'Hurricane Sandy: The next climate wake-up call?'

[WeatherRusty]

Terry, didn't you get the message?

AGW is NEVER a factor in any weather event, by definition.

They'll be saying this about the Apocalypse when it hits on Judgment Day........

Every reasonable person will agree that the climate of today is somewhat different than it was 50,100,150 years ago. Looked at in 30 year chunks of time, the climate has changed at least in terms of temperature.

Every weather event takes place in today's climate, which by definition has changed. If any of the parameters which create the weather have changed, and they have, the weather produced will be changed somehow to some degree.

Every weather event is a product of climate change, the only questions for me are how and by how much.

By this logic, to say today's storms, floods and droughts are not a product of AGW is irrational at best.

[tamarack]

You mention waiting until more storms occur before making your point, if this storm follows the track predicted we'll have had two hurricanes threatening NYC in two years - when was the last time this happened - and how many consecutive years would you require before you found it prudent to draw an inference.

Terry

Probably not the most recent occurrence, but how about 1954 and '55? Except it was FIVE 'canes in 2 years.

[ORH_wxman]

Every reasonable person will agree that the climate of today is somewhat different than it was 50,100,150 years ago. Looked at in 30 year chunks of time, the climate has changed at least in terms of temperature.

Every weather event takes place in today's climate, which by definition has changed. If any of the parameters which create the weather have changed, and they have, the weather produced will be changed somehow to some degree.

Every weather event is a product of climate change, the only questions for me are how and by how much.

By this logic, to say today's storms, floods and droughts are not a product of AGW is irrational at best.

Technically you are correct, but its pretty meaningless in this context.

The more important question is are these type of storms something that have not happened in the past (the answer is no) and are they going to be become more frequent (we don't know this answer, but most literature suggests they won't).

Almost all the best analog storms for this current one occurred back during the last AMO+ phase...Hurricane Hazel 1954, November 25-25, 1950, Hurricane of 1944, Hurricane of 1938.

[tacoman25]

If you think so poorly of Bryan Norcross's statements, perhaps you should let him know.

I do recall Hansen and others saying we were in for some very odd weather as global warming progressed. I'm not a follower of extreme weather events, but when Weather Underground resorted to such flights of hyperbola in describing just how unusual Sandy is, the connection seemed obvious.

Sounds like a can't-miss prediction!

[tacoman25]

Technically you are correct, but its pretty meaningless in this context.

The more important question is are these type of storms something that have not happened in the past (the answer is no) and are they going to be become more frequent (we don't know this answer, but most literature suggests they won't).

Almost all the best analog storms for this current one occurred back during the last AMO+ phase...Hurricane Hazel 1954, November 25-25, 1950, Hurricane of 1944, Hurricane of 1938.

Don't confuse with the facts!

To the irrational alarmist, any "odd", "unusual", or "extreme" weather event is OBVIOUSLY tied to AGW. Because as we all know, odd/unusual/extreme weather events never occurred before AGW, the AMO is a myth, and Jim Hansen said we'd be seeing more strange stuff, so a hurricane possible hitting the eastern seaboard can only be the direct result of climate change. No further analysis necessary.

[TerryM]

MODEL PREFERENCE

================

THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER (NHC) TRACK NOW BEST RESEMBLES THE

00 UTC ECMWF ENSEMBLE MEAN. THE EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION OF SANDY

MAY HAVE ALREADY BEGUN BASED UPON RECENT SATELLITE IMAGERY...A

PROCESS EXPECTED TO COMPLETE TUESDAY PER NHC. THE DETERMINISTIC

GUIDANCE (PARTICULARLY THE 00 UTC ECMWF) SHOW PRESSURE SOLUTIONS

WELL BEYOND WHAT HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED NEAR THE NEW JERSEY/NEW

YORK COAST (EVEN EXCEEDING THE 1938 LONG ISLAND EXPRESS HURRICANE)

EARLY IN THE MEDIUM RANGE PERIOD. THE DETERMINISTIC GUIDANCE

(CANADIAN, GFS, AND ECMWF INCLUDED) HAS SHOWN A VERY STRONG BIAS

WITH TROPICAL CYCLONES GAINING LATITUDE AND/OR TRANSITIONING INTO

NON-TROPICAL STORMS OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS... INCLUDING (BUT

NOT EXCLUSIVE TO) LESLIE 2012...ISAAC 2012...DEBBY 2012 IN THE

WESTERN SUBTROPICAL ATLANTIC IRENE 2011 AND IGOR 2010. PLEASE

REFER TO THE NHC FOR UPDATED INFORMATION ON SANDY.

