Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Don C L

When it comes to the science of health preparedness, I am sure there are 700,000 families in the U.S. who would agree we could have been better prepared, we should have been better prepared, and we would have been better prepared, had we listened, to those who were warning us. To be sure, some were, but they got ridiculed for listening to the cries of wolf when there had been no plague. To say COVID was no problem for me so it must not be such a big problem is really not excusable. This book came out in 1995. COVID won't be the last pandemic. Would you say that is a case of crying wolf or just a call to be prepared?

I want to point out that the author (Laurie Garrett) works for the extremely influential Council of Foreign Relations. I viewed it as hype for the "coming pandemics". I read a book ten or twelve years ago that also came out in 1995. It blew my mind and have been watching for these "coming pandemics" ever since. Admittedly, the (Harvard educated) author has gone (or been driven off) off the deep end since he published it but the book stands on it's own as well written and well researched.
https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Viru.../dp/0923550127
Here is a link to read the book: https://pdfcoffee.com/leonard-g-horo...-pdf-free.html

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

...
Gord — If your original post had been written in declarative and indicative case, I would not have simply declared it "religiosity." Rather, I might have looked at the links or footnotes, to see what sources they referenced, what methodology they used, in what journal it was published (ie not one where the only requirement is a fee), and who paid for the study. I won’t pretend that I read everything, but I usually check somebody’s work before I comment on it.

You didn’t have to read any of the [3] papers, with which, I opened this thread, to know that the first paper was a meta-study. You only had to read my teaser:

Originally Posted by Gord

A new report [1], in the ScienceBrief Review website, published last week, now suggests that many regions affected by hurricanes will likely experience storms of greater intensity, as a result of Earth's changing climate. Maximum wind speeds in hurricanes could rise five per cent, if the planet warms by 2 C by 2100, the review of more than 90 peer-reviewed studies [all cited] found...

➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3376641

[Bycrick]

Like the metastudy that "according to some sources" generated the 97% of scientists agree on global warming. They were accused of taking 11000 studies, and first throwing out all the ones that didn’t come to a conclusion. I’ve never been able to validate this story because there’s too much conflicting commentary.

Or the meta studies that showed that too much caffeine was bad for you, leading to the craze for caffeine-free everything. Since it took 20 years to gather the data, everybody used it. When they went back later with new data, they found out that the original data hadn’t controlled for smoking. The new data showed no correlation with caffeine at all.

Even if it’s "true" that hurricanes are getting stronger. Remember, we couldn’t accurately even count hurricanes, much less know where they were or how strong, until the advent of satellites, maybe 50 years. So the fact that the last 5 or 20 years are stronger doesn’t mean much. And except for grandiose schemes that we should maybe get rid of fossil fuel over the next 30-50 years isn’t going to make much difference this year. Or next. If at all.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Dave S. You just found that out???

Yep, I'm the only one on here apparently, this thread is nearly up to 500 posts, has anyone changed their minds

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Like the metastudy that "according to some sources" generated the 97% of scientists agree on global warming. They were accused of taking 11000 studies, and first throwing out all the ones that didn’t come to a conclusion. I’ve never been able to validate this story because there’s too much conflicting commentary.

...

Even if it’s "true" that hurricanes are getting stronger. Remember, we couldn’t accurately even count hurricanes, much less know where they were or how strong, until the advent of satellites, maybe 50 years. So the fact that the last 5 or 20 years are stronger doesn’t mean much. And except for grandiose schemes that we should maybe get rid of fossil fuel over the next 30-50 years isn’t going to make much difference this year. Or next. If at all.

Metastudies show the consensus of findings but aren't hard research. The news folks and most readers don't understand science and can not be trusted to report the limitations of findings.

Beginning in the mid-1800s it was definitely possible to count hurricanes, there were enough landside settlements and enough random shipping to encounter them. Before that there were plenty of ships logs to mine the data from but no organization to do it.
MFMaury in the US began organizing this data in 1842 and published "Wind and Current Chart of the North Atlantic" followed over time with charts for other areas. It is possible to retrospectively count the number of hurricanes back to the point where shipping became widespread suing ships logs and reports from land settlements.

Yes they were under counted:
"An undercount bias of zero to six tropical cyclones per year between 1851 and 1885 and zero to four per year between 1886 and 1910 has been estimated."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1880_A...on#cite_note-2

Beginning with the advent of anemometers and their widespread use on steamships it was possible to definitively determine hurricane intensity. Even before that people that made their living on the water were able to describe the conditions accurately enough to indicate if it was a storm hurricane or major hurricane.

There is plenty of history that predates satellites.

[goboatingnow]

What I’m trying to determine from the diatribes of climate change deniers , anti Vaxxers , and other conspiracy wack jobs , is who “ they “ are. You know “ they are out to get you”

It’s not my government. It hadn’t the competency to organise school exams in a pandemic right, never mind participating in a global conspiracy to hoodwink us. I dont think bill Gates is behind everything. ( and why bill , why not Jeff bezos or scary Peter Thiel )

I’m always amused when on the one hand have decriers claim the Gov is incompetent at every thing it touches and on the other hand it’s organised a global conspiracy. !!!

Then there the “ taxes “ argument , in my view governments never need much reason to raise taxes. In many countries taxes DO need to go up , the USAs a case in point. We have elderly living longer that need more and longer supports , we have the “ gig “ economy and more zero hour workers that also need supports. I guess plenty of tax rises ahead.

So just who area” they “ and what do they want.

I think alien overlords would be more believable

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

So just who area” they “ and what do they want.

THEY are Mr. Global, as coined by Katherine Austin Fitts:
https://vimeo.com/549097792
https://vimeo.com/549101158
https://vimeo.com/549108051bi grrr

[Exile]

Given all the "science" that's being presented in this thread about "changes in tropical cyclone intensity & track," why rely on conspiracists & aliens when you have the BBC explaining to millions how CC is even threatening the recovery of shipwrecks?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...rks-shipwrecks

C'MON you say?

"Although the vessels begin deteriorating underwater almost as soon as they are sunk, their destruction is being hastened by climate change and the storms that accompany it."

Is that a fact? Is it supported by "the" science? A mere opinion? Certainly it's being presented as factual. So is this why so many who adamantly believe science is on their side seem so affronted upon discovering that this is not the case, or if it is the science is much more nuanced? Or for some is simply comparing such inquiries to "deniers," "anti-vaxxers," and "other whack jobs" enough to reassure themselves about their "undeniable" beliefs?

But I read all about it on the BBC so it must be true!

"Sat at the bottom of a saltwater bathtub hundreds of feet deep, shipwrecks decay naturally. But now, with climate change strengthening the ferocity of the strongest storms since 1975, the risk to these wrecks is increasing." (Emphasis in original).

[GordMay]

A world first: Ocean drone captures video from inside a hurricane
NOAA and Saildrone are collecting scientific data from inside Hurricane Sam, a category 4 hurricane [September, 2021].
More about ➥ https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/wo...side-hurricane

Video ➥ https://youtu.be/uQM_03zuSAI

More video ➥ https://youtu.be/6B-uwpZD454

[GordMay]

Reducing tropical cyclone impacts:
Climate protection through limiting and delaying global warming

Increasing global warming, from currently one to two degrees Celsius by mid-century, might lead to about 25 percent more people put at risk, by tropical cyclones, a new study [1] finds.
Adding to climate change, population growth further drives tropical cyclone exposure, especially in coastal areas of East African countries. and the United States. Considering the joint impact of climate change, and population growth, provides an untapped potential to protect a changing world population.

More about ➥ https://phys.org/news/2021-09-tropic...-limiting.html

[1] “Double benefit of limiting global warming for tropical cyclone exposure” ~ by Tobias Geiger et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01157-9

[GordMay]

Forecasters are watching a low-pressure system, swirling about 1,600 km east-northeast of Hawaii, for potential tropical or subtropical development.
Forecasters give the system a medium chance [40%] of developing into a tropical or subtropical system, over the next couple of days, which is no small feat for the middle of January. This would be the earliest tropical cyclone ever recorded in the eastern Pacific.
While conditions aren’t favourable for much development, the system is somewhat organized, and it might continue this trend, and develop before the weekend. Either way, this system will remain far away from land.

The NHC notes that this system could develop into a tropical or subtropical system. There are some differences, between tropical and subtropical cyclones, in their structure and organization, but the differences really only matter to meteorologists. Subtropical systems are close enough in composition and impacts to tropical systems, that the NHC classifies and tracks them just the same.

We’ve never documented a tropical or subtropical system in the eastern Pacific in January [or February, or March for that matter]. It’s possible that a few out-of-season systems formed, and went undetected, before the beginning of the satellite era, in 1966; but there’s no way to know that for sure. The earliest system on record, in the eastern Pacific, was an unnamed tropical depression, that formed on April 25, 2020, about 1,200 km southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula.

Special Tropical Weather Outlook, for the eastern North Pacific - east of 140 degrees west longitude:
➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=epac&fdays=5

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Forecasters are watching a low-pressure system, swirling about 1,600 km east-northeast of Hawaii, for potential tropical or subtropical development.
Forecasters give the system a medium chance [40%] of developing into a tropical or subtropical system, over the next couple of days, which is no small feat for the middle of January. This would be the earliest tropical cyclone ever recorded in the eastern Pacific.
While conditions aren’t favourable for much development, the system is somewhat organized, and it might continue this trend, and develop before the weekend. Either way, this system will remain far away from land.

The NHC notes that this system could develop into a tropical or subtropical system. There are some differences, between tropical and subtropical cyclones, in their structure and organization, but the differences really only matter to meteorologists. Subtropical systems are close enough in composition and impacts to tropical systems, that the NHC classifies and tracks them just the same.

We’ve never documented a tropical or subtropical system in the eastern Pacific in January [or February, or March for that matter]. It’s possible that a few out-of-season systems formed, and went undetected, before the beginning of the satellite era, in 1966; but there’s no way to know that for sure. The earliest system on record, in the eastern Pacific, was an unnamed tropical depression, that formed on April 25, 2020, about 1,200 km southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula.

Special Tropical Weather Outlook, for the eastern North Pacific - east of 140 degrees west longitude:
➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=epac&fdays=5

Since there's less than a 50/50 chance of it developing into a tropical or subtropical storm, I would hope you'd follow up on this report here whether it does or not. If it does, and as noted, it's worth emphasizing (for some) that it would be the first ever recorded. We don't know, obviously, if others have occurred prior to the relatively recent introduction of satellite forecasting technology, especially in remote regions of the Pacific.

Wasn't it established early on in this thread that climatologists have been unable thus far to link any causation -- or maybe even correlation -- between ocean warming and changes to tropical intensity & track? Or is the state of the science more mixed on this particular question? Can't quite remember, and just trying to "follow the science" here.

[GordMay]

Special Tropical Weather Outlook issued to update information on
the area of low pressure located well to the east-northeast of
Hawaii.

Special Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
1100 AM PST Fri Jan 21 2022

For the eastern North Pacific...east of 140 degrees west longitude:

1. Shower activity is limited in association with a broad area of low
pressure located about 1000 miles east-northeast of Hilo, Hawaii.
This system is moving westward into hostile environmental conditions
and development into a subtropical or tropical cyclone is not
expected. For more information on this system, see High Seas
Forecasts issued by the National Weather Service.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...low...near 0 percent.
* Formation chance through 5 days...low...near 0 percent.

This is the last Special Tropical Weather Outlook that will be
issued on this system. During the remainder of the off-season,
Special Tropical Weather Outlooks will be issued as conditions
warrant. Routine issuance of the Tropical Weather Outlook will
resume on May 15.
➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=epac&fdays=2

I think there’s a solid [& growing] consensus that climate change will affect the nature of storm systems*, but the exact nature of these changes may be more open for debate. Research [some of it posted herein] continues ...

* This ScienceBrief [Updated October 5, 2021] presents a summary of the state of the science on tropical cyclones (tropical storms, hurricanes, and typhoons) and climate change.

• Warming of the surface ocean from human-induced climate change is likely fueling more powerful tropical cyclones (TCs).
• The destructive power of individual TCs through flooding is amplified by rising sea level, which very likely has a substantial contribution at the global scale from anthropogenic climate change.
• TC precipitation rates are projected to increase due to enhanced atmospheric moisture associated with anthropogenic global warming.
• The proportion of Category 4 & 5 TCs has increased, possibly due to anthropogenic climate change, and is projected to increase further.
• Most climate model studies project the total number of TCs each year to decrease or remain approximately the same.
• Additional observed changes include the poleward migration of the latitude of maximum intensity, increasing rates of rapid intensification, and a slowing of the forward motion of TCs in places, though there are challenges in attributing these past observed changes to anthropogenic forcing.

* More ➥ https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...pical-cyclones

[Exile]

Good of you to make the distinction between informed scientific and lay (your own) opinion, along with some not unreasonable speculation perhaps, and actual evidence. It can only render ongoing scientific efforts and future findings more credible.

What about non-anthropogenic sources of ocean warming like the recent underwater volcano eruption near Tonga? I suspect there are already thread(s) on this that I missed.

[GordMay]

The ScienceBrief, at the bottom of the page, does represent the informed scientific consensus.
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...pical-cyclones

Yes, we have previously discussed volcanism & climate change, but not in a discrete/dedicated thread, IIRC.

Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in relation to climate change because they release CO2 (and other gases) into our atmosphere. However, human contributions to the carbon cycle are more than 100 times those from all the volcanoes in the world - combined.

In comparison, while volcanic eruptions do cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, human activities emit a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption of CO2 every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo-sized eruption of CO2 twice daily.

The largest possible eruptions come from super volcanoes like Yellowstone or Mount Toba (which erupt very rarely, about every 100,000 to 200,000 years or more), but the total annual CO2 emissions from human activities is like one or more Yellowstone-sized super eruptions going off every year.

Essentially, CO2 emissions from human activities dwarf those of volcanoes.

More ➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/42/what...limate-change/