Ocean currents show global intensification of weak tropical cyclones (original) (raw)

Data availability

The 6-hourly positions and upper-ocean current velocities of drifters are obtained from https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/gdp/interpolated/data/all.php. TC occurrence also with 6 h temporal resolution is acquired from the best track data from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (https://www.metoc.navy.mil/jtwc/jtwc.html?best-tracks) for the Western Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere, and the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center (https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/#hudat) for the Atlantic and Northeast and Central Pacific Oceans. Daily SST is from the NOAA 1/4° Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature (OISST), and it is downloaded from https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/sea-surface-temperature-optimum-interpolation/v2.1/access/avhrr/). The hourly current and wind data from the TAO/TRITON, RAMA and PIRATA buoy arrays are downloaded from https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/. The JRA-55 Reanalysis dataset is downloaded from https://jra.kishou.go.jp/JRA-55/index_en.html. The IAP monthly ocean temperature analysis data are downloaded from ftp://www.ocean.iap.ac.cn/cheng/CZ16_v3_IAP_Temperature _gridded_1month_netcdf. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Analysis and figure generation were performed using MATLAB. The code and scripts of the two main methods and four figures in the paper are available from Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7013352.

References

  1. Emanuel, K. A. The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature 326, 483–485 (1987).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  2. Knutson, T. R. & Tuleya, R. E. Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. J. Clim. 17, 3477–3495 (2004).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  3. Sobel, A. et al. Human influence on tropical cyclone intensity. Science 353, 242–246 (2016).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Emanuel, K. Response of global tropical cyclone activity to increasing CO2: results from downscaling CMIP6 models. J. Clim. 34, 57–70 (2021).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  5. Knutson, T. et al. Tropical cyclones and climate change assessment: Part II: projected response to anthropogenic warming. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 101, E303–E322 (2020).
    Article Google Scholar
  6. Landsea, C. W. Hurricanes and global warming. Nature 438, E11–E13 (2005).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Pielke, R. A. Are there trends in hurricane destruction? Nature 438, E11 (2005).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Knutson, T. et al. Tropical cyclones and climate change assessment: Part I: detection and attribution. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 100, 1987–2007 (2019).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  9. Klotzbach, P. et al. Trends in global tropical cyclone activity: 1990–2021. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2021GL095774 (2022).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  10. Schreck, C. J. III, Knapp, K. R. & Kossin, J. P. The impact of best track discrepancies on global tropical cyclone climatologies using IBTrACS. Mon. Weather Rev. 142, 3881–3899 (2014).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  11. Hennon, C. et al. Cyclone center: can citizen scientists improve tropical cyclone intensity records? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 96, 591–607 (2015).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  12. Weissman, D. E., Bourassa, M. A. & Tongue, J. Effects of rain rate and wind magnitude on sea winds scatterometer wind speed errors. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 19, 738–746 (2002).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  13. Jing, R., Lin, N., Emanuel, K., Vecchi, G. & Knutson, T. R. A comparison of tropical cyclone projections in a high-resolution global climate model and from downscaling by statistical and statistical-deterministic methods. J. Clim. 34, 9349–9364 (2021).
    ADS Google Scholar
  14. Emanuel, K. Contribution of tropical cyclone to meridional heat transport by the oceans. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 14771–14781 (2001).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  15. Lin, I. et al. The interaction of Supertyphoon Maemi (2003) with a warm ocean eddy. Mon. Weather Rev. 133, 2635–2649 (2005).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  16. Sriver, R. & Huber, M. Observational evidence for an ocean heat pump induced by tropical cyclones. Nature 447, 577–580 (2007).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  17. Korty, R. L., Emanuel, K. A. & Scott, J. R. Tropical cyclone-induced upper-ocean mixing and climate: application to equable climates. J. Clim. 21, 638–654 (2008).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  18. Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, D., Qiu, B. & Wang, W. Strengthening of the Kuroshio current by intensifying tropical cyclones. Science 368, 988–993 (2020).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  19. DeMaria, M., Sampson, C. R., Knaff, J. A. & Musgrave, K. D. Is tropical cyclone intensity guidance improving? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 95, 387–398 (2014).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  20. Dvorak, V. F. Tropical cyclone intensity analysis and forecasting from satellite imagery. Mon. Weather Rev. 103, 420 (1975).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  21. Dvorak, V. F. Tropical cyclone intensity analysis using satellite data. NOAA Tech. Rep. NESDIS 11, 47 (1984).
    Google Scholar
