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

[ORH_wxman]

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

The previous modern day record for surge in NYC before Sandy was Hurricane Donna in 1960 which also flooded the NYC subway system.

The December 1992 storm was not a hurricane and AGW didn't cause the surge...it created a large surge because of the fetch of the wind over the water for several days in just the right spot to flood LI sound and the shores of NJ. December 1992 still has the record surge for Atlantic City NJ...Sandy wasn't able to surpass it because it didn't take the right track.

The 1930s and 1950s storms didn't specifically flood NYC as bad as Donna in 1960 or Sandy in 2012 because the track they took wasn't as favorable. The 1938 storm and Hurricane Carol in 1954 were much more destructive to Southern New England...again because of the track. Either that or AGW decided to spare Southern New England more than NYC this time.

There is no increase in hurricane activity in the northeast due to AGW...and there is no evidence that there will be in the coming years either aside from the usual fluctuations seen in natural variation amongst North Atlantic TC acitivty.

Using a specific storm track affecting NYC to prove hurricanes are getting worse from AGW is about as relevant as me pointing to Boston having its coldest January on record in 2004 to prove cold outbreaks are getting worse despite AGW.

[OSUmetstud]

The Jersey track is much more anomalous than the SNE track...I don't think that's disputable. However, the idea that it's because of AGW is not smart.

[skierinvermont]

Sandy is as much a product of AGW as a smokers lung cancer is a product of years of smoking .

Sorry Terry, this statement is really not supported by the science. Science tells us there will probably be only a marginal increase in TC intensity with AGW (2-11%), and a decrease in frequency (-6 to -34%).

This stuff about the subway system is nonsense. First of all, you're dealing with a sample size of 1 or 2 to establish a change in frequency??? How is that remotely scientific? Science deals with sample sizes of 100, 1000 or more. It's silly.

[TerryM]

The previous modern day record for surge in NYC before Sandy was Hurricane Donna in 1960 which also flooded the NYC subway system.

The December 1992 storm was not a hurricane and AGW didn't cause the surge...it created a large surge because of the fetch of the wind over the water for several days in just the right spot to flood LI sound and the shores of NJ. December 1992 still has the record surge for Atlantic City NJ...Sandy wasn't able to surpass it because it didn't take the right track.

The 1930s and 1950s storms didn't specifically flood NYC as bad as Donna in 1960 or Sandy in 2012 because the track they took wasn't as favorable. The 1938 storm and Hurricane Carol in 1954 were much more destructive to Southern New England...again because of the track. Either that or AGW decided to spare Southern New England more than NYC this time.

There is no increase in hurricane activity in the northeast due to AGW...and there is no evidence that there will be in the coming years either aside from the usual fluctuations seen in natural variation amongst North Atlantic TC acitivty.

Using a specific storm track affecting NYC to prove hurricanes are getting worse from AGW is about as relevant as me pointing to Boston having its coldest January on record in 2004 to prove cold outbreaks are getting worse despite AGW.

You're moving the goalposts so rapidly that it's impossible to keep up.

"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."

Was the period you were at one time concerned with. Since then you've thrown in every era from the early 1800's to the 1990's. Whack a Mole was never a game I've appreciated.

A real hurricane forecaster at Neven's has posted a long piece on why this has to be considered as part of the legacy of AGW, and Jeff Masters has tied things in rather well. These sources seem much less ideologically driven than many of the posters here. We'll never be able to meet the level of proof that a law court would require but fortunately it's the court of public opinion that will render the verdict.

Just as the drought in Texas changed many minds about AGW, so the huge damages caused by Sandy will open many more eyes. This is exactly what Hansen and others said would happen. The days when global warming could be denied or ridiculed are over.

Terry

[TerryM]

Sorry Terry, this statement is really not supported by the science. Science tells us there will probably be only a marginal increase in TC intensity with AGW (2-11%), and a decrease in frequency (-6 to -34%).

This stuff about the subway system is nonsense. First of all, you're dealing with a sample size of 1 or 2 to establish a change in frequency??? How is that remotely scientific? Science deals with sample sizes of 100, 1000 or more. It's silly.

Science said we'd see Arctic ice levels at this extent by 2070.

The patterns we're witnessing were predicted 40 years ago - and they weren't predicted by non scientists. My generation learned about greenhouse gasses and the build up in grade school. They pulled the material about the time they apparently quit teaching evolution. None of this is rocket science, it's basic cause and effect.

BTW - when did a 2-11% increase in intensity become" marginal" - I live (part time) in a community that grew rich with lesser odds than these.

Terry

[aslkahuna]

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.

