Here We Go Again: Global Warming and Hurricane Felix

[Hurricane Felix, a Category 5 in the Caribbean. Image courtesy of the Weather Underground.]

Last night, Hurricane Felix explosively intensified over the Caribbean Sea, so much so that a reconnaissance aircraft in the storm had to abort its mission due to "extreme turbulence" and dangerous pelting by snow pellets. But before fleeing the vortex, the plane determined that Felix's winds were at least as strong as those of Hurricane Dean two weeks earlier--making Felix the second Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic region this year.

Indeed, every Atlantic hurricane so far this year has been a Category 5.

Now repeat after me, kids: No single hurricane says anything definitive about global warming. Still, we can consider Hurricane Felix in a broader context by surveying the complete known history of the strongest Atlantic storms. That exercise reveals the following facts:

* There have now been 8 Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the past 5 years (Isabel, Ivan, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Dean, Felix).
* There have been two Atlantic Category 5s so far this year; only three other seasons have had more than one (1960, 1961, 2005).
* There have been 8 Atlantic Category 5 hurricanes so far in the 2000s; no other decade has had so many. The closest runner up is the 1960s with 6 (Donna, Ethel, Carla, Hattie, Beulah, Camille).

Granted, the decadal comparison presented in the final bullet point comes with some caveats. I'm sure we missed some Category 5 storms in earlier decades due to deficiencies in our observing systems; and the borderline between Category 4 and 5 is hazy to begin with. Still, I don't think anyone could deny that we're seeing a shocking number of Category 5 hurricanes lately. And if the 2000s continue to be hyperactive for Atlantic hurricanes, it will grow tougher and tougher to dismiss the idea that we've arrived at a scary new place.

To be sure, it might be the case that there's a natural up-and-down cycle in the Atlantic for intense hurricanes, and we're only now seeing a peak comparable to the 1960s. Some scientists would argue that point, and the evidence presented above is not sufficient to refute them. You'd only have to reclassify two hurricanes from the 1960s in order to have just as many Category 5 hurricanes during that decade as we've seen so far during the 2000s. The 1960s were very busy for strong hurricanes, period; and so were earlier decades when our observations were even less reliable.

But nevertheless, I can't get over these numbers: The 1980s saw three official Category 5 hurricanes. The 1990s saw two. The 2000s, so far, have seen eight, all clustered from 2003 to 2007. In this context, the past five years certainly look like a scary anomaly compared to what has come before. And while that might be all that we can say definitively at this point, I think it's worth remembering something that Thomas Kuhn noted in his famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: When enough scientific anomalies accumulate, they can sometimes force a paradigm shift.

[For a more thorough discussion of Hurricane Felix and global warming, see my latest "Storm Pundit" entry over at The Daily Green.]

Comments

[Steviet]

"Now repeat after me, kids: No single hurricane says anything definitive about global warming."

Positively!! But, the opposing positions of believers and contrarians of the general proposition that global warming increases hurricane frequency and/or intensity
inescapably evokes a quote attributable to Mark Twain,"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of fact"

[CharliePfromHB]

The focus on Greenhouse gas has broadened to include not only fossil fuels, but now the methane emissions of cow dung. Now we can add McDonalds to the axis of climate evil. We massive volumes of clean fuel. Dirty, high cost energy, along with deminishing fresh water and inadequate sanitation and spreading water borne disease (relative to population growth) is creating an economic storm that will dwarf the rising tide of a greenhouse storm. Most of the civil strife around the world is corrolated to the battle over the rights to oil, water, and other resources. The war we need to have is over the triad of international oligopoly,­government­, and private cartels and their supporting lobbying dollars and military muscle. Sure, let's fold in world health and the implications of diet on global warming. These warning storms are just forebearers of the real message that famine, pandemics, and "resource wars" are the real global threat that will raise the tide of genocide and death in this century. Cultural differences? Sure! But the real war is controlling critical natural resources. We will be burying alot more soldiers and innocent civilians well before Manhatten sinks into the Atlantic. The combatants are the same...a populist demand that we rapidly "change the mix" to low cost and clean energy and water on a global basis versus the forces of: denial; the status quo; and its guard. Global Waring's effects will precede Global Warming's effects, not withstanding hurricane season, and interestingly, the ultimate solution is the same for both. The paradigm for coexistence is not a war on terror but a war on denial which can be fought until we can no longer can stand the blood letting, or fought at the ballot box.
But what politician is willing to stand up and show a true committment to rapid change? I believe only a former Senator from Alaska, and a former Senator and Vice Fresident from Tennessee have the guts. Every one else seems to be afraid of the lobbyists and political smear campaigns!

