From NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory:
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
1. Has Global Warming Affected Hurricane or Tropical Cyclone Activity?
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA
Last Revised: Mar. 17, 2017
A. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
- Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
- What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models?
In this review, we address these questions in the context of published research findings. We will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are:
- It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly
greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
- There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
In figure 1 which they provide below, note in panel (a) and (b) how the how high resolution model projections (green) are so much lower around 2100 than 24 other climate models. This suggests that even 80 years into the future, the PDI of tropical storms wont be outside of present observed natural variations
Vecchi et al. 2008 (PDF)
…
Synthesis and Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming
In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.
Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as A1B.
The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to these projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the entire report here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
h/t to Larry Kummer
“It is premature to conclude… ” Shows which was the confirmation-bias-driven science is headed, doesn’t it?
We shoud not rant too much over this study.
In short: They are rowing back. Carefully.
And at the end they can say: “We always were not shure about catastrophical global warming. Just check our studies…”
So be still my heart and be happy.
An astute observation.
But yet is to come the back slapping for them having changed the direction of global catastrophe by telling us all “It’s the wind farms that dun it”.
It’s coming soon.
Of course there are in terms of fitness for purpose an infinity of studies claiming a virtual infinity of things so nothing can be concluded here.
The laws of thermodynamics imply that increased greenhouse gasses should REDUCE cyclone energy. Specifically, the second law states that the energy for heat engines comes from temperature DIFFERENCES, not just from high temperatures. In the case of tropical cyclones it’s the water being warmer than the air that supplies the energy.
But the air won’t be getting as cold as quickly in the fall, so the energy for tropical cyclones should be reduced (first order effect, anyway). This is counter-intuitive to folks who don’t know physics, but it’s why refrigerators consume electricity instead of produce it, and why tornadoes tend to be associated with cold-fronts.
Frederick,
thank you for that. Probably the clearest explanation of the causes of hurricanes I have ever seen. Nor is it counter intuitive, slowly pour hot water into a clear glass of cold water, held up to the light, and your explanation is obvious.
I’m not a scientist therefore I appreciate illustrations of science being delivered in layman’s terms. I also happen to believe it’s a scientist’s job to do just that.
BUT…..with all the heat being ‘trapped’ in the HOT SPOT, then the differences between the tropical home of the Hot Spot, and that of the poles, would be greater….therefore greater movement of air masses = more storms or whatever type.
Oh…hang on, just looked at more data….it was hidden somewhere – right next to some with-held emails….seems there is NO Hot Spot…therefore no increase in temperature differences…..therefore no engine for increasing the storm scenario.
hmmm….maybe I should become a scientist, and apply for a few $$$$’s from somewhere.
>>
The laws of thermodynamics imply that increased greenhouse gasses should REDUCE cyclone energy.
<<
Any pilot will tell you this. I’m a retired P-3 pilot. When it’s cold the engines are more powerful than when it’s hot. All heat engines, even weather ones, follow the same rules. Tropical storms are more powerful, because there’s more energy available. A warmer atmosphere should reduce the amount of energy available to do work. Storms in a warmer world should be less violent for the same reason.
Jim
Yep. Correct.
However a warm/hot engine produces more ‘power’ with colder intake temperatures and or more air.
Nitros Oxide = Colder
Turbo = more air
But I think we agree on the storm front/issue. 😉
In addition, the additional mass of H2O laden air will be more difficult to raise up to the shear required to get a tropical cyclone in motion. It’s not much — but every one degree means 9% more water.
Water VAPOR is less dense than dry air.
I was referring to air saturated with water in sufficient levels to create rain clouds.
I’m assuming that storms aren’t coming from water vapor.
Al Gore used a hurricane as the signature image of his movie. That was right after a series of particularly destructive hurricanes made landfall in the U.S. Of course the Gore effect kicked in and the Atlantic entered a hurricane drought.
Considering the time that has passed and funding provided you would think they would have something by now. Well they did. They found out that Al Gore is a slick politician who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Well, it’s only been a hundred and twenty years. Can’t be much longer now.
Looking at both graphs in Figure 1, can we please apply the statistical five-year downscaling to all climate model output?
What about Michael Mann’s paper on Extreme Events caused by GW aka CC ? Will he archive his data? I thought the IPCC science was ‘settled ‘ I’m in a real miuddle now and need help.
Mann’s new extremes paper is all models. There is therefore no actual data to archive. Model outputs are not data except in a post normal climate science sense where comparing model outputs is called an experiment rather than computer gaming.
I has understood that the scientists at NOAA were involved in a hoax to persuade everyone that global warming as worse than we thought. Yet here we have a study suggesting it might not be as bad as we thought.
This leads to only two logical conclusions. the NOAA are liars and cannot be trusted, so we must dismiss this evidence as worthless.
Or the NOAA is accurately reporting the results of the best science and we must accept the rest of their output on that basis.
My vote is on the latter.
I’d have thought it was obvious. Your dichotomy is false on its face.
The leadership of NOAA, now conveniently retired, blatantly and shamelessly cooked the “surface temperature” books before Paris in order to bust the “Pause”. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t now some researchers at NOAA who aren’t totally corrupt slaves of their political masters.
