NEW WAVE: Research shows that hurricane surges will become more frequent in a warmer climate. This is an illustration that suggests what could happen from the combined effects of sea level rise and more powerful storms.
Image: Gordon Tarpley
Last year's devastating flooding in New York City from Hurricane Sandy was the city's largest storm surge on record. Though Hurricane Sandy was considered a 100-year-event — a storm that lashes a region only once a century — a new study finds global warming could bring similar destructive storm surges to the Gulf and East Coasts of the United States every other year before 2100.
Severe storms generate both high waves and storm surge, which can combine to erode beaches and dunes and flood coastal communities. Storm surge is seawater pushed ahead of a storm, mainly by strong winds. Onshore, the surge can rise several feet in just a few minutes. High waves travel on top of the surge, and cresting waves raise the sea's height even more.
Looking at extreme events, which researchers called "Katrinas" after the 2005 hurricane that flooded the Gulf Coast, a new model predicts Katrina-like storm surges will hit every other year if the climate warms 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius).
That would be 10 times the rate seen since 1923, after which there has been a Katrina-magnitude storm surge every 20 years, the study, published in the March 18 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,found.
In 2009, the world's nations agreed to try to limit climate change to a 2 C increase by 2100, but recent studies show temperatures could rise 7.2 F (4 C) before the century ends.
But the tenfold increase in Katrina-like storm surges does not have to translate into a tenfold increase in disasters, said Aslak Grinsted, a climate scientist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and the lead study author. "Every Katrina-magnitude event is not necessarily going to be a Katrina-magnitude disaster. It's all about planning smartly," he told OurAmazingPlanet.
Warmer seas spin stronger storms
Scientists know that warmer oceans will change how the Atlantic Ocean spawns hurricanes. More heat means more energy, and many models predict global warming will bring bigger, stronger storms, though the details between the model scenarios differ. But the models could be biased by changes in hurricane observational methods, such as the switch to satellites from planes and ships, which may impact records of wind speed and other storm data, Grinsted said.
Many studies have looked at how the frequency and size of hurricanes will change as global warming raises ocean temperatures, but few have investigated their impact on the Atlantic coast.
To better assess which model does the best job of divining the future, Grinsted and his colleagues constructed a record of storm surges from tide gauges along the Atlantic coast dating back to 1923. "Big storm surges give me a new view of hurricane variability in the past," Grinsted said.
Grinsted weighed each statistical model according to how well they explained past extreme storm surges. One way scientists test climate models is by seeing how well they predict the weather in the past.
Of the competing models, the top performer was one of the simplest. It relied on regional sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean hurricane birthing ground. The researchers also created a new global "gridded" model, incorporating ocean temperatures around the world. Grinsted said the top models agree roughly on the magnitude of the increase in storm surges, giving him confidence in the results. [Hurricanes from Above: See Nature's Biggest Storms]
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentPart of the carbon tax revenues we should impose on fossil fuels for exacerbating these disasters should go towards adaptation & infrastructure improvement to mitigate the impacts. If we start at the bargain-basement price of $20 a ton, maybe we just dial up the yearly percentage increase of the tax a bit more than we would have to fund these measures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally, how is it fair that GHG emissions are causing these damages yet the people profiting from them do not have to pay the consequences?
Hello.......katrina like surges are the norm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlways have been.
Actually, everyone is "profiting" from GHG emissions in the form of relatively inexpensive transportation, heating and electricity. At least inexpensive compared to the green alternatives. And, since nearly everyone pays taxes (well at least about half of us in the US) we are all paying for the mitigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot exactly. Exxon has been using HALF of their profits to buy back stock in recent years. So everybody else is stiffed with higher prices at the pump so that a few very wealthy stockholders in the company can get even richer. Many of the other oil majors have done similar buybacks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn top of that, you have the $100B - $500B in YEARLY damages that coal pollution causes because it is grossly underregulated. Since even the low end of this range is greater than the yearly electricity sales from coal, society as a whole suffers more than the "value" that coal-derived electricity provides. And since the top shareholders in the mining companies, utilities, etc. involved benefit disproportionally from the revenues their companies take in, very few people actually profit from these activities.
Tack on the TRUE costs of climate change and other pollution effects and fossil fuels are no bargain! The only reason they are cheap is because the government ALLOWS them to be dirty in its effort to pick winners in the energy sector.
Besides, wind farms are currently signing long-term power purchase agreements for 4 - 7 cents a kWh and solar PV is achieving grid parity in the sunnier parts of the world. Costs for clean energy continue to plunge rapidly while the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels continues to drive ever increasing price and availability uncertainty.
So a carbon tax would iron out a lot of these inefficiencies and help pay for mitigation / adaptation efforts. Currently, we have not even begun to invest in climate adaptation, and we're actually doing silly things like OUTLAWING the planning for sea level rise in North Carolina. Yeah, when we finally get our heads out of the sand and start to deal with climate change realistically, THEN you can say that we're already paying for it.
And don't give me that garbage about how 1/2 of Americans don't pay taxes. That is a lie and you should know better! The working poor are STILL subject to payroll taxes and people living in most states STILL pay sales taxes. Want to drive a gas-powered car? You STILL have to pay federal and state fuel taxes no matter how poor you are either. Lay off the right wing propaganda...it's not good for your brain!
What is the evidence of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise or of an increase in the severity of hurricanes associated with AGW? I am not aware of any reliable evidence of either of these.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right the article only said it might occur or could occur. We could also have a solar flare that could wipe out life on earth. Many thing could happen.
Sault-- you want to implement a carbon tax and I agree that such a tax would increase government revenues and that is needed.
Can you provide any reliable information that can demonstrate how different amounts of such a tax would decrease consumption of said fossil fuels in the US?
