Global Warming Expected to Intensify Hurricanes 589
DoraLives writes "Think this hurricane season was bad? Well according to the New York Times, a study was published online on Tuesday by The Journal of Climate indicating that warming ocean temperatures are going to make for stronger, wetter hurricanes in the coming years and decades. An abstract of the article concludes cheerfully enough that 'greenhouse gas-induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.' Oh joy."
Haiti (Score:5, Informative)
The estimates are one or two thousand dead these days.
you mean Look Out East Coast! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bush said! (Score:3, Informative)
Even the Bush administration has issued reports saying that global temperatures should rise about 4 degrees over the next century (independent studies say it's more like 10). Global warming is technically a theory, but it's one of the best supported and widely believed in the scientific community. Whether or not humans have played a part in it is up for debate, though. Quick side note: since the last ice age, 1 degree/100 year increase is generally regarded as a fast temperature increase.
Back on topic, any rapid change in climate is going to have some major natural disasters, be it hurricanes or undue rain or even prolonged drought, depending on the area. It's not going to be like that movie where everything happens at once and tidal waves are suddenly racing through manhattan, but florida isn't the only place in for a rough time.
Re:Kyoto to the rescue (Score:3, Informative)
98 out of 100. Two senators did not vote.
So even John Kerry voted not to ratify Kyoto. Hell, even fathead Ted Kennedy did. Because it's not about "the environment", it's about shackling the economies of the west. And if you look deeper, you will see the huge trade concessions made to Russia (by EU member states) in order for them to sign.
Apparently, 98 senators who are normally split along party lines figured that one out. There's 1+1=2 for you.
Re:Problem Solved (Score:3, Informative)
Reminds me of a book. (Score:3, Informative)
"Was bad"? (Score:5, Informative)
The atmosphere is a heat engine... (Score:5, Informative)
This (more hurricanes) comes as a surprise to anyone? The atmosphere is a heat engine. You put more heat energy in, you get more wind energy out. It's as simple as that. Of course you're going to get more high wind events. In the Carribean, you call those Hurricanes.
What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Problem Solved (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Thanks Bush! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In other news... (Score:1, Informative)
"Two legs good! Four legs bad!"
Eight years of Clinton... 40+ years of Democrat controlled Congress... Clinton shoots down the Kyoto Accords... and you're blaming Bush? Do ya really think it's a Halliburton-Bush-Bildeberger-Alien Abduction-Jews are Blood Suckers conspiracy? It's shocking how these self-professed intellectuals can latch onto such bizarre, poorly constructed delusions.
Please, take the tin foil hats off. Quit blindly trusting political parties and their media arms (NY Times is one of the least credible news sources now days and every "news" story should be treated as more anti-objective thinking hatred.
Consider this article [kaleo.org] that explains that the credibile sources understand there is not a cororlation between alleged warming and hurricanes:
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- As hurricane after hurricane strikes the southeastern United States, many people wonder whether the rash of storms is the result of global warming.
The answer from scientists: Probably not, and certainly not with this year's weather. In fact, the overall global temperatures
Although many experts think global warming could increase the number or the intensity of hurricanes 50 years from now, they say this year's storms were caused by natural changes in the ocean and atmosphere. These include a multi-decade cycle of warm water moving through the Atlantic Ocean, and the unusual mildness of the hurricane-suppressing patch of warm water in the Pacific called El Nino.
"This isn't a global-warming sort of thing," said Hugh Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research Center of Florida International University. "It's a natural cycle."
Curiously, the data shows we're in a cooling pattern (many of the credible scientists understand nearly all of the effect is associated with sun cycles and these are thankfully out of the reach of Halliburton for now). Data from non-urban sources confirms the overall cooling trend, while urban heating continues to be a problem. If you really want to do something about it, quit living in the damn cities!
And according to these people [cgfi.org], global cooling kills more people than warming (I can see the NYTimes correction now: Climate cooling, not warming, but Bush-induced cooling kills more than warming!)
And this cooling trend isn't a new phenomenon that can be "blamed on Bush" - unless you want to include Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and (gasp) Carter this cooling has been happening since 1975 [globalclimate.org]. Pretty interesting that the NY Times gets this wrong too. Then again, when the media feels it appropriate to run forged documents provided by mentally unsound oddballs that every expert consulted says are fraudulant, should we be surprised?
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... (Score:5, Informative)
"Dr. Emanuel and the study's authors cautioned that it was too soon to know whether hurricanes would form more or less frequently in a warmer world. Even as seas warm, for example, accelerating high-level winds can shred the towering cloud formations of a tropical storm."
The important take-away is that the models predict a higher proportion of severe hurricanes, but no one knows yet whether there would be more or less hurricanes.
Ironically, we could wind up with both drought and more severe hurricanes. If the total number of hurricanes diminishes, large areas of the South could experience drought. Yet, when a hurricane does form, it could be more severe than has been usual so far. Worst of both effects...
Re:The Cause of Global Warming (Score:5, Informative)
Since the industrial age has begun, the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280ppmv to 380ppmv [nasa.gov]. You can argue about the effects of that carbon dioxide, but this does not strike me as a "miniscule" change; we've modified the carbon dioxide in the entire planet's atmosphere by almost a third!
The fact that humans can have such a drastic effect on an entire planet is pretty amazing.
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:2, Informative)
And they never will be. Period. This is the result of imperfect models and imperfect initial conditions. Even though your model was "perfect", uncertainty in your initial conditions will cause large error growths by some time. This is one aspect of chaotic systems....
That being said, one should keep in mind that climate models do not forecast the wather into the future. They do not attempt to forecast the weather on Jan. 26th 2043. What we call weather forecast is an attempt to model the weather systems (low pressures, high pressures) on short time scales. At best, the position and intensities of these systems can be modeled with some accuracy. For climate simulations the positions and intensities of weather systems are of less value, it is the statistics of these weather systems which can be described.
To me it seems natural that the intensities of hurricanes will change as a result of any global warming, since the intensity of hurricanes are closely linked to ocean surface temperature (evaporation is the primary energy source for tropical hurricanes).
Climate change is going to happen (Score:2, Informative)
Global warming may be a major factor. It is debatable if humans are responsible for global warming or not. (I expect this to get me modded down by the tree huggers.) What people need to realize is that change in the environment is constant. The last couple of thousand years things have been mild enough for humans to not only remember how things have been in the past but allowed us to develop the scientific processes that have allowed us to understand a lot of what is going on. We don't understand it all but we are working on it.
The big thing is to recognize that the earth is not a static diorama that never changes. It has gone through major weather cycles in the past and will continue to do so until the ultimate when the Sun goes nova. I personally doubt that people have as big an effect on the climate as some would like us to believe.
As things change people will adapt or find ways to adapt the environment to them. It is the way it has always been. If people survive for the next 10,000 years then we might figure out how to control the weather patterns. But hopefully we will be smart enough by then to know that we should leave well enough alone. And by that time we should have established self sustaining colonies off planet. So if the Earth becomes less than hospitable for us we can continue else where.
Another thing to remember, is if and when we try to control the weather, and that includes trying to fix global warming, we are more than likely going to cause more problems than what we had to start with. Remember, the job will go to the lowest bidder. And I expect the weather control stations will have the normal set of defects and shoddy workmanship which will lead to break downs and control problems.
Re:Problem Solved (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so. Ozone reflects radiation. Near the earth's surface, that's a bad thing because it keeps heat down. In the upper atmosphere, it's a good thing because it keeps far more heat out.
"Ozone reflects light in the upper part of the stratosphere, and thereby has a cooling effect. However, ozone in the troposphere acts as a greenhouse gas, and has a direct warming effect."
http://www.grida.no/inf/kurs/themes/ozon/ozon4.ht
Re:Blame China (Score:1, Informative)
Back to the topic of coal fires, they only "produce about 2-3% of the total world carbon dioxide", while the US produces around 30%.
