tip off

Did climate change create the ‘Frankenstorm’? It didn’t help

Global warming may not have caused the Frankenstorm but it is loading the dice so the devastating flooding just witnessed becomes a lot more likely in future.

In reading through press interviews with various assorted climate scientists and meteorologists, none were suggesting a strong link between global warming and the formation of the Frankenstorm. This storm’s enormous size was a product of an unusual confluence of weather systems forming a hybridised storm.

Tropical hurricane Sandy from the south was pushed towards land through a high pressure ridge over Greenland, merging with an early winter storm coming from the West and a blast of Arctic air from the north. It’s potential to cause flooding was then amplified by the fact it hit during a full moon high tide leading to extremely high storm surges.

Climate scientist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has extensive experience in studying tropical storms, said in an interview with Slate:

My profession has not compiled a good climatology of hybrid events. We have fantastic climatology of hurricanes, but we don’t have a good climatology of hybrid events. It is really because we haven’t done our homework. We don’t have very good theoretical or modelling guidance on how hybrid storms might be expected to change with climate … Which is not to say that they are not going to be influenced by climate, it’s really to say honestly we don’t know. We haven’t studied them enough. It’s not because we can’t know, it is just that we don’t know.”

This odd confluence of events could simply mean the Frankenstorm was a product of pure bad luck. But it doesn’t mean there aren’t some findings from the climate change research which would be well worth bearing in mind as we survey the damage from this extraordinary storm.

While trying to precisely nail down how climate change might affect the frequency, severity and location of severe storms is incredibly tricky and still subject to considerable uncertainty, there are a few fundamentals associated with a warmer planet that suggest we should be concerned.

Firstly, basic physics suggest that a warmer atmosphere can hold greater amounts of water vapour. The consequence according to the IPCC is that it is “likely” (66% or greater probability) that the frequency of heavy rainfall events will increase, meaning storms have greater chance of causing severe flooding.

Secondly, physics dictates that a warmer planet will mean land-bound ice will melt and seawater will experience thermal expansion — this means sea levels will rise. We can be reasonably confident that the degree of sea level rise will be substantial if the current rate of warming is sustained for a long period. But there is considerable uncertainty about how fast the sea level will rise due to inadequate understanding of the melting, break-up and movement of ice shelves.

Nonetheless according to the IPCC it is “very likely” (90% or greater probability) that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future. Large segments of the world’s population do not live all that far above sea level (for example New York), so even small rises of 50cm are potentially significant.

Thirdly, it is accepted that ocean temperature is the key determinant of the power behind tropical cyclones/hurricanes, with higher temperatures providing more power and therefore stronger winds. According to the IPCC it is “likely” the maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones will increase (although not the frequency of cyclones).

When you combine all three factors above you end up with a triple whammy. The sea level rise means that larger numbers of people are vulnerable to inundation by the sea. In addition the stronger storm winds act to push the ocean further up against the coastline as a higher storm surge on top of the sea level rise. And lastly many human settlements will simultaneously have to deal with flooding rains and rivers.

To illustrate, the height of Brisbane’s 2011 floods were not simply a function of the river’s flow, but also the tide. Adding a storm surge of 3 metres as was experienced in parts of New York, on top of a flooding river is a recipe for disaster for many regions.

No one could say with any credibility that global warming caused the Frankenstorm. But what we can say is that global warming is loading the dice such that the devastating flooding and ocean inundation we’ve just witnessed becomes a lot more likely in the future.

*This article was first published at Climate Spectator

15
  • 1
    beachcomber
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    …a product of an unusual confluence of weather systems…”

    Whilst few scientists will claim any single event as proof of Cliamte Change, the increasing number of unusual events suggests something is amiss.

    This particular unusual confluence of weather systems may be due to Climate Change:

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/scientist-predicted-new-york-flooding/story-e6frfkui-1226507354539

  • 2
    Stevo the Working Twistie
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had better watch herself if the US authorities take a leaf out of Italy’s book. “We have fantastic climatology of hurricanes, but we don’t have a good climatology of hybrid events. It is really because we haven’t done our homework.

    Guilty as charged. Bailiff, clap her in irons!

  • 3
    Microseris
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Very few climate change deniers in the insurance industry. When there is potential to erode the bottom line, they rely on the statistics and the weight of facts.

  • 4
    Harry1951
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Agree beachcomber. A good case has been made here for a link of some degree: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/did-global-warming-contribute-to-hurricane-sandys-devastation/?ref=science
    Caution is required but more extreme weather events have long been predicted under climate change scenarios.

    Also as microseris states, the insurance industry rely on statistics and the weight if facts. Risk aversion drives their stance also.

  • 5
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Climate will never cause weather.

    Climate is the long term trend in weather. So how can a long term trend in something cause itself ?

    Would we ever say ?
    The Long term trend in car accidents causes car accidents ? No

    Then why would we say
    The Long term trend in weather causes weather ?

    Since “Long term trend in weather” = Climate, why would we say
    “Climate Causes weather” ?
    or
    “Climate change Causes weather change” ?

    The Long term trends in Weather indicate the system is being forced by human activity, despite other natural cycles. This is not in doubt. What is certain is that vested interests will use human frailty and misinformation to protect there position, either that or they are simply exposing there ignorance.

    Weather is so chaotic that it is only in its long term trends that we can extract information about long term change. That is climate change.

  • 6
    Scott
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Anthony.
    What about a long term increase in car accidents resulting in people reducing non essential car transport leading to less experienced drivers on the road causing more car accidents.?Simultaneous causality is a valid statistical concept.

  • 7
    David Hand
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    The short answer is they don’t know. The lazy speculation in this article does climate science a disservice by straying yet again into fringe alarmist hype.

    The biggest problem with the global warming debate is not the lunatic fringe of the deniers such as Monkton, but the lunatic fringe of the climate change lobby such as Edis. Leave the scientific communication to the scientists, mate.

  • 8
    Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    Deniers such as Monkton can easily be dismissed, so I think the biggest problem with the debate are people such as David Hand who sound reasonable but are in fact denying the science just as much as Monkton.

    The IPCC is always out of date and conservative. This is why each IPCC report finds that the reality of measurements is worse than they predict. David is right that we don’t know exactly, but not knowing whether something will be extremely bad or even worse is not a reason for saying we don’t know.

  • 9
    David Hand
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Mike,
    You seem to have a high regard for facts.
    Can you support your perceived “fact” that I am denying the science?

    What science am I denying?

  • 10
    Liamj
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    As if more proof would change anything, or the deniers are even capable of admitting any!

    I wish we could all just grow up and admit that we are not, in fact, any smarter than yeast, then we could get back to exterminating all life, without all the bleating.

  • 11
    Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
    Posted Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    @David Hand - You said “lunatic fringe of the climate change lobby such as Edis”.

    Yet for anyone familiar with the science Edis’s article is uncontroversial, and as he quotes the IPCC, fairly conservative.

    I’ve been on Crikey to know that it is impossible to get any sense from a denier. And I call you a denier because you call this article “fringe alarmist hype”.

  • 12
    Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
    Posted Thursday, 1 November 2012 at 12:13 am | Permalink

    @David Hand - You said “lunatic fringe of the climate change lobby such as Edis”.

    Yet for anyone familiar with the science Edis’s article is uncontroversial, and as he quotes the IPCC, fairly conservative.

    My evidence for your not accepting the science it that you call this article “fringe alarmist hype”.

  • 13
    IkaInk
    Posted Thursday, 1 November 2012 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    @anthony

    You’re being a pedantic about definitions, so I’ll turn your ridiculous argument on its head.

    Climate change is causing more extreme weather, because climate change is not simply the definitions of climate and change mushed together, but rather it is a synonym of anthropologic global warming. Anthropologic global warming is indeed causing more extreme weather, therefore climate change is causing more extreme weather.

  • 14
    dropBear
    Posted Thursday, 1 November 2012 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    the question that we need to ask the denialists is:
    what exactly will you accept as proof.
    Is there any physically possible event or series of events that will make you change your mind.
    If there is not, your stance is not falsifiable.
    There is a name for theories that are not falsifiable.
    That name is “bullshit”

  • 15
    Johnfromplanetearth
    Posted Thursday, 1 November 2012 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    I knew the alarmists would have a field day with this one, it’s just a Hurricane. They get them frequently in that part of the world, they have done for a very long time. It was 31 in Melbourne yesterday and predictions were it was going to surpass the record for October of 34 degrees set way back in 1914. Now just exactly what was happening way back in 1914 that made it so hot? Hurricane Sandy was no Katrina, the problem was mainly water surges.
    It struck a heavily populated area.

    Record storm surges are wallopping the Sound Shore and are slated to push up the Hudson River to Putnam and Orange counties around midnight, forecasters said.

    A 5-foot surge breached banks in Irvington Monday afternoon, and some other river towns. An 11-foot surge is expected at about 11 p.m., when the next high tide also could trigger massive flooding.

    We might never see in our lifetime anything like this again,” News12 meteorologist Brysen VanEck said.

    Interesting comment made by Byysen VanEck

    People tend to be a little more concerned about their Hurricanes when they strike at 36% of the total population of the United States! The alarmists can think what they like.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...