Warning in the Winds...Interesting article

[cape_escape]

I hope I'm doing this correctly, so not to get anyone into trouble. I am adding the link to where I found this article, but I think you have to have a password to get into it. This is a very interesting artical about hurricanes, weather, and global warming....Any thoughts?


http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=1 ... ategory=14



A Warning in the Winds
Saturday, September 18, 2004 By Mark Lynas Special to The Washington Post

Watching storm after powerful storm plow into the U.S. coastline this year, I can’t help wondering if the world’s weather is trying to tell us something. Perhaps it was only coincidence that Hurricane Frances was covering Florida with blinding winds and torrential rains just as George W. Bush spoke to the Republican National Convention in New York. But to someone like me, who has been tracking global warming and its effects for several years, it almost seemed as though the storm was trying to deliver a forceful reminder of the reality of climate change and the need to act now to address it.

The intensity of this storm season has brought the issue to many minds, and with reason. So far, 2004 has been an extraordinarily potent one for hurricanes. But how much of it is due to global warming?

Let’s look at the facts. Despite a late start to the season, the total of eight tropical cyclones (the catchall term for low-pressure systems over tropical waters) reaching tropical storm or hurricane strength last month set a new August record — the average is four for that stage in the season. The run of storms has continued unabated into September. Hurricanes are essentially heat engines, forming over warm ocean waters and gaining strength from the latent heat released as evaporated water from the sea surface condenses and falls back to Earth in the form of pounding tropical rain. This released heat drives rapid updrafts that cause more water to evaporate from the ocean surface and form a self-reinforcing vortex of swirling clouds generating wind speeds, as in Hurricane Ivan’s case, of up to 160 mph.

On the Web site of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a graph showing how tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures have risen steadily between 2000 and 2004. NOAA classifies all but one of these hurricane seasons as “above normal” — the exception is 2002, with the hurricane-suppressing influence of a weak El Nino, the warm-water current that occasionally crosses the Pacific Ocean from west to east. To many, this suggests a global warming fingerprint: The accumulation of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, has driven world temperatures to new heights (2002 and 2003 tied for second place after 1998 as the warmest years ever). The seas are slowly heating up, too, providing more energy for tropical storms.

Case closed? Not quite. The true picture is actually a good deal more complex. Oceanic heat is just one factor favoring stronger and more numerous storms this year. Another is lower levels of so-called wind shear — horizontal winds that can chop storms in half and prevent them from intensifying. And historically speaking, a busy hurricane season may not be so unusual. The mid-1920s through the 1960s were very active, whereas the 1970s through the early 1990s were deathly quiet. Yet this same period, from about 1975 onward, coincided with the steepest rise in global temperatures — a rise that continues today.

Despite this rising warmth, only one major hurricane (Andrew in 1992) struck Florida between 1966 and 2003. This partly reflected a multi-decade shift in Atlantic currents and wind patterns, but the state also was just lucky; the few storms that did form struck elsewhere or veered harmlessly out to sea. In the cooler period between 1926 and 1965, meanwhile, 14 major hurricanes made landfall in the Sunshine State. So on mathematical probability alone, you’d expect a good many more storms to be hitting Florida in the future.

Commentators have also pointed to the enormous rise in property damage as proof that hurricanes are more severe. But the 25-year quiet period also coincided with massive development and population growth in U.S. coastal areas. More people live in South Florida’s Dade and Broward counties now than lived in the entire southeastern United States in 1930. As Florida International University tropical meteorologist Hugh Willoughby told me, “The hurricane damage statistics are driven entirely by economic factors: There’s just more stuff sitting around on the beach waiting to be blown or washed away.”

But before you dismiss global warming as mere hype and rush out to buy another SUV, consider this: Climate models predict significant changes in hurricane intensity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere and heat the oceans. According to Tom Knutson and Bob Tuleya, tropical climate modelers at the Princeton, N.J.-based Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, we can expect a 20 percent increase in rainfall, and damage due to increased wind speeds might rise as much as 10 percent. That may not sound like much, but add it to a top-ranked Category 5 monster and you’ve got a major disaster in the making. A bit like Ivan, in fact. Indeed, the authors conclude that “a greenhouse gas-induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly-destructive Category 5 storms.”

