Flood ravaged Queensland is preparing for a monstrous South Pacific Ocean Tropical Cyclone Yasi. Forecast to reach Category 4+ strength on the familiar Saffir-Simpson scale, there really is nothing inhibiting this storm from explosively intensifying and reaching 135 knots+ in terms of sustained winds. Ocean heat content below Yasi is high and sufficient to maintain a very intense TC. As the USA deals with the upcoming blizzard with a couple feet of snow forecast for the Midwest, the ongoing Southern Hemisphere summer produces tropical cyclones. In terms of history, Yasi will likely be compared to Cyclone Larry (2006) which made landfall somewhat north of the forecast track of Yasi. However, the circulation of Yasi is considerably larger and, if it maintains it intensity until landfall, could be one of the strongest and largest TCs to make landfall in Australia in the past century.
Forecasting and Predictability note: The ECMWF forecast model has been consistently forecasting a major tropical cyclone near or over Queensland on Feb 3 for the last 7-days: Link to last 14-Forecast Cycles. This demonstration of 10-day TC track skill is quite impressive.
Links to other satellite floaters: Water Vapor, Visible, hourly IR animation of above.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Best of luck to all down under in your preparations for this inclement weather.
My eye did catch some of Michael’s comments as well as reactions to them. Most reactions were with anecdotal evidence and one with something about a 210 year cycle with the sun (don’t know what that’s about).
Anyway, I have thought about the question of “anthropogenic extreme weather” (or whatever you want to call it) myself. I looked through the available data for weather on the web and I checked out the local library a few months back to see if they had an archive on weather events (only had local info). Anyway, I did find this National Climatic Data Center link that shows an interesting trend.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2010.pdf
I wish there was data before the 80’s (and data for outside the USA), but this chart shows a pretty well-defined trend in the “over a billion dollar weather disaster count” from the 80’s to the 90’s and then into this century. Again, take this as a case study, not a slam dunk proof of a global trend. Wow, take a look at 1998’s figures. I remember that year when “El Niño” came into the American vocabulary.
Also, I made an Excel sheet out of the data found here, based on the North Atlantic Hurricane Database from the National Hurricane Center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_seasons
Again, this is only North America, and only covers hurricanes, but it still turns out to be an interesting case study for 1870 – present. A ten year running average and decadal sums show a very distinct increase in recent tropical storms and a couple periods of increased major hurricanes following the 1940’s (this past decade was quite active with major hurricanes). Regular hurricanes seemed to pick up a bit following 1940, but the trend doesn’t seem too much higher than the 1870’s and 1880’s (except this past decade, which was higher). Damage costs go up a whole lot over time, but that is probably due to more structures to break. According to the notes, 2005 was an incredibly high cost year, and the most active on record. 2010 tied for third most active year. All storms (the sum of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes), increased over the period. Granted, the data has flaws, as pointed out in the Wiki article, but it shows some rough order trends.
Heck, even back in 2002 the Bush administration signed off on a report to the United Nations that entertained the possibility of climate change affecting property losses due to extreme weather.
Quote:
“The United States is a world leader in addressing and adapting to a variety of national and global scientific problems that could be exacerbated by climate change, including malaria, hunger, malnourishment, property losses due to extreme weather events, and habitat loss and other threats to biological diversity. ”
http://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/
(Chapter 1 and Appendix D are especially good reading)
The hypothesis seems sound; increase temperatures and storms will have more energy and moisture. I’m still hunting for more long term data that shows an indication either way.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Simple answer Michael, the solar position is unlike anything we have experienced for 210 years. Even NASA are aware of atmospheric changes during low solar activity that affect the polar vortexes that shape the current AO,NAO and AAO positions. The atmospheric oscillations also contribute to the strength of ENSO. Nothing new here, just that we dont live long enough to experience the pattern twice in a lifetime.
No answer to my response Michael?
Not surprising, you have no answer and prefer to follow your religion.
