Katrina and global warming

[Adrian II]

No connection. Never has been. GW may have all sorts of effects, but not on hurricanes. All amateur theories we keep hearing are junk. We have been here before, I have shown people the way to the facts and statistics of hurricane research of the IPCC and the large hurricane institutes around the world and I am not going to repeat that. I will let CNN do the job or me this time.

If global warming were the cause of the increase in United States hurricane landfalls in 2004 and the overall increase in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity of the past ten years (1995-2004), one would expect to see an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the other storm basins as well (i.e., West Pacific, East Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc.)," the report said. "This has not occurred. "When tropical cyclones worldwide are summed, there has actually been a slight decrease since 1995."

[Papewaio]

But the average wind speed for them has increased 50% which is over a doubling of the kinetic energy.

[Aenlic]

Saying that this thing or that thing is directly related to global warming is rather simplistic at best. So in that regard, you are correct. But the CNN report is just as simplistic. It uses faulty logic. The systems in the different areas are separate. Something which affects one doesn't necessarily have to affect all or even more than that one.

For example, one reason that Atlantic hurricanes are more volatile than Western Pacific cyclones is the water temperature. In the North Atlantic, the Atlantic North Equatorial Current, the Caribbean Current, the Antilles Current and the Gulf Stream are all warm water currents over which the majority of the Atlanic hurricanes flow. That warm water provides the energy necessary for the formation of tropical cyclone systems.

When was the last time you heard about a south Atlantic hurricane? You haven't. That's because there aren't any. The South Atlantic currents are too cold to support hurricane formation. In the Pacific the situation is different. Cyclones which form off the west coast of North America are usually short-lived, because the southbound California current is a cold water current. If the system can stay together long enough to track into the Pacific westward-flowing North Equatorial Current, then some energy can be acquired from it. This is where El Niño and La Niña have their greatest effect.

The western South Pacific has the cold water Humboldt Current. This retards formation of tropical cyclone there.

In the Eastern Pacific the situation is much more complex. The currents are more numerous, they are affected by the various island masses, and there is a very strong counter equatorial current which flows between the north and south equatorial currents as well. The same goes for the Indean Ocean currents, in regards to complexity. None of the other tropical storm basins are as simple as the North Atlantic.

Add to all of that the fact that global warming doesn't necessarily mean more warmth in every local system. In fact, global warming can even cause cooler temperatures in some areas as more Arctic and Antarctic ice melts and enters the cold water currents which flow from them. Conversely, any warming of the currents will definitely cause stronger cyclones, simply because that would mean more energy would be available to drive the cyclone strengths.

All things considered, to state that one would expect an increase in other storm basin cyclone frequencies if global warming were to cause an increase in North Atlantic cyclones is rather simplistic.

[Bartix]

I'm walking on sunshine

Aenlic right.

It is not needing to be global in this case, just local.
Water in Caribbean/Mexican Gulf area warms on average .1 C, result is time with water over 27C, which is necessary condition for hurricane, can increase many times just like that!!!

May be due to changes in currents, winds, more glaciers melting...
Other places local water temperature is not increasing above 27C.

This is not meaning that there is no global warming.
I am thinking there is.

But may be real estate in New Orleans will not be very valuable later?

[Adrian II]

But the average wind speed for them has increased 50% which is over a doubling of the kinetic energy.

I see. And those raskals in the IPCC and the major hurricane centers all ignored it? I wonder why. Could it be that the claim of a 50% increase in wind speed appears idiotic even to the naked eye?...

Hurricane centers measure these things, compare their measurements with a myriad of other meteorological data and try to make reasonable assessments. The U.S. National Hurricane Center is one of the best. This is their summary of recent research:

To summarize, our current assessment of how global warming may alter hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones is as follows (from Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998, Knutson et al. 1998, and Royer et al. 1998):

• There is no evidence to suggest tropical cyclones will have any major changes in WHERE they form or occur.
• Preliminary analyses hint that only small to no change in the NUMBER of tropical cyclones may occur, and that regionally there may be areas that have small increases or small decreases in frequency.
• The PEAK INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by 5-10% in wind speeds, but this may be an overestimate because of simplifications in the calculations.
• Little is known as to how the AVERAGE INTENSITY or SIZE of tropical cyclones may change due to global warming.

Overall, these suggested changes are quite small compared to the observed large natural variability of hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. However, more study is needed to better understand the complex interaction between these storms and the tropical atmosphere/ocean.

