Altering Hurricane Strength

The evidence of the observed increase in intensity I was aware of came from Emmanuel (2005) and Eisner (2008):

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation has very little to do with it. Yes, the world is warming and yes, warmer temperatures mean more average rainfall in general. But that isn’t the question. The question is whether is whether hurricanes have gotten more intense. The answer is no, they haven’t, at least not in a statistically significant way. Why not? It’s certainly plausible that higher temperatures would lead to increased storm intensity. But it’s important to keep in mind that this is only one factor. Higher temperatures also, plausibly, lead to different upper air patterns, such as stronger shearing winds that break hurricanes apart before they can get too strong. Is this enough to compensate for the increase in storm-forming energy from higher temperatures? It’s pretty easy to model the increasing energy feeding hurricanes because this is a constant effect of temperature, but upper air patterns are much more variable and difficult to predict. I’ll take data over unproven models any day, and the data so far, despite what the Chicken Little types seem to think, show no evidence of increased hurricane intensity.

Why not read the cite indeed?

More over here:

Quoting the primary conclusion of a scientific paper isn’t generally considered cherry-picking … I’m not sure the point of cross-threading, here I’m scolding The Master for making an unsubstantiated claim, there’s no evidence that hurricanes are increasing in frequency … if you want to call a half shillings worth of millibars an increase in intensity, you’d be right …

Please note that Hurricane Harvey did very little damage to Houston, he was downgraded to a Tropical Storm when the deluge started … minimal in intensity to even be named … so intensity is not a very good measure of human suffering … I’d give a few mb’s if that means one or two less rain-makers … but then again I don’t live in Rockport, TX …

Since you’ve brought up the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, it is for you to demonstrate it yields the results you claim it does … show us your math …

I’m not so much concerned with what alarmist pundits have to say as to what the data say. Have a look at the Accumulated Cyclone Energy for the Atlantic basin or the east Pacific and tell me with a straight face that there is a significant increase since the beginning of the industrial era.

Well, that is not being a contrarian but also now that is an argument to deny what took place. The damage was not little.

https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/11/01/houston-hurricane-harvey-climate-costs/

Already done, but as usual just crickets from you. It is clear that you are trying for me to repeat what the experts cited told us, it is then not hard to figure out where they got it wrong if you are correct.

As cited: “the air can hold 7% more water with every degree Celsius that the temperature rises.”

And some do point that it could be worse due to other effects.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024288/full

Mind you, some papers do point at a lesser increase, but as I saw one writer put it, that gives confidence to the projections of greenhouse gases scenarios already made by groups like the IPCC that have been accused to be alarmists. IOW, scientists are pointing to bigger effects than the conservative position. What once again shows what I was talking about, even the conservative position does tells us that we do have to control emissions. That it is likely that hurricanes are intensifying is one item that is adding to the costs, you are still betting that the other item, about an increase in the number of hurricanes that is at 50-50 will not happen. And yet that is like playing Russian roulette with half of the bullets in the chambers of the revolver.

It is clear that you are not understanding the cite: “ACE focuses upon the most intense winds concentrated in a storm’s center. Whereas, the actual destructive power of a storm depends upon the total area impacted with damaging winds, waves, and storm surge.”

So not quite what we are talking about, indeed, winds is just a part of it but the CC equation deals with precipitation that is not mentioned, waves and storm surge BTW are related to global warming in the sense that effects like ocean rise do influence those factors.

And really, there is not much of a point when you rely on calling experts like Emmanuel and others as “alarmist pundits”.

If it has been done, it shouldn’t be hard for you to link to the calculations … or just provide them yourself, how hard can it be? …

I think that calling upon the Clausius–Clapeyron equation is disingenuous, that warmer air holds more water vapor is common knowledge … it’s kitchen counter chemistry to demonstrate this, although the states-of-matter are difference, the physical process is exactly the same when we make rock candy, even the requirement to have nucleation sites with the string we’d insert …

Crickets … that’s because your argument is unassailable … leaving only your person to attack … I’ve chosen to accept your claims and if you’ll notice I’m not criticizing The Master’s claim (or yours) of more intense hurricanes … I’m just pointing out that Houston was wrecked by the least intense of tropical cyclones, implying this 8 mb increase, in a hundred years, is trivial … and all this extra rainfall isn’t enough to solve the world’s water shortages …

Or far far more important: tropical cyclones are fucking dangerous at any intensity …

There’s good scientific reasons to believe that the frequency of hurricanes will be decreasing, the poles are warming faster than the equator, this extra water vapor will remain dissolved as it moves into areas where temperatures are much higher than today … we can think of cyclones as heat transport mechanisms, and there will be less heat to transport in the warming world … if and only if the short term “arctic amplification” is indeed a long term trend … but a 0.5% decrease in a hundred years is meaningless compared to 2% annual inflation when it comes to costs …

I hope you’re not suggesting that if we stop belching CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere that hurricanes will stop … whatever costs we incur from these storms will continue no matter what we do … everyplace except the Pacific Northwest has bad weather on occasion, live with it …

We’ll know for sure in fifty years … in the meantime, how we doing on using 5 kW-hrs/day of power? … [cricket sounds] …

“Why do they make me feel so good … Global Worming !!!”

