Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity!

[farmwx]

Believe it or not, this may indeed be true.

lobal warming is likely to produce a significant increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most comprehensive computer analysis done so far.

By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power, says the study, done on supercomputers at the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. And rainfall up to 60 miles from the core would be nearly 20 percent more intense.


Other computer modeling efforts have also predicted that hurricanes will grow stronger and wetter as a result of global warming. But this study is particularly significant, independent experts said, because it used half a dozen computer simulations of global climate, devised by separate groups at institutions around the world. The long-term trends it identifies are independent of the normal lulls and surges in hurricane activity that have been on display in recent decades.

The study was published online on Tuesday by The Journal of Climate and can be found at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibl ... tk0401.pdf.

The new study of hurricanes and warming "is by far and away the most comprehensive effort" to assess the question using powerful computer simulations, said Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has seen the paper but did not work on it. About the link between the warming of tropical oceans and storm intensity, he said, "This clinches the issue."

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.

But the authors said that even if the number of storms simply stayed the same, the increased intensity would substantially increase their potential for destruction.

Experts also said that rising sea levels caused by global warming would lead to more flooding from hurricanes - a point underlined at the United Nations this week by leaders of several small island nations, who pleaded for more attention to the potential for devastation from tidal surges.

The new study used four climate centers' mathematical approximations of the physics by which ocean heat fuels tropical storms.

With almost every combination of greenhouse-warmed oceans and atmosphere and formulas for storm dynamics, the results were the same: more powerful storms and more rainfall, said Robert Tuleya, one of the paper's two authors. He is a hurricane expert who recently retired after 31 years at the fluid dynamics laboratory and teaches at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. The other author was Dr. Thomas R. Knutson of the Princeton laboratory.

Altogether, the researchers spawned around 1,300 virtual hurricanes using a more powerful version of the same supercomputer simulations that generates Commerce Department forecasts of the tracks and behavior of real hurricanes.

Dr. James B. Elsner, a hurricane expert at Florida State University who was among the first to predict the recent surge in Atlantic storm activity, said the new study was a significant step in examining the impacts of a warmer future.

But like Dr. Emanuel, he also emphasized that the extraordinary complexity of the oceans and atmosphere made any scientific progress "baby steps toward a final answer."

[JenyEliza]

I dislike the term "Global warming". IMHO it is an intellectually dishonest concept when the blame for earth's warming climate is assigned entirely to man.

Beyond that, I think I'll just stay away from this discussion. Some tree hugger might find offense with what I might have to say.

Jeny

[Rainband]

I dislike the term "Global warming". IMHO it is an intellectually dishonest concept when the blame for earth's warming climate is assigned entirely to man.

Beyond that, I think I'll just stay away from this discussion. Some tree hugger might find offense with what I might have to say.

Jeny

I agree 100%

[farmwx]

I dislike the term "Global warming". IMHO it is an intellectually dishonest concept when the blame for earth's warming climate is assigned entirely to man.

Beyond that, I think I'll just stay away from this discussion. Some tree hugger might find offense with what I might have to say.

Jeny

Who else can you blame, but man. We have done more harm to this earth in the last 100 years, then nature has done. I mean nature does it systemically in cycles, but man has acclerated those cycles in a way unseen in human history.

[PurdueWx80]

Check out this post...it was started because someone misread the NY Times. I managed to print out the JOC article...it is pretty interesting. Also, some of the scientists involved are some of the most famous in this field. Dr. Emanuel is also a very highly esteemed climate/hurricane researcher at MIT.

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=48486

[Stormsfury]

Just like I explained in another thread ...

The current stronger than average ATL thermaline circulation along with a cold phase PDO has caused in the increase in current tropical cyclone activity in the ATL basin since 1995, and a trend that will likely continue for another 20-30 years, before things slow back down ... probably to the levels seen back in the 1970 through the early 1990's ...

The cold phase PDO causes less frequent, much weaker, and shorter lived El Niños hence the reason for the overall upswing in ATL TC's activity. With all the records that 2004 has seen broken, there's still a LOT of those that remain unchanged or broken ...