Re:Kyoto (Score:5, Informative)
(Kerry voted against the Kyoto agreement in the Senate in 1998)
You know, I've seen so many Republican talking points that come in the form of "Kerry voted against X", that turn out to be based on procedural details and similar bullshit. So I did some Googling and found this article from December 1997 [washingtonpost.com] (smothered in an avalanche of right wing blogs essentially parroting what you said). In January 1998 the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto because the exemptions for developing countries were widely viewed as unfair.
There is more than one side to this story (Score:2, Informative)
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! (Score:1, Informative)
The Gulf Stream is nothing new. It's just uncommon for a storm to last long enough to make it almost to the end.
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:4, Informative)
The 30ish year hurricane cycle is well established, but global warming cuts across that -- if the sea is generally warmer there will be more hurricanes compared to the same point in the 30 year cycle when the sea is cooler.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! (Score:3, Informative)
As a former Floridian I can tell you that they don't, at least not in the major Hurricane areas. Wood houses are much more common in the rest of the country, and I might add that a properly built wood house can be pretty tough. There are areas of the Atlantic coast with more wood construction, but they are in places where a hurricane hasn't landed in recorded history. It could happen though, and would probably spawn new building codes.
I forget the exact 3 letter abbreviation, but standard Florida code calls for concrete block construction with steel rebar, as well as extra bindings to keep the roof of a building from being blown off which is the major precursor to full structural failure.
As for hurricanes getting worse due to global warming, there is a much more important natural cycle that plays a far larger role. Back in the 1940's there were hurricanes worse than what we have today, but then the weather system was not able to effectively track them, and far fewer people lived in FL anyway.
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:2, Informative)
Not exactly. Hurricanes are fueled by convection so they need warm ocean surface temperatures and considerably cooler temperatures aloft. Warmer temperatures aloft don't support convection as well and will either lead to weaker or fewer storms. Also, during years of El Nino warm conditions in the Pacific, the upper level wind shear is less favorable for hurricane formation. All this shows is that weather is much more complicated than just "more thermal energy = more hurricanes".
Check out this faq [noaa.gov] for tons of info on hurricanes and tropical cyclone prediction.
Re:Kyoto (Score:5, Informative)
KERRY (AND CHAFEE) AMENDMENT NO. 987 (Senate - July 24, 1997)
[Page: S8101] GPO's PDF
(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Chafee) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the resolution (S. Res. 98) expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; as follows:
On page 4, line 13, after `period,' insert the following:
`(ii) provides countries with incentives and flexibility in reducing emissions cost-effectively by using the market-oriented approaches of emissions budgets, emissions trading, and appropriate joint implementation with all Parties,
`(iii) includes credible compliance mechanisms, and
`(iv) provides appropriate recognition for countries that undertake emissions reductions prior to the start of the mandated reductions;'.
Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of this has to do with the rampant deforestation in Haiti. Notice that the Dominican Republic, which is on the same island, did not suffer nearly as badly, as it still has much of its forest remaining. There's a picture [nasa.gov] where you can pretty clearly see the border of Haiti and the DR -- DR is green, and Haiti is not.
Re:Nature's way... (Score:1, Informative)
Every time a tank gunner fires a shot, a computer runs a simulation---accounting for air resistance, winds, even the Coriolis effect---to figure out where the shell will land. Don't worry, though, it's describing where the shot could land if the Earth continues rotating.
And, CO2 is increasing, so that's the most useful thing to put into the simulations, no? Another post backs up the 1% number---the scientists didn't just make that up. But, if that is a bit too speculative for you, perhaps they can run another simulation under the assumption that an extraterrestrial carbon-neutral energy source will be unveiled at Area 51 in early 2005.
Re:Haiti + deforestation = many dead and more to c (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nature's way... (Score:2, Informative)
1% annual increase of CO2 has indeed been the trend over the past 40 years [nasa.gov].
It took me 15 secs to find that link via google. Maybe you should have spent these to avoid humiliating yourself...
