Ida Banter

[Scorpion]

Very good points Naso, props.

We just need a strong Cat 4 to hit the South FL megalopolis. Areas outside of south Miami haven’t been hit with a major since 1949. 

[Windspeed]

So the media narrative is that Hurricane Ida is a result of climate change. I have been a hurricane/climate change skeptic for decades. I remember Dr. William Gray telling me at a 2005 Hurricane Conference that climate change was a "red herring" and that natural multi-decade cycles caused more hurricanes. So, I don't want to be "anti-science" and ignore all the voices, but when the late, great Dr. Gray himself told me it was not the result of climate change, I find myself skeptical.
I think a few factors are at work:
1. Better technology to name storms. Even in 2001, we didn't name sub-tropical storms, and half of these weak "Julian" type storms would never be named. I remember back in 1999, there was an obvious tropical storm that developed between Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Gert, and it was never named and quickly dissipated. When you have weather enthusiasts posting close-up visible loops of a naked swirl with a popcorn thunderstorm over it, it becomes much easier to spot and classify.
2. The media. In the post-Katrina world, CNN does non-stop coverage of insignificant non-US tropical systems. Go back to when I was a teen, circa 2000, even a Cat 4 Hurricane like Hurricane Keith near Belize only got a few short mentions on a network like CNN, and even The Weather Channel didn't go into their "super graphics special report" coverage for it, since it was a non-US storm. In a post-Katrina world, every wave gets mentioned, even on mainstream news networks.
3. Social media. How many videos of this flooding would we be seeing if the year was 2001? Remember, even twenty years ago, nobody had smart phones. (Imagine the horror of people live-streaming from the World Trade Center). Everyone having a camera today creates a world where every funnel cloud, every wave, every weather event can be seen by millions all over twitter and facebook within seconds. That's great for weather enthusiasts, but it creates a perception of a NEW constant severe weather climate, when it actuality, it was always there. It was just the social media that wasn't.
4. Population growth. I'm stunned (and uncomfortable TBH) about the massive population explosions along the coastlines. The populations have growth enormously over recent years. I don't mean from 1950 to now...I mean from 2000 to now. It's insane the amount of growth. More growth equals more people and property to feel the wrath of weather.
 
 

Climate change is real. Too much scientific evidence to support that anthropogenic influences are leading to events being amplified. I was a skeptic for a while. However, let me stress that simply picking a single event on the whim and blaming climate change is unwise and not very scientific. Plenty of bad tropical cyclones made impacts prior to the onset of anthropogenic influence upon the atmosphere. If anything, blatant blaming this or that without regard dilutes the message without evidence to support claims. You cannot merely state that Ida would not have occurred without climate change and not be undermined by historical TC landfalls. It is possible or at least more believing that climate extremes may lead to more frequency or stronger systems now, but it's why scientists do research. But you cannot just wave a magic wand however and erase the similar events that occurred 100 years ago.

[sojitodd]

On 9/3/2021 at 5:44 AM, Floydbuster said:

So the media narrative is that Hurricane Ida is a result of climate change. I have been a hurricane/climate change skeptic for decades. I remember Dr. William Gray telling me at a 2005 Hurricane Conference that climate change was a "red herring" and that natural multi-decade cycles caused more hurricanes. So, I don't want to be "anti-science" and ignore all the voices, but when the late, great Dr. Gray himself told me it was not the result of climate change, I find myself skeptical.

I think a few factors are at work:

1. Better technology to name storms. Even in 2001, we didn't name sub-tropical storms, and half of these weak "Julian" type storms would never be named. I remember back in 1999, there was an obvious tropical storm that developed between Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Gert, and it was never named and quickly dissipated. When you have weather enthusiasts posting close-up visible loops of a naked swirl with a popcorn thunderstorm over it, it becomes much easier to spot and classify.

2. The media. In the post-Katrina world, CNN does non-stop coverage of insignificant non-US tropical systems. Go back to when I was a teen, circa 2000, even a Cat 4 Hurricane like Hurricane Keith near Belize only got a few short mentions on a network like CNN, and even The Weather Channel didn't go into their "super graphics special report" coverage for it, since it was a non-US storm. In a post-Katrina world, every wave gets mentioned, even on mainstream news networks.

3. Social media. How many videos of this flooding would we be seeing if the year was 2001? Remember, even twenty years ago, nobody had smart phones. (Imagine the horror of people live-streaming from the World Trade Center). Everyone having a camera today creates a world where every funnel cloud, every wave, every weather event can be seen by millions all over twitter and facebook within seconds. That's great for weather enthusiasts, but it creates a perception of a NEW constant severe weather climate, when it actuality, it was always there. It was just the social media that wasn't.

4. Population growth. I'm stunned (and uncomfortable TBH) about the massive population explosions along the coastlines. The populations have growth enormously over recent years. I don't mean from 1950 to now...I mean from 2000 to now. It's insane the amount of growth. More growth equals more people and property to feel the wrath of weather.

