Here is an excerpt as related to that last point:
Focusing on the past six decades, we observe no sustained upward trends in wind speed distributions (Figs. 1 and 3), the mean wind speed at landfall or the annual frequency of occurrence of landfalling segments (Fig. 8). (Note that this annual frequency is specific to landfalling segments and different from the annual frequency of landfalling events since some events have multiple landfalling segments, e.g. in 2005 Hurricane Katrina made landfall in both South Florida and Louisiana.) This being the case, the dramatic increases in total economic and insured losses from TCs, which have been manifest over the past six decades, indicates that the increasing losses must be attributed to the factors other than wind speed alone. This is in accord with recent studies (Pielke, 2005; Pielke et al., 2008; Crompton and McAneney, 2008), which demonstrate the importance of demographic changes in driving the increasing economic cost of hurricane losses.The paper concludes as follows:
The quality of observational data is central to the ongoing debate between a warming climate and consequences for TC frequency and intensities. Our analyses show clear, anomalous differences in the wind speed distributions between the early historical period and the very recent six decades. While these differences cannot unequivocally exclude a possible Global Climate Change cause, we suggest that data quality issues are more plausible.Find the paper here in PDF.
An enormous challenge lies ahead for recovering reliable wind estimates in the early historical record, especially for highly dynamic and short-lived extreme TCs. The counting of events by Saffir-Simpson Hurricane categories is determined by threshold wind speeds, and if the wind estimates are themselves unreliable, how can derivative statistics be trusted sufficiently for long-term trend analysis? It is timely to recognise that using the early historical record will inevitably involve some irreducible uncertainties and “fixing” these may not be possible and that more physically-based models are needed to help resolve the data impasse. Conclusions drawn from scientific and insurance applications using the inherently lower-quality components of the record should be treated with caution.
5 comments:
Looks like a first rate paper to me! Good on 'em for this one.
Nice piece.
I would love to see You do a piece on how much sea level rise New Orleans is looking at over the next 10-20-50 years.
I would just like to know what we're facing, what it might actually LOOK LIKE, given that over half of the City is actually at or above sea level, though not by much.
I have seen some modeling, mainly from Dr Ivor Van Heerden, (unfortunately he was fired by LSU grrr) but nothing on the level that you might can pull off out there in Boulder.
New to your blog, I will fang back through the posts to see if you have covered this already.
We just need more detail, as close as you can get it.
Needless to say we hung this post onto today's Ladder, and on our list of Stitch'hikas (so I can find you again sooner than later).
Thanks youz,
Editilla~New Orleans Ladder
http://noladder.blogspot.com/
2-The past is prologue:
http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/trends/8761724.png
(By the way, the huge trend is due to local geological and anthropogenic influences, not so much climate).
It is generally agreed that it would be impossible to accurately recreate the true counts of historical tropical cyclones from the 19th and early 20th centuries. The data simply does not exist and assumptions to fill in the gaps would be unsupportable. But there is another way.
Why don't we reexamine the more recent records assuming the well known observational techniques of earlier times. I have seen this done for the record year of 2005 (28 named storms), revealing that 7 or 8 of these storms would not have been detected in the previous record setting year of 1933 (21 named storms). In other words, 2005 may not have been the most active year in the last 100 years.
Variability from season to season prevents us from calculating true hurricane counts before WWII. There is too much uncertainty. But there is very little uncertainty about our observational technology. We can take our 'known ignorance' and apply it to the entire record.
We should use what we know (our historical technology) to determine the existence of trends. I am not sure why this hasn't been done.
Jim-There was an interesting recent study on storm counts by Landsea, Knutson, Vecchi, and Bengston, but this paper is about the even more interesting area (because so little ink as been spilled over it) of intensities.
Post a Comment