Ever hear of capping? It happens when the upper levels of the atmosphere get warm enough to suppress the rising of the lower moist unstable air. The point that is trying to be made and which many don't seem to understand (or don't want to) is that with AGW you are also warming the upper level of the atmosphere and that has the effect of at least holding down any increase in convective potential (which is what drives TC's) or if the upper levels warm too much you can even kill the convection regardless of how warm the boundary layer gets.

Steve

[aslkahuna]

I think it's important to note that Sandy was NOT a STRONG Hurricane but was an extraordinarily large one with an unusually low pressure for its intensity (necessitated by its large size. The very low pressure and very long fetch is what combined with the coastal configuration to result in the massive surge overtopped by some very healthy storm waves. Had Sandy been a normal sized hurricane, that 940 mb pressure would have meant a high end Cat 3 storm instead of a high end Cat 1 which would have been a cataclysm for those it hit. When the post season analysis is done Sandy will still be a cat 2 in Cuba and a Cat 1 in the US. However, it does make a very serious statement and that is like the Dark side of the Force one must NEVER underestimate the power of a hurricane. A hurricane is a very serious storm even at Cat 1.

[TerryM]

Ever hear of capping? It happens when the upper levels of the atmosphere get warm enough to suppress the rising of the lower moist unstable air. The point that is trying to be made and which many don't seem to understand (or don't want to) is that with AGW you are also warming the upper level of the atmosphere and that has the effect of at least holding down any increase in convective potential (which is what drives TC's) or if the upper levels warm too much you can even kill the convection regardless of how warm the boundary layer gets.

Steve

Steve

Think about how AGW works. Imagine which levels of the atmosphere receive more long wave radiation & which levels receive less. Consider rewriting your post.

Terry

[Vergent]

The previous modern day record for surge in NYC before Sandy was Hurricane Donna in 1960 which also flooded the NYC subway system.

The December 1992 storm was not a hurricane and AGW didn't cause the surge...it created a large surge because of the fetch of the wind over the water for several days in just the right spot to flood LI sound and the shores of NJ. December 1992 still has the record surge for Atlantic City NJ...Sandy wasn't able to surpass it because it didn't take the right track.

The 1930s and 1950s storms didn't specifically flood NYC as bad as Donna in 1960 or Sandy in 2012 because the track they took wasn't as favorable. The 1938 storm and Hurricane Carol in 1954 were much more destructive to Southern New England...again because of the track. Either that or AGW decided to spare Southern New England more than NYC this time.

There is no increase in hurricane activity in the northeast due to AGW...and there is no evidence that there will be in the coming years either aside from the usual fluctuations seen in natural variation amongst North Atlantic TC acitivty.

Using a specific storm track affecting NYC to prove hurricanes are getting worse from AGW is about as relevant as me pointing to Boston having its coldest January on record in 2004 to prove cold outbreaks are getting worse despite AGW.

Yea, you are right. Everything is normal in NY, NJ. Nothing has changed. It's just natural variation. We do not have to do anything. the subway will drain itself and start running again all on its own. We definitely do not need federal assistance. Why should someone in North Dakota pay for some NYC Bozo subway ticket? It's just the AMO, like the Northern temp anomaly. Natural variation will bring the dead back to life and restore the electrical grid. Heck, natural variation can turn water into wine, and freeze 30,000km^3 of water over night.

There is a special magical power in the nonliterary of AGW. Every 0.01C on nonlinear temperature has the effect of 10C SST anomaly. This is the most powerful force on Earth. It thaws Greenland and the arctic ice cap. It is the magical mysterious cause of everything. Yet, it's physical mechanism is invisible and undetectable. Some moron scientists say it is just non-linear AGW, but they are just crazy.

Happy Halloween

Verg

[tacoman25]

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

Theory. Far from proven. Ask 2007.

[tacoman25]

Science said we'd see Arctic ice levels at this extent by 2070.

The patterns we're witnessing were predicted 40 years ago - and they weren't predicted by non scientists. My generation learned about greenhouse gasses and the build up in grade school. They pulled the material about the time they apparently quit teaching evolution. None of this is rocket science, it's basic cause and effect.

BTW - when did a 2-11% increase in intensity become" marginal" - I live (part time) in a community that grew rich with lesser odds than these.

Terry

This post is a perfect example of someone who has made up their mind, regardless of the actual science and evidence. You want to believe something, so in your mind it becomes true.

AGW must lead to disaster. Therefore any weather disaster must be due to AGW. It's all about the science - except when it's inconvenient.

