Climate activist McKibben bizarrely blames Hurricane Irene on global warming

Photo Credit: Shadia Fayne Wood

Post by Dr. Ryan N. Maue

Update:  Andrew Revkin writes a nice piece at his DotEarth NY Times blog that “very politely” repudiates McKibben.  Remember, the NY Times editorial board completely agrees with McKibben on the Tar Sands pipeline issue.

Update: ThinkProgess spins a narrative that says Irene is worse from global warming.  (Disconnected, hand-wavy narrative)

Bill McKibben authors a bizarre piece in the Daily Beast where he not only blames the strength of Hurricane Irene on global warming but connects the storm to President Obama’s expected approval of the Keystone Pipeline transport of Canadian Tar Sands to terminals in the United States.  While the second part of his thesis is political in nature, the first part is quite easy to fact check, and comes up woefully short.  McKibben has no expertise in tropical cyclone science, and relies on the expert quotes of Weather Underground blogger Dr. Jeff Masters who has provided a laudable public service with his Irene coverage.

McKibben begins: “Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.”

I doubt there is a tropical cyclone scientist that would go on record and make such a foolish statement, but who knows.

Normally, says Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, it’s “difficult for a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane crossing north of North Carolina to maintain that intensity, because wind shear rapidly increases and ocean temperatures plunge below the 26°C (79°F) level that can support a hurricane.”  The high-altitude wind shear may help knock the storm down a little this year, but the ocean temperatures won’t. They’re bizarrely high—only last year did we ever record hotter water.

Sea surface temperatures 1° to 3°F warmer than average extend along the East Coast from North Carolina to New York. Waters of at least 26°C extend all the way to southern New Jersey, which will make it easier for Irene to maintain its strength much farther to the north than a hurricane usually can,” says Masters. “These warm ocean temperatures will also make Irene a much wetter hurricane than is typical, since much more water vapor can evaporate into the air from record-warm ocean surfaces. The latest precipitation forecast from NOAA’s Hydrological prediction center shows that Irene could dump over eight inches of rain over coastal New England.”

Masters is alluding to the process known as “extratropical transition” in which a fully tropical hurricane becomes enmeshed with the midlatitude westerlies and evolves into a more typical extratropical cyclone.  The “tropical phase” hurricane encounters upper-level winds that are very strong which causes significant vertical shear.  This shear “tilts” the hurricane inner-core — a situation that is not optimal for the maintainence of deep convection around the entire eye.  Also as Irene reaches the Virginia border, it will encounter cooler SSTs, almost 10 degrees C cooler than its present location in the Bahamas.  The combination of dry continental air entrainment and cooler SSTs will immediately decrease the inner-core convection and help to “poof” out the storm.

Here’s a model depiction of the rapid structure change expected with Irene:  snapshots from the simulated GOES-12 brightness temperatures from the NCEP-NAM 12 km model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update 08/28/2011:  Here’s the verifying satellite image, about 8-hour behind the third simulated panel…model did pretty good.

08/28/11 16:45Z

After 72-hours, Irene will look like a Nor’easter snowstorm on satellite with very cold cloud-tops on the NW flank or comma-head of the storm.  Considerable rain will occur before Irene makes landfall, as well as during its trip up the eastern seaboard.  However, the symmetric appearance of a major hurricane with an eye will be long gone.

Masters is quoted that “bizarrely high” SSTs along Irene’s path will cause Irene to be a much wetter and apparently longer-lasting hurricane that normal.  This assertion is true if “all else is equal”.  However, before attributing the “anomalous SST” to global warming, one must control all other variables in this complex situation.  That requires considerable sensitivity research with state-of-the art numerical weather prediction (and climate) models.  With very poor in-situ historical observations of the global oceans, it is still a quite daunting task to attribute SST anomalies in the meandering and variable Gulf Stream to global warming.  This hand-waving theory may not hold up when a rigorous scientific hypothesis is tested, yet McKibben does not provide a citation or reference aside from Masters’ quotations, which are not peer-reviewed in the slightest.

I plot up daily the current SSTs as well as the anomalies for each August 25 from 1979 to 2011 for the North Tropical Atlantic here.  The path Irene is expected to take does not go over “bizarrely high” SSTs by any stretch of the imagination.  The 26-degree C isotherm is just about at its average location for the past 30-years.

If Irene occurred in September, the SSTs would be warmer than August, which does not imply that global warming aided the storm’s development.  Thus, one must look at the variability (variance) of local and regional SSTs as well as the actual SSTs to gauge an accurate understanding of tropical cyclone intensity change.  With the current track very similar to Floyd 1999, one should expect similar impacts in terms of precipitation and wind “if all else is equal”.  However, nature rarely operates in text book manner especially in the field of meteorology.

