Hurricanes and Global Warming with Dr. Gray

[bvigal]

I think this debate will continue to increase across all venues, including weather forums. Taking a hypothesis (i.e. man-made pollution is raising average temperatures on the planet, and causing more frequent and/or stronger storms) and then looking for data to support it, will always come up with positive results. Conversely, the same is true.

To over-simplify, the whole idea of how mankind's pollution increases temperatures (global warming) is that these additions to the atmosphere keep heat from escaping the atmosphere. Every single day on this planet (at least now), volcanoes are spewing "pollution" into the atmosphere. I've heard no studies about their increase in recent years, i.e. why or if there are more, and how those gasses and ash effect the atmosphere.

The only stats I ever heard on the subject of volcanoes effecting climate, was that when Mount Pinatubo erupted a few years ago, it put out so much ash in the upper levels of the atmosphere (60,000ft+), which encircled the planet, and that the global average temperature was lowered by over 1 degree for several months. If one volcano can have that much impact on temperatures, how can any study which looks at only one factor (man-made pollution) and totally ignores other, natural factors, like volcanoes, have any credibility?

[Seele]

Someoone want to point me to where he predicted an abnormal season this year before it started? As I recall his numbers were average.

Released May 31, 2005:
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/june2005/

Here's his abstract:

"Information obtained through late May 2005 indicates that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season will be a very active one. We estimate that 2005 will have about 15 named storms (average is 9.6), 8 hurricanes (average is 5.9), 75 named storm days (average is 49.1), 45 hurricane days (average is 24.5), 4 intense (category 3-4-5) hurricanes (average is 2.3) and 11 intense hurricane days (average is 5.0). We expect Atlantic basin Net Tropical Cyclone (NTC) activity in 2005 to be about 170 percent of the long-term average. The probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is estimated to be 150 percent of the long-period average. We expect this year to continue the past-decade trend of above-average hurricane seasons.

This late May forecast is based on a newly devised extended range statistical forecast procedure which utilizes 55 years of past global reanalysis data. Analog predictors are also utilized. We have increased our forecast from our early April prediction due to continued Atlantic Ocean warming and a decreased likelihood of the development of an El Niño this summer/fall. Conditions in the Atlantic are very favorable for an active hurricane season. "

[AussieMark]

This debate is pointless. People will keep arguing over it till it's so blindingly aparent they would look bad having the opposite opinion. The doc is a great fella , smart and has contribued lots. That does not make him the end all be all athority on GW or how GW would affect hurricains. Someoone want to point me to where he predicted an abnormal season this year before it started? As I recall his numbers were average.

When he makes his initial predictions in December most of the telling factors have not fallen into alignment at that stage. for example the ENSO cycle

[x-y-no]

It okay if the media wants to ask about global warming. But it just seems they want to hear the words from Max Mayfield that "HUMAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING IS CREATING WORSE HURRICANES" ....and it ain't true.

I wish you would offer some real argument to back that up rather than just making dismissive statements. You could start by explaining whether you think warm SSTs play any role in tropical cyclogenesis. If the answer is yes, then you might explain why warm SSTs caused by AGW would not have that effect.

Absent such a reason, I would think the absolute strongest statement one could make is that there is significant uncertainty. I fail to see any way one can categorically deny any effect, as you and Dr. Gray have done.

Sure, there may be some truth in global warming, but none says it's human induced.

That statement is simply false. But again, I'd be interested to read your justifications for making it. Do you deny the physics of how greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere alter the radiative balance to warm the surface? Do you deny that greenhouse gas concentrations have indeed gone up dramatically? Or do you deny that human activity is responsible for most of that increase? Ore perhaps there is some other way out I haven't thought of?

[x-y-no]

I think this debate will continue to increase across all venues, including weather forums. Taking a hypothesis (i.e. man-made pollution is raising average temperatures on the planet, and causing more frequent and/or stronger storms) and then looking for data to support it, will always come up with positive results. Conversely, the same is true.

I really don't understand why everyone seems to assume that all climate scientists are dishonest rogues. Is it so inconceivable that scientists actually seek the truth?

Maybe I've just lived in a bubble or something, but I've known an awful lot of people in this field over the years, and the vast majority have struck me as very careful and scrupulously honest in their approach to their work.

