Expect more rain, heat and hurricanes, say scientists

A Malawian farmer works on his land in Nsanje district
A Malawian farmer works on his land in Nsanje district, 2005. Scientists say hungry polar bears gathering along the tundra, twice as many record-breaking temperatures and stronger hurricanes are among the latest signs of climate change.

Hungry polar bears gathering along the tundra, twice as many record-breaking temperatures and stronger hurricanes are among the latest signs of climate change, scientists say.

And we can expect more rain, more drought and fiercer storms in the future if the world continues on its fossil-fuel gobbling track, they told reporters on a conference call Wednesday to discuss the year in global warming.

Michael Mann, a leading US scientist, said he just returned from a trip to Churchill, Manitoba, the Canadian shore town famous for its polar bears, where the sea ice they depend on for hunting seals has not yet formed because of .

"When you go up there you see the bears all along the coast on the tundra awaiting the sea ice to form and it hasn't formed yet," Mann said.

"This was for me a very tangible and personal opportunity to see the impacts of firsthand," he said. "The Arctic is in many respects a harbinger of things to come on our planet."

Mann also pointed to research being presented on Capitol Hill by another climate scientist, Jerry Meehl of National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), showing the number of record-breaking hot days is twice as high as the record cold days.

"Heat records are outpacing cold records at a factor of two to one now. That number is expected to increase to 20 to 1 by late this century if we continue on the course that we are on with fossil fuel burning," Mann said.

Hurricane expert Greg Holland said the fiercest storms are already showing an uptick in frequency
Hatians walk along a flooded road in Leogane on November 6. Scientists say hungry polar bears gathering along the tundra, twice as many record-breaking temperatures and stronger hurricanes are among the latest signs of climate change.

Some events, such as the 2003 European heat wave which killed about 35,000 people and this year's heat wave in Moscow would be "extremely unlikely to happen in the absence of climate change," he added.

Hurricane expert Greg Holland said the fiercest storms are already showing an uptick in frequency, and more powerful hurricanes lie ahead.

"If you just look at the Atlantic in the last 10 years, we have experienced three times as many Category 5 hurricanes as have occurred in previous history on a relative basis," he said.

"We now have consensus statements coming out from the scientists and indeed a lot of regional research is pointing all in the same direction. There is nothing going in the other direction," he said.

"And that is the very intense hurricanes, the very intense (Category) fours and fives are going to increase and they could be doubling or tripling."

Holland also predicted more rain and drought in the coming years.

"As the earth warms up the atmosphere can hold more water, if there is more water available there will be more rain. Paradoxically of course there is as a result of that more drought because the land dries out quicker."

According to Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the reduction of sea ice in the Arctic will have a growing impact on temperatures in the rest of the world.

A Polar Bear walks on the frozen tundra on the edge of Hudson Bay in Mantioba
A Polar Bear walks on the frozen tundra on the edge of Hudson Bay in Mantioba, Canada. Scientists say hungry polar bears gathering along the tundra, twice as many record-breaking temperatures and stronger hurricanes are among the latest signs of climate change.
"What we have seen is a rather pronounced reduction in the extent of sea ice. At the end of summer now we have 40 percent less than we had say during the 1970s," Serreze said.

"We are losing that insulator so what we are seeing now are big fluxes in heat from the ocean to the atmosphere," he said.

"Since everything is connected together in the climate system what happens up there can influence what happens down here and I am talking about in the middle latitudes."

The other thing that the scientists said is changing, along with climate, is how they confront skeptics who question the reality of climate change and the extent of humans' role in causing it.

"There are still many of us who like to sit in our office or go into the field and just do our science and not enter into the fray, but I think that is changing," said Serreze.

"We have to become more involved," he added. "We have to become better communicators. Scientists are not always good communicators of the issues but this is part of a learning curve and we have got to face that."

Mann, a Nobel-Prize winning scientist who was cleared of allegations of misconduct this year stemming from a series of leaked emails between scientists about climate change, said he too has learned from his experiences.

"One lesson is that if you're a climate scientist and you are willing to play a prominent role in the public discourse on climate change then you'd better have a thick skin," he said.

