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

[tacoman25]

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.

Ok. But for the most part, AGW has very little to do with the weather events we experience day to day or month to month. Overwhelmingly, meteorological factors are much more important.

[WeatherRusty]

Ok. But for the most part, AGW has very little to do with the weather events we experience day to day or month to month. Overwhelmingly, meteorological factors are much more important.

Kevin Trenberth:

The sea surface temperatures along the Atlantic coast have been running at over 3C above normal for a region extending 800km off shore all the way from Florida to Canada. Global warming contributes 0.6C to this. With every degree C, the water holding of the atmosphere goes up 7%, and the moisture provides fuel for the tropical storm, increases its intensity, and magnifies the rainfall by double that amount compared with normal conditions.

Global climate change has contributed to the higher sea surface and ocean temperatures, and a warmer and moister atmosphere, and its effects are in the range of 5 to 10%.

Source

[aslkahuna]

Hurricane forecasters have been warning that this very scenario in this very same region would occur so it's just a matter of the chickens coming home to roost. Whether or not AGW has had any role in the development and morphology of this system will undoubtedly be a topic of study. But at this stage of the game it is absolutely too early to unequivocably state that AGW did or did not play such a role.

Steve

[tacoman25]

Kevin Trenberth:

Source

So why hasn't AGW fueled any similar storms off the East Coast for decades? Because the necessary meteorological conditions were not present. That is unequivocally the most important factor.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So why hasn't AGW fueled any similar storms off the East Coast for decades? Because the necessary meteorological conditions were not present. That is unequivocally the most important factor.

They were this year. And in record fashion. I know AGW apparently has no effect on the real world. But in the open ocean, ssts along and North and West of the Gulf Stream are very warm and might be at record levels for this time of year, they were for the first half of the year off the NE coast.

[WeatherRusty]

So why hasn't AGW fueled any similar storms off the East Coast for decades? Because the necessary meteorological conditions were not present. That is unequivocally the most important factor.

You are 100% correct. The synoptic setup has not in the past been just right to have produced a similar storm. All the pieces must fall together at the right time. What are the odds of that happening? Quite low I would suspect.

However, in 2012 the jet stream may be more wavy because of what has happened in the arctic. The strong blocking high pressure over Greenland. North American sea coast water temps are anomalously high. These are three factors as important as any to the progression of Sandy and AGW is partially involved in the current state of all three.

If the world were not 0.5C warmer than 40-50 years ago, the synoptic setup for Sandy likely would not have taken place when it did. I can go further and state with conviction they would not have happened when they did.

[ORH_wxman]

You are 100% correct. The synoptic setup has not in the past been just right to have produced a similar storm. All the pieces must fall together at the right time. What are the odds of that happening? Quite low I would suspect.

However, in 2012 the jet stream may be more wavy because of what has happened in the arctic. The strong blocking high pressure over Greenland. North American sea coast water temps are anomalously high. These are three factors as important as any to the progression of Sandy and AGW is partially involved in the current state of all three.

If the world were not 0.5C warmer than 40-50 years ago, the synoptic setup for Sandy likely would not have taken place when it did. I can go further and state with conviction they would not have happened when they did.

I do not think this is all that relevant in the scheme of things. On the same token, if the world was cooler, we may have gotten a similar setup much sooner than we did. We certainly had many more NY/New England hurricanes back during a cooler world than we have had in the past few decades. Since synoptic prediction is not skillful beyond a few days, the only really relevant question is whether AGW produces more hurricanes in general for our shorelines. All evidence thus far points to this not being the case.

AGW maybe saved us from not having another 1954 in the past few years. Maybe if AGW weren't present, the jet stream would have been even stronger and this system would have had wind speeds closer to the 1938 hurricane.

[tacoman25]

They were this year. And in record fashion. I know AGW apparently has no effect on the real world. But in the open ocean, ssts along and North and West of the Gulf Stream are very warm and might be at record levels for this time of year, they were for the first half of the year off the NE coast.

Those waters have been very warm for the past 10-15 years. In addition, AGW has been warming the world for over 100 years, and yet there is no discernible increase in tropical storms over that time.

