2013 Lack of Hurricanes

Global warming has a longer period than 17 years. Start from the earliest metrics of atmospheric CO{2} metrics . . .

There are intervals driven by events as short as shutting down aviation 9/11 and longer ones including industrial aersols. But there are major effects, regardless of transients, that continue to show the trend . . . and these are observed by non-USA satellites.

Bob Wilson

 

Although we disagree about the time line, in one respect, we agree global warming began a long, long time ago. Based upon:

• diameter of the sun
• current sun temperature
• diameter of the earth
• distance from the sun
• background radiation temperature

Without atmospheric effects, the laws of black body radiation indicate the earth should be at about -16C. We live with a 'greenhouse gas' effect that has brought our planet's surface temperature high enough to sustain life. We're only quibbling over whether the greenhouse gas effect is now moving our planet temperature to ranges where evolution will lead to an extinction of our species and quite a few others.

I'm fairly calm about the prospects although those with children and grandchildren may have 'a different point of view.'

Bob Wilson

 

Typhoon Haiyan is now entering the Philippines. N. Pacific is now at 95% of the average ACE

WeatherBELL Models | Premium Weather Maps

and as the current storm is the largest of the year so far, that will increase.

I looked at AOML and there is not energy available in the S. China Sea for re-development, before Vietnam and Thailand get their turn. So we can hope that those countries will not see much damage.

As for the Philippines, it is probably going to be a bad one. Soils already water saturated, advance preparations not very good - you know the drill.

But as for global patterns it is clear that the different basins are not all the same. It is our first clue that not only slowly-rising T is important here. Ocean circulation patterns are running the show. Big knowledge gaps.

I'd wonder how ACE in the various basins have varied with ENSO state over the recent decades. Weatherbell data could help address that. As you know, we are very close to ENSO neutral now.

 

According to Jeff Masters Wunderground blog this is the strongest typhoon/hurricane to ever make landfall. Three larger ones have missed or degraded before landing. We might reflect on 'how could such a thing happen?' now that climate change has weakened hurricanes

The main thing is that Philippines is well and truly whacked. It will be some time before we know how whacked, but those with a charitable inclination might look for ways to assist.

Masters also thinks that it will go down to cat 1 or 2 in S China Sea. Such an event is still a big deal for Vietnam so best of luck to all those there.

 

And indeed,how many typhoons have hit them this season? (hint, a lot!)

Icarus

 

Phil' annual average is very high; don't know if that has been beat. Probably their annual average ACE has been beat. The north/south dimension is very long and at favorable latitudes for such storms.

 

The Haiyan track is now projected to be between Vietnam and Hainan island per

Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)

This is probably the 'safest' possible track because it would limit wind damage in Vietnam. There will still be big storm surge and rain however. Hanoi is now in the bullseye, but winds should be much less by arrival time. Windspeed dropped by half over Philippines; this is what a big chunk of land does to these storms.

If the recurvature is greater than this forecast, then Hainan Island will get more winds. It is tourist season there now and if I were local big boss I would be getting people off that island starting a few days ago.

If you are northeast of track you get higher winds because the forward motion adds to that. If you are southeast, you get less. This is hurricanes 101. In the southern hemisphere it is opposite because they spin the other way.

In my current location (near the Laos border) we are getting the odd full blue skies now because all the clouds are getting sucked into the storm. In a day or two that will change to dense overcast. May or may not rain here a lot.

 

Ever to make landfall necessarily refers to the modern era when careful measurements have been possible. There simply must have been as strong/stronger storms earlier.

Three stronger storms (in 1958, 1958, and 1961) either did not make landfall or weakened prior.

Some sources use 10-minute average windspeeds, others 1-minute averages. In this case the max 1-minute averages at landfall were 195 mph. I understand that it is possible to not know that.

In the short term, it might be better to set aside the record book and see what assistance might be offered to the Philippines. Longer term, we might use Maue's (weatherbell) ACE records to see how the various hurricane regions have fared in different ENSO phases. Many things to learn.

 

I certainly don't fault PAGASA for this. They are busy with other things now. Other resources exist

Super-typhoon Haiyan maintains strength crossing Philippines

All the models reported on Emanuel's website

Tropical Cyclone Intensity and Track Forecasts

suggest steady weakening in the S China Sea (it is not a warm body of water) which is excellent news for Vietnam and Hainan. The storm surge will be substantial though, which is a big deal for coastal agriculture in Vietnam.

Get your current wave height data here

Current Marine Data | Oceanweather Inc.

 

Before dawn today the sky was wide open here, but now closed. So, I won't be seeing a nice ISS overpass tomorrow AM (such problems we have )

Outer rain bands already in the Hainan island doppler

http://www.cma.gov.cn/tqyb/v2/product/product_en.php

 

This is a classic straw man.

The theory is that ghg warming may reduce the number of strong hurricanes. We all know that there is no predicting on weather one of these strong hurricanes will make landfall as a cat 5, so claiming a random act is caused by warming, or stopped by warming is just wrong scientifically. There doesn't need to be a scientific consensus here, as it is part of science dogma, that we do not attribute things that are likely random to a cause and affect.

