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

[CoastalWx]

FWIW, interesting article from Paul Roundy. The truth is, blocking patterns will happen in a negative NAO decadal cycle like we are in. He at least comes at this from a science point of view.

http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/did-global-warming-cause-sandy/2616/

[tacoman25]

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.

Not to mention, there is no conclusive evidence at all that AGW is responsible or even contributed to this blocking.

[tacoman25]

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-cost-concerns-mount-wake-u-superstorm-085507181.html

And it continues...all assumptions, no evidence. Never mind that similar droughts and storms occurred frequently in the 1930s and 1950s. This time, it must be due to climate change.

[WeatherRusty]

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.

If you observed 5 heads in a row would you bet on heads coming up for a sixth time in a row or would you place equal chance for heads and tails?

If theory indicates we should expect a change in the odds toward disruptive weather as the climate warms, then why on Earth would you change your logical response to those odds?

[The_Global_Warmer]

If you think the Earth's energy budget can be radically altered and it not effect everything then you need to quit pretending you know what Science is.

Storm or no Storm.

Trend or no Trend.

It doesn't matter this storm was changed by AGW.

More importantly to cater to the insane level fo concrete evidence.

[ORH_wxman]

http://news.yahoo.co...-085507181.html

And it continues...all assumptions, no evidence. Never mind that similar droughts and storms occurred frequently in the 1930s and 1950s. This time, it must be due to climate change.

Pretending the 1930s-1950s didn't happen seems to be a common theme amongst those who argue that a U.S. drought or hurricane in the 2000s is due to climate change.

[tacoman25]

If you observed 5 heads in a row would you bet on heads coming up for a sixth time in a row or would you place equal chance for heads and tails?

If theory indicates we should expect a change in the odds toward disruptive weather as the climate warms, then why on Earth would you change your logical response to those odds?

It's a very vague theory, though. There is no concrete evidence that storms like Sandy are or will become more common due to AGW.

[tacoman25]

If you think the Earth's energy budget can be radically altered and it not effect everything then you need to quit pretending you know what Science is.

Storm or no Storm.

Trend or no Trend.

It doesn't matter this storm was changed by AGW.

So AGW caused the boring, benign stretch of weather I've seen here the past few days?

And how do trends not matter when determining AGW's effects?

Just saying: "AGW alters Earth's energy budget" does not prove that AGW is a significant factor in most weather that occurs. It just doesn't. It's a vague, open-ended, inconclusive statement.

[WeatherRusty]

It's a very vague theory, though. There is no concrete evidence that storms like Sandy are or will become more common due to AGW.

Yes it is vague. From a statistical point of view, all we can say is the probability distribution (bell curve) is shifted left or right.

AGW is not a weather parameter or a distinct precursor to weather. The changes in temperature and humidity are not constants, they vary from place to place and time to time.

If the mode of proof requires direct causation, then forget about ever demonstrating a link between AGW and increasingly disruptive climate change.

[Jonger]

If you think the Earth's energy budget can be radically altered and it not effect everything then you need to quit pretending you know what Science is.

Storm or no Storm.

Trend or no Trend.

It doesn't matter this storm was changed by AGW.

More importantly to cater to the insane level fo concrete evidence.

I bet that trend line would go downward if you continued back to when Europeans settled America.

[WeatherRusty]

Pretending the 1930s-1950s didn't happen seems to be a common theme amongst those who argue that a U.S. drought or hurricane in the 2000s is due to climate change.

The events of the past took place in a different climate. The climate has changed.

You will notice the change 15 years or so from now, which places the current time in the middle of a 30 year climate normal.

If I were a betting man, I would expect that new 30 year period to exhibit greater weather variability and extremes than did the period encompassing the 1930s-1950s.

[tacoman25]

Yes it is vague. From a statistical point of view, all we can say is the probability distribution (bell curve) is shifted left or right.

AGW is not a weather parameter or a distinct precursor to weather. The changes in temperature and humidity are not constants, they vary from place to place and time to time.

If the mode of proof requires direct causation, then forget about ever demonstrating a link between AGW and increasingly disruptive climate change.