Besides which, there is a new sheriff in town.
So are we going to accept everything the NOAA and the other agencies put out now as reliable? We can expect the truth now we have a new sheriff?
The thing about the sea temperatures before Paris – I assume you are talking about the work that has since been confirmed by other researchers (Hausfather et al), using different methods.
So what you mean is that the good study which has since been independently confirmed, but you think was shamelessly cooked- that is was deliberately falsified. That is a very brave allegation in the absence of any evidence. Bear in mind that Bates specifically stated that the data was not “cooked” but simply did not meet his standards for archival quality. You are on very shaky ground. Do you have one shred of evidence that the data was cooked?
Like most warmist, seaice can’t handle the complexities of the real world.
So it has to create false dichotomies in order to simplify the world enough for it’s simple mind to comprehend.
Either everything NOAA does can’t be trusted, or everything NOAA does can’t be questioned.
No middle ground permitted.
BTW, have you stopped beating your wife?
As for me, I’ll accept work that is in keeping with the scientific method, and reject packs of lies like Karl’s “pause-busting”, unjustified, blatant manipulation.
Mark,
IMO it’s pretty easy to distinguish real science from politically-motivated activism.
So we can accept that the NOAA is not totally corrupt then. We have no grounds for doubting everything it produces. It is good to get at least that admission. I see no evidence for the “cooked” allegation.
Seaice,
In that case, you haven’t looked very hard. Or even just read blog posts here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/karl-et-al-2015/
I have read the posts. I know that none of them offer any evidence of deliberate falsifying of the data.
If you have some fresh evidence please post it here.
“So are we going to accept everything the NOAA and the other agencies put out now as reliable?”
We accept that NOAA can’t attribute human causes to the weather or climate of the Earth. We accept that because that’s what skeptics believe, and if NOAA wants to get onboard this train, we are happy to have them.
Latitude – I don’t think that graph is from Karl15.
TA – are you saying that you will accept only conclusions that fit your current beliefs, whatever the evidence?
“TA – are you saying that you will accept only conclusions that fit your current beliefs, whatever the evidence?”
I would be kind of foolish not to accept something I agree with, wouldn’t I? That doesn’t mean I ignore the evidence, it means I think the evidence (or lack thereof) supports my position.
If NOAA wants to confirm my position that human activity can’t be attributed to climate change, I am more than happy to accept their position because it is my position. They are agreeing with me. They should do more of that.
Have you noticed that those of us who said that Arctic sea ice extent would get back into the 2SD normal zone this month are looking prescient? As opposed to Griff, who asserted that there was “sure” to be a new record summer sea ice extent low, simply because the winter maximum was low.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
For seven of the past nine days, Arctic sea ice extent has grown, so that it’s now back to where it was between March 22 and 23. It’s headed for the normal zone. At present rate, would enter it within ten days to two weeks, give or take. Weather might change in the Arctic, of course.
I would leave claims of prescience until the outcome actually happens. The extent is still quite a way from the 2sd level.
It is also an unusual way to put it – the normal zone.
Griff was chancing his arm. A new summer low might occur, but the annual variation is far too great to be certain of any singe year. If we were to assume no trend since 2007 then odds of a record low next season would be maybe 10:1. I will give odds of 5:1 to any takers.
Seaice,
It was not I but Griff who claimed prescient certainty at the 100% SS level.
Others and I pointed out to him that sea ice extent might very well do what it appears to be in the process of doing, rather than staying below the normal zone all melt season.
The trend since 2005 in Arctic sea ice extent is up. With a triple bottom put in in 2007, 2012 and 2016, the way to bet is up, but few phenomena are certain in climate, contrary to Griff’s delusions of competence.
Gloateus,
“The trend since 2005 in Arctic sea ice extent is up. With a triple bottom put in in 2007, 2012 and 2016, the way to bet is up,”
It is possible that it will turn out to be up. Personally I think it more likely that it will continue down, but we can’t know for sure yet.
However, I am confident enough in my prediction that am willing to bet on it. So far nobody here has had the confidence to bet on their predictions, which makes me think they may not really believe it.
I offered a compromise between quick results and reasonable smoothing based on last 3 year average minimum Arctic sea ice extent and next 3 years. Over 3 years, if the trend is up this would have a better than evens chance of showing itself, and only 3 years to wait.
So you will be taking me up on earlier offer then?
My original offer was based on 2013,14 and 15 average minimum extent being more than 16, 17 and 18 average minimum extent. We now have only 18 months to wait, but the offer is recorded so was made without any knowledge of events since then. If the trend since 2005 is up that should be a pretty sure bet for you.
How about it?
Gloateus, energpia has one goal. To hijack a thread with ever evolving nonsensical claims.
Still nobody will put their money where their mouth is. I thought that would e the case.
Option 3) They know they are caught, so they are trying to walk back to a defensible position.
+100
MarkW, you are a wise person indeed. I’m sure this is said and thought by many.
How often has it been seen now, that reports from numerous origins, seems to have tempered their reports/findings.
Coincidence?
Me thinks …not!
The senior bureaucrats just need to hang on until retirement. The younger bureaucrats will follow which way the wind is blowing, in hopes of hanging on.
We really need to be able to fire federal bureaucrats. Shutting down GISS and shipping Gavin off to Nome to collect data instead of invent “data” in NYC might make him and his fellow unindicted co-conspirators consider early retirement.
Of course there is a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity and global tropical cyclone activity, but they just haven’t adjusted the data yet to align with CAGW assumptions.
In which any last vestige of “science” is removed from “climate science:”
“It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”
“We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.”
If you can’t scientifically detect any correlation between warming and hurricane strength, precisely what is the scientific basis for the conclusion that there is a likelihood that future warming will cause hurricanes to become stronger? Oh, I see now – it’s in the next sentence: “In our view, there are better than even odds . . .”
So now the climate “scientists” seem to be openly inserting their opinions as a substitute for the scientific method. All you need is a hypothesis, and when the data doesn’t back it up, you go ahead and acknowledge that fact but just put a comma and the word “yet” at the end of the sentence, then pretend that your gut instinct is what really matters instead of cold, hard data.
>>
In which any last vestige of “science” is removed from “climate science:”
<<
Like jumbo shrimp, freezer burn, and honest politician, “climate science” is an oxymoron.
Jim
I’m not sure I’d go as far as to broadly say that “climate science” is an oxymoron, but “scientific consensus” and “scientific opinion” are certainly each an oxymoron.
Meanwhile, here in the Pacific, we just had a major Cyclone, since blamed (of course) on Global Warming.
What is not mentioned is the recent dearth of cyclones here, and the fact that this was called Debbie, ie only the fourth this season (which is nearly at an end).
The last one that hit where I am was Yassi (iirc), ie the 25th of the season, and that was 6 or 7 years ago and definitely worse.
They will bang on about the floods caused by Debbie, which have been severe, but when they say the floods are the worst for ‘x’ years (65 was the greatest interval, I think), that tells you that it has all happened before, and worse!
But, of course, Debbie is solid proof of CAGW.
* sigh *
No “measurable” effect yet? How about “no effect”.
Only last weekend I’m sure I won the Euromillions lotto jackpot – a cool £48 million. Currently there’s no measurable difference in my bank account but dammit! – I’m certain it’s in there somewhere.
They haven’t come up with a measurement fiddle that will pass skeptics like Jim Steele. Not that it isn’t being worked on.
Now didn’t Mann just testify to Congress about natural disasters? Mr. 97 percent called Pielke Jr. a liar for saying what this study reports. Mann should be called back with Pielke Jr.
Warmer world = milder storms, retracting deserts, more CO2. Colder world = more violent storms, expanding deserts, less CO2. This is what the physics and climate record say. This is because nearly all of the warming and cooling occurs at high latitudes.
So by “failed to find an increase”, they are probably missing that there’s possibly a decline. It’s the polar areas that are warming (so far), and thus the delta temperature is smaller. Basic adiabatic equations mean that storms should decline.
Meanwhile Mickey M is searching for the ‘Hot Spot’ at the north pole in an effort to vindicate his abysmal performance with his ‘Hokey Shtick’ malarky at the House hearing on Science etc’ last week. Along with his mates Trenberth and Tunney he makes a ‘pigs ear’ of that venture as well.
4 out of the 6 more energetic atlantic hurricanes since 1950, according to wikipedia, happened more than 50 years ago, the other 2 are more than a decade old. Definitely no trace of the feared increase in cyclone energy. The absolute record is estimated to have happened… in the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy
crown witness
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=d_TlWKmwJ4jtaKvciOgB&q=munich+re+allianz+CEO&oq=munich+re+allianz+CEO&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
Better known alias
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=jfblWKf-LMX9UMvjmqAG&q=munich+re+allianz+ceo+Achleitner&oq=munich+re+allianz+ceo+Achleitner&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=qvblWI_jM4PxUPqOguAJ&q=dumb+deaf+and+blind&oq=dumb+deaf+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
Sponsored by George Soros, the Koch brothers and all that bad fat profits companies:
https://youtu.be/tOuj6att1UY
Look at it this way:
Climate is always the result of an analysis. The idea of climate doesn’t even enter the imagination unless you have recorded weather history or remembrances available to consider.
There is no device for climate like there is a thermometer or barometer or a rain bucket that measures weather events.
Climate is an after the fact mental exercise. If someone talks about a climate system that is separate from the weather system, be assured that no such thing exists, other than in that persons imagination, so you have to be careful about what is real and observable and what is strictly a mental exercise.
Andrew
Is the Gulf Stream now hugging the east coast of North America and Greenland?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
“For humans, *EVERYTHING* is a mental construct.”
This is wrong. The weather is there. We can measure what it does. Stand out in the rain. We make make mental constructions about it, if we want. Climate isn’t there. It’s strictly the result of an analysis of weather.
Andrew
Wow… That’s gotta be the first time any one of them has ever mentioned, much less considered natural variability. Maybe they are starting to run a bit scared of losing the gravy train. The whole purpose of the “hockey stick” was to prove that there was no natural variability, at least non noticeable.