[tacoman25]

I do not think this is all that relevant in the scheme of things. On the same token, if the world was cooler, we may have gotten a similar setup much sooner than we did. We certainly had many more NY/New England hurricanes back during a cooler world than we have had in the past few decades. Since synoptic prediction is not skillful beyond a few days, the only really relevant question is whether AGW produces more hurricanes in general for our shorelines. All evidence thus far points to this not being the case.

AGW maybe saved us from not having another 1954 in the past few years. Maybe if AGW weren't present, the jet stream would have been even stronger and this system would have had wind speeds closer to the 1938 hurricane.

The elephant in the room that the alarmists who want to attribute Sandy to AGW are willing to ignore.

[WeatherRusty]

I do not think this is all that relevant in the scheme of things. On the same token, if the world was cooler, we may have gotten a similar setup much sooner than we did. We certainly had many more NY/New England hurricanes back during a cooler world than we have had in the past few decades. Since synoptic prediction is not skillful beyond a few days, the only really relevant question is whether AGW produces more hurricanes in general for our shorelines. All evidence thus far points to this not being the case.

AGW maybe saved us from not having another 1954 in the past few years. Maybe if AGW weren't present, the jet stream would have been even stronger and this system would have had wind speeds closer to the 1938 hurricane.

It depends on what the question is.

Did AGW contribute to this particular storm and how?

or

Does AGW contribute to a general change in the likelihood of tropical cyclones? Development regions? What about intensity? Storm tracks?

Did AGW contribute to Sandy in particular? I would say yes.

[ORH_wxman]

It depends on what the question is.

Did AGW contribute to this particular storm and how?

or

Does AGW contribute to a general change in the likelihood of tropical cyclones? Development regions? What about intensity? Storm tracks?

Did AGW contribute to Sandy in particular? I would say yes.

Well of course it did technically...since you can use the butterfly effect with AGW. Everything is affected.

AGW has undoubtedly stopped hurricanes from happening too. AGW also contrubted to my partly cloudy day last week. AGW also contributed to the record cold month of January 2004 in New England.

The relevant question is once again whether AGW makes a storm like Sandy more likely. The evidence thus far points to no. Perhaps Sandy would have happened 4 years ago if it weren't for AGW.

[tacoman25]

It depends on what the question is.

Did AGW contribute to this particular storm and how?

or

Does AGW contribute to a general change in the likelihood of tropical cyclones? Development regions? What about intensity? Storm tracks?

Did AGW contribute to Sandy in particular? I would say yes.

This opinion seems to be loosely based on the unproven theory that more Arctic melting contributes to greater blocking in the NH (this has been applied more to winter, though). And the very warm SSTs along the Atlantic Coast (which have also been present many other years with no significant storms, and are probably more related to the AMO, given the very warm SSTs also seen in that area in the 1930s-1950s). So it really feels like you're reaching to try to say AGW definitely contributed to Sandy.

The most reasonable position, I think, is that AGW may have played a small role in the strength of the storm - but it would have been a very significant, impactful storm regardless, and the main reasons it occurred had nothing to do with AGW.

[WeatherRusty]

Well of course it did technically...since you can use the butterfly effect with AGW. Everything is affected.

AGW has undoubtedly stopped hurricanes from happening too. AGW also contrubted to my partly cloudy day last week. AGW also contributed to the record cold month of January 2004 in New England.

The relevant question is once again whether AGW makes a storm like Sandy more likely. The evidence thus far points to no. Perhaps Sandy would have happened 4 years ago if it weren't for AGW.

Ok, you clearly understand what I am saying, and I agree with what you are saying as to what is the relevant question.

So when people ask if AGW had anything to do with Sandy, they are asking the wrong question.

We need to turn to theory to answer the more relevant questions concerning likelihood. We can look to real world outcome to determine if outcome is following theory.

