Can we call it “Global Warming” yet?
by Jason GodeskyThe big, nightmare scenario of global warming was, ironically enough, a very, very cold winter in northern Europe. Scientists have long known that the polar ice caps would bear the brunt of any kind of global warming, and so their research has tended to focus there. The New Yorker published a fantastic, three-part series by Elizabeth Kolbert on this in April [1, 2, 3] We’ve previously discussed the melting of Siberia’s permafrost and its implications. But now that New Orleans has been pumped dry after Katrina, and is now being evacuated in the face of Rita, it’s time to seriously consider the issue that we’re finally seeing global warming wreaking havoc upon our civilization.
Both Katrina and Rita crossed the Atlantic, barely able to maintain the threshold between a tropical storm and a category I hurricane. Both entered the Gulf as very weak storms. Upon entering the Gulf, however, Katrina became an enormous, category V hurricane. Rita quickly transformed into a category IV, with all indications pointing that she, too, will soon reach V.
Hurricanes feed off of warm water–and the Gulf of Mexico has it to spare. With surface temperatures reaching nearly 90 degrees Fahrenheit, the Gulf has become a factory for churning out major hurricanes.
So, why is the Gulf so hot?
Normally, the warm water of the Gulf of Mexico is carried away, across the Atlantic, on the Gulf Stream. It’s this warm current from the Gulf of Mexico that keeps northern Europe from being a frozen ice-box, like most areas at its same latitude–like, say, Siberia.
Every year, the Odden ice shelf forms during the deep cold of the arctic winter, and grows into the Greenland Sea. As winter turns to spring, and then summer, the Odden ice shelf melts. This super-cooled water goes to the bottom of the Atlantic. The movement of so much water, of such varying temperature, helps drive the Gulf Stream–which keeps Europe from freezing, and keeps the Gulf from boiling.
The problem is, this year, the Odden ice shelf never really formed. The arctic is becoming warmer, as scientists predicted would be the first and most obvious sign of global warming. Having never formed, it could hardly melt. The Gulf Stream has slowed down considerably. The hot water has remained in the Gulf, and Europe is facing a very bitter winter.
After Katrina, many who pointed out the role of global warming were shouted down by conservative pundits. After all, there are decadal cycles in hurricane frequency, and a major hurricane like Katrina could happen any time. They were, up to a point, correct. There are decadal cycles, and a major hurricane like Katrina can happen, even without global warming. But, as Real Climate’s excellent article, “Hurricanes and Global Warming - Is There a Connection?” put it:
Yet this is not the right way to frame the question. As we have also pointed out in previous posts, we can indeed draw some important conclusions about the links between hurricane activity and global warming in a statistical sense. The situation is analogous to rolling loaded dice: one could, if one was so inclined, construct a set of dice where sixes occur twice as often as normal. But if you were to roll a six using these dice, you could not blame it specifically on the fact that the dice had been loaded. Half of the sixes would have occurred anyway, even with normal dice. Loading the dice simply doubled the odds. In the same manner, while we cannot draw firm conclusions about one single hurricane, we can draw some conclusions about hurricanes more generally. In particular, the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make - and possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been.
The most-circulated “refutation” of the role of global warming in Katrina’s formation was James K. Glassman’s “Katrina and Disgusting Exploitation,” which included a “damning” piece of evidence in the form of a table from NOAA showing, “U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade.” Glassman pointed out that this table showed that the number of hurricanes had actually gone down, from a peak of 24 in the period from 1941-1950, and that there were twice as many major hurricanes in that time (10), than from 1991-2000.
The following figure, Emanuel’s 2005 paper published in Nature, “Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years”(31 July 2005), and reproduced by the aforementioned article at Real Climate, shows how this decadal cycle has played out:
Joao Carlos remarks on this data:
When you look at figure 2 that it is a measure of total power dissipated annually by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic (the power dissipation index “PDI”) compared to September tropical North Atlantic SST (from Emanuel, 2005) you can note some interesting things:
- there is a multi-decadal cycle;
- there is a surge at hurricane activity that go above the multi-decadal cycle after 1995.
Any statistical test will show that the hurricane activity after 1995 is above the normal and cannot be expected from the multi-decadal cycle. If you don’t belive me, just believe at your eyes.
In short, the data matches precisely what we should expect from catastrophic global warming in a world with multi-decadal cycles.
Global warming is not expected to increase hurricane frequency; instead, it is expected to increase hurricane intensity. The mechanism should be clear now. Global warming will decrease the formation of winter ice in the arctic, disrupting the currents of the Atlantic, keeping hot water bottled in to hurricane super-charging regions like the Gulf of Mexico, so that any minor storm that finds its way over will become a very major hurricane.