[dwoody]

Wouldn't it be cool if there was a database of commuters and corporations could somehow lessen the toll. Or if there were electric trains from the neighborhoods to work and people got accustomed to riding them. What if the money we spent on cars, we could save and do "un-car" like things! I know I'm blaspheming. Sorry

[Badgersouth]

Driving their SUVs, Americans will rush like lemmings to the sea!

[Chaxford]

As your book confirms, you remain one of the few fair reporters on the global warming issue. You know, as well as many of us, that despite media scolding there is more than one legitimate viewpoint on AGW. Keep up the good work.

[HereticalPolemicisit]

Whether it's global warming or not, I wouldn't want to be and don't want to be the known as the passive, indifferent observer who didn't do what I COULD do to offset any adverse affects me and my specie could be doing to this womb which could do a geo-abortion that would effect all family values for survival in changing or anomolous conditions.

Archie Angel
LucifersHe­retic@gmai­l.com

[Levittown]

Global warming is as consistant as sunshine and moonglow. Hurricanes will always be there. The only thing earth did not have in the past ages was the factory, automoblie and airplanes speeding the warming part. We can slow it down buit it will continue. Maybe in the distant future we can do more to help our cause but for now reducing the contribution.

[tranquilhorizons]

P.S. Speaking of alternative energy sources - if you haven't done so already, the film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a must-see.

It is just one more example of what we are up against in trying to reduce pollution.

Peace.

[GenericBlogger]

Inherent flaws in electric cars include speed, range between recharges, battery recharging, and wasted energy.

Coal or oil is burned in power plants to generate electricity. Such plants also generate pollution and energy is lost during that conversion. Electricity is transmitted to the end user and energy is lost in the transmission lines. The electric car's battery is recharged and energy is lost while recharging. One benefit in electric cars is that electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Electric cars are cleaner but overall, savings in energy are not significant when considering the generation of electricity at the power plants.

The limitations of electric cars diminished their benefits. Perhaps the concept will be revived in the future when some of the limitations are resolved.

[yellowdogSC]

You just proved you have NOT seen the very film you're commenting on.

Sorry.

Play again.

[tranquilhorizons]

Most logical people do not doubt that we are going through a period of global warming.

However, what people doubt is how much HUMAN actions impact climate change.

If people use that skepticism to attack attempts at strengthening "green" policies, that is just plain foolish and immoral.

We should be working towards cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil... REGARDLESS of whether this will stop climate change.

The real issue is that we humans need to clean up our act. Period. No matter whether that helps in climate change issues.

Taking sides in the controversy of whether humans can slow down global warming (I believe they cannot) is a distraction from the real issue: We have to act in ways that will greatly reduce our pollution of the earth to bring back clean air, land, and water.

Peace.

[GenericBlogger]

Essentially you are right. History shows that mankind won't act unless motivated by evident danger or impending catastrophe. DDT wasn't eliminated overnight. It took decades to reach an agreement on how phosphate detergents are to be regulated. We don't react quickly to such issues.

Alternative energy sources were considered and tried in the 70s and 80s but when oil and gas became plentiful and cheap again, they were almost forgotten. Now they must be considered and revived again. Consumers resisted smaller slower cars and when car manufacturers found the SUV and pickup truck loop holes, big vehicles flourished again.

Regulations aimed at effectively controling energy consumption and waste must be free of major loop holes and consumers must change some habits.

[RetMsgt]

First off, I'm all for everyone doing their part to clean up the planet. And I'm a card carrying Republican! Imagine that.
Your argument that simply banning something takes decades is one that has had catastrophic results. Let's take the DDT ban. It turns out that the real problem with DDT was not its use, but the amount that was used. Instead of banning DDT, we should have just adjusted the amount that was used. Now with a complete ban, we have over 3000 people per day dying of malaria. We could spray DDT in African villages at safe levels and completely irradicate a deadly disease. Instead, some are more concerned with what they can get banned instead of what is best for everyone. The argument also goes with alternative resources. NO NUKES is the battle cry of many here instead of objectively looking at how we can make nuclear power safer and more affordable.
I do like your last comment. We have got to change our habits.

[Fast Eddie]

400 nuclear reactors in 6 years. Really!!!! And where is the money going to come from Jimmy Neutron? If we were to put the same amount of time and money into renewable energy we wouldn't have to worry about highly radioactive half lives of 10,00 yrs. or so

[kingcityguru]

If you REALLY believed that global warming was as big a problem that you say you do and you REALLY believe that CO2 produced by humans is the cause, then why oh why do you and others of your bent not support nuclear generation of electricity. If France can get 80% of their electrical production, why can't the US? In 6 years you could build 400 nuclear reactors on shuttered army bases and COMPLETELY eliminate ALL the electricy the US gets from CO2 producing electrical generators. Don't mention the issue of waste to me if you really believe the earth has only a very limited time to solve this problem (to say nothing of nuclear waste maintaining 95% of its energy producing potential which means that in the future it can be recycled -- a process that Israel is currently perfecting). To not be for nuclear-CO2-free electrical generation while claiming that global warming is a calamity is to show you are a fraud.

[yellowdogSC]

kcg,
Your statement,

If you REALLY believed that global warming was as big a problem that(sic) you say you do(,) and you REALLY believe(d) that CO2 produced by humans (was) the cause, then why(,) oh why(,) do you and others of your bent not support nuclear generation of electricity(?) If France can get 80% of their electrical production (from nuclear power), why can't the US?

For several reasons;

1) Nuclear has the potential to be catastrophically dangerous. We’re unable to provide either safety or security for existing plants. (Does “Savannah River Plant” ring a bell?) In this age of terrorism, security WON’T get easier. (Says Mr. bush.) Also: No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

1a) I WON'T bring up the insurmountable issue of nuclear waste, if you insist, but I really don't see why ANY serious danger should be disregarded. (Except that if we can ignore enough of them your argument may begin to sound valid.)

2) There are many other methods of energy production with virtually NO RISK and relatively little cost. Should we simply toss the $23 BILLION already spent by America to develop cleaner sources of energy?
http://www.amb-usa.fr/ambassador/speeches/2006/021506.htm
3) France has FEWER problems, but PROBLEMS, none the less.
French nuclear safety agency activated its emergency response center in December 2003 in response to torrential rainfall along the lower Rhone River, following the emergency shut down of two reactors (Cruas-3 and -4) due to flood affected damage… “Emergency response” isn’t good.
Please read:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-05.htm

Please let me know if I've answered your questions. Your grammar is so horrible I found it difficult to read, so I may have missed something
.
Thank you.

[Wilburrr]

Nuclear plants demand tremendous amounts of concrete. Production of the cement that goes into concrete releases incredible amounts of carbon dioxide from both the burners and the calcium carbonate. Nuclear is not carbon dioxide free.... not by a long shot. Who is the fraud?

[GenericBlogger]

Most of the concrete in nuclear power plants is used during initial construction. Nuclear power plants are more favorable in terms of CO2 emissions but the biggest drawback they have is nuclear waste and the potential for a disaster.

UK and France successfully harnessed nuclear power. We can do the same if we understand, limit, manage and accept associated risks.

[t-party]

I'm not sure I trust nuclear energy (or weapons for that matter) to a leadership who cannot even pronounce the word "nuclear".

[chicagoan]

Aircraft reconnaissance of hurricanes didn't begin until 1944, and there wasn't satellite coverage until 1966. Early flights and satellites weren't nearly as comprehensive as modern technology that follows these systems minute-by-minute. Hurricane figures from before 1980 are unreliable by today's standards. Also note that in the early 1960s there were back-to-back years where Category 5 storms appeared in bunches long before any scientists believe global warming would have begun affecting hurricane activity. I'm not saying that elevated CO2 levels aren't affecting climate. I am saying the hurricane/global warming link is far from established.

[BillZBubb]

There is a major inaccuracy in your comments. You claim the 1960's were before global warming could have effected hurricanes. This is untrue. The average worldwide temperature has been in a rising trend since the beginning of the last century.

Of course the link between stronger hurricanes and global warming isn't established yet. That will take more research, but the anomaly of the past five years is of interest and points in that direction. That is what the author stated. You cannot simply blow it off on less reliable early data--the data wasn't that bad.

[chicagoan]

The temperature records show warming from 1900 to 1945. Then after several years of cooling, the temperatures showed no trend either way through 1975. Since then the trend has been to warming, some say alarmingly so. You are wrong to say that pre-1980 data wasn't that bad. In fact, Chris Mooney has noted the inadequacies of the historical record. The records before 1935 are minimal at best and nonexistent in the 19th century and beyond.

[JulieSA]

Agreed. For example, there is a lot interesting research being done right now on how land use (agriculture, urban growth, etc.) affects regional climates.

[yellowdogSC]

Julie,

Please provide links.

Please don't deprive others of "interesting research".

It is, in fact, the ONLY way to substantiate your claims.

And w/o links it has a very "CHICKEN LITTLE" sound to it.

Thank you.

[Wilburrr]

How do you explain Earth temperatures being so closely aligned with carbon dioxide levels? Follow the math... solar cycles don't match.

[Paladin2]

Carbon dioxide is only a very small percentage of the atmosphere (0.038%) and humans only contribute a small part of the total CO2 emissions in a year (less than 1%). Volcanos, on the other hand, produce more than all the cars and factories in the world. This means that human CO2 emissions cannot be the main cause of global warming. The climate is changing, it always has and always will.With all this enthusiam for the fate of the earth people would better spend their time trying to clean up our water and correct problems that we can actually deal with. There's certainly enough of them. This egocentric hubris that man can actually "control" the climte is foolish in the extreme. That there's this fixation on CO2 is proof that most of this talk about the climate is misinformed pap. If a global warming trend exists it's unlikely that man is the driving force behind it or has the technology or will to do anything about it anyway. Most of the angst about it comes from 5% of the worlds population the still considers using 35% (or whatever it is) of the resources as the natural order and their rightful place in the scheme of things. Well folks, how about cutting back your energy usage and resource usage back to the 5% you're "due"? Not likely, you keep Japan employed making Prius' for you, but everytime I see them in commuters traffic jams they usually have only one person in the car. Do you feel any guilt for the 40 to 50 million that died as a result of your phony DDT scare? The 25 billion you flushed (more than the GDP of the 50 poorest countries combined), it's only money, right? "What luck for rulers that men do not think" some real bastard once said. I doubt a single person with any training has remarked here, they are just repeating what they've been told. How many of you have actually gathered the data and come to your own conclusion and how many of you are aping Al Gore?

[GenericBlogger]

I don't expect enough data will be collected in the near future to determine whether the recent cluster of severe hurricanes is an anomaly or not. Some scientists suspect the earth my cool in a few decades if the sun's flare activity decreases.

Currently there are too many variables and not enough gathered data to conclusively state what the causes of climate change are and in what proportion.

Carbon emission, green house gases, holes in the ozone layer, heat sinks, loss of vegetation, etc. are accepted causes but some suspect not the only causes of climate change.

[Semaj51]

Trying to prove OR disapprove global warming using hurricanes is a numbers game. How reliable are the recorded number of hurricanes is previous decades? And how accurate are the recordings for the strengths of the hurricanes? Remember, it’s only been in the past three decades that we are able to get more accurate data on hurricanes using satellites. (How many hurricanes and their strengths are not known because they remained either far out to sea or landed in remote areas?) And another question on numbers – are the hurricanes (opps, typhoons) in the Pacific acting in similar manners as in the Atlantic?

Before we go rushing about crying that the sky is falling, let’s get the facts straight. Now is not the time to give more ammo to the critics of global warming. Ask the boy what happened when he cried “Wolf” too many times before the wolf actually showed up….

[GenericBlogger]

Global warming or climate change involves more than hurricanes as you know. Assuming the increased hurricane activity doesn't prove climate change, that doesn't mean it's not occurring. Ice melting, higher temperatures or greater temperature differences, precipitation, sea level, etc. also constitute climate change. One type of climatic event such as hurricanes cannot be used to prove or disprove climate change in its totality.

Your points on the accuracy of hurricane data are valid. Up to WW2 or so hurricane data were based on visual observations. Buoys with sensors, radar, satellite and aircraft are now used. All four methods give different results.

Wind, wave, water elevation, temperature, pressure, etc. are measured, data are processed, recorded and transmitted. However accurate or advanced the technology is, weather data have a margin of error, sometimes a considerable margin.

I suspect by the time enough data are gathered to conclusively determine the relationship between hurricanes and climate change, one or two new technologies will be used.

For now, climate change is best evaluated in terms of other weather phenomenon.

[Balloonman]

CYCLES. Earth. Our GAIA eh. Altogether our Universe generates cycles. Cycles are change. Stars burn out. New stars form. Implosion/­explosion. Ice melts, reforms. Shifts. Condition of nature is not static. Cause/effect. Pressure. A build up of anything at all reaches it's point whereby according to physics it is impossible to build up anymore. Busts, breaks, releases. Shatters, collapses, fragments, shoots out. Changing in some wee or enormous degree--by whatever is left and or already renewing--as the exploded/imploded matter passes other matter and or sucks in or joins up or near misses, pursuing it's end cycle 'vanishing' fancy. A butterfly takes off and a knat adjusts to the wind. Point?

We are in an apparent geologic history climate cycle change that is likely inevitable. Can we do something about it? Far as it ruining us? Can't hurt to reduce our exhaust. Might make some difference. If reducing our waste helps only incremental giving us a little more time to figure out how to DUTCH NETHERLAND, dam off continents and our islands from rising water, at least saving coastline populations from going under sooner than they might, can't hurt.

Except for the economic hurt many of us would feel, product and pocketbook-wise for awhile, caused shifting the businss engine from OIL. That is what we are dealing with here eh. But when we could take action and try to help ourselves, knowing we are doing all we can, not to mention force ourselves to cleaner energy--can't hurt. Far as common sense goes.

[t-party]

Now, there you go employing this fallacy that we should approach the argument with integrity and reasonable assumptions within the bounds of what is factually legitimate.

And you wonder why the Neo-cons are winning!

[yellowdogSC]

What makes you say they are?

Thank you.