4.7 Article

Sea Surface Temperature Thresholds for Tropical Cyclone Formation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 28, 期 20, 页码 8171-8183

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00637.1

关键词

Hurricanes; typhoons; Sea surface temperature; Tropical cyclones; Atmosphere-ocean interaction; Climatology; Hurricanes; typhoons

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Almost 70 years ago a sea surface temperature (SST) threshold of 26 degrees-27 degrees C, below which tropical cyclones (TCs) did not form, was proposed, based on a qualitative assessment of warm-season global SST and known TC formation regions. This threshold was widely accepted without further testing, until a recent study suggested a threshold of 25.5 degrees C. That study is revisited here by reexamining the SST for all global TC formations from 1981 to 2008 using (i) a broader range of SST threshold values, (ii) an improved method for identifying subtropical stormsany storm that forms poleward of the subtropical jet (STJ), and (iii) a range of TC formation gestation periods, which refers to a time interval prior to formation in which the SST threshold is exceeded for at least one 6-h period. Consequently, thresholds reported in this paper are expressed as a combination of SST and gestation period.Using the STJ position to identify and exclude subtropical storms, the threshold of 25.5 degrees C SST-48-h gestation period was found to be robust, but conservative. An examination of TCs of questionable validity (e.g., weak, short lived, and/or storms that formed with baroclinic influences) revealed a further 26 storms (1.2%) that could arguably be excluded from the analysis. With these storms removed, several SST-gestation period threshold combinations were found to be valid, including 25.5 degrees C-18 h and 26.5 degrees C-36 h. A practical threshold combination of 26.5 degrees C-24 h is proposed as only two additional storms failed to meet this threshold, which supports the often-quoted 26.5 degrees C SST necessary condition for TC formation.

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