Cyclones and Climate Change - The Deadly Legacy of Oil

By Desmogblog

by Mitchell Anderson

In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in Burma , the world’s attention is
rightly focused on the unfolding human tragedy. This storm is already one of the
deadliest cyclones of all time, with up to 100,000 people losing their lives,
and another 1.5 million left destitute and homeless.

The incompetence and
corruption of the Burmese military regime is exacerbating an already gruesome
situation. The impact of the storm was also made worse by the fact that much of
the coastline had been denuded of trees, making areas more vulnerable to the
deadly storm surge.

But what about the storm itself? Sadly, it seems we
can expect many more tragedies like this in the future as human induced climate
change proceeds apace.

Nargis was the first named storm of the 2008
North Indian Ocean cyclone season
, forming on April 27 in the central Bay
of Bengal. Nargis rapidly
intensified
to attain peak winds of at least 165 km/h (105 mph) on May 2;
the Joint
Typhoon Warning Center
assessed peak winds of 215 km/h (135 mph) - making it
a rare category 4 storm.

Sea surface temperatures were over a full degree Celsius above average in the
region where Nargis intensified before landfall, as can be seen from this May 1
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration satellite
map.

Cyclone Nargis was close to a “perfect storm”. According to Mark
Lander
, a meteorology professor at the University of Guam. “When we saw the
(storm) track, I said, 'Uh oh, this is not going to be good. It would create a
big storm surge. It was like Katrina going into New Orleans."

The storm pushed a 12 foot wall of water onto the densely populated Irrawaddy
delta in central Myanmar. The result was the worst disaster ever in the
impoverished country.

It is impossible to link any single storm to
climate change but there is mounting scientific evidence that our warming world
will produce more intense storms such as Nargis, with a predicable human toll.
Last year, Cyclone Sidr
slammed into Bangladesh, killing as many as 10,000 people and leaving 20,000
homeless.

"While we can never pinpoint one disaster as the result of climate change,
there is enough scientific evidence that climate change will lead to
intensification of tropical cyclones," said Sunita Narain, director of the
Indian environmental group Center
for Science and Environment
.

"Nargis is a sign of things to come," she said. "The victims of these
cyclones are climate change victims and their plight should remind the rich
world that it is doing too little to contain its greenhouse gas
emissions."

The science is already there. The 2007 report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) had clearly observed that
cyclones will increase in their intensity as a result of global warming.
According to the IPCC: “There is observational evidence of an increase of
intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970,
correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.”

The IPCC
also noted that based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical
cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak
wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of
tropical sea surface temperatures.

Professor Kerry Emanuel of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported in the journal Nature
in 2005 that warmer oceans worldwide are making devastating storms such as
Hurricane Katrina more likely by making cyclones on average more powerful and
longer lasting. He found that the destructive power of tropical cyclones
worldwide had increased by 70% in the last 30 years.

Another paper was
published in the prestigious journal Science ,
backing up Emmanuel’s disturbing findings. These researchers found that the
number of deadly Category 4 and 5 storms worldwide has almost doubled in the
last 35 years.

This is no act of God. The authors of both these papers
attributed this disturbing trend at least in part to human-induced climate
change.

Imagining cyclones becoming more powerful is like imaging Cher
with a more flamboyant wardrobe. Even an average sized hurricane packs 200 times
more energy than the electrical generating capacity of the entire planet.

While this cold statistic is hard to imagine, the physical evidence of
that massive power sadly is not. As the human tragedy unfolds in Burma, we
should remember that these grim disasters are becoming more likely due to our
warmer world - and our continued addiction to fossil fuels.

UPDATE: ThinkProgress
Wonk Room
is reporting that "Right Wing Doctors Audio Clips To Distort Al
Gore’s Comments About Cyclone Nargis".

 

visit desmogblog!

Comments

(34)

Doubters of global warming continually fail to understand

(or purposely ignore) the key predictions of global warming. It DOES NOT say that every single day is going to be hotter than the same day the year before, and so on back into the past. What it does say is that the atmosphere and biosphere are holding more and more heat energy each year, on a global basis. Heat is the engine that drives weather, and weather over periods of many years defines climate. What happens when you add heat to the system? You get more extremes, both in temperatures and in storm intensities. You get more record highs, more record lows, more rainfall and snowfall, higher winds and so on.