  22. Landsea, C. W., Harper, B. A., Hoarau, K. & Knaff, J. A. Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones? Science 313, 452–454 (2006).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  23. Knaff, J. A., Brown, D. P., Courtney, J., Gallina, G. M. & Beven, J. L. An evaluation of Dvorak technique–based tropical cyclone intensity estimates. Weather Forecast. 25, 1362–1379 (2010).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  24. Emanuel, K. A. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436, 686–688 (2005).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  25. Elsner, J. B., Kossin, J. P. & Jagger, T. H. The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones. Nature 455, 92–95 (2008).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  26. Webster, P. J., Holland, G. J., Curry, J. A. & Chang, H.-R. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309, 1844–1846 (2005).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  27. Holland, G. & Bruyère, C. L. Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change. Clim. Dyn. 42, 617–627 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
  28. Kossin, J. P., Olander, T. L. & Knapp, K. R. Trend analysis with a new global record of tropical cyclone intensity. J. Clim. 26, 9960–9976 (2013).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  29. Kossin, J. P., Knapp, K. R., Olander, T. L. & Velden, C. S. Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 117, 11975–11980 (2020).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  30. Price, J. F., Sanford, T. B. & Forristall, G. Z. Forced stage response to a moving hurricane. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 24, 233–260 (1994).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  31. Pallàs-Sanz, E., Candela, J., Sheinbaum, J. & Ochoa, J. Mooring observations of the near-inertial wave wake of Hurricane Ida (2009). Dyn. Atmospheres Oceans 76, 325–344 (2016).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  32. Sanabia, E. R. & Jayne, S. R. Ocean observations under two major hurricanes: evolution of the response across the storm wakes. AGU Advances 1, e2019AV000161 (2020).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  33. Li, R. et al. Slope-intensified storm-induced near-inertial oscillations in the South China Sea. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 126, e2020JC016713 (2021).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  34. Hsu, J. ‐Y., Lien, R. ‐C., D'Asaro, E. A. & Sanford, T. B. Scaling of drag coefficients under five tropical cyclones. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 3349–3358 (2019).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  35. Fan, S. et al. Observed ocean surface winds and mixed layer currents under tropical cyclones: Asymmetric characteristics. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 127, e2021JC017991 (2022).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  36. Chang, Y. C., Chen, G. Y., Tseng, R. S., Centurioni, L. R. & Chu, P. C. Observed near-surface flows under all tropical cyclone intensity levels using drifters in the northwestern Pacific. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 2367–2377 (2013).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  37. Niiler, P. P., Sybrandy, A. S., Bi, K., Poulain, P. M. & Bitterman, D. Measurements of the water following capability of holey-sock and TRISTAR drifters. Deep-Sea Res. 42, 1951–1964 (1995).
    Article Google Scholar
  38. Batts, M. E., Russell, L. R. & Simiu, E. Hurricane wind speeds in the United States. J. Struct. Div. 106, 2001–2016 (1980).
    Article Google Scholar
  39. Peng, Q. et al. Surface warming-induced global acceleration of upper ocean currents. Sci. Adv. 8, eabj8394 (2022).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  40. Huang, P., Lin, I. I., Chou, C. & Huang, R. H. Change in ocean subsurface environment to suppress tropical cyclone intensification under global warming. Nat. Commun. 6, 7188 (2015).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  41. Mei, W. & Pasquero, C. Spatial and temporal characterization of sea surface temperature response to tropical cyclones. J. Clim. 26, 3745–3765 (2013).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  42. Mei, W., Xie, S. P., Primeau, F., McWilliams, J. C. & Pasquero, C. Northwestern Pacific typhoon intensity controlled by changes in ocean temperatures. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500014 (2015).
    Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  43. Stewart, R. H. Introduction to Physical Oceanography (OAKTrust, 2008); https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/160216.
  44. Hwang, P. A., Reul, N., Meissner, T. & Yueh, S. H. Whitecap and wind stress observations by microwave radiometers: global coverage and extreme conditions. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 49, 2291–2307 (2019).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  45. Zijlema, M., van Vledder, G. P. & Holthuijsen, L. H. Bottom friction and wind drag for wave models. Coast. Eng. 65, 19–26 (2012).
    Article Google Scholar
  46. Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R. & Feinstein, A. R. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 49, 1373–1379 (1996).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  47. Kobayashi, S. et al. The JRA-55 Reanalysis: general specifications and basic characteristics. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan. 93, 5–48 (2015).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  48. Emanuel, K. A. The maximum intensity of hurricanes. J. Atmos. Sci. 45, 1143–1155 (1988).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  49. Holland, G. J. The maximum potential intensity of tropical cyclones. J. Atmos. Sci. 54, 2519–2541 (1997).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  50. Tang, B. & Emanuel, K. A ventilation index for tropical cyclones. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 93, 1901–1912 (2012).
    Article ADS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