But that's where long term trends come in. If we see long term climate/weather trends that correlate to AGW being a factor, then that is better evidence that it is playing a role.

[Vergent]

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.

Thank you,

I was just pointing out that all but one of the events you cited were after global warming was well under way. You needed more data to support your argument. Unfortunately, the historical data, other than tide gauges, is sketchy at best. The set of well maintained tide gauges is too small going back to the 1800s is limited. i would still have liked to see that study extended back further.

http://blogs.scienti...urricane-sandy/

Climate is the context of weather. An anomaly like this was impossible 30 years ago, unthinkable 100 years ago. It is now the norm. The climate has changed particularly in the far north. The behavior of the jet stream was causally due to this anomaly. The existence of a hurricane at this time of year; well within the historical norm. The timing of the jet stream and Sandy; horribly bad luck. The SST anomaly on the American Continental shelf; record breaking, but possibly the new norm. The blocking; the new norm. The record low ice extent; the new norm. The record low snow cover; the new norm. The record low Greenland ice mass; the new norm. The record low permafrost; the new norm. The record low glacial mass; the new norm. The record low MYI; the new norm. The record breaking drought; possibly climate change rather than variability. The phase of the moon and landfall at spring tide; horribly bad luck.

This is the context that record smashing Sandy happened in. The hypothetical that Sandy could have happened in 1800s climate is silly, there has never before been a measured 14ft storm surge in NYC, so it did not happen. Maybe it was really bad luck, but maybe it was the second law of thermodynamics that tends to make its own luck. The extra energy has to be moved around, if not one way, then another, that is a certainty.

[tacoman25]

The events of the past took place in a different climate. The climate has changed.

You will notice the change 15 years or so from now, which places the current time in the middle of a 30 year climate normal.

If I were a betting man, I would expect that new 30 year period to exhibit greater weather variability and extremes than did the period encompassing the 1930s-1950s.

Well, we can't ignore natural climate fluctuations either. The reality is that the 1930s to 1950s was a +AMO period, which correlates to higher temperatures along the Atlantic coast, and more Atlantic tropical storms. In addition, the 1950s were a very -PDO period similar to what we are seeing today, and that correlates to increased drought probabilities for much of the country (which is why we saw several severe droughts in that period as well).

So different periods are always going to feature different climate/weather tendencies and extremes.

[Jonger]

Well, we can't ignore natural climate fluctuations either. The reality is that the 1930s to 1950s was a +AMO period, which correlates to higher temperatures along the Atlantic coast, and more Atlantic tropical storms. In addition, the 1950s were a very -PDO period similar to what we are seeing today, and that correlates to increased drought probabilities for much of the country (which is why we saw several severe droughts in that period as well).

So different periods are always going to feature different climate/weather tendencies and extremes.

There has been a warm flow of water up the east coast this year.... Was that feature consistent over the past decade? I really don't know.

[tacoman25]

Thank you,

I was just pointing out that all but one of the events you cited were after global warming was well under way. You needed more data to support your argument. Unfortunately, the historical data, other than tide gauges, is sketchy at best. The set of well maintained tide gauges is too small going back to the 1800s is limited. i would still have liked to see that study extended back further.

http://blogs.scienti...urricane-sandy/

Climate is the context of weather. An anomaly like this was impossible 30 years ago, unthinkable 100 years ago. It is now the norm. The climate has changed particularly in the far north. The behavior of the jet stream was causally due to this anomaly. The existence of a hurricane at this time of year; well within the historical norm. The timing of the jet stream and Sandy; horribly bad luck. The SST anomaly on the American Continental shelf; record breaking, but possibly the new norm. The blocking; the new norm. The record low ice extent; the new norm. The record low snow cover; the new norm. The record low Greenland ice mass; the new norm. The record low permafrost; the new norm. The record low glacial mass; the new norm. The record low MYI; the new norm. The record breaking drought; possibly climate change rather than variability. The phase of the moon and landfall at spring tide; horribly bad luck.

