@Metal-Brain
Why do you keep insisting evaporation cannot kickstart a hurricane? Why are you even on that track? Of course evaporation does not generate hurricanes. But if one starts out in winter with the temps 40 or 50 F, there will be much less evaporation and therefore those hurricanes that start say off the coast of Africa like Dorian, will be much less intense, maybe just a tropical storm.
When the water surface is more like 80 F evaporation increases dramatically which not only feeds the approaching hurricane it also transport heat and all that starts a cascade where the whirling of the hurricane increases, the Millibar readings in the eye goes way down and it WILL be enhanced in energy.
And it looks like the steering happens due to the high pressure lobes around Bermuda, the higher that pressure, the more an approaching hurricane hangs a left and crashes right into West Palm or some such, that is where Dorian is expected to make landfall and BTW, it started out as a tropical storm in Africa and gained strength due to warmer waters and right now is up to cat 4 and only another 5 mph brings it to cat 5.
Just what do you think causes a hurricane to gain such strength in a few thousand miles of travel? Solar energy? That must have some effect, there is sure a LOT of solar on top of such canes, The only kicker to that is the top of the cane clouds are pretty darn reflective so I would be surprised if less than 20 % of the solar energy goes to heat the top of the cloud but it must. So if we have a circular cell 100 miles across and we look at the total energy reaching those clouds then at 150 ish watts per square foot, times say 25 million square feet per square mile and say 8000 square miles for a 100 mile circle is roughly 3 to the 13th power watts, 30 TRILLION watts or so, times say .2 is about 6000 gigawatts, 6 terawatts. Not sure what that would do to the whole system, this out of my pay grade but just with this simple analysis it shows there is some significant energy on top.
One thing though, pretty much NONE of that energy gets to the ocean with that cloud cover so whatever is left of the energy of evaporation is all that is pumped in from the bottom but there IS the energy of evaporation, I don't have enough physics to figure out that total but it has to be significant, energy pumped in from the bottom AND the top with whatever % of total radiation heats the cloud it does have those two sources of energy.
Here is one source:
https://www.alabamawx.com/?p=184125
It talks about WISHE, Wind Induced Surface heating Exchange.
@metal-brain saidNo, his above assertion is based on known physics and is correct.
"with the fact hotter water evaporates at a greater rate over the ocean and passing storms will ALWAYS pick up energy and intensify because of the increased evaporation."
You are full of crap. That is a false statement based on ignorance.
Water always evaporates a lot in the summer months in the northern tropical region of the Atlantic ocean.Yes. So what? That doesn't contradict his above assertion.
It takes condensation in addition to that to form and fuel a hurricane.
Again, yes. So what? That doesn't contradict his above assertion. If anything, you have just implicitly seemed to confirmed his above assertion with your words of "...in addition to...".
That is why hurricanes form more frequently in a colder climate.Science doesn't yet know whether hurricanes form more frequently in a colder climate. It might be that the effect of less evaporation in a colder climate may more than offset all other effects of a colder climate thus there may be less hurricanes in a colder climate; we don't yet know. But it makes no difference if hurricanes are more frequent in a colder climate because that would still mean his above assertion is correct. That's because there is a general well educated scientific consensus based on understanding of the basic physics of hurricanes that the average severity of hurricanes, not to be confused with their frequency, will increase as a result of warmer water causing more evaporation which in turn will feed more energy into the hurricane; just as his above assertion implies. And thus we would rationally expect that, regardless of changes in the frequency of hurricanes, the more severe ones (so ignoring the weak ones) as the climate warms will become more frequent and that in turn will cause more damage from hurricanes. What here do you not understand?
So your assertion of "You are full of crap. That is a false statement based on ignorance." simply couldn't be more wrong as its you who is "full of crap" and making "false statement based on ignorance."
Lets just see what the science says, shall we?
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
"The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 11) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures."
@sonhouse saidhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
@Metal-Brain
Why do you keep insisting evaporation cannot kickstart a hurricane? Why are you even on that track? Of course evaporation does not generate hurricanes. But if one starts out in winter with the temps 40 or 50 F, there will be much less evaporation and therefore those hurricanes that start say off the coast of Africa like Dorian, will be much less intense, maybe ...[text shortened]...
https://www.alabamawx.com/?p=184125
It talks about WISHE, Wind Induced Surface heating Exchange.
The Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they have not become stronger in a warmer climate.
@humy saidhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
No, his above assertion is based on known physics and is correct.Water always evaporates a lot in the summer months in the northern tropical region of the Atlantic ocean.Yes. So what? That doesn't contradict his above assertion.It takes condensation in addition to that to form and fuel a hurricane.