To over-simplify, the whole idea of how mankind's pollution increases temperatures (global warming) is that these additions to the atmosphere keep heat from escaping the atmosphere. Every single day on this planet (at least now), volcanoes are spewing "pollution" into the atmosphere. I've heard no studies about their increase in recent years, i.e. why or if there are more, and how those gasses and ash effect the atmosphere.

The only stats I ever heard on the subject of volcanoes effecting climate, was that when Mount Pinatubo erupted a few years ago, it put out so much ash in the upper levels of the atmosphere (60,000ft+), which encircled the planet, and that the global average temperature was lowered by over 1 degree for several months. If one volcano can have that much impact on temperatures, how can any study which looks at only one factor (man-made pollution) and totally ignores other, natural factors, like volcanoes, have any credibility?

There are a number of problems with this hypothesis, but the evidence which most definitively falsifies it is the change in isotopic ratios of observed atmospheric greenhouse gasses. The observed isotopic balance is almost exactly what would be expected if all of the increase in greenhouse gasses is due to human activity (primarily burning of fossil fuels) and quite different from that seen from volcanic activity.

It's true that volcanic eruptions will have substantial impact on climate in the short term (primarily by pumping particulates into the stratosphere) but longer term this averages out. Furthermore, there has been not observed massive increase in volcanic activity over the last couple of centuries.

The essential point is that you are wrong in believing that climate scientists have ignored natural sources such as volcanic activity. They have not.

[vbhoutex]

well that "something" is what were debating, is that "something" caused by global warming? is it another factor? if it is global warming, what or who is causing it? as i said , 1933 may seem a long time ago, but in the grand scheme it is VERY recent compared to how long hurricanes have been here, so i dont think we have enough data to say one way or another that global warming(natural or human induced) is the cause of more and more intense hurricanes

Well, let me be real clear here, in case I wasn't before. I do not maintain that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the primary cause of this intense season, and certainly not of any particular storm event. I do maintain that there is good reason to think that the approximately .3 degree celsius increase in tropical SSTs which can be attributed to AGW has contributed somewhat to the intensity of this and other recent seasons. I find it more than a little baffling that anyone could dismiss that idea out of hand given the well-established connection between warm SSTs and tropical storm development and intensification.

The biggest problem with the whole debate is the fact that we do not have enough data from long enough to determine anything we are talking about here except for the fact that there has been a warming of 0.3ºCover the long haul and that it is partially caused by manmade pollutants. Past that we need hundreds of more years of data to make any kind of definitive assessment, IMO.

X-Y, if the sst's are causing the increase in the intensity and the amount of activity, why isn't it happening in all the basins?

[x-y-no]

The biggest problem with the whole debate is the fact that we do not have enough data from long enough to determine anything we are talking about here except for the fact that there has been a warming of 0.3ºCover the long haul and that it is partially caused by manmade pollutants. Past that we need hundreds of more years of data to make any kind of definitive assessment, IMO.

I think that's way too pessimistic. Our understanding of climate has improved dramatically over the last few decades, and there's absolutely no reason to think that progress won't continue apace.

X-Y, if the sst's are causing the increase in the intensity and the amount of activity, why isn't it happening in all the basins?

Actually, the Emmanuel and Webster papers say it is, but I'll grant Dr. Gray's point that they inadequately compensated for uncertainties and systematic error in older data, and therefore have possibly overstated the magnitude of the increase.

EDIT: I'll emphasize once again that I agree with Dr. Gray that the multidecadal oscillation of the Atlantic THC is the primary signal responsible for the recent active Atlantic seasons. But what I don't understand is how one can argue that this cycle can enhance activity primarily by enhancing tropical SSTs (due to slower poleward transport of warm water) and then turn around and claim that additional warming (due to AGW) superimposed upon that cycle has no additional effect. It just doesn't make any sense to me.(end EDIT)

But my main line of argument in this thread had not been to affimatively claim that these results are correct, but rather to challenge the categorical denial of such an effect which Floydbuster offered, and which he relayed Dr. Gray as having asserted. I have offered my reasons why I think Dr. Gray is overreaching, and why I think his claim is inconsistant with his own seasonal forecasting methodology, and I have I have asked some questions of Floydbuster in order to elicit some factual basis for his assertions. That's all.

[sprinklerman]

I wanted to add my non-expert $.02 to this debate. I believe that the increased SSTs added to some of the storms' intensties this year. But is it not also a fact that two of the storms, Katrina and Rita, intensified over the Loop Current which naturally has higher SSTs and to a lower depth? Just by the luck of the draw if you will, these storms where in the right place at the right time and had the "perfect" conditions to explode and intensify. It seems to me that in any given year, the "right" set up could also produce similar storms. Also, there is the law of averages. Since we are in a cycle of more storms, not caused by GW but by many other factors, then doesn't follow that there is a greater possibility of any given storm becomig more intense? Finally, is there any study that says that a "X" increase in SST, adds "X" to a storm's intensity?
Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Ivanhater]

The biggest problem with the whole debate is the fact that we do not have enough data from long enough to determine anything we are talking about here except for the fact that there has been a warming of 0.3ºCover the long haul and that it is partially caused by manmade pollutants. Past that we need hundreds of more years of data to make any kind of definitive assessment, IMO.

I think that's way too pessimistic. Our understanding of climate has improved dramatically over the last few decades, and there's absolutely no reason to think that progress won't continue apace.

X-Y, if the sst's are causing the increase in the intensity and the amount of activity, why isn't it happening in all the basins?

Actually, the Emmanuel and Webster papers say it is, but I'll grant Dr. Gray's point that they inadequately compensated for uncertainties and systematic error in older data, and therefore have possibly overstated the magnitude of the increase.

EDIT: I'll emphasize once again that I agree with Dr. Gray that the multidecadal oscillation of the Atlantic THC is the primary signal responsible for the recent active Atlantic seasons. But what I don't understand is how one can argue that this cycle can enhance activity primarily by enhancing tropical SSTs (due to slower poleward transport of warm water) and then turn around and claim that additional warming (due to AGW) superimposed upon that cycle has no additional effect. It just doesn't make any sense to me.(end EDIT)

But my main line of argument in this thread had not been to affimatively claim that these results are correct, but rather to challenge the categorical denial of such an effect which Floydbuster offered, and which he relayed Dr. Gray as having asserted. I have offered my reasons why I think Dr. Gray is overreaching, and why I think his claim is inconsistant with his own seasonal forecasting methodology, and I have I have asked some questions of Floydbuster in order to elicit some factual basis for his assertions. That's all.

while you are correct in saying emmanuel concludes that global warming is the cause of rising ssts which in turn causes a greater number and more intense hurricanes...his paper is new and needs further analysis from the scientific community...its obvious that ssts have been getting warmer, but can we conclude that it is global warming or AMO(natural cycle)? like i said, i am young and have a lot to learn and i do not know the answers, i just feel that no one, at this point, can really justify their answer

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

The following post is NOT an official forecast and should not be used as such. It is just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is NOT endorsed by any professional institution including storm2k.org For Official Information please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

IMO higher ssts would enhance ridge feedback mechanisms and thus
reduce shear, so higher ssts and reduced shear would allow for a
greater proportion of intense hurricanes. I am willing to hypothesize,
since these cycle shifts are quite abrupt (1994/1995 active cycle
an abrupt shift) that IF global warming is really playing a role here,
its consequences and impacts on hurricanes would manifest
themselves abruptly and considerably. It will take a few more
years of observation, inference, and analysis to truly ascertain
as to whether this is the case in the Altantic Basin. It is important
to note, however, that the fact that other basins have not seen this
type of 2005-Atlantic ridiculously excessive activity at this point in time
should not lend itself to a refutation of global warming's impacts
for the future. IF global warming is to verify, its manifestations would
appear abruptly in other basins, not necessarily gradually. In the year
X for example, other basins may be quiet, but we cannot rule out
the possibility that X+1 or X+2 or X+3 years may evince manifestations
of an abrupt and sudden increase in storm activity and/or intensity that
could be precipated by global warming.

Also consider that the record-shattering 2005 season has occured
even with unfavorable conditions in the Cape Verde region, preventing
Cape Verde long-trackers. Imagine a year like 2005 without the
unfavorable Cape Verde conditions . We have had a
record season in almost every way, shattering almost every
record, despite heavy shear, dry air or other
unfavorable conditions in the eastern Atlantic. Although many
waves were tenacious enough to move further west and
devleop despite these conditions, other waves were ripped apart.
Imagine if those other waves had developed. 2005's numbers
would have been even more mind-shocking.

Also note that many of the tropical waves this year have been
quite a bit more tenacious than waves in many previous
active years. It's almost as if some other force is strongly driving
these waves to persist despite heavy shear, dry air or other
unfavorable conditions.

More CO-2 = Warmer Global Temps = Warmer SSTs = Stronger
Hurricanes = Stronger Sinking Air Ridges (due to feedback
mechanisms) that reduce shear = More favorable environment
for hurricane formation and intensification

[thermos]

To the people who do not believe in the possibility of man being able to have an impact on global temperatures do you also dismiss the concept of a "nuclear winter"? The planet is overpopulated, over forested and overpolluted. Global warming and global pollution is here. Cancer, allergy and asthma rates will continue to rise. Listen to the scientists not the corporate shrills or political scum.

[x-y-no]

while you are correct in saying emmanuel concludes that global warming is the cause of rising ssts which in turn causes a greater number and more intense hurricanes...his paper is new and needs further analysis from the scientific community...its obvious that ssts have been getting warmer, but can we conclude that it is global warming or AMO(natural cycle)? like i said, i am young and have a lot to learn and i do not know the answers, i just feel that no one, at this point, can really justify their answer

Certainly all science is subject to continued review. But at this point, the data is clear regarding the warming of the ocean surface layer globally, and there really is no other explanation for that than a shift in the radiative balance. Furthermore, the evidence that human activity has caused the bulk of the shift in radiative balance in the last couple of centuries has grown enormously stronger in the last 15 years or so. Thus the conclusion that most of the observed warming of globally averaged SSTs is a result of AGW is very hard to escape. That ocean-air coupled general circulation models support this result is a bonus.

You might want to take a look at the IPCC report at:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

which offers a good summary of the scientific basis for global warming as it stood in 2001 (the next report is due out in 2007).

[Ivanhater]

while you are correct in saying emmanuel concludes that global warming is the cause of rising ssts which in turn causes a greater number and more intense hurricanes...his paper is new and needs further analysis from the scientific community...its obvious that ssts have been getting warmer, but can we conclude that it is global warming or AMO(natural cycle)? like i said, i am young and have a lot to learn and i do not know the answers, i just feel that no one, at this point, can really justify their answer

Certainly all science is subject to continued review. But at this point, the data is clear regarding the warming of the ocean surface layer globally, and there really is no other explanation for that than a shift in the radiative balance. Furthermore, the evidence that human activity has caused the bulk of the shift in radiative balance in the last couple of centuries has grown enormously stronger in the last 15 years or so. Thus the conclusion that most of the observed warming of globally averaged SSTs is a result of AGW is very hard to escape. That ocean-air coupled general circulation models support this result is a bonus.

You might want to take a look at the IPCC report at:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

which offers a good summary of the scientific basis for global warming as it stood in 2001 (the next report is due out in 2007).

lol, this is a good debate and believe me, i know you know a WHOLE lot more than i do....i just have serious doubts about the role global warming plays, or what or who is causing it, there is strong evidence(whatever is available anyway) on both sides...i guess im playing devils advocate as i think about it

[x-y-no]

lol, this is a good debate and believe me, i know you know a WHOLE lot more than i do....i just have serious doubts about the role global warming plays, or what or who is causing it, there is strong evidence(whatever is available anyway) on both sides...i guess im playing devils advocate as i think about it

That's fine, but how about offering some specific basis for your serious doubts, or some specific example of the strong evidence you have seen supporting the other side of the argument? It's a little hard to respond to such a general statement.

[Ivanhater]

lol, this is a good debate and believe me, i know you know a WHOLE lot more than i do....i just have serious doubts about the role global warming plays, or what or who is causing it, there is strong evidence(whatever is available anyway) on both sides...i guess im playing devils advocate as i think about it

That's fine, but how about offering some specific basis for your serious doubts, or some specific example of the strong evidence you have seen supporting the other side of the argument? It's a little hard to respond to such a general statement.

well i have been throughout the debate, its is also concluded that AMO has a large part in the intensity of hurricanes, also most evidence for your side is mostly new, and should not be used as gospel, it needs to be analyzed further, as ive stated, im not taking one side or the other, IF global warming is one factor, can we say for certain humans are causing it, how can we say the rise in global temps is human induced or a naturally occurring cycle, as you have said before, you dont understand how one can totally dismiss one side or the other as Dr, grey has, which is what im saying as well....i just dont think this issue has been around long enough to conclude either way but that is just my opinion

[Ivanhater]

oh, i have to go to meteorology lab, so i wont be here to continue this debate....your wearing me out XY just kidding

[sponger]

sponger wrote:
I think Dr Grey point is sst's are higher because of the active cycle. This is based on most of the warming occuring since 1990.

