2 Studies Show Difficulty Linking Hurricanes, Warming

[TampaFl]

Intersting article in todays Tampa Tribune.


http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/story/two-studies-show-difficulty-linking-hurricanes-warming/


Thoughts & comments welcomed.


Robert

[RL3AO]

I think it is a very plausible theory that GW will cause fewer storms. However, you would think that if something were to find an area of low shear, that it would go insane with Wilma type intensification.

[Pedro Fernández]

I think it is a very plausible theory that GW will cause fewer storms. However, you would think that if something were to find an area of low shear, that it would go insane with Wilma type intensification.

I agree............. Moreover, higher windshear fields do not always destroy hurricanes... Wilma was an example of that. Have you read the Jeff Master's WindShear Tutorial?
http://www.wunderground.com/education/shear.asp

I was wondering: does a direct relation exist between warmer oceans and a more intense windshear?

[Blown Away]

If you look at 2004-05 the increased shear theory doesn't make sense. If you look at 2006-07 the increased shear theory makes perfect sense. Doesn't seem to be many disputing that increased SST's will result in more shear, I'm not sure what to think. I do believe we are in a hurricane cycle similiar to the 1930's to 1950's. Are there credible scientists opposing the increased SST's will result in increased shear?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

It is difficult to tell, but more shear would decrease
hurricane activity, unless certain types of shear
promote pockets of more favorable environments under
certain conditions. The windshear tutorial
might explain things better.

[MGC]

It all depends on when and where the shear is. 2007 had above normal shear yet still produced two Cat-5 landfalls. So, I am of the opinion that the potential that GW will cause more shear and reduce hurricanes is questionable.....MGC

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Quite a bit of uncertainty with so many studies saying different
things. Personally I have no idea what to expect this year, it
could be anything from mild to severe, but of course the idea
is where the storm hits, that is where it is most severe. 2007
was probably the most destructive ever for central
america with 2 category 5's
hitting central america. Felix and Dean just exploded in the
central caribbean last year, at rates almost matching wilma in felix's
case. And Wilma was a rapid aggressor too, imagine seeing a 70 mph
TS moving towards you if you are in the Yucatan and 24 hours later it
is a 185 mph category 5 monster, that would scare the sanity out of me!!
Evacuation would be a painful process, but so would not evacuating.
So it is scary.

[MiamiensisWx]

I think there is some confusion here. I think it is plausible that climate change may reduce the number of hurricane days in the Atlantic basin. Hurricane days are defined as the period in which hurricane force winds (>64 kt/75 mph per 1-min) are present over the Atlantic and Pacific basins, including the EPAC and CPAC. Climate change could certainly reduce the average number of hurricanes in the Atlantic, too. I do not buy the opinion that states it would reduce landfalls. There is a big difference between climatological, basin-wide averages and landfalling storms. I doubt it would reduce the ratio of intense hurricanes, especially during positive AMO cycles in the Atlantic. I think Humberto, Andrew, Alicia, Camille, Hugo, Elena, Gloria, Dean, Felix et al are proof that landfalling hurricanes certainly occur in below average seasons, whether it is based on total NS or ACE. Several of the most intense United States landfalls occurred during inactive Atlantic seasons or El Nino years. Andrew, Camille (El Nino), and the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane are solid evidence, although several storms in the 1935 season were likely undetected. It could be argued that global warming will certainly not reduce the probabilities of landfalling tropical cyclones, including major hurricane strikes during inactive seasons. Rapid intensification (i.e. Humberto, Lorenzo, and Felix) seems quite possible in a "brave new(?) world" in terms of climate change; it has probably occurred in the past.

[HurricaneRobert]

Rapid intensification for small storms in the coastal BoC and GOM is quite common. Lorenzo and Humberto are hardly notable in that sense. I doubt those had anything to do with climate change.

[Aquawind]

It'a all a matter of timing and pattern with each system. If the water is warmer and the timing is right rapid intensification will happen..no matter what the general shear pattern has been. Less storms mean nothing if the few are Andrew like imo. The direct correlation to SSTs and more storms is suspect imo..SSTs are just a small part of the pie needed for cyclogenesis.

[Pedro Fernández]

Rapid intensification for small storms in the coastal BoC and GOM is quite common. Lorenzo and Humberto are hardly notable in that sense. I doubt those had anything to do with climate change.

Good point here as well... If there are less storms but they are more intense and its development is faster... I'm not sure what is worse Big doubt here for forecasters in the future?

[mitchell]

I think it is a very plausible theory that GW will cause fewer storms.

In reading the articles associated with that link, i didn't really see any theory being put forward that GW will cause fewer storms...quite possibly more storms but with many of them being sheared apart without making CONUS landfalls. Maybe semantics..depending on where you live.