We know why this is happening, and it can be traced directly back to global warming. Any storm that enters the Gulf with its current temperatures will become a major hurricane. The evidence could be dismissed when there was only one, but now we have two in a row. How much more devastation will it take before we wake up and accept the unavoidable truth, that the crisis we face now is of our own making?
Sources
- Jonathan Leake, “Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows,” The Times, 8 May 2005.
- Heading Out, “A Thought on Hurricane Strength in the Gulf,” The Oil Drum, 18 September 2005.
- Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Gavin Schmidt, and William Connolley, “Hurricanes and Global Warming - Is There a Connection?” Real Climate, 2 September 2005.
- Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 | doi: 10.1038/nature03906
- James K. Glassman, “Katrina and Disgusting Exploitation,” Tech Central Station, 31 August 2005.
There is another story to this, which highlights civilization’s vulnerability. These hurricanes are tearing apart the Gulf’s petroleum infrastructure, putting the United States–the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels–into quite a bind. European countries are sending tankers to help relieve the United States, and opening their strategic reserves. This is already creating problems in Britain. The Gulf coast is being battered with super-charged hurricanes during this hurricane season: from 1 June to 30 November, with its peak right now, in September. This season has been so intense because of the weakened Gulf Stream, as discussed above. It will end just as northern Europe begins to feel the other effect of that weakened Gulf Stream: a bitter, bitter winter.
Katrina has already wreaked havoc with our fossil fuel supply, particularly natural gas. Rita may be preparing for an encore even now. Helping the U.S. has strapped the U.K., but this winter they may be in much more dire need of those resources than we.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 September 2005 @ 10:18 AM
As I predicted, Rita is now a category V. Not that I was really going out on a limb or anything….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 September 2005 @ 9:46 PM
Just for the record, and feel free to dismiss me as mad:
I saw these events in a dream a few months ago. In the dream I was quite sure that the storms were the rage of the natural world. I am still certain of this now. The ocean is filled with rage and hatred toward civilization. She is sending her greatest warriors to wreak havoc upon us.
Let us pray for their success.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 21 September 2005 @ 10:05 PM
You’re mad–but that’s why we love you. You keep the Crazy on tap. This is an essential function.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 September 2005 @ 10:14 PM
No specific comment here, I’ve just found your website, and what a bitchin’ website it is!
Comment by Jim Otterstrom — 22 September 2005 @ 12:28 AM
Thanks, Jim! Welcome to the site, and we all look forward to hearing more from you!
Meanwhile, Stuart Staniford at the Oil Drum put this up this morning, as if to answer my titular question: “Global Warming is to Blame.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 September 2005 @ 8:46 AM
So…dumb question time: Every couple years or so we get a legitimate cat 5, and usually a cat 3 or two come every year. So, what happens if one or more of our yearly dosage of cat 3s enter the Gulf? Or, perhaps worse, what if we get a legitimate cat 5 this year that enters the Gulf? If a tropical storm can be super-charged to a powerful category 5 in two days, what would happen to an already powerful hurricane?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 22 September 2005 @ 9:36 AM
As Jon Stewart put it last night, “Rita’s now a, I dunno, category 12? Soon it will actually collapse in on itself and form a black hole. Forecasts predict that when it hits the United States, no matter will be able to escape. Environmentalists are saying, ‘I told you this would happen!’ Our only solace will be knowing that they, too, will be destroyed.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 September 2005 @ 9:40 AM
People were warned about Katrina, told to leave the cities. Many didn’t. You can apply any reasoning you want to why so many stayed, from a lack of means to lack of information or lack of anywhere to go, but I think it’s more basic than that. I’ll probably be vindicated when Rita annihilates the Texan shore, and hundreds of thousands stay to be annihilated. Our memes tell us that we’re invincible, that ‘it’ always happens to someone else. I’m no different; here I am in Iraq, and I don’t wear body armor because I KNOW that *I* won’t get hit by a mortar.
Poseidon, kick some ass! Teach those bastards to decrease diversity in Your oceans!
Comment by Chuck — 22 September 2005 @ 9:44 AM
As a veteran of many a hurricane in the distant days of my youth (I used to live in Newport News, VA, right on the beach), I can say that most people who stay behind in the face of a Katrina or a Rita are the ones with no alternative. No car, no money, the ones too poor, too sick or too old to evacuate. There’s definitely that feeling of invincibility that comes into play, but I’m not sure that’s the dominant factor.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 September 2005 @ 9:50 AM
:::shiver::: I had a nightmare about a hurricane last night. We were all back at Anthropikon, and somehow the thing was forming with the eye right over our heads. I ran back to the car and got inside and kept telling everyone that we had to GO, RIGHT NOW, but everyone just laughed and told me that it was just a series of harmless rainclouds that kind of looked like a hurricane.
Make of that what you will.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 22 September 2005 @ 11:57 AM
Funny, earlier I was dreaming about the confederation in the mountains with a hurricane parked over the Gulf just getting bigger and stronger all the time, to the extent that the edge was over our heads. We sent out a message for everyone to evacuate the valleys, I didn’t find out if it was already too loud for the drums.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 22 September 2005 @ 12:27 PM
Still, so this is on record: I predict Rita ends up not being THAT big a deal.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 22 September 2005 @ 1:49 PM
Also on record: I predict that Rita will be a huge deal–to the oil infrastructure. Human loss of life and rank tragedy of Katrina, maybe not so much; but for long-term effects as a catalyst of civilizational collapse, I think we’ll be speaking of Katrina & Rita, rather than either one seperately.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 September 2005 @ 1:53 PM
Jason, don’t jinx it.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 22 September 2005 @ 2:22 PM
Thank you for this!
I’m in northwest Houston: hopefully north and west enough not to be washed away.
The storm is progressively veering north, I predict New Orleans (again) gets it worse than Houston. I’m also with Steve Thomas - this one won’t be too big of a deal.
Comment by Brendan Hyde — 22 September 2005 @ 2:24 PM
Ben & Guili
Coyote says you’re just dreaming of what’s to come — society-wise, not a literal hurricane — so consider it a free warning & prepare accordingly. Of course, you probably already knew that. As far as people laughing about coincidence, Guili, I get that all the time over here. Bad weather? Ah, just a coincidence of decades long-cycles. Poisoned Gulf Waters? Ah, it’s bad but there’s worse when volcanoes spew up ash & other crap. This culture being bad? Nah. It’s just all human beings acting like “animals.” Once we get the ‘right kind of civilization’, everything will be just peachy.
Yeah right.
Oh and Ben, at least your drums are loud enough to be heard on the West Coast
Best
Bill Maxwell
Who occasionally channels the metaphor of SkyCoyote or perhaps its spirit (depending on your faith)
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 22 September 2005 @ 2:41 PM
Thank God… I just found out that Rita dipped back down to a cat.4. (How sad is it when you’re thinking, “YAY! Category 4!!!”) Weather Underground predicts that it’ll only be a 3 when it hits land, and dissolve back into a tropical storm by Sunday. Wait, why am I telling you this? Just look at their little map prediction thingie:
I’ve noticed these past few days that Weather Underground’s predictions seem to always show the hurricane as being kinder and gentler than it actually ends up being. But I’m still hoping that maybe Rita will dissolve a little faster than expected.
By the way, how horrible must this be for the people of New Orleans? First, the well-off evacuate and wait in motel rooms with bated breath as they watch their city destroyed on the evening news. The poor wait it out in the city, praying that their pets and possessions and lost loved ones end up okay. Then, as soon as the storm passes and it feels like it might be safe to start breathing again, the city floods. So everybody’s shipped to Houston, TX. What happens in Houston? Another hurricane comes and hits it.
I keep thinking of this woman I saw on the news weeks ago… she seemed optimistic, almost upbeat, about all she’d been through. She said something like, “I think this is where my new life is going to begin: in Houston.” Shit. If I’d been through half of what she’d been through, I can’t imagine how I’d act. I certainly wouldn’t have the courage and resiliance to adopt her attitude. “Well, my whole life’s been washed away, but hey, I can start anew in a brand-new city!” What can she be thinking right now, seeing yet another hurricane looming down on her? And all the over refugees struggling to start new lives in Houston?
Somehow the phrase “not again” doesn’t seem enough.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 22 September 2005 @ 2:50 PM
Senorita Katrinarita Catastrophina Magnificina!?!
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 22 September 2005 @ 7:10 PM
Oops, no, sorry, guess not–CNN is telling everyone to go back to sleep. This is just the natural, multi-decadal cycle, just like in the 1940s.
Yup, absolutely right. What was I thinking? From 1995 on is just like the 1940s. I don’t know where I got the crazy notion that pumping billions of tons of toxins into the air might begin to affect the weather….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 September 2005 @ 3:22 PM
WHOO-HOO, she’s back down to a 3!! Wouldn’t it be awesome if she dipped down even more before landfall? It’s probably too much to hope for that she’d hit Texas as a category 1, but even a category 2 would be an improvement.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 September 2005 @ 3:39 PM
The Oil Drum’s reporting that there’s a pocket of warm water between it and landfall yet, so it’s likely to strengthen some again. I don’t know, we’ll see.
I honestly don’t know which to root for. On the one hand, the immediate devastation of another Katrina is gut-wrenching and awful. On the other hand, if it can accelerate collapse and save a million lives or more for every one lost in the storm, is that a bad thing?
Welcome to the collapse, where all your options suck really, really hard….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 September 2005 @ 4:13 PM
I’m rooting against immediate devastation for the completely selfish and short-sighted and human reason of not wanting to personally SEE people suffer. Yes, the sooner the system collapses, the more lives (some yet to be born) will be saved. But I’ll have to actually SEE people suffering, and that will make me sad.
It’s kind of comforting that it doesn’t really matter what we root for, since our brain waves don’t exactly control hurricanes. (Or DO THEY?)
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 September 2005 @ 5:38 PM
OK, well … that’s absolutely amazing. Rita managed to split my hopes and fears right down the middle. It churned out over the Gulf of Mexico as an enormous, terrible category V, wreaking havoc on the oil infrastructure–and then came ashore as a category III that quickly dissipated into a bit of a non-event. In short, wreaking the kind of petro-economic damage that most of us can recognize (at least intellectually) as the lesser of two evils, while still sparing the immediate carnage we saw with Katrina.
Looks like you won that one, eh, Steve?
Still difficult to say, but initial assessments indicate that I may not have been too far off, either….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 September 2005 @ 10:56 AM
Don’t discount damage to the natural gas infrastructure.
Midwestern heating gas is gonna set a new high this winter…
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 27 September 2005 @ 12:26 PM
To put it bluntly:
Fuck.
Steve,
whose apartment is heated by gas
Comment by Steve Thomas — 27 September 2005 @ 1:15 PM
Natural gas may end up being the worst of it. Especially since the weakened Gulf Stream will soon be battering northern Europe soon.
This is going to be a very bad winter.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 September 2005 @ 1:16 PM
Really, we maybe aught to hope for a bad winter in Northern Europe — that’s the only thing that may hold off the ice age for a few more years…
This may be the first big swing in my sine curve
Janene
Comment by Janene — 27 September 2005 @ 3:21 PM
I guess I don’t know enough. That’s kind of counter-intutive. Janene? Help me out?
Steve (with a big smile),
Well said. I’d recommend switching your heating over to a new renewable technology. My personal favorite is the sweater. Here’s a link all about it: Sweaters
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 27 September 2005 @ 5:16 PM
Rita causes record damage to oil rigs
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 September 2005 @ 11:33 PM
Hey –
Jason talks at one point about the Ice Shelf off of Greenland that failed to form last year… An excessively cold winter will allow the shelf to form again this year… probably not as large as it should be (since it is starting smaller this year), but larger than if there were an average winter. If this happens then next year, the conveyor will be strengthened rather than further weakened. This should (HAH!) mean that the following year will be more typical, followed by a relatively warm winter, followed by another ‘overmelt’ followed by another severe winter…. etc.
I suspect that there will be a cycle like this for some years before the system breaks down entirely.
Although, there are certainly other possibilities… the ‘Little Ice Age’ was caused not by gradual change, but rather by a sudden collapse of a glacier in Canada, causing a flood of fresh water to be dumped in the North Atlantic. The sudden, and dramatic change in salinity caused the Conveyor to shut down all at once. It could be that the only way it CAN be shut down is suddenly… that is both good and bad. No way at all to judge when, why, how… but also less chance that it happens.
In any case, it is the conveyor system that has climate scientists suggesting that global warming may inexorably lead to Glaciation…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 29 September 2005 @ 8:31 AM
The Odden ice shelf forms and then melts annually, I understand–so it’s fairly discrete. This coming winter will determine next year’s Odden ice shelf, with very little input from anything that happened this year.
But I also think the area where the Odden ice shelf forms is relatively out of the way for the Gulf Stream’s effects, so i don’t think it’s a matter of next year looking any better–just that Europe will get to see the regular temps for its latitude, which is something it’s not nearly used to.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 29 September 2005 @ 9:26 AM
Hey –
The Odden Ice Shelf is sinply a case in point. The Northern Ice/Glaciers will always be affected overall by seasonal average temperatures… so more cold, over a longer season (especially if there is high snowfall) will increase the mass of ice both in the north and on the mountaintops… but a single winter will not be anywhere near enough to make a long term difference. That was my basic point. Fluctuation in temperatures like this, will likely lead to greater fluctuation and instability until the whole thing breaks… or, greater fluctuation will lead to new stable state… thanks to the overall complexity of weather, plus chaos theory, we can’t really say which way it will go.
But Jason — you’re the one that pointed to this particular ice shelf being responsible for the conveyor slowing down — now you’re saying that it is not a significant player?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 29 September 2005 @ 10:10 AM
No, quite the opposite. What I’m saying is that it forms entirely in winter, then melts entirely in spring–so it’s a whole new structure every year. So it becomes rather discrete. Each year’s Odden ice shelf has very little to do with the year before, or the year after. It’s essentially a clean slate every winter.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 29 September 2005 @ 10:23 AM