[tacoman25]

Yea, you are right. Everything is normal in NY, NJ. Nothing has changed. It's just natural variation. We do not have to do anything. the subway will drain itself and start running again all on its own. We definitely do not need federal assistance. Why should someone in North Dakota pay for some NYC Bozo subway ticket? It's just the AMO, like the Northern temp anomaly. Natural variation will bring the dead back to life and restore the electrical grid. Heck, natural variation can turn water into wine, and freeze 30,000km^3 of water over night.

There is a special magical power in the nonliterary of AGW. Every 0.01C on nonlinear temperature has the effect of 10C SST anomaly. This is the most powerful force on Earth. It thaws Greenland and the arctic ice cap. It is the magical mysterious cause of everything. Yet, it's physical mechanism is invisible and undetectable. Some moron scientists say it is just non-linear AGW, but they are just crazy.

Happy Halloween

Verg

Are you a denier of the AMO? Bring the facts.

Weather catastrophe = confirmation of AGW doomsday beliefs. Arctic ice anomalies means Sandy is due to AGW. In the simpleton's mind, it's that simple.

[ORH_wxman]

You're moving the goalposts so rapidly that it's impossible to keep up.

"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."

Was the period you were at one time concerned with. Since then you've thrown in every era from the early 1800's to the 1990's. Whack a Mole was never a game I've appreciated.

A real hurricane forecaster at Neven's has posted a long piece on why this has to be considered as part of the legacy of AGW, and Jeff Masters has tied things in rather well. These sources seem much less ideologically driven than many of the posters here. We'll never be able to meet the level of proof that a law court would require but fortunately it's the court of public opinion that will render the verdict.

Just as the drought in Texas changed many minds about AGW, so the huge damages caused by Sandy will open many more eyes. This is exactly what Hansen and others said would happen. The days when global warming could be denied or ridiculed are over.

Terry

You haven't posted any scientific evidence of your claims. Nothing but anecdotel evidence and off topic arguments like "moving the goalposts".

The 1930s-1950s saw more Northeast hurricane activity than any other period in the last 100 years: Fact. I'm not sure how that is "moving the goalposts". Sorry if Hurricane Donna that flooded NYC missed it by 1 year (1960).

You made some silly claim that the NYC subways being flooded was some kind of benchmark to prove AGW makes hurricanes in the northeast more frequent/worse. I then gave 2 examples of it happening in the past and certainly they would have flooded in 1821 had they existed back then.

Show us some scientific evidence that hurricanes are more frequent in the northeast because of AGW? You won't be able to do it because there isn't any.

[WeatherRusty]

Sorry Terry, this statement is really not supported by the science. Science tells us there will probably be only a marginal increase in TC intensity with AGW (2-11%), and a decrease in frequency (-6 to -34%).

This stuff about the subway system is nonsense. First of all, you're dealing with a sample size of 1 or 2 to establish a change in frequency??? How is that remotely scientific? Science deals with sample sizes of 100, 1000 or more. It's silly.

The uniqueness of Sandy was not found in it's intensity. The large area impacted, the low internal pressure over relatively non-conducive SSTs for maintenance of warm core convection, and it's track are what made it unusual. Everyone acknowledges these things combined as unique to this storm. No two storms are alike anyway, it just a matter of degree in difference, and this one was an outlier.

The relevance to flooding of the subway and the general shoreline involves the likelihood of such inundation as the seas continue to rise due to AGW. To deny this threat is just silly.

[OSUmetstud]

The uniqueness of Sandy was not found in it's intensity. The large area impacted, the low internal pressure over relatively non-conducive SSTs for maintenance of warm core convection, and it's track are what made it unusual. Everyone acknowledges these things combined as unique to this storm. No two storms are alike anyway, it just a matter of degree in difference, and this one was an outlier.

The relevance to flooding of the subway and the general shoreline involves the likelihood of such inundation as the seas continue to rise due to AGW. To deny this threat is just silly.

In the future, sure, but the current sea levels are only slightly higher than they were a 100 years ago...so the flooding was about the same.

[WeatherRusty]

Ever hear of capping? It happens when the upper levels of the atmosphere get warm enough to suppress the rising of the lower moist unstable air. The point that is trying to be made and which many don't seem to understand (or don't want to) is that with AGW you are also warming the upper level of the atmosphere and that has the effect of at least holding down any increase in convective potential (which is what drives TC's) or if the upper levels warm too much you can even kill the convection regardless of how warm the boundary layer gets.

Steve

Steve,

You want to get a bit technical? OK.

The upper levels of the troposphere which warm the strongest due to global warming are directly in the tropics, specifically near the ITCZ. It is there where the strongest upper air warming takes place due to an increase in water vapor. Directly in the tropics, if the rate of warming aloft is greater than at the surface, then yes convection is held in check. This is the area where the mid-troposphere tropical "hot spot" is expected. Lapse rates decrease. Tropical cyclones do not form in this region anyway.

Once we get away from the deep tropics things change. The air is generally sinking rather than rising, and convection is generally suppressed. We shouldn't expect to warm as fast aloft. This zone will not warm at altitude to the same degree as in the tropics. Lapse rates are steeper. This is the zone where weaknesses develop, tropical waves form between high pressures, and pieces of the ITCZ break off into an area of greater Coriolis effect. This is where most TCs form.

In the deep tropics the lapse rate feedback is negative. It becomes positive at higher latitudes.

In short, the capping takes place in a region where TCs tend not to form.

[Snow_Miser]

Steve,

You want to get a bit technical? OK.

The upper levels of the troposphere which warm the strongest due to global warming are directly in the tropics, specifically near the ITCZ. It is there where the strongest upper air warming takes place due to an increase in water vapor. Directly in the tropics, if the rate of warming aloft is greater than at the surface, then yes convection is held in check. This is the area where the mid-troposphere tropical "hot spot" is expected. Lapse rates decrease. Tropical cyclones do not form in this region anyway.

Except there is no Tropical "hot spot" present in observational datasets, so thus the positive water vapor feedback associated with the negative lapse rate feedback is questionable.

[WeatherRusty]

In the future, sure, but the current sea levels are only slightly higher than they were a 100 years ago...so the flooding was about the same.

I believe sea level has risen an average of about 8 inches over the past century, which will be more than doubled over the next century and potentially significantly more. More so along the east coast of North America due to the decrease in gravitational attraction from the melting Greenland ice sheet. The odds of flooding increase proportionately.

[PhillipS]

Except there is no Tropical "hot spot" present in observational datasets, so thus the positive water vapor feedback associated with the negative lapse rate feedback is questionable.

Posting crap charts from Ole Humlum's denialist site Climate4you is in no way convincing. If that's your supporting evidence you should be embarrassed.

[Snow_Miser]

Posting crap charts from Ole Humlum's denialist site Climate4you is in no way convincing. If that's your supporting evidence you should be embarrassed.

Red herring.

The data comes from HadAT not Ole Humlum, so if that is the type of argument you are going to make to refute observations from leading datasets, you should be embarrassed.

[Alpha5]

The Jersey track is much more anomalous than the SNE track...I don't think that's disputable. However, the idea that it's because of AGW is not smart.

The only reason that the storm came ashore in the first place was due to the downstream blocking and the subsequent negative tilt of the eastern trough. Had that not happened, Sandy would have been a fish storm.

Whether you want to attribute that to AGW is up to you I guess

[skierinvermont]

Steve

Think about how AGW works. Imagine which levels of the atmosphere receive more long wave radiation & which levels receive less. Consider rewriting your post.

Terry

I believe that the mid troposphere receives the largest increase in LW radiation and the largest increase in temperature. I know for a fact it receives the largest increase in temperature, which would have exactly the 'capping' effect that aslkahuna and I have been explaining (and been ignored) for the last 5 pages.

Rusty is correct the greatest mid-troposphere "hot spot" is in the tropics, but it is a global phenomenon as well.

[skierinvermont]

Red herring.

The data comes from HadAT not Ole Humlum, so if that is the type of argument you are going to make to refute observations from leading datasets, you should be embarrassed.

HadAT is very outdated.

[TerryM]

The only reason that the storm came ashore in the first place was due to the downstream blocking and the subsequent negative tilt of the eastern trough. Had that not happened, Sandy would have been a fish storm.

Whether you want to attribute that to AGW is up to you I guess

Exactly

Look a little further north & you'll find a lot of very strange weather occurring. The persistent lows that straddle the ice edges, the huge, powerful low that formed over Hudson Bay that drove 100 MPH plus winds across the open Baffin Bay, the pressure delta over northern Fram Strait. The Jet stream wobbling like a top that has slowed & is about to topple

Check Ogimet for some Greenland stats leading up to and after Sandy, and recall that Greenland's weather must be affected by the open Baffin Bay, open Hudson Bay and the open waters of the Barents Sea.

I don't think any doubt that AGW is responsible for conditions above 80 & unlike Vegas, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.

Terry

BTW I was very impressed by your calculations re. the energy in Sandy on another thread. This was not a typical cat 1 storm.