Headline on the current edition of the San Diego Reader … well played, Unca Cece, well played indeed …

From the Wikipedia article on Accumulated Cyclone Energy:
“ACE focuses upon the most intense winds concentrated in a storm’s center. Whereas, the actual destructive power of a storm depends upon the total area impacted with damaging winds, waves, and storm surge. The metric Integrated Kinetic Energy (IKE), developed in 2007, more accurately reflects the destructive potential. It examines the kinetic energy that forces a storm surge and creates high waves as well as the horizontal wind loads over the full storm.”

Okay then, let’s look at the IKE. See Figure 3 here. Again, no noticeable trend.

Only by that measuring system being new and stopping at 2011. (you need to read carefully, besides not having many years to make a trend noticeable that IKE is not measuring precipitation either, and the writer of the paper does notice that Hurricane Sandy was not added to the graph but that “In terms of IKE all of these storms would be rated significantly greater owing to the relatively large extent of the tropical storm winds.”

I also notice the classic denier point of using (not the intension of the researchers, but the intension of the deniers out there to use) the late 90’s as a starting point, when the “pause” that was hammered for years and was used as a reason to deny the whole thing took place. Unfortunately for the deniers the pause ended for years already and seeing how that IKE does follow the “pause” that was there in the past decade one has to ask to people like you what mechanism then will the IKE then could be expected to be lower in the following years. As usual those mechanisms are missing; so as the warming is continuing it is reckless to assume that other issues will not increase too. (Researchers have pointed that there was no pause really, only the randomness of other factors that make the climate vary a little while the global warming gases continue to increase and warm the planet)

As for more recent IKE measurements it was pointed that the recent Category 1 hurricane (according to the old measuring system that IKE was made to possibly replace) it turns out that Sandy was indeed one of the worst and more likely then to become a more normal thing.

Also the storm surge (based on IKE) shows that other recent hurricanes are increasing in intensity. (as other experts pointed out)

And one should notice that While Isabel was a cat 5, according to IKE it contained about 170 Terajoules of kinetic energy, Sandy was next with 140 while it was a cat 1 or less on the old scale. (Both and almost all hurricanes in the study you linked happened during the past warming “pause” that, as pointed before, did go up on more than one step now)

But, as pointed before this does not measure though the issue that many experts have pointed now, things like the IKE do miss a lot of the damage brought by the increase of the water coming down when a hurricane does come. It has to be mentioned that IKE does then miss a lot of what the experts are talking about when one considers that Harvey only got a measurement of 28 TJ while Irma got 112.

I question your reading comprehension. The starting point in the graph is 1990, not the late 90s, and it ends in 2011 because the article was published in 2013. I couldn’t find any data (that is not behind a paywall) more recent than that, but the data shown is sufficient to make my point, namely that there is no change in TIKE beyond random noise over a 21 year period when the climate was warming.

So? You’re seriously going to point to a single large hurricane and say that this makes up for 21 years of no change in TIKE? And who says this is “more likely then to become a more normal thing?” You are once again confusing data with predictions.

Do you have data for this? What other experts have pointed this out?

Now you’re equivocating. Since the standard measures of hurricane intensity show no change you instead equate “intensity” with “precipitation” and provide no data to show that this is changing either.

I don’t expect the IKE to be lower. Based on 21 years of TIKE data, I expect only random variations from year to year.

I’m not assuming anything. I’m only skeptical of dire predictions when the data clearly shows that there has been no detectable trend in hurricane frequency or intensity as the climate has warmed.

TIKE is nice in that it does represent the true power of a hurricane, rather than on relying on just top wind speed it uses all the wind speed throughout the storm … the problem is in gathering all this data, radiosondes and weather balloons are cheap, but it’s very dangerous launching these things in a 50 mph wind field, at sea … and we’ll need several dozens every six hours … trying to do this for every storm is going to kill people on a regular basis, and the information that can be gathered isn’t worth even one life … surface observations are flawed, these are taken at the boundary layer of the fluid and are heavily influenced by friction, the only way to determine wind speeds aloft is by sending up radiosondes …

So keep in mind these TIKE numbers being thrown around have very large margins-of-error … and we have a very small sample size … it’s worth is very limited because is has to be calculated after the fact, so it’s of no use whatsoever for forecasting …

More rain means less droughts … which are we supposed to be alarmed about?

Already replied to, and you skipped it: you are pointing at a data point that has not enough data to claim what you do, though if one does remove the effects of the monster el nino of 1998 then a trend can be seen, precisely what deniers did use (and continue to use) as an obfuscating point. What I do think is that eventually this will go as the deniers abuse of the RSS data, it also did not show much of a trend, but as recent studies showed, a lot had to do with the fact that the troposphere temperature is not a fixed thing and satellites drifted a lot. And of course it helped the deniers that that record also started recently.

