4.7 Article

On the intensity decay of tropical cyclones before landfall

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07310-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council/UKRI [NE/V017756/1]
  2. UK-China Research and Innovation Partnership Fund through the Met Office Climate Science for Service Partnership (CSSP) China as part of the Newton Fund
  3. NERC [NE/V017756/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The decay process of tropical cyclones from their ocean maximum intensity to landfall intensity remains unclear, but it is of fundamental importance in determining the socio-economic impact of these cyclones. This study presents a logistic decay model that connects the maximum intensity to landfall intensity based on energy production and surface dissipation. The distance between the maximum intensity and landfall location is found to be the dominant factor in the decay process, while environmental conditions are generally less influential.
It remains unclear how tropical cyclones (TCs) decay from their ocean lifetime maximum intensity (LMI) to landfall intensity (LI), yet this stage is of fundamental importance governing the socio-economic impact of TCs. Here we show that TCs decay on average by 25% from LMI to LI. A logistic decay model of energy production by ocean enthalpy input and surface dissipation by frictional drag, can physically connect the LMI to LI. The logistic model fits the observed intensity decay as well as an empirically exponential decay does, but with a clear physical foundation. The distance between locations of LMI and TC landfall is found to dominate the variability of the decay from the LMI to LI, whereas environmental conditions are generally less important. A major TC at landfall typically has a very large LMI close to land. The LMI depends on the heating by ocean warming, but the LMI location is also important to future landfall TC intensity changes which are of socio-economic importance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据