So What About Global Warming?

[Downdraft]

I haven't heard to much from last years advocates of linking hurricane activity to global warming in light of this year's activity so far. Number of storms is significantly down and the only hurricane of the year only managed to hold the classification for 36 hours. If this season keeps up like this I'd find it hard for them to make a strong case now. Wasn't more and stronger storms what we were all hearing this time last year? Even those storms that have materialized haven't managed to show any marked increase in intensity. At the end of this thread I would be interested in seeing what side made their case using science and logic and not emotion and conjecture. Let the comments begin!

[WindRunner]

Actually, Ernesto was only a hurricane for 6 hours . . . and I don't feel like getting the argument started, since I'm on the less common side (not "global warming").

[Aslkahuna]

To use the idea of a weak season following an active one as an indication for or against Global Warming is nothing more than junk science as such occurrences have happened before with light seasons following active ones-examples 1916/1917, 1933/1934 and 1969/1970. Any effects of GW upon Tropical Cyclone activity would be long term and not seasonal and most recent suggestions are that over the long term GW would lead to fewer but stronger TC's but that remains to be seen. BTW, given your premise, how would you explain the activity in EPAC? Remember that there is an inverse relationship between activity in the two basins.

Steve

[Downdraft]

I really don't have a premise. I agree it's a debate that bears serious discussion. I also agree that global warming is a reality. That being said, however, I have serious problems with limelight grabbers who profess to champion a cause they have zero knowledge of but from what I can see want some "camera" time. The item you mention Steve about an inverse relationship between basins was certainly shouted down last year when the Atlantic was active and the EPAC wasn't. It would seem to me that since Global Warming is a plantetary thing all basins should be effected equally.

[AussieMark]

isn't the Tropical systems activity more linked with ENSO cycles anyway

so how do they blame what is casued by global warming


i.e look at all the intense hurricanes and typhoons across the northern Pacific in years like 1997 and 2002 where there were Strong and Moderate el ninos respectively

same as in those years the Atlantic was greatly reduced in activity

[Aslkahuna]

It may have been shouted down here, but the Inverse relationship is an established fact based upon papers presented at last Spring's AMS Hurricane Conference.

Steve

[AussieMark]

Steve what made 1990 such an active year

the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific were both rather active that year

Atlantic: 14/8/1

East Pacific: 20/16/6


thats a combined total of: 34/24/7

[Aslkahuna]

There's always the year that's the exception that proves the rule-1990 was active all over with only the NIO coming in slightly below normal.

Steve

[Downdraft]

Steve a little off the subject but how do we account for all the ULL's this season. I don't think I've ever seen so many in so many areas at once. Another thing I'd be interested in reading about is if any research has been done on the evaporation rate of water based upon it's salinity. I could jump on either sides bandwagon at this point but not till there is more evidence. Until then I'm going with Mayfield's decadal activity cycles and not GW as the main factor.

[Aslkahuna]

The TUTT has been more active than usual this season which is why the ULL's and for the reason for that we would have to look at upper air Global patterns. Like most longer period oscillations, the AMO is going vary quite a bit regardless of which phase it is in which is why you can get a lower activity season during an active AMO phase as well as a high activity one during an inactive phase. I too think that the cuirrent elevated level of activity since 1995 is due to the AMO as I don't think the GW in the Tropics has progessed to the point where it would have much effect yet.

Steve

[DrCloud]

The jury is still out on the possible responses of tropical cyclones to global warming, with two fairly recent contributions from the two sides in the research community highlighting different aspects of the issue.

Chris Landsea and colleagues have pointed out in a paper in Science (as I recall) that the hurricane climatology used to discuss changes in intensities in recent years may well be biased such that intensities were under-estimated in the past. This clearly needs further investigation in the form of reprocessing satellite datasets.

The Georgia Tech group, meanwhile, has presented a useful analysis of the problem from the point of view of strategies to attack it. They're still convinced that global warming is forcing changes, but given the Landsea result must concede that more work is needed. At least they've outlined a plan of attack that breaks the problem into manageable components. This is discussed in an article in the most recent Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Of relevance is the fact that all involved -- from both sides of the issue -- have gotten together and put out a statement to the effect that it really doesn't matter from a policy perspective how this argument is resolved (this is posted on Kerry Emmanual's web site at MIT). The facts are that (i) hurricanes are a threat to coastal areas, and (ii) public policy (subsidized flood insurance, for example) has been encouraging development in those areas. Whatever controls tropical cyclone climatology, this is just plain stupid. HPH

[suno4um]

is there any kind of general specialists' opinion regarding balancing of the GWE and long - run results of human activities which may lead to the long - run decrease of average temperatures?

[curtadams]

is there any kind of general specialists' opinion regarding balancing of the GWE and long - run results of human activities which may lead to the long - run decrease of average temperatures?

The long-run is VERY far out. The current spike in CO2 will probably be absorbed in one or two thousand years (unless we melt the methane hydrates - then it's probably Eocene time). After that, at some point, we'll go into an ice age via ordinary cycles (delayed by the intervening temp change, which has positive feedback effects). Our far-off descendants will miss the fossil fuels which they could have burnt to stave off the ice ages.

People just won't worry about possible problems 2000 or more years from now.