Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change is Making Hurricanes Even More Destructive, Research Finds (theguardian.com)
Hurricane Harvey swamped Houston with seven days of pounding rain last August. When scientists went back to look at historical weather patterns, they reported Harvey dumped 20 percent more rain than it typically would have. The culprit: climate change. From a report: High-resolution climate simulations of 15 tropical cyclones in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans found that warming in the ocean and atmosphere increased rainfall by between 5% and 10%, although wind speeds remained largely unchanged. This situation is set to worsen under future anticipated warming, however. Researchers found that if little is done to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and the world warms by 3C to 4C this century then hurricane rainfall could increase by a third, while wind speeds would be boosted by as much as 25 knots.
"Climate change has exacerbated rainfall and is set to enhance the wind speed," said Christina Patricola, who undertook the study with her Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory colleague Michael Wehner. "My hope is that this information can be used to improve our resilience to the kinds of extreme weather events we are going to have in the future." The research, published in the journal Nature, used climate models to see how factors such as air and ocean temperatures have influenced hurricanes. Projections into the future were then made, based upon various levels of planetary warming. The findings suggest that enormously destructive storms have already been bolstered by climate change and similar events in the future are on course to be cataclysmic.
"Climate change has exacerbated rainfall and is set to enhance the wind speed," said Christina Patricola, who undertook the study with her Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory colleague Michael Wehner. "My hope is that this information can be used to improve our resilience to the kinds of extreme weather events we are going to have in the future." The research, published in the journal Nature, used climate models to see how factors such as air and ocean temperatures have influenced hurricanes. Projections into the future were then made, based upon various levels of planetary warming. The findings suggest that enormously destructive storms have already been bolstered by climate change and similar events in the future are on course to be cataclysmic.
Wetter and windier hurricanes going forward is not surprising, since global warming of the atmosphere causes weather systems to have more energy and the atmosphere to hold more water vapor,
This study is consistent with climate science assumptions going back at least several decades.
In short, this is not really news. Just more detailed simulations confirming the general model.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
"Scientists build computer model that simulates stronger hurricanes"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You know, for "gut" level parity with the science? We can't put all our faith in science, we have to leave some for bullshitter pollution funded liars.
You know, if it was a hurricane that had 250-300 mph winds and 2x or 3x the amount of rain fall, then sure, I'd buy it. But when you come up with yep, it's climate change, based off of 1 hurricane, I'll wait for your correction in 2 weeks. This amounts to, gee it's hot or cold outside, it must be climate change.
Now, if you had the next 10-20 years of hurricanes and they ALL had more rainfall, then sure, you can draw a conclusion. But one? WTF?!?
Harvey dumped a stupid amount of rain on SE Texas ( ~56 inches where I live ) for a couple of reasons.
1) It was caught in between two high pressure systems ( One in Texas, the other over the Gulf ) which is why it tracked the way it did.
2) It was moving at a blistering 2-3 mph which meant the rain bands just kept dumping water over the same areas for hours at a time. ( ~4in / hour or more )
It went from " who cares, it's a tropical depression " to " holy shit it's a significant strength hurricane " in a day or two.
This was due to the warm water ( ~85-90f is typical in the Summer months ) in the Gulf of Mexico and # 2 above.
Again, the only reason it dumped so much water is because it effectively sat on the coastline and kept drawing in Gulf moisture. The Gulf Water temps have always been warm in late Summer ( has been that way my entire life ), so I don't see where they drew the conclusion about the amount of water Harvey dumped and climate change.
Had it been tracking at typical hurricane speeds, it wouldn't have been able to continue funneling Gulf Moisture onto the Texas Gulf Coast for as long as it did.
I would lean more towards just bad timing with the two High Pressure systems coupled with the normal seasonal water temps in the Gulf of Mexico as the root cause.
Not to downplay your post but . . . . . .
Harvey flooded areas that were not considered flood plain previously. It doesn't matter where you live, if a storm dumps nearly sixty inches of water on your neighborhood over a three day period, you're going to flood. ( So will everyone downstream from you as that water makes its way back to the ocean )
You mean to go with this bogus analysis and exercise in confirmation bias?
Isnt the goal to reduce mankinds footprint on the planet?
The earth will resolve this.
I sure hope next year the same kind of damaging hurricanes make landfall in more southern states because maybe, just maybe it will finally convince enough deniers that we'll actually start taking real action to reverse the damage we've done. People claim it's "too big a problem" or "too hard to solve" but that's just bullshit. Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources... and supplies are running low.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The more time passes is more global warming causes more and more disaster, it is very disturbing
Remember, if anything bad happens in your life... or anything even bothers you... at all... it was probably climate change.
Before you laugh, remember, Roger Federer lost the U.S. Open because of Climate Change.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Your post is somewhat misleading.
Most of what you've listed for weather-related impacts are regional, and those impacts are not going to be the same in every region or every season. For example, the southwest US is likely to become drier while the north central US is likely to be wetter. These are not contradictory conclusions at all, just the reality that climate change doesn't affect every region in the same way.
In terms of temperature, the Arctic is warming disproportionately to other regions. Although climate models project most areas to warm significantly, it's not all at the same rate. The models do suggest that one small area in the far north Atlantic might get cooler, which is probably due to changes in the ocean circulation.
As for extreme winter weather becoming more frequent, this is generally confined to the mid-latitude regions. Overall, temperatures are warming, but disproportionately in the Arctic. The result is less of a temperature difference between the tropics and polar regions. The result is a jet stream that's slower and, as a result, tends tends to meander more. The jet stream roughly divides between warm air on the equatorial side and cold air on the polar side.
In the US, if the jet stream meanders more during the winter, that might allow cold air to come south from the Arctic more frequently. Although the Arctic air masses aren't as cold, due to climate change, they might more frequently move into the mid-latitudes. The result would be more cold air outbreaks, but on a global scale, temperatures would still be warmer. This is primarily regional in its impacts and to some degree seasonal, in that it generally affects weather in the winter. This is somewhat new research and the confidence in this result is much lower. By the way, slowing winds in the upper atmosphere and a more meridional jet stream will also result in weather systems that move slowly and increase the frequency of blocking events.
Tell us about your fascinating life in TV/VCR Repair!
We're looking at 300 kelvin vs. 302 kelvin, something on that order, like a 1% increase in total energy.
And hurricane strength is based on temp differences and humidity differences, so you are looking at a fraction of a percent in number and strength.
That's my prediction. Even if the sliding scale is much warmer, even freezing, it's still just a percent or two more, on average.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No worries though, keep sticking your head in the sand and soon enough you'll drown.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
The enemies of humanity keep promoting this hoax.
... because if we switch to renewable energy and (maybe) electric cars, we will have cleaner air, less cancer, fewer asthma cases, less massive extinction of other Earth organisms, our electric grids will be more resilient due to being more spread around, fewer earthquakes from fracking?
or maybe because a few oil or coal multi-billionaires will not have another billion on their account?
or maybe you honestly believe that butterflies and honey come out of the tailpipe?
Bah, next you're also going to be saying that the earth is a globe!
Partial bit of info... building a house out of wood makes it more flexible than concrete or brick, especially in areas prone to earthquakes and high winds, where at least some flexibility is quite desirable, considering.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008 .com, June 19, 2015
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
Tip of the hat to “Best of the Web” from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto.
*EVENTUALLY* they had to get one right...2016 was the "strongest in years" but was still pretty much meh, except for Matthew's impact on Haiti.
Actual activity in 2016: 15 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 CAT3+
Average (1981–2010[1]) 12.1, 6.4, 2.7
Record high activity 28, 15, 7
Also 2017 was pretty well above average: 17, 10, 6. But obviously it followed close to 12 years (2005, Hurricane Wilma) without a major hurricane strike in the US as it produced 3 major impact storms (Maria, Irma, Harvey).
"2018 Hurricane Season Expected to Be More Active Than Usual, CSU Forecasters Say"
2018 so far: 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 2 CAT3+ (Michael, Florence)
2107 and 2018 have actually been right around average for major hurricanes.
The enemies of humanity keep promoting this hoax.
... because if we switch to renewable energy and (maybe) electric cars...
If you knew what was involved in the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, and suchlike (let alone the horrendous amounts of energy and toxic chemistry involved in creating the devices), you wouldn't be so quick to draw such a conclusion.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Science doesn't care about your opinions.
You put more energy in the system, it comes out.
So, look at your flood plains maps. Build to the floods of 100 year cycles, because those are the ones you'll get every 2-5 years from now on. Note the historic storms and hurricanes. Increase their power by 100 and you've got a good measure of what you'll be dealing with.
You have 12 years. And that's if you go to 100 percent renewables. It would have been to 50 percent renewables if you'd listened back in 1999.
And all the storm intensity and hurricane power that will happen over the next 20 years is already baked in from your inaction.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Indeed, one measure of a hurricane's impact is the overall cost of damage. Ruining a bunch of $1M houses on a beach is somehow worse than ruining 10 times as many $100K houses. The US has a lot of expensive real estate in hurricane-prone areas.
Development changes the flood plains.
Areas that used to mitigate flooding are paved over.
Areas that were previously basins for containing flood waters are now filled with buildings and parking lots.
Areas that used to absorb run off are now paved.
Rivers and creeks are walled off with dikes and other earthen structures.
The Next Hurricane will flood more new areas because development will continuing changing the landscape.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Whatever your conclusion, we know the fault is climate change.
Climate change causes me to not agree with you.
Climate change causes you to be rude to people on the internet.
It is all climate change.
It probably is why you have irritable bowel syndrome.
If only we had listened to Al Gore.
*tears to eyes*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you knew what was involved in the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, and suchlike (let alone the horrendous amounts of energy and toxic chemistry involved in creating the devices), you wouldn't be so quick to draw such a conclusion.
So, what is involved, and how does it compare with what is replaced?
We have to wait for winter, so that they can point out it snowed.
Remember... it will also be dryer
Also wetter...
hotter...
colder...
Golly...it's almost like climate change is a change in climate.
But you are also aware that there is a lot of politics on this issue that inclines people to say "whatever my problem = climate change"
It's almost like climate affects a lot of different things.....
the whole topic would have be understood to permit discussion and debate. And as everyone is more than aware... discussion, criticism, and debate is discouraged on this topic.
Largely because the discussion already occurred among scientists who actually understand the data and a very strong consensus was reached....which was not politically popular. Scientifically, the discussion is down to margins of error, not the overall subject.
The "discussion" that is currently being attempted is not at all an attempt to discuss the subject, but a political battle. It serves no purpose but to obfuscate.
You're forgetting that these systems feed on themselves. The amount of energy a hurricane can suck up is based on how strong the storm already is. So if the storm is slightly stronger way off in the Atlantic, it can be much, much, much stronger when it reaches land.
Also, the estimate is a 4 degree increase, not 2. And that's assuming we actually do something about it soon, so 4 degrees is probably optimistic.
Looks like we have a fuckwit. Disappointingly though he's been modded up.
Also wetter... hotter... colder...
Um yes. It's called "change". The change is not uniform.
The only solution is to send money now to the new church and repent sinners.
I don't like reality therefore you're religious. Uh huh.
Some people were offended by this post...
Offensive? Well offensively stupid perhaps if one is offended by extreme stupidity. On the other hand we're all arguing on the internet here so that's unlikely.
You probably didn't give Al Gore enough money
u wot m8?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
A hyperbolic association between holocaust deniers and people that poke fun at the obvious over the top climate change alarmists.
That's one of the quickes and most irrelevant way I think I've ever seen someone brng up the Nazis. Well done!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No.
And you know that to be untrue.
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Very poor trolling.
Please go away.
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Of course the hurricanes are more destructive. we are adding more heat, i.e. energy to our weather system. That means more and more powerful hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc. It also means with added heat, that clouds will carry more water. If an area does not cool down enough, then no rain, i.e longer droughts. Otoh, where places get rain will see a great deal more rain/snow. Places will undergo massive changes. China will likely lose all of their arable lands, though, they are building massive diversionary dams in the Himalayan mountains to steal the water from Pakistan, India, and southeast Asia. At the same time, America's west, including CA valley, will likely be lost due to drought as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The only difference between Harvey and every other hurricane in history that has hit this particular area of Texas is ......
Wait for it . . .
The slow speed at which it tracked.
If Ike ( 2008 ) had stalled like Harvey did, we would have seen the same results. The lack of dual high pressure boundaries in the area limiting its movement is why it did not.
Texas typically has a large high pressure system sitting on it through much of the Summer months. Its size, boundaries and specific location within the State usually determine the path of any tropical storm system that shows up in the Gulf.
Those of us who live in the regions that see these storms probably have a bit more insight as to how they work than random anonymous cowards whose expert opinion consists only of what they read on the internet.
Pro tip: If you open a rebuttal with the vocabulary of a ten year old ( eg. dipshit ), odds are the remainder of your post will not be taken very seriously.
Hugs and kisses
Actually, nothing reasonable about your posting. The fact is, if you add lots of heat, i.e. energy, to a system, esp a weather system, you will change it. Our weather IS going to become more extreme, but another part of the issue is that weather systems will move. Hurricanes are mostly from South Carolina to Venezuela. Now, we are very likely to see it commonly run from New York(sometimes Maine ) to Spain (sometimes France ) down to Brazil . In addition, we should see a lot more hurricanes hitting CA, possibly all the way to San Francisco. These areas are not built for hurricanes. And most home in tornado alley are built to handle 200 mph, but will likely soon see close 300 mph. The home we built can withstand that( 2x6 studs), maybe, and I am willing to bet that less than 1% of other homes in tornado alley can do that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You've commented like three times on the same post with basically the same comment.
You realize my name is right there on my posts, right? There's only one replying to this post.
I'm not an idiot.
Well, you seem to not be able to understand that usernames are attached to posts, so....
And then they declared cigarettes are not only safe, but healthy!
There was never a consensus that cigarettes were safe or healthy. But they do very nicely when igniting strawmen.
If you want to have a legitimate discussion, then you first have to appreciate why conversation shut down in the first place.
The legitimate discussion is over. It has been over for 20 years. We're now discussing exactly how bad it will be.
The fact that you want to ignore that 20 years of discussion is indicative of just how important discussion actually is to you. And it appears to be far less important than tribalism.
No, only the denialist being an ass points to climate change is cause of all problems. The rooted person will point to real issues and causes of AGW
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This is an easy thing to grasp with climate change: warming means more evaporation, and more evaporation means ore rain.
Your "denier" has said publicly he agrees that CO2 causes warming, so not really much of a denier. And unlike deniers, the author of the paper has freely accepted the critique, saying:
We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error.
So a long way from bogus (there's still a lot of extra heat being absorbed by the oceans), and the result is science improved by true scepticism, rather than waved away wholesale by denialism.
Also telling that, of the sustained denialist attacks on all of the last 40 years of climate research, this is one of the very few real contributions made.
"Discussion, criticism, and debate" are absolutely and strongly encouraged - if you know what you're talking about. Go to any climatology conference and you'll see real scientific discussion in action, as the implications of new data are debated among many viewpoints.
It's uninformed denialism that gets dismissed out of hand. Don't mistake the two - and don't mistake journalistic sensationalism for real science, either.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
The legitimate discussion is over. It has been over for 20 years. We're now discussing exactly how bad it will be.
It won't be bad. The predictions are mostly hyperbole.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Good Lord there are a lot of idiots confusing weather with climate, then setting the straw men up.
I suppose if your team has decided its view, you have to stick to it not matter how wrong it is.
See here. Though it's still not enough to say if your city will be spared or not. We know enough to tell people when to evacuate, which is pretty damn good if you ask me.
Your post seems to be trying to cast shade on scientists, implying that their computer models are purposefully wrong. They're not. Again, these computer models are amazing things that are saving lives.
I'm not sure if you really intended to imply the scientists are lying for the sake of profit, but you are. Comments like yours are part of a broader narrative to discredit scientists in general. That narrative is coming out of right wing, pro-corporate think tanks who don't want their profits jeopardized. It's not even that there'd be all that much less money going around if we fought climate change instead of ignoring it, rather the money might go somewhere else. Somewhere besides their coffers.
Again, I don't know if you were aware of all this when you posted, but if by some chance you read my post, well, congrats, you are now. The only question is what are you going to do with this information?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it's accuracy isn't perfect, but that is by no means the same as being wrong. Science is about predictions. Predictions are not prophecy. There is a statistical probability of something happening, and that means it might not happen. On the plus side science is a hell of a lot more accurate than prophecy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We have actual data that says accumulated cyclone energy is decreasing over the last 25 years. Why would you go with a simulation about what supposedly happened, when you can look at the actual data? This is part of the reason so many (including myself) are skeptical of the whole AGW things - it's based on models and projections, but the models don't match reality. If your model doesn't actually match what's happening, then I'm certainly going to give VERY little credence to your claims about what could happen.
Even then, you have to be aware of the "data" as it's presented, because often it is massaged a massive amount to turn a decreasing trend into an increasing trend. And even rewrite history. Simulations over data, data "corrected" to turn downward trends into upward trends, and historical values and records rewritten to "prove" the models. It's a house of cards built on shifting sand, and this paper is just adding another wing to that trembling structure.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
From Wikipedia on Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE): Atlantic Hurricane Seasons 1851 - 2018 scroll to the bottom, see how everything goes crazy yellow and orange starting in 1995.
I think I trust this more than your crazy conspiracy site. Hey, but don't let facts change your mind.
Letter To Iran
A couple of years ago, climate scientists were insisting that climate change would cause more hurricanes, typhoons, and other serious storms as it progressed. This has largely been shown to be untrue, with the number of major storms remaining the same or slightly declining in recent years. So, in their relentless search to identify a global disaster that justifies their research grants, these same scientists are saying that the storms we are having are larger than before. Sorry, guys. Your credibility is at a low point and I will not believe this or any other disaster-mongering reports until there is a lot more evidence supporting them.
you're talking about the descriptive language they use. Scientists always uses weak, uncertain sounding language, even when they're 90% certain. That's because they are trying very, very hard to keep an open mind and above all be ready to be proven wrong. But to a layman it always sounds like they don't trust anything they say or do. That's not true.
Again, these models are being used to save lives. Is there room for improvement? Yes. There is _always_ room for improvement. That's what science is. You're never satisfied with the results. And again, this is frustrating to a layman because laymen want definite, perfect answers. But you should never trust anyone telling you something with absolute certainty.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Perfectly intelligent, capable, learned, and aware scientists in the field say it is bullshit.
[Citation Required]
Same webpage Pacific hurricane seasons and ACE above normal 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018.
From a different mainstream source:
The Atlantic and Pacific Ocean hurricane season is most powerful on record this year
Combined ACE of 221
Letter To Iran
I think I trust this more than your crazy conspiracy site. Hey, but don't let facts change your mind.
Here's a paper showing global ACE: https://www.casact.org/pubs/fo...
Figure 2 gives running means. The long term trend is up, but the paper suggests that only data after 1985 is robust. The trend since 1985 has been "flat to downward, but this time period is not sufficiently long for a credible conclusion."
Additionally, this is all consistent with the subject paper which found higher precipitation, but not higher wind speed (ACE measures the second only): "We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity."
It's worth noting that the same method suggests that "future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally).
Look at the total cyclonic energy over a longer term, you'll see it's trending down over the last 25-26 years. Or is a trend of a few years enough to consider it now on a permanent rise?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
and science in general. There is _always_ uncertainly in science (unless you're talking "Scientology", but I trust you know the difference).
If you want somebody to give you certainty join a religion or a cult. If you want to solve problems use science.
At this point I think you're either trolling or your a shill. It doesn't matter, you're going to lose this one. If the scientists win we start acting to solve global warming. If they don't the problems are likely to hit us all before you die. It's going to suck. The economy is going to take a major hit, they'll be wars. If you're young you might get drafted to go die in them. If you're old you'll suffer at home as money is diverted to the war effort. I don't know what you think you're doing, but this is not going to end well for you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
there is a lot that kid doesn't understand. see how his signature bitches about sock puppets? put that in teh context of him recently being busted for using sock puppets to try to further his own cause and you'll have a better understanding of the depths of his hypocrisy and ignorance
So the data says it's either flat or downward, but somehow that supports the conclusion that it will be higher. See the problem here?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No. Did you read the paper? It is consistent with the observations.
the Model is fine. It's not accurate enough to say if a city is going to get missed, it's just accurate enough to tell folks when to evacuate.
That's the trouble with science, it's not exact. Not yet anyway. Folks like yourself are exploiting that for profit, or trying to. It'll bite you in the ass eventually. Your masters will turn on you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/