Global Warming and Hurricanes...?

Question

I live in Florida, and I have experienced my fair share of Tropical Depressions, Tropical Storms, and Hurricanes. Anyone with experience in weather knows that when a Tropical Depression gains enough strength, it becomes a Tropical Storm, and when a Tropical Storm gains enough strength, it becomes a Hurricane.

I have also heard from countless sources that Global Warming will cause an increase in the strength of Hurricanes in the future, but not an increase in the number of Hurricanes.

So why won't there be an increase in the strength of Tropical Storms also, and in turn cause an increase in the number of Hurricanes?

Isn't an increase in the strength of a Hurricane caused by the same factors that cause an increase in the strength of Tropical Storms?

So how can it be that the strength of Hurricanes will increase, but not the number of Hurricanes?

Answer 1

Ah yes, hurricanes; another poster-child of the Global Warming Alarmists.

You’ll get some amazing quotes about this subject.

Take Trevor’s answer, he says that in “recent decades” there has been an “80% increase in intensity”. 80%???!!!

Well, the strongest Atlantic hurricane prior to “recent decades” was Camille, back in 1969 with wind speeds of 190mph. So, if we add 80% to this, we get wind speeds of 342mph.

So, what have we actually had in recent decades? The 2 Cat 5 hurricanes we’ve had this year had wind speeds of only 165mph; not really very close to 342mph. In fact, Camille remains the strongest hurricane on record (along with Allen in 1980) See… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes

So, hurricane intensity has *not* actually increased by 80% then.

Trevor also says that frequency has increased by 50%. However, his own source says…

“…work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend.”

So, hurricane frequency has *not* actually increased by 50% then.

I was also amused by the following quote from his source…

“A recent comprehensive study using a detailed numerical hurricane model run using climate predictions from a variety of different global climate models supports the theoretical predictions regarding changes in storm intensity. With the observed warming of the tropics of around 0.5°C, however, the predicted changes are too small to have been observed…”

In other words, *computer models* say hurricanes should get worse, but, so far, it’s not actually happening.

Okay!

Have a look at “Error 9” in this document (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/23_trenberth_errors.pdf ) which points out that the most damaging hurricane of the last century was back in 1926, there is no trend in Atlantic hurricane wind speed or frequency, and the frequency of typhoons and cyclones are actually trending downwards.

If you want more proof of how we’re being conned on this subject, read this: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0 It’s about Christopher Landsea, a hurricane expert who worked on both the 2nd and 3rd IPCC reports and was asked to participate in the 4th. However, he resigned after he discovered that the IPCC were lying about hurricane activity, claiming that it was increasing when it was not. Here is the open letter he wrote to the scientific community expressing his concerns about this issue: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

So, the answer to this question seems to come down to what you want to believe; real science, or junk science?

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.


:::EDIT:::


Trevor,

Thanks for the reply, I see where you’re coming from now.

The problem with the figures you’re quoting is the reliability of the data. Our ability to assess the wind speed of cyclones has improved dramatically over the years. So, is your quoted increase in intensity real, or just an artefact of the improving methods of collecting data?

For example, we started using satellites to measure wind speed in about 1970, but only during daylight. We only started using an infrared method, that allowed night time measurements, from about 1984.

In 1975, only two geostationary satellites were available for global monitoring, with a 9 km resolution. Today, 8 satellites are available with around twice that resolution. This allows us to measure wind speed with *much* better accuracy than we could in the past.

An example of these inaccuracies was demonstrated in 1989 when hurricane Hugo was measured by satellite and estimated to have wind speeds of 59 m/s. However, an aircraft measurement at the same time gave much higher wind speeds of 72 m/s.

Clearly, if past hurricane wind speeds have been underestimated, while recent hurricane wind speeds have been correctly measured, then we are going to see an apparent increase in intensity that does not actually exist.

Another test of this phenomenon is to ignore the satellite data completely and just look at land based recording stations. They have been around much longer than satellites, of course, so we have data going back much further, and they have collected wind speed data in a much more consistent way. The land station data shows no upward trend whatsoever.

Also, estimates have been made based on normalised costs of hurricane damage and again, no upward trend has been detected.

Given all of the above, I stand by my claim that there is no conclusive proof that hurricanes are increasing in intensity. Indeed, theoretical studies predict only a 5% increase in hurricane intensity by the end of the 21st century. Significantly different to your 100% in only 30 years.

This also places doubt on your “list of the 10 most powerful Atlantic Hurricanes” If past hurricane wind speeds have been underestimated you are artificially inflating recent storms. Remember, the most damaging storm this century was back in 1926.

As for your “10 fastest Atlantic Hurricanes” – what figures are those? Peak wind speed, perhaps? And measured by what, I wonder. Your figures are very different from those provided by wikipedia, for example. Your quotes are distinctly lacking in sources – except for your one source that explicitly disagrees with your claims.