Already this year, as the NOAA graph suggests, the additional warming effect may be making itself felt. Although it’s statistically impossible to isolate a tiny change among the sheer volatility of hurricane behavior, that becomes rather academic to those in harm’s way. After all, just a 2 percent increase in hurricane strength — my rough guess for global warming’s impact this year — means that many more people in Port Charlotte, Fla., lost the roofs to their houses last month thanks to Hurricane Charley. An inch of extra storm surge might not sound like much, but that just might be the inch — coming on top of a total 15 feet of higher water — that overtopped coastal embankments and flooded large areas of vulnerable low-lying Gulf coastline during Ivan.

We meddle with nature’s fury at our peril, and strange things are happening to the world’s weather these days. In March, the first-ever hurricane formed in the South Atlantic, striking Brazil with 90-mph winds and causing up to a dozen deaths. Meteorologists were bewildered as the familiar swirl of clouds, complete with a well-defined eye, appeared in an oceanic basin where none had been spotted before. The Brazilian weather service, with no established naming sequence, had no idea what to call it, eventually settling on Catarina, after the state where it made landfall. Hurricane monitoring and warning services may now have to be extended 2,000 miles south of the equator. Scientists might have dismissed Catarina as a fluke, except that two other tropical storm-like formations also occurred in the same Southern Hemisphere summer.

The Pacific season has also been active: Japan has suffered its highest number of typhoon strikes on record, and the storms — which hit at the rate of one a week for much of the summer — wreaked havoc in Taiwan, China and the Korean Peninsula. While the link between these events and global warming is disputable, clearer evidence of climate change is flooding in from around the planet. In my journey across the world investigating its impacts for my book, I climbed up to rapidly diminishing glaciers in the Peruvian Andes, suffered blinding dust storms in Inner Mongolia and waded through floodwaters in the drowning Pacific island archipelago of Tuvalu.

Whatever the scientific caveats about this Atlantic hurricane season, climate change remains a global reality — and America is the only country in the world where the political debate still hasn’t caught up with this fact. Last week, George Bush’s ally Tony Blair gave a major speech on the issue that brought the differences between the two governments into stark relief. The British prime minister said he considered climate change to be “a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power that it radically alters human existence,” and pledged to make climate “a top priority” in 2005 when Britain takes over the presidency of the G8 group of industrialized nations.

To Blair and others here in Europe, the Bush administration’s laggard stance on global warming is frustrating. Indeed, Blair began his speech by noting that “apart from a diminishing handful of skeptics, there is a virtual worldwide scientific consensus on the scope of the problem.” As long as the U.S. government is counted among the ranks of these skeptics, the Europeans know the chance of a meaningful global agreement is slim.

The United States, with only 4 percent of the Earth’s population, is responsible for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. Hence the quiet hope expressed by many on this side of the Atlantic that Alex, Charley, Frances and Ivan — and possibly Jeanne — might help open Washington’s eyes to the increasingly urgent need to confront climate change.

— Lynas, a journalist specializing in climate change, is the author of “High Tide: The Truth About Our Climate Crisis” (Picador). He lives in Oxford, England.

[coolsystems]

Very interesting.Makes you wonder what we are doing to this planet with all the pollution we are creating

[Aquawind]

[HurryKane]

Psst...if you want to avoid having to register for online news articles, try http://bugmenot.com to get existing logins/passwords provided by people who have already registered.

[mascpa]

Article was strictly hypothetical. No concrete proof was offered. Not saying its not true, just that it can not be proven (or disproven) at this point in time. For all we know, it could be a normal part of a 10,000 year weather cycle. The time span we're using to try to make this judgement is way too short. IMHO.