G.W. and L.W. were supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2019YFC1510100) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41976003).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Guihua Wang, Lingwei Wu

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and CMA-FDU Joint Laboratory of Marine Meteorology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Guihua Wang & Lingwei Wu
  2. Department of Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    Wei Mei
  3. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
    Shang-Ping Xie

Authors

  1. Guihua Wang
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Lingwei Wu
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Wei Mei
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Shang-Ping Xie
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.W. initiated the idea, designed the study and interpreted the results. L.W. processed the data and performed the analyses. All the authors developed the idea and wrote the paper. W.M. and S.-P.X. discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toGuihua Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Buoy current and wind observations under TC conditions.

a, Relationship of observed wind speed and ageostrophic current speed considering latitudes under TC conditions (blue dots). Linear regression (red line) is also plotted between the binned averages of the observed wind speeds and current speeds (red dots), with \({V}_{0}\) in the regression equation being coupling between the ageostrophic current speed \(V\) and latitude \(\phi \) as \({V}_{0}=V\times \sqrt{{\rm{\sin }}\left|\phi \right|}\), and the slope of the fitted line (along with the 95% margin of error and the p-value of the _t_-test) is reported in the bottom right corner. The binned averages of the current speeds are calculated from the ageostrophic current speeds in every 0.1 m s−1 bin, and the corresponding observed wind speeds are taken to calculate the binned averages of the observed wind speeds. b, Comparison of the binned averages of the theoretical wind speeds estimated from the ageostrophic currents and observed wind speeds (red dots). The binned averages of the observed wind speeds are calculated from the observed wind speeds in every 1 m s−1 bin, and the corresponding theoretical wind speeds are taken to calculate the binned averages of the theoretical wind speeds. c, Distribution of buoys with current and wind observations in the TC-coordinate system (dots), with the purple dots indicating that the maximum wind speeds of the corresponding TCs are larger than 35 kt. The results are based on observations from the TAO/TRITON, RAMA, and PIRATA buoy arrays.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Winds of weak TCs derived from drifter current measurements based on typhoon wind field model of Batts.

a, The difference of spatial averages between the theoretical wind fields and composite wind fields for each five-consecutive-year period from 1991 to 2020. The length of the error bar for each period is twice the standard deviation divided by the square root of the effective number of observations during that period (i.e., twice the standard error of the mean). The effective number of observations is approximated as the number of observations that are separated by at least 500 km in distance or at least 10 days in time. b, The theoretical and composite wind fields for each five-consecutive-year period during 1991–2020, and differences between the two winds (theoretical winds minus composite winds). c, The composite wind fields for the periods of 1991–2005 and 2006–2020, and change of the wind fields between the two periods (2006–2020 minus 1991–2005).

