Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Climate Change is Making Hurricanes Even More Destructive, Research Finds (theguardian.com) 212

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
Hurricane Harvey swamped Houston with seven days of pounding rain last August. When scientists went back to look at historical weather patterns, they reported Harvey dumped 20 percent more rain than it typically would have. The culprit: climate change. From a report: High-resolution climate simulations of 15 tropical cyclones in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans found that warming in the ocean and atmosphere increased rainfall by between 5% and 10%, although wind speeds remained largely unchanged. This situation is set to worsen under future anticipated warming, however. Researchers found that if little is done to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and the world warms by 3C to 4C this century then hurricane rainfall could increase by a third, while wind speeds would be boosted by as much as 25 knots.

"Climate change has exacerbated rainfall and is set to enhance the wind speed," said Christina Patricola, who undertook the study with her Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory colleague Michael Wehner. "My hope is that this information can be used to improve our resilience to the kinds of extreme weather events we are going to have in the future." The research, published in the journal Nature, used climate models to see how factors such as air and ocean temperatures have influenced hurricanes. Projections into the future were then made, based upon various levels of planetary warming. The findings suggest that enormously destructive storms have already been bolstered by climate change and similar events in the future are on course to be cataclysmic.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Climate Change is Making Hurricanes Even More Destructive, Research Finds More

Climate Change is Making Hurricanes Even More Destructive, Research Finds

Comments Filter:

  • More energy and water vapor in atmosphere (Score:5, Informative)

    by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2018 @04:15PM (#57644594)
    Wetter and windier hurricanes going forward is not surprising, since global warming of the atmosphere causes weather systems to have more energy and the atmosphere to hold more water vapor,

    This study is consistent with climate science assumptions going back at least several decades.

    In short, this is not really news. Just more detailed simulations confirming the general model.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's an article about simulations built on a model behaving in a way consistent with the model.

      I suppose the news here is that the software performed as designed.

      • Re:More energy and water vapor in atmosphere (Score:5, Informative)

        by Alwin Barni ( 5107629 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2018 @05:20PM (#57645028)

        It's an article about simulations built on a model behaving in a way consistent with the model.

        I suppose the news here is that the software performed as designed.

        Did you know, that one can test these computer models against historical data, aka one feeds lets say 30 years old measurements and verifies with nowadays observations. One can do it on various historical periods and this way one can know if the model is good enough for future predictions, of course it does not guarantee the future, but it's the best we have, and (putting aside politics) it might be very useful.

        And (behold), this is exactly how these models are being tested before making any climate prognosis based on them.

        • And it still doesn't amount to either empirical data or actual "evidence".

          Model all you like. Have great fun. It still isn't evidence.

          • And it still doesn't amount to either empirical data or actual "evidence". Model all you like. Have great fun. It still isn't evidence.

            Anything regarding the future is a prognosis, how can you even demand evidence regarding predictions?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 )
          Explain this [thegwpf.com]. Falling accumulated cyclone energy over the last 25 years. Go ahead, how does a model that predicts increasing cyclonic energy match actual measurements stating otherwise.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
        There's a much simpler explanation for Harvey....

        The storm fucking STALLED....and hence dropped a lot of rain on Houston and surrounding areas.

        And, while it did hit category 4 which is very strong, it weakened quickly....and the most damage was due to it stalling out and dumping rain with feeder bands just training over Houston and the surrounding area.

        If you had a strong tropical storm hit and stall for almost a week, you'd see about the same damage.

        If Harvey had kept moving like most hurricanes do....

    • This study is consistent with climate science assumptions going back at least several decades.

      You didn't read the paper, because if you had, the first sentence you read would have directly contradicted you. Since you are too lazy to read it, I will quote it for you here: "There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected the statistics of tropical cyclones, owing to their large natural variability and the limited period of consistent observations. In addition, projections of future tropical cyclone activity are uncertain." That is from the paper.

    • Too bad those assumptions and this paper do not match reality [thegwpf.com] which shows the last 25 years having a decreasing trend in accumulated cyclone energy. When theory and assumptions conflict with data - data should win.