Your “number of category 5 hurricanes over each of the last few decades” shows the marked increase over the last 10 years after 3 decades of low activity. Are you suggesting that *something* happened 10 years ago that has suddenly caused this three-fold increase? Certainly, temperatures haven’t suddenly shot up over this period, so that’s not caused it.

Finally, Trevor, I’m appalled by your ad hominem, and largely inaccurate, attack on Monckton. He is not a politician, and never has been, thus you are wrong; he has never “been voted out of office by his own party” as you incorrectly state. I assume your mistake is based on the fact that he was a candidate for one of two positions in the House of Lords, that became available recently, but failed to get elected – along with 41 others who also failed in their attempt, so he’s hardly worthy of singling out for that.

He wrote an article in the Telegraph last year (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml ) that was attacked (also in an appalling ad hominem way) by the dreadful realclimate.org website (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/#more-367 ). I noted with amusement that Monckton’s initial short reply to their article forced them to edit theirs to remove their mistakes (which they did surreptitiously, without comment). Monckton has now replied in full to Gavin Schmidt (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuckit_schmidt.pdf ) The most astonishing thing about this article is the frequency with which Monckton is forced to use “+++” marks to denote and ignore ad hominem comments by Schmidt.

To my knowledge, Schmidt has not responded to Monckton’s rebuttal.

And please, don’t bore me with tell-tale stories of who funds who; it is irrelevant. Refute the science, not the funding.

Answer 2

Basically because tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic are originally formed by air currents travelling across Africa, which won't change a great deal due to temperature (it's already hot) but the strength of the storms is due to the energy they pick up while crossing the oceans and the oceans are warmer (1degC increase in ocean temperature = 1.3 billion 1 megaTon a-bombs).

Though I do agree with you that the number will go up as well as the severity, just not nearly as fast.

Answer 3

Its a matter of terminology. Strictly speaking, it goes like this:

The increasing ocean temperatures provide more heat energy to power tropical storms (al tropical storms). It is thought--but not yet confirmed) that this will mean more tropical storms will form. What we do know is that those that do form will tend to be stronger, since there is more eergy available as the temperatures increase. Because o fthis, more of the tropical storms that do form will become strong enough to become hurricanes, and the average of all storms, including those that would be hurricanes anyway, will increase.

The popular media--and scientists as well, in many cases, dont' often get so detailed--they jsut tend to say the hurricanes will get stronger--which is correct. Put it down to the fact that trying to explain the whole thing would get a little dry and academic! :)

Answer 4

Not sure what your sources are as they appear to be wrong and you appear to be right.

Within climatological circles the opinion, backed by actual observations, is that both intensity and frequency of storms will increase. Indeed, this has been observed in recent decades and a 50% increase in frequency and an 80% increase in intensity has been noted.

It's worth mentioning that these increases go beyond that which could reaonably be attributed solely to global warming and as such it's possible that there are other factors at work as well. It's not an area which is currently understood to any great extent and new and better information is constantly emerging.

Here's a semi-scientific report from Nature which may help explain things ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

- - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: TO AMANCALLEDCHUDA

Please accept my apologies for not having clarified my answer, I wrongly assumed people would understand the meaning of the word 'intensity' and I certainly didn't expect anyone to think that intensity, strength and speed were one and the same thing.

Storm intensity is a measurement of the energy flux averaged over time (velocity x energy per unit volume ÷ time = № W/m²/s) . This is frequently measured using the 'Power Dissipation Index' or PDI. Atlantic PDI has more than doubled in the last 30 years from 0.7 in 1977 to 1.5 in 2007 (30 years being the standard base period for climatological comparisons), Pacific PDI has almost doubled and globally the increase is 80% (it's actually closer to 90% but I rounded my figures down).

Camille wasn't the strongest Atlantic hurricane, here's the list of the 10 most poweful Atlantic Hurricanes, half of which have occurred in the last 10 years, 7 since Camille...

Wilma - 2005
Gilbert - 1998
Unamed - 1935
Rita - 2005
Allan - 1980
Katrina - 2005
Camille - 1969
Mitch - 1988
Ivan - 2004
Janet - 1955

Here's the 10 fastest Atlantic Hurricanes, 3 of which have occurred in the last 10 years, 6 since Camille...

Rita - 235mph - 2005
Isabel - 234mph - 2003
Gilbert - 200mph - 1988
Mitch - 190mph - 1988
Inez - 190mph - 1966
Labor Day - 180mph - 1935
Camille - 180mph - 1969
Celia - 180mph - 1970
Donna - 175 to 200mph - 1960
Katrina - 175mph - 2005

Here's the number of category 5 hurricanes over each of the last few decades

1998 to 2007 - 9
1988 to 1997 - 3
1978 to 1987 - 2
1968 to 1977 - 3
1958 to 1967 - 6
1948 to 1957 - 3
1938 to 1947 - 2
1928 to 1937 - 3

These are the facts, they are not distorted, they are not selective, they can easily be verified from reliable sources.

