The New Climate Math on Hurricanes 136
Climate change has intensified hurricane wind speeds by an average of 19 mph in 84% of North Atlantic hurricanes between 2019-2024, according to new research that links warming ocean temperatures to storm intensity for individual hurricanes.
This year, Hurricanes Helene and Milton slammed into Florida, breaking meteorological records and causing catastrophic damage. The study by Climate Central found that higher sea surface temperatures elevated most hurricanes by an entire category on the Saffir-Simpson scale, with three storms, including Hurricane Rafael, seeing wind speeds increase by 34 mph due to warming.
Researchers calculated storm intensity using models of pre-warming ocean temperatures. "It's really the evolution of our science on sea surface temperature attribution that has allowed this work to take place," said lead author Daniel Gilford, noting that hurricane damage increases exponentially with wind speed. For example, a storm with double the wind speed can cause 256 times as much damage. The methodology enables scientists to determine climate change impacts on hurricanes in near-real time.
This year, Hurricanes Helene and Milton slammed into Florida, breaking meteorological records and causing catastrophic damage. The study by Climate Central found that higher sea surface temperatures elevated most hurricanes by an entire category on the Saffir-Simpson scale, with three storms, including Hurricane Rafael, seeing wind speeds increase by 34 mph due to warming.
Researchers calculated storm intensity using models of pre-warming ocean temperatures. "It's really the evolution of our science on sea surface temperature attribution that has allowed this work to take place," said lead author Daniel Gilford, noting that hurricane damage increases exponentially with wind speed. For example, a storm with double the wind speed can cause 256 times as much damage. The methodology enables scientists to determine climate change impacts on hurricanes in near-real time.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't rocket science, but a lot of people can't even grasp elementary science. We're so far behind that I'm still stuck on trying to explain to people how tariffs work.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't rocket science, but a lot of people can't even grasp elementary science.
Sad but true. And the dumbest ones are aggressive about it.
Re: (Score:1)
59. Just added "Trump-o-sexual" and "Kamala-fluid".
Keep up, junior :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm painfully aware that many people are stuck on ordinal numbers and can't handle real numbers or even fractions. It makes it impossible to discuss with some people the possibility of gray areas or there being multiple facets to a problem, each with a differing weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Sexuality is a spectrum and multi-dimensional. But that idea is far too complicated for the religious nutcases. They want everything nice and clean and simple and orderly and as inhumane as necessary to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
We're so far behind that I'm still stuck on trying to explain to people how tariffs work.
You're almost certainly explaining them wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Increased tariffs will result in more manufacturing coming home or at least away from enemy states
Hopefully we'll still have access to plenty of whatever it is you're smoking when you came up with that little nugget.
Not that the typical rural working class voters will be able to afford more than the essentials. But hey, they simply need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps [wikipedia.org] to succeed in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
It's empirical. As in, we can and have been measuring it.
The air and sea are getting warmer, and heat-driven phenomena are getting stronger and/or more frequent.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. You are so clueless it is staggering. This is empirical science and it is solid. Even is a small-thinker like you cannot grasp that.
Re: (Score:3)
The prediction of a switch from aerosol-mediated global cooling to CO2-mediated warming, over a decade before it happened, is one of the greatest successes in the history of modern science. In absence of a control Earth, an accurate prediction is about the strongest endorsement you can have of a model.
The 1990 IPCC projections for the scenario matching actual greenhouse emissions are actually on the low side, but the actual results are generally within the expected error.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
According to all previous research, hurricane numbers and strength has considerably decreased significantly: https://lamont.columbia.edu/ne... [columbia.edu] (And this is backed up by data and studies from NOAA and a host of others).
These authors have found something novel that does not show up in the (open) data, they should have to prove it by publishing their raw data.
You could have at least skimmed you own link...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1. The law of conservation of energy does require that if system X gains in energy, then that energy must be available.
2. If the increase in hurricane speed maps to global warming, and statistical analysis shows that other variables are relatively unimportant and random, then there's no implication about it.
3. Nobody needs to cite anything. Global warming was expected to increase hurricane speeds. Global warming has been studied for over 200 years now and is well understood. Hurricane speeds have increased
Re: (Score:1)
For example, hurricane intensity might be changing because of Milankovich cycles [wikipedia.org].
Why?
Milankovich do not make the planet warmer. We are at maximum.
They make the planet cooler, moving towards the next "ice age".
Re: (Score:1)
Milankovich do not make the planet warmer. We are at maximum.
This is wrong on so many levels. Start by reading this [geologyscience.com].
They make the planet cooler, moving towards the next "ice age".
We are at the end of ice age and in a warming period. Even if humanity didn't exist, it would still be getting warmer at this point, ice caps would still melt, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It would indeed be getting warmer, at roughly 1/1000th current rates, so nowhere near to the point of melting ice cubes, let alone ice caps. But the shape of the warming would be markedly different too, and would not mirror the increase in CO2.
Analysis by multiple groups shows that CO2 is a variable with significant contribution, but Milankovich Cycles have no measurable component.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The end of the ice age, in the sense meant by those ice cores, would have been 12,000 years ago. This warming is completely unrelated and is far, far faster.
My information is from peer-reviewed papers, academic books publushed by and for academics, and science conferences. This data was examined by scientists paid by the Koch Brothers to find errors, but those scientists concluded the data was absolutely correct and beyond reproach.
If even the academics paid for by the "skeptics" concur that this is unrelat
Re: (Score:2)
No, not Milankovitch cycles [Re:FUD] (Score:2)
For example, hurricane intensity might be changing because of Milankovich cycles [wikipedia.org].
What???
You are really unaware the Milankovitch cycles are variations on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of years? No. A ten-thousand year cycle is not causing increases in hurricane strength observed over a ten year time frame.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it would not change in direct proportion to temperature, which we already know isn't varying according to such cycles, and an analysis would reveal that the probability of the null hypothesis being correct did not satisfy the p value constraint.
Re: (Score:2)
I have little interest in anyone who assumes a scientist is listening to "alarmists", a term you have not defined because there's no possible definition that could possibly be of significance or interest.
Especially as you claim to talk about "facts" you never provide.
A claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. You are of no further interest.
Re: (Score:2)
After reading the whole paper (which is dry but understandable), your quote is taken out of context.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Climate change has intensified hurricane wind speeds
TFA implying causation. Please provide citation to substantiate this FUD.
Citation here: here [iop.org]. Read Section 2. Data & methods; 2.1. Attribution, framework overview. Basically, they are saying that hurricane intensity varies as a function of sea surface temperature (SST), which is increasing with climate change. That's causation.
If you want to ask legitimate skeptic's questions, those would be: "Has this research result been replicated by other scientists?" and "Are the statistical data robust enough to confirm these model results?"
Those are questions worth asking about pretty much all scientific results headlined in the popular media, though, not just this one. The media likes to hype results before they are confirmed.
For these particular results, I'd say that the model seems plausible; warmer sea temperatures should increase hurricane force. The main question is, how much? So I'd tend to credit this research, but as always pending confirmation from other scientists looking at the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Local sea surface temperature [Re:FUD] (Score:2)
I don't understand why they only looked at local SST,
Because local sea surface temperature is what drives a hurricane.
Really ?!? (Score:2)
Exponential misuse of the term "exponentially" (Score:2, Interesting)
AFAIK, wind power is proportional to the cube of wind speed. At least this is the way wind generators are designed. So if you double the wind speed, the available energy in theory increases by just sixteen times.
Yeah, this seems to be an example of the word "exponentially" to mean "a lot." You see that misusage a lot these days. (And the word "exponentially" is not there in the actual article [iop.org].)
That factor of 256 would imply that damage goes as the eighth power of wind speed. I find that difficult to believe.
Re:Exponential misuse of the term "exponentially" (Score:5, Informative)
It's monetary damages, not force damage, if you read the references. Also note that as wind speeds go up, you also get more water damage, and because water damage goes with the inundated area, then you can see that you can easily get another nonlinear increase in damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding damage, that is not that difficult to believe.
The houses are designed to resist wind speed X.
They are over engineered to resist 2*X.
They are not over engineered to resist 8*X.
So, you have 1000 houses, during X only one gets damaged. With wind power reaching 2*X, 4 or 5 where the "over engineering" was not good enough get damaged.
And with 8*X wind power: all houses get flattened.
Re: (Score:1)
When you expand a surface area you literally have an exponential power in the equation.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you confusing an exponential, n^x, with a polynomial, x^n? Most of us live in an approximately Euclidean universe where the formula for area is 4*pi*r^2. The surface area on a sphere, or an oblate spheroid like Earth is a little more complicated, but it's still effectively a power of ~2 so long as you're talking about reasonably small angles.
I asked chatGPT if there are any not-too abstract examples of metric spaces with exponential area formulas. It turns out there are, depending on whether you conside
Re: (Score:2)
I am not. I just simplified it down to the bare minimum to reply to a post which understood the bare minimum. The exponential bit comes from far more than just making the area larger (see the other posts replying).
What I was replying to is the concept the GP postulated: "exponentially" to mean "a lot." You see that misusage a lot these days." and in direct reply to this it's worth pointing out that any time a power is used (regardless of how autistic you want to be about my post) there's a difference betwe
Re: (Score:2)
"any time a power is used (regardless of how autistic you want to be about my post) there's a difference between "a lot" usually thinking in linear terms, and when you multiple something by itself (power of 2)."
Ah, so you were not confusing exponential and polynomial, you were conflating them!
Re: (Score:2)
That factor of 256 would imply that damage goes as the eighth power of wind speed. I find that difficult to believe.
It's also difficult to believe that the damage is a smooth curve. Seems like there would be a sharp inflection point at a certain level of flooding, and another sharp inflection point after all the buildings are gone. Among other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. But wind isn't the only thing involved in hurricane damage. Faster winds yield lower air pressure so water rises more. (See Bernoulli). Also faster winds push the (rising higher) water more. Also faster winds can carry larger and heavier objects to smash into things. Also... well, I read (somewhere) recently that most of the hurricane damage is caused by cyclones/tornadoes generated along the fringe area, and it's quite plausible that stronger hurricanes could generate more and stronger o
Re: (Score:2)
cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons are the same phenomena, just called different names in different oceans.
And of course they rotate the other way in the southern hemisphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricanes spin smaller cyclones off their winds. I've no idea what you mean by "reach that far". This is an effect of the strong turbulence.
Re: (Score:2)
A cyclone is a spinning wind. Location and size not specified. (Some people include direction, so they also have anti-cyclones defined.) Generally hurricanes and typhoons are a lot larger than the average cyclone, but they are all, technically, cyclones. So is the dust devil in the local parking lot.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It is a little bit more complicated than that when it comes to storm damage though. Still, even a 10% increase in wind speed can easily hit the safety margins for most buildings.
Re: Compared to What? (Score:2)
Re:Solar Forcing (Score:4, Informative)
I suppose you could believe the Sun is causing all the problems if you're careful enough about selecting data. It takes some gymnastics, though.
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, it is all the Sun.
If it suddenly ceased to exist, among other things, the warming would cease and it would certainly be colder.... and a little bit darker, and our orbit would change a bit, but we wouldn't be worrying about global warming any more.
Re: (Score:1)
I assume you mean this kind of solar cycle: https://www.nasa.gov/news-rele... [nasa.gov] ???
And what has that to do with weather / climate on earth?
Not due to a CME [Re:Solar Forcing] (Score:5, Informative)
A massive CME hit Earth just as Milton was heading toward Florida causing wind speed intensification at *totally unprecedented* levels.
Nope. A massive CME hit Earth on October 12, three days after Hurricane Milton hit Florida.
We could not have asked for a better natural experiment to test the Solar Forcing hypothesis.
There have been many natural experiments to test the Solar Forcing hypothesis. So far all of them have failed to show anything but a miniscule correlation between solar events and weather or climate. See: https://science.nasa.gov/resou... [nasa.gov]
--
What do I mean by "miniscule"?
"At the peak of the solar cycle, about 0.1% more Solar energy reaches the Earth, which can increase global average temperatures by 0.05-0.1C. This is small, but can be detected in the climate record"
-- https://theconversation.com/cl... [theconversation.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
I though solar radiation was supposed to increase ionization, leading to particles clinging to each other in a way that fostered rain/snow/fog. It's true that wouldn't be a LARGE effect, but it seems that it would be much more significant than temperature changes.
Re: Not due to a CME [Re:Solar Forcing] (Score:2)
This is for "climate communications" (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "Hurricanes—especially landfalling hurricanes with high intensities—can act as 'focusing events' that draw public attention (Birkland 1998, Arnold et al 2021, Silver and Jackson 2023). Increased attention during and in wake of storms creates opportunities for public and private discourse around climate and disaster preparedness (Cody et al 2017, Wong-Parodi and Garfin 2022). Climate change attribution plays an important role in these discussions. Social studies have shown that personal experiences with extreme weather and attribution messaging both have strong potential to influence public perceptions of climate risk and decision-making (Ogunbode et al 2019, Boudet et al 2020, Osaka and Bellamy 2020, Ettinger et al 2021, McClure et al 2022, Thomas-Walters et al 2024, Zanocco et al 2024). Presenting scientifically-sound estimates, and carefully, deliberately conveying methodologies can be effective for attribution-driven climate communication (Osaka and Bellamy 2020, Ettinger et al 2021, van Oldenborgh et al 2021, Thomas-Walters et al 2024)."
The purpose of the paper is to develop an "attribution framework", meaning, a way to separate human influences from natural causes, for the ultimate purpose of communicating climate change to the public. A laudable goal, but frankly looking at their approach does give me some pause. The idea seems to be to model "counterfactual" measurements of how intense storms would be without human influences, and then compare those to current storm intensities. I'm not nearly well-informed enough to know if this approach has any merit, except to note that it leaves up to the study authors to define both the starting AND ending points of the delta, so that sounds like it just magnifies the potential for error.
But we'll see.
Re: (Score:3)
It's what the public always asks scientists -- did this happen because of climate change? That's not a question scientists were prepared to answer, because it's almost too vague to be meaningful. This is an attempt by several scientists to bridge that gap by focusing on one parameter that links anthropogenic climate change and hurricane behavior -- sea surface temperatures. But as the abstract itself notes, "this study introduces a novel rapid attribution framework that quantifies the impact of historic
Re: (Score:2)
Largely with climate science you can work out the counterfactual by just looking at past measurements.
With any modelling theres always a dice roll involved (one which you can often bump into "within error bars" territory by running it a lot, and if the models accurate, monte carlo will push you close to reality) but yeah thats just how the game works with meteorology and atmospheric physics. You refine and you refine and eventually you'll get it to a point where its useful, at least for policy making (which
Meanwhile... (Score:1)
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Chapter 12 of IPCC AR6 WG1 (page 1856 pf the printed version, specifically)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6... [www.ipcc.ch]
This chart (which I'd post here, except for /. ancient code....) shows that there IS NO CURRENT SIGNAL PRESENT for climatic impact drivers for: Mean precipitation, River flood, Heavy precipitation, pluvial flood, Landslide, Aridity, Hydrological drought, Agricultural and ecological drought, Fire weather, Mean wind speed, Severe wind storm, Tropical cyclone, Sand and dust storm, Snow, glacier and ice s
Re: (Score:2)
They will, so say the same sorts of models that insisted we'd be ice free in the arctic by now, that Kilimanjaro would be snow free, and that we'd be having snowless winters?
Those sorts of models, yeah?
So again, as I already said: ....they haven't YET, right? RIGHT?
Re: (Score:2)
1) please, advise me how to post a chart on /. I'm waiting.
2) I literally gave you THE LINK AND THE PAGE NUMBER.
If you can't read the link to IPCC.ch and recognize that it's YOUR OWN authority on climate, and that's still too much "work" to find the exact data, you're just incompetent AND anonymous I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
It's DIRECTLY IN CONTEXT, it just doesn't show what you want it to show.
You're kind of dumb, aren't you?
Still waiting for you to explain how I post a chart on slashdot. Would you like me to print it and mail it to your home? Maybe hold it for you, help you sound out the big words?
retrodiction (Score:2)
Another prediction about the past.
Re: (Score:2)
"Retrodiction" -- Had not heard this one before!
Re:They are lying. (Score:5, Funny)
So the democrats CAN control the weather! https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then it's a good thing your fearless leader used to be a Democrat.
Re:They are lying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget, Trump is not a Republican these days either. To be fair though, he is very much a Hoover type with is outdated pro tariff stance, although Hoover wasn't a Republican until after he left office. Really, what makes Trump a Republican except for his claim that he's the only one? He has no classic Republican stances, and anyone who is a classic Republican he claims is a RINO. Trump is a Trumpist, and that's all. There's no political science behind his thoughts, no ideology, just what pops up randomly in his head. He mostly makes other Republicans run in circles why they try to figure out what stance to take to get his approval instead of his scorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Parties are happy to give up on ideology as soon as practical. [rollcall.com] Complete flip-flops can happen rapidly; it's happened several times within my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true, then all those Trump accusations of "RINO" are just bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true, then all those Trump accusations of "RINO" are just bullshit?
Not at all.
See, the Republican party has abandoned all ideology and commitment to any policy platform. It is just a cult of personality now. To be a true Republican, therefore, you must be a Trumpist. Anyone claiming to be a Republican who is not a Trumpist is therefore a Republican in Name Only, a RINO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The chief RINO accuser is now president elect though, the "in" group.
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, Trump's clan won this round, and political parties are crap, just like George Washington said.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you have a point?
Either it went over your head or you didn't read the thread. But thanks for citing examples of a LOT of politicians are "over-producing hot air"
Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were Republicans at one time, so we know they're some of the good ones.
All 50 states shifted right this election.
Yes. People reach for right-wing populism and even fascism when they face socioeconomic uncertainty. Several far-left pundits predicted this was how things were going to shake out in the US after Europe has seen several years of inching to the right. I certain
But I like less winter! (Score:2)
Okay, so you got your Funny, but did you have to propagate the vacuous Subject from a vacuous FP? Was it part of your joke?
Local weather as predicted for next week is all springlike. But my calendar just started saying December? Much as I dislike extremely cold weather, this is getting a bit ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
You will downvote me.
Why would we download you? Your karma is so bad all your posts start at -1 already. You have already peaked, no need for us to help you along.
Re: (Score:2)
*downvote. Protip: Slashdot is better with alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but we wouldn't download him either.
Of course not. He's not a car.
Re: (Score:1)
No, no, no, it's not "lying", it's "models".
You see, you can create a model, and once it says what you want it to say, it's called "science".
Then people have to believe you, because reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, do you seriously think statisticians don't understand what a p value is? (The probability of a result being by chance, rather than being by the model.)
Secondly, this won't be individual years, this'll be a trend. Trends that are consistent have lower p values because trends rarely occur by chance alone.
Thirdly, you're objecting to what has been the H0 (null) hypothesis since 1968. It is for you to falsify. Nobody needs to prove H0.
Re:They are lying. (Score:5, Interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nothing to worry about here. There's no climate change happening, citizen. Please ignore the fact that every concerning trend line which was starting to emerge from the noise 25 years ago has now very clearly emerged and stepped on the gas with a vengeance. It's all those evil scientists lying to you as part of a giant conspiracy to get that sweet, sweet grant money (that they... uh... can't personally use a dime of), not the GQP. And you people in the temperate places, don't ask any lifelong residents of your area about how much it used to snow. They're in on it too. Nothing is changing, we do not need to take any action that would threaten rich assholes' profits.
Re: I don't understand the statistics here (Score:2)