 

 

smh.

[Prospero]

On 9/3/2021 at 10:37 AM, Windspeed said:

On 9/3/2021 at 5:44 AM, Floydbuster said:

 

Climate change is real. Too much scientific evidence to support that anthropogenic influences are leading to events being amplified. I was a skeptic for a while. However, let me stress that simply picking a single event on the whim and blaming climate change is unwise and not very scientific. Plenty of bad tropical cyclones made impacts prior to the onset of anthropogenic influence upon the atmosphere. If anything, blatant blaming this or that without regard dilutes the message without evidence to support claims. You cannot merely state that Ida would not have occurred without climate change and not be undermined by historical TC landfalls. It is possible or at least more believing that climate extremes may lead to more frequency or stronger systems now, but it's why scientists do research. But you cannot just wave a magic wand however and erase the similar events that occurred 100 years ago.

Climates have been changing since the beginning of our planet. Obviously what we are doing as a species has some kind of effect on our environment. We know we can kill a river or lake very quickly, etc. We cut down forests and plant fields. We cut into mountains and build roads. We build large cities. We definitely change the atmosphere on some level.

But maybe the climate is changing anyway as it always has.

I get curious, if the oceans keep heating up and hurricanes become less effective at cooling them down, what happens?

More storms, bigger storms, so on at first. But I suppose a hurricane can only become so big or so powerful.

I wonder if on the Earth over the past billions of years there were storms more powerful than hurricanes. What would they be like? A Jupiter like storm maybe?

[CNY_WX]

8 minutes ago, Prospero said:

Climates have been changing since the beginning of our planet. Obviously what we are doing as a species has some kind of effect on our environment. We know we can kill a river or lake very quickly, etc. We cut down forests and plant fields. We cut into mountains and build roads. We build large cities. We definitely change the atmosphere on some level.

But maybe the climate is changing anyway as it always has.

I get curious, if the oceans keep heating up and hurricanes become less effective at cooling them down, what happens?

More storms, bigger storms, so on at first. But I suppose a hurricane can only become so big or so powerful.

I wonder if on the Earth over the past billions of years there were storms more powerful than hurricanes. What would they be like? A Jupiter like storm maybe?

A “Great Red Spot” on Earth?

[Windspeed]

Climates have been changing since the beginning of our planet. Obviously what we are doing as a species has some kind of effect on our environment. We know we can kill a river or lake very quickly, etc. We cut down forests and plant fields. We cut into mountains and build roads. We build large cities. We definitely change the atmosphere on some level.
But maybe the climate is changing anyway as it always has.
I get curious, if the oceans keep heating up and hurricanes become less effective at cooling them down, what happens?
More storms, bigger storms, so on at first. But I suppose a hurricane can only become so big or so powerful.
I wonder if on the Earth over the past billions of years there were storms more powerful than hurricanes. What would they be like? A Jupiter like storm maybe?

Note that I stated "anthropogenic"; that was for a reason. Clearly climates change over time, but very slowly and on the geological scale of ages such a glacial and interglacial periods. These are also forced by introductions of gases or particulates into the atmosphere via a natural process (volcanic activity or rising/sinking crust), continental movements via plate tectonics and changes in shallow marine environments, or a slight change in a solar output via our closest star. These are gradual and we have geologic ages built around some of the major ones. That being said, macroclimates should not be rapidly changing within a few hundred years like a microclimate without some large scale global catalyst. There are no natural processes that can explain what we are measuring. Oh, except that pesky fact that human beings are wreaking havoc on the planet by both altering the surface and pumping 40 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year; and that figure is still unfortunately rising each year that passes.

[SnowenOutThere]

After looking at this thread I have to think that climate change (caused by us) is linked to these storms in some way. This is simply due to when the atmosphere heats up the ocean heats up and when you get worse storms. We have also seen a noticeable uptick in RI in storms right before landfall, which would make sense given that the ocean's temperature is rising, the simplest explanation is that climate change is making these events worse. As for flooding that is an area that we have pretty conclusively linked to climate change with how warmer air can hold more moisture and we have seen that with record breaking floods. With all of these events happening at the same time the simplest explanation is that the climate is changing because of us and this is leading to worse storms.   

[etudiant]

1 hour ago, Windspeed said:

1 hour ago, Prospero said:

Climates have been changing since the beginning of our planet. Obviously what we are doing as a species has some kind of effect on our environment. We know we can kill a river or lake very quickly, etc. We cut down forests and plant fields. We cut into mountains and build roads. We build large cities. We definitely change the atmosphere on some level.
But maybe the climate is changing anyway as it always has.
I get curious, if the oceans keep heating up and hurricanes become less effective at cooling them down, what happens?
More storms, bigger storms, so on at first. But I suppose a hurricane can only become so big or so powerful.
I wonder if on the Earth over the past billions of years there were storms more powerful than hurricanes. What would they be like? A Jupiter like storm maybe?

Note that I stated "anthropogenic"; that was for a reason. Clearly climates change over time, but very slowly and on the geological scale of ages such a glacial and interglacial periods. 

I'd been under the impression that very sharp climate swings were the norm, as evidenced by the very abrupt temperature changes during the most recent ice age and the 'Younger Dryas' cold snap. 

[Prospero]

 

On 9/3/2021 at 10:37 AM, Windspeed said:

Climate change is real. Too much scientific evidence to support that anthropogenic influences are leading to events being amplified....

I am definitely a strong believer that we are amplifying the changes. I said, "But maybe the climate is changing anyway as it always has." But I don't believe it.

I was just pondering what might happen if the planet starts to need more than hurricanes to self-regulate it's ocean temperature. Maybe more science fiction that reality, but maybe not.

[Windspeed]

I'd been under the impression that very sharp climate swings were the norm, as evidenced by the very abrupt temperature changes during the most recent ice age and the 'Younger Dryas' cold snap. 

There are several natural catalysts that can explain the Younger Dryas though. We do not have a natural catalyst for the ongoing rapid changes we are seeing at present. I am impressed that you referenced it. I love reading about all the potential hypothesis and some which have been presented in journals as corresponding theory. Was it an impact event? Rapid glacial rebound due to a swift decrease in salinity? Volcanic fallout? Aliens? (joking).. At any rate, current changes are none of these. Well maybe it's aliens.

Edit: I might also add that the Younger Dryas still took several thousand years to unfold, not ~200. What occurred then is still noteworthy compared to gradual change, but compared to the recent history is still a much longer drawn out period of change. We are seeing unprecedented changes unfolding at present, compared even to interglacial spikes and glacial spikes. Also, rapid changes are cold spikes after a long duration warming trend due to a natural catalyst. We are swinging warm rapidly at present without a natural catalyst. This may be jumping way off topic even for a banter thread about anything/everything, but it was referenced above for the tropical landfall event. I digress...

[etudiant]

56 minutes ago, Windspeed said:

Edit: I might also add that the Younger Dryas still took several thousand years to unfold, not ~200. 

I don't believe that that is true.

Afaik, the actual swings in temperature are so fast that they are mushed by the process of ice forming and melting , with the associated gas diffusion.

Basically, the cores show very abrupt changes, which we are struggling to understand. 

[Windspeed]

I don't believe that that is true.
Afaik, the actual swings in temperature are so fast that they are mushed by the process of ice forming and melting , with the associated gas diffusion.
Basically, the cores show very abrupt changes, which we are struggling to understand. 

The sudden warming interval began around 14,700 years ago. The cold reversal didn't occur until around 12,800 years ago. That's almost 2000 years of warming that led into the potential salinity driven cold spike. But it was rapid back to cold, yes. But even at that, the rapid cold swing can be explained by several hypothesized natural phenomenon. Where as right now at present, the warm spike in ~200 years is pretty astonishing.

[Floydbuster]

On 9/4/2021 at 9:49 AM, sojitodd said:

smh.

 

What did I say that was incorrect? I gave several points about how for atleast one or two decades, hurricane experts have told me that natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillations are responsible for hurricane activity. Thus the bursts of busy years followed by bursts of inactive years. For example: 0 Major hurricanes hit US in a 12 yr period of 2005-2017, but in the 4 years since 2017, the US has seen 6. (Harvey, Irma, Michael, Laura, Zeta, Ida).

I would think my multi-paragraph arguments would illicit more than a three letter acronym. 

[Witness Protection Program]

On 8/26/2021 at 11:49 AM, CheeselandSkies said:

Agreed, an embarrassing number of recon issues lately. We'll have to resort to assessing TC intensity by surveying after the fact like with tornadoes.

They don't call them that anymore.

[sojitodd]

On 9/5/2021 at 9:38 PM, Floydbuster said:

 

What did I say that was incorrect? I gave several points about how for atleast one or two decades, hurricane experts have told me that natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillations are responsible for hurricane activity. Thus the bursts of busy years followed by bursts of inactive years. For example: 0 Major hurricanes hit US in a 12 yr period of 2005-2017, but in the 4 years since 2017, the US has seen 6. (Harvey, Irma, Michael, Laura, Zeta, Ida).

I would think my multi-paragraph arguments would illicit more than a three letter acronym. 

It was the climate change denial part. The first paragraph was problematic. Also things have changed and more evidence has accumulated since 2005. It was only a "smh" for that part-the climate denial stuff. There is more to AGW and climate change than hurricane activity in a given location.

 

I probably should have specified what the "smh" was directed at. It was just for part of the first paragraph. I did remove the "weenie" I gave the post since I did not have a problem with the rest of it.