Paper: Climate change exacerbates hurricane flood hazards along US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in spatially varying patterns

[donsutherland1]

Abstract:

One of the most destructive natural hazards, tropical cyclone (TC)–induced coastal flooding, will worsen under climate change. Here we conduct climatology–hydrodynamic modeling to quantify the effects of sea level rise (SLR) and TC climatology change (under RCP 8.5) on late 21st century flood hazards at the county level along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. We find that, under the compound effects of SLR and TC climatology change, the historical 100-year flood level would occur annually in New England and mid-Atlantic regions and every 1–30 years in southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions in the late 21st century. The relative effect of TC climatology change increases continuously from New England, mid-Atlantic, southeast Atlantic, to the Gulf of Mexico, and the effect of TC climatology change is likely to be larger than the effect of SLR for over 40% of coastal counties in the Gulf of Mexico.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11755-z

[Vice-Regent]

7 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Abstract:

One of the most destructive natural hazards, tropical cyclone (TC)–induced coastal flooding, will worsen under climate change. Here we conduct climatology–hydrodynamic modeling to quantify the effects of sea level rise (SLR) and TC climatology change (under RCP 8.5) on late 21st century flood hazards at the county level along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. We find that, under the compound effects of SLR and TC climatology change, the historical 100-year flood level would occur annually in New England and mid-Atlantic regions and every 1–30 years in southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions in the late 21st century. The relative effect of TC climatology change increases continuously from New England, mid-Atlantic, southeast Atlantic, to the Gulf of Mexico, and the effect of TC climatology change is likely to be larger than the effect of SLR for over 40% of coastal counties in the Gulf of Mexico.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11755-z

Good god... SLR and a change in TC climatology is the perfect storm for disaster.

[BillT]

"climate change" has never caused even one weather event.......the climate describes the PAST and is used to see what the usual conditions are(average), but again the climate is not a force has no power and has never caused any weather event.

[etudiant]

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Abstract:

One of the most destructive natural hazards, tropical cyclone (TC)–induced coastal flooding, will worsen under climate change. Here we conduct climatology–hydrodynamic modeling to quantify the effects of sea level rise (SLR) and TC climatology change (under RCP 8.5) on late 21st century flood hazards at the county level along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. We find that, under the compound effects of SLR and TC climatology change, the historical 100-year flood level would occur annually in New England and mid-Atlantic regions and every 1–30 years in southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions in the late 21st century. The relative effect of TC climatology change increases continuously from New England, mid-Atlantic, southeast Atlantic, to the Gulf of Mexico, and the effect of TC climatology change is likely to be larger than the effect of SLR for over 40% of coastal counties in the Gulf of Mexico.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11755-z

Not persuaded, it postulates 2 unverified developments, first an accelerating sea level rise and second a pattern of intensifying TCs.

Afaik, there is very little evidence for either at present. So this seems more a 'sky is falling' paper than an evidence based document.

[Vice-Regent]

5 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Not persuaded, it postulates 2 unverified developments, first an accelerating sea level rise and second a pattern of intensifying TCs.

Afaik, there is very little evidence for either at present. So this seems more a 'sky is falling' paper than an evidence based document.

For whatever it's worth the paper references the late 21st century and not now.

[donsutherland1]

50 minutes ago, BillT said:

"climate change" has never caused even one weather event.......the climate describes the PAST and is used to see what the usual conditions are(average), but again the climate is not a force has no power and has never caused any weather event.

The term "climate change" is used to refer to a dynamic situation, in this case the present ongoing observed warming. The increasing greenhouse gas forcing resulting from the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is primarily responsible for that warming. Internal variability (ENSO, etc.) occurs within the context of this increasing external forcing. Both have effects at synoptic and climatic timeframes with real societal and human impacts.

[donsutherland1]

49 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Not persuaded, it postulates 2 unverified developments, first an accelerating sea level rise and second a pattern of intensifying TCs.

Afaik, there is very little evidence for either at present. So this seems more a 'sky is falling' paper than an evidence based document.