While some tropical cyclone scientists are probably sympathetic with McKibben’s political goals, I will keep my eyes peeled for one that will go on record agreeing with McKibben’s stretched scientific logic.  In his mind, Bush caused Katrina and Obama caused Irene.  Hopefully McKibben and the media will let this crisis go to waste.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

102 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 26, 2011 11:55 pm

Seems this article has things backwards. Weather is dependent on climate and we know the climate is warmer than it was in the recent past which means this weather event is dependent on the current climate which has been warmed globally. It would seem Hurricane Irene could only be doing what it is doing because of the current climate which has been influenced by recent warming. There is no evidence the same storm would be happening without recent global warming.

Larry in Texas
August 27, 2011 12:50 am

A fascinating explanation by Dr. Maue! I was wondering earlier this afternoon when I was looking at Irene on NOAA’s doppler radar why the eye of the storm looked so funny, like there wasn’t much of an eye left at all. Now I know.

Andrew Harding
Editor
August 27, 2011 2:02 am

Mr McKibben, you have broken the golden rule of climatology in that you cannot ascribe one event to a trend that may be happening. If you think that you can, please expain why in the North East of England, I cannot cut down the 30 foot conifer in my garden which died as a result of the severe frost here last December, because it is raining heavily? Also the temperature is 11.5 celsius at 09:45 when I would expect it to be at least 10 degrees higher. We are an island influenced by sea temperature and the sea is at its warmest at this time of the year. Explanation please!
Our thoughts are with the US citizens on the east coast in the path of Irene, I have seen the winds are dying down and we all pray that it will continue.
The 9:00 BBC radio news said that all public transport in NYC will be shut down later today and 2,000,000 were being evacuated from the coast. Is this correct? Our PC, Leftist, AGW friendly BBC downplays any cold weather but anything that can be put down to AGW is exaggerated. It is a national disgrace.

Richard S Courtney
August 27, 2011 2:36 am

sceptical:
Your post at August 26, 2011 at 11:55 pm is nonsense. It says, in full;
“Seems this article has things backwards. Weather is dependent on climate and we know the climate is warmer than it was in the recent past which means this weather event is dependent on the current climate which has been warmed globally. It would seem Hurricane Irene could only be doing what it is doing because of the current climate which has been influenced by recent warming. There is no evidence the same storm would be happening without recent global warming.”
There is no evidence that hurricane Irene is different from previous hurricanes.
There is evidence hurricanes stronger than Irene happened in the past when you assert it was cooler. And in the past when you assert it was cooler there were more frequent hurricanes than recently.
So, your assertion that
“It would seem Hurricane Irene could only be doing what it is doing because of the current climate which has been influenced by recent warming”
is a non sequitor.
Unless, of course, you are claiming that recent warming has caused hurricanes such as Irene to be weaker and less frequent.
In reality, the data does not provide any discernible relationship between global warming and hurricanes.
Richard

August 27, 2011 4:29 am

But Richard! Sceptical isn’t using data! /sarc

RandomThesis
August 27, 2011 9:03 am

It appears that the ‘scientists’ predicting the extreme danger from Irene learned how to predict the future from ‘scientists’ exposing CAGW. The politicians just follow along. Reality however has a way of interfering with these futurists.

August 27, 2011 9:16 am

Richard, you are missing the point. I never said there were not hurricanes in the past. Hurricane Irene happened in this paticular climate. this climate is warmer than the recent past. This climate has influenced Hurricane Irene. Your assertion that climate has no influence on hurricanes is nonsense.

August 27, 2011 9:28 am

sceptical says:
“This climate has influenced Hurricane Irene. Your assertion that climate has no influence on hurricanes is nonsense.”
It appears that the ‘influence’ of a warmer climate on hurricane Irene is that warmth has reduced the winds and damage, validating my repeated assertion that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Isn’t it time you accepted that obvious fact?

August 27, 2011 9:44 am

Smokey, “It appears that the ‘influence’ of a warmer climate on hurricane Irene is that warmth has reduced the winds and damage, validating my repeated assertion that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Isn’t it time you accepted that obvious fact?”
Why does it appear this way to you? What evidence do you have that this hurricane would have been more powerful in a cooler climate? Are you claiming there can be no storms more powerful than this one in a warmer world?

