Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[Exile]

Originally Posted by 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/

All understood and, yes, a strong scientific consensus on this one afaik. I was not asking about CO2 but specifically about direct ocean warming from the massive recent eruption near Tonga. The images have been remarkable. Not suggesting anything other than curiosity.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

All understood and, yes, a strong scientific consensus on this one afaik. I was not asking about CO2 but specifically about direct ocean warming from the massive recent eruption near Tonga. The images have been remarkable. Not suggesting anything other than curiosity.

This gets much more complicated*; but, basically, I don't believe that undersea volcanoes contribute very much direct oceanic heating.

* “Volcanically Triggered Ocean Warming Near the Antarctic Peninsula” ~ by L. S. Verona, I. Wainer & S. Stevenson
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45190-3

* “Ocean Sensitivity to Periodic and Constant Volcanism” ~ by Muhammad Mubashar Dogar, Tomonori Sato & Fei Liu
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-57027-0

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Exile

All understood and, yes, a strong scientific consensus on this one afaik. I was not asking about CO2 but specifically about direct ocean warming from the massive recent eruption near Tonga. The images have been remarkable. Not suggesting anything other than curiosity.

I think the articles cited are pertaining to the effect of the volcanoes on the sea temperature changes resulting from the eruptions, through atmospheric influence, but not the direct heating of the water by the lava and gases ejected. I'd be curious too, but I suspect the effect on sea temperature, even locally, would be minimal since it is so short lived and so small relative to the volume of ocean surrounding it. Mid ocean ridges though are (possibly) erupting continuously so their contribution to heating and more specifically to ocean currents, would be something I'd guess would be far more influential, and something I'd be curious to learn more about too.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Don C L

... I suspect the effect on sea temperature, even locally, would be minimal since it is so short lived and so small relative to the volume of ocean surrounding it. Mid ocean ridges though are (possibly) erupting continuously so their contribution to heating and more specifically to ocean currents, would be something I'd guess would be far more influential, and something I'd be curious to learn more about too.

This National Geographic article, by Bob Ballard, discussing Hydrothermal Vents [not volcanos] in the Ocean, offers some clues:
“... While ocean vents contribute to the ocean’s chemistry, their profound heat only slightly influences ocean temperatures. The reason is that while vent fluids are super-hot, they are super-cooled by the tons of cold water surrounding them. In fact, beyond a meter (3 feet) of a vent, the water is back to a near-freezing 1.7° Celsius (35° Fahrenheit)...”
➥ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...ia/ocean-vent/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

This National Geographic article, by Bob Ballard, discussing Hydrothermal Vents [not volcanos] in the Ocean, offers some clues:
“... While ocean vents contribute to the ocean’s chemistry, their profound heat only slightly influences ocean temperatures. The reason is that while vent fluids are super-hot, they are super-cooled by the tons of cold water surrounding them. In fact, beyond a meter (3 feet) of a vent, the water is back to a near-freezing 1.7° Celsius (35° Fahrenheit)...”
➥ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...ia/ocean-vent/

Good clues offering some overall perspective on this. Don't know how deep this particular undersea volcano was but I kinda doubt many produce eruptions which make for such a dramatic visual display above the surface. Many we're all familiar with also continue to produce lava, ash, and hot gases for years and longer, but not sure if that's the case here. In any event, any measurable long-term impact on larger systems that are the subject of this thread seem doubtful.

Thanks for the research efforts Gord.

[Elzaar]

With all due respect to the many opinions and "facts" being thrown around this thread (a thread I have done my best to avoid), I submit that much of what is assumed to be true is not nearly so clear or obvious as is being presented. I believe it's fair to say that one of the most "expert" folks on tropical storms in the North Atlantic Basin is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I submit that NOAA strongly suggests that tropical storms have not increased to any noticeable degree in intensity or frequency (beyond cyclically) since they were first seriously tracked beginning in about 1860. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for it, so I encourage those here stating they are merely following the science to look at the actual science with an open and objective mind. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "It is much easier to lie to a man than to convince a man that he has been misinformed."

NOAA paper on the potential for past inaccuracy in measuring tropical storm intensity (excerpt): "A methodology is created to determine how many of these 10 recent Category 5 hurricanes likely would have been recorded as Category 5 if they had occurred during this period using only the observations that likely would have been available with existing technology and observational networks. Late-1940s and early 1950s best-track intensities are determined for the entire lifetime of these 10 recent Category 5 hurricanes. It is found that likely only 2 of these 10—both Category 5 landfalling hurricanes—would have been recorded as Category 5 hurricanes if they had occurred during the late-1940s period. The results suggest that intensity estimates for extreme tropical cyclones prior to the satellite era are unreliable for trend and variability analysis." (Italics added)
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/CAT_5_PAPER.pdf


NOAA paper that strongly questions the popular notion often stated in mainstream media of increased frequency in tropical storms (excerpt): "Recent papers (Vecchi and Knutson 2008; Landsea et al 2010; Vecchi and Knutson 2011.; Villarini et al. 2011) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database (HURDAT) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring." (italics added)
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical...storm-records/

NOAA paper that discusses some of the many influences on ocean temperatures, current variability, and especially Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV) of hurricanes, including questioning the impact of aerosols, and including volcanos as a contributing factor (excerpt): "Previous work suggested that atmospheric forcing and more specifically aerosols were a prime driver of AMV. However, observations of upper ocean heat content in the North Atlantic, the spatial pattern of multi-decadal SST changes, and the subpolar North Atlantic SSS refute this hypothesis." (italics added)
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/multidecadal-climate-changes/

I especially encourage anyone with an interest in tropical storms to spend many hours (it's reasonably addictive), and explore the past history of hurricane tracks available to anyone with an interest. I can say up front that if all Tropical Storms are deleted from the data (as is described in the second paper listed), the results are that there are fewer tropical storms in the chronologically latter half of the available data (522), than there are in the chronologically earlier half of the data (563). In other words, not only are tropical storms not increasing in number, they are arguably decreasing.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/h...al-hurricanes/

To be clear, I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't theorize about Climate Change, Tropical Storms, Covid, Vaccinations, the Lab Leak theory, or whether or not there is a Santa Claus. I am suggesting (again) that we all accept and recognize that there is no Science, there is only science. The former implies absolute certainty and dogmatic adherence to whatever theory one read first, the latter implies that an initial hypothesis is really more of a slightly educated, mostly wild-assed, guess. Everything that follows after that is more of the same, hopefully with better and better theories, and fewer and fewer wild-assed involved in the guesses.

So, before we go nailing people to crosses as Heretics, we might recall that a mere two years ago, people were ostracized and censored for suggesting that the Covid-19 virus was the result of a (probably) accidental leak from a lab in Wuhan, China. Yet, today, US Intelligence, the World Health Organization, Dr. Fauci and other expert's e-mails in the first few days of the crisis, and the Biden Administration all openly consider that it was and is quite possible that the pandemic is the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China. Was it? How the heck do I know? What I do know is it is very difficult to reach accurate conclusions even with all the information at your disposal, so the last thing that should be done is to throw out any hypothesis merely because it doesn't meet with one's preferred outcome. China has refused to cooperate with the investigation, making it impossible to gather all of the necessary information to make accurate conclusions. Lacking the information does not mean it didn't happen. It also doesn't prove that it did. That is also true regardless whether the topic is Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I'm pretty sure there is an Easter Bunny, but I admit to wavering on my certainty in the existence of Kringle.

Again, if we really believe we are faced with life and death choices, perhaps we should be sure we are examining the available information dispassionately and with an open mind, lest we waste precious time, energy, and resources chasing false narratives.

Many thanks for your patience and indulgence.

[bstreep]

I'm not going to requote Elzaar's post. Perfectly posted. Like him/her, I try and avoid these discussions. I AM a scientist by education (went to Rice to get a PhD in molecular genetics).



"Science" is never settled. EVER. I have to think that the last 2 years have taught this all of this, right? Especially when politics, money and science are combined. And they always are... (That's why I'm a real estate appraiser).

[Bycrick]

The only people who think that "science is settled," are the ones who have found an answer they like, and want everybody else to shut up and agree with them.

And retreating to the "informed consensus" argument just means that they’ve found more than one "expert" that agrees with them.

Just like arguing religion.

[Chris31415]

Originally Posted by bstreep

"Science" is never settled. EVER.

That settles it then.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by bstreep

... "Science" is never settled. EVER. I have to think that the last 2 years have taught this all of this, right? Especially when politics, money and science are combined. And they always are... (That's why I'm a real estate appraiser).

Originally Posted by Chris31415

That settles it then.

The common skeptic refrain that "the science isn't settled", presumes science exists in a binary state. But, that’s an unsophisticated bit of sophistry, and the position is absurd on its face, and specious in the extreme.

“Settled” does not mean proved, or final. It means our understanding of some of the laws of Nature, on some scales, and in some domains, is not something we can see ever being overturned.

We don't expect objects to start falling up, we don't expect the sun to begin rising in the West, and we don't expect increased carbon dioxide would begin to cool the Earth. The principles, and formulas, that calculate solar radiation, watts per square foot, the effect of greenhouse gases, are all as well understood, as is gravity.

So, while science never reaches 100% absolute philosophical certainty [a scientific theory is settled or accepted when scientists cannot find data to falsify that theory, within its domain, and they are quite confident that no such data will be found - it’s not about absolute proofs], there is sliding scale of “uncertainty”:
1. We have no clue.
2. Lots of conflicting evidence. Still arguing.
3. Got it nailed, but still some [many?] minor nits to resolve.
4. Refining the measurements, and reducing slight disagreements with theory.
5. No new tweaks for a long time. Too boring to study, and new research not likely to show anything of interest.

How the climate is affected by greenhouse gases is realistically around stage 3 [or 4].

Debate is as important to science, as consensus is to politics. But debate needs to be based on observations, not opinions.
For skeptics to lean on the lack of settled climate science, as an excuse for doing nothing, would be laughable if it weren’t tragic. This is not an academic debate. The result will have real and perhaps irreversible consequences.

Any remaining uncertainties don't imply, or state, that "things can go either way", as the climate goes. It just says that we don't know how bad things are actually going to be.

Permanently holding out, for different [more comforting] answers, when the accumulation of more than a century of scientific understanding, keeps giving ones we find uncomfortable, and inconvenient, is not upholding scientific integrity, it is politics - the sort that can mean missing the main chance. by failing to use the precious, priceless, window of opportunity science based forethought is providing.

So, if you mean "settled for all eternity" then no science is settled, since permanent attempts at falsifiability is part of the philosophy of scientific truth.

If you mean the experts, in the field, have gathered a substantial body of evidence, over decades of data going back 600,000 years, which substantiates the theory that human made carbon emmissions are causing accelerated global warming, and that NO other theory supports the data, then the issue is indeed “settled”.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

* * *

If you mean the experts, in the field, have gathered a substantial body of evidence, over decades of data going back 600,000 years, which substantiates the theory that human made carbon emmissions are causing accelerated global warming, and that NO other theory supports the data, then the issue is indeed “settled”.
[/SIZE]

But apparently not "settled" when applied to what may be causing changes in tropical cyclone intensity & track, the subject of this thread? Or whether any such changes are even occurring? Or the consequences -- good or bad -- of global warming, regardless of the cause? Or whether we can influence it, or even should? Or whether the current state of technology supports viable alternatives? Or whether the economic & social costs of such alternatives outweigh their purported benefits to the planet? Or what those benefits may actually be?

Well, you get the idea. Like any complex issue involving a multitude of often competing courses of action (e.g. Covid), many people seem to be drawn to simplistic, binary positions which quickly morph into intolerance to anything that differs from their own orthodoxy. This is the very definition of ideology, and hence the oft-repeated similarities (fair or not) to how many also view their own religious faith. Another area of human thought where there's often little room for open discussion, let alone much tolerance for dissent.

When it comes to climate change, there's a huge chasm between people asking such rational, legitimate questions, and using such questions & concerns as an "excuse for doing nothing." In fact, it's probably fair to say this is where the majority of people sit, assuming they're reasonably well-informed, that is, about more than one side of this multi-faceted issue.

[Bycrick]

Thanks, Exile. Even if I accept that the climate is changing (and I do), and further accept (which I do) that the impact of 7+ billion people is going to be severe, that still leaves a lot of room for disagreement on how to solve the problem(s) and who’s going to pay for it.

The people who’ve got all the answers, or think they do, are religious zealots.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Thanks, Exile. Even if I accept that the climate is changing (and I do), and further accept (which I do) that the impact of 7+ billion people is going to be severe, that still leaves a lot of room for disagreement on how to solve the problem(s) and who’s going to pay for it.

The people who’ve got all the answers, or think they do, are religious zealots.

Maybe a small(ish) but outspoken minority have such tendencies Bycrick, but I don't think it's helpful to label and stereotype as such. It's exactly the same approach many use to "shame," ostracize, and silence those who disagree with them, most notably the ubiquitous use of the derogatory "denier" label. The lack of free and open discourse from all sides inevitably leads to people only listening to the like-minded and therefore themselves, which in turn often creates the sort of extreme, insular positions that can get outlandish and polarizing. Just like with the complex and controversial policy decisions concerning Covid, the best remedy against extreme positions one way or the other is the disinfectant that can only come from open discussion & debate.

This is why there doesn't seem to be much discussion about some of the harder questions re: CC outlined above. If you don't "believe" the prevailing "science" completely, then you must be a "denier" and reject the science completely. This sort of approach is in fact akin to "a matter of faith" and thus antithetical to science, but this is an all too common human tendency, for better or worse. People want simple answers, and there's nothing simpler than vilifying those who disagree. Just look at the treatment received by the few environmentalists who agree with the basic CC tenets but disagree that renewables are a realistic and appropriate remedy?

[GordMay]

In my case, I was just commenting about what bstreep said*, opining that, while true in a philosophical sense, in practicality, science can be settled enough to act upon *2.
I [more or less] agree, with you, that [the science is] apparently not "settled" when applied to what may be causing changes in tropical cyclone intensity & track, the subject of this thread, although some evidence is beginning to build.

* “Science" is never settled. EVER.”

*2. A research psychologist is doing an experiment, to test human behavior. In the test setup, there is a room with an incredibly attractive, naked, god-like person opposite the door. The test subject enters, and is required to stay still until a bell rings, every five minutes, at which point they can halve the distance to the goal.
The first test subject is a mathematician. When the setup is explained, the mathematician replies, "Oh, this is ZenosParadox, it's impossible for me to actually reach my target. Forget it."
The second test subject is an engineer, who says, "Sure, let's do it." The interviewer mentions ZenosParadox, to which the reply comes, "Yeah, but even so, I can get close enough for all practical purposes."

[bstreep]

Gord, I love your most immediate post above. Your prior post is exactly why I moved away from this thread within 24 hours of it being posted. I disagree with a whole lot of that post. As others have pointed out, you are already entrenched in a position. Until you step out of that trench, erase all that you believe you "know" (this is nearly impossible to do), and start afresh, you are espousing religion.

As a molecular biologist, I have been harpooned over the last almost 2 years regarding my mask stance (at the beginning, I said unless you are using N95 masks, your cloth mask is like stopping rifle shots with a hulahoop). So, I stepped down. Last summer I started reviewing the previously classified, still heavily redacted emails from the beginning of the pandemic. I stated then that the consensus was that this came from Wuhan, and it was from gain-of-function research. The insertion sequence is a dead giveaway. I was again harpooned. And here we are... The "science" that was settled years/months ago, was totally wrong. Wow.


This is why so many of the masses don't trust science/scientists.