  • better summary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2018 @04:21PM (#57644622) Journal
    "Scientists build computer model that simulates stronger hurricanes"
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Are you really saying you think this is all a hoax? How can anybody still think that it's a plot to get funding if they're smart enough figure out how to login to slashdot?

      • “2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006
        “NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
        “NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain .com, Aug. 7, 2008
        “Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN

      • Imagine you are rolling in a D&D game.

        You have a 1d6 for how much damage is going to hit your character.

        You roll every round, But every round, your die increases its max range.

        Round 1: 1d6: you roll a 3, your neighbors patio chair takes off and lands on your car, denting the hood and breaking a window. You need to call insurance.

        Round 2: 1d7: you roll a 2 and some branches break off a tree in your driveway that you have to drag to the corner.

        Round 3: 1d8: you roll a 1 and you sleep through the storm in

    • Accuracy is generally improving (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2018 @10:05PM (#57646660)
      See here [iflscience.com]. Though it's still not enough to say if your city will be spared or not. We know enough to tell people when to evacuate, which is pretty damn good if you ask me.

      Your post seems to be trying to cast shade on scientists, implying that their computer models are purposefully wrong. They're not. Again, these computer models are amazing things that are saving lives.

      I'm not sure if you really intended to imply the scientists are lying for the sake of profit, but you are. Comments like yours are part of a broader narrative to discredit scientists in general. That narrative is coming out of right wing, pro-corporate think tanks who don't want their profits jeopardized. It's not even that there'd be all that much less money going around if we fought climate change instead of ignoring it, rather the money might go somewhere else. Somewhere besides their coffers.

      Again, I don't know if you were aware of all this when you posted, but if by some chance you read my post, well, congrats, you are now. The only question is what are you going to do with this information?
      • I don't care about the politics of the situation, I think they just cloud the issue. If the model is wrong, it doesn't matter why, it's still wrong.
        • it's accuracy isn't perfect, but that is by no means the same as being wrong. Science is about predictions. Predictions are not prophecy. There is a statistical probability of something happening, and that means it might not happen. On the plus side science is a hell of a lot more accurate than prophecy.
          • The model you linked to is different than the one used in the paper. Compared to the summary, the paper (available here [nature.com]) were much more careful in describing the limitations of our understanding of the effects of warming on hurricane activity. For example, these quotes from the paper:

            "There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected tropical cyclone statistics, and how continued warming may influence many aspects of future tropical cyclone activity."

            and

            " Investigation of additional tropical cyclones is needed before making a general conclusion."

            • you're talking about the descriptive language they use. Scientists always uses weak, uncertain sounding language, even when they're 90% certain. That's because they are trying very, very hard to keep an open mind and above all be ready to be proven wrong. But to a layman it always sounds like they don't trust anything they say or do. That's not true.

              Again, these models are being used to save lives. Is there room for improvement? Yes. There is _always_ room for improvement. That's what science is. You're
              • Ha. Now you have the information, what are you going to do with it? Looks like you will ignore it because it doesn't fit your biases. The paper goes into great detail about the many uncertainties.
                • and science in general. There is _always_ uncertainly in science (unless you're talking "Scientology", but I trust you know the difference).

                  If you want somebody to give you certainty join a religion or a cult. If you want to solve problems use science.

                  At this point I think you're either trolling or your a shill. It doesn't matter, you're going to lose this one. If the scientists win we start acting to solve global warming. If they don't the problems are likely to hit us all before you die. It's goin
                  • In this case the uncertainty is rather high. We just don't know how AGW will affect hurricanes. If you think scientists know how AGW will affect hurricanes, you should read the paper. In fact, you should read the paper anyway, like a grown up.

        • If the model is wrong

          Then why not say something along with citations to back your statment than to simply cloud the issue?

          You say you don't care for the politics yet you're speaking about the issue with all the finesse of a well trained politician.

          • Keep reading down the thread, and you will see that I quoted directly from the paper so that even lazy people like you can understand (too lazy to read the paper).
          • the Model is fine. It's not accurate enough to say if a city is going to get missed, it's just accurate enough to tell folks when to evacuate.