Again, yes. So what? That doesn't contr ...[text shortened]... ated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures."
The Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they have not become stronger in a warmer climate. They were stronger during the little ice age.
@metal-brain saidNo, it doesn't prove anything other than you are confused. Weather isn't climate. If the Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they don't become stronger in a warmer climate then, using your same moronic 'logic', whichever is the next great hurricane will prove they do become stronger in a warmer climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
The Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they have not become stronger in a warmer climate.
In fact, if the Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they don't become stronger in a warmer climate then, using your same moronic 'logic', the great Hurricane Wilma of 2005 hurricane proves they do become stronger in a warmer climate since that one was even stronger than the Great Hurricane of 1780 and also came much later;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records
"...Currently, Hurricane Wilma is the strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded, after reaching an intensity of 882 mbar (hPa; 26.05 inHg) in October 2005;..."
Note that, unlike what you are doing here, you shouldn't confuse the strongest one (which is generally in terms of wind strength and scale of high wind area) with the deadliest one (which is generally in terms of destruction on land and human deaths); These two things aren't the same thing since the strongest one need not be the most deadly as how deadly it is partly depends on where and when it occurs.
@humy saidHere is an excerpt from the link below:
No, it doesn't prove anything other than you are confused. Weather isn't climate. If the Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they don't become stronger in a warmer climate then, using your same moronic 'logic', whichever is the next great hurricane will prove they do become stronger in a warmer climate.
In fact, if the Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they don't become stronger in a ...[text shortened]... gest one need not be the most deadly as how deadly it is partly depends on where and when it occurs.
"Specifics on the hurricane's track and strength are unknown because the official Atlantic hurricane database goes back only to 1851"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
The deadliest is the best measure of strength. Besides, alarmists are trying to argue that they are moving slower in a warmer climate causing more destruction/lost of lives and nonsense like that. Your side brought it up and now you want to deny what your side proposed to scare people.
You have absolutely no evidence hurricanes are worse since the climate became warmer after the little ice age. You should be glad the climate warmed naturally. Would you rather live in the cold? More people die in the cold. How many people died from the extreme weather events of 535–536?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
We are in a natural warming trend bringing us out of the little ice age. Do you expect us to stay in the little ice age? More people would die. Be glad the earth is warming. It is a good thing.
@metal-brain saidNo, it isn't. Wind strength is the best measure of strength of hurricane and that's always the way its strength is measured in science so Sonhouse was perfectly correct in his assertion while you were wrong. The strength of a hurricane is scientifically defined in terms of wind strength, not how much harm it caused (not to mention the amount of 'harm' it caused would be a difficult to define maths quantity thus not scientific). And how much harm it caused doesn't just depend on its wind strength but when and where it occurs else, according to your own moronic 'logic', a massively powerful hurricane that happens only far out at sea where there was no people thus caused no death or damage would have a strength of exactly zero! And, according to your own moronic 'logic', a much weaker hurricane in terms of wind speed that happens to kill many people because it just happened to occur at the worse possible time and place is a much "stronger" hurricane than the one with much more powerful winds, that you would say has exactly zero strength!
The deadliest is the best measure of strength.
And you still confused weather with climate (and I guess probably still doing so because you seem to refuse to learn anything new).
@humy said"And you still confused weather with climate (and I guess probably still doing so because you seem to refuse to learn anything new)."
No, it isn't. Wind strength is the best measure of strength of hurricane and that's always the way its strength is measured in science so Sonhouse was perfectly correct in his assertion while you were wrong. The strength of a hurricane is scientifically defined in terms of wind strength, not how much harm it caused (not to mention the amount of 'harm' it caused would be a diffic ...[text shortened]... with climate (and I guess probably still doing so because you seem to refuse to learn anything new).
No, I didn't. I was making the argument that cold was worse than warm and weather is relevant. Futhermore, the extreme weather events of 535–536 are not always referred to as weather. Here is an except from the link below:
"The decline of Teotihuacán, a huge city in Mesoamerica, is also associated with the droughts related to the climate changes, with signs of civil unrest and famines."
I could argue it is climate change, but I have no need to do that since it is irrelevant. Weather makes my point just fine. More people die from colder weather and colder climate. You are interjecting irrelevant nit picking that wreaks of desperation. Is that the best you can do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
You do not know what the wind strength of the great hurricane of 1780 was. You are relying on only recent data since that is all that accurately exists. Furthermore, some hurricanes have greater wind strength than the one you listed as the strongest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones
Wind strength of modern hurricanes is fine using wind strength, although this is more variable than you have implied. Omitting the great hurricane of 1780 from that category simply because wind speed was not measured back then is a form of manipulation.
https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/great-hurricane-of-1780
You have NOT determined that the great hurricane of 1780 was not the strongest hurricane. It most likely was since the death toll was high and it has legendary status among hurricanes.
Can you prove the great hurricane of 1780 was weaker than recent hurricanes? If so, how will you do it? Is it possible?
The Great Hurricane of 1780, it is among the deadliest storms ever recorded. Since you think that doesn't mean anything I don't want you to bring up death counts of any hurricane in the future as you have already dismissed that as irrelevant. Don't be a hypocrite and decide it is relevant when the next big death toll happens because of a hurricane. Don't bring up how they might be going slower and killing more people and don't whine about how more flooding takes place. If it doesn't matter in 1780 it doesn't matter ever.
Although there have been many deadly hurricanes in the years since 1780, only Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which left more than 11,000 people dead in Central America, has approached the Great Hurricane of 1780 in terms of lives lost.
More flooding is the only thing you got right about a warmer climate, but you have already made the deaths from flooding irrelevant as far as debating this is concerned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Mitch
Hurricane Mitch in 1998, is the second-deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record, causing over 11,000 fatalities in Central America, with over 7,000 occurring in Honduras alone due to catastrophic flooding from the slow motion of the storm. It was the deadliest hurricane in Central American history, surpassing Hurricane Fifi–Orlene, which killed slightly fewer people there in 1974.
Hurricane Mitch still had merely half as many fatalities as the great hurricane of 1780. This fact makes you shift your debate away from fatalities because it is a losing argument, yet your side embraces it when using the slow moving and more flooding argument when convenient.
You cannot have it both ways. Either fatalities matter or they don't. Which one is it?
@metal-brain saidGoliath lived 3,000 years ago and this proves that people are getting smaller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
The Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they have not become stronger in a warmer climate. They were stronger during the little ice age.
@deepthought saidYou are bringing the bible into it? What are you going to bring up next, Noah's Ark? Adam and Eve?
Goliath lived 3,000 years ago and this proves that people are getting smaller.
This is the science forum and I thought you accepted evolution. Do you or don't you?
@metal-brain saidHe was bringing your logic into it. Whether it involves the Bible is irrelevant; its still your logic.
You are bringing the bible into it?
I was making the argument that cold was worse than warm
Wow that's such a subjective vague sweeping generalization. How cold compared to how warm? In what contexts?
and weather is relevant.Then why did you bring it up as part of your 'argument'? You make no sense.
Notice the continued digression away from sea level rise by the desperate alarmists. Deepthought, who has expressed his belief in evolution has even resorted to bible digression into fictional tales of giants from the same book that fit all of the world's land species onto a boat....lol!
This thread is about sea level rise. The alarmists want to make it about hurricanes, coral reefs.....anything but sea level rise. They might actually have to prove something with data they have already seen and decided there was a need to fight natural GW .....LOL!
They are not at all confident of their claims. They merely persist out of ego and denial. Hence their being terrified of confronting the data in an honest way. Here is the data again from NASA, an alarmist biased website they do not dare question. Where is the man made GW acceleration in sea level rise? Any of you can point out anything at any year and make their case why man caused an acceleration of more than half if they think it can be done.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Notice how humy, sonhouse and deepthought will avoid it like the plague and digress again. They always do. That is the MO of cowards who have little confidence in their own positions. They run away.
@Metal-Brain
We talk about sea level rise but you just poo poo any evidence or theory we provide so what is the use? You are a confirmed contrarian and that is pretty much it.
@sonhouse saidI was just about to post this, almost verbatim. Reading back through posts where you tried posting relevant data and it was completely disregarded. End of discussion... because it wasn't exactly fitting the pre-existing world view.
@Metal-Brain
We talk about sea level rise but you just poo poo any evidence or theory we provide so what is the use? You are a confirmed contrarian and that is pretty much it.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 225499
In the last 3 of the last 4 interglacial periods sea levels were HIGHER than they are now. As were temperatures. Climate change is happening but has happen previously when we were not around. If you read those scientists that are not funded by 'interested parties' it makes more interesting reading. For example. The previous sea level rises were equal to the amount of fresh water on green land (that will slip into the sea). And amazingly this is currently being discussed on BBC news!!!! The climate change total focus on cars and CO2 is also misleading as Methane is the bigger threat. But then they can't tax farting can they! As an example of the misleading crap thrown at us. One average flight generates the equivalent of 675 cars ANNUAL CO2 emissions. But car's and CO2 are the devil.