Query by Cold Tough Fact: International Warming and Hurricanes…?
I reside in Florida, and I have experienced my fair share of Tropical Depressions, Tropical Storms, and Hurricanes. Anyone with knowledge in climate knows that when a Tropical Depression gains sufficient strength, it becomes a Tropical Storm, and when a Tropical Storm gains sufficient strength, it becomes a Hurricane.
I have also heard from numerous sources that Global Warming will cause an boost in the strength of Hurricanes in the future, but not an improve in the quantity of Hurricanes.
So why won’t there be an boost in the strength of Tropical Storms also, and in turn lead to an improve in the number of Hurricanes?
Isn’t an boost in the strength of a Hurricane brought on by the identical variables that trigger an increase in the strength of Tropical Storms?
So how can it be that the strength of Hurricanes will increase, but not the quantity of Hurricanes?
Greatest answer:
Answer by Trevor
Not confident what your sources are as they appear to be incorrect and you seem to be proper.
Inside climatological circles the opinion, backed by actual observations, is that both intensity and frequency of storms will improve. Certainly, this has been observed in current decades and a 50% boost in frequency and an 80% improve in intensity has been noted.
It really is worth mentioning that these increases go beyond that which could reaonably be attributed solely to international warming and as such it is possible that there are other factors at work as effectively. It is not an location which is currently understood to any excellent extent and new and much better data is constantly emerging.
Here’s a semi-scientific report from Nature which may support explain issues ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
– – – – – – – – – – –
EDIT: TO AMANCALLEDCHUDA
Please accept my apologies for not getting clarified my answer, I wrongly assumed folks would understand the meaning of the word ‘intensity’ and I undoubtedly did not expect any person to consider that intensity, strength and speed were 1 and the same issue.
Storm intensity is a measurement of the energy flux averaged over time (velocity x energy per unit volume ÷ time = № W/m²/s) . This is regularly measured making use of the ‘Power Dissipation Index’ or PDI. Atlantic PDI has much more than doubled in the last 30 years from .7 in 1977 to 1.five in 2007 (30 years being the normal base period for climatological comparisons), Pacific PDI has nearly doubled and globally the increase is 80% (it really is really closer to 90% but I rounded my figures down).
Camille wasn’t the strongest Atlantic hurricane, here’s the list of the 10 most poweful Atlantic Hurricanes, half of which have occurred in the final 10 years, 7 because Camille…
Wilma – 2005
Gilbert – 1998
Unamed – 1935
Rita – 2005
Allan – 1980
Katrina – 2005
Camille – 1969
Mitch – 1988
Ivan – 2004
Janet – 1955
Here’s the 10 quickest Atlantic Hurricanes, three of which have occurred in the last 10 years, 6 since Camille…
Rita – 235mph – 2005
Isabel – 234mph – 2003
Gilbert – 200mph – 1988
Mitch – 190mph – 1988
Inez – 190mph – 1966
Labor Day – 180mph – 1935
Camille – 180mph – 1969
Celia – 180mph – 1970
Donna – 175 to 200mph – 1960
Katrina – 175mph – 2005
Here’s the number of category 5 hurricanes over every of the final couple of decades
1998 to 2007 – 9
1988 to 1997 – three
1978 to 1987 – two
1968 to 1977 – three
1958 to 1967 – six
1948 to 1957 – three
1938 to 1947 – 2
1928 to 1937 – 3
These are the facts, they are not distorted, they are not selective, they can very easily be verified from trustworthy sources.
In help of your arguments you’ve quoted from Viscount Brenchley – a politican not a scientist and a single who has been voted out of office by his personal celebration largely due to the fact he tends to make unqulified statements, the SPPI which is funded by ExxonMobil and Chris Landsea. Landsea is the only credible supply you have relied upon, he has the credentials and as far as I’m conscious he isn’t funded by large oil. Nevertheless, his statments go against the ever increasing amount of scientific information and he is some thing of a lone voice.
His policy is related to that of many skeptics – take 1 piece of a jigsaw and invent a picture to go with it if you’re going to do that then it really is achievable to draw pretty much any image you want. Not only is this method irresponsible but it’s unscientific and inaccurate.
If you want to question the science of global warming then by all implies do so but please, and I mean this with all due respect – broaden your expertise of the subject. You never want to be an professional on the topic but the fundemental errors you have made in your statements, the sources you have relied upon and the deliberate distortions give the impression that you could maybe find out more about worldwide warming and the climate in general and be a tiny far more open minded. In science it really is the details that matter, not opinions.
Give your answer to this question beneath!