8 MAJORS in 1950 ... 12 HURRICANES in 1969 (believe it or not, MODERATE EL NINO in progress from 1968-1970, but the ATL thermaline circulation was stronger than normal (on it's last year in the last cycle) ...

21 TC's in 1933 ... we've seen another anomaly with very high numbers of TC's ... usually about once every 60 years, we saw a season with 19 or more storms ... 1887 (19), 1933 (31), 1995 (19) ...

Strongest hurricane in the ATL basin ... IMHO, it's still the Labor Day/Keys Hurricane in 1935 ... although, Camille "officially" has the highest sustained wind tied with Allen ... 190 MPH ... BOTH occurring in the GOM ... highest in the ATL Ocean/Sargasso Sea remains Dog in 1950 (185 mph) ...

SF

[JenyEliza]

I dislike the term "Global warming". IMHO it is an intellectually dishonest concept when the blame for earth's warming climate is assigned entirely to man.

Beyond that, I think I'll just stay away from this discussion. Some tree hugger might find offense with what I might have to say.

Jeny

Who else can you blame, but man. We have done more harm to this earth in the last 100 years, then nature has done. I mean nature does it systemically in cycles, but man has acclerated those cycles in a way unseen in human history.

As you rightly point out, earth's climate has been cyclical since the beginning. EVEN BEFORE MAN came along, earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Yes, man might contribute to the cycles, but man does not CAUSE THEM, and man is not 100% responsible for them.

If man were wiped off the face of the earth tomorow, there would still be cycles of cooling and warming on this earth.

Jeny

[PurdueWx80]

Global warming says nothing about man...you can imply that if you want, but that's not what it means, nor is it implied by anyone studying it. If anything, you may have read into that from various ignorant media sources. Call it global climate change, if you will. If people were saying anthropogenically-induced global warming, that would be different.

[wabbitoid]

It is entirely possible that the warming we are seeing is natural. A rise of 4C may seem like a lot, but on the absolute scale it's 4/273=1.5%. Sunspot activity has been monitored since Galileo's time, and we do appear to be in a period of prolonged, sustain suspot activity. If this is accompanied by an increase of solar radiation of 1.5%, it would accound for the warming we have seen. And there is no measurement of solar output in real terms.

I believe global warming is a definate fact. I'm a bit hesitant to assign it to humans, however.

[JenyEliza]

I dislike the term "Global warming". IMHO it is an intellectually dishonest concept when the blame for earth's warming climate is assigned entirely to man.

Beyond that, I think I'll just stay away from this discussion. Some tree hugger might find offense with what I might have to say.

Jeny

I agree 100%

Thank you!

[Sanibel]

Well, if you read these responses you'll see how those who prefer to lessen the potential impact of Global Warming tend to use oversimplified concepts in their rationale. For instance, I've never seen the London smog argument made in an attempt to dismiss GW.

What is dangerous are arguments like those that say Antarctica's climate is cooling when it is not. The Larsen Shelf wouldn't have collapsed if that were true. Actually the daytime temperature in the Antarctic has warmed by 2-3*f while the night time temperature has gone up 8 degrees!
Species are starting to struggle down there in a shift that is happening way too fast for them to adapt. The Arctic as well.


There are areas that are cooling, but only because the previous climate conditioners are changing due to GW. This argument is not as relevant to past cycles as it is to a deforested and overpopulated earth stretched to fragile margins. Just 20 years ago, the complacentrists were arguing whether Global Warming existed at all. Now they accept it, but want to do finer research to "get it just right"...

[Sanibel]

Not surprising that a culture responsible for having to make hard adjustments to its behavior comes up skeptical about the serious problem of Global Warming.

Of all those who prefer the minimizing viewpoint and push it off on natural warming, you'll notice not one backs their empiricism by showing how huge amounts of CO2 would have little effect...

[KWT]

Global warming isn't caused by man,then again not by Natural either.

It's down to both.Also remember the suns is at it's most active it's been for 1000 years,which could easily explain why it has warmed up so much

[Stormsfury]

So we're to believe a GFDL model that has problems forecasting hurricanes after 72 hours, let along 80 years? ... alrighty then ...

Two websites below for you to read ... the first deals with the CYCLES currently undergoing in the last 100 years.
http://www.thecapitalist.net/globwarm.html

Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomena driven by the output radiation of the Sun. The most recent cycle was strong with major solar flares. This cycle is known as the 11 year solar cycle (sunspots).

During the last 100 years, you can see that the average output from the Sun has increased. That is not a man-made occurrence. If we completely eliminated carbon dioxide from our air, it could not change that.



Sun output energy matches fluctuating earth temperatures - 11 year sunspot cycle: Pointing to the work of the Harvard-Smithsonian observatory, Dr. Robert C. Balling, of Arizona State University, stated that when one plots the energy output of the Sun over the last few decades, it appears to match precisely the fluctuations in global temperature on earth. He noted that in the middle ages, records indicate that the earth was warmer than it is now and that about 1600, the earth suddenly got cooler in what as been called the "Little Ice Age" from which we are just now emerging. [1999 was hottest year and we were rising to the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle which has proven to be one of the strongest cycles in recent history with very strong solar flares]. Interview, Omaha, Nebraska -- August 11, 1998 - EV World.com.

Here's the OTHER extreme ... ice age now ... I don't believe for one minute that we're heading for an ice age in the next 10 years either, but here are documented weather events JUST THIS YEAR ...

http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_Myth.htm

Snowy summer day in Peace River, Canada - September 8, 2004 – Fall is almost two weeks away, but it’s already snowing in northern British Columbia. Fifteen centimeters (about six inches) of heavy snow piled up in the Peace River region today, and more is on the way. “A snow storm of this magnitude this early in the year is highly unusual,” say experts at Environment Canada.
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouv ... 0a4e7efbfa


Heavy snowfall advisory in Grande Prairie, Alberta - Sep 8, 2004 - With 2 cm of snow already on the ground, another 10 cm (4 inches) is forecast tonight. Snow is also forecast for Edmonton tonight. "Snow this early in the season is not unheard of," says one Canadian resident, "but it's certainly unusual." It shouldn't arrive until the middle of October.


Canadian summer temps coldest on record – August 22, 2004 - “It looks like it is going to be the coldest summer on record since data started being collected in the 19th century," says Rick Walls, a meteorologist at Environment Canada in Winnipeg. In Saskatoon, temperatures on July 29 plunged to .07 degrees, the coldest since record keeping began in the area in 1892. Meanwhile, on July 23, temperatures in Winnipeg fell to three degrees, the lowest on record since 1872. In the Canadian Prairies, temperatures for May through mid-August averaged three degrees below normal, beating records that go back to 1872, “completely eclipsing lows of 14.2 C which were recorded in 1883 and 1907.”


Frost every month of the year - 20 Aug 2004 - At least seven records for cold were shattered last night including in Winnipeg, where temperatures dropped to zero, breaking a record set in 1895. The cold also spread to Saskatchewan, with temperatures dipping to minus three degrees in Broadview. Winnipeg also saw snow pellets on Wednesday. Environment Canada has no previous record of snow falling in August. Farmers worry about the early frost, especially since a killing frost also struck last month in a small area south of Brandon. The first killing frost in the fall usually comes in the third week of September. "It looks like this year could be one of the very few years – the first year I've ever heard of – that we've had a frost in every month of the year," says Scott Day, Manitoba Agriculture representative.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 40820.html


Weather in central Canada resembles winter - “These are supposed to be the dog days of summer. But for people living in central and eastern parts of the country, it seems summer has gone to the dogs.”
”Meteorologists say the current weather pattern over central Canada resembles winter -- a huge mass of cold air from the North, stuck over the Prairies. As the system moves east, there's more cold air to fill the void.
“Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec will be experiencing cooler temperatures for weeks.
“Farmers have also been hit hard by the inconsistent weather. A freak snowstorm in May delayed seeding for farmers in Manitoba. Then cool temperatures in June and July shortened the growing season. (from CTV, the Canadian Television Network)
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti ... hub=Canada
(Thanks to Charlie Worton for this info)


All-time record cold August across Minnesota - Aug 19, 2004 – “Late summer vacations have brought sweatshirts and frost across Minnesota and Wisconsin this month … instead of the usual steamy and sultry dog days of August.” Here are the top five coldest Augusts on record for Alexandria, St. Cloud, and Eau Clair through August 18th.”

Alexandria (1940-2004)
1. 62.3 (2004)***
2. 64.3 (1977)
3. 65.2 (1951)
4. 65.4 (1985)
5. 65.6 (1948)

St. Cloud (1904-2004)
1. 62.5 (1977)
2. 62.8 (2004)***
3. 63.6 (1992)
4. 63.9 (1994)
5. 64.5 (1997)

Eau Claire (1949-2004)
1. 63.4 (1951)
2. 63.6 (2004)***
3. 64.8 (1977)
4. 64.9 (1992)
5. 65.7 (1952)

This morning’s low temperatures ranged from 10 to 20 degrees below normal, and another very cool morning is expected tomorrow.
(from the National Weather Service, Twin/Cities/Chanhassen, Minnesota)

August frost in Minnesota - August 19, 2004 - Overnight temperatures in Tower, MN dropped to 25F, while Embarrass dipped to 27. International Falls reported a new record low of 36F, while Duluth dropped to 37F, setting another record low. Morris reported a record low of 38, while Hutchinson tied the record low of 42 set in 1967. In Austin, temperatures fell to 40F, just 2 degrees short of tying a record set some 37 years ago.
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S1931.html?cat=64

Storm shuts down New Zealand capital. August 18, 2004 – “A severe storm has battered much of New Zealand, leaving Wellington all but cut off. Wind gusts of more than 100 mph (160 km/h) tore roofs from buildings and downed trees and electric lines across the lower North Island, blocking highways and railroads, and halting plane and sea ferry services. Ferries between the North and South Island were halted, while snow and debris blocked roads across the south of the North Island.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/08/ ... index.html


Record low temperatures in 18 states on August 7. If we had had record high temperatures in 18 states, it would have been plastered across the front page of almost every newspaper in the country. But have you seen anything about this in your paper? I doubt it.
See daily listing of record low temperatures across the United States.

Record low temperatures in Winnipeg. Daily high temperatures in Winnipeg
averaged only 19.5C (67.1F) during May, June, and July, breaking the old record set in 1950.
The normal daily high average for these months is 22.5C (72.5F), says a report issued by
Environment Canada issued on August 3, 2004. Temperature records began in Winnipeg
in 1874. (Thanks to Robert Hotchkiss for this info)

“Europeans still waiting for summer” – July 17, 2004 – Sleigh rides and snowball fights in July as the month turns almost glacial. “Mulled wine instead of of wine coolers. Thermostats set on high. Spring has come and gone, fall approaches—and Europeans are still waiting for summer.” In the United Kingdom, British Gas implemented its winter emergency contingency plan in response to a surge in demand for heat. Temperatures in Shrewsbury in northwest England plummeted to 53 degrees, the coldest ever recorded in the area for the month of July.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445280/

[DoctorHurricane2003]

Some things that do not make sense:

First of all....the winds inside hurricanes are caused by pressure differences. Exceptionally warm water could bring the pressure down faster....but instability in the system could halt that.

Second.....tropical cyclones are heat engines that transfer heat from the tropics to the poles. That is their purpose. Now....if the ENTIRE world warms.....(exaggerative: Let's say the current avg. temp at the North Pole in summer is 0-10 F, and the avg. tropical temperature is 90 F.....an approximate 85 degree difference) to say, an average summer North Pole temperature of 20 F and an avg tropical temperature at 105 F....it would not make much difference in wind speeds and barometric pressure inside hurricanes. The difference would have to be if the avg. North Pole temperature during summer was 0 F and the average tropical temperature was at 110 F......a 110 degree difference, as opposed to an 85 degree difference......would cause much stronger storms and lower pressures....because the earth system strives to be balanced by transferring heat from the tropics to the poles......and the 110 degree difference would require much more heat packed into tropical systems than is currently.

