Do We Need a Category 6 for Hurricanes?

[Randy Zipser]

Here's an article from the Gizmodo newsletter on September 29th that debates this issue:

Do We Really Need a Category 6 for Hurricanes?

 

[JamesCaruso]

This article is indicative of why some of us refer to a “media narrative” about climate change. The subtitle begins, “As climate change leads to more destructive hurricanes…” Climate change may be real, but to my knowledge there is absolutely no basis for concluding that it leads to “more destructive hurricanes.” It’s easy to see why people get suspicious that an agenda is being pushed - it’s like if you just keep repeating a supposition often enough, everyone will just accept it.

 

[John Farley]

I think it is pretty well-accepted science that extreme heavy rainfall and rapid intensification in hurricanes are becoming more common. Both of which can be associated with higher ocean temperatures and the capacity of warmer air to hold more moisture. And extreme heavy rainfall and rapid intensification do make hurricanes more destructive. I do not understand why people want to refer to such science as an "agenda" or "narrative." Now before people jump on me, I agree that not all changes associated with climate change are bad. For example, tropical cyclone frequency does not seem to be increasing overall. But since the vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and that human factors are contributing to it, I do not see why people keep referring to it as an agenda or narrative. "Scientific near-consensus" would be more accurate terminology. If anything, terms like "agenda" and "narrative" are better applied to those who deny climate change, since they are going against the large majority of scientists.

 

[Randy Zipser]

This article is indicative of why some of us refer to a “media narrative” about climate change. The subtitle begins, “As climate change leads to more destructive hurricanes…” Climate change may be real, but to my knowledge there is absolutely no basis for concluding that it leads to “more destructive hurricanes.” It’s easy to see why people get suspicious that an agenda is being pushed - it’s like if you just keep repeating a supposition often enough, everyone will just accept it.

All valid points, James. I don't think the intent with this article is so much to "push" a climate-change/global-warming point of view, as to offer some quasi-scientific explanation (that the general public will readily accept) upon which to base a reason why the question should be even posed in the first place.

There's more to this question than just "media soundbites;" there's actually some real science behind this question. On a global scale, oceanic circulations and atmospheric circulations work on totally independent spatial and time scales. However, they are not entirely "closed" systems because they share an interface where both latent heat (and, thus, potential energy) are continuously being exchanged. The physics of thermodynamic entropy alone may (or may not) explain whether adding more sensible heat or potential energy into the oceans will translate directly into some observable, measurable (more orderly or less orderly?) metric with atmospheric events such as hurricanes, thunderstorms, or tornadoes. It's very much an open question for further long-term scientific study...

The discussions between the various "experts" in this article are interesting because most, if not all, these people are "qualified" to be a part of this discussion because of ties to academia or professional practice. They are not political or journalistic types looking to advance a particular narrative to suit some disinformation or "conspiracy theory" agenda like so many on the Internet and social-media are nowadays.

We must keep an open mind to all viewpoints, and follow where factual science (and the laws of Newtonian physics) take us.

 

[Randy Zipser]

I think it is pretty well-accepted science that extreme heavy rainfall and rapid intensification in hurricanes are becoming more common. Both of which can be associated with higher ocean temperatures and the capacity of warmer air to hold more moisture. And extreme heavy rainfall and rapid intensification do make hurricanes more destructive. I do not understand why people want to refer to such science as an "agenda" or "narrative." Now before people jump on me, I agree that not all changes associated with climate change are bad. For example, tropical cyclone frequency does not seem to be increasing overall. But since the vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and that human factors are contributing to it, I do not see why people keep referring to it as an agenda or narrative. "Scientific near-consensus" would be more accurate terminology. If anything, terms like "agenda" and "narrative" are better applied to those who deny climate change, since they are going against the large majority of scientists.

I absolutely, totally agree, John. Please see my reply to James above!