[Papewaio]

I see. And those raskals in the IPCC and the major hurricane centers all ignored it? I wonder why. Could it be that the claim of a 50% increase in wind speed appears idiotic even to the naked eye?...

Are you calling me an idiot?

One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, would be more than sufficient to do that.

[Papewaio]

The 1998 paper you quoted is a predictive model about typhoons in a global warming environment.

Based upon alterations to the large scale atmospheric and oceanic conditions (vertical shear, vorticity and thermodynamic stability), they suggest that only small changes to the tropical cyclone frequencies may result: up to 10% increase in numbers in the Northern Hemisphere (primarily in the Northwest Pacific) and up to a 5% decrease in numbers in the Southern Hemisphere. These values should be considered very preliminary.

The MIT study is from the 31st July 2005 online Nature journal.

To explore that premise, Emanuel analyzed records of tropical cyclones--commonly called hurricanes or typhoons--since the middle of the 20th century. He found that the amount of energy released in these events in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. Both the duration of the cyclones and the largest wind speeds they produce have increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years.

[Adrian II]

Are you calling me an idiot?

Are you calling the IPCC idiots?

[Adrian II]

The MIT study is from the 31st July 2005 online Nature journal.

Oh, now the National Hurricane Center are idiots too? I am aware of the Emanuel research paper. He says the increase in intensity measured in his model is only partly due to a rise in surface temperature. Otherwise, surface temperature in the 'genesis areas' would have had to rise by 10% over the past fifty years. If you look at his text, Emanuel takes lots of other factors into account. The media, as usual, do not.

[Papewaio]

Oh, now the National Hurricane Center are idiots too? I am aware of the Emanuel research paper. He says the increase in intensity measured in his model is only partly due to a rise in surface temperature. Otherwise, surface temperature in the 'genesis areas' would have had to rise by 10% over the past fifty years. If you look at his text, Emanuel takes lots of other factors into account. The media, as usual, do not.

Hang on you are having your cake and eating to.

You say you know of his paper which states that storms have increased in intensity and speed by 50% over the last 50 years and then call me an idiot for quoting it.

====

I don't think it is the complete blackbody curve that needs to be looked at (300K to 330K to the power of 4 resulting in an increase of 50% energy), it is more important to compare the tails of the curve. It is afterall only the energetic hot ones that contribute to the hurricane. Comparing the kinetic contribrution of the tails would give a better insight into how much energy is required.

[Papewaio]

Are you calling the IPCC idiots?

No, where did I say that?

The number one rule is always question authority.

The second rule is that we don't fully understand a phenomena if a first year student cannot understand the explanation.

The third rule is that scientists are explorers of the unknown. Absolute answers are to them what staying in Portugal was to Christopher Columbus.

The fourth rule is when at a party and chatting to a girl never say you study physics. Say that you study nature instead...

[Lazul]

No matter how you twist and turn it, no matter if the hurricanes are connected to GW or not, GW is still a problem.
The polar ice is melting, and recently scientists have discovered that the the ice is melting way faster then it has before.

[_Martyr_]

Little is known as to how the AVERAGE INTENSITY or SIZE of tropical cyclones may change due to global warming.

Right here Adrian is the golden nugget. Right here they directly say they dont know. So how can you claim to be so conclusive?

Lets not let this discussion degenerate into calling people idiots. Its been pretty good so far.

[Adrian II]

Right here Adrian is the golden nugget. Right here they directly say they dont know. So how can you claim to be so conclusive?

I do not claim conclusiveness, Martyr. I say that claims about the effect of global warming on hurricanes are at best tentative, not conclusive at all. Emanuel may be onto something, but such research papers should (and will) be evaluated, their results reviewed and computed again, compared to other research and other models, etcetera. One study is not conclusive.

Papewaio, you claim conclusiveness on the basis of a single study that does not fit the bulk of hurricane research done so far. When such articles come from global warming 'skeptics', you are usually the first to discard them because they run counter to the 'scientific consensus' (IPCC) about man-made global warming. On this issue, however, you suddenly pose as a rebel and start to 'question authority'. That is not very convincing.

Oh, and I said some claims are idiotic. I never called people idiotic. Let alone .org members. Please do not accuse me of that.

[Adrian II]

No matter how you twist and turn it, no matter if the hurricanes are connected to GW or not, GW is still a problem. The polar ice is melting, and recently scientists have discovered that the the ice is melting way faster then it has before.

That is correct. I think nobody denies that we are in a warming period. We will have to do a lot to mitigate the consequences whilst we further research the causes.

[_Martyr_]

Well Adrian, I dont mean to be an ass, but your statements dont match up...

I do not claim conclusiveness, Martyr. I say that claims about the effect of global warming on hurricanes are at best tentative, not conclusive at all.

No connection. Never has been. GW may have all sorts of effects, but not on hurricanes. All amateur theories we keep hearing are junk.

[Adrian II]

Well Adrian, I dont mean to be an ass, but your statements dont match up...

No connection has been demonstrated, ever. And all the amateur climate theories you find in the media, on blogs and among 'climate sceptics' make me sick. And that is a conclusive statement.

EDIT
I was looking around for comments from other hurricane experts and I found this article on Boston.com News. It seems that even Emanuel was 'surprised' by his own results. William 'Hurricane' Gray (the veteran researcher who is responsible for the yearly U.S. hurricane forecasts) thinks the Emanual paper stinks. On the other hand Christopher Landsea, a global warming skeptic who worked on the IPCC until recently, thinks Emanuel is to be recommended for his effort to tackle this virtually unresearched subject. Well, that's the world of science for you -- a hurricane onto itself.

[Devastatin Dave]

George Bush was also the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

[Adrian II]

George Bush was also the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

That was Elvis, you retard.

[Aenlic]

The IPCC report was issued in 1998. There have been other reports since then. Below are some excerpts from the the 2001 IPCC Workshop on Changes in Extreme Weather and Climate Events ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/extremes.pdf)

The IPCC working group goes to a great deal of effort to explain why we simply do not have enough information to make pronouncements one way or the other. So, saying that global warming is causing an increase in tropical cyclone strength or frequency is unsupportable; but so is saying the opposite (like the CNN story tried to claim, in essence).

Frequency of tropical cyclones (TC) has been used as an indicator of climate change in general circulation models. The group identified a number of key gaps in our existing knowledge.
• Method of counting TCs in global models
• Unrealistic present-day climatology
• Inconsistent sign of change in enhanced CO2 environment
• Mechanisms of TC genesis in large-scale models

There is a lack of consistency in the techniques used for counting TCs in climate models and results may be sensitive to the method used.

Observed records of tropical cyclone activity are short and there are many problems with homogeneity. Consistent satellite data are only available since the 1960s and regions where longer-term statistics are available show large interdecadal variability in cyclone activity. Palaeoreconstruction of tropical cyclone activity has a number of problems but has potential relevance to the climate change issue. Inhomogeneities in the historical records of environmental variables, such as atmospheric temperature, limit the extent to which we can assess historical activity via maximum potential intensity (MPI) analyses.

Clearly, the IPCC recognizes that we simply don't know enough about the very basics of cyclones to make pronouncements are how global warming affects them, for one side or the other. The whole report is an interesting read. It , at least, attempts to identify the questions which need to be asked before we can ever begin to start finding answers.

[Devastatin Dave]

I think some of you guys have watched to much of "The Day After Tomorrow". Hopefully Dennis Quad won't be busy on the movie set (which I'm sure he won't be) to save us all from the evils that our government has set upon us.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The "Sky is falling" crowd marches on.

Yet when others say Jesus shall come again they scoff at them

Both have the same rhetoric. You will be sorry the day it happens and you didnt listen to us.

[Lazul]

nobody saying that the sky will fall down, and nobody believes in the Day of Tomorrow movie. Understand that please.

Yes polar ice is melting fast, there is fact for it, but im not argumenting that huge waves of water and storm will sweep over the world and crush our world, the real danger is the slow moving process as the waterlevel of the world will rise slowly and that is a danger for all the cities below waterlevel.

GW will never be showed in a hollywood movie in a fair way, couse its not exiting and the movie would have to stretch 100 years.

[yesdachi]

If the sky isn’t falling then what’s the bright side? Is there one? Are we destined to die as a result of GW?

[Crazed Rabbit]

The polar ice is melting, and recently scientists have discovered that the the ice is melting way faster then it has before.

Altogether now;
BS!
Fomr the British Antarctic Survey:

Most models, however, indicate relatively modest temperature rises around Antarctica over the next 50 years and, over this time period, increased snowfall over the continent should more than compensate for increased melting of Antarctic ice and will thus partially offset the rise in sea level resulting from thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of icecaps and glaciers elsewhere in the world. However, many processes occurring in the polar regions are not well represented in climate models at present and further research is needed to improve our confidence in these predictions. This is particularly true for predictions beyond 50 years, when Antarctica may start to warm enough to have a significant impact on the ice sheets.