Let's see, the ice hurricane last year was just a very unusual event. The Arctic Summer Storm in August was another "very unusual event". The melting of the Summit of Greenland was rare. The weather forecast for NY & NJ is unprecedented.

Do you suppose that there could possibly be any connection to the loss of 80% of Arctic ice volume?

​Do you suppose that there could possibly be any connection to the highest atmospheric CO2 levels recorded?

Do you think that Atlantic Water temperatures - regardless of AMO - might have an impact?

​It's about cause (burning fossil fuels) & effect (Anthropomorphic Global Warming).

Anyone claiming Sandy is just a random event that would have occurred without the influence of AGW, probably believes that fossils were created 4k yrs ago as a way to test our faith.

Ramen

Terry

BTW

Sunday would be a good time for those legislators that limited sea level rise to hold an emergency prayer meeting on the Barrier Islands to drive the storm back out to sea. Canute would be proud - and it worked so well ending the drought in Texas.

[tacoman25]

MODEL PREFERENCE

================

THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER (NHC) TRACK NOW BEST RESEMBLES THE

00 UTC ECMWF ENSEMBLE MEAN. THE EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION OF SANDY

MAY HAVE ALREADY BEGUN BASED UPON RECENT SATELLITE IMAGERY...A

PROCESS EXPECTED TO COMPLETE TUESDAY PER NHC. THE DETERMINISTIC

GUIDANCE (PARTICULARLY THE 00 UTC ECMWF) SHOW PRESSURE SOLUTIONS

WELL BEYOND WHAT HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED NEAR THE NEW JERSEY/NEW

YORK COAST (EVEN EXCEEDING THE 1938 LONG ISLAND EXPRESS HURRICANE)

EARLY IN THE MEDIUM RANGE PERIOD. THE DETERMINISTIC GUIDANCE

(CANADIAN, GFS, AND ECMWF INCLUDED) HAS SHOWN A VERY STRONG BIAS

WITH TROPICAL CYCLONES GAINING LATITUDE AND/OR TRANSITIONING INTO

NON-TROPICAL STORMS OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS... INCLUDING (BUT

NOT EXCLUSIVE TO) LESLIE 2012...ISAAC 2012...DEBBY 2012 IN THE

WESTERN SUBTROPICAL ATLANTIC IRENE 2011 AND IGOR 2010. PLEASE

REFER TO THE NHC FOR UPDATED INFORMATION ON SANDY.

Let's see, the ice hurricane last year was just a very unusual event. The Arctic Summer Storm in August was another "very unusual event". The melting of the Summit of Greenland was rare. The weather forecast for NY & NJ is unprecedented.

Do you suppose that there could possibly be any connection to the loss of 80% of Arctic ice volume?

​Do you suppose that there could possibly be any connection to the highest atmospheric CO2 levels recorded?

Do you think that Atlantic Water temperatures - regardless of AMO - might have an impact?

​It's about cause (burning fossil fuels) & effect (Anthropomorphic Global Warming).

Anyone claiming Sandy is just a random event that would have occurred without the influence of AGW, probably believes that fossils were created 4k yrs ago as a way to test our faith.

Ramen

Terry

BTW

Sunday would be a good time for those legislators that limited sea level rise to hold an emergency prayer meeting on the Barrier Islands to drive the storm back out to sea. Canute would be proud - and it worked so well ending the drought in Texas.

1. The event hasn't even happened yet. We don't know how exactly it will turn out, i.e. how unprecedented it will actually be. Basing such statements on model projections is foolhardy.

2. So how exactly did AGW cause Sandy to occur? Please be specific.

3. Are you aware of such meteorological factors as subtropical phasing that would allow such a storm to develop? If you do not have an adequate understanding of how the storm is developing and why models are showing such a storm, then you have no basis to make statements the factors behind this storm.

4. Is there a long term trend that shows these types of storms are increasing with AGW? If not, you have no basis to draw the connection.

[skierinvermont]

Very apparent who in this thread has followed meteorology closely in their life and who hasn't.

[tamarack]

1. The event hasn't even happened yet. We don't know how exactly it will turn out, i.e. how unprecedented it will actually be. Basing such statements on model projections is foolhardy.