I never bother trying to associate record temps, either high or low, with global warming, or with the global cooling that naysayers claim is happening. What is more important is that the 10 hottest years on record have all occured since the 1990s, and this winter was the first time since 1982 that winter temps in the US were below the average 20th century temps. In other words, we had 25 straight years of record temps. That is definitely NOT a coincidence. This winter has seemed colder because we haven't seen anything like it for the past quarter century, but when compared with 113 years of records, it turns out to be right near the middle in ranking. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary.

Inevitably, we will see more storms like Katrina and Nargis in coming years. Both storms underscore how badly we are prepared to respond to such tragedies, and how we will continue to try and ignore them as we blithely wander into a world that will be increasing difficult for 6.5 billion people to continue to survive.

"Climate Chage"

I'm not a global warming denier but I've noticed that ALGore has made a BUNCH of money and notoriety off the subject. This "man made" global warming thing presents quite the conflict of interest for you believers of ALGores "Inconvenient Lie".

On one hand, you should appreciate Bush because under his administration the cost of gasoline has almost tripled forcing people to drive smaller cars and car pool.

BUT, you want to smack Bush around because of the price of gas....

What to do...

If higher gas prices are being caused by Bush, then he has done more to stem the flow of CO2 than any other president. Give some credit....

No more accurately the "Man Made" global warming issue is an attempt at the former socialists and communists to do what the Soviet Union was unable to do, take down our economy. It's funny because in the "international circles" leaders of Banana Republics all seem to agree that the people of the US owe the 3rd world MONEY because we are successful and they live in mud huts....

Is the world becoming a warmer place. Yep.

Is it possible that man may have something to do with it. Sure..

Should we take steps to curb pollution. Yep

Should we cripple our economy and live like the 3rd world if we don't have to...OH HELL NO

Should we use technology to trip or completely cut our dependence on foreign oil. YEP, and if Obama is the man to do that, more power to him.

How long before ALGore blames "Man Made" global warming on the earthquake in China.

Are there more hurricanes today than there were 100 years ago. I doubt it, ask a climatologist. Do they cause more damage today than 100 years ago and kill more people...YEP. Why?
-THERE ARE 6,000,000,000 people on the planet today, more than at any other time. And guess what, the MAJORITY of them like to live on the coast. So when a hurricane like Katrina, Ivan or this last one comes along it affects more people than they did 100-200 years ago...

www.neopage.com/know/worldpop.htm

World pop
2000 - 6,045,953,000
1907 - 1,705,920,000
1800, 1billion

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Your post deftly sets up the typical repub straw man arguments

and burns them, adding heat but no light to the discussion. You keep saying that global warming believers are communists bent on destroying the US economy. That is just so patently ridiculous that I won't even waste my time on it. Suffice it to say that it is just plain wacky and wrong.

Al Gore blaming the China earthquake on global warming? Once again, so patently ridiculous that it doesn't even merit wasting my time on it. All I will say is that you have a very strong hatred for Gore, perhaps because he is everything that Bush will never be: intelligent, successful, and admired.

Bush has done more to stem the flow of CO2 than any other president? If we saw a decrease in the amount of gas usage, you might have a small point, but statistics show that no such decrease has occurred. The only decrease seen is the decrease in our wallets from paying these prices. No president has really done anything meaningful to stem the flow of greenhouse gases, and that is a sad commentary on the American voter and the power of the corporate lobbyists. They've obviously done a splendid job of brainwashing you.

I think if you actually look at global warming information, you will see that they don't necessarily point to a big increase in hurricanes, but do predict that the average hurricane may be more intense, and that hurricane season may start earlier and end later each year. Weather patterns are simply a way of redistributing heat in the earth's atmosphere, and hurricanes are a vital part of that engine. With more heat being trapped in the atmosphere and hydrosphere, it will require more storms, or stronger storms in order to accomplish that redistribute that heat. As a result, yes, we will almost see more people die than in previous years, primarily because population has increased tremendously, and in the US, coastal real estate has become hugely popular in the past century.

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 2:14pm

You keep saying that global warming believers are communists bent on destroying the US economy.

It's not him saying it, he's just a parrot. I heard Neal Boortz spouting this nonsense last week. I was laughing so hard that I had to pull the car over. Unfortunately, morons like FRightenedTwit seem to have taken it seriously instead of recognizing it for the comedy sketch that it actually was.

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 2:14pm

As I commonly point out, I don't deny that the planet seems to be warming. What I don't get is why you on that left with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF patently BELIEVE through FAITH that ALGore is right and that it isn't a natural occurance with more to do with solar activity or other such event. It seems to take a disbelief of all reason to patently say that it has to be man and that there is NO way it's a natural phenomenon like the Medieval Warm Period 800-1300 AD.