Few Antarctic stations have climate records extending back longer than 50 years so it is difficult to say whether temperature changes in Antarctica reflect those in the global record, which shows an overall warming trend of about 0.5°C between the late nineteenth century and the present Antarctic temperature records are characterised by a very high level of interannual variability, which makes the determination of trends from short records problematical. At most Antarctic stations, temperature trends are small and statistically insignificant. The magnitudes (and even the signs) of the trends are highly dependent on the exact period studied. The observing station network is sparse and there are large areas of the interior of the continent that have no representative climate records. It is thus not possible to say definitively whether Antarctica as a whole is warming or cooling. The extent of winter sea ice around Antarctica is thought to be a very sensitive indicator of climatic change but it has only been possible to observe this since suitable instruments were deployed on satellites in the early 1970s. Like the temperature records, the sea ice record exhibits a great deal of interannual variability. In recent years, reducing sea ice extent in some regions has been balanced by increasing extent in others and there is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.

Kinda blows that histerical 'Oh no the ice is melting and we're all going to die because we can't move faster than water rising at 1 foot every ten years in the worst case scenario!' right out of the water, doesn't it?

As to hurricanes and global warming; pleaaaasssssseeeeeee. I'm sick of any tiny change in the weather being attributed to those evil fosil fuels. Do you really think wind speeds have increased 50%? That earth has never ever experienced such hurricanes as we are having? Or that 50 years ago the tools they had for measuring didn't go high enough?

Crazed Rabbit

[Devastatin Dave]

Al Gore invented Global Warning...

[Adrian II]

Al Gore invented Global Warning...

Margaret Thatcher did that, as described by physicist, science writer, BBC commentator and New Scientist editor Nigel Calder in his book The manic sun: weather theories confounded (1997). Let me plagiarise it.

When she became Prime Minister in 1979, Thatcher had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary under Ted Heath. She was remembered for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren which earned her the nick of Margaret ‘Milk Snatcher'.

Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the United Nations, suggested a solution: he pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry.

Tickell pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. At the same time this gave her the perfect excuse to get rid of the British coal mining industry and its politicised union and replace it by much 'cleaner' nuclear energy. Her favourite 'warming' scientist John Houghton was appointed as the IPCC's first president.

Oh, the and IPCC is a serious body of scientists and far more impartial (or should I say, balanded) than you seem to think. In 1997 for instance, the then IPCC president, meteorologist Bert Bolin, said during a visit to the U.S. that he did 'not trust the Greens', that 'man-made increases in temperature are so small as to be barely detectable' and that he took issue with a statement by Gore's good friend Tim Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, that global warming science was 'settled': 'Tim Wirth may have said that, but I've talked with him and I know he really doesn't mean it.'

[Crazed Rabbit]

Huh. The issue that many on the left side of the political spectrum* love to shout about was used to crack down on unions.

Crazed Rabbit

*speaking in generalities.

[Reverend Joe]

Look, you fools, this is a moot point here! We're all gonna kill each other- and soon. Does it really matter how? Whether we heat the earth to a broiling temperature, or burn ourselves in a nuclear funeral pyre, or seed the clouds with VX and rain poison down upon ourselves? Humans are naturally suicidal. We know we've already outlived our usefulness, and aside from the desire to dominate, the desire to destroy is absolute. Arguing the how and why of our destruction is ridiculous when the event is inevitable, and not long in coming.

So relax- smoke a joint or two, eat some mescaline, drink a liter of scotch, whatever you need to do- and just wait for the fires to burn you too.

[yesdachi]

Look, you fools, this is a moot point here! We're all gonna kill each other- and soon. Does it really matter how? Whether we heat the earth to a broiling temperature, or burn ourselves in a nuclear funeral pyre, or seed the clouds with VX and rain poison down upon ourselves? Humans are naturally suicidal. We know we've already outlived our usefulness, and aside from the desire to dominate, the desire to destroy is absolute. Arguing the how and why of our destruction is ridiculous when the event is inevitable, and not long in coming.

So relax- smoke a joint or two, eat some mescaline, drink a liter of scotch, whatever you need to do- and just wait for the fires to burn you too.

I think humans are naturally self-preservationists, often going to extremes to keep themselves safe from harm. And I have serious doubts we’ll be killing ourselves anytime soon but I like your suggestion to relax.