In support of your arguments you've quoted from Viscount Brenchley - a politican not a scientist and one who has been voted out of office by his own party largely because he makes unqulified statements, the SPPI which is funded by ExxonMobil and Chris Landsea. Landsea is the only credible source you have relied upon, he has the credentials and as far as I'm aware he isn't funded by big oil. However, his statments go against the ever increasing amount of scientific data and he is something of a lone voice.

His policy is similar to that of many skeptics - take one piece of a jigsaw and invent a picture to go with it; if you're going to do that then it's possible to draw pretty much any picture you want. Not only is this approach irresponsible but it's unscientific and inaccurate.

If you wish to question the science of global warming then by all means do so but please, and I mean this with all due respect - broaden your knowledge of the subject. You don't need to be an expert on the subject but the fundemental errors you have made in your statements, the sources you have relied upon and the deliberate distortions give the impression that you could perhaps learn more about global warming and the climate in general and be a little more open minded. In science it's the facts that matter, not opinions.

Answer 5

all hurricaines start as a tropical storm.

the temp. of the water is what feeds a hurricane - so there will be more and many are so far beyond the current hurricane standards - they are super storms that blow out the weather buoys - so the wind force has been much stronger then what is recorded.

i to lived in florida during the worst two yrs on record - and every two weeks a storm either side swiped us or we got a direct hit.

all tornadoes also start as a storm - and they are always worst when it is real real real hot and then a cool front comes it.

Answer 6

Below, the reason for using Al Gore as an example is because he has become the "face" of "Global Warming"

Gore says Hurricane Katrina, that devastated New Orleans in 2005, was caused by “global warming.” It was not. It was caused by the failure of Gore’s party, in the administration of New Orleans, to heed 30 years of warnings by the Corps of Engineers that the levees – dams that kept New Orleans dry – could not stand a direct hit by a hurricane. Katrina was only Category 3 when it struck the levees. They failed, as the Engineers had said they would. Gore’s party, not “global warming,” was to blame for the consequent death and destruction.

Ms. Kreider says, “Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.” What Gore actually says, however, addresses the frequency not only of hurricanes but also of typhoons and tornadoes –


“We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.”


For the record, however, the number of Atlantic hurricanes shows no trend over the past half century; the number of typhoons has fallen throughout the past 30 years; the number of tornadoes has risen only because of better detection systems for smaller tornadoes; but the number of larger tornadoes in the US has fallen.

Gore says that Hurricane Caterina, the only hurricane ever to strike the coast of Brazil, was caused by “global warming.” It was not. In 2004, Brazil’s summer sea surface temperatures were cooler than normal, not warmer. But air temperatures were the coldest in 25 years. The air was so much colder than the water that it caused a heat flux from the water to the air similar to that which fuels hurricanes in warm seas.


Gore says that 2004 set a new record for the number of typhoons striking Japan. It did not. The trend in the number of typhoons, and of tropical cyclones, has fallen throughout the past 50 years. The trend in rainfall from cyclones has also fallen, and there has been no trend in monsoon rainfall.


Gore says scientists had been giving warnings that hurricanes will get stronger because of “global warming.” They will not. Over the past 60 years there has been no change in the strength of hurricanes, even though hydrocarbon use went up six-fold in the same period. Research by Dr. Kerry Emanuel, cited by Ms. Kreider, has been discredited by more recent findings that wind-shear effects tend to nullify the amplification of hurricane strength which he had suggested, and, of course, by the observed failure of hurricanes to gain strength during the past 60 years of “global warming.”


Gore says that 2004 set an all-time record for tornadoes in the US. More tornadoes are being reported because detection systems are better than they were. But the number of severe tornadoes has been falling for more than 50 years.

Answer 7

if you indeed want cold hard facts, go to the National Hurricane Center's site, www.nhc.noaa.gov

Hunt around for Chris Landsea's report on global warming and hurricanes.

His conclusion:

No linkage at all.

Most hurricanes were in the 1930's-1940s.

Answer 8

Well, what I say is that Global Warming is a big cause of this. Hurricanes WILL be stronger but he number will definitely not increase. I'd say that the strength will increase 'cause the earth is getting warmer. The warmer it gets, the stronger the storm will be. I hope ............ this helps.
Good Luck finding out!

Answer 9

I am taking an enviromental science course. And all you really need to know is that the weather is going to get worse... And they are not really so sure... A lot of it is estimations they do not know for sure if the frequency of hurricanes will increase, but they do "know" that they will get stronger. But dont worry things wont get to bad in our life time...

Answer 10

The weather is more complicated than that.