"I think if you actually look at global warming information, you will see that they don't necessarily point to a big increase in hurricanes, but do predict that the average hurricane may be more intense..."

Compared to what, the super-accurate measures of hurricanes prior to 1910? 85 years ago there may have been MUCH stronger hurricanes but since the numbers of people didn't live on the coast they way they do now, the reporting would not have been there. In other words, if a CAT 5 hurricane devastates an area but no human is there to witness, did it actually happen? We have satellites and hurricane hunters now, we didn't 85 years ago....

By the way, the cut on ALGore and the earthquakes was sarcasm but I'm half expecting him to blame it on the heating up of the Earth's crust caused by man and man’s use of private jets….Oh, wait, that’s just leer-jet libs like ALGore…...

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

re: By Fight4it May 12, 2008 - 3:45pm

"What I don't get is why you on that left with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF patently BELIEVE through FAITH that ALGore is right and that it isn't a natural occurance with more to do with solar activity or other such event. It seems to take a disbelief of all reason to patently say that it has to be man and that there is NO way it's a natural phenomenon like the Medieval Warm Period 800-1300 AD."

Pure unadulterated bullshit. Other than the normal sunspot cycle, there has been no measurable increase in the output of solar energy. It is something that is measurable and eliminates solar loading.

And, they can measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere. And like they can use carbon isotopes to date fossils, they can use carbon isotopes in the CO2 in the atmosphere to determine the source of the CO2. And what that shows is that the isotopes from man-made sources (mostly the combustion of fossil fuels) is becoming a greater portion of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

It is all measurable, and all points to man as the source.

♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein

Now you've just gone off into Wackyland

Absolutely NO proof of global warming? Believe through faith that Al Gore is right? Sit down and start reading the literally thousands of papers on global warming research, and then come back and tell me there is absolutely no proof. Like most deniers, you are willing to take people like Rush and Hannity and Bush on faith that there is no proof, that nothing is happening, but that is a terribly transparent lie.

You have every right to deny the existence of global warming. Unfortunately, by the time you finally figure out that Exxon/Mobil was lying to you, it will be too late to do anything. We have already passed the point where we can stop things, but it is important now to plan for the effects that are coming. Plan for the shortfalls in food production, for the extreme weather swings, for the rising ocean levels. If we stopped all CO2 production today, scientists say temps will still increase for the next century.

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 3:57pm

"Absolutely NO proof of global warming? Believe through faith that Al Gore is right? Sit down and start reading the literally thousands of papers on global warming research, and then come back and tell me there is absolutely no proof."

-Don't change my words...Did I ever deny global warming? NOPE. I will call into question the "pillar of faith" called "MAN MADE" global warming. I'm not going to sit here an say that the planet hasn't warmed a bit, in fact, to say there are NO climate fluctuations is just as absurd.

By the way many scientists agree that the planet is warming, where they disagree is the cause, depending on who is paying their salary and if the have some adgenda....

http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Hate to slap you with those nasty things called "facts again",

but if you look at one of the posts below, you will see that there are actually methods that allow us to point the finger at manmade carbon being the culprit for global warming. As was pointed out, we can use carbon isotopes to determine when the carbon was produced, and we can also use actual atmospheric measurements taken from the same locations and measure air samples preserved in ice to give us snapshots about what the composition of the atmosphere was like in the past. The result? The rise in CO2 in the atmosphere coincides very nicely with the start of the Industrial Revolution, and the CO2 content's rise has accelerated as the use of fossil fuels has grown. That's very compelling evidence for the manmade cause of global warming. Is it 100% definitive? Put it this way. If a coroner does an autopsy on a crime victim, and he sees that a bullet went through the guy's heart, he is justified in stating that the man died of a gunshot wound to the heart. Is it possible that the guy suffered a heart attack just milliseconds before the bullet struck his heart, and died from that instead of the bullet? Yes, but the odds are so ridiculously steep that it is far more likely the bullet was the cause of death. Same for global warming. There is a lot of evidence pointing to the manmade contribution to global warming. The "evidence" against it is nothing short of ludicrous, and would be laughed out of most scientific journals and conferences. It basically is a lot of handwaving and smoke and mirrors that falls apart as soon as it receives more than a few seconds of scrutiny.

