Katrina's real name 31 August 05

about how we can help victims of Katrina, giving links to the Red Cross. I’ve been upset with the Dems, who except for a few, show a tremendous lack of attention to GW. So I replied with another, long-term way we can help hurricane victims – by reducing our GHGs & making hurricanes less intense.

What I learned from my medical sociology course is that “prevention” here in the U.S. means “early detection” of cancer (not a healthy lifestyle that prevents cancer from cropping up in the first place), so I guess for environmental disasters, it means building higher levees, not reducing the human-caused added intensity of the storm or flood. Maybe that’s where they get the idea that GW will cost – that 50 foot wall we have to build around Florida, the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico, and the entire east & west coasts, and all up & down the U.S. rivers, and…..

I think Sir David King is more on target than typical cautious scientists, because it is only a matter of not having reached 95% certainty that GW causes increased hurricane frequency, or that GW caused increased intensity in Katrina & other single storm events. King knows which way the wind is blowing & knows we will get there (95% certainty) eventually, just as I knew back in 1990 that GW was a pretty sure thing (from a layperson’s standard of the precautionary principle), 5 years before they reached 95% certainty on AGW in 1995.

I was a tad disappointed at the end of the Boston Globe article when I saw Ross Gelbspan had written it. I had thought, wow, another American journalist has come over from the dark side & is writing about GW. Then I saw it was Ross, & realized, no, there’s still only one journalist writing about it. Darn.

This is just a snippet, but you seem to have been a strong influence on Sian Lloyd, the weather-presenter. Well done, Mark!

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1559071,00.html

Which individuals and organisations have had most influence on your environmentalism?

David King, the government chief scientist; the WWF, for its all-enveloping attitude to climate change; Jonathan Porritt, chair of the Sustainable Development Commission; the author Mark Lynas; and wind power activists Embrace the Revolution.

It’s starting to dawn on us just how bad Katrina is on the citizens of New Orleans. This is really a major disaster & I’d like to pass on my deepest condolences.

I’d welcome any ideas about how best to help the victims.

Peter

You can do so through the Red Cross, either by going to www.redcross.org Or calling (in U.S.) 1-800-HELP-NOW (435-7669)

God commanded Adam to tend & keep the Garden (the first commandment God gave), and I figure that sort of applies to Eve & all other humans as well. Then there’s the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment & the “do good (at least reduce the bad) unto others” ethic. Since we live in a “web of creation,” and killing off non-human parts also harm humans, ergo we shouldn’t go around killing off life (as a general principle), except of course germs, etc. in self-defense.

All else then flows from that – a deep appreciation for nature since I was very small, Girl Scouts, school learning, scientific findings. The film “Hot Enough for You,” in conjunction with what I’d call a “second conversion” experience is what made me go from passive to active environmentalist in 1990. Mark’s book really really resonated with me….I should have done what he did and written it, but I’m sure glad he did it.

I think that GW affects the Gulf area in hurricane formation on 2 grounds. First there may be local heating and second higher latitude heating may help augment the decadal cycles being cited as the reason for the increased frequency. Both GW related aspects increase heat retention by the Gulf and therefore hurricane intensity.

First, I discovered this morning that the Gulf of Mexico, (where the Gulf Stream originates) is very shallow with 38 percent of the ocean less than 20 meters deep. Because of this shallow depth, the earth’s heat imbalance can raise the temperature of this area faster and distribute that heat throughout the region.

I say this because I calculated that the earth’s heat imbalance of 0.85 W/m2, which Mark wrote about in a past blog, can raise the temperature of the first meter of ocean by a degree in about 2 months if all the heat was totally contained in that first meter.

Since 20 meters is not a great depth, and if we assume the heat imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 went to heat just that shallow area, then it would take 2 years for the heat imbalance to raise the shallow ocean area an extra degree. The heat form the Gulf of Mexico is distributed world wide and even warms Europe. We are talking about the heat imbalance and if the long-term average flow rate of the current remained the same, then we would still have an imbalance with more heat being concentrated in the Gulf waters due to GW.

Second, weather events concerning the decadal cycles which place us in a hurricane season I believe are due in part to GW if the thermohaline circulation is being reduced which would slow the Gulf Stream down (flow rate out) and therefore prevent the escape of heat from the Gulf region.

This makes sense to me since increased ice melt will lower salinity and decrease the density which helps drive the current. Increases in temperatures of the higher latitudes would also decrease density because warmer water is less dense. Since both ice melt and higher temperatures are happening, then density will be lower and this slows the Gulf Stream and adds to the decadal weather event which keeps more heat in the Gulf. In other words, the weather aspect of hurricanes is further aided by GW.

I read where the heat influx out of the Gulf region has a magnitude of 1.4 billion megawatts. So, that heat has to go somewhere and evaporation is an easier way for this to happen than just the water increasing in temperature. So this heat energy goes into evaporation and mechanical energy in the form of a hurricane.

I bet after a hurricane the Gulf waters become cooler from all that evaporation. Anyone know for sure? The energy of a hurricane should be a subpart of the energy calculated by knowing a certain volume of Gulf water that decreased in temperature and the actual average decrease in temperature of that same water.

Now, I am not an atmospheric scientist but I am an engineer and this is how I see it. The Gulf of Mexico is one gigantic solar collector and the Gulf Stream is how the heat from that solar collector is distributed to Europe and elsewhere. Our distribution loop got clogged with low density water and we had a backup of heat until our heater over heated and blew off steam in the form evaporating ocean water which made a swirling cloud called a hurricane.

Does this mean Europe will have a cooler winter if we have a strong hurricane season?

I made many assumptions and I apologize to those who know more about the science. Nevertheless, I would love someone more qualified than I am with the science to add or subtract from what I said to add more clarity.

Thanks,

Dan

There’s still enough statistical noise, Dan, that causation is buried in the data, unable to be extracted. Maybe in 10 years, but not today.

I’d be very careful looking at one thing and pointing to it and saying a-ha! The denialists do this all the time and that’s not what quantitative, probablistic science is all about.

Certainly it is something for which we should be very suspicious, and at a policy-making level this event is exactly what should be planned for in a warming world. In an adaptively-managed world using scenarios, this hurricane is an indicator that warming may be causing more severe weather, and that appropriate responses should be readied.

BTW, the current admin’s disaster preparedness is a disaster and a disgrace. Shameful – these arguments that wealth makes blablabla are just BS. Terrible.

Best,

D

by enrolling any student from the affected area on a temporary basis.

If there are any students wishing to continue their education temporarily here, see:

www.panam.edu

And look under “UTPA Today”

1. God would know exactly what percent increase in Katrina’s intensity (if any) was attributable to GW. And we may be able to look back someday on Katrina and also have a better idea.

2. Like the denialists, I don’t require a high level of science. In my case, to make my guess that AGW indeed intensified Katrina, at least in some small or large measure. The science only says that is what we are to expect, but as a layperson I can say, yes AGW did impact Katrina (at least with 10-50% certainty).

And maybe we should look at what the picture would have been without any AGW. I think Dan makes more sense than reputation-cautious scientists. SOME of the heat that went into Katrina & intensified it should have been from GW (or where did that heat go???). Are we back to contrarian logic of the excess heat from AGW (assuming they admit there is any) is just left there on calm waters or is heading up the Gulf Stream, while it is only the natural warmth that propelled Katrina’s intensity?

It appears that if the Gulf and the Gulf Stream are both stronger, then this would make GW more evident as a major factor than just citing this as a weather event.

In my mind, I associate the idea of an oscillation with the heat transport and that one area should be cooler while another area should be warmer due to changes in the Gulf Stream flow rate. This is persumptuous of me. I will take the time and search on the Internet for what the North Atlantic Oscillation really means.

Thanks,

Dan

I understand what you are saying about statistical noise hiding the GW signal.

I have posted recently that the scientists need more support, funds, and people to help us reduce the uncertainty levels. It is more difficult for policy makers to make decisions without more certainty.

Would more resources enable that statistical noise to be filtered out in less than 10 years or is time a variable which cannot be changed for us to know more?

The problem with time is we may be running out of it to make the decisions we need to make today. Is there any way which time can be eliminated with sufficient resources and bold experiments?

I have to ask these questions and hope they spark your creativity to seek a means to answer them. For example, what if we did a 911 landing of all the planes just to do a formal detailed climate study of the effect of the contrails? What if we shut down power plant emissions for a time just to document a before and after effect and take that data to the computer models? What if we used a short-term focus to relate to long-term events to improve the models and maybe even weather forecasting?

I invite you to use your imagination with respect to tools and resources and ideas on obtaining information in the effort to eliminate some of this uncertainty.

I know many may think that these ideas are unthinkable and no one will do them but still, we have to have some plans ready to go if one day someone with true leadership skills and the force of future circumstances require that we be more bold!

Now, if we can figure out how to get better leadership, then we really have this problem solved!

Thanks for your insights,

Dan

Dan,

Would more resources enable that statistical noise to be filtered out in less than 10 years or is time a variable which cannot be changed for us to know more…[i]s there any way which time can be eliminated with sufficient resources and bold experiments?

The problem is an old one: how do we know the system when we are inside that system? This question has plagued us for millennia. This is the heart of decision- and policy-making: how much information is enough to decide?

what if we did a 911 landing of all the planes just to do a formal detailed climate study of the effect of the contrails?

Someone did that already.

What if we used a short-term focus to relate to long-term events to improve the models and maybe even weather forecasting?

UW has done that [can’t find the press release]. They used their forecast models to do climate and found an increase in stratus in the Puget Sound basin.

Folks are on it, so it looks like you are on the right track, sir!

Best,

D

but I put your message on the RealClimate.org page since they are now discussing this, and I want to know what the experts have to say. I would think that the actual studies they’ve done might not have taken all your factors into account, since studies tend to be a bit more limited, but let’s see what they say about the plausibility of your factors. I think they sound logical. I used to get upset when people would say this & that is caused by El Nino (& not GW), as if el nino (which entails warming Pacific oceans) could have absolutely nothing to do with GW.

Thx for pointing out the RC discussion, Lynn (been busy lately & I missed it).

Note at the end they are phrasing their conclusions such that decision-makers can use them (my particular practical and research focus at the moment). Science still needs help with this, and directing some of your thought toward how knowledge and wisdom can be imparted without appearing to be a partisan would help society.

Best,

D

Lynn,

1. Ask him what the % is. Get back to me with his answer.

2. Science is probabilistic. If you want to lean on science to show how AGW had something to do with the power of Katrina, you have to look at the numbers. And they aren’t there.

Kerry Emmanuel, whose Nature paper I’ve been mentioning was on NPR’s D2D this afternoon. He discusses your presumption here.

A better discussion is what we learn from this: namely, where are we going to put displaced persons in a world of future climate change? Another denialist argument about ‘adaptation’ is on display here – who adapts, and where, and at what cost?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We may have more warming in the pipeline, and vast inertia in the societal pipeline, but we must start making decisions about this stuff. Arguing policy with decision-makers is better than arguing crumbs with denialists.

Best,

D

See above my discussion re “backward” study of an event. While predicting whether a hurricane will form & hit a particular area is very difficult (impossible?) for single cases, I suspect we can look at hurricanes that have happened, and parse out what GW may have contributed to them. That is to say, Katrina would have probably happened without GW, and with GW heating the oceans, & the slowing the Gulf Stream or ocean conveyor further warming Gulf waters, it is likely in my books (which don’t require 95% certainty) that GW would have contributed at least a bit to Katrina’s intensity. Whether that bit - added on the to top of “natural” forces - was enough to do any damage is another question. The RealClimate scientists say they cannot attribute increased intensity to GW, but they cannot rule out GW’s contributions either.

So I suggest as sort of “forensic climate science.” An analogy would be criminologists looking at past crime rates & other factors, & predicting that X number of murders will be committed next year. They cannot say who will be murdered. However, after a murder, the particular crime can be studied and understood in hindsight by the court and criminologists, and they can figure out what part this motive or that circumstance contributed to it.

I am trying to accumulate “evidence” of actual GW harm to convince “naive” people (no use wasting efforts on contrarians) to do something about it. It may have helped my persuasion efforts if scientists had attributed some part of Katrina to GW, even though there is nothing we can do about reducing Katrina (or even storms in the near future) now. We can only hope to reduce our impact on increasing future storms, and of course better prepare for future Katrinas, and help those in distress now.

BTW, percent means “per hundred parts” – in this case, “of energy a hurricane generates,” which might be used to figure “backwards” which part of the destruction might be attributed to Katrina. An omniscient being would know everything, including that, but I don’t get direct messages from such a being on particulars, only “Thou shalt not kill” transmitted via others who seem to be in the know.