This image provided by NOAA was taken at 11:45 p.m. EDT Wednesday Sept. 3, 2008. The remains of Tropical Depression Gustav can be seen over Louisiana and Mississippi. Tropical Storm Hanna is seen as it approaches Haiti with maximum sustained winds of 55 mph, while further east Category 4 Hurricane Ike with maximum sustained winds of 135 mph and Tropical Storm Josephine can be seen. (AP Photo/NOAA)
What’s with all the hurricanes?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 09.04.08
Look at a satellite map, and you’ll see them lined up like Rockettes, stretching from Texas to the Canary Islands: Former Hurricane Gustav, Tropical Storm Hanna, Hurricane Ike, Tropical Storm Josephine. What gives?
Four simultaneous named storms is unusual, but it’s not unprecedented. As the AP’s Seth Borenstein points out, 1998 saw four hurricanes – not just tropical storms – at the same time. And in 1995 we had five coinciding tropical storms.
Still, it’s not every year that we see a procession like this. Borenstein explains how a number of circumstances have combined to create ideal conditions for tropical storm formation. First is a relative absence of wind shear in the North Atlantic, which can weaken storms or prevent them from developing. Then there are the winds bracketing the hurricane-formation regions, blowing from the west in the deep tropics and from the east in the subtropics, making it more likely for spinning storm systems to develop. And then there’s the slightly-warmer-than-average water, which fuels storms.
And finally, there’s the low atmospheric pressure caused by all the other tropical storms. Hurricanes, it seems, can sometimes beget more hurricanes.
Beginning in 1995, there has been a big upswing in the number of Atlantic tropical storms. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the years 1850 to 1990 saw an average of about 10 tropical storms, including about 5 hurricanes. Since 1995, the average has spiked, with the 1997-2006 average at about 14 tropical storms, including about 8 hurricanes. This increase correlates with the rise in ocean temperatures, which in turn is linked to global warming.
So can we say that global warming is already influencing hurricanes? Not so fast. This is a matter of honest-to-goodness debate among climate scientists (as opposed to a certain other debate that is largely manufactured). A document posted on the World Meteorological Organization’s website and signed by the world’s top tropical cyclone experts agrees that there is evidence both for and against a human fingerprint on hurricane activity, and that models predict a 3 percent to 5 percent increase in windspeed per degree Celsius increase of ocean surface temperatures.
What’s more, some scientists say they see evidence that ocean temperature goes through natural variations, such as the hypothesized Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a roughly one-degree-Fahrenheit swing in ocean temperatures said to last about 20 to 40 years. According to this theory, since the mid-1990s, we’ve been in a warm phase. This oscillation has been going on for at least the past millennium, and could very well be a cause of the recent spate of Atlantic hurricane activity, but this has by no means been proven.
Also, remember that Atlantic storms account for only about a tenth of all tropical storms. The rest, called cyclones and typhoons, are in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and their numbers have held steady.
Still, many scientists have observed that hurricanes have gotten more intense in recent decades, and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that it is “more likely than not” that this observed increase is partly due to human activity. What’s more the panel said that it is likely (that is, better than 2 to 1 odds) that future storms will be stronger due to global warming.
And, as I wrote in my previous post, a paper published in this week’s edition of the journal Nature observed that the strongest storms over the past 26 years have become stronger due to increased ocean temperatures.
But none of this is definitive. The data set of measurements of hurricanes is far from perfect, and the mechanisms of the relationship between ocean surface temperatures and storm intensity is poorly understood. What’s more, one study by the NOAA published this year found that global warming could actually decrease the severity of storms, by creating wind shear that lops off the top of the storms.
So until a consensus emerges, those advocating action on climate change will have to content themselves with the prospect of mass extinctions, rising sea levels, withered crops, drought, and water shortages. As for whether the storms currently marching toward our coasts have been influenced by our SUVs, the jury is still out.
<< Shrinking Arctic Ocean sea ice signals climate change | MainComments
3. Michael Smith | 09.04.08
The article seemed balanced until the last paragraph. I don’t think it is necessary to wait until the costs are so formidable from excessive and environmental neglect to take some affirmative action to negate the harm already done.
4. Joe Brown | 09.04.08
To say, “Those advocating action on climate change will have to content themselves with the prospect of mass extinctions, rising sea levels, withered crops, drought, and water shortages,” is at best a logical fallacy. Every living being on the PLANET will have to suffer those consequences. We’re all going to be nice and miserable, and RESENTFUL, together.
5. Kevin Nardelle | 09.04.08
Look - I live in New Orleans and never once evacuated, being a first responder I cant and wont. I am only 40 but I can say that its getting worse as time ticks on.. We all know its getting worse, it seems nobody wants to really admit we are in for more violent storms and more frequent ones too. Life is going to change down here in a BIG way sooner or later and I hope sooner. Building codes need to be improved and people need to learn how to live with this natural mess or just pick up and move. I wont move anywhere, I have been going through this since a kid and it bothers me not one bit. I enjoy helping people and love to see smiles on faces when they get picked up off their rooftop. Gustav caused a mass evacuation that worked so well unlike previous ones and people seemed to heed the warnings well. I didnt bust a single looter this time compared to 11 during katrina. It was a cakewalk this time around but what about the next…
We just have to live with what is happening to the blue marble we all share and adapt to the changes its throwing at us from all the industrial abuse over the past 80 years.
