the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Detection and global climatology of two types of cyclone clustering
Abstract. Cyclone clustering, the swift succession of multiple extratropical cyclones during a short period of time, is often associated with weather extremes and characterised by a strong atmospheric jet and enhanced baroclinicity. While several diagnostics exist to detect cyclone clustering, most focus on a regional impact. We introduce a novel global detection for cyclone clustering, inspired by the original idea of cyclone families by Bjerknes and Solberg, in which individual cyclones follow a similar track. We further subdivide cyclone clusters into two types, a 'Bjerknes' type and a stagnant type. The former is associated with cyclones that follow each other over a minimum distance, whereas the stagnant type requires a proximity over time while these cyclones do not move much in space.
We find that cyclone clustering is most frequent along the storm tracks, with more cyclone clustering during winter compared to summer. The majority of cyclone clustering occurs just south of the main storm tracks in the Atlantic and Pacific basins. In the Southern Hemisphere, most cyclone clustering is found in the South-Indian Ocean. Bjerknes type cyclone clustering is associated with stronger cyclones compared to non-clustered cyclones, while for the stagnant type this intensity difference is less pronounced. This effect is strongest for the North Atlantic and North Pacific, while clustered cyclones in the South Indian Ocean are generally not much stronger. The cyclone intensity within the Bjerknes type does not decrease during a cluster, while in contrast secondary cyclones of the stagnant type are significantly weaker than primary cyclones. This suggests that these two types of cyclone clustering are dynamically different.
- Preprint
(8820 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3404', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Dec 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Spengler, 24 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3404', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Jan 2025
The aim of this paper is to provide a global climatology of cyclone clustering based on Reanalysis data. With this aim, the authors apply a cyclone cluster detection approach to cyclone track data derived with the Murray and Simmonds tracking method. I am a bit puzzled about the results, because the main result is simply the well-known storm tracks, which can be derived easily from both eulerian and lagrangian methods (e.g. Hoskins and Hodges, 2002). Following the definition of Mailier et al (2006, also their Fig. 6), clustering is a synonym of overdispersion, meaning that there are periods of time where the number of occurrences within a defined period of time significantly differs from the expected value. Indeed, the areas where cyclone clustering is identified over the North Atlantic Ocean correspond to the areas on the flanks and downstream of the main storm track, and not the main storm track itself (see review by Dacre and Pinto, 2020, in particular their Figure 2). Indeed, over the core of main storm track, cyclone occurrences tends to be random, and at the its entrance underdispersed (see also their Fig. 2). Thus, the results included in this manuscript are clearly in disagreement with many studies published on this topic. So, while I understand the idea of the authors, the methodology simply identifies areas where “cyclones tend to follow each other”, which are per definition the storm tracks themselves. I would also recommend to consider a minimum intensity and lifetime for the cyclones (lines 85ff), as otherwise the whole picture may be dominated by non-synoptic-relevant systems.
Given the very fundamental question marks regarding the methodology, which I do not think it is adequate to answer the research questions and the objectives posed, I have refrained to make detailed comments on the text. Based on the above, I unfortunately cannot recommend this manuscript for publication. However, I do agree that a strongly re-worked manuscript would be an important contribution to this field of work, given the lack of studies outside of the North Atlantic Basin on cyclone clustering (see research gaps in Dacre and Pinto, 2020).
Dacre and Pinto, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00152-9
Hoskins and Hodges, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<1041:NPOTNH>2.0.CO;2
Mailier et al. 2006, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3160.1
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3404-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Spengler, 24 Feb 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
240 | 57 | 16 | 313 | 11 | 12 |
- HTML: 240
- PDF: 57
- XML: 16
- Total: 313
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 96 | 31 |
Netherlands | 2 | 47 | 15 |
Germany | 3 | 28 | 9 |
China | 4 | 22 | 7 |
United Kingdom | 5 | 14 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 96