Extended Data Fig. 3 PDFs of the maximum sustained wind under global weak TCs.

for 1991–2005 (blue) and 2006–2020 (red) derived from (a) all drifter observations, and (b) the same as (a) but with the results for 2006–2020 obtained with a random sampling method. Specifically, the random sampling procedure was repeated 10,000 times. Each time, 25,538 observations (i.e., the number available for the period of 1991–2005) were drawn from the entire 59,643 observations during 2006–2020, and a PDF of TC intensities was computed. The red curve shows the average PDF using the obtained 10,000 individual PDFs, with the error bars indicating the standard deviations of the 10,000 realizations. Bin size is 3 m s−1.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Drifter data quantity statistics and mean near-surface ocean current fields under weak TCs.

(a1, b1, c1, d1) are numbers of drifter records within \({r < 7R}_{{\rm{\max }}}\) for the period of 1991–2005, and (a2, b2, c2, d2) are the same as (a1, b1, c1, d1) but for 2006–2020, respectively. Global mean current fields, (e1, f1, g1) are for 1991–2005 and (e2, f2, g2) are for 2006–2020, and (e3, f3, g3) are changes of the mean currents between the two periods (2006–2020 minus 1991–2005). a1, a2 are for weak TCs range from 17 to 42 m s−1. b1, b2, e1-e3 are for weak TCs range from 17 to 32 m s−1, c1, c2, f1-f3 are for weak TCs whose LMI is 17 to 32 m s−1, d1, d2, g1-g3 are for weak TCs whose LMI is 17 to 42 m s−1, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Evolution of the drifter measured ocean current speeds within r < 7_R_max under weak TCs.

from 1991 to 2020. The color shading and solid lines represent the current speeds at different distances from the corresponding TC centers along the cross-track direction, and the dashed lines are the associated current speed trends. The lower and upper limits of all the lines are 18 and 45 cm s−1, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Translation speed (m s−1) of weak TCs during the period of 1991–2020.

The red and blue lines are the average during the periods of 1991–2005 and 2006–2020, respectively.

a, Potential intensity. b, Relative humidity at 600 hPa. c, Upper-ocean thermal stratification (represented by the difference of water temperature between ocean surface and 75-m depth, i.e., SST - T75m). d, Mixed layer depth (MLD, depth where the density change reaches a threshold value of 0.03 kg m−3 relative to the surface). The results in a and b are based on the JRA-55 reanalysis, and in c and d are calculated using the IAP ocean analysis data. Red dots denote regions where the linear trend is significant at the 0.05 level. Note this figure is produced by MATLAB.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Evolution of the near-surface ocean current speeds derived from drifters under TCs.

for individual basins and the globe. a is for weak TCs range from 17 to 32 m s−1, b is for weak TCs whose LMI is 17 to 32 m s−1, c is the same as b but LMI is 17 to 42 m s−1, and d is based on drifter data under strong TCs (Category-2–5) over NWP. The dashed lines indicate the fitted linear trends of the curves, and the estimated trends (along with the 95% margin of errors) and the p-values of the _t_-test for the trends are also reported. In each panel, the length of the error bar for each year is twice the standard deviation divided by the square root of the effective number of observations in that year. Discontinuity points along the curves in b and c represent missing values due to insufficient data.

Extended Data Table 1 TC Intensity estimates by JTWC (Joint Typhoon Warning Center), JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) and CMA (China Meteorological Agency)

Full size table

Extended Data Table 2 Trends in drifter-measured ocean current speeds within varying _R_max of weak TCs during the period of 1991–2020

Full size table

Supplementary information

Source data

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, G., Wu, L., Mei, W. et al. Ocean currents show global intensification of weak tropical cyclones.Nature 611, 496–500 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05326-4

Download citation