(as via twitter)
TC Yasi bears down on Queensland BRILL animation http://bit.ly/dpXc1q LONG RANGE FORECAST CONFIRMED http://bit.ly/gwo7jX
Interesting point made by dwh re sea surface temperatures
Cheers Pers_Corbyn
(as via twitter)
TC Yasi bears down on Queensland BRILL animation http://bit.ly/dpXc1q LONG RANGE FORECAST CONFIRMED http://bit.ly/gwo7jX
Interesting point made by dwh re sea surface temperatures
Thanks Piers_Corbyn
Bah, couldn’t find any Australian data on the cyclone history, except for this.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
Looks like a decrease in regular cyclones, but severe ones are steady throughout the period 1970 – 2005.
Great website overall, though. Filled with data to munch on.
Interesting information on the timing and intensity of severe weather events in Queensland since ~1880 can be seen in the following link – scroll down to the bottom to see the information:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever
The information presented in the blog is from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The data presented show no “eyeball-evident” trend of increasing “wetness” or “dryness” over Eastern Australia since 1900; and nor do they show any increase in the magnitude or frequency of major flood events in the Brisbane River since 1848 – if anything, they show a decrease. Finally, the peak rainfall event in Maleny, at the headwaters of the Stanley River Catchment, which is the main catchment for the Wivenhoe Dam, was in 1974, when 886mm of rain fell over six days, with this rainfall in part causing the 1974 Brisbane floods. This year, the peak rainfall event totalled 746mm over six days, although the rainfall intensity in other contributing catchments this year was higher than in 1974. A series of spring tides at the time of flooding in also exacerbated the effect of the 1974 floods.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Queensland Government was preparing water systems in SEQ to cope with the AGW-predicted future of prolonged drought before the onset of the current La Nina, which included reactivating the construction of a very expensive sea-water desalination plant at Tugun, on the Gold Coast, to substitute a water supply for that from a proposed dam on the Mary River which was stopped as a result of political pressure.
So, for me, it is difficult to see any “signature” of AGW in the current weather events besetting the regions for which rainfall and flood frequency-intensity data are available. And, as the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) notes, in its excellent weather outlook briefings, the current La Nina and its signature in the Southern Oscillation Index is the strongest since 1917-1918! The 1975-1976 La Nina event is ranked third, and it strengthened after the 1974 floods. As the BOM also notes, several other La Nina events also rank closely in terms of the strongest events on record – these are 1975-1976, 1917-1918, 1955-56, and possibly 1988-89. Finally, the Brisbane flood events in the 1890’s were the biggest flood event recorded – there were, apparently, three major rainfall events then.
Queenslanders are about to experience a quite awesome tropical cyclone, which is now at the upper Category 4 stage, with winds of 250km hour-1 within and near its eye wall. As I have noted above in this post, the Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies (SSTAs) are not particularly high in the Coral Sea, and nor were they particularly high in the storm’s generation area, near Fiji. The SSTAs are not the highest observed in the Coral Sea, but what is unusual is the enormous tongue of very cold SSTAs over the eastern 60% of the Pacific Ocean – this tongue of cold sea surface water is of course the promoter of the very high SOI currently signalling the La Nina event here. The ghost of AGW is not evident in these data either –
but see for yourself on
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Not only do we in Australia have to deal with severe natural weather events, but we have to deal with this insanity too.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/an-unkind-cut-that-led-to-a-record-fine-20110201-1acgo.html
There’s no hope for Australia with Ms Gillard (On the back of securing power at the last election stating there would be no price on carbon) now using the flooding and wind events as an opportunity to put a price on carbon (So that new industries can form and boom like IT did in the 1980s/90s – Yeah right Gillard).
Like CA in the US, Australia is set to follow very soon.
“Michael says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:55 am”
Severe events occuring more often, or just simply that there is more reporting of severe events?
Thanks Otter17, some interesting data and thoughts there. Hi Geoff, do you have some links, I am unaware as to what you are referring to. My understanding is that sunspot activity is low so all things being equal we should be cooling, but we aren’t.
dwh, I think you/we/everybody needs to look at the global situation. Like I have said previously no one weather event really proves anything on its own, but has anybody done a study of the last 12 months of extreme weather events. I know the Munich re insurance people made some claims but no real data to munch on.
http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/strategy_and_policy/strong_indicator_of_climate_change/default.aspx
Every weather event can show or point to a previous similarly large one in the past but what about globally? Somebody needs to look at this.
An insurance company is going to see more claims every year.Populations rise every year,mainly due to immigration(in western countries).
Take Brisbane for eg
The population of the City of Brisbane is estimated at 957,010 (as of June 2004). Together with six surrounding Local Government Areas, Brisbane has an estimated metropolitan population of 1,774,890 as of 2004. Brisbane City Council is the most populous Local Government Area in Australia and is one of the largest cities in the world in terms of geographic area. Brisbane boasts Australia’s highest rate of capital city population growth. The metropolitan population reportedly grew by 11.5% between 1999 and 2004.
The Local Government Areas surrounding the City of Brisbane which are part of the Brisbane metropolitan area are:
• Ipswich – A coal mining township and home of the Queensland Rail workshop. Ipswich’s population has nearly doubled since 1994. Population: 135,500.
End
The city I live in had a major flood in 1929.The city is expected to flood again.It’s a safe bet that a lot of property will be damaged or destroyed.
http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=174
Re: Wayne Richards says: January 31, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“‘Knots per hour’ is accepted”
Thank you. I did not realize that. I must be outdated, since I myself was overly picky teaching the public boating course for the Power Squadron in the 1980’s. Cheers! 🙂
otter17 says: February 1, 2011 at 4:23 am
Maybe, but perhaps another view would help:
Maue, Dr. Ryan N. 2011. Global Tropical Cyclone Activity (2010 Update). Scientific. Florida State University. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/%7Emaue/tropical/graphics/global_ace_yearly.jpg
Michael says:
February 1, 2011 at 6:36 am
Thanks Otter17, some interesting data and thoughts there. Hi Geoff, do you have some links, I am unaware as to what you are referring to. My understanding is that sunspot activity is low so all things being equal we should be cooling, but we aren’t.
Otter17 and yourself should educate yourselves before commenting on these issues. Solar variability is shown to have a large impact on climate. This was highlighted by NASA in 2001 by the AGW authors Schmidt & Mann.
You can also read my article posted last July that predicted the current events. Look around at other areas of the site for more information.
The UAH temperature value for January should see us back to the 30 year average.
To all you idiots that think a carbon tax will change the weather please kill yourself! The gene pool is polluted enough with just you presents!!!!
Now the reality is that all these areas have and always will be cyclone prone areas, idiots that claim its global warming please leave your address and i will come around and remove the fear from your mind.
CARBON TAXES WILL NOT CHANGE WEATHER! OUR CURRENT TAXES CAN BARELY GET THE TRAINS AND BUSES TO RUN ON TIME!!! GIVE YOURSELVES AN UPPER CUT FOR BEING SO STUPID.
It was said days ago that Yasi was Katrina’s big ugly sister.
Geoff Sharp says: “Otter17 and yourself should educate yourselves before commenting on these issues. Solar variability is shown to have a large impact on climate. This was highlighted by NASA in 2001 by the AGW authors Schmidt & Mann.”
In your little rant you forgot to say that the 2001 report was in explanation of the little ice age. I already outlined above this cause of the LIA and do not dispute it. It does not explain why in contrast to the LIA the global temperature now is higher than the WMP. Though far from the cooling trend you mention we are heating up, hottest decade on record and equal hottest year on record does not match what you were saying.
Michael says:
February 2, 2011 at 5:13 am
In your little rant
You are obviously past any coherent discussion. I will let you wallow in your world of disillusionment.
Pooh, Dixie says:
January 31, 2011 at 11:37 am
“knots per hour”
That would obviously be one of those derivative acceleration thingies, I betcha!
😉
All the online videos of Yasi are on the following hub:
http://cyclone.videohq.tv
I have to say, Australia would probably be well advised to look at its own greenhouse gas emissions. The irony of its international position could hardly be more obvious.