Ocean temperature increase and hurricanes

[iNow]

So you feel that people who suffer for man-made disasters shouldn't receive help

No, that's not how I feel.

 

 

, and you support continued assistance for those who suffer from natural disasters that are equally predictable and certain over time.

I have neither a yes or a no to offer you on this, as that's an extreme assumption based on what I was actually saying.

 

My point about government funds was extraneous and I should never have said it. My primary point has always been that these areas should not be densely populated anymore. To continue living there despite history and future likelihoods is (IMO) both arrogant and foolish.

 

That's the key point.

 

 

Meaning your position is about making people pay for human causation, not whether or not people should receive disaster assistance.

Huh?

 

 

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.

I hope my clarification above is enough. I've really grown tired of this line of conversation, but will try to clarify further if needed.

[swansont]

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.

 

Don't go there, it's not a fair comparison. Chase has 7 post, i.e. no track record.

 

And don't think you get a free pass with pejorative terms like "dogma" or other phrases used in this thread when you complain about how others treat you.

 

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.

 

And assertions that you have not addressed. "et al" (namely me) has pointed out twice that your objection to the TIME article is misplaced. (make that three times, if you include this)

 

Why are you ignoring that?

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

Re the Time article and your explanation for the reference to 0.5 C warming.

 

I am sorry, but it makes little sense to me. The warming of the oceans from global climate change is indirect. That is : the initial warming is of the atmosphere, and some of its heat energy is passed on to the ocean to warm it. Thermal lag means the sea will always warm up much more slowly than the air via this mechanism.

 

The average atmospheric warming over the past 40 years is 0.5 C. And most of that is found in the Arctic regions. The least warming is in the tropics. That means that air warming in the tropics over the past 40 years is less than 0.5 C. Yet you are telling me that the oceans in the tropics warmed by 0.5 C. Unless there is a different mechanism at work, such as vulcanism, this seems a little unlikely.

 

It is far more likely to me that a Time writer was a little careless and wrote 0.5 C when it should have been 0.05 C. This is not a very unusual slip up.

[Pangloss]

, and you support continued assistance for those who suffer from natural disasters that are equally predictable and certain over time.

I have neither a yes or a no to offer you on this, as that's an extreme assumption based on what I was actually saying.

 

My point about government funds was extraneous and I should never have said it. My primary point has always been that these areas should not be densely populated anymore. To continue living there despite history and future likelihoods is (IMO) both arrogant and foolish.

 

That's the key point.

 

If you're going to make science the basis for your position, then it's a perfectly logical question. The earthquake threat to Californians is just as real and arguably even more certain than the threat to people living on the coast of South Florida. Do you think that California "should not be densely populated anymore?"

 

If the answer to that question is "no", then why not? What's the difference?

[iNow]

West of the San Andreas fault, population density decrease would be the most intelligent move to make. Yes, moving further inland seems to make the most sense.

 

However, as evidenced by frequency of natural disasters these past few decades, as well as the total naturally caused destruction by location, natural threats to California as a whole (with the possible exception of wild fires) are much less critical than the threats to specific cities like Galveston and NOLA. Further, much of the motivation of my comments was related to global climate change, it's impact on hurricanes and rising sea levels (in other words, on topic). These factors do not impact issues such as continental drift and tectonic plate movement, so your mention of California is only peripherally related in that regard.

 

YOU are the one who brought up California. Why exactly am I being asked to support any points about it?

Edited December 10, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

I don't think earthquakes are less likely than hurricanes. If I'm not mistaken they're completely random, just like hurricanes, which means the big one could happen tomorrow. You're advocating the dismantling of the world's fourth largest economy because of that public threat, and softening the blow that by saying we can do it over a long period of time. Okay, that's consistent, but I'll just respond the same way I did before: Why don't we just make the people of California assume the risk of whatever dangers exist in their area?

 

When I asked you that question about my situation in South Florida, your response was that it was fine so long as I didn't ask for government assistance afterwords. Would you apply that to Californians after an earthquake, or give them assistance? Earthquakes aren't caused by man, but they assumed the same risk I did.

 

BTW, the greatest earthquake threat is in the central states along the Mississippi. Same region that's threatened by flooding. They don't even have the luxury of moving to higher ground.

 

And then there's Oklahoma and Kansas with those tornadoes. There are communities who brag about not being hit by a tornado in decades, and build their houses out of wood. My house is built out of cement blocks painted to look like wood, and can withstand a direct wind force of 150mph, and my walls, windows and doors can take an 8-foot-long 4x4 fired at them at 150mph (with all that mass behind them). And don't even get me started on the roof!

 

Who's better prepared, them or me? I've had 8 killer hurricanes pass over my hours in the last ten years. The fools in southern Mississippi had no building codes whatsoever. Wanna talk about what Katrina would have cost YOU if there had been FLORIDA building codes in place in Mississippi? (It would certainly be on topic, wouldn't it?)

 

Hey, don't you live in Texas? How prepared is your house for a tornado?

 

Running away doesn't solve anything. Even building below sea level in NOLA makes sense so long as the science and engineering back it up and the proper preparations are taken. That's the American way -- we rise to challenges. We don't run away from them. But I agree with you about responsibility and assumption of risk.

[iNow]

I don't think earthquakes are less likely than hurricanes.

It really doesn't matter what you think. There are more destructive hurricanes every year than destructive earthquakes. They are not completely random, as very real factors contribute to their formation. We also have the power to know that hurricane intensity is increasing (see my existing posts this thread for evidence in support of my position).

 

 

 

You're advocating the dismantling of the world's fourth largest economy because of that public threat, and softening the blow that by saying we can do it over a long period of time.

First, when exactly did this thread get moved to Politics? Second, give a quote where I did any such thing. Something specific. I have no idea what you're on about.

 

 

 

You've carried this tangent way too far, and you continue to argue against comments I NEVER MADE, and one which I already explicity retracted. I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth. My posts speak for themselves, and you're WAY out of line.

 

 

Pangloss - I've sent you a PM to discuss.

 

Also, when did this thread move into the Politics board?

Edited December 11, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

You're advocating the dismantling of the world's fourth largest economy because of that public threat' date=' and softening the blow that by saying we can do it over a long period of time. [/quote']

Second, give a quote where I did any such thing. Something specific. I have no idea what you're on about.

 

Sure, that would be here:

 

West of the San Andreas fault, population density decrease would be the most intelligent move to make. Yes, moving further inland seems to make the most sense.

 

Moving on:

 

It really doesn't matter what you think. There are more destructive hurricanes every year than destructive earthquakes. They are not completely random, as very real factors contribute to their formation. We also have the power to know that hurricane intensity is increasing (see my existing posts this thread for evidence in support of my position).

 

So then you are going back to basing your proposal to depopulate at-risk regions on the basis of man-kind causation? Okay, but that isn't definitively supported yet, not like global warming. There is evidence of it, I agree, but not a conclusion with a consensus. Note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you having that opinion. What I'm saying is that there's a valid opposing viewpoint. That's all.

 

And I think my points about building codes are significant and worth discussion in this subject. As I said before, had Mississippi had Florida's building codes they wouldn't have had anything like the damage (or casualties) they had. Obviously that doesn't apply to the 9th Ward (et al), but that was ALSO preventable, just for a different reason.

 

Point being, you think we shouldn't settle those areas. I think we can settle those areas, using science and technology to back us up. That's an argument. That's what we do here, state opposing viewpoints. Welcome to SFN!

 

And that, by the way, is the answer to this question:

 

First, when exactly did this thread get moved to Politics?

 

Because you brought up the issue of settlement in hurricane-vulnerable regions, which is a socio-political opinion issue.

[iNow]

My comments were based on environment and ecology. The intelligence of settling in certain areas was an expressed opinion tangential to the main thread purpose discussing hurricanes.

 

Instead of recognizing the small tangent as off topic and leaving it merely as an expressed opinion, you not only ran with the tangent, but perpetuated it by reading FAR more into my words than I ever intended. You further yanked this thread into the Politics forum, which is never what was intended (as I imagine even Lance would concede).

 

It seems my PM to you has failed, and that is a shame.

 

 

 

Ocean temperatures are rising.

For this reason, more intense hurricanes are increasing in frequency.

Rising temperatures are also causing ice to melt and raise sea levels.

Coastal cities in hurricane areas are at greater risk due to the increase in intense hurricanes and rising sea levels.

Humans should recognize this risk and IMO move inland whenever possible.

 

 

That is all, Pangloss. You and I are done here now, too.

[Sayonara]

Right, this thread goes back on topic now.

 

Lance's primary concern from the OP is:

 

My main concern is to ask why such a small change in sea temperature is supposed to have caused an increase in hurricane frequency/intensity.

 

We do not move threads just because we have gone off on our own tangent.

[iNow]

My main concern is to ask why such a small change in sea temperature is supposed to have caused an increase in hurricane frequency/intensity.

I am pretty sure I've already addressed this, but just to be sure, I will say it here. The magnitude of the change is of little signifance. The part which matters is whether or not that change pushes us over a certain threshold.

[Mokele]

SkepticLance - I highly recommend reading this link on the issue of hurricanes and global warming, as well as searching the site for more.

 

Hell, I just recommend the entire site - it's all about climate change, written by accomplished scientists in the field, which doesn't skimp on details or primary references. It can be a bit of a slog to read through as a result, but it's my first go-to for GW information.

 

Mokele

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I understand your explanation. Sadly, it is a bit too simplistic. As I understand it, a hurricane can form when certain weather conditions prevail, and there is a suitable patch of ocean of minimum temperature 28 C down to a depth of about 100 metres.

 

It is the patchy nature of the situation that makes your explanation simplistic. Ocean temperature on a local scale, just like air temperature locally, varies quite substantially. A minor increase in average ocean temperature may push the odd patch over the threshold, but as a percentage of all warm patches that might potentially be hurricane forming, the fraction that such a tiny warming could push over the threshold would be tiny. I seriously doubt it would be measurable. Remember, we are talking an average warming of 0.1 C at most, compared to a 'random' temperature variation at least 30 times as great.

[iNow]

From within the link I shared in post #26:

 

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf

We conclude that the definitive assertion of Gray (2005) and Mayfield (2005), that human-made GHGs play no role in the Atlantic Ocean temperature changes that they assume to drive hurricane intensification, is untenable. Specifically, the assertions that (1) hurricane intensification of the past decade is due to changes in SST [sea surface temperature] in the Atlantic Ocean, and (2) global warming cannot have had a significant role in the hurricane intensification of the past decade, are mutually inconsistent. On the contrary, although natural cycles play a role in changing Atlantic SST, our model results indicate that, to the degree that hurricane intensification of the past decade is a product of increasing SST in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, human-made GHGs probably are a substantial contributor, as also concluded by Mann and Emanuel (2006). Santer et al. (2006) have obtained similar conclusions by examining the results of 22 climate models.

 

 

http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/01/hurricanes-and-global-warming-once-more/

The oceans

are

getting warmer, and hurricanes

are

getting more intense as a result.

 

 

 

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

Fig. 1. Running 5-year mean of SST during the respective hurricane seasons for the principal ocean basins in which hurricanes occur: the North Atlantic Ocean (NATL: 90° to 20°E, 5° to 25°N, June-October), the Western Pacific Ocean (WPAC: 120° to 180°E, 5° to 20°N, May-December), the East Pacific Ocean (EPAC: 90° to 120°W, 5° to 20°N, June-October), the Southwest Pacific Ocean (SPAC: 155° to 180°E, 5° to 20°S, December-April), the North Indian Ocean (NIO: 55° to 90°E, 5° to 20°N, April-May and September-November), and the South Indian Ocean (SIO: 50° to 115°E, 5° to 20°S, November-April).

 

 

Really, nearly all of your questions are addressed more than adequately here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I understand it, a hurricane can form when certain weather conditions prevail, and there is a suitable patch of ocean of minimum temperature 28 C down to a depth of about 100 metres.

Sorry, that is incorrect. The estimate is 26.5 C down to 50 meters.

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/environment/hurricane_formation.html

Like all tropical cyclones, a hurricane needs the warm water of the tropics, which feeds a storm with energy, in order to form. The atmosphere must be laden with moisture.

 

The water must be at least 80 degrees Fahrenheit (26.5 Celsius) down to at least 150 feet (50 meters), scientists estimate.

 

Storm seeds

 

In the beginning, a disturbance forms in the atmosphere, developing into an area of low atmospheric pressure. Winds begin to move into the center of the storm seedling from surrounding areas of higher air pressure. Warm water heats the air, and it rises as it nears the center.

 

The ocean feeds warmth and moisture into the developing storm, providing energy that causes the warm air in the center to rise faster. It condenses high in the atmosphere, creating thunderstorms.

 

If conditions are favorable, a tropical depression develops into a tropical storm, then finally into a hurricane, which is not unlike a giant swirling mass of thunderstorms.

 

As rising air in the storm's center condenses, it produces heat, forcing it to rise even faster. The air is pushed out the top -- much like smoke out the chimney of a fire -- and more air has to rush in at the surface to take its place. This kicks the ocean up more and, well, you can see that the storm essentially feeds on itself.

 

Formation can be throttled or thwarted by, among other things, strong winds aloft that shear off a storm's chimney.

Edited December 11, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

I have no problem with the thread move, btw. Doesn't bother me -- I thought we were talking about opinions, but if we're going to focus on scientific findings then it needs to be in a place more like this, I agree.

 

I do think it's ironic to say that this isn't a political thread when some references above are actually pointing towards web sites with clear political agendas. Let's try something with a little less partisanship and a little more science, by way of reminder of something that I've said before but which is somehow frequently forgotten in the mad rush to change the world.

 

Here's an applicable quote from the actual NOAA web site.

 

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr_webpage.html#section1

 

Thomas R. Knutson

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA

Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised Oct. 17, 2008

 

i) It is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.

 

ii) It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.

 

So we're not there yet. But we do appear to be heading in that direction and it's important to pay attention to that and take steps accordingly.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Your post 64 is more like it. When you concentrate on the science and avoid the negative comments, it makes the thread a much more pleasant one to be part of.

 

I made an error with my 28 C in that I meant to say 28 Celsius is the threshold for serious hurricanes, not just hurricanes in general.

 

I think we all agree that surface sea temperatures are increasing, though there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty as to exactly how much. Certainly a hell of a lot less than air temperature.

 

In theory, this can lead to more severe storms. However, the climate scientists who publish on this topic do not seem to be in agreement, and there seems to be a lot of interpretation required.

 

Your reference shows an increase in intensity of hurricanes through to about 1994 and a drop afterwards. This drop may explain why so many climate scientists are dubious about ascribing a direct relationship between hurricane intensity and global warming.

 

Some time ago, I read a statement to the effect that recent variation is within long term statistical error assuming normal variation in hurricane frequency and intensity. This seems to be the case. Certainly the various reports fail to come to any clear and definitive conclusion relating global warming to hurricane intensity.

[swansont]

I ran across http://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp which confirms the ~0.5 ºC SST increase (though I see iNow has posted the graph) and also has the claim about the 5% wind speed increase per degree of temperature increase.

 

Can I assume at this point that we can agree that the "no more than 0.1 ºC increase" claims, and anything derived from that, is incorrect?

 

——

 

Thomas R. Knutson

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA

Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised Oct. 17, 2008

 

i) It is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.

 

 

Activity or intensity? We are talking about the latter, and they are different things, AFAIK. Activity is number of hurricanes. Intensity is strength of hurricanes.

[iNow]

Your reference shows an increase in intensity of hurricanes through to about 1994 and a drop afterwards.

No, actually, it doesn't. If you only look year-over-year, then sure, 1995 seems lower than 1994, but it's the longer term trend which matters.

 

 

 

 

This drop may explain why so many climate scientists are dubious about ascribing a direct relationship between hurricane intensity and global warming.

It explains nothing since you're working from a false premise. Higher intensity hurricanes are still trending significantly upward. Anyone who wants a more complete description for the reasons scientists have for being apprehensive of making any assertions regarding a direct causal relationship, look here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Activity or intensity? We are talking about the latter, and they are different things, AFAIK. Activity is number of hurricanes. Intensity is strength of hurricanes.

Indeed. I tried to make that clear on page 1, this thread, in response to John.

 

Also, near the bottom of the link which Pangloss shared, they also explicitly state this:

 

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions.

 

 

According to this latest study, an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded) leads to roughly a one-half category increase in potential hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale and an 18% increase in precipitation near the hurricane core.

 

 

 

Note to Lance... They are not "predicting" a 1%/yr increase, just showing the math based on that idealized assumption. Contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere will of course be less or more depending on the direction our society takes with regards to energy usage.

Edited December 11, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

The graphs iNow and swansont posted do suggest more than 0.1C, but still significantly less than 0.5 C rise in surface sea temperature. The literature is pretty much mixed on this. I have seen and referenced several articles that suggested 0.06 and 0.1 Celsius rises in 40 years.

 

If the sea temperature rise is between 0.1 and 0.5 C as in those graphs, that helps to explain increases in hurricane intensity, if that is correct. It still seems that there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on this one. Atlantic hurricane intensity has increased, but globally? It appears not be to be significant.

 

Quoting from Swansont's reference.

 

"Conclusion

So who's right? Given the uncertainties in estimating tropical cyclone intensity presented by Drs. Gray, Landsea, and Knaff, plus the very large disagreement with the theory of hurricane intensification, it is unlikely that the large 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes found by Webster et al. is real. There does appear to be some increase, but it is likely much smaller. Many troubling questions need to be answered, such as why comparison of the most recent ten years (1995-2004) with the previous ten years (1985-1994) shows almost no increase in Category 4 and 5 storms globally, during a period when a substantial increase in SST occurred."

[iNow]

Quoting from Swansont's reference.

 

"Conclusion

So who's right? Given the uncertainties in estimating tropical cyclone intensity presented by Drs. Gray, Landsea, and Knaff, plus the very large disagreement with the theory of hurricane intensification, it is unlikely that the large 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes found by Webster et al. is real. There does appear to be some increase, but it is likely much smaller. Many troubling questions need to be answered, such as why comparison of the most recent ten years (1995-2004) with the previous ten years (1985-1994) shows almost no increase in Category 4 and 5 storms globally, during a period when a substantial increase in SST occurred."

 

This was ALSO already covered by me back in post #26, where I ended by saying:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Swansont's reference, the one you just cited, also clearly rebuts your comments in post #66:

 

Your reference shows an increase in intensity of hurricanes through to about 1994 and a drop afterwards.

 

Since there was an increase cited, just a small one (no "drop afterwards"):

 

the most recent ten years (1995-2004) with the previous ten years (1985-1994) shows almost no increase in Category 4 and 5 storms globally.

 

 

 

 

As I shared just now in post #68, a more thorough explanation for the various interpretations and debate on cause & frequency can be viewed here:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/manuscripts/IWTC_Statement.pdf

Edited December 11, 2008 by iNow

[bascule]

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.

 

Perhaps it's because you ask loaded and often insulting questions

[swansont]

The graphs iNow and swansont posted do suggest more than 0.1C, but still significantly less than 0.5 C rise in surface sea temperature. The literature is pretty much mixed on this. I have seen and referenced several articles that suggested 0.06 and 0.1 Celsius rises in 40 years.

 

The North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins start a smidgin over 27ºC in 1972, and end above the 27.5ºC line. So there are certainly regions where this is true.

 

Global averages aren't pertinent, since they include values from areas and times where/when hurricanes don't form. If it's a degree cooler in winter but a degree warmer in summer the average doesn't change, but the water temperature a hurricane sees is different. It's only mixed because you have added data that isn't germane to the discussion.

 

(and several? I see one hyperlink since the OP)

[SkepticLance]

OK, the data in the recent graphs suggest that the surface sea temperature is greater than the 0.03 to 0.1 C my original google search came up with. It looks like good data, so I accept that.

 

Still leaves me with a question. How is it that, with an air temperature increase in the tropics of less than 0.5 C over 35 years, we get a water temperature increase of the same? If global warming is the mechanism, then air temperature will rise till the heat energy gets transferred to the sea, causing a water temperature increase, but with a big time delay.

 

Air to water heat flow always leads to water at a lower temperature than air, unless dealing with small quantities and longer time periods, allowing thermal equilibrium. Of course, if the air is at a cooler temperature, such as in winter, heat flow goes the opposite way, which would not be the case with global warming.

[bascule]

Does the whole concept of a long-term trend continue to escape you?

[Sayonara]

Does the whole concept of a long-term trend continue to escape you?

 

Lance has stated in other threads that he distrusts the long term trends which are predicted by models.

 

Therefore, it is ok to just disregard them.