August 27, 2011 9:57 am

McKibben begins: “Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.”
McKibben has a middle name, and it’s “crackpot”

EternalOptimist
August 27, 2011 10:08 am

Maybe I am old and cynical, but I bet there are a few out there that are deeply sorry that Irene didn’t do a lot more damage and kill a whole load of folks. It’s a bit sad really

Richard S Courtney
August 27, 2011 11:00 am

sceptical:
Your comment to me at August 27, 2011 at 9:16 am says, in total,
“Richard, you are missing the point. I never said there were not hurricanes in the past. Hurricane Irene happened in this paticular climate. this climate is warmer than the recent past. This climate has influenced Hurricane Irene. Your assertion that climate has no influence on hurricanes is nonsense.”
I did not say,
“climate has no influence on hurricanes”.
I said,
“In reality, the data does not provide any discernible relationship between global warming and hurricanes.”
And what I said is true.
Please accept some friendly advice. Try to remember that it is better to let people think you are a fool than to post something which proves you are a fool.
Richard

August 27, 2011 11:17 am

Richard, you can pull insults all you want, it does not change the fact that this hurrican was formed and exists in the present climate which is based on a global warming of recent years. It is foolish to think this or any hurricane exists outside of the present climate, a warmer climate than in the recent past.

Richard S Courtney
August 27, 2011 12:55 pm

sceptical:
I have made no insults, and I am saddened that you failed to adopt my friendly advice.
Richard

August 27, 2011 3:25 pm

Richard, what climate do you feel this hurricane has come from if not the present climate?

Roger Knights
August 27, 2011 3:59 pm

@sceptical:
But the present climate has been generating less total hurricane power.

Colin in BC
August 27, 2011 4:16 pm

When it fits the AGW narrative, localized weather events become climate, or a product of climate.
When it does not fit with the AGW meme, we’re told “it’s only weather.”
Interesting…

Richard S Courtney
August 27, 2011 5:20 pm

sceptical:
Please stop making a public fool of yourself.
I stated the truth that
“In reality, the data does not provide any discernible relationship between global warming and hurricanes.”
And your response is to pester me at August 27, 2011 at 3:25 pm by asking me:
“Richard, what climate do you feel this hurricane has come from if not the present climate?”
I answer, the present climate, you twit. But that does NOT mean there has been a discernible relationship between the strength and/or the frequency of hurricanes. THERE HAS NOT.
I could be as innane as you by asking you what sheep do you think a recently sheared fleece has come from if not a live one. The question and its answer provides as much information about sheep as your question about climate and for the same reason.
I shall ignore all further posts from you because responses to you seem to encourage you to make posts which provide doubt concerning your mental faculties, and I see no need to encourage you to make such posts.
Richard

Colin in BC
August 27, 2011 5:33 pm

sceptical says:
August 27, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Richard, what climate do you feel this hurricane has come from if not the present climate?
Sceptical, every conceivable weather phenomena is a product of the climate. But, using your logic, it’s tantamount to declaring, “Water is wet!” Not much of a useful observation. Frankly, it’s a downright useless observation.

August 27, 2011 7:51 pm

Richard you fool, how can you claim global warming has no effect on hurricanes but then say the current hurricane is a product of the present climate which has experienced global warming. Your posts are contradictory you twit. Seems you know as much about hurricanes as you do about global warming. So sad you feel it prudent to write about that which you have no sensible knowledge. Perhaps you should stick to the ramblings about the end of world and increase the size of your cardboard plack.

August 27, 2011 8:27 pm

Colin in BC, “Sceptical, every conceivable weather phenomena is a product of the climate. But, using your logic, it’s tantamount to declaring, “Water is wet!” Not much of a useful observation. Frankly, it’s a downright useless observation.”
So why was there so much disagreement to it when Mr. McKibben said as much? Could it be that any mention of global warming brings about an irrational response from certain blogs and bloggers who are dependent on there being misinformation about the subject?

QuickieBurialAtSea
August 27, 2011 11:20 pm

When did the “present climate” begin, Sceptical ? What period is covered ? Or is this an “instantaneous climate moment”, that you are referring to ?

Richard S Courtney
August 27, 2011 11:22 pm

Friends:
Please ignore the posts provided under the alias of ‘sceptical’.
Either sceptical is
(a) a troll deliberately disrupting the thread
or
(b) is an individual with so severe a mental disorder that he/she thinks the statement
“In reality, the data does not provide any discernible relationship between global warming and hurricanes.”
equates to
“global warming has no effect on hurricanes”.
In either case, I think it is best to let sceptical’s illogical rants speak for themselves.
Richard
[ryanm: 🙂 i enjoyed the logic of the arguments]

QuickieBurialAtSea
August 28, 2011 12:02 am

Richard, but Sceptical seems the perfect stand-in loon for Bill !

Aerianne
August 28, 2011 1:09 am

“Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.” Guess he forgot the last name. May I suggest it’d be Fraud,

Verified by MonsterInsights