Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection
TCS ^ | 09/16/2005 | Patrick Michaels

Posted on 09/16/2005 9:45:17 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

A scientific team led by Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology today published findings in Science magazine. The team claimed to have found evidence in the historical record of both more tropical cyclones, such as Hurricane Katrina, but also a higher percentage of more intense ones.

This follows on the heels of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Kerry Emanual proclaiming in the Aug. 4 on-line edition of Nature magazine that he had found evidence that global warming in the last 30 years was producing more intense cyclones.

 

The conclusion many draw from papers such as these is that anthropogenic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing more lethal storms. A closer look, though, reveals not human actions but rather natural cycles are the primary cause.

 

Much has already been written concerning the findings of Emanuel, and their potential shortcomings, both by myself and others. So, in this article, let's focus on the results this week in Science.

 

Webster and colleagues analyzed the occurrence of tropical systems of all strengths across the principal regions of the world's oceans where they form -- the North Atlantic, the Eastern Pacific, the Western Pacific, the Southwestern Pacific, and the North and South Indian Ocean basins. They limited their analysis to the period since 1970 -- the time since satellites were first used to monitor tropical cyclone development. During this same period, the sea surface temperature (SST) in these basins increased by about 0.5ºC (or just under 1ºF). The researchers sought to determine whether there were any changes in the patterns of hurricanes that could be related to the warmer SSTs.

 

How Frequent?

 

They found that the total number of tropical storms (tropical cyclones with maximum winds less than 75 mph) and hurricanes (tropical cyclones with winds equal to or exceeding 75mph) varies a bit from year to year, but over the last 30 years, there has been no trend towards either more or fewer storms. This is interesting because in the North Atlantic Ocean (the primary basin where hurricanes form that effect the United States), storms have become much more frequent since 1995. In other parts of the world, however, such as in the Western and Eastern Pacific, and in the Southern Hemisphere oceans, tropical cyclone frequency has declined since the early 1990s. Such variable behavior in the trends of storm frequency from around the world led the researchers to conclude that:

 

In summary, careful analysis of global hurricane data shows that, against a background of increasing SST, no global trend has yet emerged in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes. Only one region, the North Atlantic, shows a statistically significant increase, which commenced in 1995. However, a simple attribution of the increase in numbers of storms to a warming SST environment is not supported, because of the lack of a comparable correlation in other ocean basins where SST is also increasing.

 

How Intense?

 

But Webster and colleagues did not limit themselves only to the investigation of tropical cyclone frequency. They also examined how tropical cyclone intensity may have changed. Here they found a different result. They report that, globally, since 1970, the annual number of weak (category 1) hurricanes has declined a bit, the number of moderate (categories 2 and 3) hurricanes has fluctuated but the average has remained about the same, and the number of severe (categories 4 and 5) has increased. This same pattern of change is also evident in the annual percentage of the storm types -- in the early 1970s, category 1 storms made up about 45% of all hurricanes, category 2 and 3 storms contributed another 40% and the strong category 4 and 5 storms made up the remaining 15%. By the end of the study period (the early 2000s) the annual contributions were about equal. However, despite this apparent trend towards more intense hurricanes, they found that the highest wind speed observed in the most intense storms has remained remarkably constant. In other words, they found that the strongest storms are not getting stronger, but that there has been a tendency for more of them.

 

Figure 1 shows Webster et al.'s results.

 

 

Figure 1. (A) the total number of category 1 storms (blue curve), the sum of categories 2 and 3 (green), and the sum of categories 4 and 5 (red) in 5-year periods. The black curve is the maximum wind speed observed globally. (B) Same as (A), except that the numbers are presented as a percentage of the total annual storm count.

 

These results led the researchers to conclude:

 

We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent intense tropical cyclones. This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones, although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.

 

The caveat at the end has implications that likely supercede any attempted attribution of the recent behavior of tropical cyclones to anthropogenic global warming. For example, while Webster et al. chose to begin their analysis in 1970, citing the best available global coverage of hurricanes as their justification, it turns out that in the North Atlantic basin, a full coverage of hurricanes began in the mid to late 1940s when hurricane hunter aircrafts were first used -- this is a full 25 years before satellite monitoring became available. Thus, in the Atlantic, we can peek back a little further to see how the trend since the 1970s fits into a longer-term perspective.

 

Using data on Atlantic basin tropical cyclones from the National Hurricane Center, the Webster analysis in Figure 1 can be recreated using data that began in 1945. The results for the North Atlantic basin are depicted in Figure 2.

 

 

Figure 2. Same as Figure 1, except for the analysis is for only the North Atlantic basin and begins in 1945.

 

The region shaded in gray is the data from the period prior to that analyzed by Webster's group. Note that the behavior since 1970 (unshaded portion) is pretty much just as Webster et al. had found (compare with Figure 1) -- declines in the weaker category 1 storms and increases in the numbers and percentages of the strong category 4 and 5 storms. However, in the 25 years prior to 1970, just the opposite occurred -- the number and percentage of strong hurricanes declined while weak storms became more common. When taken as a whole, the pattern appears to be better characterized as being dominated by active and inactive periods that oscillate through time, rather than being one that indicates a temporal trend. This characterization is one that does not fit so well with the concept that hurricanes are becoming more intense because of increases in atmospheric CO2.

 

While the impacts of the currently active hurricane period are being felt especially hard in the United States, there remains no scientific proof that human contributions to an enhanced greenhouse effect are the root cause.

 

Reference

 

Emanuel, K., 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, posted on-line August 4, 2005, doi:10.1038:nature3906

 

Webster P., et al., 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844-1846.

 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; hurricanes; katrina

1 posted on 09/16/2005 9:45:17 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Well, such a finding will not sit well with the envirowackos. Thus, will be discounted as junk science.
2 posted on 09/16/2005 9:47:46 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (All democrats are ENEMIES of the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Highlight.......

The conclusion many draw from papers such as these is that anthropogenic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing more lethal storms.

A closer look, though, reveals not human actions but rather natural cycles are the primary cause.

3 posted on 09/16/2005 9:47:48 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy; SierraWasp
The envir..MENTALists lost here too:

Tony Blair Pulls the Plug on Kyoto at Clinton Summit

4 posted on 09/16/2005 9:49:43 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Sadly, we will see less and less of the National Science publications carrying articles like this as politics overwhelms the concept of scientific inquiry.


5 posted on 09/16/2005 9:51:43 AM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Al Gore, among other nutjobs, is deeply disappointed.


6 posted on 09/16/2005 10:19:57 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
anthropogenic?

"I'll take anthropogenic for $400, Alec."

"I'll give you $400 just for SAYING anthropogenic."
7 posted on 09/16/2005 10:21:40 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Global warming causes everything.

That really is the enviro belief.


8 posted on 09/16/2005 10:26:10 AM PDT by johnnyBbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Who are you going to believe? These Guys? or Robert Kennedy Jr.


9 posted on 09/16/2005 10:34:53 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Anyone remember the next ice age stuff, early 70's?


10 posted on 09/16/2005 11:24:06 AM PDT by 359Henrie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Someone have an email address to send this to Robert Kennedy, Al Gore, Arianna Huffington??


11 posted on 09/16/2005 11:28:26 AM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The sciences are complicated. So many studies are supposed to represent a final verdict one way or the other on global warming. One could read the article you just shared then say go to a web site that shows solar cyclic activities that provide the energy output increases during thirty some year cycles that can be used to claim some of the global warming readings of various types can be linked with solar activity. One can read reports such as listed at following site, to see where it can be shown that during the past 6000 years or so, there is evidence that it was warmer during the first half of the Holocene Climatic where surely mankind had little or no effect in increasing CO2 levels. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?Page=BrowseCatalogEnlarged&sProductCode=v8n37c2 Obviouse at this point, none of those that claim industrialized pollutents etc., that increase the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmostphere ever provide answers backed up with verifiable data/methods of study why we know the earth was warmer back when people named Greenland because it did not contain ice sheets, but was a fertile land. Obviously long before industrialization came to be.
12 posted on 09/16/2005 11:31:19 AM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

This can't be true. I just read an article this morning by a knight ridder enviro journalist saying that Katrina is absolutely the work of global warming! :)


13 posted on 09/16/2005 11:32:32 AM PDT by Hayzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hayzo
I just read an article this morning by a knight ridder enviro journalist saying that Katrina is absolutely the work of global warming!

Actually, the headline claimed that.

Whereas the body of the article said there was no conclusive evidence for such.

