Slashdot Mirror
What's Causing The Hurricanes? (yahoo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes AFP:
Hurricane Irma, now taking aim at Florida, has stunned experts with its sheer size and strength, churning across the ocean with sustained Category 5 winds of 183 miles per hour (295 kilometers per hour) for more than 33 hours, making it the longest-lasting, top-intensity cyclone ever recorded. Meanwhile Jose, a Category 4 on the Saffir Simpson scale of 1 to 5, is fast on the heels of Irma, pummeling the Caribbean for the second time in the span of a few days. Many have wondered what is contributing to the power and frequency of these extreme storms. "Atlantic hurricane seasons over the years have been shaped by many complex factors," said Jim Kossin, a NOAA hurricane scientist at the University of Wisconsin. "Those include large scale ocean currents, air pollution -- which tends to cool the ocean down -- and climate change"...
Some think a surge in industrial pollution after World War II may have produced more pollutant particles that blocked the Sun's energy and exerted a cooling effect on the oceans. "The pollution reduced a lot of hurricane activity," said Gabriel Vecchi, professor of geosciences at Princeton University's Environmental Institute. Pollution began to wane in the 1980s due to regulations such as the Clean Air Act, allowing more of the Sun's rays to penetrate the ocean and provide warming fuel for storms. Vecchi said the "big debate" among scientists is over which plays a larger role -- variations in ocean currents or pollution cuts. There is evidence for both, but there isn't enough data to answer a key question...
The burning of fossil fuels, which spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warm the Earth, can also be linked to a rise in extreme storms in recent years. Warmer ocean temperatures yield more moisture, more rainfall, and greater intensity storms. "It is not a coincidence that we're seeing more devastating hurricanes," climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University told AFP in an email. "Over the past few years, as global sea surface temperatures have been the warmest on record, we've seen the strongest hurricanes -- as measured by peak sustained winds -- globally, in both Southern and Northern Hemisphere, in both Pacific and now, with Irma, the open Atlantic," he added. "The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. We're seeing them play out in real time, and the past two weeks have been a sadly vivid example."
Some think a surge in industrial pollution after World War II may have produced more pollutant particles that blocked the Sun's energy and exerted a cooling effect on the oceans. "The pollution reduced a lot of hurricane activity," said Gabriel Vecchi, professor of geosciences at Princeton University's Environmental Institute. Pollution began to wane in the 1980s due to regulations such as the Clean Air Act, allowing more of the Sun's rays to penetrate the ocean and provide warming fuel for storms. Vecchi said the "big debate" among scientists is over which plays a larger role -- variations in ocean currents or pollution cuts. There is evidence for both, but there isn't enough data to answer a key question...
The burning of fossil fuels, which spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warm the Earth, can also be linked to a rise in extreme storms in recent years. Warmer ocean temperatures yield more moisture, more rainfall, and greater intensity storms. "It is not a coincidence that we're seeing more devastating hurricanes," climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University told AFP in an email. "Over the past few years, as global sea surface temperatures have been the warmest on record, we've seen the strongest hurricanes -- as measured by peak sustained winds -- globally, in both Southern and Northern Hemisphere, in both Pacific and now, with Irma, the open Atlantic," he added. "The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. We're seeing them play out in real time, and the past two weeks have been a sadly vivid example."
There, I said it.
I tend to rant.
Hawker, later known as Hawker-Siddeley. Also responsible for typhoons and tempests.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We've had very quiet hurricane seasons these past years, which makes this year's normal season seem like some type of outlier. Yes Irma was a very strong storm, the strongest ever in the Atlantic by recorded standards, but it's not the strongest ever hurricane even in just the northern hemisphere. What causes hurricanes is the same as what's always caused hurricanes.
So because the air is cleaner with less particulates it rains less and because it rains less there's more moisture in the air which makes the storms larger. Well time to remove the scrubbers from those coal power plants then. No wait. Like a couple dozen people might die with the hurricane compared to the hundreds of thousands (or millions) who would get a reduced lifespan from the particulate pollution. Great.
12 years without a major hurricane landfall. Where were the front page slashdot posts talking about how extreme that was?
Credit Twitter
2006: "Hurricanes are going to be worse and more frequent!"
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017: "Told you so!"
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A century isn't a particularly long period of time. So far, Irma has busted two (known) records but data for these have only been collected for a couple of decades.
The *big* issue is not what the hurricanes are doing, it is what mankind has managed to splop down right in front of said hurricanes - lots of people, lots of expensive infrastructure and a whole bunch of video cameras. Build it and they will come. And expect the federal government (or somebody with more money then they have) to bail them out from some bad investment choices.
Moral hazard. It's what's for dinner.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Again, we haven't had landfall of two Cat 4 storms in 100 years
Landfall isn't really the correct metric. What is the frequency of cat 4 or cat 5 hurricanes, regardless of where they happen to go? A hurricane or typhoon that expends itself over the ocean or a relatively unpopulated area just doesn't make big news.
Have gnu, will travel.
Ugh, this is the worst Slashdot clickbait. Future Slashdot headlines:
You won't believe what MS-DOS looks like now!!
Tim Cook finds Linux on his laptop and his reaction is priceless!!
Family warns others to learn from their tragic Android mistake!!
Nice cherry pick! Yes, two cat 4s a long time ago until now. And just 12 years ago - 2005 - we have FOUR cat 3s make US landfall... And all FOUR of those cat 3 hurricanes (Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma) packed winds higher than Harvey, the cat 4 that flooded Texas. I'd say that 2005 was LOT worse, and much more unusual - we've been on a downswing since then, even this year is a major downswing from 2005...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The problem with linking global warming to Atlantic hurricanes is that hurricane activity isn't necessarily predicted to increase in the Atlantic from global warming. In the north Pacific, sea surface temperatures will warm and vertical wind shear is predicted to weaken. This favors an increase in hurricane activity in the north Pacific. While the water in the north Atlantic basin is predicted to get warmer due to global warming, vertical wind shear is expected to increase. It's not entirely clear which of these opposing factors will have the greater impact, so it's not certain that hurricane activity will increase in the north Atlantic.
There is a naturally occurring wave called the Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO) that can either enhance or suppress tropical convection. The phase of the MJO has likely helped to enhance Harvey, Irma, Jose, and perhaps even Katia. La Nina also enhances convection in the north Atlantic basin, generally results in a moister atmosphere, and weakens the vertical wind shear. All of these are favorable for hurricane activity. It's also the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season, when the waters are warm and vertical wind shear is still rather weak.
The main reason Harvey produced so much rain over Texas and Louisiana was that it sat over that area for several days. It's not that the rain rates were souch more extreme, but that it just sat over the same area. While rain rates might be enhanced a little due to global warming, the main reason Harvey was so extreme was because it was almost stationary for days. That is not a consequence of global warming, just an unusual weather event.
I also tend to view Irma and Jose as another unusual weather event, but not necessarily linked to global warming. It just doesn't match up with the predictions for the north Atlantic, and so I hesitate to blame global warming for those storms. It's possible that when the shear abates due to the weather, warmer water might result in stronger Atlantic hurricanes at those times. However, the overall increased shear will likely limit hurricane activity more at other times. One hypothesis is that global warming might result in fewer Atlantic hurricanes, but the storms that do occur will tend to be stronger. I understand the logic of that, but I'm just not convinced that Irma and Jose are significantly linked to global warming. There just isn't enough scientific evidence to support that link.
... then you don't know.
We know climate change is happening and we know that humans are not helping the situation, but we don't know the percentage of human/nature.
Humans don't actually give a shit until it's personal.
By then it's too late.
The solution is to migrate as needed.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"For more than a century". - so what you are actually saying is that this is not unprecedented at all.
No. He's saying that a century ago weather satellites didn't exist, instrumentation was more primitive, and we just don't know how big the storms were. The first time aircraft were used to monitor a hurricane before it came ashore was the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane.
"Maybe. We haven't had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit for more than a century."
Really?? More than a century for 2 cat 4??
Maybe. How about 4 category 5s in one year?
And I didn't realize 2005 was more than a century ago.
Emily - July 2005 - Category 5
Katrina - August 2005 - Category 5
Rita - September 2005 - Category 5
Wilma - October 2005 - Category 5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season
The last time two Cat 4+ storms made landfall in the North Atlantic was 2008. Gustav hit Cuba as a Cat 4. And Ike hit Great Inagua Island and Grand Turk Island as a Cat 4. (Paloma hit Cat 4 just south of Cuba, but dropped to a Cat 2 before landfall.)
If you mean landfall in the U.S., well the U.S. lies at the extreme northern edge of hurricane territory. So you're basically just counting outliers if you're only counting U.S. hurricanes. They're too infrequent and random to draw reliable stats from. With modern satellite coverage and flights into major storms to get precise measurements, there's no reason not to use the entire database of every storm that forms in the North Atlantic.
And those trying to tie hurricanes in with climate change invariably focus on the North Atlantic because that's the storm basin whose recent history fits their desired narrative. Meanwhile, storm frequency in the East Pacific is flat. The West Pacific is mostly flat with a recent slight downward trend. The South Pacific is down, as is the North Indian Ocean.
Sandy wasn't a hurricane when it made landfall.
Also, the only reason for the extensive damage was because it hit one of the most populated areas in the world.
Because El Nino / El Nina is a long-term oscillationg due to a build up of heat in the Pacific. A lot of these ocean and air currents operate like air conditioner thermostats. When heat builds up, ocean and air currents start gaining speed. Eventually they start cooling the water faster than it gains heat, then the currents slow down. Then the heat builds up again. This can take a decade to complete one cycle.
The Sun is delivering 2 kilowatts of energy onto every square meter of the ocean every hour.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
You know, for a mere 20% increase in the cost of construction, houses in Florida could be made to withstand these storms... it's what's done in the islands, but that would be bad for the construction industry, so we build with sticks and paper instead.
No Coriolis effect, no spin, no hurricanes.
I'm starting a campaign to stop the earth's rotation. Who's with me?
You are conflating Category at landfall and Category at peak.
I think that we have evidence that the higher temperatures, increased atmospheric CO2, etc. are clearly not unprecedented. The issue is that those higher temperatures, then and now, are not so conducive to human life.
We can be reasonably certain that the rate of increase is unprecedented.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Massive deforestation is not being considered? Seriously.
indeed. A fascinating image of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
The thing to look at is not merely the carbon dioxide being emitted from the northern hemisphere-- it's fascinating to look at the plume of carbon-dioxide depleted air wafting off of the rain forests of south America.
One unit of burnt coal or gas produces 1 unit of CO2 and one of H2O! Yes, water is a greenhouse gas.
Indeed, water is a greenhouse gas. But.
But water precipitates out of the atmosphere very very fast, so the water actually emitted by humans doesn't really contribute for very long. The carbon dioxide, on the other hand, sticks around for an estimated lifetime of about a hundred years. More to the point, the hundred and fifty million square miles of ocean surface evaporates so much water into the atmosphere that the amount emitted by humans really is, in this case, trivial-- the equilibrium water content of the atmosphere is driven by evaporation, not by direct emission.
For the most part, the humidity in the atmosphere is driven by the temperature, not vice versa.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You obviously don't know how science works. Here you go:
1) When you have unusually hot or volatile weather, that's evidence of man-made climate change.
No. One hot summer (in one place) or one warm winter (in one place) is not due to climate change. Say this over and over, this is important. Climate change is real, but it is global and it is long term.
No single event, no single warm summer, is evidence of climate change (nor is a single cool summer evidence against it.)
A continuous series of record breaking temperature, on the other hand, might be something to point at. But, again, even there, look for global temperatures-- regional temperatures (even regional temperature records) are just weather.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
As usual, you can't expect the media to get the science right. Particulate matter in the smoke blocks light and cools the world. CO2 in the smoke increases the greenhouse effect and warms it. Both are real effects that cancel each other out.
The problem is, particulate matter is heavier than air, so quickly precipitating out of the atmosphere. Since we've stopped allowing factories to pump out tons and tons of black smoke (because that was giving everyone lung cancer), there is less and less particulate matter flying around.
CO2 on the other hand, only leaves when something on the surface absorbs it, whether that's trees or algae or ocean water. That happens much more slowly, over the course of thousands of years. So we're stuck with the warming.
And those trying to tie hurricanes in with climate change invariably focus on the North Atlantic because that's the storm basin whose recent history fits their desired narrative. Meanwhile, storm frequency in the East Pacific is flat. The West Pacific is mostly flat with a recent slight downward trend. The South Pacific is down, as is the North Indian Ocean.
It should be noted that most climate change models currently don't predict a significant increase in the number of hurricanes in a season. This was not true in the past but we get better with modeling over time so its not surprising. Most do however predict that the storms will be larger on average. That part seems to be holding worldwide.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
..and you know what? I really don't even give a shit anymore. I got enough to worry about day-to-day without continually arguing with morons who INSIST that it couldn't possibly be their SUV and burning coal in power plants that's causing it, among other things. I've only got about another 30 or so years of life left; I'll be long DEAD by the time it's so bad that it can't be stopped, and you can't live with it anymore unless you move to the Arctic or Antarctica, so screw all of you deniers. I'll keep saying that it's our fault this is happening, but YOUR KIDS and GRANDKIDS are the ones who will suffer. Act accordingly. Oh, memo to you Dominionists: Jesus Chirst was just a MAN, there are no GODS of any kind, you're all DELUDED, I know what your plans and agenda are, and I hope you all get shot in the head for your trouble. Humans need to evolve past all this superstitious nonsense like religion and gods and ghosts and other nonsense. Seriously just get over it already.
/rant