By UffdaguyMay 13, 2008 - 10:20am

Again, I won't argue with that information...I'll even concede that we are putting CO2 in the air and that the CO2 follows the industrial revolution. NOW, show me where the man made CO2 is the cause of the warming earth....THIS TIME. The planet has come out of many ice ages and back into warm periods like the medieval warm period a BUNCH of times in the past. And guess what, no internal combustion engines then... Why did that happen? We are due for an ice age, who is to say that IF man is warming the planet that we aren't stalling the DUE ice age.... IF we are warming it at all....

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Once again, you destroyed your own argument

You concede that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and that it follows the Industrial Revolution, but then go one to say that there is no proof manmade CO2 is warming the planet. Those statements not only don't fight together; they actually are mutually exclusive and refute each other. You say that we put CO2 into the atmosphere, it coincides with the Industrial Revolution, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming, therefore.......the CO2 that you admit we put in the air causes warming. The only way you can argue otherwise is to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not cause warming, which we both know is not true.

By UffdaguyMay 13, 2008 - 1:15pm

Has the amount of CO2 gone up since the industrial revoluation....Yes

Has the earth warmed in the past before humans started putting CO2 in the atmosphere...Yes

The thing that hasn't been "prooven" is how much if any effect does the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans actually affect the climate? That question has yet to be proven. Do we have a 1% net effect or a 50%? Have WE actually had an effect? It is really necessary to cripple our economy and way of life to placate the international community and why are WE (the US) the ones who get smacked the worst by the draconian regulation to fight a problem that nobody know for sure that we are causing or if it's just part of a natural cycle. Again, there have been ice ages in the past followed by warming periods...

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Studies done using NASA satellites covering 2 1/2 solar cycles

have shown that solar activity due to sunspot cycles contribute a variance of 0.1 C to the global temperature. On the other hand, global temperatures have risen 0.6 C since the start of the 20th century, eliminating solar activity as the source of the warming.

What we are seeing is unlike any natural cycle seen in the past 500,000 years. It is faster and of a greater magnitude than anything seen at the end of an ice age.

Why do you feel we get smacked worse than anyone by CO2 reduction plans? Could it be because the US is the largest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere?

Your constant ranting about how CO2 reduction crippling us is nothing but blather. Absolutely no one is saying to ban cars, shut down factories and power plants or any of the other scare tactics that are used by global warming deniers. And yes, nations like China and India need to be brought on board any treaty to limit CO2, but they see that as long as we refuse to do anything, they can refuse too. Agree to sign a treaty if China and India do too. To flat out refuse is just another example of Bush "diplomacy".

Meanwhile

whole new economies can be established building solar and wind facilities, developing hybrid technology and developing mass transit infrastructure.

re: By Fight4it May 13, 2008 - 4:28pm

"The thing that hasn't been "prooven" is how much if any effect does the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans actually affect the climate? That question has yet to be proven."

Just because you don't understand how it works, it doesn't mean that it hasn't been proven. Scientists know what wavelengths of energy that are absorbed and reflected by CO2. It's physics, dummy! They do know the mechanics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and it's not speculation. And by measuring the concentrations of the carbon 12 and carbon 13 isotopes, they can measure man's contribution to the problem.

♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein

Uff

Your gonna need a spoon to feed this guy.

Get one thing straight

It is not Al Gore we believe. It is the hundreds of scientists from whom Al gets his information.

cyclone nargis

I think it's outrageous that Mitchell Anderson would blame America's petroleum-based economy for a natural disaster in southeast asia. Nargis is the worst cyclone of all time? really? There have been countless cyclones and typhoons in the Pacific for millions and millions of years, many of them far more powerful than this one. And that region has massive earthquakes, too. I'm sure Mr. Anderson is looking for a way to blame America for that problem as well.

There is only one lesson that can be learned from this cyclone and that is the power of Nature is far more terrible than any thing Man can unleash. Respect the environment, but also have respect for the power of Nature. And we DON'T need global warming hysteria to do either.

By chatsworth 69May 12, 2008 - 3:17pm

Oh look, here's another sighting of one of those elusive North American butt-pluggers.
Somebody call the Discovery Channel!

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

Nargis is not the worst of all time in terms of power

but in terms of death toll, it will probably be right near the top.

Our petroleum based economy is not to blame? Have you discovered some magical force that keeps all US emissions firmly within US borders?

There is no hysteria about global warming. I have seen far more hysteria over Rev. Wright and lapel pins in the past month than I have seen over global warming in the past year. Now THAT is outrageous!

Like most ignorant fools, you think global warming believers will try to blame anything and everything on global warming, even earthquakes. It is a sign of your desperation and ignorance that you even attempt to do so. Rational, reality-based people know better, and laugh at you behind your back. Wait, I take that back. We don't laugh at you behind your back. We're quite happy to laugh in your faces.

Barack The Vote!

How Obama Will Cave On Florida And Michigan

It takes a village to have an idiot - Actor212

2007 Weblog Awards Winner

By actor212 May 12, 2008 - 3:49pm

Michigan and Florida was soooooooo before Hillary lost. Do try to keep up...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

If Obama will push for this....

www.suntimes.com/news/nation/944761,wind051208.article

Hmmmm, 20% from wind. Now if we can just get the Kennedy's to ALLOW a wind farm in front of their beach and if we can get the Dems to support the solution that France has already found...It's this thing called nuclear power and it works, too bad the Dems don't like it.

www.afstrinity.com

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

I'm sure the Kennedys will be just as anxious to allow a wind

farm on their beach as the Bushes will on their beach in Kennebunkport or their ranch in Crawford. The huge masses of hot bloviation from Campo Bush should make us energy independent in quick order.

Nuclear power is definitely a good alternative. What we need are better ways of building and running the plants, like the French and Japanese have pioneered, rather than designing each new one from scratch, and built by companies with little or no experience in reactor construction. Plus, having storage sites for waste is vital. We have failed on all those counts.

UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 4:29pm

I have no frame of ref here but...

When somebody says "nuclear waste" what are we talking? I mean does one nuclear reactor make 20 barrels of waste a year or 2000?

Here is what Galena is going...

I may not like the Chi-Coms but if they can make this work....

www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

First of all, the coolant choice is very risky

Liquid sodium is dangerous, and has been used by the Russians with sometimes disastrous results. Water-cooled is far safer.

As for waste. I know that there are thousands of tons of nuclear waste distributed at nuke plants all around the US. Unlike regular industrial waste, whatever is done with it has to be an essentially permanent solution. The extreme radioactivity and long half life means that any disposal has to be secure for literally tens of thousands of years. Imagine if the Egyptians had invented nuclear reactors in the time of Ramses. If they buried the stuff in the pyramids 4000 years ago, it would STILL be way too radioactive to go near. So, we need to come up with storage that is secure for longer times than civilization has existed on earth. Even 10,000 years, the time since the last Ice Age ended, still isn't long enough.

That being said, we need to work on this, as nuclear energy is too good to ignore. Either that, or work our asses off for nuclear fusion, which is much safer, provides more energy, and doesn't produce the waste.

Here in the US wind

Here in the US wind technology is still in its infancy. When we think windfarms we think of the colossi over the Altamont Pass in California, mile after mile of huge, noisy windmills. Wind energy does not need to be like that. Far more efficient turbines exist and are in use in Europe and independent wind generator owners in the US have established some on their own property. Every house in a windy area could have a quiet wind generator of its own in rural and suburban areas and sell off excess power. The generators are a tiny turbine at the top of a 30-50 ft. pole.

By MichtouMay 12, 2008 - 9:00pm

I've seen wind turbines in use on Okinawa and Guantanamo and I gotta tell ya, so long as they are turning and not artificially stopped they are almost picturesque, soothing, I'd love to see them all over around the US as the "hum" of those things represents the collective "finger" being given to the mid-east...Especially if the "Big 3" would get on-board with this:

www.afstrinity.com

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

There are 5 of them

in Atlantic City. they provide about enough power for all the residential use in the city. Not a bad deal. And you are right, they are attractive.

Keep posting information on this topic

We should see the alert go out and welcome back several long lost trolls like dt509er, etc.

One easy to remedy but often overlooked problem

with generating electricity form nuclear fission is thermal pollution. The coolant water is warmed up of course and if released into natural bodies of water too quickly can kill off fish. The heated water holds less oxygen.

But as long as the water is not dumped into rivers at elevated temperatures then that is not a problem.

2008, the very first year

2008, the very first year weather has ever killed anyone!! Oh, wait, there are fewer and fewer weather related deaths on average every single year. You dipshits can throw out the 100,000 people dead number, but we all know that the real reason that so many died is because Myanmar is such a shitty country. If that storm would have hit the United States there may have been 1 or 2 hundred killed.

So should we concentrate on the real problems that caused so many to die, or that invisible gas that we all exhale while breathing??

Way to politicize tragedy and death! You should be ashamed of yourselves.

By bannedfrogg May 12, 2008 - 7:51pm

Politicize my ass!

You right wingers politicized it by politicizing stupidity.

Do you even have a clue how

Do you even have a clue how idiotic, cruel and petty you sound?

Comments

(34)