[WeatherRusty]

This opinion seems to be loosely based on the unproven theory that more Arctic melting contributes to greater blocking in the NH (this has been applied more to winter, though). And the very warm SSTs along the Atlantic Coast (which have also been present many other years with no significant storms, and are probably more related to the AMO, given the very warm SSTs also seen in that area in the 1930s-1950s). So it really feels like you're reaching to try to say AGW definitely contributed to Sandy.

The most reasonable position, I think, is that AGW may have played a small role in the strength of the storm - but it would have been a very significant, impactful storm regardless, and the main reasons it occurred had nothing to do with AGW.

If Kevin Trenberth is right and AGW contributed 0.6C to the offshore water temperature the storm tracked over, would Sandy have maintained a warm core structure as long as she did absent the extra 0.6C?

It seems to me that the whole hybrid system of a TC embedded in a huge extra-tropical feature is what marks Sandy as unusual.

Where it formed and what it was early in it's history was not unusual. What it became was a one of a kind.

[ORH_wxman]

If Kevin Trenberth is right and AGW contributed 0.6C to the offshore water temperature the storm tracked over, would Sandy have maintained a warm core structure as long as she did absent the extra 0.6C?

It seems to me that the whole hybrid system of a TC embedded in a huge extra-tropical feature is what marks Sandy as unusual.

Where it formed and what it was early in it's history was not unusual. What it became was a one of a kind.

I don't agree with this. There is good evidence that many of the hurricanes that have struck New England or NY are transitioning hybrid systems with warm seclusion...and not purely tropical at landfall. Very much like this system was.

The largest contributing factor to this storm's strength as it traveled further north was the amount of jet energy that went into it. It was an extremely unique setup from a synoptic standpoint and its unlikely that SST anomalies played a role that comes close to the synoptics. Perhaps SSTs contributed on a very minor level to the exact pressure of the storm, but all else equal, this would have been a destructive event on the same level of magnitude if you subtracted half a degree celsius from the water.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Everything is effected by AGW since hunams altered the every imbalance.

So maybe late 1880s

[bobbutts]

I do not think this is all that relevant in the scheme of things. On the same token, if the world was cooler, we may have gotten a similar setup much sooner than we did. We certainly had many more NY/New England hurricanes back during a cooler world than we have had in the past few decades. Since synoptic prediction is not skillful beyond a few days, the only really relevant question is whether AGW produces more hurricanes in general for our shorelines. All evidence thus far points to this not being the case.

AGW maybe saved us from not having another 1954 in the past few years. Maybe if AGW weren't present, the jet stream would have been even stronger and this system would have had wind speeds closer to the 1938 hurricane.

I found this article:

What you need to know about Frankenstorm Hurricane Sandy

He ends up quoting Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923

"The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."

[tacoman25]

Everything is effected by AGW since hunams altered the every imbalance.

So maybe late 1880s

I think Will had the perfect response to this. Maybe I'll make it my signature.

Well of course it did technically...since you can use the butterfly effect with AGW. Everything is affected.

AGW has undoubtedly stopped hurricanes from happening too. AGW also contrubted to my partly cloudy day last week. AGW also contributed to the record cold month of January 2004 in New England.

The relevant question is once again whether AGW makes a storm like Sandy more likely. The evidence thus far points to no. Perhaps Sandy would have happened 4 years ago if it weren't for AGW.

[ORH_wxman]

I found this article:

What you need to know about Frankenstorm Hurricane Sandy

He ends up quoting Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923

"The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."

That blog is almost all opinion-based and anecdotel thoughts of which several really do not hold merit (such as Sandy would have been far worse than the 1938 hurricane if it occurred back then).

The one study they do reference has been frowned upon by hurricane experts do to a starting point in a minimum period of hurricane activity (1923 as the starting point rather than a very active period of hurricanes either before it in the late 1800s or just after it in the late 1930s through 1960). The other issue with the paper is that they are indirectly measuring the AMO effect on Atlantic tropical activity...they conclude that these storms are more likely in "warm years vs cold years", but warm years are not just recently, they include many of the +AMO years between the late 30s and early 1950s.