[Vergent]

"S" as in "Sandy" = 19

Starting in 1944, systematic aircraft reconnaissance was commenced for monitoring both tropical cyclones and disturbances that had the potential to develop into tropical storms and hurricanes. This did provide much improved monitoring, but still about half of the Atlantic basin was not covered (Sheets 1990). Beginning in 1966, daily satellite imagery became available at the National Hurricane Center, and thus statistics from this time forward are most complete (McAdie et al. 2009).

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

[LocoAko]

I believe sea level has risen an average of about 8 inches over the past century, which will be more than doubled over the next century and potentially significantly more. More so along the east coast of North America due to the decrease in gravitational attraction from the melting Greenland ice sheet. The odds of flooding increase proportionately.

This.

In Sandy's case it wouldn't have made a difference since the surge was just that high, but if we got an Irene like we had last year (actual conditions, not forecast), but 50-100 years in the future, that would have made all the difference...

[TerryM]

Verg

I can't see the downward trend that so many have been claiming. If we just looked at the peaks, and ignored everything after 2000 we could claim that the 30's were the worst years. If we eliminated everything after 1975 we could prove that AGW hasn't made any difference at all, and if we just looked at the 1875 to 1925 period the down slope would be evident.

I suppose we now have to prepare for the usual round of - they didn't record hurricanes back then, no records before 19?? (fill in the blanks as needed) can be relied on, before the age of satellite the troglodytes were unable to observe events outside the dim glow of their campfires.

As a guy who watched Sputnik in awe, whose father and grandfather were both scientists, it's painful to hear children assuming that everything prior to their birth was crap. Back in the age of sail, when sailors lives and the wealth that each shipment represented depended wholly on the whims of sea breezes, trading nations spent a good deal of time and resources compiling and recording everything brought back in Captains log books. Oceanic winds were arguably more important in that era than in this and as the sinking of the Bounty replica demonstrated - "fish" hurricanes cost fortunes and lives.

Terry

[tacoman25]

The only reason that the storm came ashore in the first place was due to the downstream blocking and the subsequent negative tilt of the eastern trough. Had that not happened, Sandy would have been a fish storm.

Whether you want to attribute that to AGW is up to you I guess

One can attribute whatever they want to AGW, but in this case there is no compelling evidence that AGW was a significant factor, either in the storm itself or the track it took.

[tacoman25]

Exactly

Look a little further north & you'll find a lot of very strange weather occurring. The persistent lows that straddle the ice edges, the huge, powerful low that formed over Hudson Bay that drove 100 MPH plus winds across the open Baffin Bay, the pressure delta over northern Fram Strait. The Jet stream wobbling like a top that has slowed & is about to topple

Check Ogimet for some Greenland stats leading up to and after Sandy, and recall that Greenland's weather must be affected by the open Baffin Bay, open Hudson Bay and the open waters of the Barents Sea.

I don't think any doubt that AGW is responsible for conditions above 80 & unlike Vegas, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.

Terry

BTW I was very impressed by your calculations re. the energy in Sandy on another thread. This was not a typical cat 1 storm.

So how exactly is AGW causing all of this "strange weather" up north? What is the mechanism and how do we know that such things as a "wobbly" jet stream have anything to do with AGW or low Arctic ice? You can't just point to whatever weather you deem as strange or odd and say, "Well, a lot of Arctic ice has melted, and clearly AGW is the main reason for that, so anything else unusual up there must also be due to AGW."

Not that I've seen any proof that any of the things you cite are that unusual.

[WeatherRusty]

I believe that the mid troposphere receives the largest increase in LW radiation and the largest increase in temperature. I know for a fact it receives the largest increase in temperature, which would have exactly the 'capping' effect that aslkahuna and I have been explaining (and been ignored) for the last 5 pages.

Rusty is correct the greatest mid-troposphere "hot spot" is in the tropics, but it is a global phenomenon as well.

Skier and Steve, I must disagree with what you are saying. Here's why:

The vertical variations of the temperature change also have a climatic effect through the lapse-rate feedback λ_L. For instance, the models predict enhanced warming in the upper troposphere of tropical regions in response to an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Because of this change in the lapse rate, the outgoing longwave radiation will be more than in an homogenous temperature change over the vertical. The system will then lose more energy, so inducing a negative feedback (Fig. 4.10). Moreover, at mid to high latitudes, a larger low level warming is projected as a response to the positive radiative warming, providing a positive feedback (Fig. 4.10). The global mean value of λ_L thus depends on the relative magnitude of those two opposite effects. On average, the influence of the tropics dominates, leading to a value of λ_L of around -0.8 Wm^-2K^-1 (Soden and Held, 2006) in recent models driven by a doubling of the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere.

Source

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

Outside the tropics the lapse rate feedback to warming becomes positive. The surface warms faster than the mid-troposphere.