The major problem with this debate is it has been hijacked by researchers who have a objective, then skew data to fit their agenda. IE research grants...aka money!

We will never get a handle on whats going on as long as this debate is controlled by the media and junk science.


This is the kind of baseless smear that gets me fighting mad. Do you know Dr. Emmanuel or Dr. Webster or any of their collaborators or any of the dozens of people who participated in peer review of their research? Do you have any basis in fact for lodging such a charge against them or the many other dedicated researchers in this field?

I don't understand why this kind of crap is allowed on this board. It's every bit as offensive as personal attacks on members, IMHO.

All right xy, I was nice since I felt a little sorry for my Noles beating your hurricanes this year, but since you are so vocal, I will let you have it.


My comments were not specifically directed towards this piece of research. However, there have been more issues with global warming research methods, data sets, and methodology than any other research topic. IMHO

Most evidence indicates the sun is directly responsible for increased tempartures. Solar output, not green house gases.

While you certainly are opinionated, your rants show you obviously can not have an open mind to question the many flawed research studies. The earth is certainly getting warmer. However hysteria needs to take a back seat to solid research.

As for my proof, spend 5 minutes on the web researching the topic instead of being so darn insulted.

Go Noles!

[x-y-no]

All right xy, I was nice since I felt a little sorry for my Noles beating your hurricanes this year, but since you are so vocal, I will let you have it.

Excuse me? You were being "nice" by launching a broad-brush assault on the bulk of climate research? How about offering some specific examples of "researchers who have a objective, then skew data to fit their agenda. IE research grants...aka money"? That's a very grave charge, one would think you would have very strong backup for it.

...

Most evidence indicates the sun is directly responsible for increased tempartures. Solar output, not green house gases.

This is simply not true. There has been very little change in the solar index over the last half century, the period when the most pronounced warming has been observed. During the last 25 years, when we have the most accurate sattelite base measurements, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. This change in irradiance is simply nowhere near adequate to explain the observed warming.

The historical record (prior to 1950) is more more difficult, but proxy records of C14 in tree rings and Be10 in ice cores indicate that at best 50% of the warming in that period may be attributable to solar forcing.

While you certainly are opinionated, your rants show you obviously can not have an open mind to question the many flawed research studies. The earth is certainly getting warmer. However hysteria needs to take a back seat to solid research.

You'll have to point out to me where I ranted, or have advocated hysteria or opposed research. I'm at a loss to think of a case where I have done so. Nice switch to ad-hominem attack, though.

Again, how about providing a specific set of examples of peer-reviewed research in this field which you can show to be fraudulent?

As for my proof, spend 5 minutes on the web researching the topic instead of being so darn insulted.

I've been well-versed in this issue since long before 99.999% of the world had any idea there was an issue. Thanks anyway.

Go Noles!

Providing we can survive Saturday (I give us a 40% chance) we'll kick your butts in the conference championship!

Go Canes!

[terstorm1012]

xyno---what's your field? I'm curious.

I was going to bring up the two different types of global warming but you've done so far better than I ever could.

[x-y-no]

xyno---what's your field? I'm curious.

I was going to bring up the two different types of global warming but you've done so far better than I ever could.

I'm in software development. But I have a family connection, in that my dad is in physical oceanography (he did a lot of the fundamental work on circulation in the Atlantic basin). Many of the climate scientists involved in the early (70s and 80s) development of the AGW hypothesis are good family friends, which is why I get my back up a bit about slurs like the one sponger offered above.

(BTW, lest someone think I'm just defending my dad, his work has only been peripherally related to AGW - his funding came mostly from the navy. And in fact through much of the 80's he was pretty well in the skeptics camp himself.)