Comment on ‘‘Low frequency Variability in Globally Integrated Tropical Cyclone Power Dissipation’’ by Ryan Sriver and Matthew Huber

Sriver and Huber [2006] (hereinafter referred to as SH06), in an effort to examine low frequency tropical cyclone (TC) intensity trends, utilized atmospheric reanalysis data (ERA40 [Uppala et al., 2005] and NNR [Kalnay et al., 1996]) to develop a TC power dissipation (PD) climatology. The variance of the normalized filtered TC PD time series (SH06, Figure 1) matched up well (especially after 1978) with the results of Emanuel [2005] (hereinafter referred to as E05), who employed the best-track (BT) dataset. SH06 therefore asserted that the ERA40 TC PD climatology was an independent, uncorrected, and robust representation of trends in global TC activity. Furthermore, SH06 concluded that the power dissipation index (PDI) developed by E05 was an accurate estimate of the PD. In this comment, we question the veracity of SH06’s assertion that the ERA40 PD is an independent confirmation of E05’s findings.

Maue, R. N., and R. E. Hart (2007), Comment on “Low frequency variability in globally integrated tropical cyclone power dissipation” by Ryan Sriver and Matthew Huber, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L11703, doi:10.1029/2006GL028283.