It's not quite tropical, but we already have the first named storm of the hurricane season, three weeks before the season is supposed to officially begin.

I hope that this isn't a portent.

[Update in the afternoon]

OK, why are they naming this storm? Do they name nor'easters? No, they don't, even though they can have much higher winds.

How long have they been naming subtropical storms? If we're seeing more named storms now than we used to, I wonder if it isn't because (a) we literally are seeing more than we used to, because many of the ones in the past decades we never even knew about if no ship encountered them, or they encountered no land, and (b) we are changing the naming rules, and comparing apples to oranges.

I think that we ought to stick to the tradition, and only name storms if they're tropical. If "Andrea" becomes tropical, then fine, but for now, I don't think it deserves a name.

Based on the story I read, it was basically a typical lwo-pressure system enhanced by a high-pressure system in New England -- a storm that would otherwise be categorised as a nor'easter if it was about 20 miles north.

From weather.com: "Unlike a tropical cyclone, this is a cold-core system and its strongest winds are found miles away from the center of circulation; not tightly wrapped around the center."

I don't think it's a portent, I think it's just an otherwise normal low that happened to be far enough south to not be called a nor'easter.

John,

Do you mean man made global warming isn't causing a shift in weather cycles thus more and larger cyclones are occurring sooner in the season and threatening all life as we know it?

THIS IS TYPICAL?

Or do you mean: "The gulf stream has failed and now Noreaster's are being found further south down the coast. Any minute now, -150C temperatures will be found above 45N latitudes, and helicopters will fall from the sky?"

According to the NHC, this is neither a warm nor cold core system.

See also this FAQ at NHC. Excerpt:

Prior to 2002 subtropical storms were not given names, but the National Hurricane Center issued forecasts and warnings similar to those for tropical cyclones. Now they are given names from the tropical cyclone list.

So it seems to me you'd need to normalize the counts before and after 2002 in order to avoid bias when looking for trends. Hurricanes would always be tropical (at some time during their existence), not sub-tropical though, so if you're just counting them there shouldn't be a bias.

A more serious bias might be from the says before satellites, when some hurricanes far from land might have been missed.

Now they are given names from the tropical cyclone list.

And they didn't see fit to come up with a longer list? That wasn't very bright.

In a world which is desparately looking to blame the U.S. for the weather, it helps to be able to "name" as much as possible. Helps in the stats, Helps in the fear-mongering, Helps raise the perception that THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END. Now, if we could start naming every rainstorm which overflows the gutters, we could start impeachment hearings immediately!

Something about "subtropical storm" makes me think of "dwarf planet." They should have named it Pluto instead ...