2. So how exactly did AGW cause Sandy to occur? Please be specific.

3. Are you aware of such meteorological factors as subtropical phasing that would allow such a storm to develop? If you do not have an adequate understanding of how the storm is developing and why models are showing such a storm, then you have no basis to make statements the factors behind this storm.

4. Is there a long term trend that shows these types of storms are increasing with AGW? If not, you have no basis to draw the connection.

Obviously. And the 930 mb levels showing up on models 2-3 days ago are now 940s and upward. I seem to recall a Long Island location recording a pressure around 27.95 in 1938, and I think New England's lowest was something like 28.03. Those are about 946 and 949, respectively. I'm guessing the lowest land-location reading will be 955-960, very impressive but not "unprecedented".

I'm not old enough to have experienced 1938, but some "once in a lifetime" type events I do remember were the 1950 Apps gale, 1955 Connie/Diane floods, 1972 Agnes floods, 1978 with 3 blockbusters in 3 weeks (and the OV monster in the low 950s), Kennebec River floods of 1987, the 1993 superstorm,...

[ORH_wxman]

I can only imagine what the rhetoric would be if we experienced another stretch like from 1938-1955 along the east coast. You had of course the great 1938 storm, the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944, Nov 1950 (which wasn't a TC but would be considered "unprecedented"), 3 huge hurricane hits in 1954 (Carol, Edna, and Hazel), and then the 2 floods of 1955 from tropical systems, the worst being from Dianne.

[SVT450R]

Is this thread really heading down that road.

[TerryM]

Is this thread really heading down that road.

Actually that was the chosen path all along.

I'm certainly not someone who has had a lifetime fascination with weather, therefor when the National Hurricane Service or Weather Underground calls things unprecedented, odd or strange I tend to accept the word of the PHDs they employ.

I'm sure that some of the posters here have a much better track record than the above mentioned, but as a relative newcomer I'll probably accept the official proclamations until I too have progressed to the point where my knowledge exceeds theirs.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

it should be noted SLR is higher than any time in modern times due to humans.

so storm surge is effected by AGW.

[Vergent]

I can only imagine what the rhetoric would be if we experienced another stretch like from 1938-1955 along the east coast. You had of course the great 1938 storm, the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944, Nov 1950 (which wasn't a TC but would be considered "unprecedented"), 3 huge hurricane hits in 1954 (Carol, Edna, and Hazel), and then the 2 floods of 1955 from tropical systems, the worst being from Dianne.

So you are saying AGW started after those "100% natural" events?

Weather happens in the context of climate. Earth's climate is no longer natural. The SSTs are outside of the pre-industrial natural variation. The conditions that are creating this storm are man made. Drop the SST by 0.8C to put it in the natural range, the storm would be quite different. We can actually do this with our models and quantify the difference.

[Msalgado]

When did the usage of the world unusual become synonymous with "caused by climate change"?

[donsutherland1]

Just so it's clear, my post concerns Sandy's evolution and track. With the phasing that is forecast to take place, a period of explosive deepening is possible. Such deepening would be analogous to what has happened in bombogenesis cases. Such cases include the November 1950 "Great Appalachian" storm, the January 1978 Great Lakes blizzard, and the March 1993 superstorm. The aforementioned January 1978 blizzard had a minimum central pressure of 953 mb. None of those storms were warm core.

With the cyclone phase charts suggesting that Sandy could evolve from symmetric warm core to asymmetric warm core and then back to symmetric warm core, the potential for more explosive than usual deepening from the phasing is there. Some literature has suggested that upper level warming is more conducive to lowering surface pressures.

In short, were Sandy to peak somewhere in the vicinity of 950 mb +/- 10 mb (depending on the latest guidance), the combination of its evolution and past bombogenesis cases might offer insight.

[Msalgado]

The ultimate irony of Terry's posts in this thread is that he's argued that the reduced sea ice in the arctic will have the effect of weakening the polar jet due to the lower temperature differential between the pole and lower latitudes. Now when a storm system that is draw a large amount of energy from the jet stream comes into play he is absolutely fired up to blame climate change.

How does that work, exactly?

[skierinvermont]

So you are saying AGW started after those "100% natural" events?

Weather happens in the context of climate. Earth's climate is no longer natural. The SSTs are outside of the pre-industrial natural variation. The conditions that are creating this storm are man made. Drop the SST by 0.8C to put it in the natural range, the storm would be quite different. We can actually do this with our models and quantify the difference.

It's not nearly as simple as just lowering SSTs .8C. First of all the Anthro component of N. Atlantic SST rise is probably only around .4C (naural+anthro is only .6 or .7 not .8C).

The strengths of storms is not solely dependent on SSTs. A lot is the difference between SSTs and upper atmosphere temperatures. Plus this storm is mostly baroclinic processes from the jet stream not deepening due to SSTs.

It's possible that a storm in the pre-industrial climate would have been stronger or weaker. Hard to say which. And whatever the difference, it would probably be only 1 or 2mb. The storm would still be historic either way.

[SVT450R]

What some here don't seem to realize is that from reading the forum and last nights radio show others have said this setup would have spun a strong nor'easter regardless of sandy if I'm not mistaken please correct me if i am wrong.

[skierinvermont]

Rusty why'd you delete your post?! I've been trying to comprehend the paper you linked all evening!

[TerryM]

The ultimate irony of Terry's posts in this thread is that he's argued that the reduced sea ice in the arctic will have the effect of weakening the polar jet due to the lower temperature differential between the pole and lower latitudes. Now when a storm system that is draw a large amount of energy from the jet stream comes into play he is absolutely fired up to blame climate change.

How does that work, exactly?

My Dear Ms Aldgado

Did I really say that - or did you just make it up?

Terry

[Vergent]

When did the usage of the world unusual become synonymous with "caused by climate change"?

About 100 years ago.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty why'd you delete your post?! I've been trying to comprehend the paper you linked all evening!

Here is the paper!

After thinking about what the study demonstrates, I felt it may be confusing to most readers.

What I am proposing is utilized by this study, but may not be properly appreciated. This is theory, based on the thermodynamic nature of the system.

the climate system becomes less efficient (and more isothermal),

more irreversible, and features higher entropy production as

it becomes warmer.

The bolded represents the point I have tried to get across.

This means the RATE of decay in structure increases as the climate warms. Differences in the thermal structure of the ocean/land/atmosphere system cascade more precipitously to unity as the climate warms. The climate changes state very quickly as a result. The transition is more chaotic than it is smooth.

At equilibrium, a warmer climate will be more stable and stratified (isothermal). Before equilibrium the system will produce greater turbulence (efficiency at mixing warm and cold )(mechanical work, energy dissipation) in the warming direction than in the cooling direction..(entropy production increases as the climate warms)

[Msalgado]

My Dear Ms Aldgado

Did I really say that - or did you just make it up?

Terry

You absolutely advocated that position by linking the terrible blog post that talked about the destruction of the three celled model. When called on it you proceeded to rant as you usually do. You and a couple of others here are the exact type of people who see unusual weather and run off to claim that its related to AGW. You're the worst kind of advocates and do far more harm than good.

Maybe the heartland institute will send you a christmas card this year telling you to keep up the good work!

[Vergent]

It's not nearly as simple as just lowering SSTs .8C. First of all the Anthro component of N. Atlantic SST rise is probably only around .4C (naural+anthro is only .6 or .7 not .8C).

The strengths of storms is not solely dependent on SSTs. A lot is the difference between SSTs and upper atmosphere temperatures. Plus this storm is mostly baroclinic processes from the jet stream not deepening due to SSTs.

It's possible that a storm in the pre-industrial climate would have been stronger or weaker. Hard to say which. And whatever the difference, it would probably be only 1 or 2mb. The storm would still be historic either way.

The average August-September water temperature in the region is about 81 degrees. Saunders calculated that for every one degree Fahrenheit increase:

- Overall hurricane activity – a combination of frequency and hurricane strength – increases 49 percent.

- The number of intense hurricanes, with winds over 110 mph, increases 45 percent.

- The number of hurricanes of any size increases 36 percent.

- The number of tropical storms increase 31 percent.

http://www.redorbit....icane_strength/

New Study Ties Hurricane Strength To Global Warming

http://www.climatece...l-warming-15114

1-2mb? Really? Please show math, references, or data.

[Vergent]

First direct proof that climate change increases hurricane intensity

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-direct-proof-that-climate-change-increases-hurricane-intensity

[skierinvermont]

http://www.redorbit....icane_strength/

New Study Ties Hurricane Strength To Global Warming

http://www.climatece...l-warming-15114

1-2mb? Really? Please show math, references, or data.

A number of points:

1) There is a HUGE difference between SSTs being warm (say due to ocean currents) and the entire atmosphere-ocean climate warming. If you have HOT Atlantic SSTs in a cold climate, hurricane activity is going to be way worse than warm SSTs in a warm climate. This study fails to make such a distinction.

2) The period of record (1965-mid 2000s) is too short to exclude natural variability and chance. There could a be a 3rd variable. Atlantic SSTs warmed way more than the climate system as a whole during that period, which gets back to point #1.

3) There has been a long-term rise of .6 or .7C in N. Atlantic SSTs, but no detectable increase in TC frequency or severity.

I've already posted the most recent scientific review of the subject which estimates around a 2-11% increase in TC intensity by 2100 (probably a 3F increase in atlantic SSTs by then). This is a couple years more recent than your paper and provides a review of all literature on the topic.

That works out to about 3% per 1F.

[TerryM]

A number of points:

1) There is a HUGE difference between SSTs being warm (say due to ocean currents) and the entire atmosphere-ocean climate warming. If you have HOT Atlantic SSTs in a cold climate, hurricane activity is going to be way worse than warm SSTs in a warm climate. This study fails to make such a distinction.

2) The period of record (1965-mid 2000s) is too short to exclude natural variability and chance. There could a be a 3rd variable. Atlantic SSTs warmed way more than the climate system as a whole during that period, which gets back to point #1.

3) There has been a long-term rise of .6 or .7C in N. Atlantic SSTs, but no detectable increase in TC frequency or severity.

I've already posted the most recent scientific review of the subject which estimates around a 2-11% increase in TC intensity by 2100 (probably a 3F increase in atlantic SSTs by then). This is a couple years more recent than your paper and provides a review of all literature on the topic.

That works out to about 3% per 1F.

One could fill libraries with what I don't know about hurricanes. That said isn't your third point refuted by PhillipS's prior posts indicating that there has been an increase in hurricanes over the recent decades?

Possibly off topic but a google search for List of Canadian hurricanes indicates that while prior to 1900 a number of hurricanes struck the Maritimes, then

"A very long lull period occurred during this time, It wasn't officially broken by a tropical hurricane until 1939. Only three tropical hurricanes struck Canada, as well as one damaging extratropical storm"

From 1950 - 1994 numbers increase, as they do again from 1995 onward.

I thought it interesting since by noting the number of storms prior to 1900, and the gap thereafter, they refute any argument that it was simply lack of observation that indicates more storms in the modern period. If hurricanes were occurring, but weren't being noticed in say the '20's, how come they were being noticed in the 1880's.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

One could fill libraries with what I don't know about hurricanes. That said isn't your third point refuted by PhillipS's prior posts indicating that there has been an increase in hurricanes over the recent decades?

Possibly off topic but a google search for List of Canadian hurricanes indicates that while prior to 1900 a number of hurricanes struck the Maritimes, then

"A very long lull period occurred during this time, It wasn't officially broken by a tropical hurricane until 1939. Only three tropical hurricanes struck Canada, as well as one damaging extratropical storm"

From 1950 - 1994 numbers increase, as they do again from 1995 onward.

I thought it interesting since by noting the number of storms prior to 1900, and the gap thereafter, they refute any argument that it was simply lack of observation that indicates more storms in the modern period. If hurricanes were occurring, but weren't being noticed in say the '20's, how come they were being noticed in the 1880's.

Terry

Terry - see my reply to Phillip's post. Phillip, not surprisingly, has not refuted a well-respected peer-reviewed paper (the Landsea paper). In addition the recent review of the subject published in Nature that I posted says that there is not detectable change in TC frequency.

http://www.nature.co...ll/ngeo779.html

[TerryM]

Skier

I had read your back and forth with Phillip, and can't say I've been convinced either way. It seems reasonable to me to expect that warmer waters would spawn more storms. If increased wind shear causes them to die out more rapidly that has to be taken into consideration, but the reason I mentioned the Canadian list was to show that at least landfall storms have been noted for a long period of time & the modern increase is not due to poor observations, but rather to changing climatic conditions.

If this is true in Canada, I'd expect it would hold for the States, Cuba, Jamaica or other potential landfalls. Are there historic records from these locals that can verify or refute your position?

Terry