Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Drives Bigger, Wetter Storms -- Storms Like Florence (npr.org)
Rebecca Hersher, reporting for NPR: Hurricane Florence is moving relentlessly toward the Southeastern U.S. It's a large, powerful cyclone that will likely bring storm surge and high winds to coastal communities. But climate scientists say one of the biggest threats posed by Florence is rain. "Freshwater flooding poses the greatest risk to life," explains James Kossin, an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. And Florence could cause extensive freshwater flooding for two reasons. First, Florence is moving slowly, and could all but stop when it reaches land. "The storm could be over North Carolina and traveling incredibly slowly -- on the order of just a few miles per hour," explains Kossin, who says an official from the city of Charlotte, N.C., contacted him about rainfall projections for that city.
If Florence stalls over the Southeast, it would be reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which spent days dumping rain on the Houston region last year. Some areas ended up with more than 60 inches, a catastrophic amount of water that shut down the entire region and resulted in at least 93 deaths. Slow-moving storms like Harvey are getting more common. A study published earlier this year by Kossin found that tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent in the last 70 years. "We're seeing that in every ocean basin except the northern Indian Ocean," says Kossin, possibly because climate change is causing the wind currents that hurricanes ride to slow down. If Florence slows down and stalls when it hits land, it will the latest example of that trend. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming also affects the size and intensity of storms like Florence.
If Florence stalls over the Southeast, it would be reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which spent days dumping rain on the Houston region last year. Some areas ended up with more than 60 inches, a catastrophic amount of water that shut down the entire region and resulted in at least 93 deaths. Slow-moving storms like Harvey are getting more common. A study published earlier this year by Kossin found that tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent in the last 70 years. "We're seeing that in every ocean basin except the northern Indian Ocean," says Kossin, possibly because climate change is causing the wind currents that hurricanes ride to slow down. If Florence slows down and stalls when it hits land, it will the latest example of that trend. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming also affects the size and intensity of storms like Florence.
Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year. The article's author felts that the blocking high was keeping Florence over warmer water so it could strengthen. Typically September hurricanes turn back out to sea.
The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.
The size of the storm could be argued to be greater due to warming, but its a statistical discussion about averages over time, not one of any particular storm.
This article is pure bullshit and conjecture.
The parent was down voted. Although it was rather short and blunt, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. The article talks about what Hurricane Florence *might* do, then jumps to what Hurricane Harvey did do, to bolster the pure speculation about what Hurricane Florence might do?
I'm interested in seeing if a pattern develops in hurricane activity along the eastern seaboard of the US, especially since a prediction of much worse hurricane seasons was made in relation to observed global warming/climate change. It seems a little early to act as if that hypothesis is already confirmed, though.
Models should stick to looking pretty and walking down the runway.
And no matter if it's well supported, the politics of the rightwing does not allow AGW to be real. So lots of places won't dare to mention climate change as being the cause of ANYTHING, because the only things AGW deniers will allow climate to do is "change" in such a way that we don't do it. It sure as shit isn't allowed to DO anything. Just change.
There's scientific consensus that life begins at conception? It was my understanding that the scientific consensus was that life had been here for billions of years and propagated through germ lines.
Ezekiel 23:20
What drives storms? Temperature differences.
This is nonsense. Hurricanes are not driven by temperature differences between the tropics and temperate regions. They are driven by vertical differences in temperature and pressure.
Warm seas cause warm humid air near the surface. Warm air is lighter, and high humidity makes it lighter still. So it rises, creating a low pressure region, and drawing in more surface winds that pick up heat and humidity as they move to the center of the storm. When the air in the center rises, it spreads out and cools, condensing the humidity that falls as rain. The cooler dryer air then descends on the edge of the storm.
Warmer seas cause stronger storms. Cooler water weakens the storm as it travels north, the opposite of what you are claiming.
If the oceans were uniformly warm, would we still have hurricanes? Yes, and they would be stronger, bigger, and last longer.
Shill group here, social-conservative morons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I live in the Northeast and every time a reporter starts showing the people putting up sandbags and preparing, and they get interviewed? They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before." The shop owners in places like Annapolis will show you how high flood waters have been, decades ago compared to the last few times they dealt with flooding. And predictions for this one seem to be, at most, somewhat equivalent to one of the higher water levels they saw long ago.
This article talks about a worldwide slowdown of 10% noted in the last 70 years for hurricane movement? Might be completely true, but does that really signify man-made climate change as the culprit? Or would you see at least a 10% variance one way or the other, if you were tracking their speeds of travel in different time periods further back than the last 70 years? Either way, 10% doesn't seem like a huge difference? Assuming the amount of rainfall is directly related to how long the storm sits in a given area, or how much time it has to pick up ocean water as it travels? Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?
slow moving and steady storms? C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.' Want to know why intelligent people outside of your funding....er... "science" circles don't believe? (Just in case your science doesn't work out, that is called a rhetorical question).
Science needs to be repeatable and provable, but nothing being trotted about as climate science is anything but half-assed theories and wild fear mongering. I genuinely want to know what are and are not effects of climate change, but I haven't seen anything beyond awful correlations based on fudged data. Call me when you have something based in, well, science.
You are correct that hurricanes are not driven by the release of baroclinic instability and form in environments that are somewhat close to equivalent barotropic. Hurricanes are driven by latent heat release in the deep moist convection in the core, especially the eyewall storms. Air spirals in near the surface, ascends in the deep moist convection while releasing latent heat, and spirals outward in an anticyclone aloft. Hurricanes are warm core storms meaning that there is low pressure at the surface and high pressure aloft. You can see this in satellite images as the cirrus outflow aloft rotates anticyclonically, opposite of the storms in the rain bands and the inner core. I use the term "deep moist convection" rather than "thunderstorms" because there just isn't a lot of lightning in the inner core of tropical cyclones. However, lightning in the inner core can be associated with rapid intensification.
When the storm is over warmer water, the low-level inflow will be warmer and moister, resulting in more instability and stronger deep moist convection. The persistent release of latent heat causes high pressure aloft, which evacuates mass from the top of the storm in the outflow. The result of removing the mass aloft is that the pressure falls at lower levels including the surface. Vertical wind shear spreads the energy from latent heat release over a wider area, decreasing the strength of the upper-level anticyclone and causes less outflow at the top of the storm.
The horizontal component of Coriolis, or planetary vorticity, is weaker in the tropics and is zero at the equator, Persistent vertical motion in the deep convection stretches the planetary vorticity and causes hurricanes to spin. The same thing happens in persistent mid-latitude thunderstorms, which can start to spin. The result is called a mesoscale convective vortex. The process in mid-laittude storms is quicker in part because the horizontal component of Coriolis is stronger, but more because the vertical motion in those storms is stronger, resulting in more rapid stretching of planetary vorticity.
While the temperature difference between the tropics and poles does not significantly contribute to hurricane formation, it certainly could affect tropical cyclone behavior. Stronger temperature gradients in the lower and middle troposphere result in larger pressure differences aloft, which drives stronger upper-level winds. Weaker winds in the upper troposphere should generally result in tropical cyclones that move slower.
or we could just stop government subsidized insurance for low lying coastal regions
love is just extroverted narcissism
It was never global cooling in the '70s, despite one or two magazine covers. And they weren't wrong about ozone. And they aren't wrong about global warming. We have more than enough data to be sure of that.
Cat 3s and less are minor for Florida. I listed 4, 5. Pattern, don't live in Florida just after WW2. Pattern is LESS powerful hurricanes as time goes on. So you provide a link that shows the OPPOSITE of what you claim it does.
If you AGW bullshit people told the truth, AGW would go away. Of course you have to lie, because the truth shows there isn't a problem. The only problem is your credibility.
Cat 5s
1935 - "Labor Day"
1992 - Andrew
That's it
Cat 4s
2017 - Irma
2004 - Charlie
1960 - Donna
1950 - King
1949 - Unnamed
1948 - Unnamed
1947 - Unnamed
In a nutshell, nuclear sucks compared to everything else.
If you actually read the Lazard report they make it very clear that it's dangerous to compare costs of reliable energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas, with unreliable energy, like from wind and sun. Storage and backup costs money, a cost not included in that report from Lazard. Costs that, again, Lazard warns should be included when making honest comparisons of energy sources. Nuclear "sucks" only if you are being dishonest and disingenuous.
Oh, and later Lazard reports point out that solar thermal and rooftop PV are exceedingly expensive. Utility scale solar might seem cheap at first but only if, again, not taking into account the need for storage and/or backup power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You're the moron. Climate is about global changes over time. Weather is about local events. Sure, one can drive the other to greater extremes, but you cannot pin a single storm on a specific change in the climate. The storm would probably have happened in much the same way as it is now, the question is what difference the size, speed and pattern would've made - eg. 20 deaths or 70 deaths; $50M damage vs $1.5B damage.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.
True but here's the thing. If you string enough weather events together it becomes climate. If the weather tomorrow is 70F and sunny, that is weather. If the weather for most of the next 500 days is 70F and sunny, that's climate. (also that's San Diego) If the accumulated weather events change enough to be statistically different than previous patterns then that is climate change. The only question is what number of accumulated weather events does it take to make a climate and what magnitude over what time period constitutes climate change? The problem is that there is no simple sound bite answers to those questions so idiots keep arguing about it because there is no standard definition in play.
The Alarmists have been predicting a Hurricane Season like this one apparels to be shaping up as for two decades and failed every fucking year.
There will be no end of the, "See! I told you so!" and celebrating their record of 1 and 20...IF that train of storms in the Atlantic all develop into hurricanes and make landfall.
If safety is your thing, then you should be for Nuclear. Nuclear power is far safer than photovoltaic solar. You are way more likely to die due to photovoltaic power than nuclear power. Residential solar is crazy dangerous. Having people climbing around on your roof is dangerous. So while things like Fukushima may get the headlines, the actual number of deaths and serious injuries is far far lower than the number of deaths and serious injuries in the same year from people falling off the roof while installing solar.
be stronger, bigger, and last longer
Yes!!! Global warming will be better than viagra!
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
And if nuclear was really that cost effective, utilities would be jumping on it.
That was covered in that Lazard report. Natural gas is cheaper than everything. What happens when natural gas prices come back up? My guess is another boom in nuclear power, much like what was seen in the 1970s and 1980s.
What few people seem to realize is that even though new nuclear power construction effectively stopped 40 years ago the output we've seen from nuclear power kept increasing. Improved techniques raised the capacity factor from less than 50% in the 1970s to over 90% today. Upgrades and a better understanding on how the reactors worked allowed for increases in maximum power ratings. This brought down the costs.
Had we not stopped building nuclear power then we would not have seen the loss in experienced technicians and engineers. It's been long enough now that if these people are not retired (or senile, or dead) then they've found work elsewhere. Finding people to build nuclear power at the rate we did 40 years ago will be expensive. At least it will at first.
Nuclear power is expensive because we decided it was expensive. That's it. Once we decide it's not expensive then the price will come back down. It's that simple.
The French did it and it required massive government subsidies - and that will not happen in our political climate.
Haven't you heard? The climate is changing.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
When I was a kid in the 1970's it was global cooling
No it fucking wasn't. You're an utter fool if you think that's the case and not just ignorant but wilfully ignorant.
Then it was ozone.
Yes that was a real thing and it actually happened. It got better becase of a massive coordinated international effort to curb CFCs. How you think that's an argument against reducing carbon emissions I really can't guess at.
until we /understand/ more
We do nuderstand. We understand the globe is warming and as a result the climate is changing. We know why. We also know that you're a denialist idiot.
SJW n. One who posts facts.