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

[skierinvermont]

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

There is very little trend in medium to long-lived TCs. That's just a fact.. go check the HURDAT data yourself. What little trend there is, is removed when you consider the fact that 1 or 2 medium duration TCs in the late 19th century and early 20th century would have been missed because there was much lower shipping traffic at the time. Shipping traffic (and landfall) was the only means of detection. There are algorithms for determining how many TCs would be missed.

Unless you have some evidence, preferably supported by peer-review, questioning the validity of the VK08 algorithm, then the Landsea paper stands. Even ignoring the adjustment, the fact remains that there is very little trend in medium to long duration TCs.

This is widely accepted in the peer-reviewed literature. There is no detectable long-term increase in TC frequency.

Landfall data from Canada is far too small to draw any conclusions. And yes, there is data from the States, Cuba, Jamaica, etc. That is exactly what the HURDAT data is, and which is presented in the Landsea paper.

If there is some evidence to the contrary of the Landsea paper, presumably it would have made its way into peer-review. And yet as recent as 2010, a major review paper was published in Nature which concluded:

Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.

That statement referred to both intensity and frequency. Intensity is expected to increase 2-11%, frequency is expected to decrease 6-34%. Your general expectation that warmer water causes more storms is incorrect. TCs are not caused just by warm water. They require specific atmospheric conditions. If the atmosphere warms with SSTs or even more than SSTs, that lowers the convective potential. Convection is caused by lift and warm air rising into cold. If the atmosphere warms 3C, that has major implications for convective processes.

[tacoman25]

It doesn't fit into the alarmist belief system that something might not be getting worse because of AGW. Facts be damned.

The alarmist believes that AGW makes anything severe/damaging/unusual/scary more common, and therefore if anything severe/damaging/unusual/scary happens, AGW must somehow be behind it: hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves, cold waves, floods, droughts, etc. AGW effects everything, therefore AGW is always a culprit (as long as the event is newsworthy and "bad").

[SVT450R]

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!

It doesn't fit into the alarmist belief system that something might not be getting worse because of AGW. Facts be damned.

The alarmist believes that AGW makes anything severe/damaging/unusual/scary more common, and therefore if anything severe/damaging/unusual/scary happens, AGW must somehow be behind it: hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves, cold waves, floods, droughts, etc. AGW effects everything, therefore AGW is always a culprit (as long as the event is newsworthy and "bad").

+1

[aslkahuna]

I think that it is important to note that although the frequency of ATLANTIC hurricanes has gone up, the GLOBAL frequency has gone DOWN which suggests that what we are seeing in the ATL is regional effect and not a global one.

Steve

[TerryM]

Skier

"Landfall data from Canada is far too small to draw any conclusions."

Isn't that the point though. Only unusual conditions will draw a hurricane to Canada, and since they've been well documented since the 1800's, the frequency of their occurrence must tell us something about the frequency of unusual tropical storms - if not about the frequency of all tropical storms.

I recall reading something recently that indicated that storms were expected to track further eastward under the new conditions, and that there would be far fewer landfalls, at least in America. This apparently didn't factor in the possibility of the strong blocking we're experiencing or the wobbling jet stream dipping so far south as to be a factor.

I don't intend to try to get up to speed re. hurricanes. There's enough going on in the Arctic to hold my attention. For now I remain unconvinced by either argument but do see another anomalous weather pattern being dismissed as BAU at a time when anomalous weather is so frequent that the anomalies themselves become the new norm.

Taco

I don't disagree with your post. The climate we're living in is not the climate I experienced when I was your age. It is more extreme, and less predictable. While last years balmy winter here in Canada might not be considered "bad", it certainly was newsworthy. I don't mind being referred to as "alarmist", though I prefer "realist", and alarmed probably understates my concern. Your own positions could be characterised as "deniest", "fake skeptic" or perhaps oblivious, but calling people names doesn't tend to win friends or debates.

Since this thread has drifted a little OT, I'm going to post some new stuff over on the "Don't forget who pays our Trolls" thread after dinner - actually a rather backhanded compliment to them.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Skier

"Landfall data from Canada is far too small to draw any conclusions."

Isn't that the point though. Only unusual conditions will draw a hurricane to Canada, and since they've been well documented since the 1800's, the frequency of their occurrence must tell us something about the frequency of unusual tropical storms - if not about the frequency of all tropical storms.

