climatology of tropical cyclone size as inferred from QuikSCAT data.Int J Climatol, 35(15): 4843–4848 https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4307
4	D R, Chavas K A Emanuel (2010). A QuikSCAT climatology of tropical cyclone size.Geophys Res Lett, 37(18): L18816 https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044558
5	D R, Chavas N, Lin K Emanuel (2015). A model for the complete radial structure of the tropical cyclone wind field. Part I: Comparison with observed structure.J Atmos Sci, 72(9): 3647–3662 https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0014.1
6	D Y C, Chen K K W, Cheung C S Lee (2011). Some implications of core regime wind structures in western North Paciﬁc tropical cyclones.Weather Forecast, 26(1): 61–75 https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222420.1
7	J, Demuth M, DeMaria J A Knaff (2006). Improvement of advanced microwave sounder unit tropical cyclone intensity and size estimation algorithms.J Appl Meteorol Climatol, 45(11): 1573–1581 https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2429.1
8	S Doocy, A Dick, A Daniels, T D Kirsch (2013). The human impact of tropical cyclones: a historical review of events 1980–2009 and systematic literature review. PLoS Curr, doi: 10.1371/currents.dis.2664354a5571512063ed29ed29d25ffbce74
9	K Emanuel (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.Nature, 436(7051): 686–688 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03906
10	K A Emanuel (2012). Self-stratification of tropical cyclone outflow. Part II: implications for storm intensification.J Atmos Sci, 69(3): 988–996 https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0177.1
11	K A, Emanuel A Sobel (2013). Response of tropical sea surface temperature, precipitation, and tropical cyclone–related variables to changes in global and local forcing.J Adv Model Earth Syst, 5(2): 447–458 https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20032
12	K A, Emanuel R, Sundararajan J Williams (2008). Hurricanes and global warming: results from downscaling IPCC AR4 simulations.Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 89(3): 347–368 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-347
13	A, Grinsted J C, Moore S Jevrejeva (2012). Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109(48): 19601–19605 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209542109
14	J L, Irish D T, Resio J J Ratcliff (2008). The influence of storm size on hurricane surge.J Phys Oceanogr, 38(9): 2003–2013 https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JPO3727.1
15	M R, Islam C Y, Lee K T, Mandli H Takagi (2021). A new tropical cyclone surge index incorporating the effects of coastal geometry, bathymetry and storm information.Sci Rep, 11(1): 16747 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95825-7
16	M R, Islam M, Satoh H Takagi (2022). Tropical cyclones affecting Japan central coast and changing storm surge hazard since 1980.J Meteorol Soc Jpn, 100(3): 493–507 https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2022-024
17	F F, Jin J, Boucharel I I Lin (2014). Eastern Pacific tropical cyclones intensified by El Niño delivery of subsurface ocean heat.Nature, 516(7529): 82–85 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13958
18	S K, Kimball M S Mulekar (2004). A 15-year climatology of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Part I: Size parameters.J Climate, 17: 3555–3575 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017,3555:AYCONA.2.0.CO;2
19	K Kishimoto (2008). Revision of JMA’s early stage Dvorak analysis and its use to analyze tropical cyclones in the early developing stage.RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center Technical Review, 10: 1–12
20	P J Klotzbach (2006). Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years (1986–2005).Geophys Res Lett, 33(10): L10805 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025881
21	P J, Klotzbach M M, Bell S G, Bowen E J, Gibney K R, Knapp C J Schreck (2020). Surface pressure a more skillful predictor of normalized hurricane damage than maximum sustained wind.Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 101(6): E830–E846 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0062.1
22	P J, Klotzbach C W Landsea (2015). Extremely intense hurricanes: revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 Years.J Clim, 28(19): 7621–7629 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0188.1
23	J A, Knaff S P, Longmore D A Molenar (2014). An objective satellite-based tropical cyclone size climatology.J Clim, 27(1): 455–476 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00096.1
24	K R, Knapp M C, Kruk D H, Levinson H J, Diamond C J Neumann (2010). The International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS): unifying tropical cyclone best track data.Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 91(3): 363–376 https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2755.1
25	J P Kossin (2017). Hurricane intensification along United States coast suppressed during active hurricane periods.Nature, 541(7637): 390–393 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20783
26	C W, Landsea J L Franklin (2013). Atlantic hurricane database uncertainty and presentation of a new database format.Mon Weather Rev, 141(10): 3576–3592 https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00254.1
27	C W, Landsea Jr R A, Pielke A M, Mestas-Nunez J A Knaff (1999). Atlantic basin hurricanes: indices of climatic changes.Climatic Change, 42(1): 89–129 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005416332322
28	C W, Landsea G A, Vecchi L, Bengtsson T R Knutson (2010). Impact of duration thresholds on Atlantic tropical cyclone counts.J Clim, 23(10): 2508–2519 https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3034.1
29	Y, Lin M, Zhao M Zhang (2015). Tropical cyclone rainfall area controlled by relative sea surface temperature.Nat Commun, 6(1): 6591 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7591
30	J N, Martinez-Sanchez T Cavazos (2014). Eastern Tropical Pacific hurricane variability and landfalls on Mexican coasts.Clim Res, 58(3): 221–234 https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01192
31	J H McDonald (2014). Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Sparky House Publishing