Sandy is an event we have seen similar analogs to in the past. It took a unique track due to the synoptic setup. Similar events though include Perfect Storm 1991, Hurricane Donna 1960, Hurricane Hazel 1954, Hurricane Carol 1954, Hurricane of 1938, Hurricane of 1944, and the NYC/LI Hurricane of 1821. You could even throw in the crazy November 1950 phase event that drew from tropical energy.

Attribution for a storm like Sandy is not really possible with the data we have. As I mentioned before, I almost cringe to how much climate change would be attributed to tropical cyclone acitivty along the east coast if we get another 1938-1960 period.

[tacoman25]

That blog is almost all opinion-based and anecdotel thoughts of which several really do not hold merit (such as Sandy would have been far worse than the 1938 hurricane if it occurred back then).

The one study they do reference has been frowned upon by hurricane experts do to a starting point in a minimum period of hurricane activity (1923 as the starting point rather than a very active period of hurricanes either before it in the late 1800s or just after it in the late 1930s through 1960). The other issue with the paper is that they are indirectly measuring the AMO effect on Atlantic tropical activity...they conclude that these storms are more likely in "warm years vs cold years", but warm years are not just recently, they include many of the +AMO years between the late 30s and early 1950s.

Sandy is an event we have seen similar analogs to in the past. It took a unique track due to the synoptic setup. Similar events though include Perfect Storm 1991, Hurricane Donna 1960, Hurricane Hazel 1954, Hurricane Carol 1954, Hurricane of 1938, Hurricane of 1944, and the NYC/LI Hurricane of 1821. You could even throw in the crazy November 1950 phase event that drew from tropical energy.

Attribution for a storm like Sandy is not really possible with the data we have. As I mentioned before, I almost cringe to how much climate change would be attributed to tropical cyclone acitivty along the east coast if we get another 1938-1960 period.

What an odd coincidence that so many previous, similar events also occurred during +AMO phases! And there was a complete dearth of such events during the last -AMO phase, despite ongoing AGW.

Must make square peg fit in round hole...

[Vergent]

That blog is almost all opinion-based and anecdotel thoughts of which several really do not hold merit (such as Sandy would have been far worse than the 1938 hurricane if it occurred back then).

The one study they do reference has been frowned upon by hurricane experts do to a starting point in a minimum period of hurricane activity (1923 as the starting point rather than a very active period of hurricanes either before it in the late 1800s or just after it in the late 1930s through 1960). The other issue with the paper is that they are indirectly measuring the AMO effect on Atlantic tropical activity...they conclude that these storms are more likely in "warm years vs cold years", but warm years are not just recently, they include many of the +AMO years between the late 30s and early 1950s.

Sandy is an event we have seen similar analogs to in the past. It took a unique track due to the synoptic setup. Similar events though include Perfect Storm 1991, Hurricane Donna 1960, Hurricane Hazel 1954, Hurricane Carol 1954, Hurricane of 1938, Hurricane of 1944, and the NYC/LI Hurricane of 1821. You could even throw in the crazy November 1950 phase event that drew from tropical energy.

Attribution for a storm like Sandy is not really possible with the data we have. As I mentioned before, I almost cringe to how much climate change would be attributed to tropical cyclone acitivty along the east coast if we get another 1938-1960 period.

1821

1938

1944

1950

1954

1954

1960

1991

2012

The frequency of such storms seams to have increased by a factor of about 10 since the beginning of serious AGW. 9 in 90 years as opposed to 1 in 100 years. I think there was one in the late 1800s as well so call it a factor of five. OHR would have to find 8 more similar pre AGW storms to make the rate constant.

[Jonger]

1821

1938

1944

1950

1954

1954

1960

1991

2012

The frequency of such storms seams to have increased by a factor of about 10 since the beginning of serious AGW. 9 in 90 years as opposed to 1 in 100 years. I think there was one in the late 1800s as well so call it a factor of five. OHR would have to find 8 more similar pre AGW storms to make the rate constant.

I would put more faith in the accuracy of a blind man trying to sniper a gnat at 100 yard, while riding a hay-wagon... Than any pre-1900 storm record.