14 posted on 09/16/2005 12:33:44 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Slashdot's linking here from their home page! Let's see how good Jim's servers and code are... I think it'll survive.


15 posted on 09/20/2005 10:49:09 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn
"One can read reports such as listed at following site, to see where it can be shown that during the past 6000 years or so, there is evidence that it was warmer during the first half of the Holocene Climatic where surely mankind had little or no effect in increasing CO2 levels. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?Page=BrowseCatalogEnlarged&sProductCode=v8n37c2"

Of course co2science.org is going to disseminate propaganda claiming that there is nothing out of the ordinary going on...their on the take from Exxon-Mobil:
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/center_for_the_study_of_carbon_dioxide_and_global_change.html
...and they collaborate with The George Marshall Institute who is also receiving giant checks from Big Oil:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

Any information provided by scientific foundations (whether it be from for-profit or non-profit orgs) needs to be taken with a wheel barrow full of salt if they are receiving money from industries who could care less about the environment. So if you're going to post links to examples that are furthering your point, at least do it from sites where money lines can't be traced.
16 posted on 09/20/2005 11:56:26 AM PDT by Heat Miser (I'm Mr. Heat Miser, I'm Mr. Sun! I'm Mr. Green Christmas, I'm Mr. Hundred N. One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Heat Miser
Goodness gracious...how could I have forgotten to include information on the author of the report, Patrick J. Michaels?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

And while we're on the subject of people getting paid exorbitant amounts to further the particular viewpoints of fossil fuel industries...can anyone point me to any articles by drug dealers, telling us that crack is good for us?
17 posted on 09/20/2005 12:52:47 PM PDT by Heat Miser (I'm Mr. Heat Miser, I'm Mr. Sun! I'm Mr. Green Christmas, I'm Mr. Hundred N. One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Heat Miser
It's interesting how the pro-global warming folks reply with personal attacks on the authors instead of debating the science. The main argument is "follow the money", seemingly forgetting that argument works both ways.

If environmental scientists manage to convince people that we are on the verge of environmental catastrophe, the spending on environmental research will increase dramatically. Therefore environmental scientists have a financial stake in propagating environmental disaster scenarios. If you accept the argument that money from "Big Oil" means results that are biased against global warming theories, then you must accept the argument that money from pro-global warming groups means results that are biased toward global warming. I think either argument is overstated and irrelevant; if you simply debate the science, the source of funding will have no effect on your conclusions.

Please, just stick to debating the science.
18 posted on 09/20/2005 1:55:59 PM PDT by 5OClock (Ad hominem is no substitute for real debate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom
Given that the article in Science says: "We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.", I'm wondering what you mean by 'articles like this'. The article in Science concludes we see more frequent and intense hurricanes now than 30 years ago. So is your position that politics will overwhelm scientific inquiry and cover up such findings? Or did you think the rest of the article above was from Science? It's not; while I'm not commenting on the article above, it's not from a 'National Science publication (sic)'. --R.
19 posted on 09/20/2005 3:55:39 PM PDT by RustMartialis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 5OClock
First of all, what's really interesting is that you assumed that I am "pro-global warming" when in fact I'm not. My main objective in my posts were to point out that when making particular statements (and then backing it up with a link to an article on a particular website), that the source of the information should be kept in mind.

Secondly, I was not "attacking" the author. I was simply pointing out the fact that the author gets a lot of money from Big Oil, as well as funding the author's newsletter.

I would love to debate the pure science of the matter and I'm glad you asked to do so. And in order to get at the heart of the pure science, it is important when citing particular statistics that they come from sources outside of pro fossil fuel related organizations as well as pro environmental organizations in order to avoid any bias one way or the other on the factual data. That's what really bothers me about the majority of discussions concerning global warming...those from industry who say global warming isn't occurring use selected data and studies to back up their beliefs and those from pro environment groups do the same. We're getting nowhere...

The human race is only just beginning to understand the intricate forces that take place on this planet. Cycles that have been formed over the span of hundreds of thousands of years (ok, ok, billions). A myriad of influences dictate the frequency and severity of cyclonic storms: regional climate (which is determined by where we are on the paleo-climatic scale), water and carbon cycling, atmospheric physics and chemistry, and oceanic chemistry and circulation patterns (just to name a few). We are "too close" to the period of data that is being covered in the author's article. 60 years is too narrow of a view to adequately discern whether of not there is "Still No Connection"...we are to close to "see the forest for the trees". It is perhaps more truthful to say that there is still no connection because we don't have enough data to know one way or the other. However, as a producer of approximately one third of the world's industrial and agricultural carbon emissions, as well as having a heavy influence on the rest of the world, this country can not afford for our children's children's sake to be at each other's throats over this issue. Pro industry and pro environmentalist alike need to come together and put all of the bickering aside and strive to truly understand the science, not to debate the science.

With that being said, let's start the discussion on understanding the data and what we can do to truely know what exactly is occuring on our planet.
20 posted on 09/20/2005 4:31:24 PM PDT by Heat Miser (I'm Mr. Heat Miser, I'm Mr. Sun! I'm Mr. Green Christmas, I'm Mr. Hundred N. One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RustMartialis

My position is two fold.

First, while hurricanes do need hot water to form, the number and severity of the storms is not well correlated to the ocean temperature. (less than .2) In fact the ocean temp has not shown a rise in temperature correlated to the rise in the concentration of CO2. An article in Scientific American in 2004 or early 2005 concluded that the oceans will act as a "sink" for rising temperature, even preventing the atmosphere from rising for well into the next 100 years. This fact, if true is both good and bad, because it means the verdict on warming or not will have to wait a long time. If it then IS a warming phenomena caused by humans, we may very well be too far along in it to stop the consequences of rising ocean water and changing agriculture climates.

The article quote you provided does not mention the lack of numerical correlation of storms to water and air temperature, it says in fact that since CO2 concentration has more than doubled the storms have increased in intensity. It sounds like the article has concluded that there is a relationship. Referring to a thirty year cycle that resulted in fewer and less severe storms for the past 15 years, the article would have us believe that it is no longer a cycle but after this next 15 years will continue to increase. To be sure the article does mention in passing that a longer time line is needed, (otherwise the lack of correlation will mean that we can't draw a conclusion about storms and their frequency that ties them to the global warming theory.)

BTW, as I understand it, the thirty year cycle is for storms originating in the south Atlantic. Storm counts world wide seem more or less to be constant.

The second point is that Scientific American runs one article (like the one I mentioned) that seems pretty free of bias and then runs ten articles that start with the assumption that warming is running out of control and makes "scientific" predictions of the consequences. The fact that a reputable publication would fall in so completely with the warming theory and its non free market agenda means that soon you and I will have to dig very deeply to find actual science amid the junk.

As far as the article from Science, I can agree with you that it is not a lie. But it also is leaning to support the global warming theory which at this time is only a theory.


21 posted on 09/20/2005 10:08:05 PM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Sorry, looking at that data I can tell you it is not characterized by anything, it is noise. Pure noise, no signal, anything found an artifact. I've looked at lots and lots of scientific and statistical data of all kinds over years, and that is exactly what random noise looks like, when nothing is happening except sampling out of a noisy distribution.
22 posted on 09/20/2005 10:15:04 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5OClock
5OClock, Where'd you go? I ain't going nowhere! MewwwHaaaHaaaHaaa!!!
I replied to your request for dialog. Finally someone wants to talk science and there's no takers? Let's get his party started!
23 posted on 09/22/2005 9:07:46 AM PDT by Heat Miser (I'm Mr. Heat Miser, I'm Mr. Sun! I'm Mr. Green Christmas, I'm Mr. Hundred N. One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom
We're in partial agreement - I haven't seen convincing data showing any long term trend to 'more' or 'stronger' that goes back far enough to indicate the uptick in hurricane frequency is anything but cyclical.

I dislike 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' ideas too - seeing various hairdo-types on TV claiming bluntly that 'it's due to global warming' is irritating, as it mis-states evidence. Obviously a long-term rise in oceanic surface temperature would lead to more heat transfer to the atmosphere via cyclonic weather systems. That THIS increase in hurricanes over 10-15 years ago is strongly related to anthopogenic causes is just not clear in any way to me. But I'm not a close follower of current research.

As to Scientific American being a serious scientific journal, it's not. The article in Science on the other hand, said their perceived trend in increased storm power was 'not inconsistent' which is about as weak a starement as you can make - they don't claim there's clear evidence linking the two, just that it would fit the currently accepted model. That's responsible opinion, as I see it.

--R.

24 posted on 09/22/2005 9:10:02 AM PDT by RustMartialis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson