Hurricane Sandy's huge size: freak of nature or climate change?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:10 PM GMT on November 13, 2012

Share this Blog
58
+

Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States. Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds, and no hurricanes has. Sandy's area of ocean with twelve-foot seas peaked at 1.4 million square miles--nearly one-half the area of the contiguous United States, or 1% of Earth's total ocean area. Most incredibly, ten hours before landfall (9:30 am EDT October 30), the total energy of Sandy's winds of tropical storm-force and higher peaked at 329 terajoules--the highest value for any Atlantic hurricane since at least 1969. This is 2.7 times higher than Katrina's peak energy, and is equivalent to five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. At landfall, Sandy's tropical storm-force winds spanned 943 miles of the the U.S. coast. No hurricane on record has been wider; the previous record holder was Hurricane Igor of 2010, which was 863 miles in diameter. Sandy's huge size prompted high wind warnings to be posted from Chicago to Eastern Maine, and from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Florida's Lake Okeechobee--an area home to 120 million people. Sandy's winds simultaneously caused damage to buildings on the shores of Lake Michigan at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and toppled power lines in Nova Scotia, Canada--locations 1200 miles apart!

Largest Atlantic tropical cyclones for area covered by tropical storm-force winds:

Olga, 2001: 780,000 square miles
Sandy, 2012: 560,000 square miles
Lili, 1996: 550,000 square miles
Igor, 2010: 550,000 square miles
Karl, 2004: 430,000 square miles



Figure 1. Hurricane Sandy’s winds (top), on October 28, 2012, when Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane with top winds of 75 mph (this ocean surface wind data is from a radar scatterometer on the Indian Space Research Organization’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2.) Hurricane Katrina’s winds (bottom) on August 28, 2005, when Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane with top winds of 175 mph (data taken by a radar scatterometer on NASA’s defunct QuickSCAT satellite.) In both maps, wind speeds above 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour are yellow; above 80 kph (50 mph) are orange; and above 95 kph (60 mph) are dark red. The most noticeable difference is the extent of the strong wind fields. For Katrina, winds over 65 kilometers per hour stretched about 500 kilometers (300 miles) from edge to edge. For Sandy, winds of that intensity spanned an region of ocean three times as great--1,500 kilometers (900 miles). Katrina was able to generate a record-height storm surge over a small area of the Mississippi coast. Sandy generated a lower but highly destructive storm surge over a much larger area, due to the storm's weaker winds but much larger size. Image credit: NASA.

How did Sandy get so big?
We understand fairly well what controls the peak strength of a hurricane's winds, but have a poor understanding of why some hurricanes get large and others stay small. A number of factors probably worked together to create a "prefect storm" situation that allowed Sandy to grow so large, and we also must acknowledge that climate change could have played a role. Here are some possible reasons why Sandy grew so large:

1) Initial size of the disturbance that became Sandy was large
Sandy formed from an African tropical wave that interacted with a large area of low pressure that covered most of the Central Caribbean. Rotunno and Emanuel (1987) found that hurricanes that form from large initial tropical disturbances like Sandy did tend to end up large in size.


Figure 2. The initial disturbance that spawned Sandy, seen here on October 20, 2012, was quite large.

2) High relative humidity in Sandy's genesis region
The amount of moisture in the atmosphere may play an important role in how large a hurricane gets (Hill and Lackmann, 2009.) Sandy was spawned in the Caribbean in a region where the relative humidity was near 70%. This is the highest humidity we saw during 2012 during the formation of any Atlantic hurricane.

3) Passage over Cuba
Sandy struck Cuba as an intensifying Category 2 hurricane with 110 mph winds. While the core of the storm was over Cuba, it was cut off from the warm ocean waters surrounding Cuba. Most of Sandy's large circulation was still over the ocean, though, and the energy the storm was able to extract from the ocean went into intensifying the spiral bands over water. When Sandy's core re-emerged over water, the hurricane now had spiral bands with heavier thunderstorm activity as a result of the extra energy pumped into the outer portion of the storm during the eye's passage over land. This extra energy in the outer portions of Sandy may have enabled it to expand in size later.

4) Interaction with a trough of low pressure over the Bahamas
As Sandy passed through the Bahamas on October 25, the storm encountered strong upper-level winds associated with a trough of low pressure to the west. These winds created high wind shear that helped weaken Sandy and destroy the eyewall. However, Sandy compensated by spreading out its tropical storm-force winds over a much wider area. Between 15 and 21 UTC on October 25, Sandy's area of tropical storm-force winds increased by more than a factor of two.

5) Leveraging of the Earth's spin
As storms move towards Earth's poles, they acquire more spin, since Earth's rotation works to put more vertical spin into the atmosphere the closer one gets to the pole. This extra spin helps storms grow larger, and we commonly see hurricanes grow in size as they move northwards.

6) Interaction with a trough of low pressure at landfall
As Sandy approached landfall in New Jersey, it encountered an extratropical low pressure system to its west. This extratropical storm began pumping cold air aloft into the hurricane, which converted Sandy into an extratropical low pressure system, or "Nor'easter". The nature of extratropical storms is to have a much larger area with strong winds than a hurricane does, since extratropical storms derive their energy from the atmosphere along a frontal boundary that is typically many hundreds of miles long. Thus, as Sandy made landfall, the hurricane's strongest winds spread out over a larger area, causing damage from Indiana to Nova Scotia.

Are we likely to see more such storms in the future?
Global warming theory (Emanuel, 2005) predicts that a 2°C (3.6°F) increase in ocean temperatures should cause an increase in the peak winds of the strongest hurricanes of about about 10%. Furthermore, warmer ocean temperatures are expected to cause hurricanes to dump 20% more rain in their cores by the year 2100, according to computer modeling studies (Knutson et al., 2010). However, there has been no published work describing how hurricane size may change with warmer oceans in a future climate. We've seen an unusual number of Atlantic hurricanes with large size in recent years, but we currently have no theoretical or computer modeling simulations that can explain why this is so, or if we might see more storms like this in the future. However, we've seen significant and unprecedented changes to our atmosphere in recent decades, due to our emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond. Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change, and we should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result--and not always in the ways our computer models may predict. We have pushed our climate system to a fundamentally new, higher-energy state where more heat and moisture is available to power stronger storms, and we should be concerned about the possibility that Hurricane Sandy's freak size and power were partially due to human-caused climate change.

References
Emanuel, K. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436(7051), 686-688.

Hill, Kevin A., and Gary M. Lackmann (2009), "Influence of environmental humidity on tropical cyclone size," Monthly Weather Review 137.10 (2009): 3294-3315.

Knutson, T. R., McBride, J. L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., ... & Sugi, M. (2010). Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience, 3(3), 157-163.

Rotunno, R., & Emanuel, K. A. (1987). An air–sea interaction theory for tropical cyclones. Part II: Evolutionary study using a nonhydrostatic axisymmetric numerical model. J. Atmos. Sci, 44(3), 542-561.

The Atlantic is quiet, but a Nor'easter expected next week
The Atlantic is quiet, with no threat areas to discuss. An area of low pressure is predicted to develop just north of Bermuda on Wednesday, and the GFS model predicts that this low could become a subtropical cyclone as moves north-northeastwards out to sea late in the week.

The long-range models are in increasing agreement that a Nor'easter will develop near the North Carolina coast on Sunday, then move north to northeastwards early next week. High winds, heavy rain, and coastal flooding could affect the mid-Atlantic coast and New England coasts next Monday and Tuesday due to this storm, but it appears likely that the Nor'easter will stay farther out to sea than the last Nor'easter and have less of an impact on the region devastated by Sandy. Ocean temperatures off the coast of North Carolina were cooled by about 4°F (2.2°C) due to the churning action of Hurricane Sandy's winds, but are still warm enough at 22 - 24°C to potentially allow the Nor'easter to acquire some subtropical characteristics. I doubt the storm would be able to become a named subtropical storm, but it could have an unusual amount of heavy rain if it does become partially tropical. The Nor'easter is still a long ways in the future, and there is still a lot of uncertainty on where the storm might go.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 161 - 111

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index


140,

Soooooo you are saying the oceans have never been higher?

The global temperature has never been higher?

The ice never melted before, let alone the new high Antarctic Ice extent record set this year that does not get discussed on this site.

Even though the global temperature has not gone up in 16 years as documented recently that does not count?

And CO2 has a linear relationship to temperature and all feedbacks and forcings are positive to temperature rise?

I don't have time to address your other undocumented generalizations.

Your reference to weather extremes are addressed here.

Where are the trending extreme weather events?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



you have a lot of what if's; when you get the facts let's debate....


Ha! There aren't actually any what ifs in my post, but whatever.

You just want facts you like better. Human tendency. Understandable and yet rather problematic, when it comes to ignoring the facts you'd rather not see until they smack you in the face.

I can only wish that the folks refusing to see the rather unfortunate facts here were the only ones going to get the face-smacking on the other end.

Not much point in "debate." It's not really a matter of conflicting opinions, at least at this level. What any of us "think" makes about zero difference to the laws of physics here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMixon:


Oh now don't be so cynical. Surely you realize politics is far more complicated than your statement suggests. I believe the vast majority of people DO care about tomorrow. Opinions just vary about the best way to make tomorrow better.


Oh, and check out these webcam shots of the mountain wave cloud set up over the Continental Divide today:





Nice shots for sure...hummmmm...continental divide huh?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LOL..the blog is still on page 1..yeah people love to hear about climate change and discuss it..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormPro:
Not alot of debate from me on your points...except that the spend now, pay later group just got voted back in which should tell you, without debate, that the American people, and the rest of the world (china) doesn't really care about tomorrow....


Oh now don't be so cynical. Surely you realize politics is far more complicated than your statement suggests. I believe the vast majority of people DO care about tomorrow. Opinions just vary about the best way to make tomorrow better.


Oh, and check out these webcam shots of the mountain wave cloud set up over the Continental Divide today:



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
156. yoboi
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Gustav, but that was 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. years ago?



wrong wilma 2005...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Gustav, but that was 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. years ago?


Gustav was a cat 2 at landfall.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So the gulf stream/ocean under Sandy was 5 degrees F above normal, and naturally the storm was bigger and stronger over it. That means it is a natural storm, right? Is that what we are saying?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
153. yoboi
Quoting LurkyMcLurkerson:


Funny, we don't call it USA warming, do we?

Destabilizing global weather systems wouldn't be expected to be, um, stable, right?

It's like some of y'all seem to think that by "global warming," scientists mean "your town will have unending heat waves!"

No. It's about larger scale patterns, and it's about trying to make some predictions about what will happen to the circulations, moisture levels, so on in the Earth's atmosphere as an absolutely staggering amount of heat energy is added _unevenly_ to it.

If you add a bunch of energy to this sort of a system, every other part of the system "feels" that. Every part. There is no storm on earth that will ever be _unaffected_ by global warming.

What changes that means for any individual storm will remain very difficult to even begin to guess, since we don't have an alternate-universe "that storm with exactly the same conditions but in the absence of a warmer atmosphere" against which to compare data.

Just like how we can't take some huge storm from 1690-whatever and figure out how it might have gone now. For all any of you know, it would have been even more monstrous. We don't know.



you have a lot of what if's; when you get the facts let's debate....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
Quoting yoboi:



you forgot the part after the 2005 season majors would hitt the USA more often...it was the new norm... when was the last time a major hitt the USA????


Gustav, but that was 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. years ago?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
ECLIPSE COVERAGE LIVE STARTS IN 20 MINUTES

Caution! Clicking on the following link may expose the viewer to observation, scientifically structured observation, and fact, leading potentially to scientific ideation, which may or may not be legal in your state!

Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



you forgot the part after the 2005 season majors would hitt the USA more often...it was the new norm... when was the last time a major hitt the USA????


Funny, we don't call it USA warming, do we?

Destabilizing global weather systems wouldn't be expected to be, um, stable, right?

It's like some of y'all seem to think that by "global warming," scientists mean "your town will have unending heat waves!"

No. It's about larger scale patterns, and it's about trying to make some predictions about what will happen to the circulations, moisture levels, so on in the Earth's atmosphere as an absolutely staggering amount of heat energy is added _unevenly_ to it.

If you add a bunch of energy to this sort of a system, every other part of the system "feels" that. Every part. There is no storm on earth that will ever be _unaffected_ by global warming.

What changes that means for any individual storm will remain very difficult to even begin to guess, since we don't have an alternate-universe "that storm with exactly the same conditions but in the absence of a warmer atmosphere" against which to compare data.

Just like how we can't take some huge storm from 1690-whatever and figure out how it might have gone now. For all any of you know, it would have been even more monstrous. We don't know.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2 minAccuWeather.com‏@breakingweather

A nor'easter may slow Thanksgiving travel in the Northeast, while a West Coast storm may also hit. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/thanksg iving-travel-weather-fo/1461642
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Bluestorm5:
Wow, this is pretty pathetic arguing over climate changes or global warming...
its better than politics or should winter storms be named.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
"The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond. Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change, and we should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result"

MUST change? Based upon what science? And to what extent? Change could be barely within measurement error or highly significant - but the implication here is that the change will be significant, and for the worse.

This is as much proselytizing as it is a scientific viewpoint.


*facepalm*

Based on the entire field of fluid dynamics. Heck, you don't even have to get that complicated on it -- based on a sketchy understanding of PV=nRT -- as in, you should have learned that in physics 1a -- you can see at least on a conceptual level how huge changes to pressure systems are unavoidable with a changing temp. The reality is way more complicated here, but you don't need that much to get to the basic ideas.

Do you have any idea how much total molecular kinetic energy is represented by 2 degrees C averaged across the planet?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
145. yoboi
Quoting FatPenguin:
Let's simplify again what we're talking about.

CO2 a heat-trapping gas. NO DEBATE

More heat in a system increases entropy, aka chaos. NO DEBATE

For 200+ years the burning of fossil fuels has increased the levels of CO2. NO DEBATE

Oceans are rising. NO DEBATE

A warming climate raises oceans levels. NO DEBATE

Extreme weather has increased over the last 10 years. NO DEBATE

2001-2010 was hottest decade worldwide since records have been kept. NO DEBATE

The Arctic Ocean is rapidly losing its summer ice, and will likely be mostly ice free in the summer in the next decade. NO DEBATE

An ice-free Arctic Ocean absorbs and retains more heat, thus accelerating the heating of the Northern Hemisphere, and eventually entire globe. NO DEBATE

Now, remind me again why we are debating that Sandy is NOT a warning shot fired across the bow?

Anyone with logic and foresight looks at Sandy and says, "We can either invest in measures to prevent this, which will be expensive now, but save money over the long run. Or, do little to nothing and let future generations pay the tab for future Sandys. A cost that over time will far exceed in costs what we spend now, not to mention the lost lives."

And as we focus on Sandy now, look back at the US Midwest and what they (and Canada) went through last Spring. Go back and read the comments from the climate scientists and meteorologists. Their language about that warming was stark and foreboding.

At this point of the AGW/Climate Change discussion, anyone that is debating whether or not this is happening is either trolling or lacks the capacity for critical thinking.

The only thing to debate now is how bad it will get and how much we spend now to save lives and reduce future costs. This is not just my point of view. The insurance industry and the Pentagon have agreed with this for nearly 5 years now.



you forgot the part after the 2005 season majors would hitt the USA more often...it was the new norm... when was the last time a major hitt the USA????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
Quoting AGWcreationists:
"The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond. Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change, and we should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result"

MUST change? Based upon what science? And to what extent? Change could be barely within measurement error or highly significant - but the implication here is that the change will be significant, and for the worse.

This is as much proselytizing as it is a scientific viewpoint.


At least it is a viewpoint based on science. You sound like a paid shill from a PR disinfo firm. Your willful ignorance is atrocious.

For those that would like some insight into willful ignorance, there is an excellent book out.... called Willful Blindness Link. It addresses all sorts of instances of willful blindness (which I myself tend to refer to as GDF ignorance) in an extremely readable manner. It as alone an excellent example of what expository writing OUGHT to look like. If you ever wondered how every one could overlook the obviously ped priest, the too good to be true business deal, building 7 and global warming, this book is going to be a path of insight for you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FatPenguin:
Let's simplify again what we're talking about.

CO2 a heat-trapping gas. NO DEBATE

More heat in a system increases entropy, aka chaos. NO DEBATE

For 200+ years the burning of fossil fuels has increased the levels of CO2. NO DEBATE

Oceans are rising. NO DEBATE

A warming climate raises oceans levels. NO DEBATE

Extreme weather has increased over the last 10 years. NO DEBATE

2001-2010 was hottest decade worldwide since records have been kept. NO DEBATE

The Arctic Ocean is rapidly losing its summer ice, and will likely be mostly ice free in the summer in the next decade. NO DEBATE

An ice-free Arctic Ocean absorbs and retains more heat, thus accelerating the heating of the Northern Hemisphere, and eventually entire globe. NO DEBATE

Now, remind me again why we are debating that Sandy is NOT a warning shot fired across the bow?

Anyone with logic and foresight looks at Sandy and says, "We can either invest in measures to prevent this, which will be expensive now, but save money over the long run. Or, do little to nothing and let future generations pay the tab for future Sandys. A cost that over time will far exceed in costs what we spend now, not to mention the lost lives."

And as we focus on Sandy now, look back at the US Midwest and what they (and Canada) went through last Spring. Go back and read the comments from the climate scientists and meteorologists. Their language about that warming was stark and foreboding.

At this point of the AGW/Climate Change discussion, anyone that is debating whether or not this is happening is either trolling or lacks the capacity for critical thinking.

The only thing to debate now is how bad it will get and how much we spend now to save lives and reduce future costs. This is not just my point of view. The insurance industry and the Pentagon have agreed with this for nearly 5 years now.
Not alot of debate from me on your points...except that the spend now, pay later group just got voted back in which should tell you, without debate, that the American people, and the rest of the world (china) doesn't really care about tomorrow....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Weather is not climate, now preach somewhere else.

just in case anyone reads the pluses, I hit the wrong opinion button. I usually do not respond, especially in the blog it seems to be somewhat nanny-ish, but that was a nasty swipe at a respected and truthful blogger.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ChillinInTheKeys:

I was taught that in Texas history a while back, but according to Factcheck...


Link




Interesting. I don't know that I now trust factlink or the professor it quotes.... there is so much disinformation out there these days. I don't live in Texas, nor anywhere near it, and would prefer to avoid it, for the record.

Apparently, a helluva lot of Texans believe it, though, including its governor. Contrarians are likely to perceived as carpetbaggers of some stripe or other.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Let's simplify again what we're talking about.

CO2 a heat-trapping gas. NO DEBATE

More heat in a system increases entropy, aka chaos. NO DEBATE

For 200 years the burning of fossil fuels has increased the levels of CO2. NO DEBATE

Oceans are rising. NO DEBATE

A warming climate raises oceans levels. NO DEBATE

Extreme weather has increased over the last 10 years. NO DEBATE

2001-2010 was hottest decade worldwide since records have been kept. NO DEBATE

The Arctic Ocean is rapidly losing its summer ice, and will likely be mostly ice free in the summer in the next decade. NO DEBATE

An ice-free Arctic Ocean absorbs and retains more heat, thus accelerating the heating of the Northern Hemisphere, and eventually entire globe. NO DEBATE

Now, remind me again why we are debating that Sandy is NOT a warning shot fired across the bow?

Anyone with logic and foresight looks at Sandy and says, "We can either invest in measures to prevent this, which will be expensive now, but save money over the long run. Or, do little to nothing and let future generations pay the tab for future Sandys. A cost that over time will far exceed in costs what we spend now, not to mention the lost lives."

And as we focus on Sandy now, look back at the US Midwest and what they (and Canada) went through last Spring. Go back and read the comments from the climate scientists and meteorologists. Their language about that warming was stark and foreboding.

At this point of the AGW/Climate Change discussion, anyone that is debating whether or not this is happening is either trolling or lacks the capacity for critical thinking.

The only thing to debate now is how bad it will get and how much we spend now to save lives and reduce future costs. This is not just my point of view. The insurance industry, the Pentagon and almost every major scientific organization have agreed with this for nearly 5 years now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


The timeframe is in a state of flux to suit the line of propaganda of the day.

If any of you folks are interested in viewing science that this site will never provide you, have a peek at this unprecedented event taking place tomorrow.

These folks are not afraid to debate climate science based on facts, observations, and the inability of the climate models to even model today's climate in retrospect.

Climate models are the root source of virtually everything that is claimed as CAGW caused, and yet the models can't even remotely reproduce today's climate.


Counter programming to Al Gore%u2019s %u2018Dirty Weather Report%u2019 will be on WUWT-TV Live starting Wednesday Nov. 14 at 8PM EST



You don't have to believe anything the models spew out to believe that the Earth is warming due to man made greenhouse gases.

I take model predictions with a barrel load of salt. There are too many imponderables to have any faith in them. Moreover, any predictions they make are more likely to be underestimates than overestimates because the scientists who run them are conservative and they err on the cautious side when factoring in positive feedbacks that are incompletely understood.

Belief that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gases is not dependent on, or driven by, computer models.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks Dr. Masters for your update,
Very interesting discussion on size..
I'm in a hurry this am so will write more later as I digest the info..
Thanks again

**Afternoon all..made it back..
I checked on the research by Rotunno and Emanuel (1987)Numerical simulation of tropical cyclones by an axisymmetric nonhydrostatic model and they were using mathematics to simulate the overall expansion.
Their conclusions were repetitive and so they were able to duplicate their findings.
I agree with them..I tried(in my own clumsy way) to follow along and soon it made sense that the math/time frame/RH/SST/and other factors (too much to include here) fell into place as to an expansion of the "mathematical storm" would behave..
Dr.Emanuel
Thanks again Dr. Masters for the blog info and Sandy's expansion explanation..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


The timeframe is in a state of flux to suit the line of propaganda of the day.

If any of you folks are interested in viewing science that this site will never provide you, have a peek at this unprecedented event taking place tomorrow.

These folks are not afraid to debate climate science based on facts, observations, and the inability of the climate models to even model today's climate in retrospect.

Climate models are the root source of virtually everything that is claimed as CAGW caused, and yet the models can't even remotely reproduce today's climate.


Counter programming to Al Gore’s ‘Dirty Weather Report’ will be on WUWT-TV Live starting Wednesday Nov. 14 at 8PM EST



To put this is very simple scientific terms. The null hypothesis of climate change would be "There is no change in observed atmospheric effects with increased Co2 levels". We can clearly see there is an observed change in atmospheric effects from Co2 that can't be related to any other natural phenomenon we are aware of at the moment. Increased warming over land and oceans and increased water vapor levels, therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



how far back are we allowed to use data 15-20 yrs what is the timeframe??? trying to learn all the rules you use....so we can have a proper debate that you seem to fear to engage with me....


But wait wise one...they also can use historical data when it benefits them..ie. ice cores and anciet mariner reports...but you, and I may not
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
135. yoboi
Quoting Ossqss:


The timeframe is in a state of flux to suit the line of propaganda of the day.

If any of you folks are interested in viewing science that this site will never provide you, have a peek at this unprecedented event taking place tomorrow.

These folks are not afraid to debate climate science based on facts, observations, and the inability of the climate models to even model today's climate in retrospect.

Climate models are the root source of virtually everything that is claimed as CAGW caused, and yet the models can't even remotely reproduce today's climate.


Counter programming to Al Gore’s ‘Dirty Weather Report’ will be on WUWT-TV Live starting Wednesday Nov. 14 at 8PM EST




thanks for the info...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
3 minAccuWeather.com‏@breakingweather

Update: Impact map added to news story about potential Thanksgiving week nor'easter. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/east-co ast-noreaster-thanksgiv/1499934
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



how far back are we allowed to use data 15-20 yrs what is the timeframe??? trying to learn all the rules you use....so we can have a proper debate that you seem to fear to engage with me....


The timeframe is in a state of flux to suit the line of propaganda of the day.

If any of you folks are interested in viewing science that this site will never provide you, have a peek at this unprecedented event taking place tomorrow.

These folks are not afraid to debate climate science based on facts, observations, and the inability of the climate models to even model today's climate in retrospect.

Climate models are the root source of virtually everything that is claimed as CAGW caused, and yet the models can't even remotely reproduce today's climate.


Counter programming to Al Gore’s ‘Dirty Weather Report’ will be on WUWT-TV Live starting Wednesday Nov. 14 at 8PM EST

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:



The problem I have with subject matter like this regarding climate change, is that it's equivalent to saying "X amount of people in the United States are Republicans because (insert arbitrary statement)". The problem with something like that is, even after doing large amounts of research and finding some truth in that statement, it's still exactly that, some truth.

What is being done is a generalization, which may be partially true, but one cannot claim that is the reason for sure because there will always be many reasons for why a hurricane like Sandy could develop, just as there are many reasons for why people come to a certain political view.


I could also make just as much of an argument though, that one cannot also say that climate change for sure was not responsible for the event. Because there is no way to prove that it is not.


Unlike testing a 7 day weather forecast for a given area, it takes a long while to test computer modeling for how climate change will impact weather events. By the time it can be tested in 30 to 50 years. There will be new methods, new technology, and new modeling data, and thus new solutions.


I fully agree, one cannot claim.

But it is easy to suggest if one uses common sense and reason.

The atmosphere's temperature, its composition, and its water vapor content have all been proven to have changed.

So, with common sense in mind, so have patterns and storms.

In the long-term, for the worse?
For the better?
Who knows for sure?


The atmosphere is like the center stage, and the storms its actors... If you change the composition of the stage the actors would behave differently.

Aren't you trying to be too cynical?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Wait--so now the 1693 event was a "much worse storm"?

Er, no.

To reiterate: the 1693 storm wasn't necessarily tropical in origin; it came up from the southwest after affecting North Carolina and Virginia, not from the southeast against the norm as Sandy did; there's absolutely no evidence how wide it was compared to Sandy. And so on. In fact, all we have are scattered anecdotal reports that such an event actually happened at all. It's disingenuous at best, then, for people to use a 319-year-old storm about which we know next to nothing to make the case that global warming had no effect on Sandy. It's actually mind-bogglingly illogical that anyone would even try.

Anyway, again, Dr. Masters never said Sandy was "a product of global warming," so I'm not sure why you insist on pushing that line. As Scott so aptly put it, "There really isn't much point in discussing this topic with you further if you are not actual going to fully read the topic we are discussing."
From all accounts I have read of the storm, it was extremely powerful and made significant changes to the coastline. Since there was very little development at the time, there is no way to compare structural damage. But the breadth and scope of the storm sounds very similar to Sandy. And the colonial era is rife with accounts of other, severe systems during hurricane season. The colonials would not necessarily label them hurricanes and we don't have scientific measurements for the most part for them. However, they do demonstrate that storms as powerful as Sandy were happening prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution. And once again, Sandy is being used as a rallying point for legislative action on CO2 emissions - and many posters on this board, as well as Dr. Masters, favor such action - so even though Dr. Masters does not concretely come out and say such, inference through phrases such as "Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change," convey a certainty at the same time no specific claim is being made. It's all in the writing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
130. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
Wait--so now the 1693 event was a "much worse storm"?

Er, no.

To reiterate: the 1693 storm wasn't necessarily tropical in origin; it came up from the southwest after affecting North Carolina and Virginia, not from the southeast against the norm as Sandy did; there's absolutely no evidence how wide it was compared to Sandy. And so on. In fact, all we have are scattered anecdotal reports that such an event actually happened at all. It's disingenuous at best, then, for people to use a 319-year-old storm about which we know next to nothing to make the case that global warming had no effect on Sandy. It's actually mind-bogglingly illogical that anyone would even try.

Anyway, again, Dr. Masters never said Sandy was "a product of global warming," so I'm not sure why you insist on pushing that line. As Scott so aptly put it, "There really isn't much point in discussing this topic with you further if you are not actual going to fully read the topic we are discussing."



how far back are we allowed to use data 15-20 yrs what is the timeframe??? trying to learn all the rules you use....so we can have a proper debate that you seem to fear to engage with me....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
Quoting LargoFl:
..somehow a huge change needs to happen, I know its unpopular, but trillions could be saved if we closed all our over seas bases, brought our troops home etc, we cannot keep protecting the world..we are BROKE..the russians found out the hard way and did the smart thing..THEY retreated home and stopped the huge expense of paying for troops and bases far from home...we now..need to do it also..i know its a hard choice and tempers will flare..but we are broke and cannot afford to keep business as usual.



Very wise statement, if only many understood this.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SteveDa1:
Quoting post #116:

Even if:

Sandy is a rallying point for legislative action against CO2 emissions. You might claim otherwise, but Dr. Masters is attempting to push that meme here, as are many posters. Sandy is being made into a poster child for AGW.

What does it have to do with:

Yet when someone tries to show that there was a probably much worse storm on the same calandar day in the same region over 300 years ago, all of a sudden it's irrational to use a single storm to challenge the notion of Sandy being a product of AGW.

You're using a storm way before the industrial revolution to challenge the notion of Sandy being a product of AGW today?

What does having a more powerful storm in the past, before CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere, have to do with Sandy not being affected by AGW?

For your point to be valid, wouldn't you have to choose a storm today, and prove that AGW hasn't affected it?
You want me to prove AGW hasn't affected it? Isn't that asking me to prove a negative?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Fascinating post Dr. Masters! Makes me want to go back to school for Atmospheric Physics...

Maybe I will do that actually <('o'<)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
"There really isn't much point in discussing this topic with you further if you are not actual going to fully read the topic we are discussing."And like I said elsewhere, Sandy is a rallying point for legislative action against CO2 emissions. You might claim otherwise, but Dr. Masters is attempting to push that meme here, as are many posters. Sandy is being made into a poster child for AGW. Yet when someone tries to show that there was a probably much worse storm on the same calandar day in the same region over 300 years ago, all of a sudden it's irrational to use a single storm to challenge the notion of Sandy being a product of AGW. You don't want a discussion, you want to control the terms of debate.
Wait--so now the 1693 event was a "much worse storm"?

Er, no.

To reiterate: the 1693 storm wasn't necessarily tropical in origin; it came up from the southwest after affecting North Carolina and Virginia, not from the southeast against the norm as Sandy did; there's absolutely no evidence how wide it was compared to Sandy. And so on. In fact, all we have are scattered anecdotal reports that such an event actually happened at all. It's disingenuous at best, then, for people to use a 319-year-old storm about which we know next to nothing to make the case that global warming had no effect on Sandy. It's actually mind-bogglingly illogical that anyone would even try.

Anyway, again, Dr. Masters never said Sandy was "a product of global warming," so I'm not sure why you insist on pushing that line. As Scott so aptly put it, "There really isn't much point in discussing this topic with you further if you are not actual going to fully read the topic we are discussing."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SteveDa1:


Obviously, a perfect storm could occur, given the right setup, 300 years ago, or 1000 years ago, or 1 million years ago...

You don't need Global Warming to have a powerful storm.

Are humans responsible, in some part, for the storms we are experiencing today? One can easily correlate that the radically different composition of the atmosphere today has an obvious influence on storms.

Natural forces alone are capable of producing such storms, yes. But, the atmosphere is much different now. It is not far-fetched at all to think that every storm today is different than what would have occurred if humans hadn't poured CO2 into the atmosphere.



The problem I have with subject matter like this regarding climate change, is that it's equivalent to saying "X amount of people in the United States are Republicans because (insert arbitrary statement)". The problem with something like that is, even after doing large amounts of research and finding some truth in that statement, it's still exactly that, some truth.

What is being done is a generalization, which may be partially true, but one cannot claim that is the reason for sure because there will always be many reasons for why a hurricane like Sandy could develop, just as there are many reasons for why people come to a certain political view.


I could also make just as much of an argument though, that one cannot also say that climate change for sure was not responsible for the event. Because there is no way to prove that it is not.


Unlike testing a 7 day weather forecast for a given area, it takes a long while to test computer modeling for how climate change will impact weather events. By the time it can be tested in 30 to 50 years. There will be new methods, new technology, and new modeling data, and thus new solutions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MontanaZephyr:


Actually, Texas has a gaurenteed right to secede at its pleasure, or divide into up to four separate states if remaining in the union... concession won from the US as a condition of joining the Union. So, unlike the other 49 states, legally, and with just so much paper pushing, they are entirely within their right to do so.


Really? What law guarantees them this right? In Texas vs. White (1869) the Supreme Court ruled "the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"."

There is no legal means of secession. These internet petitions may be cathartic for people who aren't happy about the election, but they are absolutely impotent - states cannot secede.

I hope there aren't too many citizens wasting their life energy trying to figure out ways to further divide us. Cooperation has proven over and over to be far more effective.

Meanwhile, in our largest state:



High Wind Warning remains in effect until 6 PM this
evening east of Kiska...

* wind... west wind 50 to 65 mph with gusts to 80 mph.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond. Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change, and we should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result"

MUST change? Based upon what science? And to what extent? Change could be barely within measurement error or highly significant - but the implication here is that the change will be significant, and for the worse.

This is as much proselytizing as it is a scientific viewpoint.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting post #116:

Even if:

Sandy is a rallying point for legislative action against CO2 emissions. You might claim otherwise, but Dr. Masters is attempting to push that meme here, as are many posters. Sandy is being made into a poster child for AGW.

What does it have to do with:

Yet when someone tries to show that there was a probably much worse storm on the same calandar day in the same region over 300 years ago, all of a sudden it's irrational to use a single storm to challenge the notion of Sandy being a product of AGW.

You're using a storm way before the industrial revolution to challenge the notion of Sandy being a product of AGW today?

What does having a more powerful storm in the past, before CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere, have to do with Sandy not being affected by AGW?

For your point to be valid, wouldn't you have to choose a storm today, and prove that AGW hasn't affected it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Late last week climate scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) announced that climate models showing a greater rise in global temperature are likely more accurate than those showing a lesser rise.
...

"There is a striking relationship between how well climate models simulate relative humidity in key areas and how much warming they show in response to increasing carbon dioxide," said NCAR scientist John Fasullo, one of the authors of the study, quoted in a press release.

...
"Given how fundamental these processes are to clouds and the overall global climate," Fasullo said, "our findings indicate that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections."

http://news.discovery.com/earth/wanted-global-war ming-alarmists-121113.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

I was taught that in Texas history a while back, but according to Factcheck...


Link


Quoting MontanaZephyr:


Actually, Texas has a gaurenteed right to secede at its pleasure, or divide into up to four separate states if remaining in the union... concession won from the US as a condition of joining the Union. So, unlike the other 49 states, legally, and with just so much paper pushing, they are entirely within their right to do so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
118. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
What does fairness have to do with anything? And where did you see anyone trying to use Sandy's size as evidence in support of AGW? Dr. Masters wrote an entirely truthful and logical statement:

"...we've seen significant and unprecedented changes to our atmosphere in recent decades, due to our emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond."

There you have it, in language so simple even a third-grader could understand it, no?

The more than 3.4 million tons of fossil fuel CO2 we humans pump into the environment each and every hour has consequences. At least part of Sandy's size, ferocity, or path may be one of those consequences. It's premature to state with certainty how much AGW influenced Sandy, but it's premature--and utterly illogical--to claim that it didn't affect it at all.



you are correct it is premature to make such a statement.....so why start a debate before you have the facts????.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
Quoting RTSplayer:



This is just some neo-cons over reacting.

Secession of a state would cause an unbelievable uprising, not to mention border crossing issues, interstate highway disputes, riots, probably at least 2 or 3 way civil war, who knows what else.

Who gets control of the nukes and air bases and other military installations and research facilities in each state? You think the Federal Government would just hand all that over?

Even if Louisiana was stupid enough to leave the U.S. I'd leave here and go somewhere else.


Actually, Texas has a gaurenteed right to secede at its pleasure, or divide into up to four separate states if remaining in the union... concession won from the US as a condition of joining the Union. So, unlike the other 49 states, legally, and with just so much paper pushing, they are entirely within their right to do so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Please re-read Dr. Masters' post. Those that have read and absorbed it can see that although the main discussion point is a single storm, the connection of that single storm to climate is not made very strong. In fact, Dr. Masters even pointed out the lack of evidence at present to suggest an increase in storm size due to climate, by the following statement:
"However, there has been no published work describing how hurricane size may change with warmer oceans in a future climate. We've seen an unusual number of Atlantic hurricanes with large size in recent years, but we currently have no theoretical or computer modeling simulations that can explain why this is so, or if we might see more storms like this in the future."

After that statement, he talked in generalities about strong storms (as you might recall, that would be climate, not weather), by saying "[we] should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result--and not always in the ways our computer models may predict."

As has been stated by numerous scientists numerous times, it is virtually impossible to show that any one event is caused by climate change, although current weather events can be consistent with observed climatic changes. The intensity or frequency of events may also change when averaged over climatic timescales (hint, this is not a single event or weather). Dr. Masters summed up this consensus of climate science nicely:
"we should be concerned about the possibility that Hurricane Sandy's freak size and power were partially due to human-caused climate change."

There really isn't much point in discussing this topic with you further if you are not actual going to fully read the topic we are discussing.
"There really isn't much point in discussing this topic with you further if you are not actual going to fully read the topic we are discussing."And like I said elsewhere, Sandy is a rallying point for legislative action against CO2 emissions. You might claim otherwise, but Dr. Masters is attempting to push that meme here, as are many posters. Sandy is being made into a poster child for AGW. Yet when someone tries to show that there was a probably much worse storm on the same calandar day in the same region over 300 years ago, all of a sudden it's irrational to use a single storm to challenge the notion of Sandy being a product of AGW. You don't want a discussion, you want to control the terms of debate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SteveDa1:



........

Is it just me or was he acting like a little boy?

"Obama promises this, LOL, I promise that :D."

And is it wrong to feel incredibly angry after watching this...

Politicians acting as if this were a huge game.

Eh, I think I just got a reality-check.


This year's elections were unreal to watch. Romney was actually stunned that he didn't win as his privately designed polls were showing him the winner. He felt that all the other indicators that showed Obama with slight leads here and there were simply the liberal bias of the press and pollsters. I understand Newt and Karl were equally shocked. I truly think as humans we have an amazing capacity for self-delusion and it doesn't even occur to us that we might be wrong. No fact can change our mind or get past that shield we put in place to protect our views and our egos. I'm not saying its only them who think that way. I think all of us have little walls and castles we defend quite vigoously when our views are cdhallenged. A good example is Trump and the birth certificate. There is literally nothing that would convince him of the legitimacy of the President's birth in Hawaii. (I figure if anything were there, Hillary would have found it). Now put the competing armys at work on opinions on climate science. Whoah! We are not going to cross those bridges and consider their positions - not until New Yorkers are using gondolas instead of cars are some folks going to think global warming and sea level rise is real. It's just not in their bank of options. Enough already! Hope for the best and buy some boats.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Still no circle.

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
100 PM EST TUE NOV 13 2012

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.

$$
FORECASTER BRENNAN
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Bryan Norcross's Blog:

local New York-area forecast from the National Weather Service Saturday morning:

2 TO 3 FT ABOVE ASTRONOMICAL TIDES MONDAY MORNING INTO TUESDAY MORNING...WITH POSSIBLE HIGHER DEPARTURES DEPENDENT UPON THE TRACK OF SANDY.

Wow! This was the local forecast for Sandy???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:


The states can't secede without a vote of some sort. The petition site is basically "Ask the government a question, we will respond if you get 25,000 signatures". Which is cool as far as allowing the people to ask questions, but means nothing as far as any action taken by the federal government. This is just a very small number of people being upset, which is their right. :)


Very true, I am just wondering what they think they are accomplishing. Just making their voices heard, I suppose.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
That's funny, this thread was started by Dr. Master's discussion of an individual storm. So now a contrarian opinion cannot be offered? I guess you want the rules rigged in favor of one point of view.

Please re-read Dr. Masters' post. Those that have read and absorbed it can see that although the main discussion point is a single storm, the connection of that single storm to climate is not made very strong. In fact, Dr. Masters even pointed out the lack of evidence at present to suggest an increase in storm size due to climate, by the following statement:
"However, there has been no published work describing how hurricane size may change with warmer oceans in a future climate. We've seen an unusual number of Atlantic hurricanes with large size in recent years, but we currently have no theoretical or computer modeling simulations that can explain why this is so, or if we might see more storms like this in the future."

After that statement, he talked in generalities about strong storms (as you might recall, that would be climate, not weather), by saying "[we] should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result--and not always in the ways our computer models may predict."

As has been stated by numerous scientists numerous times, it is virtually impossible to show that any one event is caused by climate change, although current weather events can be consistent with observed climatic changes. The intensity or frequency of events may also change when averaged over climatic timescales (hint, this is not a single event or weather). Dr. Masters summed up this consensus of climate science nicely:
"we should be concerned about the possibility that Hurricane Sandy's freak size and power were partially due to human-caused climate change."
Reason to be concerned for a partial influence, but we are not certain at this time.

There really isn't much point in discussing this topic with you further if you are not actual going to fully read the topic we are discussing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 161 - 111

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.