Ocean temperature increase and hurricanes

[iNow]

Righto. I suppose that's what I get for being lazy and not exploring more of my google hits while sitting in a meeting at work.

 

Disregard the Time piece (tee hee), that's fine. Here's more on the point I was making:

 

 

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/111816/4408

Global warming has long been predicted to make hurricanes more intense. Well, now we are seeing

more intense hurricanes

. Chris Mooney has a great post on the recent storm surge of Category 5 hurricanes, now that Felix has joined that

once-elite club

. He

notes

:

• There have now been 8 Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the past 5 years (Isabel, Ivan, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Dean, Felix).
  
  
• There have been two Atlantic Category 5s so far this year; only three other seasons have had more than one (1960, 1961, 2005).
  
  
• There have been 8 Atlantic Category 5 hurricanes so far in the 2000s; no other decade has had so many. The closest runner up is the 1960s with 6 (Donna, Ethel, Carla, Hattie, Beulah, Camille).
  
  

Some people, especially the Deniers, think this is all a coincidence, or the result of incomplete data from earlier years. Here's why I don't:

 

 

 

 

Global warming

increases sea surface temperatures

(SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form.

 

Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins.

 

Equally important, one of the ways that hurricanes are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane's own violent action. But if the deeper water is also warm, it doesn't weaken the hurricane. In fact, it may continue to intensify. Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus creating ideal conditions for a hurricane to survive and thrive in its long journey from tropical depression to Category 4 or 5 superstorm.

 

More that the link, and also plenty of others to substantiate my position.

 

 

 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844

 

Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment

 

We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade.

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose your next step will be to suggest that we cannot trust the journal Science? Clearly, the only possible explanation is that they are wrong since they've reported that the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased 80% in the past 30 years.

 

Finally, even if I grant you that the 80% figure is too high, you'll fail in the argument since my primary point is that stronger categories of hurricanes/cyclones are more common. ALL available and valid/accurate data support this point, so we're done here.

Edited December 9, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

iNow

I think you may be arguing against something I did not say.

 

I asked the question : How can anthropogenic increases in sea temperature lead to increased hurricane intensity when the increase in temperature is so trivial?

 

When we check scientific opinion, we see it is divided. Some say that there is no recent statistically significant change in hurricane frequency or intensity. Some say there has been an increase in intensity. However, that is not my question.

 

If the temperature increase is less than 0.1 C, and it takes ten times that to give an increase in wind speed of 5%, then how is the increase in intensity supposed to have happened? Surely, any effect would be so minimal as to be unmeasurable?

 

And an increase of 0.1 C is not really terribly likely to be sufficient to push anything over a threshold. Normal variability in surface sea temperature is many times that. The noise is massively greater than the signal in this case.

[iNow]

And an increase of 0.1 C is not really terribly likely to be sufficient to push anything over a threshold.

 

Let's see your math in support of that. "Not really terribly likely to be sufficient" is hardly quantized.

 

 

General question - Should I have stuck to what I said when I commented "We are done here?"

 

 

 

If the temperature increase is less than 0.1 C, and it takes ten times that to give an increase in wind speed of 5%, then...

Your argument equates to saying that it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%. Can we please see a source in support of this?

 

Then, once you've supplied a source, I'd like to hear you explain how this "one degree C" is the more relevant factor than that quoted in my previous source which explicity discussed how storm intensity is based on a threshold, not a linear increase. In other words, temps can increase quite a lot and do nothing, but once past this threshold, intensity magnification is profound.

 

 

Global warming increases sea surface temperatures (SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form.

 

Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins.

 

 

Again, can't we just be done here now? You're just wasting my time, because I've said nothing invalid thus far.

Edited December 10, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

Why don't you go back over this thread and re-read my posts. I have not been arguing. I have been asking questions.

 

Your reference has suggested a threshold of 26.5C surface sea temperature for any hurricane to develop and 28.3 C for any serious hurricane. Normal sea temperature variability runs over 5 to 10 Celsius summer to winter. Do you think that an average surface sea temperature increase of 0.1C or less over 40 years is going to have a significant effect on frequency of serious hurricanes?

[iNow]

Still waiting on a source for your assertion:

 

it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%.

[bascule]

Why don't you go back over this thread and re-read my posts. I have not been arguing. I have been asking questions.

 

Yes, you've been asking questions like:

 

Are the hurricane increase proponents just a bunch of theoretical catastrophe lovers, or is there something I have missed?

 

Can I start asking questions? Let me start with: Is SkepticLance completely insane, or is he just an idiot?

 

Yes, I'm not trying to insult you SkepticLance. Really, it's nothing personal. I'm not trying to argue. I'm just asking questions.

[SkepticLance]

bascule

Go wash your mouth out with soap and water. That is as bad an ad hom attack and gratuitous insult as can be delivered. It is quite reprehensible and totally beneath you.

[Pangloss]

Just finished reading an editorial in New Scientist' date=' in which the author suggests that towns like Galviston on the hurricane prone sea coast, should be abandoned rather than rebuilt.[/quote']

 

I happen to agree. Same thing in New Orleans, Louisianna. It's a waste of money to rebuild them as they will just be demolished again in a few short years.

 

This is nanny-state thinking, IMO, and also defeatism. There is no place in the country where a building doesn't stand some sort of risk. America has thousands of miles of shoreline, every single bit of it theoretically susceptible to hurricanes. Are you going to arbitrarily pick a risk percentage and only build on areas where the percentage is below that number? Who decides what that number should be? Do we apply that number everywhere in the country? What about people living along the Mississippi? What about people who live anywhere in the state of California?

 

And if you're going to do that, then why not just charge more for insurance in those areas? And guess what? We already do that. So where's the problem?

 

If it's more a matter of human risk, that's so low as to be almost trivial (in this country), and the attention is better spent elsewhere.

 

Finally, you also have to be really specific how you define that stuff. I live in South Florida, but I don't have any significant hurricane risk here. That's because I don't live on the shore, I live many miles inland. Since I moved in here ten years ago more than EIGHT hurricanes have passed DIRECTLY over my house (the actual eyes of the storms), including *Katrina*, and the only damage I've had is -- literally -- a few loosened roof tiles.

 

So don't even think about telling me it's not safe for me to live here, because you're just plain wrong. Now if you just mean in the storm-surge areas, I agree there's an argument there, at least.

 

As for rising sea levels, they don't rise faster than I can drive.

[iNow]

Okay, you can build a house in the mouth of a volcano for all I care, but stop asking for my tax money to rebuild it every time it gets destroyed. Nothing defeatist about my attitude. I'm being pragmatic. It's like calling me a fascist for telling you it's smarter to wear a seat belt when riding in a car.

[Mokele]

Okay, you can build a house in the mouth of a volcano for all I care, but stop asking for my tax money to rebuild it every time it gets destroyed. Nothing defeatist about my attitude. I'm being pragmatic. It's like calling me a fascist for telling you it's smarter to wear a seat belt when riding in a car.

 

You mean anywhere within 1000 miles of Yellowstone national park, meaning most of the central US, given the giant volcano directly under the park?

 

Or anywhere within 500 miles of Missouri, given the massive faultline directly under the state?

 

Or the entire Atlantic seaboard, what with the inevitable volcanic explosion of the Azores leading to a massive tsunami?

 

Hrm, West Virginia seems safe...oh, wait, except for the possibility that a fire will ignite in a coal seam, cooking entire towns from underneath in toxic smog.

 

 

 

Nowhere is safe.

 

 

 

This comforting message is brought to you by your local giant atomic reptile.

[iNow]

This comforting message is brought to you by your local giant atomic reptile.

Indeed, nowhere is safe. However, there are a few places with a significantly higher probability of damage being caused by natural/environmental conditions. Lance cited Galveston, I cited NOLA. Those were the only two locales under the umbrella of discussion until only the last few posts.

 

Btw... I didn't know you before, but welcome back.

[Mokele]

Thanks. And while I can see the issue, I think you underestimate the degree to which such cities are already protected. New Orleans, for instance, is entirely protected by a system of levees, with most of the city being above sea level. The disaster of Katrina came from inadequate levee funds, the destruction of the coastal wetlands that protected from storm surge, and building in low-lying areas - all short-term errors which can be avoided in future or repaired.

 

I remember when I was in Guam, we got hit by two typhoons inside of 3 weeks, which is apparently typical, but the island has adjusted - for instance, all the buildings are made of concrete.

 

Remember, most cities existed *before* there was any possibility of widespread relief from the government, and found ways to minimize the damage. We help out now simply to try to keep things working more smoothly, and due to the Principle of Inevitable Doom, the money eventually gets spread around and benefits everyone.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

bascule

Go wash your mouth out with soap and water. That is as bad an ad hom attack and gratuitous insult as can be delivered. It is quite reprehensible and totally beneath you.

 

Quid pro quo.

 

Consider it a backhanded request to elevate your level of discourse. Stop playing innocent when you call climate scientists "theoretical catastrophe lovers" and defend your remarks as "just asking questions"

[Pangloss]

Okay, you can build a house in the mouth of a volcano for all I care, but stop asking for my tax money to rebuild it every time it gets destroyed. Nothing defeatist about my attitude. I'm being pragmatic. It's like calling me a fascist for telling you it's smarter to wear a seat belt when riding in a car.

 

Sorry, you don't get a break there either. I don't hear you advocating the immediate evacuation of the entire state of California, and I doubt you'd deny them relief after an earthquake. If you want to base your entire morality around human causation, that's a bed of your own making.

 

Indeed, nowhere is safe. However, there are a few places with a significantly higher probability of damage being caused by natural/environmental conditions. Lance cited Galveston, I cited NOLA. Those were the only two locales under the umbrella of discussion until only the last few posts.

 

Do you have a source that the risk is higher there than anywhere else in the US? I'll settle for significantly settled cosmopolitan regions.

 

BTW that wasn't your criteria before. Your criteria before was just whether they would be "...demolished again in a few short years." Which is actually kinda vague, and could include anything.

 

 

-------------

 

Bascule, stop calling Lance an idiot.

 

And stop hogging the soap.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

If you want to base your entire morality around human causation, that's a bed of your own making.

 

I'm not inclined to spend my time searching for sources when a) you start off with a quote like the above, b) you very significantly misrepresent the position I actually put forward ("Do you have a source that the risk is higher there than anywhere else in the US?"), c) Lance has not shared sources for his assertions, yet no staff has reinforced my request, and d) you gave bascule a hard time just for calling a spade a spade via clever use of satire.

 

 

I figure if Lance is not going to be held accountable to find a source for a claim like:

 

it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%.

 

 

 

...then I'm sure not going to bother wasting my time finding a citation for:

Same thing in New Orleans, Louisianna. It's a waste of money to rebuild them as they will just be demolished again in a few short years.

 

 

 

Ah... the joys of a thread in which SkepticLance participates. Always so crisp and focussed.

Edited December 10, 2008 by iNow
Added point d

[Pangloss]

Mmkay, so humans who suffer from natural disasters should get government assistance, but those who suffer from man-made disasters are on their own. Got it. It's a good thing you're not on, like, a crusade or anything. (rofl)

 

No, I gave bascule a hard time for calling Lance an idiot. Just as you would if I had done so to you after taking the position you just took (hint, hint). And I didn't criticize you for challenging Lance's other assertions. You seem to be doing a fine job of that -- what's the problem? I'm not sure why you're suddenly requesting hand-holding, but if it's really important to you then stick your hand out at the screen right now:

 

Lance, give him a source!

 

(Oh wow dude, do you moisturize??)

[bascule]

No, I gave bascule a hard time for calling Lance an idiot.

 

For the record I was never trying to imply that SkepticLance is an idiot. He is certainly not an idiot and comes off as a smart fellow. Rather, I was merely trying to point out that he's crazy.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

I have tried hard to rediscover my source for 1 C = 5% wind speed increase. I read it some days ago while browsing google for info on this topic, and I was silly enough not to save the reference. I have come across a whole lot of similar statements while googling further, but nothing exactly the same. Sorry.

 

Bascule and iNow always give me a hard time. Mostly I forgive them. I challenge those who have fixed opinions, and people who take things on faith tend to resent those who challenge that faith. I do not know if they are capable of seeing this, but people who respond to a query by quoting an authority, and his opinion, but with no data to support that opinion, are often barking up a very non scientific tree.

 

There is no doubt that certain people resent my input, and the reason for that resentment is that they hate having their preconceptions and prejudices queried. However, such queries are healthy. Now and again, someone is open enough to actually accept that it is good to be forced to look at the hard facts behind their system of beliefs.

 

The more narrow minded a person is, the more they will hit out against those who question their narrow minded beliefs. In my case, it is worse, since I present data instead of dogma. That is very hard for those fixated on their own pseudoreligion to accept.

[Dak]

I do not know if they are capable of seeing this, but people who respond to a query by quoting an authority, and his opinion, but with no data to support that opinion, are often barking up a very non scientific tree.

 

Unless they're quoting established science which has been through the peer-review process, in which case we can pretty much take it as given that it is, at somewhere along the line, in actual fact based on some form of supporting data. right?

 

There is no doubt that certain people resent my input, and the reason for that resentment is that they hate having their preconceptions and prejudices queried. However, such queries are healthy. Now and again, someone is open enough to actually accept that it is good to be forced to look at the hard facts behind their system of beliefs.

 

The more narrow minded a person is, the more they will hit out against those who question their narrow minded beliefs. In my case, it is worse, since I present data instead of dogma. That is very hard for those fixated on their own pseudoreligion to accept.

 

So... iNow and bascule are narrow-minded pseudoreligious prejudiced people, you're either insane or just plain stupid, and climate scientists are a bunch of theoretical catastrophe lovers

 

how about we drop the snarkyness before another thread that pertains towards climatology implodes.

[bascule]

Bascule and iNow always give me a hard time. Mostly I forgive them. I challenge those who have fixed opinions, and people who take things on faith tend to resent those who challenge that faith. I do not know if they are capable of seeing this, but people who respond to a query by quoting an authority, and his opinion, but with no data to support that opinion, are often barking up a very non scientific tree.

 

You know, it's funny. First I responded to you with sound scientific theory. You completely ignored that, but as soon as I try to get in your face by calling you an idiot/crazy, I'm a person of "fixed opinions" who "things on faith tend to resent those who challenge that faith".

Edited December 10, 2008 by swansont
delete ad hom passages

[swansont]

Bascule and iNow always give me a hard time. Mostly I forgive them. I challenge those who have fixed opinions, and people who take things on faith tend to resent those who challenge that faith. I do not know if they are capable of seeing this, but people who respond to a query by quoting an authority, and his opinion, but with no data to support that opinion, are often barking up a very non scientific tree.

 

I'd just like to note that people asking for citations are not giving anyone a hard time. They are asking for the data that backs up an opinion.

 

——

 

I will cover my previous point again, since it seems to have been ignored in the ensuing melee.

 

The TIME article clearly states that it's the tropical temperature, not global temperature. As such, it is premature to declare the TIME article (and, by extension, the Nature article from which it was derived) as invalid, since you are comparing different measurements. Proceeding under the assumption that the number must be wrong, without data, is NOT "giving you a hard time." If you think the number is wrong, find studies that have measured the tropical temperature increase. Cite them.

 

 

I'd also like to note that the claim that the air temperature must rise faster than the water temperature is patently false. The air temperature need not change at all to have the water temperature rise, if the air is already warmer than the water.

 

You can do a test. Pour a glass of cold water. Let it sit in a room with the thermostat at a constant value. Does the water warm faster than the air?

[Sayonara]

The more narrow minded a person is, the more they will hit out against those who question their narrow minded beliefs. In my case, it is worse, since I present data instead of dogma. That is very hard for those fixated on their own pseudoreligion to accept.

 

[iNow]

Can I start asking questions? Let me start with: Is SkepticLance completely insane, or is he just an idiot?

 

Yes, I'm not trying to insult you SkepticLance. Really, it's nothing personal. I'm not trying to argue. I'm just asking questions.

 

I think it's important to note that these are not mutually exclusive. Either way, since they are merely satire being used to make a point, that doesn't really matter much.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

Pangloss - I think you are still misunderstanding my actual position, and I'm frankly confused by all of the labels and suggested motivations you are posting about me. I guess some of them could be correct, sure, but I'm missing the relevance.

 

Can you please summarize for me precisely what you are asking and what you want me to back up? My basic point was that people living in cities and areas which have experienced catastrophic loss due to climatic conditions repeatedly and frequently, and which are experiencing a very high probability of future catastrophes due to shifting climate patterns (more hurricanes, rising sea levels, etc.) should really be thinking more intelligently and moving further inland (instead of remaining where they are being idignant, blinding themselves to the reality of their location). How that spawned this tangent, I'm not sure, but if you have a specific question for me to address, please ask it.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

SkepticLance, yes. We are done here, now. I'll only cause grief for the staff if I continue with your games in this thread, and that is not my intent.

Edited December 10, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

My basic point was that people living in cities and areas which have experienced catastrophic loss due to climatic conditions repeatedly and frequently, and which are experiencing a very high probability of future catastrophes due to shifting climate patterns (more hurricanes, rising sea levels, etc.) should really be thinking more intelligently and moving further inland (instead of remaining where they are being idignant, blinding themselves to the reality of their location).

 

Well that's a nice way to spin it, but I haven't forgotten that you also said:

 

Okay, you can build a house in the mouth of a volcano for all I care, but stop asking for my tax money to rebuild it every time it gets destroyed. Nothing defeatist about my attitude. I'm being pragmatic. It's like calling me a fascist for telling you it's smarter to wear a seat belt when riding in a car.

 

So you feel that people who suffer for man-made disasters shouldn't receive help, and you support continued assistance for those who suffer from natural disasters that are equally predictable and certain over time. Meaning your position is about making people pay for human causation, not whether or not people should receive disaster assistance.

 

Seems pretty clear to me; not sure what the problem is. But hey, if that's not your position, by all means, tell me all about it.

[SkepticLance]

Interesting.

I have just been reading the other global warming thread, in which chase. the confused wood elf, is spouting a load of global warming denier garbage. Yet iNow is treating him with patience and refraining from insults. I am not a global warming denier - just a questioner of the less likely aspects of current global warming dogma, and I get the insults.

 

The only interpretation is that, when iNow et al cannot find the data or good science to shoot me down, they revert to ad hom and gratuitous insults.

 

On this thread it is even more strange, since, apart from a couple of comments I have, till yesterday, restricted myself to questions.