            That's the trouble with science, it's not exact. Not yet anyway. Folks like yourself are exploiting that for profit, or trying to. It'll bite you in the ass eventually. Your masters will turn on you.

  • Can we get some uneducated republican opines tho? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2018 @04:21PM (#57644626)

    You know, for "gut" level parity with the science? We can't put all our faith in science, we have to leave some for bullshitter pollution funded liars.

  • I can base my result off of 1 hurricane. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You know, if it was a hurricane that had 250-300 mph winds and 2x or 3x the amount of rain fall, then sure, I'd buy it. But when you come up with yep, it's climate change, based off of 1 hurricane, I'll wait for your correction in 2 weeks. This amounts to, gee it's hot or cold outside, it must be climate change.

    Now, if you had the next 10-20 years of hurricanes and they ALL had more rainfall, then sure, you can draw a conclusion. But one? WTF?!?

  • Whut (Score:5, Informative)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2018 @04:31PM (#57644684)

    Harvey dumped a stupid amount of rain on SE Texas ( ~56 inches where I live ) for a couple of reasons.

    1) It was caught in between two high pressure systems ( One in Texas, the other over the Gulf ) which is why it tracked the way it did.
    2) It was moving at a blistering 2-3 mph which meant the rain bands just kept dumping water over the same areas for hours at a time. ( ~4in / hour or more )

    It went from " who cares, it's a tropical depression " to " holy shit it's a significant strength hurricane " in a day or two.
    This was due to the warm water ( ~85-90f is typical in the Summer months ) in the Gulf of Mexico and # 2 above.

    Again, the only reason it dumped so much water is because it effectively sat on the coastline and kept drawing in Gulf moisture. The Gulf Water temps have always been warm in late Summer ( has been that way my entire life ), so I don't see where they drew the conclusion about the amount of water Harvey dumped and climate change.

    Had it been tracking at typical hurricane speeds, it wouldn't have been able to continue funneling Gulf Moisture onto the Texas Gulf Coast for as long as it did.
    I would lean more towards just bad timing with the two High Pressure systems coupled with the normal seasonal water temps in the Gulf of Mexico as the root cause.

    • Gulf of Mexico is warming.

      http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/coastal-water-temperature-trends

    • so I don't see where they drew the conclusion about the amount of water Harvey dumped and climate change.

      Climate change has reduced the strength of the jet stream, and caused it to meander much more than it used to. This also affects other high-altitude steering currents that are not quite as pronounced as the jet stream. That caused those high pressure systems to stay put for so long.

      So no, not just "bad timing". No climate change and those highs move faster and the hurricane can move faster.

  • Fraud (Score:1, Troll)

    by ChrisMaple ( 607946 )
    The enemies of humanity keep promoting this hoax.

    • The enemies of humanity keep promoting this hoax.

      ... because if we switch to renewable energy and (maybe) electric cars, we will have cleaner air, less cancer, fewer asthma cases, less massive extinction of other Earth organisms, our electric grids will be more resilient due to being more spread around, fewer earthquakes from fracking?

      or maybe because a few oil or coal multi-billionaires will not have another billion on their account?

      or maybe you honestly believe that butterflies and honey come out of the tailpipe?

      • The enemies of humanity keep promoting this hoax.

        ... because if we switch to renewable energy and (maybe) electric cars...

        If you knew what was involved in the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, and suchlike (let alone the horrendous amounts of energy and toxic chemistry involved in creating the devices), you wouldn't be so quick to draw such a conclusion.

        • If you knew what was involved in the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, and suchlike (let alone the horrendous amounts of energy and toxic chemistry involved in creating the devices), you wouldn't be so quick to draw such a conclusion.

          So, what is involved, and how does it compare with what is replaced?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DamonHD ( 794830 )

          No.

          And you know that to be untrue.

  • Wait.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Isnt the goal to reduce mankinds footprint on the planet?

    The earth will resolve this.

  • I sure hope next year the same kind of damaging hurricanes make landfall in more southern states because maybe, just maybe it will finally convince enough deniers that we'll actually start taking real action to reverse the damage we've done. People claim it's "too big a problem" or "too hard to solve" but that's just bullshit. Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources... and supplies are running low.

    • You're vindictive and worse, wishing for confirmation of your bias.

      • You're vindictive

        No, my desire is not to hurt people but rather to make them recognize the truth. It's already been shown to be effective. [washingtonpost.com]

        and worse, wishing for confirmation of your bias.

        Climate change is just as real as gravity. You can deny the effect it has all you want but it will not change the consequences.

        • This is what you should hope: "climate change will cause no particular disasters, and the worry will have largely been for nothing."

          • Sorry but my hopes are grounded in reality. Climate change is already causing disasters and will continue to cause them regardless of what any human hopes. However, my hope is that the disasters hit the right places so that the willfully ignorant will wake up. Perhaps you are unaware of the damage being done to the ecosystem and the ecological devastation it will cause but that doesn't make it less real.

            The longer we wait to do something the worse it will be.

  • The more time passes is more global warming causes more and more disaster, it is very disturbing

  • We're looking at 300 kelvin vs. 302 kelvin, something on that order, like a 1% increase in total energy.

    And hurricane strength is based on temp differences and humidity differences, so you are looking at a fraction of a percent in number and strength.

    That's my prediction. Even if the sliding scale is much warmer, even freezing, it's still just a percent or two more, on average.

    • You're forgetting that these systems feed on themselves. The amount of energy a hurricane can suck up is based on how strong the storm already is. So if the storm is slightly stronger way off in the Atlantic, it can be much, much, much stronger when it reaches land.

      Also, the estimate is a 4 degree increase, not 2. And that's assuming we actually do something about it soon, so 4 degrees is probably optimistic.

  • Science doesn't care about your opinions.

    You put more energy in the system, it comes out.

    So, look at your flood plains maps. Build to the floods of 100 year cycles, because those are the ones you'll get every 2-5 years from now on. Note the historic storms and hurricanes. Increase their power by 100 and you've got a good measure of what you'll be dealing with.

    You have 12 years. And that's if you go to 100 percent renewables. It would have been to 50 percent renewables if you'd listened back in 1999.

    And all

  • Of course the hurricanes are more destructive. we are adding more heat, i.e. energy to our weather system. That means more and more powerful hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc. It also means with added heat, that clouds will carry more water. If an area does not cool down enough, then no rain, i.e longer droughts. Otoh, where places get rain will see a great deal more rain/snow. Places will undergo massive changes. China will likely lose all of their arable lands, though, they are building massive d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by OYAHHH ( 322809 )

      Of course the hurricanes are more destructive. we are adding more heat, i.e. energy to our weather system. That means more and more powerful hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc.
      It also means with added heat, that clouds will carry more water. If an area does not cool down enough, then no rain, i.e longer droughts. Otoh, where places get rain will see a great deal more rain/snow.

      Places will undergo massive changes. China will likely lose all of their arable lands, though, they are building massive diversionary dams in the Himalayan mountains to steal the water from Pakistan, India, and southeast Asia. At the same time, America's west, including CA valley, will likely be lost due to drought as well.

      The utter stupidity of this statement has left me practically speechless. So wrong on so many levels....

    • Cyclone energy isn't increasing [thegwpf.com]. Tornadoes are trending down [noaa.gov]. And the temperature record only shows an increasing trend after heavy editing and "adjusting" [wordpress.com]. The data doesn't support your claims or conclusions, but the models do. So which do you trust - data or models?
  • This is an easy thing to grasp with climate change: warming means more evaporation, and more evaporation means ore rain.

  • Sigh (Score:3)

    by youngone ( 975102 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2018 @09:54PM (#57646620)
    Good Lord there are a lot of idiots confusing weather with climate, then setting the straw men up.
    I suppose if your team has decided its view, you have to stick to it not matter how wrong it is.

  • We have actual data that says accumulated cyclone energy is decreasing [thegwpf.com] over the last 25 years. Why would you go with a simulation about what supposedly happened, when you can look at the actual data? This is part of the reason so many (including myself) are skeptical of the whole AGW things - it's based on models and projections, but the models don't match reality. If your model doesn't actually match what's happening, then I'm certainly going to give VERY little credence to your claims about what could

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close