Explore further

Arctic sea ice shrinks to third lowest area on record (Update)

(c) 2010 AFP

Citation: Expect more rain, heat and hurricanes, say scientists (2010, November 18) retrieved 20 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2010-11-hurricanes-scientists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 18, 2010
Well, the 1930s still has 25 Maximum State Temperature records. ACE, the measure of hurricane energey is at record lows.

Mann is a liar.

His work is fraudulent.

Nov 18, 2010
Lets create a new award to give these people...

the Trofim Lysenko award for collective excellence in science award... :)

we can give it to many many researchers that deserve it

mann is just one
but meade
and many others should get such an award...
[a special organizational award can go to the frankfurt school]

Nov 18, 2010
As usual, the first three comments attack the people, not the science. Marjon, are you saying that the arctic ice is not decreasing in size or are you just blowing smoke? Please show me some references? Here is one for you:


Marjon, please show me data that shows sea ice increasing or polar bears doing better.

Here is a reference on the Polar bears:


Nov 18, 2010
"As usual, the first three comments attack the people, not the science."

Pay attention. I attacked the science first, then attacked the person.

Can't you fanatics get anything right?

Mann said: "Heat records are outpacing cold records at a factor of two to one now"

I pointed out that 25 of the 50 US State Temperature records were from the 1930s.


I also pointed out ACE is low: http://www.coaps....ropical/

Nov 18, 2010

Both of your points are completely irrelevant.

For instance, you'll note (by perusing your own link) that 25 of the cold temperature records were also established prior to 1940. The trend in question concerns NEW records, and among the NEW records, the warm ones outpace the cold ones by 2:1 at this point. AND, we aren't talking about just the middle belt of North America: we're talking about the entire globe as a whole.

As for ACE, it is in fact predicted that global warming will lead to fewer large-scale tropical cyclones overall. However, among that dwindling number, powerful storms (cat 4 and 5) will become more prevalent. In fact, observations (both the ones you cite, and the ones mentioned in the article above) agree well with those predictions.

Nov 18, 2010
NotParker: Those were actually very good web sites. I appreciate your pointing them out. However, I will continue on in my "fanatical" way to show why you have not quite gotten it right. First, the reference to high temperature records was to: "showing the number of record-breaking hot days is twice as high as the record cold days." Mann was very specific about the ratio of record hot days to cold days, not high-high temperatures for a state. He stated "days" and you changed it to annual highs. You may have just missed that or you might have misstated it. There is a major difference between the daily records in all locations and the specific high records for a state throughout a year.


Nov 18, 2010
Continued: NotParker: Your next attack on Mann was about his statement about hurricane intensity. Please see this web site:


Please note here that in the years 1900 - 1989 (a 90 year span) there are 18 devastating hurricanes that hit the US. Likewise, in the years 1990 - 2010 (a 21 year span) there were also 18 devastating hurricanes that hit the US.

The number of hurricanes may decrease (leading to a lower ACE), but the number of powerful hurricanes is supposed to increase (as the records seem to say).

Nov 18, 2010
"The trend in question concerns NEW records"

That is dishonest misdirection. If new HEAT records are not being created, it IS NOT HOTTER than the 1930s.

The 1930s were the hottest decade ever. Only by manipulating the temperature record by purging non-airport thermometers (where the UHI effect is most intense) have they been able to con people thinking the 1990s/2000s were warmer. THEY WERE NOT.

As for hurricanes, the pre-satellite record is flawed because hurricanes that did not make landfall or come close to land were unlikely to be counted. Since satellites have been used to track hurricanes, the currnet period (when Mann claims it will get worse) it has actually been quieter.

Look, Mann is a con artist. He hockey stick is dependant on a few trees in Yamal.

Take a look at the Vostok ice core record of the last 400,000 years. It is supposed to be warm, and in a few years that will come to an end like it did the last 400,000 years and we will plunge into an ice age.

Nov 18, 2010
Marjon: Do you even read what you write? You just showed that 4 of the top ten ACE years were since 1990. That means that just 6 were recorded in the prior 100 years (actually since 1893). That is not such a spread.

