Future Hurricanes Will Roam Over More of the Earth, Study Predicts (phys.org) 50
A new, Yale-led study suggests the 21st century will see an expansion of hurricanes and typhoons into mid-latitude regions, which includes major cities such as New York, Boston, Beijing, and Tokyo. Phys.Org reports: Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the study's authors said tropical cyclones -- hurricanes and typhoons -- could migrate northward and southward in their respective hemispheres, as the planet warms as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. 2020's subtropical storm Alpha, the first tropical cyclone observed making landfall in Portugal, and this year's Hurricane Henri, which made landfall in Connecticut, may be harbingers of such storms. "This represents an important, under-estimated risk of climate change," said first author Joshua Studholme, a physicist in Yale's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and a contributing author on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sixth assessment report published earlier this year. "This research predicts that the 21st century's tropical cyclones will likely occur over a wider range of latitudes than has been the case on Earth for the last 3 million years," Studholme said.
For the study, Studholme, Fedorov, and their colleagues analyzed numerical simulations of warm climates from Earth's distant past, recent satellite observations, and a variety of weather and climate projections, as well as the fundamental physics governing atmospheric convection and planetary-scale winds. For example, they noted that simulations of warmer climates during the Eocene (56 to 34 million years ago) and Pliocene (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago) epochs saw tropical cyclones form and intensify at higher latitudes. "The core problem when making future hurricane predictions is that models used for climate projections do not have sufficient resolution to simulate realistic tropical cyclones," said Studholme, who is a postdoctoral fellow at Yale. "Instead, several different, indirect approaches are typically used. However, those methods seem to distort the underlying physics of how tropical cyclones form and develop. A number of these methods also provide predictions that contradict each other." The new study derives its conclusions by examining connections between hurricane physics on scales too small to be represented in current climate models and the better-simulated dynamics of Earth's jet streams and north-south air circulation, known as the Hadley cells. The findings have been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
For the study, Studholme, Fedorov, and their colleagues analyzed numerical simulations of warm climates from Earth's distant past, recent satellite observations, and a variety of weather and climate projections, as well as the fundamental physics governing atmospheric convection and planetary-scale winds. For example, they noted that simulations of warmer climates during the Eocene (56 to 34 million years ago) and Pliocene (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago) epochs saw tropical cyclones form and intensify at higher latitudes. "The core problem when making future hurricane predictions is that models used for climate projections do not have sufficient resolution to simulate realistic tropical cyclones," said Studholme, who is a postdoctoral fellow at Yale. "Instead, several different, indirect approaches are typically used. However, those methods seem to distort the underlying physics of how tropical cyclones form and develop. A number of these methods also provide predictions that contradict each other." The new study derives its conclusions by examining connections between hurricane physics on scales too small to be represented in current climate models and the better-simulated dynamics of Earth's jet streams and north-south air circulation, known as the Hadley cells. The findings have been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The latest attempt by mother nature (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not even clear if this is the worst damage that the human race is wreaking on our planet. As an example, the impact of micro plastics in the environment is only just beginning to be assessed. If we are all inhaling and ingesting toxic chemicals that are destined to kill most of us, along with the rest of the fauna and flora, within the next 50 years, maybe climate change is a lesser concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change will still be a huge concern, but there won't be anybody left to be concerned about it. Except the mole people.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change will still be a huge concern, but there won't be anybody left to be concerned about it. Except the mole people.
Mole! Don't talk about the mole. I said mole. There's a mole a winkin' in my face! I can't not see it! Such a hairy ugly thing! I'd like to rip that off his face, and chop it up into some guacamole!
Re: (Score:1)
To purge the earth of the out of control parasite human beings.
Newsflash: there is no vengeful Mother Nature, Gaia or Captain Planet to awaken, wreak havoc upon humanity and finally fulfill leftist fantasies of depopulation, the Earth is just a ball of mud flying through space that is not even capable of caring about humanity's continued existence or extinction, and the stuff we are doing to environment will make it somewhat less pleasant to live on, but are orders of magnitude away from what is needed to actually cause extinction of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth is a system with feedbacks and feedforwards, and lots of interconnections. You can put any name on it you like, some prefer Gaia or Mother Nature. It doesn't matter, screw with environment and some of those feedbacks will screw you back.
What evidence can you point to that makes you say "but are orders of magnitude away from what is needed to actually cause extinction of humanity." Sounds to me like wishful thinking, or more prosaically, imitating Ace Ventura bending over and . . .
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence can you point to that makes you say "but are orders of magnitude away from what is needed to actually cause extinction of humanity." Sounds to me like wishful thinking, or more prosaically, imitating Ace Ventura bending over and . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 believed necessary to initiate moist earth runaway is significantly higher than the concentration necessary to poison to death everyone on earth. Maybe in a few hundred million years things will be different.
Bruce Sterling predicted this (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce Sterling nailed this one in his book Heavy Weather: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
...a world where mankind has unbalanced the world's ecosystem with their continuing production of greenhouse gases and unchecked expansion. As a result, the weather has become unpredictable and dangerous. Powerful storms routinely leave trails of devastation in their wake.
Is it still fiction? Or is it part of the summary of the news events of 2021?
Re: (Score:2)
Too soon! I want my smart lasso!
Re: (Score:1)
Bruce Sterling nailed this one in his book Heavy Weather: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
...a world where mankind has unbalanced the world's ecosystem with their continuing production of greenhouse gases and unchecked expansion. As a result, the weather has become unpredictable and dangerous. Powerful storms routinely leave trails of devastation in their wake.
Is it still fiction? Or is it part of the summary of the news events of 2021?
Unpredictable, dangerous weather? Powerful storms? Not fiction, never was. Not in 2022, not in 1950, not in 1500, not in 3000 BC.
Yes, we do have weather. Yes, we did have weather even before we sinned by industrialization.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but we didn't have anthropomorphic global warming before about 1940. Glaciers melting, the polar regions melting. How stupid do you have to be not to see the signs?
Pointing to weather makes you sound like Sen. Inhofe from Oklahoma, next to Sen. Blackburn, he's genius. Compared to normal people, he's a dolt.
oh well (Score:2)
Er (Score:2)
and this year's Hurricane Henri, which made landfall in Connecticut, may be harbingers of such storms
I remember submarines putting to sea from Connecticut to avoid hurricanes decades ago.
(Not saying there isn't a change; just finding the "in Connecticut yet!!" thing a bit odd.)
Re: (Score:2)
and this year's Hurricane Henri, which made landfall in Connecticut, may be harbingers of such storms
I remember submarines putting to sea from Connecticut to avoid hurricanes decades ago.
(Not saying there isn't a change; just finding the "in Connecticut yet!!" thing a bit odd.)
Yeah, I think that was kinda a mistake, acting like the NE USA only just experienced a first.
I think the crux of the article is that with the continued warming of the oceans, there will be available energy to spawn hurricanes in more northern latitudes.
And that stands to reason. The energy is there. Hurricanes are one of the ways energy is dumped.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the warm water that fuels the hurricanes, it's the temperature differential. That's why the Bering sea has some of the biggest hurricane-style storms.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the warm water that fuels the hurricanes, it's the temperature differential. That's why the Bering sea has some of the biggest hurricane-style storms.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/hu... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricanes only form over the tropics because that is how hurricanes are defined. Spiraling oceanic storms with strong winds that are just like hurricanes also form near Alaska. https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alas... [alaska.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricanes only form over the tropics because that is how hurricanes are defined. Spiraling oceanic storms with strong winds that are just like hurricanes also form near Alaska. https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alas... [alaska.edu]
I'm not certain why you are belaboring this. If the Water and the air are the same temperature, there will be no energy exchange. If there is a differential there will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricanes only form over the tropics because that is how hurricanes are defined. Spiraling oceanic storms with strong winds that are just like hurricanes also form near Alaska. https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alas... [alaska.edu]
I'm not certain why you are belaboring this. If the Water and the air are the same temperature, there will be no energy exchange. If there is a differential there will be.
Not related to what we're discussing, but My favorite physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has a good video here. So you might be interested. I concur with what she is saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, hurricanes even hit MUCH further north like Maine (and that happened in 1950s and 1960s)
Sensationalist nonsense to point to any one weather event and rant about climate change. Scientists aren't doing that, trends and measurements over time are the way.
Re: (Score:1)
One must look at the frequency, something climate change denialists are incapable of understanding.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, frequency would be part of the "trends" I mentioned, as would be strength increases or decreases over time.
But that's a very different thing than major news outlets like CNN claiming a single disaster "was the result of climate change...."
Can't tell, if these predictions are falsifiable.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I skimmed through TFA, but I could not find an actual falsifiable statement in there — and Climate Science are notorious for this problem [theconversation.com], most of the falsifiable statements they made in the past, ended up falsified in due time. (They make for amusing read [cei.org].)
The headline says "will" — which is a refreshing step towards falsifiability compared to the usual evasive "may" — but there is no timeline, so no...
Am I wrong — are there falsifiable statements put forth in this article?
Re: (Score:1)
In other words you merely skimmed a lightweight summary of the actual publication.
Naturally you use that to cast doubt on climate scientists as a group because you're nothing if not dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
You replied to my question of whether there are falsifiable statements in the article without pointing at any such falsifiable statements.
The most obvious interpretation is that you could find any such either... Yet, you're not admitting it, because you're nothing if not dishonest.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you read the actual published paper? No? Figures.
You're more interested casting shade on scientists who tell you things that go against your politics than gaining understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly didn't... You didn't even read TFA — unlike me.
And yet, you're replying for the second time to the post asking, whether there is certain information in the text without an answer to the question. Because an honest answer goes against your politics — and a dishonest one will be called out.
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly didn't... You didn't even read TFA â" unlike me.
So you didn't read the actual paper. Got it.
And yet, you're replying for the second time to the post asking, whether there is certain information in the text without an answer to the question.
Yeah coz it's not up to me to do your work for you, bucko. You are casting aspersions about the scientists based on you skimming a summary of the article not the paper they themselves wrote. You're making a claim, it's up to you to demonstrate you're ri
Re: (Score:2)
I asked fellow Slashdotters to point my error — by quoting the falsifiable statements made by the scientists. It'd be very easy for anyone to do, yourself included — if such statements really were there...
That no one did that — including you, despite multiple follow-ups — is evidence, no such statements have been made by them. Any further replies, not quoting the requested statements, will be returned unopened.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of long words to admit you were wrong and I was right.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, copy-paste two such statements from TFA into your next reply. A response not containing such will be returned unopened.
Yay More Rain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the U.S. drought map: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu... [unl.edu].
Notice anything? No, I figure you wouldn't. Some places get wetter, some get drier. Currently it looks like the American West is getting drier.
Re: (Score:2)
Is your point that drought in the American West is caused by AGW?
Re: (Score:2)
BTW West Texas is getting greener too though East Texas is getting hammered by stronger hurricanes.
. So the 3 largest producers of oil Russia, Saudi and Texas all benefit from GW - Warm Siberia for Russia, Green desert for Saudi and taking out all those Democrats in Houston for Texas.
Call me... (Score:2)
Call me after the predictions have been tested. Maybe in 100 years or so.
Predicting the past (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
So we can then call global warming an example of climate. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, never? Because there was never a panic, just some alarmists trying to sell news articles [grist.org].
Re: (Score:2)
...They have traveled up the Chesapeake Bay and flooded central PA when I was younger...
That's the first time I've ever heard that excuse for wetting the bed...
Sahara (Score:2)
The higher CO2 means the plant stoma don't need to open as much which helps with moisture retention which is causing a greening of the Sahara which reduces the temperature differential between the Sahara and the Atlantic which is a primary cause of the storms forming which become hurricanes.
So we've learned in the past few years. Complex systems are nearly impossible to predict so being an open empiricist is the only way to ride.
Computer Simulations (Score:2)
Predictions based on computer simulations that are known not to work.
It's already happening (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure one of 2021's hurricanes was also the first ever to hit a specific area, but I don't recall the name or area.
Let's try Meatloaf energy (Score:2)
Meatloaf energy is where we will do anything to prevent global warming but we won't do that! With that being an energy source that is low in CO2, low in cost, and reliable. That would be nuclear fission.
Instead we should get our energy from wind, water, and sun, which is not reliable. No problem, we burn cheap natural gas for backup power, but that produces CO2. Well, maybe instead we use batteries for backup power, but that will make costs rise. You see this is Meatloaf energy again, because Meatloaf