There’s actually growing evidence that climate change has an impact on tropical cyclones. Three examples:

https://you.stonybrook.edu/kareed/2018/09/12/estimating-the-potential-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricane-florence/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1750-x

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075888

[BillT]

with all due respect the ONLY science says the past does NOT cause todays weather, it says the current weather is what is causing the weather events again NOT the average stats from the past.what precisely are you claiming the average weather stats are DOING to cause weather today?

the weather constantly changes = FACT

any stats derived from constantly changing input will constantly change = FACT

claims that climate change is unusual = SILLY and ignores basic science fact.

we have observed periods of cooling and warming ever since we have observations..

we have NOT seen any periods of unchanging constantly the same weather(and climate since the climate is just a description of the previous weather).

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

35 minutes ago, BillT said:

with all due respect the ONLY science says the past does NOT cause todays weather, it says the current weather is what is causing the weather events again NOT the average stats from the past.what precisely are you claiming the average weather stats are DOING to cause weather today?

I am not sure why you are confusing a term that describes a dynamic process with a notion that the past ‘causes’ today’s weather (or that 'weather statistics cause today's weather'). That’s not how scientists define climate change or the context in which events are discussed with respect to climate change.

Statistics are measurement tools. Statistics are used in fields far beyond climate. Rates of change describe phenomena far beyond climate, too. One sees them in fields ranging from economics to engineering. No one in any of those fields is suggesting that statistics (used to measure change) drive the events that are being measured.

Climate change is defined as “any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.”

https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf

The detailed definition of climate change is:

Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.’ The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate variability, Global warming, Ocean acidification (OA) and Detection and attribution.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/

For a simple illustration, let's assume a case where the statistics reveal that the average temperature at a given location is rising 0.5°C per decade. Everything else in this simple illustration remains unchanged. On account of the warming, the statistical probability of a given threshold of heat has increased by a given percentage (assuming simple statistics and a Gaussian distribution).

In the real world, let's assume that the frequency of cases meeting that threshold of heat has increased consistent with the statistical probabilities noted above. That increased frequency does not mean that the statistics by which temperature trend and probability of such cases were measured actually caused the increase in such cases. The underlying factors resulting in the warming are responsible. The same holds true with respect to events attributed to climate change.

Statistics don't cause events. They measure things, some of which can cause or contribute to events.

Finally, no one is disputing the reality that climate is dynamic. The issue at the forefront of contemporary discussions of climate change concerns the role of anthropogenic forcing as the predominant factor driving the contemporary warming. That anthropogenic role is "unusual" for different, as shifts to climate epochs during the past were driven by external forcing e.g., changes in solar irradiance. The current temperature trend cannot be explained by any of the known natural forcings or factors. It has diverged from what would be expected from those factors. It is strongly explained by the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

 

[chubbs]

Validation of a 2007 paper. The stronger hurricanes are getting stronger.

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/stronger-hur.html

[donsutherland1]

11 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Validation of a 2007 paper. The stronger hurricanes are getting stronger.

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/stronger-hur.html

Thanks for sharing this. I believe a number of climate scientists were puzzled why the latest research and evidence concerning the recent increase in strong hurricanes wasn't fully considered.

[rclab]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Thanks for sharing this. I believe a number of climate scientists were puzzled why the latest research and evidence concerning the recent increase in strong hurricanes wasn't fully considered.

Thank you also Chubbs. What frightens me is the fact, as stated, that the analysis was largely ignored. Somewhat like having a mystery where everyone, in fact, knows who did it but no one wants to admit it. And when the bell tolls it will toll for thee.

[Typhoon Tip]

There may be a geo-physical premise for not including ... in that the conclusions are not fully vetted.  There are arguments that have to be ruled out - believe me!  I am not of the denier ilk so please do not couch me in with that stat.  However, objectively two aspect leap out at me - suppositional on my part ( admittedly ) but I haven't seen any seminal work in either area ( so excuse me if it exists :

Firstly, tropical cyclone measuring was always an estimate art. The Dvorak technique ( including improved standards therein) have been applied for estimating cyclones for decades, but even the polished methods have deficiencies. Human error gets in the way for example... Perhaps not hugely so, but minor ... minor variations due to unavoidable, inherent subjectivity leads to inconsistencies. Additionally, standards and operator skill are also variant from one oceanic basin to the next which augments uncertainties.  There is this "CNN" system developed in recent years, which is the abbreviation for "conventional convolution neural network" which sounds like something out of a dystopian AI thriller frankly but it is what it is...