This is the context that record smashing Sandy happened in. The hypothetical that Sandy could have happened in 1800s climate is silly, there has never before been a measured 14ft storm surge in NYC, so it did not happen. Maybe it was really bad luck, but maybe it was the second law of thermodynamics that tends to make its own luck. The extra energy has to be moved around, if not one way, then another, that is a certainty.

The next closest storm surge occurred in 1821, well before AGW started.

As far as those anomaly maps you like to show for the Arctic, that is just one area that sees more extreme climate swings than others, and the 850 anomalies it should be noted have been much cooler than the surface temps for that area.

[tacoman25]

There has been a warm flow of water up the east coast this year.... Was that feature consistent over the past decade? I really don't know.

I believe it was a common feature over the past decade, and it was also very common during the previous +AMO period. Will has posted those anomaly maps before and the water along the Atlantic seaboard was much warmer than than it was from the 1960s-1980s.

[TerryM]

Some seem fixated on the 30s or the 50's - could you list the number of times that the NY subway system flooded during those decades, or is this one of those things we just don't have reliable records for.

Taco is correct in the sense that we should expect more wild weather when the north Atlantic is warm - but AGW is why the north Atlantic is warmer than previously. Is there an AMO, certainly. Has it been swamped by AGW, equally certain.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Also Trenberth's stats for storm intensity per degree C assume that the atmosphere is unchanged. It's like taking today's cool climate but warming SSTs by 1C.. it would be incredibly unstable. The fact that the atmosphere warms with the oceans is more stable than if it were just the oceans warming. The only way to really address this is climate modeling. A lot of the stats being listed in this thread ignore this point and assume it is only the SSTs that are warming. And everybody is ignoring my point because they don't have an answer.

[tacoman25]

Some seem fixated on the 30s or the 50's - could you list the number of times that the NY subway system flooded during those decades, or is this one of those things we just don't have reliable records for.

Taco is correct in the sense that we should expect more wild weather when the north Atlantic is warm - but AGW is why the north Atlantic is warmer than previously. Is there an AMO, certainly. Has it been swamped by AGW, equally certain.

Terry

The storm surge with Sandy was unprecedented in NYC. However, that's just an isolated fact. Looking at the bigger picture, in the last +AMO phase from the 1930s to 1950s, the ACE was higher, water temps along the Atlantic seaboard were warmer, and there were a lot of strong/land-falling east coast storms. Then in the 1960s-1980s, ACE went way down, water temps in the Atlantic cooled, and there were far fewer land-falling storms along the east coast.

AGW was ongoing the whole time, and has continued through the current obviously. And yet there is no evidence that AGW is causing more/stronger tropical storms at this time. The long term trends just don't support that notion. So there really is no scientific reason to think that AGW played any kind of significant role in Sandy. Just saying "AGW effects everything" is meaningless, and attributes some sort of god-like power to AGW.

[ORH_wxman]

Some seem fixated on the 30s or the 50's - could you list the number of times that the NY subway system flooded during those decades, or is this one of those things we just don't have reliable records for.

Taco is correct in the sense that we should expect more wild weather when the north Atlantic is warm - but AGW is why the north Atlantic is warmer than previously. Is there an AMO, certainly. Has it been swamped by AGW, equally certain.

Terry

The last time the NYC subway system flooded before Sandy was actually a lot more recent then the 1930s-1950s...it was during the December 11-12, 1992 Nor' Easter.

[tacoman25]

Also Trenberth's stats for storm intensity per degree C assume that the atmosphere is unchanged. It's like taking today's cool climate but warming SSTs by 1C.. it would be incredibly unstable. The fact that the atmosphere warms with the oceans is more stable than if it were just the oceans warming. The only way to really address this is climate modeling. A lot of the stats being listed in this thread ignore this point and assume it is only the SSTs that are warming. And everybody is ignoring my point because they don't have an answer.

Great point. Which makes sense, given the statistical trends.

