1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Warming Was Top Factor in 2005 Hurricanes, New Data Says

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by larkinmj, Jul 7, 2006.

  1. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    I have discussed this subject with a few of the leading experts (Kerry Emanuel at MIT; Isaac Ginis at URI, etc.)- it's still controversial, but the preponderance of opinion seems to be going the way of attributing increased hurricane activity to global warming.


    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...hurricanes.html

    Warming Was Top Factor in 2005 Hurricanes, New Data Says


    Source: Copyright 2006, National Geographic
    Date: June 28, 2006



    Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, climate scientists began a heated debate: Was last year's superstrong hurricane season a result of global warming?

    Several experts say no, pointing to a natural long-term fluctuation in sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO).

    Few scientists doubt that human-induced global warming is occurring. But some maintained that a natural cycle played a larger role in creating last year's bumper crop of storms.

    Now a new study argues that global warming is probably the larger of the two factors.

    Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, tried to untangle the competing factors by looking beyond the Atlantic records. Their research appears in this month's issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

    They collected 130 years of temperature records for other tropical and mid-latitude waters, which they used to determine what portion of the changes in the Atlantic were due to global temperature shifts and which were because of regional factors, such the natural sea-temperature cycle.

    Warming Is the Major Player

    Sea-surface temperatures are widely believed to play a major role in hurricane formation and growth by fueling the storms with extra heat and moisture (interactive feature: how hurricanes form).

    The 2005 hurricane season saw record sea-surface temperatures. The thermometer readings were 1.6°F (0.9°C) higher than the average between 1901 and 1970 across the hurricane-generating belt of the tropical Atlantic.

    Last year also saw a record 28 named storms, 4 of which—Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma—reached Category Five hurricane strength. Such storms are the strongest on Earth, with winds exceeding 155 miles (249 kilometers) an hour.

    Many experts believe that warm sea-surface temperatures from the AMO enhanced hurricane activity in the 1930s and '40s. When the cycle was at its minimum in the 1970s and '80s, hurricane activity was much lower.

    This trend has led some climate scientists to speculate that the recent spate of hurricanes is simply a result of another AMO upswing.

    The new study, however, argues that we're seeing several effects combined, and that the most significant is global warming. The AMO is actually the least significant factor, the study says.

    According to Trenberth and Shea's data, global warming explains 0.8°F (0.45°C) of the change. Recent El Niños in the Pacific—which prevent the normal upwelling of cold, deep waters—added another 0.4°F (0.2°C).

    That leaves only a 0.2°F (0.1°C) change attributable to the natural oscillation. The remainder of the change, they determined, is due to random weather-related factors.

    "This gives a new picture of the AMO," Trenberth said in an email.

    "It suggests that the AMO is now only slightly above the long-term average. In contrast, global warming has contributed about half of the record high [sea-surface temperature] values in the critical hurricane region."

    Other factors will continue to fluctuate with time, he added, but "the global warming component continues, and provides an increasing base level, enhancing risk of more hurricane activity into the future."

    Heated Debate

    The findings are important, says J. Marshall Shepherd, a meteorologist and climatologist at the University of Georgia in Athens.

    "Because the study considers both the AMO natural variability and human-induced forcing, there is a strong degree of credibility given to its finding that global warming may be the primary factor," he said.

    "I don't think you can deny that there is some sort of influence from global warming."

    But, he adds, the next few months will probably see continued debate of this issue in the academic journals.

    One obvious problem with all such studies is that good data for sea-surface temperatures exist only for the past century or so.

    "I think that will always be a problem," Shepherd said.

    Chris Landsea, science and operations operator at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida, sees the study as a "good attempt" to separate the effects of the AMO from global warming.

    But the study is flawed, he says. The sea-temperature data it used to adjust Atlantic Ocean data for planet-wide trends included the Atlantic as part of the globe.

    In other words, he said, it was effectively throwing away "some of the baby" along with the bathwater.

    That "probably damps out the natural cycle somewhat," he said.

    Landsea also believes that the study focuses too strongly on sea-surface temperatures.

    The AMO involves changes in upper-level winds known as wind shear, he says, which play a bigger role in hurricane strength than sea-surface temperature.

    "Wind shear may be a bigger driver for what's going on than the upgrade of ocean temperatures," he said, adding that global warming has no known effect on wind shear.

    Nor are scientists convinced that today's hurricanes are actually more destructive than their long-ago predecessors.

    Roger Pielke, Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, spoke about the issue at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December.

    He said that the overwhelming reason why recent hurricanes have been so much more damaging than those in prior decades is that coastal development keeps upping the ante along hurricane-prone shores (read "Hurricanes vs. Homes: Should Building on U.S. Coasts Be Stopped?" [February 27, 2006]).

    In 1926, a major hurricane struck a tract of lightly developed land in southern Florida—real estate that today includes downtown Miami.

    Had that storm hit last year, Pielke estimated, the property damage would have exceeded 130 billion U.S. dollars, about 50 percent more than the direct damages attributed to Hurricane Katrina.

    Study co-authors Trenberth and Shea add that that their findings don't mean that 2006 will set a new round of hurricane records.

    Other factors, they agree, play a role in hurricane formation, and those variables made last year particularly favorable for strong storms.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  2. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    If icebergs melt into the ocean. Wouldn't that cool the oceans?
     
  3. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 9 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]283465[/snapback]</div>
    yup. Which will in turn drive up the pH and make CO2 more soluable in the ocean water.
     
  4. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 9 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]283491[/snapback]</div>
    Which means what in regards to making more powerful hurricanes?
     
  5. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 9 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]283495[/snapback]</div>
    It'll be a positive cooling feed back mechanism. Higher pH means CO2 is more soluable in water, which means less in the atmosphere. The same is true for colder water.
     
  6. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 9 2006, 04:45 PM) [snapback]283499[/snapback]</div>
    But I thought the argument for Katrina and Rita was because the oceans were warmer thus spun of more hurricane power. So global warming is warming the seas more than the melting of glaciers/icebergs are cooling them?
     
  7. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    That I don't know. If the gulf stream peters out then the northern oceans will get considerably colder and Europe may experience much colder weather than they're getting now. Also, as the oceans warm up we'll probably see more cloud activity. If it's low level clouds then surface temps will fall. High clouds will cause more heating. All of this stuff is so intertwined and complex that it's really difficult to say what precisely will happen. We know that in the past CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. There have been times when there were no polar ice sheets. Ocean levels were much higher. How this all relates to us as humans is difficult to figure out. I think that most of the things that could happen are bad, or at least not as optimal as things have been lately. The rate of change is also important and from what I can tell we havn't seen things change this quickly before. Then again, we don't have a perfect record to look at.
     
  8. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 9 2006, 06:33 PM) [snapback]283537[/snapback]</div>
    Wouldn't it be interesting if global warming were to be as extreme as the alarmists predict and wiped the humans off the face of the earth? That would mean when it was our turn, we couldn't even live 1/100 of a percent as long as the dinosaurs. The cockroaches would come along and say, "We got next!."
     
  9. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    Melting ice has a much more significant effect on sea level then it does on ocean temperatures. Also, any cooling of the oceans due to the influx of water from melting ice will be in the high latitudes; not in the tropical regions where hurricanes form. If anything, the disruption of the NAC due to the fresh water influx would likely have a negative effect on the heat transfer mechanism and further increase sea surface temperatures in the tropical regions.
     
  10. Mirza

    Mirza New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    898
    0
    0
    Yet another factor to add in would be that open water absorbs more solar energy than ice.



    Also... tripp... (off topic)... a perhaps stupid question, but one I would really like to the answer to for sure (if you already know the answer)... if the polar caps melt, would we still have plenty of land?
     
  11. SSimon

    SSimon Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    1,426
    21
    0
    Location:
    N/W of Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    I read somewhere that the oceans would not rise as a result of the melting ice caps. The explanation was that the ice caps displace volumes of equivalent water. Does this make sense to anyone? I'm a little skeptical because though the ice cap most certainly displaces water, a percentage of the ice cap sits above the water level and this doesn't displace any water.
     
  12. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jul 10 2006, 07:53 AM) [snapback]283751[/snapback]</div>
    Didn't you watch waterworld?
     
  13. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jul 10 2006, 06:53 AM) [snapback]283751[/snapback]</div>
    Yeah, we'd still have a fair amount. During the cretaceous period (147-65 mya) sea leve was probably the highest it's ever been. There were no polar ice caps and the ocean basins were relatively shallow because sea-floor spreading rates were considerably higher than they are now and probably high than in previous ages (I can't confirm this, but I'm sure someone can).

    I've tacked on an image here of what the earth's surface probably looked like 94 mya. I tried to find an actual percentage number but came up blank. The pic should give you a pretty good idea, however.

    [​IMG]

    Hope that will answer your question.