Anyway, these techniques were not in existence as recent as 30 years ago. Andrew 1992 was a cyclone originally maxed at Category 4. It wasn't until reanalysis confirmed what most first hand accounts suspected *( per anecdotal ) that 135 mph was insufficient to appropriately characterize.  This was in part/indirectly supported when measured building/architectural science indications were then integrated in reanalysis. It is now a Category 5 posthumously.  Considering today's various satellite techniques and different storm penetrating technologies, it is unlikely a present day Andrew would be assessed as Category 4.  Andrew is just one example where/when solid-state physics was able to assist in exposing both the reality of that cyclone intensity, but also exposes that the old techniques of assessing storm intensity were plausibly insufficient.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that some percentage of the entire 'upper strength of the strongest' assumption may in fact, in at least partial, actually be an artifact for better detection.

Secondly, in a Meteorological perspectives it is not abundantly clear that a GW atmosphere should immediately connote stronger storms.  That's certainly romantic but the verdict is out on that - physical mathematics.  The tropical sounding ( vertical structures of temperature, humidity at sigma levels) has to have a certain thermodynamic gradients - that much is known. 

Gradient powers everything in nature.  If you exist, you exist because something is restoring.That's how all dimensions of nature work really.  In fact, you're capable of reading this sentence because of the electrolytic potential that exists in the neuro fabric of your mind.  Without those electrical potentials between (-) sodium and (+) potassium, you don't have life.  In atmospheric phenomenon, variations in PV=NRT across a domain space ( in three-dimensions) is the gradient that makes all weather happen. 

For hurricanes, those gradients produced via saturation ... where unstable pseudo-adiabatic vertical sounding results and keeps the lift going, which sucks in more torridity from the ocean surface and on and so on..  Which is why you need a steady source of hot ocean to keep the machinery going. If we follow that simplified model to its logic ends, in a warming world, if it warms at all levels evenly, these thermodynamic gradients do necessarily change - if the gradient stays the same. Hurricanes are not intrinsically stronger.  In order for the GW upward intensity to be outright causally linked, the tropical cyclone model -related gradients have to increase.  Thus, it's not abundantly clear the tropical delta(PV=NRT)'s is really more culpable than merely better assessment described above.  

Once the better part of this latter science gets underway... along the way it would also have to take into consideration the fact that Global tropical cyclone intensity/storm frequency, also has a periodicity.      

[ORH_wxman]

29 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

There may be a geo-physical premise for not including ... in that the conclusions are not fully vetted.  There are arguments that have to be ruled out - believe me!  I am not of the denier ilk so please do not couch me in with that stat.  However, objectively two aspect leap out at me - suppositional on my part ( admittedly ) but I haven't seen any seminal work in either area ( so excuse me if it exists :

Firstly, tropical cyclone measuring was always an estimate art. The Dvorak technique ( including improved standards therein) have been applied for estimating cyclones for decades, but even the polished methods have deficiencies. Human error gets in the way for example... Perhaps not hugely so, but minor ... minor variations due to unavoidable, inherent subjectivity leads to inconsistencies. Additionally, standards and operator skill are also variant from one oceanic basin to the next which augments uncertainties.  There is this "CNN" system developed in recent years, which is the abbreviation for "conventional convolution neural network" which sounds like something out of a dystopian AI thriller frankly but it is what it is...

Anyway, these techniques were not in existence as recent as 30 years ago. Andrew 1992 was a cyclone originally maxed at Category 4. It wasn't until reanalysis confirmed what most first hand accounts suspected *( per anecdotal ) that 135 mph was insufficient to appropriately characterize.  This was in part/indirectly supported when measured building/architectural science indications were then integrated in reanalysis. It is now a Category 5 posthumously.  Considering today's various satellite techniques and different storm penetrating technologies, it is unlikely a present day Andrew would be assessed as Category 4.  Andrew is just one example where/when solid-state physics was able to assist in exposing both the reality of that cyclone intensity, but also exposes that the old techniques of assessing storm intensity were plausibly insufficient.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that some percentage of the entire 'upper strength of the strongest' assumption may in fact, in at least partial, actually be an artifact for better detection.

Secondly, in a Meteorological perspectives it is not abundantly clear that a GW atmosphere should immediately connote stronger storms.  That's certainly romantic but the verdict is out on that - physical mathematics.  The tropical sounding ( vertical structures of temperature, humidity at sigma levels) has to have a certain thermodynamic gradients - that much is known. 

Gradient powers everything in nature.  If you exist, you exist because something is restoring.That's how all dimensions of nature work really.  In fact, you're capable of reading this sentence because of the electrolytic potential that exists in the neuro fabric of your mind.  Without those electrical potentials between (-) sodium and (+) potassium, you don't have life.  In atmospheric phenomenon, variations in PV=NRT across a domain space ( in three-dimensions) is the gradient that makes all weather happen. 

For hurricanes, those gradients produced via saturation ... where unstable pseudo-adiabatic vertical sounding results and keeps the lift going, which sucks in more torridity from the ocean surface and on and so on..  Which is why you need a steady source of hot ocean to keep the machinery going. If we follow that simplified model to its logic ends, in a warming world, if it warms at all levels evenly, these thermodynamic gradients do necessarily change - if the gradient stays the same. Hurricanes are not intrinsically stronger.  In order for the GW upward intensity to be outright causally linked, the tropical cyclone model -related gradients have to increase.  Thus, it's not abundantly clear the tropical delta(PV=NRT)'s is really more culpable than merely better assessment described above.  

Once the better part of this latter science gets underway... along the way it would also have to take into consideration the fact that Global tropical cyclone intensity/storm frequency, also has a periodicity.      

This is a good post that highlights many of the pitfalls in rushing to conclusions about attribution studies.

The study in question in the couple posts above yours is emphasizing Atlantic hurricanes since 1981....well, that is close to a nadir in the AMO and N ATL SSTs. So there's obviously been a steep rise in SSTs since that time in the N ATL basin between 15-40N, but much faster than the global trend due to natural variation.

I believe it was also the Landsea et al paper in 2010 that highlighted the technology aspect of both hurricane frequency and intensity. When we accounted for the technology that could "see" storms, their frequency wasn't any different than in the early 20th century and we also likely missed the max intensity even when we could identify them. Most of the literature supports stronger hurricanes in a warmer world, but on the order of about 2-3% increase in max wind intensity per degree F of warmer SST. That's going to be offset by a decline in frequency though (due to more wind sheer...esp closer to the US). The paper was discussing intensity though and not frequency, to be fair on my last point. But the crux of the argument is that there is some credible literature out there that warrants tapping the breaks on the attribution of hurricane intensity/frequency with CC.

I understand that "tapping the breaks" is very unpopular amongst the climate change activist crowd, but it's also good science in this case. There are plenty of other attribution studies that don;t need such caution (e.g. heat waves, etc)

[donsutherland1]

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

This is a good post that highlights many of the pitfalls in rushing to conclusions about attribution studies.

The study in question in the couple posts above yours is emphasizing Atlantic hurricanes since 1981....well, that is close to a nadir in the AMO and N ATL SSTs. So there's obviously been a steep rise in SSTs since that time in the N ATL basin between 15-40N, but much faster than the global trend due to natural variation.

I believe it was also the Landsea et al paper in 2010 that highlighted the technology aspect of both hurricane frequency and intensity. When we accounted for the technology that could "see" storms, their frequency wasn't any different than in the early 20th century and we also likely missed the max intensity even when we could identify them. Most of the literature supports stronger hurricanes in a warmer world, but on the order of about 2-3% increase in max wind intensity per degree F of warmer SST. That's going to be offset by a decline in frequency though (due to more wind sheer...esp closer to the US). The paper was discussing intensity though and not frequency, to be fair on my last point. But the crux of the argument is that there is some credible literature out there that warrants tapping the breaks on the attribution of hurricane intensity/frequency with CC.

I understand that "tapping the breaks" is very unpopular amongst the climate change activist crowd, but it's also good science in this case. There are plenty of other attribution studies that don;t need such caution (e.g. heat waves, etc)

I believe the concern being expressed by some climate scientists is that the IPCC special report concerning tropical cyclones may not fully give weight to some of the later studies that reaffirm a modest increase in tropical cyclone strength, possible increase in tropical cyclone frequency (past results suggested no change or even a small decrease), and a higher ratio of Category 4-5 storms relative to Category 1-2 storms.

One such study:

Application of a tropical cyclone downscaling technique to six CMIP5-generation global climate models run under historical conditions and under the RCP8.5 emissions projection indicates an increase in global tropical cyclone activity, most evident in the North Pacific region but also noticeable in the North Atlantic and South Indian Oceans. In these regions, both the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones are projected to increase. This result contrasts with the result of applying the same downscaling technique to CMIP3-generation models, which generally predict a small decrease of global tropical cyclone frequency, and with recent CMIP5-based projections that show little consistent change in frequency.

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219

In any case, the debate that is underway concerning tropical cyclones is, IMO, a legitimate and healthy debate rooted in science. That debate is not, in any way, an example of the evidence-free beliefs being asserted by Lindzen et al. in a bid to misinform the public about anthropogenic climate change.

[donsutherland1]

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 6:38 AM, chubbs said:

Validation of a 2007 paper. The stronger hurricanes are getting stronger.

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/stronger-hur.html

Consistent with what might expect based on that paper, Lorenzo became a Category 5 hurricane tonight at 45W longitude. The NHC's update statement is below:

000
WTNT63 KNHC 290207
TCUAT3

Hurricane Lorenzo Tropical Cyclone Update
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL       AL132019
1010 PM AST Sat Sep 28 2019


...LORENZO STRENGTHENS INTO A CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE...

Recent satellite data indicate that Lorenzo has continued to
rapidly strengthen to an extremely dangerous category 5 hurricane
with maximum sustained winds near 160 mph (260 km/h).  This
increase in intensity will be reflected in the forecast issued at
11 pm AST (0300 UTC).


SUMMARY OF 1010 PM AST...0210 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...24.1N 45.0W
ABOUT 1410 MI...2270 KM SW OF THE AZORES
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...160 MPH...260 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...N OR 360 DEGREES AT 10 MPH...17 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...925 MB...27.31 INCHES

$$
Forecaster Brown/Latto

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/28/2019 at 10:28 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Consistent with what might expect based on that paper, Lorenzo became a Category 5 hurricane tonight at 45W longitude. The NHC's update statement is below:

000
WTNT63 KNHC 290207
TCUAT3

Hurricane Lorenzo Tropical Cyclone Update
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL       AL132019
1010 PM AST Sat Sep 28 2019


...LORENZO STRENGTHENS INTO A CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE...

Recent satellite data indicate that Lorenzo has continued to
rapidly strengthen to an extremely dangerous category 5 hurricane
with maximum sustained winds near 160 mph (260 km/h).  This
increase in intensity will be reflected in the forecast issued at
11 pm AST (0300 UTC).


SUMMARY OF 1010 PM AST...0210 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...24.1N 45.0W
ABOUT 1410 MI...2270 KM SW OF THE AZORES
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...160 MPH...260 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...N OR 360 DEGREES AT 10 MPH...17 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...925 MB...27.31 INCHES

$$
Forecaster Brown/Latto

 

Lorenzo became the furthest east Cat 5 ever in the recorded history of the Atlantic Basin.

 

[donsutherland1]

11 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Lorenzo became the furthest east Cat 5 ever in the recorded history of the Atlantic Basin.

 

Yes. It was a historic storm.