Are Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Tsunami evidence of global warming?

Question

I was just wondering about these two powerful storms that happened within two years. Some politicans think global warming doesn't exist. Well...I'm from Connecticut and last winter was nothing compared to past winters from before...

Answer 1

I gave a thumbs down to Ann Marie. She was doing just fine with her answer until the last paragraph. One snow storm or one weather event of any kind does not signify a change in climate. Global warming is about a change in climate, not a change in current or recent weather.

Generally speaking, a ten-year running average of weather conditions define climate. So, if temperature, hurricane frequency and intensity, drought, and other weather conditions show a change on average over a ten or more year period, then that indicates a climate change.

Weather conditions are cyclical; so they go up and they go down. What counts, for climatologists, are the trend lines for these cycles over a ten or more year period. For example, are Earth's temperatures rising or falling on average over ten or more years? If they are, then there is global warming; otherwise, there is not. In case you are new to the concept of a running average, look at this example.

If the average of something from 1970 through 1979 is 10, we can write (70-79) = 10. Similarly, for additional ten-year periods, we can write (71-80) = 9; (72-81) = 9; (73-82) = 8, and so on. These are "running" averages, which you can see are decreasing (i.e., 10, 9, 9, 8 ....) If these were temperatures over some wide (global) area, we would say there is global cooling.

My examples could just as well have been frequency of hurricanes on average each ten-year period. Point is, Katrina is just one hurricane in one year. It alone means nothing to climatologists. But taken as one datum among others over ten-year running periods, and you start to get a trend line of where the climate is going and where it has been.

And, as just about everyone else has said, the tsunamis you are referring to are earthquake cause, not weather caused. But, by the way, hurricanes do cause a tsunami kind of thing...they are called base surges. In fact, the surge of water onto the levee systems around NO was a primary cause for their failure. In general, the major damage done by hurricanes is in fact due to flooding, not the winds.

Now, with that in mind, suppose the ocean level rises two-to five feet along the coastline. That's one of the predictions stemming from the melting ice flooding the oceans due to global warming. Will that make flooding from a hurricane more or less likely? That's a clear answer...so even if the frequency or intensity of hurricanes does not increase, the rising ocean levels from global warming are likely to make the damage and injury from each one due to floods more likely.

Answer 2

Hi Jassie!

No and no!

First, to get rid of the tsunami question, earthquakes, vulcanism and tsunamis have absolutely nothing to do with the weather. They are related to earth movements, not climate.

Now, as to hurricanes, it's like another writer said: hurricanes happen every year. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes not. If the 2005 hurricanes were the result of Global Warming, perhaps Al Gore would agree with us that the 2006 season, in which we had none at all, shows that Global Warming is over.

Look at Hurricane Katrina more carefully. Was it a huge Category-5 hurricane, on the scale of Hurricane Camille of 1969? No, it was a Category-3, just an ordinary severe hurricane. I remember the Monday morning news shows broadcasting live from the Franch Quarter after the storm, saying that Katrina was no great shakes.

What made Katrina such a devastating strom was that (1) it scored a direct hit on the New Orleans area, rather than missing the city as usually happens, and (2) it caused breaches in the levies that keep the surrounding lakes from flooding the city. For some reason, the Army Corps of Engineers could not find a way to plug the leaks. The flooding from the breached dykes caused the disaster, not so much the storm. (That's why the insurance companies are all in court about it now. They'd have to pay if this were storm damage, but most policies do not cover floods.)

By the way, before you conclude that our climate here in the northeast is growing warmer, perhaps you should look out your window. You and I (in New Jersey) had snow this Easter weekend, followed by bitter March-type cold. We may have had a green Christmas, but now we've got a white Easter! You'll have a hard time convincing me that our springs are coming earlier.

P.S. to Eye-On: Where were you in December? I well understand, of course, that a White Easter does not Global Warming disprove, just as a green Christmas is not support for this dubious hypothesis (about which I remain skeptical for sound scientific reasons unrelated to the day-to-day weather). But here's my problem with folks like Eye-On: In December, when we enjoyed a pleasant mild spell, you all were silent while some in the media as well as a lot of uninformed people were whipping up hysterical fears that a pleasant Christmas Day proves that Global Warming is here and that the end is at hand. Some of the Eye-Ons even stooped to cheerleading the Henny Pennies on, rather than presenting them with the cold hard facts.

You can't have it both ways! I consider it intellectual dishonesty for one to point out that a White Easter does not, in itself, disprove so-called "Global Warming," only to remain silent during the hysteria around a green Christmas.

Answer 3

The truly reply isn't recognized and traditionally too tricky to ever recognize for definite however having mentioned that we will be able to make a lovely well bet. Both are traditionally in charge. Hurricanes are recognized to move via cycles that final a couple of a long time and we're simply leaving a quiescent interval and opening right into a extra lively interval. However we additionally recognize that hurricanes get their power from hot water and we all know that international warming is heating the waters of the Gulf of Mexico so it's most likely that Katrina was once more potent than it would have in any other case been with out international warming and it happened in any respect most often since of the traditional cycle of extra lively hurricanes we now have entered. I assume we will be able to maintain to peer increasingly strong hurricanes someday. There has been typhoon stories lately that discovered proof that elevated typhoon force is correlated with elevated international temperatures. That proof has been disputed however so much authentic local weather scientists believe the hyperlink is believable if but unproven.

Answer 4

I had to give a thumbs down to eyeonthescreen, because if ten years of climate study defines a trend, why are the climate models running out to 2050, 2080 and so more? In the 1970's, they had empirical evidence, based on 3 decades of cooler temperatures, and scientists were urging governments to take drastic action, including putting soot on the polar ice caps to help melt them and reverse the trend. Good thing we didn't do that huh?
Back to the question: hurricanes come in cycles, and 2006 was a bust as far as the number of storms were concerned. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes.
The earth is a dynamic place.

Answer 5

There were no hurricanes in 2005 and the 2004 Tsunami was caused by an Earth quake. Guess that de-bunks your global warming theory...

Answer 6

No. Hurricanes, of varying force, happen every year. Tsunamis have absolutely nothing to do with the weather. They are caused by underwater plate shifts.