32	W, Mei S P, Xie F, Primeau J C, McWilliams C Pasquero (2015). Northwestern Pacific typhoon intensity controlled by changes in ocean temperatures.Sci Adv, 1(4): e1500014 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500014
33	R T Merrill (1984). A comparison of large and small tropical cyclones.Mon Weather Rev, 112(7): 1408–1418 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1984)112<1408:ACOLAS>2.0.CO;2
34	Y S, Nekkali K K, Osuri A K Das (2022). Numerical modeling of tropical cyclone size over the Bay of Bengal: influence of microphysical processes and horizontal resolution.Meteorol Atmos Phys, 134(4): 72 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-022-00915-4
35	R, Rotunno K A Emanuel (1987). An air–sea interaction theory for tropical cyclones. Part II: evolutionary study using a nonhydrostatic axisymmetric numerical model.J Atmos Sci, 44(3): 542–561 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<0542:AAITFT>2.0.CO;2
36	W Shen (2006). Does the size of hurricane eye matter with its intensity?.Geophys Res Lett, 33(18): L18813 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027313
37	H R, Shou T, Li Y, Sun L, Wang J Liu (2021). Decreasing trend of western North Pacific tropical cyclone inner-core size over the past decades.J Meteorol Res, 35(4): 635–645 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-021-0214-z
38	D P, Stern J L, Vigh D S, Nolan F Zhang (2015). Revisiting the relationship between eyewall contraction and intensification.J Atmos Sci, 72(4): 1283–1306 https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0261.1
39	H, Takagi W Wu (2016). Maximum wind radius estimated by the 50 kt radius: improvement of storm surge forecasting over the western North Pacific.Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 16(3): 705–717 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-705-2016
40	B, Wang Y, Yang Q H, Ding H, Murakami F Huang (2010). Climate control of the global tropical storm days (1965–2008).Geophys Res Let, 37: L07704 https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042487
41	P J, Webster G J, Holland J A, Curry H R Chang (2005). Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment.Science, 309(5742): 1844–1846 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1116448
42	J, Xu Y Wang (2010a). Sensitivity of the simulated tropical cyclone inner-core size to the initial vortex size.Mon Weather Rev, 138(11): 4135–4157 https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3335.1
43	J, Xu Y Wang (2010b). Sensitivity of tropical cyclone inner-core size and intensity to the radial distribution of surface entropy flux.J Atmos Sci, 67(6): 1831–1852 https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAS3387.1
44	J, Xu Y, Wang Z M Tan (2016). The relationship between sea surface temperature and maximum intensification rate of tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic.J Atmos Sci, 73(12): 4979–4988 https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0164.1

[1]	Zhihui HAN, Caijun YUE, Changhai LIU, Wen GU, Yuqi TANG, Yongyu LI. Evaluation on the applicability of ERA5 reanalysis dataset to tropical cyclones affecting Shanghai[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(4): 1025-1039.
[2]	Yufan DAI, Qingqing LI, Lijuan WANG, Hong CHEN. Examining asymmetric outer-core CAPE in sheared tropical cyclones based on the FNL data set[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(3): 734-743.
[3]	Cai LIU, Haiyan ZHANG, Fuping GAN, Yunge LU, Hao WANG, Jiahong ZHANG, Xing JU. Identifying the spatio-temporal variability of human activity intensity and associated drivers: a case study on the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(3): 744-756.
[4]	Chong WANG, Qing XU, Yongcun CHENG, Yi PAN, Hong LI. Ensemble forecast of tropical cyclone tracks based on deep neural networks[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(3): 671-677.
[5]	Chunyi XIANG, Liguang WU, Nannan QIN. Characteristics of extreme rainfall and rainbands evolution of Super Typhoon Lekima (2019) during its landfall[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 64-74.
[6]	Mengting XU, Hong LI, Jingyao LUO, Hairong BEN, Yijie ZHU. Predictability and dynamics of the rapid intensification of Super Typhoon Lekima (2019)[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 132-143.
[7]	Rong GUO, Hui YU, Zifeng YU, Jie TANG, Lina BAI. Application of the frequency-matching method in the probability forecast of landfalling typhoon rainfall[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 52-63.
[8]	Bin HE, Zifeng YU, Yan TAN, Yan SHEN, Yingjun CHEN. Rainfall forecast errors in different landfall stages of Super Typhoon Lekima (2019)[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 34-51.
[9]	Guomin CHEN, Xiping ZHANG, Qing CAO, Zhihua ZENG. Evaluation of forecast performance for Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 17-33.
[10]	Mengjuan LIU, Lin DENG, Wei HUANG, Wanchen WU. The impact of vertical resolution on the simulation of Typhoon Lekima (2019) by a cloud-permitting model[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 158-174.
[11]	Xiaoqin LU, Hui YU, Xiaoming YANG, Xiaofeng LI, Jie TANG. A new technique for automatically locating the center of tropical cyclones with multi-band cloud imagery[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 836-847.
[12]	Qianqian JI, Feng XU, Jianjun XU, Mei LIANG, Shifei, TU, Siqi, CHEN. Large-scale characteristics of landfalling tropical cyclones with abrupt intensity change[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 808-816.
[13]	Peiyan CHEN, Hui YU, Ming XU, Xiaotu LEI, Feng ZENG. A simplified index to assess the combined impact of tropical cyclone precipitation and wind on China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 672-681.
[14]	Xiba TANG, Fan PING, Shuai YANG, Mengxia LI, Jing PENG. On the rapid intensification for Typhoon Meranti (2016): convection, warm core, and heating budget[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 791-807.
[15]	Hong LI, Jingyao LUO, Mengting XU. Ensemble data assimilation and prediction of typhoon and associated hazards using TEDAPS: evaluation for 2015–2018 seasons[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 733-743.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed