Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: How bout that weather

  1. #31
    Member
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    I'd have to dig out my climate textbook, the number of hurricanes in a season might have random variables that might mean there's more of less of them, but the amount of moisture and size is determined by some fairly straightforward physics. If you know the historical sea surface temperature, then you'd be able to predict to a large degree the amount of moisture being transferred to the atmosphere now vs then... then you'd just need to look at divergence at altitude to determine how unstable the atmosphere was; add in the extent of warm and cold air masses and then punch it all into a sufficiently powerful computer.

    It'd be fairly straightforward to make a statement about what percentage increase of the size of a hurricane was due to sea surface temperature increase.

    Climate science is a hard science. It's not psychology...
    As I understand it, there is consensus that warming is occurring and is the result of humans. From that an implication that the climate will change. But there's no consensus on how the climate will actually change.

    It is a 'hard science', but with incomplete data and incomplete understanding. Therefore there's uncertainty in what the result will be. The models all necessarily make some guesses, so they disagree in some ways. Not the climate denier version of uncertainty which is like "scientists aren't sure, so let's do nothing", but uncertainty exactly as the definition means. The impact on the climate isn't really known. So there could be very little impact, or the models might have underpredicted the impacts, and it will be worse. So the uncertainty means we should take it seriously still, while recognising that the actual outcome is uncertain.

    The problem is that if we point to this and say "see, this is evidence of climate change", then maybe, actually climate change is going to result in a lower frequency of hurricanes here, because no one yet knows for certain, that might be the case. Then the integrity of scientists is lessened. There had been overconfident scientific assertions and they have to go back on what they said.

    link

    While scientists have talked for years about an approaching era of "super-hurricanes," the data do not yet support the conclusion that we'll see more big storms on a regular basis, said Tom Knutson, a NOAA meteorologist at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

    "We really can't detect these changes yet in the existing data in the way we can detect in changes, for example, in the global mean temperature," he said. While both Harvey and Irma` are record-setters, NOAA doesn't see a "clear existing signal in storm data" going back to the 1800s that proves the two storms are part of a departure from the cycle of natural variability.

    Computer models, on the other hand, predict that the strength of hurricanes could double by 2050, based on rising sea surface temperatures and a warming atmosphere that can carry more water vapor.

    The problem is that real data are spotty. Knutson suspects that storm data from the 1800s, based on landfalls and ship logs describing storms at sea, appear to have undercounted the number of storms. "We think that's likely because there were a limited number of ships traveling around in early times," he said.

    Dependable accuracy in counting and measuring the strength of hurricanes didn't begin until the 1960s, with the launch of space satellites. He said scientists need about a century's worth of good data to start making sophisticated predictions about the influence of human-caused climate change on hurricane frequency.

    This data gap is one reason why NOAA is being cautious about superstorm predictions. The second reason, he explained, stems from odd swings in Atlantic hurricane activity that scientists still don't understand. Storms of the '60s, '70s and '80s were fairly pedestrian compared with those of the 1940s and '50s. Stronger storms picked up again around 1995.

    "That type of variability makes it really hard to see long-term trends of the type that we would anticipate would be arising from greenhouse warming," Knutson said.

    "The models we use for these purposes are getting better," he added, "but we have to be cautious about how much credence to put into the model projections, especially when we don't see the clear trend in the data."

  2. #32
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by scarydoor View Post
    As I understand it, there is consensus that warming is occurring and is the result of humans. From that an implication that the climate will change. But there's no consensus on how the climate will actually change.

    Your link pretty much says what I said. The formation of hurricanes is a bit random but when they do form over a warmer ocean there's a crap load more moisture and energy.

  3. #33
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,657
    Sir Richard Branson's twitter feed is pretty amazing. https://twitter.com/richardbranson





  4. #34
    Member
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    Your link pretty much says what I said. The formation of hurricanes is a bit random but when they do form over a warmer ocean there's a crap load more moisture and energy.
    I think we're talking about two separate things. You're talking about this specific event, and that warmer temperatures had an impact to make it worse (how much worse isn't mentioned). The other thing is whether this is indicative of a change in climate. In the link above, the second section supports what you're saying, and the third section supports what I'm saying.

  5. #35
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by scarydoor View Post
    I think we're talking about two separate things. You're talking about this specific event, and that warmer temperatures had an impact to make it worse (how much worse isn't mentioned). The other thing is whether this is indicative of a change in climate. In the link above, the second section supports what you're saying, and the third section supports what I'm saying.
    Yeah... well I'm not talking about whether climate change is causing more or less hurricanes. All I'm saying is that most of the extra heat from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has gone into the oceans. Warmer oceans have a known and predictable effect on the atmosphere.

    Our weather demonstrates this here all the time. The further north the air comes from the warmer it is and the more moisture it contains; as it travels south it passes over a cooler ocean and cools, condensing the air, as this hits land and rises it rains; the further north it's come from the more it rains. Lots of nimbostratus over wide areas.

    The further it comes from the south the cooler it is and the less moisture it contains. As it passes over a warmer ocean the air warms and becomes unstable. This causes showers... some fairly intense but still patchy cumulonimbus showers.

    There is far less precipitation in air coming from the Antarctic than there is from air coming from the tropics.

    Most of the energy comes from latent heat. Latent heat comes from moisture content.

    Knowing the increase in ocean temperature over time gives the ability to predict the increase in moisture in the atmosphere.

  6. #36
    Member
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    933
    My Mum is flying from Australia to Houston tomorrow before joining up with her sister and some others for a cruise holiday from Florida in a week or so. She's like "we had planned to go to key west and Miami beach before the cruise but will have to see if they have been affected by the hurricanes." lol.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Starjots's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinny View Post
    Lol, taking Al Gore seriously.

    There is major climate change, but I suspect climate engineering has a lot more to do with climate change than we are being told.
    As an engineer, just letting you know you are draining the word of all meaning. Tell me how such a thing can be accomplished using knowledge, energy available etc in specific terms and then maybe I will not dismiss so easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by scarydoor View Post
    I think there is a risk that when we label all extreme weather events as being, in some sense, evidence for climate change, then this can backfire in future. E.g. when a particularly cold winter happens, climate skeptics use that as evidence against global warming.

    I'd probably just like to see some more robust analysis of actually how "unusual" these hurricanes are, before just trusting our intuition that "obviously" these are beyond what should naturally occur.
    I agree, over reach of linking specific situation is weak compared to looking at larger data set and encourages the frogs to sit and boil in the slowly heating water.

    Much more interested in what we do in response. For example, in watching coverage a small part of me hopes for giant catastrophe, like watching a stupid action movie. But then common sense kicks in and I realize I and everyone else in this country has to pay the taxes to fix all this natural disaster stuff and these are real people not CGI toons. So please, no disaster.

    Anyway, more interested in making sure we either change codes to reduce damage or not rebuild in areas that are just going to flood again. You know, common sense, don't go walking on the interstate highway sort of thinking and be surprised when car runs you down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madrigal View Post
    Okay, let's hope not - I just get the sense that the media is so excited about using apocalyptic language that they won't tone it down even though the storm is obviously way less destructive than was forecast initially.
    I see this as well, I think human nature to be excited by possible armageddon, explains love of owning 20 guns, bug out bags, walking dead and 50 other tv shows. Humans prefer pain over boredom and I think that has been proven with psychological studies.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Starjots's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,827
    And speaking of weather, our monsoon season here was disappointing after a decent start, maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the average amount of rain. We are watering the grass a bit just to make sure it doesn't die. Compared to what's been happening in other parts of US, we are doing great though.

  9. #39
    Member Mxx's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,148

  10. #40
    My house was straight rekt by andrew in 92 when I lived in Homestead. Our roof flew off. We had to live in an RV for months after. When I saw that side-by-side of Andrew and Irma I packed my shit and drove to Atlanta. Irma could've been way worse. So glad it wasn't.

Similar Threads

  1. Weather
    By Makers!* in forum The Pub
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-19-2017, 10:03 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2014, 03:01 AM
  3. Near earth asteroid predicted in space weather this evening.
    By LordLatch in forum News, Culture & History
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 01:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •