Study: Tropical cyclones are occurring more frequently than before

Oct 15, 2012
The Southeastern United States has experienced an increasing number of large storm surges from tropical storms since 1923. The photo in the background shows the storm surge from Hurricane Eloise, which hit Florida in 1975. Credit: A. Grinsted /Photo: NOAA

Are there more tropical cyclones now than in the past? – or is it just something we believe because we now hear more about them through media coverage and are better able detect them with satellites? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute clearly shows that there is an increasing tendency for cyclones when the climate is warmer, as it has been in recent years. The results are published in the scientific journal PNAS.

How can you examine the frequency of tropical cyclones throughout history when they have not been systematically registered? Today cyclones are monitored from satellites and you can follow their progress and direction very accurately. But it is only the last approx. 40 years that we have been able to do this. Previously, they used observations from ships and aircraft, but these were not systematic measurements. In order to get a long-term view of the frequency of cyclones, it is necessary to go further back in time and use a uniform reference. Aslak Grinsted of the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen therefore wanted to find some instruments that have stood and registered measurements continuously over a long period of time.

Tropical cyclones are occurring more frequently than before
The study is based on data from monitoring stations along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, where the daily tide levels have been recorded all the way back to 1923. Rapid changes in sea level show that there has been a tropical storm. The map shows cloud cover and ocean temperatures when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005. Warm colors show ocean temperatures exceeding 28° C which can strengthen hurricanes. Credit: NASA/GSFC

Correlation between sea levels and cyclones

" typically form out in the and move towards the U.S. East Coast and the . I found that there were monitoring stations along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States where they had recorded the daily tide levels all the way back to 1923. I have looked at every time there was a rapid change in and I could see that there was a close between sudden changes in sea level and historical accounts of ," explains Aslak Grinsted.

Aslak Grinsted now had a tool to create statistics on the frequency of cyclones that make landfall – all the way back to 1923. He could see that there has been an increasing trend in the number of major storm surges since 1923.

Correlation between cyclones and climate

Together with colleagues in China and England, he then looked at the global temperatures over the period to see whether there was a trend for a higher frequency of cyclones in a warmer climate. The global temperature has increased 0.7 degrees C since 1923, but there are variations. For example, there was a warm period in the 1940s but the temperature has really risen since 1980.

"We simply counted how many extreme cyclones with storm surges there were in warm years compared to cold years and we could see that there was a tendency for more cyclones in warmer years," says Aslak Grinsted.

Tropical cyclones are occurring more frequently than before
Storm surges are considered to be the most dangerous and the most destructive aspect of tropical cyclones. The study shows that globally warm years has been associated with a significantly higher risk of extreme hurricane storm surges like the one that followed Katrina, which hit the New Orleans area in 2005 and caused devastating floods and thousands of deaths. Credit: LCDR Mark Moran, NOAA Corps, NMAO/AOC

But not all cyclones are equally harmful and those with the highest storm surges tend to cause the most damage. Cyclones with a strength like Katrina, which hit the New Orleans area in 2005 and caused devastating floods and thousands of deaths, make every 10-30 years on average.

"We have calculated that extreme hurricane surges like Katrina are twice as likely in warm years than in cold years. So when the global climate becomes 3 degrees warmer in the future, as predictions show, what happens then?," reflects Aslak Grinsted.

Explore further: Image: Underwater structures of the Great Bahamas Bank

More information: "A homogenous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923," by Aslak Grinsted et al. PNAS, 2012.

Related Stories

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

The least sea ice in 800 years

Jul 01, 2009

New research, which reconstructs the extent of ice in the sea between Greenland and Svalbard from the 13th century to the present indicates that there has never been so little sea ice as there is now. The ...

Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years: study

Oct 17, 2011

Rising sea levels in the coming centuries is perhaps one of the most catastrophic consequences of rising temperatures. Massive economic costs, social consequences and forced migrations could result from global ...

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

2 hours ago

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

2 hours ago

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 18

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Parsec
4 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2012
Since global climate change is an obvious hoax and gigantic global scientific conspiracy to suck money from the ordinary public, it follows that all those so-called big storms are also not real. We need to go back and do autopsies on all those people who died from that so-called Hurricane Katrina and make sure that they weren't really killed by scientists to cover up their conspiracy!

I just know if I cover my ears and scream nanananana loud enough the storms will just go away and the reality I want will magically be what is.

And yes, for those of the intellectually challenged out there that actually believe this nonsense, I am being sarcastic.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2012
The equatorial region is where most of Earth's electrical energy is flowing out of, and it is this energy (combined with currents from the Ionosphere) that produces cyclonic storms. This suggests that there is an increase in the electric activity of the Sun/Earth circuits, and "global warming" is just another side effect of this relationship. The "global warming" detected on the other planets in our solar system only confirms this POV. Although there is no doubt humans are polluting this planet, worst of which is by nuclear energy, the idea that the slight variance of the chemical composition of the atmosphere completely altering the climate into a doomsday scenario is quite laughable.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2012
cantdrive85: I will ask again (since you didn't answer last time but I am sure you are just so busy with your electrical engineering work you didn't have time - oh, what? You are not an electrical engineer? You are not even an engineer of any kind? You didn't major in science? You didn't get a degree of any kind? Oh, I am sure the two weeks of study at the monastery will do quite well):

Would you please explain how the electricity is flowing out of the equator to produce global warming?

A couple of peer reviewed articles would be fine.

Let me be clear (as per Parsec) that I don't think you know how to solve the electrical network equations you would need to show such a flow (which does not exist).

If you can't solve Maxwell's equations in spherical coordinates, quit posting this drivel.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2012
Since I have already produced a number of papers on the matter, that you have seemed to have ignored, here is a book on the matter. It even has pictures in it, maybe that will help you understand.

http://books.nap....;page=R1

Sean_W
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
Two studies come out. One says more cyclones, the other says fewer. Guess which one gets into the popular press. http://wattsupwit...equency/

BTW, using the deaths of people killed in storms to slander people who don't believe your wild ass claims is repugnant. Not surprising, but repugnant.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2012
Here is an article that describes the Sun/Earth electrical connection, remember, when you claim something is "magnetically connected" , you may as well be saying it is electrically connected! BTW, the direct connection (not considered by climate scientists) is in addition to the electrical energy Earth collects from the solar wind.
http://science.na...ct_ftes/

These currents, along with the magnetospheric, atmosheric, and Telluric currents of the Earth reveal a complex web of electrical currents in and around the Earth.

Don't get me wrong thermo, I don't expect to change your mind being you have already decided what you want to believe, obviously without regard to the facts.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

GSwift7
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2012
Well, once again, various sources seem to disagree.

Personally, I think NOAA's National Hurricane Center is the leading source of information about hurricanes in the world. There was a world-wide conference regarding this subject in 2009. The following NOAA web page has a summary of the findings of the international panel:

http://www.aoml.n.../G3.html

I think that's the best no-BS summary of the current state of the art thinking on the subject.

If you want to judge for yourself, try taking the chart from the following web page and copy and paste it into excel, as I just did, then graph the numbers. The story above claims that warm periods produce more strong storms, but the data does not seem to support that. There's a distinct spike in major hurricanes from 1950 to ~70, then it drops off till ~95 and has been high since then, but not as high as it was in the 50's.

The number of named storms has steadily increased, but we name more now due to caution.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2012
Ooops, here's a link to the page with the raw data.

It should be noted that prior to the formation of NOAA, the most extensive record of Atlantic hurricanes was kept by the US Commerce Department. The intent of the record was for shipping purposes and port planning, not climate study.

http://www.aoml.n...E11.html

Note, the chart I used was the 2nd one on the page. It will copy and paste directly into excel as a chart with nice formatting.

I don't see the connection the guy above is talking about, and NOAA doesn't either. Even Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann have stated that we shouldn't expect a statistically detectable change in hurricane activity until the end of the century, if model predictions are correct. It's just such a chaotic phenomenon that it takes a relatively long period of observation to make a trend detectable and statistically confident.
eko
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2012
The equatorial region is where most of Earth's electrical energy is flowing out of, and it is this energy (combined with currents from the Ionosphere) that produces cyclonic storms. This suggests that there is an increase in the electric activity of the Sun/Earth circuits, and "global warming" is just another side effect of this relationship. The "global warming" detected on the other planets in our solar system only confirms this POV. Although there is no doubt humans are polluting this planet, worst of which is by nuclear energy, the idea that the slight variance of the chemical composition of the atmosphere completely altering the climate into a doomsday scenario is quite laughable.


This made no scientific sense at all. It sounds like its coming from a preacher.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
to Eko:

Dont even bother with cantdrive. He's a lost cause. Here's a quote from the kind of papers he gets that junk from: "The dominant belief in immutable, universal mathematical
laws keeps us in the dark". See, when the math doesn't agree with your mystical psudo-science, simply claim that math can't describe the universe as it REALLY is. That's why it doen't matter that the math proves all his claims are false. See, it's the MATH that's false, not the electric universe theories. You can totally discard the math because the Big Bang implies a creation event prior to the Big Bang. And since creation is a religious thing, only a steady state Universe is possible. That's the gist of the paper he linked to in another thread. It's really nothing but a 20 page editorial with a bunch of quotes from other people taken out of context.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
to Eko:

Dont even bother with cantdrive. He's a lost cause. Here's a quote from the kind of papers he gets that junk from: "The dominant belief in immutable, universal mathematical
laws keeps us in the dark". See, when the math doesn't agree with your mystical psudo-science, simply claim that math can't describe the universe as it REALLY is. That's why it doen't matter that the math proves all his claims are false. See, it's the MATH that's false, not the electric universe theories. You can totally discard the math because the Big Bang implies a creation event prior to the Big Bang. And since creation is a religious thing, only a steady state Universe is possible. That's the gist of the paper he linked to in another thread. It's really nothing but a 20 page editorial with a bunch of quotes from other people taken out of context.

Math is a tool, just like you.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2012
Math is a tool, just like you


lol. Adhom attacks are a great way to prove your points.

At least I read the junk paper. In the other thread you criticized people for discarding it without reading it. Since I actually read it and it was complete garbage, you have no choice but to attack me with an insult.

That paper might have had zero scientific value, but it was great entertainment. The conspiracy theories that the guy rants about are a trip.

I love this comment about Newtonian physics:

"Turning to Newton's law again, 'G' or 'big G' is given the grand title "the universal constant of gravitation." But repeated experiments show that it is not even constant on Earth!"

Wow. I just don't even know where to begin. That's a really good source you're using there cantdrive. I can't quote enough of it here to give everyone a real laugh, but here's the link you posted:

http://www.bentha...OAAJ.pdf

lol.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
Usually, in papers such as this, there are citations included when one makes a statement such as the one you decided to question, and low and behold there is a citation. So, in truth, it is not Mr. Scott who is making this claim, he is only acknowledging another's work. Here is the relevant paper that discusses that big 'G' is not at all constant, just as Mr. Scott describes.

http://www.spring...text.pdf

And you will also find that the "bunch of quotes taken out of text" statement you made to be another error in judgement by you, the quotes are also cited, context provided.
yyz
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
@ GSwift7,

You may be interested to read a rebuttal of Thornhill's "Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century" by Tom Bridgman, a blogger with an actual background in physics and astronomy, who has taken the time to closely examine EU/PC claims: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/06/electric-universe-peer-review-exercies.html

He has also published rebuttals to four additional EU "papers" published in the 'peer-reviewed Bentham Open Astronomy Journal'(which has since ceased publishing, see 'Electric Universe: Peer-Review Exercise 1-5'): http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/10/whines-of-electric-universe-ii.html

For those who may be curious/confused by Electric Universe-Plasma Cosmology claims (rubberman), check out 'The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited', which gives an excellent overview of just some of the problems with EU/PC "theory": http://www.thepla...inst.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
And to a rebuttal, a rebuttal follows. Don Scott rebuts Tom Bridgeman.

http://electric-c...utTB.pdf
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
Usually, in papers such as this, there are citations included when one makes a statement such as the one you decided to question, and low and behold there is a citation. So, in truth, it is not Mr. Scott who is making this claim, he is only acknowledging another's work. Here is the relevant paper that discusses that big 'G' is not at all constant, just as Mr. Scott describes.

http://www.spring...text.pdf

And you will also find that the "bunch of quotes taken out of text" statement you made to be another error in judgement by you, the quotes are also cited, context provided.


Cantread: Did you bother to read this paper? All that it does is give the latest uncertainty in the possibility that G can be changing with time. It is an interesting summary but does not say there is evidence that it is changing. Instead, it sets bounds based on measurements. You really have to start reading your references.
GSwift7
not rated yet Oct 18, 2012
@ GSwift7,

You may be interested to read a rebuttal of Thornhill's


That was a good read. Thanks for the link.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2012
And you will also find that the "bunch of quotes taken out of text" statement you made to be another error in judgement by you, the quotes are also cited, context provided


Yes, he provided a ton of references. The problem is that he either didn't understand the context of the original quotes, or he deliberately used the quotes in a manner the original document did not intend. So, althogh he provided a link to the original context, he ignored it, either though ignorance or hubris.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.