[Scott_inVA]

There must be a secret Global Warming BLOG all these types go to for the mantra. Just tonight, our 7th grade twins came home to tell me we have more tornadoes this year and more hurricanes hitting FL b/c of global warming. This, from the (cough, cough) "science" teacher.

Let's not have facts get into the frenzy. Never mind the fact between 1926 and 1965, Florida was landfall for 13 major hurricanes. Over the next 38 years...supposedly when we Americans have destroyed the planet...just 1 (Andrew). But with 2 majors coming in this year, the global warming nut cases are beating the drums.

Since it is GLOBAL warming, why do they forget to mention Pac TCs are down? Do they not know or perhaps care?

There is more evidence to suggest the planet goes through normal cycles than unscientific anecdotal global warming gibberish.

Clearly, the mid 90's was when the cycle changed and TC activity is up. But those like my kids' science teacher, it's easier to whine global warming.

Scott

[StrongWind]

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

[cape_escape]

Thanks for all of the input and views!

[cape_escape]

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

Great link! Thanks!

[indwind]

I'm more concerned with galactic cooling than with
global warming.

[clueless newbie]

Leet's separate the issues here.

One think is increase in (global, average) temperatures in the last few decades. This is well documented.

Second think is increase in CO2 in the last century, but mostly last couple of decades. This is again well documented. It is also well understood that the reason is human activity, mainly fossil fuel burning. (There are many natural sources of greenhouse gases, and there are recorded levels of CO2 in glacial ice and such which were higher then current levels. However, the current change is WAY too fast to be explained by natural mechanisms.)

Third think is hurricane activity.

What we understant relatively poorly is the connections between those three.

There is scientific evidence that rising CO2 levels will cause increase in global temperatures and change in weather patterns. How big the increase will be and how would the climate look like is something we do not understand well enough. Similarly, the patterns of hurricane activity would likely change, it is not well understood HOW would they change.

There are several stances people take:

1. Until we can prove for 100% that it is human activity that is causing global warming, and we can prove that it will indeed be harmfull to us (US?), nothing should be done.

2. Yes, we are causing global warming, yes, there will be changes. SO WHAT? Both humanity and ecosystems will adapt and go on.

3. It is very likely that at least a noticeable part of global warming is caused by human activity. The changes that would occur will likely cause severe damage to many ecosystems and disrupt human societes as well. Although we do not fully understand what is going on, it is prudent to try to minimize at least our contribution to the effects. If noting else, we might buy more time to better understand what is going on.

(I surely missed others.)

There are many of group #1 on this board, as well as in current US administration.

I am sorry but I must say it bluntly: You are sticking your head in your butt. It is like saying: "It would cost me too much to board my house, too inconvenient to evacuate. Besides, NHC has made errors many times, the storm might weaken suddently and/or recurve and not hit me."

The parallel is fitting really well: If you wait long enough to be 100% sure
(that we are causing global warming/that the hurricane will hit YOU), it might be too late to avoid disaster/evacuate.

Many on this board know what to do when a hurricane is coming, but somehow live in delusions when it comes to global ecologic problems.

I am sorry for the rant, but it was too much reading the self-inflicted nonsense here.

[Jimbosc]

Count me in Group 2. The earth will survive even if we do everything in our power to change it.

It may not support Billions of human lives as easily, but it would not be the first species impacted by climate change - just ask your nearest T-rex.

We know volcanoes produce more CO2 than all of man's attempts to burn natural resources at an ever increasing rate. So I likely will NEVER buy the global warming theory as anything but junk science.

The one issue we should watch out for is the Ozone layer but even that is probably due in part to cyclical fluctuations. Fixing that issue is alot less painful than giving up oil and natural gas.

I would rather spend resources on improving our handling of trash/recycling - I think there are lots of opportunites there that need to be developed.

