This is interesting:
Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.
But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught “is very much natural,” said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.
From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.
In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950’s and 60’s. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.
Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.
Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.
“We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out,” Dr. Gray said.
Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.
A storm of this strength was, in other words, bound to happen. That doesn;t m,ean that global warming won’t have an impact in future decades, but right now, this appears cyclical, coupled with eroding marsh/swamplands and vast coastal developments. One of the things I found truly stunning of the coverage from the past few days were the coastal regions of Mississippis and Alabama that were just littered with casinos ripped from their moorings and thrown hundreds of yards inland.
Another Jeff
I remember seeing Haley Barbour get interviewed on Sunday before it even hit and he said one of the problems with the casinos in Mississippi is that when the law was originally passed approving them, there was some condition put in that they had to built on posts or stilts or whatever so that the actual casino wasn’t touching the ground, or something like that, which obviously seems like a bad idea in a Hurricane prone area.
He also said that a law was passed changing that, but it was passed fairly recently and almost none of them had started securing them.
I’m totally going by memory here so obviously there’s more to it. I could google, but i have to get into a meeting. I’ll do it when i’m done.
Mr Furious
“Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat…”
After this week, that should be good enough for people. Or we can just sit around and try to come up with building codes for Category 6 and 7* storms.
*Note to DougJ—those categories don’t exist. Yet.
ppGaz
LOL.
We can rest assured that President Spud’s minions are busy redacting any such passages from any official reports that might be out there, as we speak.
Orogeny
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164316,00.html
Jcricket
Yes, some of the reports I have read have stated that the levees and flood walls that keep the Mississippi from flooding NOLA with regularity actually contributed to the city’s vulnerability to Hurricanes. Specifically, the regular flooding redistributes silt and fresh diret to feed the swamp/marshlands. So without the flooding, miles of those protective swamplands have dissapeared between NOLA and the coast, which would have absorbed some of Katrina.
Yes, I know this is all super-interesting, and that none of this helps the people who live there now who have their houses destroyed and nowhere to go. This includes some friends of mine who saw on the news that their office is totally under water. At least they’re safe and out of the city.
As much as I know this is unrealistic, I hope many people take the FEMA/insurance money and move elsewhere. I think NOLA is like Venice – Unfortunately screwed in the long-term by their geography, regardless of the larger issue of global warming.
Jcricket
No no no. They won’t redact it. They will simply “clarify” what the scientist said in the report like so:
(see the report on the effect of logging on wild animal populations for an example of this up=down type of editing)
Mr Furious
Interesting link, Orogeny. And from FOX of all places. For those too lazy to click, here’s the nut:
I’m not claiming this is definitive, and the final word, but the trend seems to be that global warming sure ain’t helping.
Look, there might be a natural cycle of global warming that occurs regardless of human behaviour, but we certainly don’t need to accelerate or intensify that process, if that’s the case.
Despite what asshats like Dennis Miller and Rush, say, it’s not as simple as an exra week of golf, and cranking up the air a notch. There are real consequences.
Gregory Markle
Yes, and during the “quiet” period two hurricanes (Agnes in ’72 and Eloise in ’75) managed to hold together long enough to cause MAJOR flooding where I live Pennsylvania while this increased period of activity has been relatively quiet (we’ve had nearly drought conditions most of the summer.) Mother Nature is one fickle bitch!
p.lukasiak
yes, the occurence of hurricanes is cyclical. But to conclude from that single fact that global warming has played no role in the recent spate of hurricanes is ridiculous.
We may not know for quite some time how much the recent spate of big storms is “cyclical” and how much is due to changes in ocean temperatures, ocean currents, and atmospheric wind patterns caused by global warming….but I wouldn’t bet the farm on seeing a decrease in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes anytime soon….
bains
If global warming is causing hurricanes, one would expect to see a global increase of hurricanes and cyclones.
But we’re not. That’s not to say that we ought to turn a blind eye, but just as Rush’s comments do not aid the discussion, neither do those of JFK jr.
scs
Yes I agree with Bains. A couple years of bad weather does not a trend make. The other major problem is the building near the water. We should make a federal law only allowing major habitation over at least a quarter mile from the water in Florida and the Gulf. Perhaps only replaceable cottages and snack stands and boardwalks closer. The water front would look cuter that way anyway. If we had done that, this would not be a big deal.
Also, get the poor people out of the lowlands in New Orleans. The historical districts could remain, as I heard they are the highest places in New Orleans. For instance the French Quarter is 5 feet above sea level. But what was the purpose of having miles of slums below sea level in New Orleans? This country is so huge, we have lots of other places for people to build, it shouldn’t have been allowed by the government, and those whole districts should not be rebuilt, but just abandoned.
I’m just glad I got to make a road trip to New Orleans and the gulf coast for the first time last year before it was all destroyed.
scs
Another thing I wanted to say is people are neglecting an obvious reason for global warming, and that is population growth. I read an intersting article in the Economist a while back saying that global warming has been around for hundreds of years. Even people in the past had to heat themselves with fires. And I believe even livestock cobntributes to global warming with the gases they emit. And that contributed to global warming even back then. Scientists did some studies looking at the average temperatures in the past and compared them to population growth and saw a correlation. For instance, after the great plagues in Europe, and the poulation in Europe plummeted, the world experinced almost like a mini-ice age. Other cooling periods of disease filled times in the 1800’s also happened. Remember how its always snowing in Dickens novels?
So if we really want to stop global warming, we have to curb population growth. After all, every person needs to eat and warm himself. We will never conserve past that.
TallDave
We might actually be able to prevent hurricanes in our lifetimes, maybe in 50 years or so.
If they get the Space Elevator built, one of the first big projects will probably be lifting gigantic solar panels into orbit for power generation; it makes a lot of economic sense at SE lift costs. That power would be beamed down to Earth as microwaves in a certain wavelength. It’s possible that they could be tweaked to deliver that energy in such a way as to disrupt a hurricane’s formation, shearing it apart or at least weakening it.
The power requirement is of course enormous. I think it’s estimated that to have a noticeable effect you’d need something like 10% of the total current power consumption of the world. But in 50 years, we might actually be getting more than that much power from orbital solar cells.
buckaroo
So, if this is in any way true, why are so many saying it is the warmest it has been in 1000 years? Why was it so warm 1000 years ago when the world population was a tiny fraction of what it is today?
I agree that with more humans there is more human production of combustion products, but to think that the waxing and waning of populations in the last millenium has had any effect is silly.
bains
One of the most provocative items I’ve seen is the long-term temperature graph compiled from investigations within the Greenland ice sheet. It goes back millions of years. Unfortunately I can not find it online (I saw it on a Discovery channel special – they were looking into global warming and the impact of deep sea currents and temperatures). It showed wild fluctuations in surface temperatures – higher highs, lower lows – up until 15000 years ago, where the earth has this moderate high plateau (funny how the NYTimes didn’t want to investigate this aspect of the data). I’ve my own theory, but important to this topic is that the face of our planet has always seen temperature changes – and of a much more significant degree.
I wont dispute that greenhouse gasses have an effect, but looking at Earth’s rich history, it’s clear that the human component can only be attributable for one (out of hundreds) account of global warming – and human causality as the main component is speculation at best.
Lets not ruin honest scientific investigations with politically motivated agendas and pre-established conclusions.
And for goodness sake, let’s not use national tragedies for political gamesmanship.
scs
Buckaroo asked –
(one day I’ll learn how to do the grey blocking thing. Which code word is it up there?)
Q. So, if this is in any way true, why are so many saying it is the warmest it has been in 1000 years?
A. Because following the theory, the population has mushroomed.
Q. Why was it so warm 1000 years ago when the world population was a tiny fraction of what it is today?
Because, following the theory, population fluctuations are only a small part of the temperature swings. However, small swings can make a difference, as everyone knows.
Anyway, I just read the article once. Look it up on the internet if you want details.
goonie bird
All this global warming malarkey i mean who do they think their kidding with this nonsense? its rediclous to blame global warming on george bush or for this hurricane katrina what are the enviromentalists wackos up to?
AlanDownunder
So sea levels aren’t rising?
Today New Orleans, tomorrow …
Dare I mention Kyoto and how someone said it would “ruin the economy”? What’s a mere flood compared to disastrously increased energy costs?
scs
Alan, I was tired of hearing so much yelping about the much vaunted Kyoto protocol and the US’s evil role that I decided to do a little quick research on the net on it.
I found a few interesting things. First – your country, Australia, did not sign up for it as well. China, the second largest polluter and growing, is not part of it. Then, European countries and most other countries that signed up for it, are NOWHERE near reaching any of the goals they signed up for. At least the US isn’t hypocritical.
Then, I also found it odd that I found the statistic that, as 4% of the world’s population, the US is responsible for 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. I thought, well that sounds pretty bad, right. I saw the figure 20% used in some. Anyway, I saw that statistic repeated over and over, in every listed article. Then I asked myself, okay, what percent is holier-than-thou Europe or the other industrialized countries responsible for? After all, it’s no use comparing the US to one country in Europe as our population is bigger, we should compare to the whole of Europe. I searched and searched. Did not see ONE statistic on what Europe is using.
So I had to do a little math. I saw a statistic that 55 countries of the industrialized world are repsonsible for 55% of gas emmisions. The industrialzed world is mostly Europe, Russia, Japan, Canada, US. Since the US uses 20%, the rest of the industrialized world contributes 35% of the world’s gases. Using my population guesses from those countries, according to population, the US should use 17% of the worlds greenshouse gasses, instead of our 20%. And considering that the US has more extreme temperatures than milder Europe and a widespread population compared to condensed Europe and people who need the ability to travel between far-flung areas, I think I can understand the slight extra usage.
The difference between 17% and 20% of the worlds gasses does not sound that terrible. Yet I NEVER see that figure quoted or how much Europe as a whole is using. It feeds my suspicion that the world is just jumping on the ‘blame America first’ bandwagon, instead of working on their own problems.
Buckaroo
For those “US generates most of the greenhouse gasses” whiners, consider that the US is the most productive country on this planet. As so plainly stated by someone else, here in America we produce, we don’t just sit around in a mud puddle waiting for Sally Struthers to show up with a Snickers bar…
Darrell
I would like to see a list of the civil/structural engineers of record for those uprooted casinos and other large structures “outed” for all the public to see. The names of those firms and individuals should be posted in the newspapers next to the photos of the destroyed casinos they designed and approved. The engineers may or may not have plausible explanations for these failures.. but their names need to be made public nonetheless. If Consumers Reports can name names, the engineers of record should be called out too. Such transparency would serve the public interest imo
scs
Darrell, I hope the engineers did not do shoddy work on purpose. But I think the real problem was putting those huge buildings in the ocean. I don’t think you can tie down anything in the ocean strong enough for a Cat 5 hurricane.
And by the way, no one has really commented on my eureka moment on the oft quoted misleading stat that the US produces 25% of greenhouse gases. I just exposed the propaganda of the Euro left.
mark
Since hurricanes strengthen in warm water, let’s try to cool the surface water temperature by pumping water from the ocean depths (300 feet down is about 60 degrees). Giant sump pumps suspended by cables from barges with solar collectors can pump cold water to the surface in an environmentally friendly way. Place enough of these off the west coast of Africa, and hurricanes won’t form. Place some in the center of the Gulf of Mexico to pick off the hurricanes that form there. You could even tether some to a submarine, and tow them in front of hurricanes to weaken the hurricanes.