New type of El Nino could mean more hurricanes make landfall
July 2, 2009
The 2008 hurricane season was one of the most active on record. In this image, taken on August 28, 2008, three storms can be seen in various stages: Fay, Gustav and Hannah. Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
El Niņo years typically result in fewer hurricanes forming in the Atlantic Ocean. But a new study suggests that the form of El Niņo may be changing potentially causing not only a greater number of hurricanes than in average years, but also a greater chance of hurricanes making landfall, according to climatologists at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The study appears in the July 3, 2009, edition of the journal Science.
"Normally, El Niņo results in diminished hurricanes in the Atlantic, but this new type is resulting in a greater number of hurricanes with greater frequency and more potential to make landfall," said Peter Webster, professor at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.
That's because this new type of El Niņo, known as El Niņo Modoki (from the Japanese meaning "similar, but different"), forms in the Central Pacific, rather than the Eastern Pacific as the typical El Niņo event does. Warming in the Central Pacific is associated with a higher storm frequency and a greater potential for making landfall along the Gulf coast and the coast of Central America.
Even though the oceanic circulation pattern of warm water known as El Niņo forms in the Pacific, it affects the circulation patterns across the globe, changing the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic. This regular type of El Niņo (from the Spanish meaning "little boy" or "Christ child") is more difficult to forecast, with predictions of the December circulation pattern not coming until May. At first glance, that may seem like plenty of time. However, the summer before El Niņo occurs, the storm patterns change, meaning that predictions of El Niņo come only one month before the start of hurricane season in June. But El Niņo Modoki follows a different prediction pattern.
"This new type of El Niņo is more predictable," said Webster. "We're not sure why, but this could mean that we get greater warning of hurricanes, probably by a number of months."
As to why the form of El Niņo is changing to El Niņo Modoki, that's not entirely clear yet, said Webster.
"This could be part of a natural oscillation of El Niņo," he said. "Or it could be El Niņo's response to a warming atmosphere. There are hints that the trade winds of the Pacific have become weaker with time and this may lead to the warming occurring further to the west. We need more data before we know for sure."
In the study, Webster, along with Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Chair Judy Curry and research scientist Hye-Mi Kim used satellite data along with historical tropical storm records and climate models.
The research team is currently looking at La Niņa, the cooling of the surface waters in the Eastern and Central Pacific.
"In the past, La Nina has been associated with a greater than average number of North Atlantic hurricanes and La Nina seems to be changing its structure as well," said Webster. "We're vitally interested in understanding why El Niņo-La Niņa has changed. To determine this we need to run a series of numerical experiments with climate models."
Source: Georgia Institute of Technology
Jun 08, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Headline could have been just as accurate by reading: New type of El Nino could mean less hurricanes make landfall
This is Chicken Licken and Henny Penny journalism.
Or, do as the IPCC etc does with AGW, when it's shown to be wrong, ignore the evidence and attack the messenger? Blow it out of all proportion with MSM headlines when new and never admit when it's wrong, just let it slide.
And, it is good Science: "Look, we reckon there's a pattern emerging, with ElNinos which start in Central Pacific spawning bigger storms than the Eastern Pacific variety."
Now they've made their prediction, lots of people will dig through old logs, check historical records etc. Only takes one proven no-show to falsify the prediction as it stands. Of course, bets are off if year was screwy due volcano ash etc..
Why then would we want to reduce CO2 emissions if we have the resources to warm the atmosphere and keep it relatively stable?
Oh, wait! We had increases in CO2 levels ppm but the climate still cooled! Never mind... :)
Yes the scientific method is to come up with a hypothesis and then try to prove it. The trick is to articulate it a bloody hypothesis and NOT something one destroys an economy over...
Not in the least.