Kerry and global warming (Score:3, Informative)
Kerry had some problems with that version of the protocol but he definitely recognizes that we have to do something about global warming. That's why he has authored legislation to cut down on greenhouse gases.
Here's a quote from him on Kyoto:
"Bush's abrupt and unilateral decision to abandon discussions with the world community on climate change was early evidence of this Administration's misguided approach to dealing with the community of nations. Dropping out of international implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was foolhardy then, and it is even more obviously foolhardy today."
And here's some info on his legislative efforts regarding global warming:
Compare Kerry and Bush's environmental policies [johnkerry.com]
Kerry and Bush sharply divided on response to global warming [nwsource.com]
Excerpt from the Seattle Times article:
"Kerry, like Bush, opposed American participation in the current Kyoto treaty. In 1999, he joined in a 95-0 Senate vote that stated that the United States should not ratify the treaty unless China and other rapidly developing countries were also required to reduce greenhouse gases.
But Kerry, who has called pollution a "mortal threat" to the climate, wants to reopen the Kyoto negotiations to refashion an agreement acceptable to the United States.
And even without U.S. participation in the treaty, Kerry has backed mandatory efforts to control carbon dioxide.
His most high-profile effort was a 2002 bill that he and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., submitted to the Senate to force automakers to improve automobile efficiency.
The bill would have required that average fuel economy for autos sold in the U.S. to rise from 24 mpg to 36 mpg by 2015. Lower fuel consumption would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
That bill was opposed by the U.S. automotive industry and automotive unions, which argued that the target was too extreme. It failed to pass the Senate.
Kerry also supports at least modest federal caps on U.S. emissions of greenhouses gases, such as the caps contained in legislation submitted to the Senate last year by McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
That bill seeks to ensure that the overall U.S. emissions in 2010 would be no higher than the overall levels back in 2000.
Re:Blame China (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, convection isn't a true zero sum game by itself. If heat is carried away more slowly from warm areas, they also radiate heat back to space at night faster to help balance out. If the ocean currents move significant warm water out of the hottest areas in less than a full day's rotation, they cause more mixing with cooler water and move it too, doing their work lesss efficiently, so only the average amount of energy transfered has to equal the average amount the sun dumped into the area. Even things like cloud cover and the resulting local albedo are part of a series of feedback loops that makes this system meta-stable.
Planetary rotation tends to make lots of little interlaced convection cells into a few big ones, but various features, like submarine topography, how steep the thermal gradients become, and probably even 'chaotic' effects, all let the system switch between meta-stable modes.
Climatologists mostly hope thae 'chaos' effects aren't as significant as they are for weather, because the butterfly effect stops sounding as cool when it's " A codfish farts, and two weeks later..." instead of pretty stuff that Jeff Goldblum can use for pick up lines.
Unfortunately, the geologic record shows some of these modes seem to include ones where the gulf stream flattens out a lot towards the equator, or breaks away from either the European or North American coastlines so that it becomes more triangular rather than extending to about the same latitudes on both sides. This is based on such measurements as thickness of sedements deposited in the same layers, and types of fossil species found during ice ages, so there's some guesswork included, but it looks like the way to bet.
Since some of the planetary heat transfer processes don't go fast enough to keep up with the 24 hour warming and cooling cycle, or even the seasonal ones, Those areas where slow transfer rates predominate can get hotter or colder even though the average isn't moving the same way. If the system was actually getting close to equilibrium at any point, the seasons wouldn't lag months behind when the planet is closest to the Sun.
Help with more computer simulation (Score:2, Informative)
Their goal is to have the most accurate weather forecast model around. This should lower the uncertainty and clear up this question of CO2 and how much it contributes to global warming [wikipedia.org] They are calibrating with simulation of past weather. With the calibrated models they will then forecast the next 50 years and hopefully this will tell us if hurricanes become more likely.
Join in numbers and help clear up doubt about the future climate.
Pork! Re:See, there's a problem here. (Score:3, Informative)
help you while he helps himself to some more pork.
http://www.okpork.org/ [okpork.org]
Re:The Cause of Global Warming (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not making an argument; I'm presenting evidence, gathered by NASA, measured several different ways, all of which agree.