[WeatherRusty]

Also Trenberth's stats for storm intensity per degree C assume that the atmosphere is unchanged. It's like taking today's cool climate but warming SSTs by 1C.. it would be incredibly unstable. The fact that the atmosphere warms with the oceans is more stable than if it were just the oceans warming. The only way to really address this is climate modeling. A lot of the stats being listed in this thread ignore this point and assume it is only the SSTs that are warming. And everybody is ignoring my point because they don't have an answer.

It's not only about temperature though.

A saturated parcel of air at 79.6F contains more water vapor than does a parcel at 79.0F. At 79.6F the air parcel is more buoyant not only because it is warmer, but also because water vapor is lighter than N2 or O2. The warmer saturated parcel also contains greater latent heat available to be released.

[skierinvermont]

It's not only about temperature though.

A saturated parcel of air at 79.6F contains more water vapor than does a parcel at 79.0F. At 79.6F the air parcel is more buoyant not only because it is warmer, but also because water vapor is lighter than N2 or O2. The warmer saturated parcel also contains greater latent heat available to be released.

Yes which is why climate models predict a .3%-3% increase in TC intensity per degree C. But based on some of the stats some people have been throwing out which ignore the fact that the atmosphere warms with the oceans (in fact faster) you would think it was 50% instead of 1% per degree C. Which of course could simply not be true. Were storms 300% stronger when the earth was 6C warmer? TCs with winds of 450mph were common you are telling me?

[TerryM]

The last time the NYC subway system flooded before Sandy was actually a lot more recent then the 1930s-1950s...it was during the December 11-12, 1992 Nor' Easter.

The question asked was:

"Some seem fixated on the 30s or the 50's - could you list the number of times that the NY subway system flooded during those decades, or is this one of those things we just don't have reliable records for."

Moving the goalpost to a decade when AGW was much in evidence does nothing to bolster your argument.

You can be shot in the head while walking in your neighborhood. You can be shot in the head walking through a battlefield. The risks however aren't comparable.

We can have huge storms without AGW. We will have huge storms with AGW. The risks aren't comparable.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Why the hell are we talking about the last time the NYC subway flooded? That seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It doesnt matter what happens during colonial America.

Fact is, human induced AGW caused storm surge to be wirse

[WeatherRusty]

Why the hell are we talking about the last time the NYC subway flooded? That seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Sea level rise?

[Amped]

Low arctic sea ice leads to more October blocking. There was certainly a block that allowed for Sandy I can't argue that.

[TerryM]

Why the hell are we talking about the last time the NYC subway flooded? That seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

The relevance is that some claim that Sandy is not a product of AGW & that similar storms have occurred when the AMO was in full bloom. The 1930's were brought up as examples as were storms that occurred in the 1950's.

Deniers like to insist that records have been fudged, weren't accurate or are somehow not to be relied upon. The closure of the subway due to flooding bypasses any reference to tidal gauges, pressure measurements or anemometers. Since the subway system has been in operation for over 100 years, and had not been flooded anything like this prior to Sandy, it offers an easy proxy for the strength of the storm surge.

In fact the worst storm surge in the area prior to Sandy seems to have taken place in the 40's - belying assertions that things were worse either in the 30's or the 50's.

The situation is similar to that which took place when deniers were claiming that Greenland experienced more melt in the 30's, only to face evidence from the ice cores that proved them wrong. If the subways had in fact flooded in the 30's - or the 50's their claims would have to be taken seriously.

In 1992 the Con-Edison basement flooded causing the shutdown of parts of the subway system for 3 hours. Newspapers of the time noted it as a flood related shutdown, which it certainly was. 1992 however was a period when AGW was flexing it's muscles & the December storm didn't reach Gloria's strength nor the 1944? event.

There was a forecast earlier this summer that stronger, more powerful storm surges would be felt in the North East with greater frequency due to global warming. Today it seems as though the authors had a crystal ball - or perhaps just understood the science.

Sandy is as much a product of AGW as a smokers lung cancer is a product of years of smoking . It's not surprising that coal and oil concerns hired the same propagandists to muddy the waters, but it is surprising that anyone would be fooled twice by the same line of BS.

For 40 years global warming proponents have been warning of just such events. It seems disingenuous to doubt their foresight just as the chickens are coming home to roost.

Terry