[ORH_wxman]

1821

1938

1944

1950

1954

1954

1960

1991

2012

The frequency of such storms seams to have increased by a factor of about 10 since the beginning of serious AGW. 9 in 90 years as opposed to 1 in 100 years. I think there was one in the late 1800s as well so call it a factor of five. OHR would have to find 8 more similar pre AGW storms to make the rate constant.

There's been other storms in the 1800s...1821 just came to mind for me easily as a big NYC/NE hurricane. I am much more versed in 20th century Northeast TC climo than I am 19th century. A quick search reveals the famous 1893 hurricane that wiped out Hog Island (I had forgotten about this one), and then pretty big events in 1804, 1815, 1850, 1869, 1894, 1903, and 1904.

[tacoman25]

1821

1938

1944

1950

1954

1954

1960

1991

2012

The frequency of such storms seams to have increased by a factor of about 10 since the beginning of serious AGW. 9 in 90 years as opposed to 1 in 100 years. I think there was one in the late 1800s as well so call it a factor of five. OHR would have to find 8 more similar pre AGW storms to make the rate constant.

Aside from your erroneous assumption that 1821 was the only major tropical system that affected the NE in the 1800s (or one of a couple), think about this: AGW has increased by how much since the 1930s? And yet look at the frequency of such events from the 1930s to the 1950s, versus the 1960s to 1990s. How does that add up, if you're trying to create a correlation with AGW?

[TerryM]

I would put more faith in the accuracy of a blind man trying to sniper a gnat at 100 yard, while riding a hay-wagon... Than any pre-1900 storm record.

If you read the list of Canadian Hurricanes, you'd find that pre 1900 events were recorded and in fact outnumbered those recorded from 1900 through to the 30's. This proves your statement to be entirely without merit.

Keep swinging though - eventually you might hit one.

Terry

BTW

The study Verg cited, where they used tide gauge records to pinpoint storm surges from otherwise unnoticed storms should be rock solid. It eliminates any need to adjust for any perceived lack of reporting.

I haven't read anything that would indicate a flaw in this approach.

[Jonger]

If you read the list of Canadian Hurricanes, you'd find that pre 1900 events were recorded and in fact outnumbered those recorded from 1900 through to the 30's. This proves your statement to be entirely without merit.

Keep swinging though - eventually you might hit one.

Terry

BTW

The study Verg cited, where they used tide gauge records to pinpoint storm surges from otherwise unnoticed storms should be rock solid. It eliminates any need to adjust for any perceived lack of reporting.

I haven't read anything that would indicate a flaw in this approach.

If you want to make an argument for the accuracy of land falling systems, I'll buy it. If you want to say that fish-storms were properly accounted for... No f-ing way.

[FPizz]

If you want to make an argument for the accuracy of land falling systems, I'll buy it. If you want to say that fish-storms were properly accounted for... No f-ing way.

Exactly

[CoastalWx]

If this storm didn't have an unusually deep trough, it wouldn't have even existed and Sandy would have been harmlessly out to sea.

[CoastalWx]

This track of Sandy has always been a when, not if scenario. Lets not forget something like a Cat II into the NY area is also a matter of when.

The blocking was 3-4SD depending on model combined with the deep ULL which in October...tend to happen frequently. The blocking itself is unusual, but 3SD and even 4SD mean it will happen again. I also believe that the fact Sandy was basically tropical until landfall helped her steer right into the coast. She basically followed the past of least resistance like many other TCs do. We've had similar storms like the Perfect storm in 91 happen, but that storm was way out to sea and not coming from the Bahamas.

I was talking to am19psu about this. It's fair if you want to argue that AGW perhaps added a few percentage points when thinking about how she developed and tracked, but the fact remains that these storms have happened and will happen again. The 1950s and 1960s were horrible for the northeast coast. I can't even think about what that will do now in 2012. Those decades will repeat again.

[gracetoyou]

First direct proof that climate change increases hurricane intensity

http://www.examiner....icane-intensity

Well...that's funny since the ACE has been down & we haven't had a major hurricane strike in the U.S. in some time. Climate must be changing the opposite way than what your implying if hurricane intensity increases due to AGW. I'll take observations of studies any day of the week.