You, on the other hand, are an anonymous coward making some unsuppored claims that disagree with all published data I've ever seen. Very convincing of you...
In any case, look for the phrase "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities." on this USGS page [usgs.gov]. Or you can choose any of the other pages you find on volcanic CO2. If you're too lazy to read it, let me summarize it: humans add about 100x the CO2 to the atmosphere than volcanos do.
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:3, Informative)
As you say hurricane records are pretty spotty, but the basic connection -- warmer sea surfaces leads ot more and bigger hurricanes globally is pretty clear. Some places might end up with fewer and smaller because of some weird feedback effect, but overall, that heat energy needs to be moved and a hurricane moves a lot of it.
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:2, Informative)
In many ways, they are like wildfires burning through brush. The heavier the brush, the more intense the fire. If there is global warming, it will certainly lead to increases in mean sea surface temperatures, which increases the energy available to storms such as Hurricanes, therefore, bigger hurricanes.
While many aspects of global warming, like the rate and the detailed effect it will have on different regions is controversial, saying that global warming will lead to more intense hurricanes is not controversial.
I've been a bit of a skeptic about global warming for years. The chicken little crowd has always bugged me. But, if you turn off the politics and look at the data you see that currrent C02 levels are the highest in the last 150K years [uwyo.edu] and are rising every year [ornl.gov]. This is a dangerous experiment we are doing with our atmosphere.
If reducing CO2 was going to cost lives or billions of dollars, then it is debatable whether we should do it. But, the things you'd do to reduce C02 like driving more efficient cars, buying more efficient appliances, insulating your houses, etc. are things we should do anyway, for other reasons - reduce polution, dependence on foreign oil, and on a micro scale, save everyone money.
My $.02
-DT-
Re:Warm water is the blood of a hurricane (Score:2, Informative)
First, yes warm water is the fuel of a hurricane, but the assumption that you make that "it doesn't encouter any upper level troughs or other shearing mechanisms" is a huge assumption. If you are someone who lives in a hurricane prone area, like myself and many other millions, you are made aware of certain facts. The first is that small changes in climate in one area of the earth has a massive affect on the climate on another area of the earth. El Nino is the classic example. El Nino leads to far fewer hurricanes because the warm water in the Pacific causes different upper level wind patterns (i.e. shearing) in the Atlantic (not to mention all over the world). I am sure that you knew this because you made the assumption about shearing in the first place. My point is that this is a huge huge assumption.
Secondly, most models suggest that the temperate regions will have the greatest affect by global climate change. This means that your reference to the equitorial region warming is another huge assumption.
Third, we have for the past several decades had substantiall fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic and Carribean and Gulf than the statistical average. That happened during those years of "global warming". Why have the number of hurricanes been lower than average during years that many scientists say the temperature went up? 2 reasons, climate is very very difficult to predict and hurricanes are very very difficult to predict (meaning hotter does not necessarily mean more). You cannot use static analysis on whether.
Hurricane experts, for the past couple of years, have been saying that the number of hurricanes is going to climb back to the historical normal level and that people are going to be surprised because they are used to the hurricane lull. They have not been saying this because of global warming, they have been saying this because of the natural hurricane cycle.
This whole thing reminds me of that summer when there were some high profile shark attacks. The press declared the current year as having a epidemic of shark attacks. They spent many many words editorializing on the cause of this massive increase (global warming was implicated I think). The number of shark attacks for that year turned out to be fewer than the average. It was just alot hype from the press.
I have no clue whether or not there is substantial global climate change or an increase in the number of hurricanes as a result, but I do know there is alot of hype and conjecture.
CLIMATE is much less complicated than weather (Score:3, Informative)
Not all scientists agree about global warming. (Score:2, Informative)
Two problems with your reply (Score:4, Informative)
Hm. A lot of denial around here. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Denial of unpleasant truths seems to be a big part of living in Western culture.