As is every natural disaster this will be a human tragedy. Did global warming mean that it was say worse than the 1931 china floods that killed over a million people? I'll let you decide. Ok there is a little straw man there too. The fact is we don't know if there are more or less major huricanes in the future because of ghg. The randomness of these events, and the short time scale get in the way. What we certainly should not say is Katrina, bad it must have been that way because of ghg, or this one was cause by warming. That is turning the null hypothesis on its head.

 

According to the steam tables partial pressure of water increases with temperature. It drives more liquid water in the atmosphere which only leaves via precipitation . . . a storm or shower. It then releases the heat a condensation and you should know better:

The higher water load is going to lead to more precipitation from storms whether monsoons, typhoons, or even snow storms. There is no escape.

In contrast, this is called a straw man and not improved because it was introduced with the term:

No one has claimed this particular storm came about from global warming but the humidity, the heat, that fed this and every other storm did get a contribution from the increased humidity from global warming. So too did the drought in Texas and the SouthEast thanks in part due to the heat and changing wind and climate patterns.

I'm reading "Innumeracy Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences" by John Allen Paulos because there are a growing body of papers showing innumeracy is associated with being suckers for 'framing' errors. That is to say, someone who can not handle math skills becomes a fool for those who follow 'sweet words' instead of understanding the metrics of what is going on. It was actually 'mojo' and 'massparanoia' whose posting style recommended this book.

What I noticed is the vast majority of those who understand global warming and climate change are math skilled. In contrast, the deniers are seldom able to put together a coherent, math description of what is going on. So the deniers often copy-and-paste web sites by 'sweet word-smiths' (i.e., the framers) who have obvious flaws in their numeracy.

As for the Paulos book, it is a layman's introduction to probability. A reasonable read, I'm struck by how much better it is than the instructor and probability book I had at UAH. Add a few formal math analysis and it would be an excellent college book on probability.

Bob Wilson

 

And jaguars can chomp down on aligators. I have no idea how anyone would go from either statement that we necessarily need to increase the number of major huricanes on a 0.75 degreee rise in global temperature? In fact when we look at the numbers of major huricanes they are bellow average in the last 8 years since the predictions of more happen. WE HAVE A NEGATIVE CORRELATION. There is no way to reason that it has to happen, but the statistics say it is not happening. Could it happen in the future? Sure, but we should not cherry pick this single huricane and say ah ha, the trend has reversed and huricanes are increasing again.

Make a hypothesis about each of those, and test it against data.

I would not call many of the things that seem to be pointed to extreme weather. If you increase the number of snow storms by 20% by have warmer winter weather, many would call it less extreme so it is important to use metrics not just the term extreme.

The straw man here was the hypothesis of less frequent major huricanes with rising ghg, does not mean there will not be any major huricanes. It is about frequency of a random event. The idea is that sheer will change with increased heat, and this change will reduce the chance for weather conditions necessary for major huricane formation. Reducing the chances is not equivant to not ever.

Talk to any serious climate scientist, other trenberth, who seems to not be serious, see climate gate emails, and they will tell you that you can not attribute any individual huricane to ghg. You need to look at the collection over decades. There are large variances, but yes we do know that of the 10 highest wind ocean storms since 1900, 5 have occurred in the Philippines, and we can assume that more will happen in the future. This is a country that is directly in a place where hurricanes are likely to form.

 

AG@94 certainly it would have been a strawman had I not meant it ironically. Next time, to avoid confusion, I'll mark with 'cause one just wasn't enough.

Typhoon Tip still holds the record for minimum central pressure. Nobody flew into Haiyan to make such measurements. Satellite imagery shows that it was about as perfectly farmed as such things can get though.

2013 has less storms some places and more in others. It is ill fortune for Philippines to have 3 major storms and a large earthquake in one year. They need a bit of assistance and perhaps some of it can come from people who in other years are on the receiving end of Atlantic storms.

But denying that it was among the strongest? I cannot imagine a rational motive for such things.

Certainly surface-water heat is a necessary condition for storm formation and persistence. A lack of wind shear is, as well. But I think I must disagree with Bob about atmospheric moisture content. It is a relatively dry local atmosphere that allows strong vertical transport to develop. Perhaps Wxman could speak to that?

I have not read of heavy damage in Vietnam or Hainan yet. This storm took nearly the best possible recurving track in the S China Sea. Sometimes the steering currents work out very well.

 

Agree. Large-scale ascent is required for heavy precipitation events. Even an air mass with very high moisture content, very little precipitation will occur without something to trigger ascension (low stratus with (possibly) drizzle is about all that will occur even with a completely saturated column).

Of course, high water vapor content is a contributing factor since cloud bases will become increasingly high with low water vapor content (what often happen in the Southwestern CONUS in summer).

 

Well I hadn't considered the hypothesis that the increased partial pressure of water on a warmer earth would just increase the humidity and have no effect on weather precipitation. But this should be easy enough to test:

• world-wide, weather satellite records since 1960s - avoids ground-based observer bias
• 0.5 - -0.2 ~= 0.7 C increase 1960s-current

It may take a little while to assemble the collected satellite data then we can do an ordinary, statistical analysis to find out if there is a temperature vs. satellite observed storm data.

Bob Wilson