While I was looking into Chris Landsea’s recent activities, I came across a new essay that is a pleasant change of pace from the Climategate Emails.
While it is definitely an opinion piece, and a wonderful example of how to disagree without being disagreeable, it’s also a great resource for our current understanding of hurricane hazards and activity over time. More than that – Landsea has some interesting attempts at adjusting the historical record to account for our increasing ability to spot hurricanes, even those that earn the title for less than a day.
Landsea agrees that the Earth has warmed over the last several decades, that greenhouse gases are to blame in some part, but acknowledges the sensitivity is not known. Excerpts follow, but I strongly recommend reading the full essay and images at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/:
Global Warming is Real
As a preamble, I definitely agree that global warming has occurred (around a degree F [or half degree C] in the last several decades at the earth’s surface).
Also there is substantial evidence – in my view – that mankind has caused a significant portion of this warming through greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane. I do not know whether the human contribution toward the warming is relatively small (~a quarter) or large (~two-thirds), but do agree that there is quite a bit of evidence that mankind is altering the global climate and will continue to do so in the future.
… Thus there remains a large range of the amount of global warming to be expected in the future due to manmade changes in my view.) What does, then, a 1°F (0.5°C) ocean temperature change today and a potential 4-6°F (2-3°C) warming by the end of the 21st Century mean for hurricanes?
All climate models predict that for every degree of warming at the ocean that the air temperature aloft will warm around twice as much. This is important because if global warming only affected the earth’s surface, then there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into. But, instead, warming the upper atmosphere more than the surface along with some additional moisture near the ocean means that the energy available for hurricanes to access increases by just a slight amount. Moreover, the vertical wind shear is also supposed to increase, making it more difficult (not easier) for hurricanes to form and intensify.
The bottom line is that nearly all of the theoretical and computer modeling work suggest that hurricanes may be slightly stronger (by a few percent) by the end of the 21st Century, even presuming that a large global warming will occur.
The climate models are also coming into agreement that the number of tropical storms and hurricanes will not go up and may perhaps even decrease (by around one-fourth fewer) because of the increased vertical wind shear.
… what does global warming imply for hurricane activity today? The ~1°F (~0.5°C) ocean temperature warming has likely made hurricanes stronger today by about 1%. Thus even for a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale Category 5 hurricane – like Hurricane Katrina over the Gulf of Mexico – the increase in hurricane winds are on the order of 1-2 mph (2-3 kph) today.
What Does the Observed Increase in Hurricane Damages Imply?
This section is hard to excerpt and has been covered well on WUWT. Landsea notes that hurricane damage depends on population density, per capita wealth, and coastal development. He notes that the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 which cost $100 million in actual 1926 dollars would would normalize to about $165 BILLION today if it hit the same stretch of coast with today’s population and infrastructure.
Has There Been a Doubling in the Number of Tropical Storms and Hurricanes?
This starts with a couple studies that reached similar conclusions. “Overall, there appears to have been a substantial 100-year trend leading to related increases of over 0.78°C [~1.5°F] in SST and over 100% in tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers. It is concluded that the overall trend in SSTs, and tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers is substantially influenced by greenhouse warming.”
How Have the Ways We Measure Tropical Storms and Hurricanes Improved?
After comparing what’s available today to meteorologists to what was available a century ago, Landsea talks about the ongoing effort to reanalyze the hurricane database. While he says “I am fortunate to assist with,” I think he spearheaded the effort after years of working with William Gray on Colorado State University’s efforts to come up with seasonal predictions. The shortcomings with the historical record were a significant nuisance.
He considers the “lost hurricanes” of the Eastern Atlantic where storms can form and never come close to land and also the modern phenomenon he calls “shorties,” those annoying, count-wrecking short-lived tropical storms that modern tools can show meet the criterion for a day or so. From 12 shorties in the first 44 years of the 20th Century to four or so per year in the last decade, much credit must go to “new instruments such as the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) and scatterometers from low-earth orbiting satellites, new methods for interpreting geostationary satellite imagery such as the Advanced Dvorak Technique, new observation techniques such as the Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer aboard the Hurricane Hunter aircraft and more oceanic moored buoys providing continuous measurements, and new diagnostic methods such as the Cyclone Phase Space analysis all have contributed – in my opinion – toward increased numbers of weak, short-lived tropical storms.”
Landsea offers graphs starting with unadjusted numbers (seven storms per year on average in the late 1800s to twelve now) to numbers after shorties are removed, and then including an estimate of storms that would have been missed in the past. The trend flattens out with new values nine to eight.
The remaining data still shows a variation in storm activity that Landsea, like Bill Gray before him, ascribes to the 60 year cycle of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). We entered a warm AMO phase in 1995 which coincided with the current period of high storm activity.