Assuming that you do have some reliable information that can tell you how much of a tax you need to reduce US CO2 emissions by a certain amount, how will this positively impact the climate? Do you have reliable data to show that the tax you propose will actually be of a benefit in correcting the feared issues?
Look up "climate change effects" in Google Scholar and read some of the peer-reviwed papers. The science is overwhelming, the observations are overwhelming, the consensus is overwhelming. Denying that lowering emissions will have no effect is just silly considering what we already know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBasic economics tells us that higher prices lower demand and make alternatives more competitive. While I know you'll claim that energy demand is inelastic, you have to realize that the response time of energy consumers to changes in the market is a bit slower than say apple buyers who can readily switch to pears or peaches if apple prices increase. However, you can see the steadily increasing vehicle fuel efficinecy since 2008 after decades of stagnation / decline as a prime example of how rising prices (in concert with common-sense government policy) affect energy consumption.
And since the science is clear on GHG emissions, the science SHOULD be clear that reducing them has an effect. Since the USA is directly responsible for 20% of global emissions, and demand for goods in this country drives another 10 - 20% of global emissions, lowering them can have a HUGE impact. Finally showing global leadership on climate instead of obstructing a global emissions agreement could have even MORE of an impact.
Since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for so long, accumulating heat into the climate system the entire time, every ton not emitted has some sort of impact. Multiply that by billions of tons not emitted and you're getting somewhere.
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have written that fossil fuels are relatively inelastic to changes in their price and not inelastic. A tax on fossil fuel would decrease consumption but not by a tremendous amount. Higher prices lower demand when the consumer has a viable alternative to the product in question.
You have previously agreed that the US is not the key to worldwide CO2 emissions and that the key is the 3 billion people who currently have no electricity and no access to personal who will gain access to both over the next 25 to 50 years. There is no realistic path for CO2 emissions worldwide not to continue rising for decades.
Implementation of a significant carbon tax in the US might reduce US emissions by as much as 10% over time, but that would be a very minor change in total worldwide emissions. It would result in the concentrations of CO2 being at say 460 ppm in 2060 instead of 462 ppm. I do not believe that you think that there would be noticeable changes in the climate between those two levels of CO2 do you?
To the article we are commenting on- there is no reliable evidence of acceleration in the rate of sea level rise associated with increasing CO2 but that doesn’t stop SA from publishing articles suggesting the risk does it? There is no evidence of an increasing frequency or severity of hurricanes as a result of AGW is there? Wouldn’t you have expected statistical evidence of either by this point in time?
Well, your payroll taxes are not going to mitigate coastal flooding or provide for the national defense. They are designated for specific purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Exxon-Mobil profits per dollar of invested capital are miniscule next to many other industries such as technology and software. My point stands. Fossil fuels make everyone better off economically.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers for solar and wind. Only way that's possible is if the original owner goes bankrupt and sells for what the towers or panels are actually worth economically, then renegotiates the contracts. Even then, it's not sustainable long term as they break down and need repair and replacement. If your info was even close to being correct, why on earth would wind and solar need massive government subsidies?
I've always maintained that the USA is CRUCIAL to reducing global emissions. How could you read my comments any other way? And there is no realistic path towards a prosperous 21st Century if GHG emissions continue to rise for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo where do you get your 10% emissions reduction figure from in response to a carbon tax? What price / ton are you using? What prices for wind, solar, efficiency, nuclear, etc. are you using in these calculations? You do know that the USA has been one of the biggest roadblocks to an international climate agreement as well, right? Do you think the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol are going to just sit on their hands once the USA finally gets its act together?
Finally, if you can see the rate of change in this graph, you need to get your eyes checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png
"From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[5] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated."
Repeating these silly claims about sea level rise is now just a willful disregard of the evidence plainly before you.
Reading comprehension. It's a thing:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Part of the carbon tax revenues we should impose on fossil fuels for exacerbating these disasters should go towards adaptation & infrastructure improvement to mitigate the impacts. If we start at the bargain-basement price of $20 a ton, maybe we just dial up the yearly percentage increase of the tax a bit more than we would have to fund these measures."
The carbon tax should be ratcheted up a little quicker to pay for adaptation.
And how big Exxon or any other company is compared to their historic profits doesn't matter, so quit trying to change the subject. The very few large shareholders skim off the lion's share of prosperity from the use of fossil fuels and leave us common folk to deal with the oil spills, air pollution, climate change and groundwater contamination. We HAVE benefitted from energy in GENERAL in the past, but now that alternatives are available, it's time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and giving them special treatment to make them artificially cheap.
The only energy sources which are getting "special treatment" and are being made "artificially cheap" are are the so called green energy sources. And even then they can't compete and therefore investment in them is making everyone (except a few individuals) worse off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour gloom and doom pronouncements on fossil fuels are off the mark. The environment has been improving as fossil fuel use continues to expand.
WRONG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Looking first at subsidies, the principle take-out is that government support for oil, coal and natural gas is still increasing across the developed world, despite promises to turn the situation around. Indeed, after dipping with the wider economy in 2009, the total value of subsidies or tax breaks received by those extracting or burning fossil fuels climbed relatively steeply and by 2011 was approaching the pre-crash peak of more than $80 billion."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/feb/08/fossil-fuel-subsidies-tax-breaks
You've gone off the deep end. The environment is only MARGINALLY improving in the Developed World, where fossil fuel consumption is FALLING and environmental regulations have had some success in limiting the damage fossil fuel pollution causes. In the developing world where fossil fuel consumption is growing, the environment is basically going to pot. See Beijing, Bangalore or half of the cities in Iran if you don't believe me.
Being this detached from reality, how do you function in everyday life? It boggles the mind!