scholarly journals Changes in Atlantic Major Hurricane Frequency Since the Late-19th Century

Author(s):  
Gabriel Vecchi ◽  
Chris Landsea ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Gabriele Villarini ◽  
Thomas Knutson

Abstract Atlantic hurricanes are a major hazard to life and property1,2,3, and a topic of intense scientific interest4,5,6. Historical changes in observing practices limit the utility of century-scale records of Atlantic major hurricane frequency7-13. To evaluate past changes in frequency, we have here developed a homogenization method for Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency over 1851-2019. We find that recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend. After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s14-15 are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s-1980s. These results support the notion that internal climate variability and aerosol-induced mid-to-late-20th century major hurricane frequency reductions16-24 have probably masked century-scale greenhouse-gas warming contributions to North Atlantic major hurricane frequency.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel A. Vecchi ◽  
Christopher Landsea ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Gabriele Villarini ◽  
Thomas Knutson

AbstractAtlantic hurricanes are a major hazard to life and property, and a topic of intense scientific interest. Historical changes in observing practices limit the utility of century-scale records of Atlantic major hurricane frequency. To evaluate past changes in frequency, we have here developed a homogenization method for Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency over 1851–2019. We find that recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend. After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s. We suggest internal (e.g., Atlantic multidecadal) climate variability and aerosol-induced mid-to-late-20th century major hurricane frequency reductions have probably masked century-scale greenhouse-gas warming contributions to North Atlantic major hurricane frequency.


2007 ◽  
Vol 88 (10) ◽  
pp. 1549-1565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Knutson ◽  
Joseph J. Sirutis ◽  
Stephen T. Garner ◽  
Isaac M. Held ◽  
Robert E. Tuleya

In this study, a new modeling framework for simulating Atlantic hurricane activity is introduced. The model is an 18-km-grid nonhydrostatic regional model, run over observed specified SSTs and nudged toward observed time-varying large-scale atmospheric conditions (Atlantic domain wavenumbers 0–2) derived from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalyses. Using this “perfect large-scale model” approach for 27 recent August–October seasons (1980–2006), it is found that the model successfully reproduces the observed multidecadal increase in numbers of Atlantic hurricanes and several other tropical cyclone (TC) indices over this period. The correlation of simulated versus observed hurricane activity by year varies from 0.87 for basinwide hurricane counts to 0.41 for U.S. landfalling hurricanes. For tropical storm count, accumulated cyclone energy, and TC power dissipation indices the correlation is ~0.75, for major hurricanes the correlation is 0.69, and for U.S. landfalling tropical storms, the correlation is 0.57. The model occasionally simulates hurricanes intensities of up to category 4 (~942 mb) in terms of central pressure, although the surface winds (< 47 m s−1) do not exceed category-2 intensity. On interannual time scales, the model reproduces the observed ENSO-Atlantic hurricane covariation reasonably well. Some notable aspects of the highly contrasting 2005 and 2006 seasons are well reproduced, although the simulated activity during the 2006 core season was excessive. The authors conclude that the model appears to be a useful tool for exploring mechanisms of hurricane variability in the Atlantic (e.g., shear versus potential intensity contributions). The model may be capable of making useful simulations/projections of pre-1980 or twentieth-century Atlantic hurricane activity. However, the reliability of these projections will depend on obtaining reliable large-scale atmospheric and SST conditions from sources external to the model.


Author(s):  
Danielle Child

Michael Fried is an American art critic, literary critic and art historian. Fried is most well-known for his art criticism, which contributed to the debates on modernist painting and sculpture that were played out in the pages of American art journals, such as Artforum, during the 1960s. In 1958, while studying English as an undergraduate at Princeton University, Fried met Clement Greenberg, whose theories on modernist painting influenced Fried’s subsequent writings and art criticism. He later studied under Richard Wollheim while at Oxford University. The formalist influence of Greenberg’s art criticism is prevalent in Fried’s two canonical texts on modernist art: "Three American Painters: Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, Frank Stella" (1965), the catalogue essay for an exhibition curated by Fried at Harvard’s Fogg Art Museum; and "Art and Objecthood" (1967). The former focuses upon three second-generation New York School painters, considered to be "high modernist." The latter is a defense of modernist painting against a new form of three-dimensional work that he terms "literal," now known as minimalist, sculpture. The argument initiated in these two essays formed a key moment in the debates that defined late-20th-century modernist art history. In the late 1960s Fried moved away from writing art criticism, focusing instead on modernist art in the 19th and early-20th centuries. He recently returned to contemporary art with his text Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before.


Author(s):  
Michael Griffin

The life and work of the Irish poet, playwright, essayist, historian, and novelist Oliver Goldsmith (b. 1728–d. 1774) had not received a tremendous amount of attention since the 1960s, a decade that saw a substantial burst of editorial and critical work, and, in particular, the publication of Arthur Friedman’s five-volume edition of the Collected Works (Goldsmith 1966, cited under Editions) and Roger Lonsdale’s edition of The Poems of Goldsmith, Gray and Collins (Goldsmith, et al. 1969, cited under Editions). A good deal of the critical scholarship that has emerged since then has been in dialogue with, or in response to, those editions and to two-book length works of criticism by Ricardo Quintana (Quintana 1967, cited under General Collections and Studies) and Robert H. Hopkins (Hopkins 1969, cited under General Collections and Studies), which argued for a greater appreciation of the ironic registers of Goldsmith’s work. Indeed, much Goldsmith criticism has focused on the question of whether he should be understood as a sentimentalist or as a satirist, since the oeuvre as a whole exists along a seam between the satirical tenor of his Augustan predecessors and the emerging sensibility of his literary milieu and an expanding middle-class audience. As such, Goldsmith’s writings are in many ways highly representative of his mid-18th-century contexts. The relative lack of sustained scholarly and critical work on Goldsmith since the 1960s is also partly attributable to his work being in some senses too various to accommodate in single thematic or generic studies: he moved across the modes of 18th-century writing with considerable ease and success. The eclectic nature of his oeuvre, and the variety of tones and registers he used in writing across the genres, has resulted in his being characterized in various, often-inconsistent ways. That said, clusters of essays and articles have appeared since the late 20th century that have illustrated the richness and instructive ambiguities of his writing and thinking. Also, his Irishness has been intermittently, and with varying degrees of insight or success, studied throughout the critical heritage as a contributing factor in his social and political worldview. In this article, items that Friedman acknowledged and incorporated into the editorial apparatus of his 1966 edition—including earlier scholarship on the history and sources of Goldsmith’s Greek, Roman, and English histories, the prefaces to which feature in Friedman’s work—are largely omitted. The emphasis here is primarily on the biographical tradition, on criticism and scholarship published after 1966, and within that period on the substantial bodies of criticism surrounding the major poetry and Goldsmith’s one novel.


Author(s):  
L. Benjamin Rolsky

Few decades in the history of America resonate more with the American people than the 1960s. Freedom, justice, and equality seemed to define the immediate futures of many of America’s historically most ostracized citizens. Despite the nostalgia that tends to characterize past and present analyses of the sixties, this imaginative work is important to consider when narrating the subsequent decade: the 1970s. Such nostalgia in considering the 1960s speaks to a sense of loss, or something worked at but not quite achieved in the eyes of the nation and its inhabitants. What happened to their aspirations? Where did they retreat to? And, perhaps more importantly, to what extent did “the spirit” of the 1960s catalyze its antithesis in the 1970s? In many ways the 1970s was a transitional period for the nation because these years were largely defined by various instances of cultural, or tribal, warfare. These events and their key actors are often under-represented in histories of late-20th-century America, yet they were formative experiences for the nation and their legacy endures in contemporary moments of polarization, division, and contestation. In this sense the 1970s were neither “liberal” nor “conservative,” but instead laid the groundwork for such terms to calcify into the non-negotiable discourse now known simply as the culture wars. The tone of the time was somber for many, and the period may be best understood as having occasioned a kind of “collective nervous breakdown.” For some, the erosion of trust in America’s governing institutions presented an unparalleled opportunity for political and electoral revolution. For others, it was the stuff of nightmares. America had fractured, and it was not clear how the pieces would be put back together.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document