Nov 18, 2010
NotParker: You have been watching too much Fox?news?

You state that the hockey stick graph was a con. Do you even know the title of the paper that Mann et. al. presented that graph in? It is "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"

How much more explicit could the group be than to specify uncertainties and limitations in the title. They went on to point out that much more research was needed to reduce the uncertainties.

Three investigations of the "hockey stick" have shown it to be substantially correct (there have been minor improvements).

As for the 1930s, that is incorrect. The uncertainty in that has been reduced to show that there was a local (not global) hot period during the 1930s.

The major uncertainty that is left is the MWP. However, evidence indicates that was not global either. Please get your facts straight.

Nov 18, 2010
Marjon: We have been around this corner before. No one sane expects there to be a monotonic increase in anything that has to do with weather. That is the reason that we should be looking at smoothed data with a decade of averaging or so. Do you expect every day during spring to get hotter and every day during fall to get colder in a monotonic set of steps?

Nov 19, 2010
Marjon: Do you read any posts other than your own? If you did, you would see that the graph you are showing is the same that NotParker showed at the URL he listed. Both PE and I have already responded to that figure.

Nov 19, 2010
Get used to it. Marjon makes HIS living writing these posts. Do you?

Nov 19, 2010
ormondotvos: Thanks for the tip. I had no idea marjon wrote the posts for money. For one reason I didn't think anyone would pay for the drivel he puts out, but he does wrap the rest of us around the axle as we try to logically answer his illogical questions. Then, as above, he will bring up the same argument that has already been asked-and-answered in a new post. Being paid makes more sense. Thanks for the tip. As for me getting paid, I actually like to teach. Having taught thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, and physics in the past, I look at this as an opportunity to both teach and learn about this new field.

Nov 19, 2010
This may clarify something about the source of the funding:
Instead of doing meaningful research, this money gets wasted in spreading uncertainty in the scientific process. Thanks Thermodynamics for your patient clarifications.

Nov 19, 2010
Here's a NOAA page that lists all recorded tropical storms in the central pacific one year at a time. The notes in certain years are interesting to read. For example, storm records prior to 1980 were kept by the Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1961 aren't reliable because that's when the first full year of satelite observation became available. So, we have 50 years of reliable records, and actually the early satelite coverage wasn't very good compared to today. So I hardly think there's enough data to claim any long term trend. El Nino/La Nina seems to have a larger share of the blame for hurricane activity (or lack of) than anything else, as noted on the NOAA page's notes for certain years.


Polar bears are a niche species. They are overspecialized. To expect such a species to last very long in geological terms is silly. They are bound to encounter a change that forces them to adapt or die eventually. They will be replaced.

Nov 19, 2010
As usual, Mann's comments are very carefully worded so that they sound very alarming to the average person. When a more educated than average person points out the misleading nature of his comments he still has the option of pointing out his own clever wording which technically doesn't make his statements wrong. For instance, this comment: "If you just look at the Atlantic in the last 10 years, we have experienced three times as many Category 5 hurricanes as have occurred in previous history on a relative basis"

Only looking at the Atlantic, and the last 10 years, and on a relative basis.

That's an extremely limited range of criteria, each of which is required to make his comment true. That isn't misleading to laypersons? Globally, over the entire record, using absolute numbers, there has been a decline. Maybe AGW is causing the decline, but that isn't scary, so he doesn't like to suggest that.

Nov 19, 2010

read this about Greenpeace's claims (it's from a liberal writer by the way): http://www.examin...he-fight

It deleted my second link about george soros.

That's right, a billion dollars in investment and he expects to make a profit from that money, just like big oil wants to make a profit on their investments. By the way, big oil stands to make money if cap and trade ever happens. They are invested on the pro-AGW side already.

Big oil is trying to make money like any business. It would be stupid to think that they do not attempt to influence policy in their favor. In fact, it could be criminally negligent on the part of the leadership if they don't.

Nov 19, 2010
Here's the link about the money invested on the pro-AGW side of things:


That's what my billion dollar comment was about. Al Gore, Obama, and yes, even Exxon are invested in cap and trade in a big way. The money at stake makes it a certainty that both sides will lie cheat steal and even murder over this thing. I would be suspicious of the leaders on both sides if I were you. It's stupid to think they will not attempt to do anything needed for that kind of money.

Nov 19, 2010
Marjon: wrong! this forum here is about science and its results. If you are misusing this to push your political agenda, then you are at the wrong place. I am working in such an industry and all we need is certainty for planning. Constant improvements to the products are anyway needed to stay on top of the market. Or do you want to buy all the crap from asia?

Nov 19, 2010
"Marjon: wrong! this forum here is about science and its results"

Actually, this article is about political policy and public opinion, I think. I don't see any specific new study or claims of newly discovered theory. This is all regurgitated (spelling?) from way back. It's all old news, and presented in a peculiar way, I think.

If any part of this article represents new science, please point it out. I see anctedotes and opinions in the article, but no science. If the article is political or propagandist then the comments should be about the politics and propaganda. Real climate science can be discussed in threads regarding more serious articles.

Mann and his buddy Gavin Schmidt release an article like this one every month or two, and they keep getting funnier actually.

Nov 19, 2010
I had no idea marjon wrote the posts for money

I KNEW IT! Professional trolls do exist. A few immediately come to mind... After many heated debates I started to have that thought. Which sparked the idea for an entire business designed around social media to increase post rate and boost profit from advertisement by utilizing professional trolls to spark heated debates. Though having morals I could never do it myself...

Great discussion guys, fantastic links and thanks squashing ignorance... though some times I would say we should simply ignore these people...

Nov 19, 2010
"I KNEW IT! Professional trolls do exist"

There are people with multiple accounts who hold fake arguements with themselves sometimes too.

There are even several people who post on this site who use alternate accounts to support themselves and denounce their opponents as well.

Never underestimate how big of a loser another person is capable of being.

I'm sure some PR firms pay people to stirr up trouble online, but I don't think commenting on physorg is how they do it. Take my posts for example. I'm a stong skeptic of AGW, and all of my posts say it quite clearly. I don't think I've ever changed the opinion of any pro AGW people on here and I don't ever expect to. People who are willing to blindly accept something on faith can't be reasoned with.

Nov 19, 2010
It's too bad the AGW crowd chose a political solution instead of one based upon science.
Give us your solution then. What's your solution Marjon?

Nov 19, 2010
And my guess is that most of the people who are in a science field here are taxpayer funded.

that is probably not true... mostly because if it doesn't make money why fund it on that scale. Global Warming has proven to be quite profitable to those seeking to charge for services to 'reduce' your carbon foot print and sell 'green' products, but thats just capitalism. We now have companies who would pay for research against global warming just as much to pay for research for global warming. which is why we now have these two very divided views on it. Once it starts to cost/generate money there will be opposers and supporters and in my opinion neither side has given enough evidence to debunk the others arguments which is why I say you are all foolish for taking sides. My own thoughts are if global warming is real we should do something about it, if it is not then why not continue to improve our technology anyway.

Nov 19, 2010
Give us your solution then. What's your solution Marjon?

I doubt Marjon has been programed for original thought.

Nov 19, 2010
...The major uncertainty that is left is the MWP. However, evidence indicates that was not global either.

If you are relying on Mann 2009, you had better think again. Mann messaged the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere proxies and the scientist who supplied the Finland Proxy data has claimed that Mann read and inserted the data upside down in creating Mann et al., 2009. Consider how much that might effect the study.

GISP2, Vostok, and other proxies show similar things.

Three proxies from the Southern Hemisphere also show the same signal for the MWP. If it is in two hemispheres, I'd say it has a global component to it. Mann needs to correct his material and stop using 'fudge factor' coding like he did with the Yamal data.

Oooh, I can feel the one-ranking now... :)

Nov 19, 2010
To global warming you claim doesn't exist?
Nuclear power.
All over the third world?
Incentives, not taxes.
You mean, remove all the incentives for fossil fuels? Or do you mean add incentives for renewables?
I don't think you know what that is.
Defund the IPCC.
Inconvenient science must be repressed.
Enron was really pushing for the US to implement Kyoto.
So? Why is Exxon pushing so hard against such policies?
GE, BP and many other evil corporate interests are all salivating over cap and tax
That's cap and trade. Get you syntax straight.
so they can squeeze more profits
Oh yes, BP is really set to squeeze profits from a policy that negatively impacts 95% of its business.
"ends justify the means"
You mean, politics ueber alles?

Nov 19, 2010
almost every environmentalist policy we are being fed by Washington is really a meal ticket for one big business or another
That can be said about ANY policy. How does that impact what actually needs to be done?

Cap-and-trade is a Republican idea, predicated on the efficiency of free markets. The notion that someone would profit off it, is INHERENT in the premise of how and why the mechanism should work in the first place. Just as it is INHERENT in the very concept of "free markets".

The only realistic alternative to cap-and-trade is straightforward top-down regulation: in other words, cap and tax -- something you seem to oppose.
Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government
Bullshit. BP has become adept at "greenwashing" itself, as a tactic to ingratiate itself with the consumers. It's not so hard to read BP's quarterly statements, to figure out where the vast bulk of its REAL cashflow originates.

Nov 19, 2010
Give us your solution then. What's your solution Marjon?

I don't know about marjon, but my political solution to the scientific problem would be to replace windfall and other regulatory taxes on oil companies with tax exemptions and other tax breaks if they place the substantial amounts of such windfalls into funding the development of safe, environmentally-friendly, alternative energy sources, and make these available to the market, as well as developing other sources of energy as replacements for so-called fossil fuels.

That, I believe, will get the ball started rolling at an accelerated pace.

Nov 19, 2010
I see just one major problem with your idea. You propose asking the foxes to build a better hen house.

I can modify your proposal a bit, however, so that it starts to make sense. Tax the oil companies, and funnel the funds to sponsor R&D by other companies whose main and central line of business IS "safe, environmentally-friendly, alternative energy sources".

There, fixed it for ya.

Nov 19, 2010
How will more govt regulations control those evil corporations?
Your problem becomes a non-issue the instant regulations are no longer written by evil corporations on behalf of government (who passes them without even reading.)

Of course, that would require us to first outlaw all lobbying in general (yes, both by companies and by unions.) Force lawmakers to solicit input from their constituents directly, via frequent town hall meetings and neighborhood canvassing.

Also, ban all organizational (corporate/union) campaign contributions of any kind, including indirect support or opposition of specific candidacies by media outlets (provide exception for investigative/expository reporting.) Establish severe financial and criminal penalties for political libel (make people think twice before poisoning the political sphere with falsehoods, with losers paying the winners' legal fees + significant penalty.) Allow only individual contributions, with a tight max. limit per cycle.

Nov 20, 2010
Ironically, at the same time the SEC is seeking justice for Goldman's alleged victims, President Obama and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) are pushing a bill would reward the firm with potentially billions of dollars by instituting a so-called "resolution authority" that would, in practice, be a permanent bailout fund."
Uh, no. That is not the intent or the structure of the authority. Go read the proposition before you start spewing silly crap again.

Pinkie, who spent the most money for the CA governor's election? Who won?
"With $100 million of her own money spent on the governor's race, Meg Whitman has set a new record for campaign spending."

And we see how far that money got her.
While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill,...
Because they already comply to these standards due to being a UK company, dummy.

Nov 20, 2010
what is the correlation to spending and winning in elections
Ask any political consultant if it's worth the money to buy attack ads.
What does correlate well is incumbency.
Brown isn't an incumbent (WRT to CA governorship.)

This is an abnormal case, but illustrative. Whitman attempted to buy the election. This demonstrates part of what's wrong with this country.

When candidates are NOT sickeningly rich and willing to spend their personal fortunes, they are FORCED to accept BRIBES from major unions and corporations. Once elected, they are beholden to their major campaign funders, rather than to the electorate they're supposed to represent. Thus we end up with a government that's a wholly owned subsidiary of the country's major industries (these days, that's mostly the financial industry...)

This is why there must be hard limits on campaign contributions -- INCLUDING personal contributions from the candidate to his/her own campaign.

Nov 20, 2010
That's where he obtained his contributions.
Again, Pinkie wants to take away people's rights.
You've obviously failed to comprehend a single word I've written above, regarding campaign contribution limits.

Nov 20, 2010
...There, fixed it for ya.

No, you spelled out the recipe for economic collapse. Feel free to one-rank accordingly... :)

Nov 20, 2010
The real story is not about "Hungry polar bears", "record-breaking temperatures", and "stronger hurricanes".

In 1961 Eisenhower looked into the future and warned that scary science news stories might be used one day by a scientific-technological elite to control public policy: http://www.youtub...ld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Nov 21, 2010
The funny thing about all the stuff that one reads about polar bears is that it is all just so much assumption. The good news about lack of ice is that the seals are about just as easy for the polar bears to catch on land as they are on the ice. The bears can run much faster than can the seals.

I mean, think about it. What did they do when there was less ice there in the distant past than there is now? They survived to the present day.

In point of fact, their populations are growing and a number of them are migrating to 'greener pastures,' as it were. They are becoming a nuisance in some areas because they no longer are blocked by the ice from migrating further south into other regions in search of food.

Nov 21, 2010
I comprehend just fine.
You very obviously do not.

Nov 21, 2010
The real story is not about "Hungry polar bears", "record-breaking temperatures", and "stronger hurricanes".

In 1961 Eisenhower looked into the future and warned that scary science news stories might be used one day by a scientific-technological elite to control public policy: http://www.youtub...ld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

To counter act this he suggested everyone become scientifically literate.

You see how many people actually heeded his advice....

Nov 21, 2010
"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

Nov 21, 2010
"I think the only sensible thing is just to wait and see and what I'm doing when I'm writing books, I'm not doing science so much anymore." -Freeman Dyson

Nov 21, 2010
For all practical purposes this AGW, ACC, ACD, or whatever name the scam artists decide on next to try to gin up ever falling interest is dead, killed by the CRU FOIA releases a year ago.

Time for you wishful thinkers to move on to the next global (non-)catastrophe; bio-diversity loss. Now that cap and trade is gone Wall St. is working on schemes to make money off of this next scam to be.

Oh, and the reason there are so many polar bears wandering the tundra today is that the population has increased 5 times (500%) in about 50 yrs. It has little to do with more or less ice.

Nov 22, 2010
"I can modify your proposal a bit, however, so that it starts to make sense. Tax the oil companies, and funnel the funds to sponsor R&D by other companies"

There are a number of problems with that idea. The biggest one is oversight. Who decides how much to collect from which companies? Who decides how to spend that money? Who makes sure that the researchers are sticking to the assigned tasks and spending the money they are given in an efficient way? What is the incentive for the researchers to find solutions when a solution could put them out of business? When a researcher comes up with something, who owns the patent and intellectual property (funded with public money). If an oil company does research on it's own, are they compensated somehow? Can they offset the fines by spending the money on research themselves? What government agency are you going to create to run this whole thing? Who pays for law suits over any disputes? How do we compete with countries who don't do this?

Nov 22, 2010
Then part B of the problem of your plan is how to implement any improvements created by the researchers. Since the oil companies paid for the research, should they own the research and be able to sell rights to foreign countries too? How do you divide the procedes? Is there a goal? When does it ever stop, or does it ever stop? Is there ever a point at which the oil companies can get out of this or lessen the burden through successes? If so, is that part of your plan? Or, do you just have an irrational hate towards oil and coal companies and the only thing you really want is to hurt them?

Nov 22, 2010
Actually, the plan is for the whole thing to be run by the EPA. The EPA is headed by a Presidential appointee who answers only to the President and is customarilly granted cabinet status although it's not a cabinet seat. Just like the Federal Attorney General, the person appointed to run the EPA always behaves like a sock puppet for whatever president is in office, or they get replaced.

Apparently I was under the false impression that the EPA is self-funded. I recently learned that they are partially funded by fines and fees but the total budget of the EPA far exceedes the money they collect. They are one of the most controversial government agencies due to many things, such as the lack of a clearly defined mission (kinda remind you of NASA?).

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