How May Hurricane Activity Change in the Future?
Landsea concludes the changes we can expect with significant warming are not major (the largest being a ~25% decrease in numbers of storms, offset by a ~3% increase in intensity – damagewise, I suspect that might be a wash).
He concludes with:
Knowing, however, when the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation will occur – and a distinct drop in major hurricane numbers – is unknown, but likely within the next decade or two. Is global warming a concern? Yes. We’re conducting an uncontrolled experiment where we really don’t completely know what the consequences will be. I’ve been particularly shocked about the drastic changes going on in the Arctic, with the huge ice cover loss in the summertime that may very well be related to manmade global warming. The biggest immediate worry I have is with the huge population increases of vulnerable coastal communities both in Florida, elsewhere in the U.S., and to our neighbors in the Caribbean. Such jumps in coastal residents are causing massive damage increases and, unfortunately, large losses of life such as the 10,000 deaths in Honduras and Nicaragua from 1998’s Hurricane Mitch and the 1200 people that drowned from Katrina in Mississippi and Louisiana. The confluence of more people and infrastructure with the current busy period for Atlantic hurricanes has me quite concerned today. But – in my opinion – the overall impact of global warming on hurricanes is currently negligible and likely to remain quite tiny even a century from now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

A third of the warming attributed to AGW happened in a single year. I wonder what they attribute that to.
Well, I found his discussion on Hurricanes plausible and interesting. As to the global warming things that seems to get everyone steamed, i understood that most skeptics accepted that the climate has changed just not the why. For my part, i have no doubt that the climate has changed since, the 1974/6 step change, which was ushered in by a big La Nina. After that I don’t know.
Mr Landsea it hasn’t warmed for the past 16 years, and it wasn’t a particularly warm half-cycle when it WAS warming.
It’s a well known fact Phil Jones and friends ALL have a ‘true’ global temperature in mind – the temperature reflected by the RAW DATA, UNADJUSTED, placed online by LAW to stop WEATHER SCAMMING.
Your claims of there being any evidence at all of correlation to manmade, or even ANY CO2 and temperature, are really only – what? Evinced, I mean, where?
Not ‘maybe’ ‘partially’ this is simple science: there’s a giant heater IN the SKY binary 1 or 0?
Well, we STILL have ZERO tropospheric hotspot MANDATORY to G.H.G. Hypothesis.
We STILL have ZERO measured warming on any instrument since the 90s
We STILL have ZERO RISEN ATMOSPHERIC IR DOWNWELLING: M.A.N.D..A.T.O.R.Y. to there being EVEN a G.H.G. Effect AT ALL, as with the tropo/hotspot.
So really whatever it is you’re talking about, the entire panoply of human instrumentation has been DESPERATELY SEEKING that giant heater for 20 YEARS, and so far not ONE experimental plane, not ONE military plane, not ONE plane ANYWHERE and not ONE set of WEATHER INSTRUMENTS ANYWHERE has repeatedly detected a heating, upper portion, LOWER troposphere.
So… you can tell me you think it wuz dun a’ warmin but I’m an instrument & calibration technician in the field of electronic engineering that transmits, captures, and analyzes atmospheric electromagnetic energy, in M.A.N.Y, M.A.N.Y, spectra;
So that means that to me, PHYSICS is a WIND-UP toy and the fact not ONE INSTRUMENT on EARTH – even OPTICAL TELESCOPY – can show EVIDENCE of RISING ATMOSPHERIC SCINTILLATION – ALSO MANDATORY to your G.H.G. Hypothesis.
GHG Hypothesis SAYS that there MUST be MORE atmospheric SCINTILLATION: the STARS TWINKLING HARDER Mr Landsea. Because HEAT in AIR is MOTION.
HEAT on GAS is MOTION.
So – sorry to break the news to you, some of us own a thermometer; and we don’t need government supervision to know which data we want placed online by law – the data Phil Jones referred to – because we DESIGNED and BUILT those instruments
And we KNOW what they say.
crosspatch says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Does anyone else think it odd that nature caused the warming of the MWP, nature caused the cooling into the LIA, but humans caused the warming out of the LIA?
_____________________________________________
It was the main reason I became suspicious. That and I grew up during the 60’s and 70’s when the same crowd was screaming about “Global Cooling” and a coming Ice Age. At least they got that right, though no one knows the exact timing.
crosspatch;
Does anyone else think it odd that nature caused the warming of the MWP, nature caused the cooling into the LIA, but humans caused the warming out of the LIA?>>>
Well “the team” certainly seemed to think along the same lines as you. That’s why they had to “get rid of” the MWP …
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 3, 2011 at 3:04 am
….. and so solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface unhindered and warms it. The outgoing radiation from the heated Earth surface peaks around 10 micron….
Now CO2 absorbs radiation strongly between 14 and 16 micron ( forget the 2.7 and 4.2 micron bands, they play no part in the greenhouse effect). Notice from the above graph that a substantial proportion of the Earth’s radiation falls within the CO2 absorption band. Notice also, that none of the Sun’s incoming radiation is within this band. Thus, while the CO2 absorption band blocks the Earth’s radiation that is trying to escape, it doesn’t shield us from any insolation.
Some of the energy absorbed by the atmospheric greenhouse gases is then radiated back to the surface where it represents an additional heating flux. But perhaps that’s a step too far, let’s understand the basics first.
________________________________
Bomber_the_Cat, We are very well aware of that. We are also well aware of the elephant in the room. That elephant is H2O and stomps all over the tiny ant called CO2. It is why H2O is conspicuous by it’s absence in the IPCC list of Greenhouse gases.
Note how H2O masks most of the CO2 bands and has a LOT more band width and that is before you figure water is up to 4% of the atmosphere and varies from near 0% to 4%
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
The two major gases in the atmosphere are N2 and O2
Infrared absorption bands for OXYGEN (O2)
http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/o2.pdf
A close-up of infrared absorption bands for NITROGEN (N2)
http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/n2.pdf
There is also the fact that CO2’s “green house” effect is logarithmic So most of its effect has already been “felt” In otherwords CO2 has already shot its wad and more increase in CO2 will have even less effect if any.
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/co2-is-logarithmic-explained/
The Saturated Greenhouse Effect
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
And that is before you get into the second law of thermodynamics and whether the cool air can warm a hot earth.
BTW most of us see water in all its phases as the main actor on climate and not an insignificant gas. The big question is where does the variability of the sun fit in and is it a major player?
Peer reviewed paper: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/9p72043270187318/?p=186148f7bd6a4c1681163d19daa8aea0&pi=2
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate6.htm
Discussions by regulars at WUWT:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/john-eggart-laymans-guide-to-the-greenhouse-effect/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-440225
Dr Burns says:
December 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm
My Landsea,
Please do us the courtesy of responding to the questions that have been put to you regarding your article. Perhaps you find it too embarrassing trying to back up your alarmist statements ?
We all know there is no evidence whatsoever for man caused global warming, don’t we ?
_________________________________________
Dr. Landsea is treading a very narrow line and doing an excellent Job. In order to keep his job and therefore present true and correct data he must use the “Global Warming get past the censors card”
I rather have him spout the nonsense and then present data that SHOWS it is nonsense than have him replaced by a Hansen or Mann and get data fudging that shows what the priests of CAGW want.
“”Richard111 says:
December 3, 2011 at 11:57 am “”
Ooopss… decimal point dyslexia strikes again! I should have said 8.3 kilometres not 83. 🙁
But, that’s still a large sheet of paper.:-)
Severe note to self – do not, repeat do not attempt playing with numbers before breakfast!
The 83 kilometres is correct. I fooled myself with my typo 83,000,000. Should be 8,300,000 centimetres.
I always feel so embarrased when I make a boo-boo on this blog, I get twitchy and make it worse because I can’t edit my mistake.
Gail Combs says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Dr Burns says:
December 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm
My Landsea,
Please do us the courtesy of responding to the questions that have been put to you regarding your article. Perhaps you find it too embarrassing trying to back up your alarmist statements ?
We all know there is no evidence whatsoever for man caused global warming, don’t we ?
_________________________________________
Dr. Landsea is treading a very narrow line and doing an excellent Job. In order to keep his job and therefore present true and correct data he must use the “Global Warming get past the censors card”
I rather have him spout the nonsense and then present data that SHOWS it is nonsense than have him replaced by a Hansen or Mann and get data fudging that shows what the priests of CAGW want.
========================
Gail — You make a valid point. I hope this was his intent.
Ahhh, a loverly, long dose of sanity. Thangkew.
You also might like to take on board a couple of ideas/observations that have come up lately:
1) The JAXA IBUKI satellite reveals that the West is a net CO2 sink, the UDN are a major source;
2) J. Cao’s paper here: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf notes that the only gases capable of radiating energy into space are the “GHGs”, so net-net they must be responsible for cooling the atmosphere.
Either or both blow the entire cAGW edifice to smithereenies (as Yosemite Sam would put it). 😉
[Snip – completely OT. -Ric]
[Oops – I missed the Yosemite Sam reference in the previous comment, sorry about that. -Ric]
Apparently this is what the estemeed Willis was talkin’ ’bout.
Sam returns!
http://yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Sam-Side.jpg