I hope this clearly gave my viewpoint.

[PurdueWx80]

Climate is driven partially by solar activity (without the sun we wouldn't be here). However, I have seen recent studies that test the sensitivity of climate change to various measurables...namely CO2, Methane, water vapor and Solar Activity. The most important of these in short time periods (say decades to centuries) is CO2, in my opinion. The results of these studies (I'll have to back these up later as my sources are in my office and I'm not there now) show that if you take out sun cycles and leave in the expected increase in CO2 emissions, global temperatures will rise at nearly the same rate as they do w/ the sun's forcings. That's an astounding result - and gives more credence to the idea that anthropogenic increases in CO2 will cause global warming. We know for a fact that during times of warmer global temperatures, CO2 was higher than it was in the recent past.

Another point, in my theory of climate class we have been talking about the transfer of heat to the poles and theories as to how the tropics and poles are connected. What I find interesting is that the tropics have changed little in comparison to the wild deviations from the mean seen from 60-90 N and S. For some reason, the tropics don't warm or cool as much as the extratropics.

Some other things to think about - negative and positive feedbacks to climate:

water vapor - As the temperature of the Earth warms (cools), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases (decreases) and contributes to further warming (cooling). The warming scenario would be a runaway greenhouse effect, and thus it is a positive feedback to the system.

deserts - as desertification increases, the light color of the sand contributes to a higher albedo - this reflects more solar radiation back to space, thereby cooling the planet. Negative feedback.

Deforestation - forests have a very dark surface when compared to other types of surfaces on the earth. Dark surfaces absorb solar radiation, thereby increasing the amount of warming. Taking away forests, by this mechanism alone, would act to warm the planet. Nonetheless, there are many other things that forests do that are important to us, so that doesn't mean we can cut them all down. negative feedback (also positive in many senses).

There are many other examples but I'll leave it at that for now. The point in this is that many things contribute to changes in climate, and it isn't as simple as it may seem. Also, the tropics, from 30N to 30S, cover the majority of the globe, surface area-wise. Most of this area is covered by water. Any long-term increase in the temperatures of the tropics, even if small, would contribute to stronger tropical cyclones, regardless of any changes in the poles. The differences in temperature referred to by Dr. Hurricane would perhaps affect tropical cyclones slightly, but not to the degree that it would for extratropical systems...these rely on baroclinic processes (temperature gradients) whereas tropical systems are barotropic (little to no difference in T over a certain area).

[DoctorHurricane2003]

Here is an analogy:

Wind : Pressure :: Tropical Cyclones :: Global Heat


Wind is the transfer of air pressure from regions of high to low pressure.....the attempt to balance a system.

My theory is that Tropical Cyclones is the mean to transfer heat from regions of high heat content (tropics) to regions of lower heat content (poles).

In essence...if we were on a planet like Venus (Little to no difference in temperature throughout the planet's system).....it would be nearly impossible to have tropical cyclones no matter what the temperature is.....as the temperature is already balanced throughout the planet.

That's what controls weather the most.....the unequal heating of a surface.

[PurdueWx80]

Here is a MUST-READ article about global climate change policy. This article is by a VERY famous meteorologist - perhaps one of the most recognized names in the field.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

It is long, but well worth the read.

[Sanibel]

I really suggest reading the september 2004 issue of 'National Geographic'. It starts at most of the natural global warming arguments displayed above and goes from there. It is, in effect, a response to this recent popular viewpoint. It pretty much cuts it apart.


It's a mistake to quote recent record cold periods on earth as proof against Global Warming. Scientists say signs of GW will be such extreme fluxes between hot and cold. This is actually proof of GW rather than evidence against it.

It's also a real mistake to point to sun activity for recent GW trends. Perhaps it could be contributory, but axis cycles and long-term cycles are also involved. The real issue here is how unprecedented human impacts enhance this natural process and how it will change life as we know it...

[Guest]

Now here is a great educational thought provoking thread..

You know what that means??Its gonna get deleted or locked.