You did miss that I also mentioned that most of the hurricanes that were the largest according to TIKE are also from the previous decade and when there are less coming in the current decade it is bound to affect the number of them in the current decade, but as noticed when they come they are marked as destructive as the past one, regardless of their Saffir-Simpson scale or TIKE

Now you seem to show all that you did not check the cite. you need to look at the surge graph in the wired cite already made.

Nope , the one doing that is you, I mentioned indeed that the water vapor in the atmosphere (that does turn into precipitation) is the point I was making. too bad that you decided to reply with measurements that are not really complete so as to ignore the main point experts have made and reported to government.

For climate conclusions one does need to look at least to 30 years of data, again, you are basing your assumptions on even less data than what the experts are reporting. In my case I do base what I say by the fact that RSS and even average temperatures looked as if there was no increase in temperatures… after the temperatures had increased the previous decades. Now the temperatures are catching up to what was predicted. Showing that a lot of the natural variations seen are masking the warming caused by global warming gases. I do not think it is a coincidence that there was not much of a change in hurricane TIKE numbers when the temperature was stuck for natural reasons, but the reality is that other measurements (already cited) point at an increase in intensity, not just speed, but as what experts are talking now about what intensity includes: what the falling water (and ocean rise) is doing to increase their damage.

And again: There is data already to show that the intensity is increasing, and even if it was not much, it should be enough to tell us that we should stop warming the planet. That there is a 50-50 chance that the number can increase in a warming world is like playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets in a normal revolver. For less odds than that we do get insurance for our homes or realize that smoking is not a good idea. And then one should realize once again: Other issues like ocean rise, ocean acidification, more intense droughts in other regions, loss of cap ice and other issues are much more likely and already observed.

That particular article has been cited in various forums here at least three times by assorted “climate skeptics”, but as I described here, parts of that article are quite misleading.

Yes. This is the landmark paper that discussion is based on. This paper primarily describes modeling results, but it cites additional supporting empirical data (Klotzbach [2006], Wu et al. [2008], etc.).

And then you go off the rails from a good post… :slight_smile:

You seem to ignore that Texas had a very long and strong drought, but when conditions change and the season goes to a wet one then the conditions can conspire in an increasing number to create deluges. Seems contradictory, but that is only because some people rely on dis-informers out there.

The only claim I am making about the data is that it does not support the contention that hurricane intensity has, overall, been increasing as the climate has gotten warmer. You were the one who complained about the ACE not being an accurate reflection of intensity, so I showed you the IKE as well, a measure that climate researchers seem to like. You have yet to cite any data that shows an increase in intensity. I’m still waiting.

Not sure what you are talking about here. The surge graph does not show storm surge by year, but rather it is plotted against IKE. As the article says, “What’s more, the integrated kinetic energy of a storm is a good predictor of its potential to cause storm surges.” I am completely on board with that. Unfortunately, the IKE has not changed, except for random variations, over the 21 year period I cited.

I would love to see a more complete data set (although 21 years seems like it ought to be a long enough period to draw some conclusions). Can you show me some more recent data?

Did I miss this? Where exactly is this data you are talking about? I’m the only one showing data, you just seem to be talking about model predictions or vague generalities.

For anyone reading this who can’t get past the paywall for the article, Emmanuel introduces yet another measure of hurricane intensity, the Power Dissipation Index (PDI). The “landmark paper” shows the PDI tracking very well with ocean surface temperatures from about 1950-something to 2005. This really seems to bring the Chicken Little types out of the woodwork. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Nope, it’s the PDI that is falling.

Yet another measure of storm intensity bites the dust.

Fascinating logic! Especially fascinating because one of your fellow deniers claimed up in post #4 that: “more intense and more frequent hurricanes has not be demonstrated, that’s pure speculation, we need another 50 years of data to make that claim”. Yes, we need at least 100 years of data to claim that hurricanes are getting stronger when the data is going in the wrong direction for climate change deniers, but when hurricane intensities take a downturn, then by golly, a mere ten years or so is enough to prove it’s all a Chinese hoax! :smiley:

No, that’s not how it works. Here’s how it works. SSTs and annual hurricane energies tend to be cyclic phenomena, and one can see a roughly ten-year cycle in the patterns, due in part to large-scale circulation systems like the ENSO (El Nino) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Looking at those graphs a year or two ago one might have predicted a return to the upward trend, and 2017 was the year it happened. The PDI – which is the most sensitive measure of hurricane destructive power – will be huge for this year. I don’t know what it will be but I do know that the ACE as of right now – November 5 – sits at 227.6, which is 234% of normal at this time of year. Check that out relative to the ACE graph in your link. By my quick eyeballing only five hurricane seasons have surpassed it since records have been kept.

So, no, the PDI is not falling, except as part of a normal cyclical pattern, and as always, the attempt to deny the reality of climate change or its influence on extreme weather is based on faulty premises.