Jim

[sertorius]

Sorry to intrude, but I must add something here: 1. The earth has been warmer in the past 1000 years than it is now. 2. Evidence has been brought on this site and others that show that Greenland itslef has been warmer in the past 1000 years. 3. In my area in Kansas City, MO. the 1840's, the whole decade, past without much winter-(you will find no official records, they have none!! Records for KC did not start untill the 1870's) in 1842, it never frosted here the whole winter. 4. Has the Earth warmed the past 30 years-yes it has-but not to the heights it has before. My point: The "Global Warming" as is defined today, by main stream magizines (liberal and conservative) does not have much to stand on. Now, does this mean I don't think we need a new fuel source-NO!!!!! That's the other problem with this debate: either you fully are with it or not. I might not believe in the "typical" definition of Global Warming, but I sure do think we need a new fuel source and to clean up our environment. Just my 2cents worth-flame away!!!

[cape_escape]

OOPS...I didn't mean to open up a can of worms!

[sertorius]

No can of worms-this is a great topic!!! Regardless of weather or not you believe in global warming, as defined my main stream sources, there can be no doubt that fosil fuels are not the way to go-they are dirty and create a horrendous international political scene. Thus, in my opinion, we are both in agreement that we need change in regards to energy and enviornment in general. Have a great day-I have to return to teaching students about the Religious Wars in Europe-Thank goodness for PowerPoints!!!

[ilmc172pilot]

very interesting, thanks for the story

[clueless newbie]

Sorry to intrude, but I must add something here: 1. The earth has been warmer in the past 1000 years than it is now. 2. Evidence has been brought on this site and others that show that Greenland itslef has been warmer in the past 1000 years. 3. In my area in Kansas City, MO. the 1840's, the whole decade, past without much winter-(you will find no official records, they have none!! Records for KC did not start untill the 1870's) in 1842, it never frosted here the whole winter. 4. Has the Earth warmed the past 30 years-yes it has-but not to the heights it has before.

There are several aspects in play here.

1. Local vs. global temperatures. Modified weather patterns might create situation such that although the global temperatures are higher, some places become cooler. Or, although the Earth is overall cooler, the winter cold fronts just do not come deep enough, so the winters in Kansas City might be warmer, while up in Manitoba can be cooler. Similarly, if global warming disrupts Gulf Stream, the Europe will get MUCH cooler.

2. There are natural, poorly understood fluctuations of temperatures. See Greenland vs Iceland, Little Ace Age, there are several other warm and cools spells recorded in Antic times as well. I am not sure to which extend we can recongnize how global vs local those were. The records from those ages are sketchy.

3. Even with natural fluctuations, with human added CO2 the peaks and walleys will be higher.

4. At the end we would like to make cost/analysis to see how much is worth it to invest in limiting human induced global warming. There are several problems there: a) poorly understood cause-effect relationships
b) tendency to ignore external/ecological costs and overplay shortterm economical losses
c) (the most important!) those who gain and those who lose are often different entities. Oil producers would lose relatively little in global waming (just slightly poorer customers). Maledives, large part of Bangladesh might loose everything.
d) lack of leadership. The solution best for the long term often involves steps unpopular in short term. True leadership is needed to overcome the tide of shortsighted interests.

My point: The "Global Warming" as is defined today, by main stream magizines (liberal and conservative) does not have much to stand on.

Almost by definition, main stream magazines are not the source you want to get your information from. Try scientific journals.

Now, does this mean I don't think we need a new fuel source-NO!!!!! That's the other problem with this debate: either you fully are with it or not. I might not believe in the "typical" definition of Global Warming, but I sure do think we need a new fuel source and to clean up our environment. Just my 2cents worth-flame away!!!

Well said.

[bartman]

Climatology is fascinating...and makes a great topic for exchanging ideas and theories. The evidence is strong that our planet is warming up, but the evidence for linking it directly to our industrial age is inconclusive at best.

While up in Alberta a couple of years ago, I went up to Jasper and saw one of the glaciers that is slowly melting and receding. Folks, it's been receding since the turn of 1900, before automobiles and industrial polution! The Canadian Park Service planted signs showing dates where the glacier edge was, and I was strongly impressed by the fact that glacial retreats have been going on for more than 100 years at a steady rate. Consequently, my conclusion is that this is a natural cyclic phenomenon that we MAY be contributing to.