Kevin
6. Boinkie | 09.04.08
One of the questions about “numbers of hurricanes” is that it is unclear if you are counting all hurricane/tropical storms or just those that hit land.
In past years, without satellites, some hurricanes might not have been reported…
and by using “This year” versus “average” you don’t give the range number, i.e. compared to big hurricane years over the last century.
Finally, if it is global warming, you need to count typhoon activity and cyclonic activity elsewhere. We are probably in a climate change, but fake statistics doesn’t prove your case.
8. Kim | 09.05.08
Every time the united states tells Israel to give up land, the united states receives a natural disaster. Currently rice is over in Israel trying to force them to give up Jerusalem. G-d is unhappy that the world is trying to divide His land. The united states is doomed and the ONLY thing that will save it is TRUE repentance to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (Jacob) which will not happen — bush said he worships the same “god” as the muslims, hindus, etc. and G-d will not be mocked.
9. Daryl Atamanyk | 09.05.08
With the sunspot cycle presently at the lowest it can get, ‘twil be interesting indeed these next several years as the sunspots increase and contribute to earth’s heat. Maybe. I trade commodities… and everything is “maybe.” What a life!
10. ED | 09.05.08
This style of reporting, while well intentioned, is very dangerous, misleading, and damaging, and is probably why we have been and will continue to be in the mess we are in.
You don’t buy insurance only if/after you’re sure your house will be flooded or your car smashed.
This over emphasis on “but we’re not sure yet” is a recipe for always, always acting only after it’s too late to prevent much of the damage. Why not act to prevent possible damage, just as doctors advice we do in the case of our personal health?
It is simply logically incorrect to suggest that “so until [we are sure], those advocating action on climate change will have to content themselves with [other proven dangers]”…what is wrong with adding “the possibility of worsening storms?” as opposed to adding “the certainly that storms are getting worse” due to human cause climate disruption? (so called climate “change”)? The answer is: nothing, there’s nothing wrong with that, and everything right, prudent, sane, and sensible about adding “the possibility of X” to the list of reason to act now. I’m not referring to, and we’re not talking about some “wild guess” out of left field random possibility: but possibilities that have considerable scientific evidence of plausibility (but not “very likely” or “certainty” at this point) behind them.
This commonsense perspective must be brought into reporting, even if it means worrying that the fossil lobby will attack you brutally for “not giving both sides” etc. When you’ve said it’s not certain, you’ve done enough. Then inform readers, roughly, how large the probability of damage is, even 10% chance of a massive, massive amount of damage, is relevant, and worthy of policy actions (look up mathematical “expected value”)
Otherwise we guarantee a future of never acting before so much time has been lost, so much damage done, that we’re finally “Sure”. Can you imagine a hospital that wouldn’t act until they are “sure” of a cancer? It’s not yet “a consensus”? We’re not talking amputation of half the body, we’re talking about prudent cuts in emissions, the analogue of “patient should eat (much) less fast food, and get some exercise outdoors”.
11. Mikey | 09.05.08
What a well written peice. I was expecting this to be an extreme green article talking only about the tiny bit of very possibly coincidental evidence that human pollution is causing bigger storms. Instead I found myself reading an informative balanced article with insight on both sides of the arguement, from nearly every angle. Everything was based on facts and common sense. *claps*
12. dshkipin | 09.05.08
I don’t know how “content” I can be “with the prospect of mass extinctions, rising sea levels, withered crops, drought, and water shortages…” It is not the SUVs being the problem, but most of electricty generated from burning coal.
13. R | 09.05.08
Interesting article! However, my impression is that your presentation here is not clear on one particular point.
The entire scientific community agrees that global warming is caused by green house gases emitted in the atmosphere through human related activities. There is a clear consensus here - if not 100 % of the scientists, the overwhelming majority.
Is this the ” certain other debate that is largely manufactured” that you are referring to? In what sense manufactured?
Now, global warming (which is caused by humans) has as a clear consequence the increase in the temperature of the oceans. The jury might be still out in linking this particular aspect to the increase in tropical storm activity but I feel compelled to point out that one other verdict is clear - we, the human race, are pretty much responsible for the global warming part of this equation.
Finally, I don’t believe that there is any particular political reason for which any scientist will push this global warming “agenda” - scientists came to this conclusion trough honest, thorough investigation. They will not “content themselves” with none of the catastrophic consequences of global worming. I think there is a genuine sense of alarm in the scientific community. These guys are not all a bunch of arrogant people that have as sole purpose in life scorning the rest of the humanity - I think they simply have very real concerns. Let’s give them some credit!
14. Josh | 09.05.08
“Global warming” is not to blame. The Earth as a whole hasn’t warmed since about 1998 and actually cooled about 1.0 degrees Celsius in the last year wiping out the net warming of the 20th Century which was less than 1.0 degrees. Many signs point to continued cooling of the planet especially since the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has switched to its cool mode and the Sun appears to be entering a very quiet phase with minimal sunspots. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) seems like a more logical explanation for increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic. We can’t just automatically attribute everything to “global warming” especially since Earth as a whole is cooling and has been for a decade. Many scientists also believe that the AMO warms the Atlantic ocean and the warmer waters flow North to the Arctic and melt ice. This makes much more sense than CO2 causing “global warming” since CO2 is a trace gas (CO2 makes up 0.033%) of the atmosphere. Remember, CO2 is good for Earth. Plants consume CO2 and release O2 during photosysnthesis. CO2 doesn’t warm the Earth; it makes Earth greener. In the 30s and 40s the Arctic ice cap melted at least as much as it has in recent years, and this coincided with warmer oceans. If satellite technology had existed in the 30s it would have shown a shrinking Arctic ice cap and the global warming hysteria we see now would have ensued. But the Arctic got colder, and the ice expanded again until the 70s when the most recent warming began (When the Pacific Ocean transitioned to another warm phase and the sun was very active). Wake up everyone. Man-made global warming is a lie. The Sun and the Oceans are the main drivers of climate on this planet, along with the planet’s orbit and tilt in space, volcanic activity and other natural factors. CO2 is insignificant. How can CO2, which makes up 0.033% of our atmoshphere, compete with the energy of the Sun and the Oceans’ abilities to store and release heat? Do your own research. Don’t believe in “man-made global warming.” It’s one of history’s biggest lies. Oh, by the way, the Arctic ice cap has grown 30% from its levels one year ago. I guess “global warming” makes it colder in the Arctic. Folks, we have more to fear from a cooling planet than a warming one. Don’t let the politicians impose CO2 taxes on us and destroy our economy.
15. Karl | 09.05.08
(as opposed to a certain other debate that is largely manufactured).
What does that mean? Aren’t all debates manufactured including this one regarding hurricanes?
Tight writing, keep practicing. There is a future for you at the Enquirer.
16. Mike | 09.05.08
“So until a consensus emerges, those advocating action on climate change will have to content themselves with the prospect of mass extinctions, rising sea levels, withered crops, drought, and water shortages.”
What does this sentence have to do with the subject of the article. None of these have been proven to be human-caused either. The author once again shows his clear bias - something that you didn’t use to use in the Monitor. A little objectivity could go a far way.
17. Shane Mc Carville | 09.05.08
Yes i think that storms are not part of global warming but part of a biger chian of avents, part of a global cycle.
We have seen nothing yet.
Regards
Shane
From Ireland
18. Chris | 09.05.08
Short of the rising seal levels, drought, etc. that you mention, one of the more immediate concerns surrounding these tropical storms and hurricanes is the disruption of water supplies available to affected populations.
Prior to the advent of certain standardized measures such as chlorinated water, these kinds of problems could compound the havoc of a natural disaster.
I’ve gotten to do some work with the American Chemistry Council quite recently. It’s just fascinating– not only has chlorinated water served to minimize such hazards, it’s also basically eradicated previous scourges such as typhoid in the areas where it’s been made widely available.
19. Brockage | 09.05.08
Find out if there really IS a relationship and then rewrite the article. Until then it’s just space filled by speculation.
20. Kevin Nardelle | 09.05.08
So I see here a lot of people are talking about the media hype, I do agree with that. They really went nuts on the media about Gustav and I told everyone to relax but be ready, the media went overboard as they always do. To be honest, I find a reliable media source to be Al Jazeera via satellite, they tend to tell it how it is rather sugar coat things with their opinions. The German news DWTV is also very very good. None of the US media is fair and balanced or non-biased.
As for science, we have science that shows our damage to the environment but we cant go back far enough or predict actual future events. That recent ice shelf breaking off is a sign that we might take as a warning… but its going to be our kids kids who experience high sea levels. Heck Louisiana is losing coastline every day because we are sinking, imagine what 5 more feet would do to us here! Blub blub..
22. Mike | 09.05.08
R, where did you get this idea that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is human-caused? Who told you that, Al Gore? There is no such consensus!
31,000 American scientists (9,000+ PhDs) support the report, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” ( http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ), which scientifically refutes the human-caused global warming hypothesis. Even the infamous IPCC only consists of 600 scientists and many of them have distanced themselves from the conclusions presented in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers.
The idea that there is a consensus among scientists regarding human-caused global warming is just complete nonsense!
24. Dr. Francis T. Manns | 09.05.08
Actually the monsoon season correlates well with the sunspot minimum. The monsoon appears to have expanded to the rest of the globe, except for deserts like Australia and western US. Warming correlates with sunspot peaks.
25. Jimbonumber9 | 09.09.08
Mark Chp.13:8- For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in diverse places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these ARE the beginnings of sorrows.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Someguy | 09.04.08
oh noex! must be global warming!!!