Every fifth post through this whole thread is, "The Sky is NOT falling!" and "There is NO link between global warming and strange weather!" Essentially, "NOTHING IS ABNORMAL! LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Ahem. .
First Ever South Atlantic Hurricane Hits Brazil [about.com]. (March of 2004)
South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level [nasa.gov].
Alaskan Glaciers Melting Faster [cbsnews.com].
desertification in China [din.net.cn].
desertification in Africa [fsu.edu].
.
Heck, even the rest of the solar system is acting funny. Remember the. .
Blue Band on Jupiter [abc.net.au] this past March of 2004?
and
the Huge X-class solar flares of last year? [bbc.co.uk]
Interestingly, the evidence of past hurricanes categorized by decade [noaa.gov] suggests that there have been big hurricanes to make US landfall before. Indeed, the worst decade, from 1950-1959 saw a total of nine storms between category 3 and 4, (though none of category 5) during that ten year period. Sure. But we've just had four in just one summer. Nobody can say that this is par for any course.
Now, I am not claiming that this has anything to do with global warming. But anybody who tells me that everything is normal probably swore up and down that The Phantom Menace was a good film for a whole year after it came out.
-FL
Re:Blame China (Score:1, Informative)
First post ever, my apologies if I foof up the links.
True, the Gulf Stream is a western boundary current (the Brazil, Agulhas, East Australian and Kuroshio Currents are as well). They are a "return" current caused by wind driven currents and the coreolis force. For example, in the Subtropical North Atlanic (Below 45 degrees N or so), the prevaling winds blow from west to east ("the westerlies"), which causes an equatorward drift. The Gulf Stream is the return flow of that drift "bunched up" on the western side of the the Atlantic. A bit of an oversimplification, you can read a bit more here [tamu.edu].
The thermohaline circulation is related to deep circulation [tamu.edu]. In the North Atlantic (the Labrador, Norwegian and Greenland Seas), water can be cooled very rapidly during winter, which sets up convection cells - when cooled, the water becomes more dense and starts to sink; the formation of ice also removes pure water and increases density. So the cold, salty "deep water" sinks down (to somewhere between 1000 m and the bottom - about 4000 m), and drifts equatorward , underneath the gulf stream. That deep water is thought to make its way to the Southern Ocean, and around into the Pacific and Indian Oceans, where it eventually upwells. Deep water moves slowly, but is the counterpart to surface circulation (and there's a lot of it). This theory was put forward by an Oceanographer named Wally Broeker, who called it the "global conveyor belt" - it is thought to be very important for moving heat around.
There is some evidence for rapid climate changes in ice core records, and some have speculated that the conveyor belt could be shut down (a la The Day After Tomorrow) [eu.int], which had some pretty hilarious science, climate-wise). There is some geochemical evidence that it has happened in the past - for instance there's some evidence [nature.com] that two massive lakes filled with meltwater from the last glaciation drained into the North Atlantic over a very short period (following the failure of a massive ice dam) about 8200 years ago. The idea is that a surface layer of very fresh (i.e. low-salinity, hence low density) water, would "cap" the deepwater production areas. If it's already pretty fresh, ice formation wouldn't increase the salinity as much (and density is mostly from salinity, not temperature) - thus requiring much more cooling to make new deep water (which would be exacerbated by any warming). At some point deep water would not be created, and since the water from the Gulf Stream must go somewhere, it would "pile up" in the North Atlantic, eventually disrupting or stopping the Gulf Sream.
Obviously there aren't any glacial lakes that we need to worry about suddently draining into the North Atlantic, but the idea is that increased inputs of fresh water would eventually reduce the amount of deepwater formation. That would take a fairly large amount of warming, but is possible (~ a 20% chance in the next 50-100 IIRC). I'll refer you to a good article on the topic [washington.edu] by Wally Broeker. It's five years old now, but still pretty much on the money. I'll refer you particularly to his figure 5 [washington.edu].
Sorry also for my "excessive" use of "quotation marks" - bad habit.