I recall reading something recently that indicated that storms were expected to track further eastward under the new conditions, and that there would be far fewer landfalls, at least in America. This apparently didn't factor in the possibility of the strong blocking we're experiencing or the wobbling jet stream dipping so far south as to be a factor.

I don't intend to try to get up to speed re. hurricanes. There's enough going on in the Arctic to hold my attention. For now I remain unconvinced by either argument but do see another anomalous weather pattern being dismissed as BAU at a time when anomalous weather is so frequent that the anomalies themselves become the new norm.

Taco

I don't disagree with your post. The climate we're living in is not the climate I experienced when I was your age. It is more extreme, and less predictable. While last years balmy winter here in Canada might not be considered "bad", it certainly was newsworthy. I don't mind being referred to as "alarmist", though I prefer "realist", and alarmed probably understates my concern. Your own positions could be characterised as "deniest", "fake skeptic" or perhaps oblivious, but calling people names doesn't tend to win friends or debates.

Since this thread has drifted a little OT, I'm going to post some new stuff over on the "Don't forget who pays our Trolls" thread after dinner - actually a rather backhanded compliment to them.

Terry

I do not see a statistically significant trend in Canada's hurricane landfalls. There was also a long hurricane drought from 1971-1995.

1860-1900: 6

1901-1940: 3

1941-1980: 6

1981-2020: 7 (on pace for 9.3)

Even at face value, that is not a statistically significant increase.

Moreover, I think there is a significant possibility that some minimal Cat 1s may have hit Newfoundland in the late 19th century and early 20th century without much notice.

In the long run I'd guess there would be more Hurricane landfalls in Canada as warmer SSTs would allow hurricanes to retain tropical characteristics longer. Unless any changes in common track offset this.

However, it really is not debatable about changes in the basin as a whole. There is no detectable increase in TC frequency. The evidence supports this conclusion as does peer-review. Anybody that concludes otherwise is ignoring both the obvious evidence to the contrary and the conclusions of many experts far more knowledgeable.

[tacoman25]

I think that it is important to note that although the frequency of ATLANTIC hurricanes has gone up, the GLOBAL frequency has gone DOWN which suggests that what we are seeing in the ATL is regional effect and not a global one.

Steve

That mythical AMO strikes again!

[tacoman25]

Taco

I don't disagree with your post. The climate we're living in is not the climate I experienced when I was your age. It is more extreme, and less predictable. While last years balmy winter here in Canada might not be considered "bad", it certainly was newsworthy. I don't mind being referred to as "alarmist", though I prefer "realist", and alarmed probably understates my concern. Your own positions could be characterised as "deniest", "fake skeptic" or perhaps oblivious, but calling people names doesn't tend to win friends or debates.

I only use alarmist for those who earn the title. The ones that automatically apply their own belief system about AGW to every event, and who fail to listen to actual facts.

As for me, there is no reason to label me a "denier", since I don't deny AGW has and is occurring.

[csnavywx]

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.

Way to distort it. Hyperbole to the maximum with absolutely no regard to the literature produced over 30 years ago.

I'm also tired of hearing the "AMO excuse" because it is just that: an excuse. It's useful in the context of pre-1950 regimes, but has since been contaminated by external forcings that alias themselves onto the signal because of the way the AMO is calculated. As I've mentioned before, the +AMO we have currently is being forced by global warming. It's nothing more than linearly detrended NATL SST data and if you take GISS temp anomalies in an overlay, they match. Moreover, the GISS temp rises before the AMO signal. Kinda tough to explain it any other way.

[tacoman25]

Way to distort it. Hyperbole to the maximum with absolutely no regard to the literature produced over 30 years ago.

I'm also tired of hearing the "AMO excuse" because it is just that: an excuse. It's useful in the context of pre-1950 regimes, but has since been contaminated by external forcings that alias themselves onto the signal because of the way the AMO is calculated. As I've mentioned before, the +AMO we have currently is being forced by global warming. It's nothing more than linearly detrended NATL SST data and if you take GISS temp anomalies in an overlay, they match. Moreover, the GISS temp rises before the AMO signal. Kinda tough to explain it any other way.

1. What am I distorting? It's not hyperbole, there really are people on here who try to make everything alarming fit under the AGW alarmism umbrella.

2. What literature are you referring to?

3. I am tired of hearing people dismiss the AMO as an "excuse", and trying to pretend that natural cycles like the AMO or PDO are completely gone now and meaningless because of AGW. You are absolutely wrong in saying that the current +AMO is forced by AGW. There was a clear phase change that occurred in the 1990s and we are still in that positive phase.

In this context, are just choosing to deny the obvious correlations between the AMO and ACE? Or between the AMO and the frequency of Atlantic/East Coast hurricanes?

[csnavywx]

1. What am I distorting? It's not hyperbole, there really are people on here who try to make everything alarming fit under the AGW alarmism umbrella.

2. What literature are you referring to?

3. I am tired of hearing people dismiss the AMO as an "excuse", and trying to pretend that natural cycles like the AMO or PDO are completely gone now and meaningless because of AGW. You are absolutely wrong in saying that the current +AMO is forced by AGW. There was a clear phase change that occurred in the 1990s and we are still in that positive phase.

In this context, are just choosing to deny the obvious correlations between the AMO and ACE? Or between the AMO and the frequency of Atlantic/East Coast hurricanes?

1. You're exaggerating and it's old. What? 1 or 2 people?

2 and 3. Strawman argument. I never said "they don't exist" or anything similar. What I did say is that the AMO is contaminated by the global warming signal because of the way it is calculated. And if you're suggesting that the AMO signal is solely natural at this point, you must overcome some relatively crushing pieces of data that argue against that notion:

a) Remove the GISS temp anomaly from the AMO signal (which IS linearly detrended NATL SST, no doubt about that) and explain the lack of trend.

Explain why the temp anomaly rises before the AMO does (aka Granger causality violation) on the order of 2-3 months.

Even if you were able to get past that, you'd still have to explain the physics behind it and where the heat is coming from. There's a much simpler explanation, the current +AMO is being forced by global warming.

The AMO is useful for correlating precip patterns and even TCs, but it is not totally independent from climate change anymore.

[tacoman25]

1. You're exaggerating and it's old. What? 1 or 2 people?

2 and 3. Strawman argument. I never said "they don't exist" or anything similar. What I did say is that the AMO is contaminated by the global warming signal because of the way it is calculated. And if you're suggesting that the AMO signal is solely natural at this point, you must overcome some relatively crushing pieces of data that argue against that notion:

a) Remove the GISS temp anomaly from the AMO signal (which IS linearly detrended NATL SST, no doubt about that) and explain the lack of trend.

Explain why the temp anomaly rises before the AMO does (aka Granger causality violation) on the order of 2-3 months.

Even if you were able to get past that, you'd still have to explain the physics behind it and where the heat is coming from. There's a much simpler explanation, the current +AMO is being forced by global warming.

The AMO is useful for correlating precip patterns and even TCs, but it is not totally independent from climate change anymore.

There are a handful of regular posters on this board that do this, yes. There aren't a ton of regular posters. And it's a mindset I've seen repeatedly from many people who drink the AGW alarmism cool aid over the years. It's just as laughable as the people who completely deny any human influence on global temps.

Yes, the Atlantic has warmed independently of the AMO. No, does that not mean the current +AMO state was forced by AGW. It was thinking like this that previously caused some scientists to presume that El Ninos were becoming more frequent because of AGW. Some believed that the excess heat in the ocean was being expelled through more frequent and stronger El Ninos. That thinking crashed and burned as soon as the PDO phase turned negative and -ENSO has dominated since 2005.

Again, what people have to realize is that natural cycles like the PDO, ENSO and AMO are not just about SSTs. Those SSTs just reflect what is going on in the atmosphere and with winds/ocean currents. It is those significant shifts in the atmospheric patterns that causes different phases, and the resulting shift in SSTAs is just part of what's going on.

[skierinvermont]

The AMO has definitely been contaminated by global warming because the AMO is only linearly detrended SSTs, but much of the planet's warming has occurred in the last 35 years, which inflates the AMO during that period.

And yes short term changes in global temperature, like an El Nino, can drive the AMO up.

However, the AMO probably is a natural oscillation on its own which we are currently in the positive state of and when we revert to a negative state it will cause cooling of the north atlantic. So I cannot agree with csnavy that the AMO doesn't exist or is solely a function of global temperature.

And I think there may be some papers on causality out there relating to salinity.

[Vergent]

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.

We have up to 10F anomalies along the storm track.

My second article was August 2012. It was able to get a longer data set by using storm surge data from tide gauges.

But Alex Grinsted of the University of Copenhagen and his colleagues came at the problem in an entirely different way. They looked not at hurricanes themselves, but at the storm surges tropical storms drive before them as they come ashore, and surges have been reliably measured by devices known as tide gauges all the way back to the 1920's.

“Using surges as an indicator,” Grinsted said in an interview, “we see an increase in all magnitudes of storms when ocean temperatures are warmer.” As ocean temperatures have risen inexorably higher in the general warming of the planet due to human greenhouse-gas emissions, the scientists concluded, hurricane numbers have moved upward as well. The implication: they’ll keep increasing along with global temperatures unless emissions are cut significantly.

[skierinvermont]

We have up to 10F anomalies along the storm track.

My second article was August 2012. It was able to get a longer data set by using storm surge data from tide gauges.

The 10F anomalies are mostly due to weather, not climate change. Maybe 2F of of that is anthropogenic.

I'm happy to read this study of storm surge if you have a link, but I find it unlikely that it will reverse the conclusions of the majority of experts in the field, as summarized in the comprehensive Nature review paper I have posted twice already. There are no detectable trends in TC frequency or intensity. Frequency is expected to decrease 6-34% and intensity increase 2-11% (based on numerous papers).

I suspect your most recent study makes the same mistake I have already brought up. Yes, all else equal, warmer SSTs = more frequent and more intense TCs. But not all else is equal. The atmosphere is warmer too. Warm SSTs is a cold climate is not the same thing as warm SSTs in a warm climate.

[aslkahuna]

Has the study accounted for the seas level rise due to thermal expansion of the warmer water or are they using the same Mean Low Water baseline throughout the period of study. What I'm asking is the actual runup of the tide greater which would be a different effect from the rise in sea level since the latter is already known to have risen due to warming thus the observed water rise would be higher with respect to land features with a given level of storm surge since the baseline is higher. .

Steve

[aslkahuna]

Just a note for the "realists" out there. The situation for the East Coast has not yet become reality. We are still some time out in terms of the model runs so a lot can fail to fall into place or they can hit big time. Examples: March 1993-big time hit, March 2001 BUST

Steve

[csnavywx]

The AMO has definitely been contaminated by global warming because the AMO is only linearly detrended SSTs, but much of the planet's warming has occurred in the last 35 years, which inflates the AMO during that period.

And yes short term changes in global temperature, like an El Nino, can drive the AMO up.

However, the AMO probably is a natural oscillation on its own which we are currently in the positive state of and when we revert to a negative state it will cause cooling of the north atlantic. So I cannot agree with csnavy that the AMO doesn't exist or is solely a function of global temperature.

And I think there may be some papers on causality out there relating to salinity.

Just to clarify, my point was not whether the AMO exists (it does). It was to illustrate that the current +AMO regime is a result of anthropogenic forcing. If this were not present, we would still be in a -AMO (per the baseline measurement) with little change over the past few decades.

I can see this has the potential to be a long-winded discussion, so I'm going to save any replies until after Sandy is over.

[skierinvermont]

Just to clarify, my point was not whether the AMO exists (it does). It was to illustrate that the current +AMO regime is a result of anthropogenic forcing. If this were not present, we would still be in a -AMO (per the baseline measurement) with little change over the past few decades.

I can see this has the potential to be a long-winded discussion, so I'm going to save any replies until after Sandy is over.

I don't agree we are in a -AMO. The large spike in Atlantic SST around 1990 cannot be attributed to global warming. That is clearly natural oscillation, namely the transition to a +AMO. Atlantic SST warming around this time clearly exceed global warming.

I think a better way of calculating the AMO would be to subtract the global SST anomaly from the N. Atlantic SST anomaly, rather than linear detrending.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Has the study accounted for the seas level rise due to thermal expansion of the warmer water or are they using the same Mean Low Water baseline throughout the period of study. What I'm asking is the actual runup of the tide greater which would be a different effect from the rise in sea level since the latter is already known to have risen due to warming thus the observed water rise would be higher with respect to land features with a given level of storm surge since the baseline is higher. .

Steve

Yes I pointed that out and it was ignored.

you did, and it was ignored.

It's the most concrete and obvious thing tied to AGW and storms like this.

While this is partly corrected for Weather this year. The actual non-adjusted SLR shows almost no seasonal dip this year.

Some tried to blame NINO on this, but there is no NINO. SST's did warm and that matters, but it also matters when years like 2012 see over One Trillion Tonnes of Land ice melt off and go into the Ocean. That is obviously and extrapolation, but a pretty sound and easy one to make at this point.

We are currently at modern peaks of SLR. And SST's are near or at records along the East coast so yeah, SLR is definitely a factor.

I appreciate another person taking up the AMO cause. It also sounds like the Tamino argument that I was made privy to a month or so ago.

I hope the same rebuttals and dismissals come to the other taking up the same AMO argument as I have received. Nothing personal just would like to see fair game.

[Vergent]

The 10F anomalies are mostly due to weather, not climate change. Maybe 2F of of that is anthropogenic.

I'm happy to read this study of storm surge if you have a link, but I find it unlikely that it will reverse the conclusions of the majority of experts in the field, as summarized in the comprehensive Nature review paper I have posted twice already. There are no detectable trends in TC frequency or intensity. Frequency is expected to decrease 6-34% and intensity increase 2-11% (based on numerous papers).

I suspect your most recent study makes the same mistake I have already brought up. Yes, all else equal, warmer SSTs = more frequent and more intense TCs. But not all else is equal. The atmosphere is warmer too. Warm SSTs is a cold climate is not the same thing as warm SSTs in a warm climate.

O.K. now you agree that I was in the ballpark when I said "subtract 0.8C from the SST" in the models and you can quantify the anthro content in the storm(2F = 1.1C). I'll go with your number, and say we should subtract 1.1C, just to be agreeable.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-evidence-that-hurricanes-are-tied-to-global-warming-15114

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1209542109.abstract?sid=75223107-7d31-4248-8185-1448c62c7c63

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/10/11/1209542109.DCSupplemental/pnas.201209542SI.pdf

[skierinvermont]

O.K. now you agree that I was in the ballpark when I said "subtract 0.8C from the SST" in the models and you can quantify the anthro content in the storm(2F = 1.1C). I'll go with your number, and say we should subtract 1.1C, just to be agreeable.

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

http://www.pnas.org/...85-1448c62c7c63

http://www.pnas.org/...201209542SI.pdf

I said 'maybe 2F' ... you are right it probably is closer to 1F although I said 2F just because AGW warms some regions more than others and I don't know about the gulf stream.. could be anywhere from 0-2F.

These papers do not even agree with you. They show that ALL ELSE EQUAL warmer SSTS = stronger hurricane. Well no **** sherlock, forecasters have been using SSTs as a major factor in forecasting hurricanes for decades.

However, with AGW, not all else is equal. The atmosphere is warmer too, which lowers the vertical temperature gradient from warm ocean to upper atmosphere.

It's the same reason 75F water temps can sustain a powerful hurricane at high latitude, but at low latitude it would be hard to sustain one at all with those water temps.

[Entropy]

Here's a good image to visualize the possible effects of global warming on future numerosity, intensity, and track of tropical cyclones. The image compares a computer model generated projection based on current climate and based on the early Pliocene climate, when temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today. As you can see, tropical cyclones were far more numerous in the warmer Pliocene climate. This is due not only to warmer SSTs, but also reduced shear from the weakening of the Hadley and Walker cells. In the future, these circulation cells would be expected to slow from a weakening of the polar-to-equatorial temperature gradient from Arctic amplification. Interestingly the increased oceanic mixing from the tropical cyclone activity is posited by Emmanuel to have caused the observed tendency towards El Nino conditions during this era. The Gulf and Caribbean do appear to have some decrease in tropical activity, probably due to a localized increase in wind shear associated with the quasi-permanent El Nino.

But the bottom line is there is certainly no consensus belief that tropical cyclones will decrease in the future, or have been decreasing in the present. As skierinvermont pointed out, AGW will affect more than just SSTs in the future. We can't just look at the SSTs as if they were in a vacuum. You also have to consider other effects from AGW that could impact tropical cyclone development, such as a decrease in wind shear.

Image from Emanuel, Kerry (2010).

[tacoman25]

Just to clarify, my point was not whether the AMO exists (it does). It was to illustrate that the current +AMO regime is a result of anthropogenic forcing. If this were not present, we would still be in a -AMO (per the baseline measurement) with little change over the past few decades.

I can see this has the potential to be a long-winded discussion, so I'm going to save any replies until after Sandy is over.

There is absolutely no support for this assertion, as skiier pointed out.

Was AGW somehow delayed in the North Atlantic until the early/mid 1990s? No, AGW was ongoing through the previous decades, but there wasn't rapid warming until the 1990s +AMO phase kicked in.

It also would't make historical sense that we would stay in a -AMO from the early 1960s to current, as that would be considerably longer than a normal AMO phase.

[Jonger]

There is absolutely no support for this assertion, as skiier pointed out.

Was AGW somehow delayed in the North Atlantic until the early/mid 1990s? No, AGW was ongoing through the previous decades, but there wasn't rapid warming until the 1990s +AMO phase kicked in.

It also would't make historical sense that we would stay in a -AMO from the early 1960s to current, as that would be considerably longer than a normal AMO phase.

Tying AGW to hurricanes reminds me of seasonal weather forecasting. Eventually being wrong so many times, squelched most of my faith in the theory of prediction.... That being an increase in TC activity.

Jon

[gracetoyou]

This thread is ridiculous!!! AGW has absolutely NOTHING to do with Sandy. It's all about the perfect timing of a trough, a ULL, & a hurricane phasing together. Timing had to be perfect & it has been. THAT'S IT!!! Good grief! +AMO has contributed by supplying warming than normal waters along the Atlantic Coast but AGW has nothing to do with it.

You people drive me insane. Every weather event that occurs, no matter what it's nature or the number of historical occurrence, you try to tie to AGW. Just give it up!!

[WeatherRusty]

This thread is ridiculous!!! AGW has absolutely NOTHING to do with Sandy. It's all about the perfect timing of a trough, a ULL, & a hurricane phasing together. Timing had to be perfect & it has been. THAT'S IT!!! Good grief! +AMO has contributed by supplying warming than normal waters along the Atlantic Coast but AGW has nothing to do with it.

You people drive me insane. Every weather event that occurs, no matter what it's nature or the number of historical occurrence, you try to tie to AGW. Just give it up!!

You people who deny, knowingly or not, that an enhancement to the hydrological cycle due to a warming world will invigorate the weather, drive me crazy.

Theoretical physics dictates that a warming world will produce a more energetic, turbulent atmosphere driven by latent heat flux. Entropy production increases as the world warms. Nature wants to dissolve structure as rapidly as it can and being warmer facilitates the process.

[skierinvermont]

Here's a good image to visualize the possible effects of global warming on future numerosity, intensity, and track of tropical cyclones.

Image from Emanuel, Kerry (2010).

I'm not sure this study was really predicting a global increase in TC frequency. I think it was more about changes in where TCs will form. Kerry Emanuel has co-authored other papers that predict a decline in TC frequency and increase in intensity.

[tacoman25]

You people who deny, knowingly or not, that an enhancement to the hydrological cycle due to a warming world will invigorate the weather, drive me crazy.

Theoretical physics dictates that a warming world will produce a more energetic, turbulent atmosphere driven by latent heat flux. Entropy production increases as the world warms. Nature wants to dissolve structure as rapidly as it can and being warmer facilitates the process.

But there is no evidence that ties AGW to longterm tropical storm frequency, and only theories that it could lead to stronger storms in the future. There is simply no evidence for those who'd like to point the finger at AGW for Sandy.

[WeatherRusty]

But there is no evidence that ties AGW to longterm tropical storm frequency, and only theories that it could lead to stronger storms in the future. There is simply no evidence for those who'd like to point the finger at AGW for Sandy.

Maybe. Maybe not. However, I was responding to someone who emphatically claimed AGW has, positively, absolutely nothing to with Sandy.

It's just as ridiculous to claim a warming world has nothing to do with today's weather as it is to overly accentuate it's importance.