Dear Robert;

I think these links could help you:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/101-videos/hurricanes-101

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Hi_all_could_anyone_please_advise_me_about_the_concept_of_TORNADO_stream#59a7d2ec93553b34c1775683

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_hydrological_cycle_changing?tpr_view=SMoo8Z20ExhakEkZ68UdI2ZrIxDboS7TUhtt_2#59a78f9c404854537c29566a

Hope it helps.

Hello Robert,

Good question, I think literature might not be available re Harvey at the moment since the Hurricane just happened. having said that there are good statistic available re for example number of hurricane occurred in different US state since 19th century. one might study them and probably link the climate change to e.g. frequency/strength of hurricanes.

some info can be found at Hurricane Research Division website

https://web.archive.org/web/20140210221648/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

Dear Robert;

I think these links could help you:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/101-videos/hurricanes-101

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Hi_all_could_anyone_please_advise_me_about_the_concept_of_TORNADO_stream#59a7d2ec93553b34c1775683

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_hydrological_cycle_changing?tpr_view=SMoo8Z20ExhakEkZ68UdI2ZrIxDboS7TUhtt_2#59a78f9c404854537c29566a

Hope it helps.

Regarding K.M. Towe reference to Paul Homewood's blog post, I think it is important for us to understand that science moves on so to suggest a paper from 1982 should be given equal weight to contemporary research 30 years later is not credible. Especially in the area of understanding atmospheric circulation response to human activity, where current models are so much better than they were in 1982.  

I think that this is a multi-faceted problem.  I think you may want to start with some statistics on the following:  how hurricane tracks have changed with time, the average rate of intensification and how that has changed with time, the distribution of hurricanes per category (1-5) per year, how the SST has changed since the beginning of the satellite era, the frequency of hurricanes per year, and how ENSO may be playing a role as well.  Harvey strengthened quickly but I think one of the most devastating aspects of Harvey was how it stalled over Texas.  There seemed to be some sort of blocking pattern associated with the jet stream that prevented further movement of the storm.  The storm then veered back and gained more moisture, thus reinvigorating the storm.  We know the jet stream has been unusual over the last several years and the answer to that may lie within the arctic region, which is experiencing unprecedented changes in ice sheet loss as well as permafrost loss.  

Our atmospheric models are not able to represent the anomalies of the gravity field which could be crucial for formation of the tropical depressions.

The brief discussion of the subject is presented in the abstract of the paper: "Spatial distributions of tropical cyclones and gravity anomalies" by Yaroshevich (2013), Izv. Atm. and Oceanic Phys., vol. 49, no 3, pp. 252-257.

"Spatial distributions of the beginnings and most intense stages of tropical cyclones (TCs) in the northwestern part of the Pacific Ocean are compared with gravity anomalies (GAs) in the zone of action of cyclones. The possible influence of GAs on hurricanes that reached land in the Gulf of Mexico region and in the southeastern part of China is considered. The relation of the formal feedback between some characteristics of the intensity of TCs and spatially averaged GAs is shown. It is suggested that GAs can be regarded as a factor affecting the life cycle of a TC to a certain extent."

End of quote

It is not a joke, but it is also possible, that the changes of the climat cause the increase of CO2. Indeed, when there are more often extremely warm days, then we use more intensively the refrigerators, and again colder days push us to greater usage of heating (mainly, by burning some fuel).  Even if we exploit the "natural sources" of energy like wind, solar bateries etc. what is the netto usage of energy for the production, instalation  and maintanance of the equipment (mining, transporting, producing the special chemicals/wires/electronical and mechanical systems/tools for fixing/again transportation of sparparts/sending the energy/ / / / ) . . .  In final account people less prepared for extremal events are loosing, those better prepared (again via greater consumption of energy!) lose almost nothing (sometimes they have temporarily discomfortable days/hours, which even could be felt just as an interesting experience!) Thus - will  the so-called program of diminishing the consumption of energy be really people-oriented, or just better-people-oriented?

PS. I know, that the above remarks are probably too emotional, and consequently - not entirely consistent.  But the total income can be the most important factor if one finds (be this  not too late), that the available merits applied for  avoiding total climat changes will cause locally positive effects, paying back with greater negative global changes.Therefore, much more global analysis is to be performed. The researchers should built a community not fighting against some ideas just for showing own, pseudo-better solutions. ALL models should be treated with appropriate great esteem as long as they supply a  scientifically possible explanation  of at least a part of the phenomena.

Please do not jump to conclusions. Clear linkages are necessary or at least high probability correlations to clarify the connections. 

I have never heard about the changes of the gravity field compared to the last 4.5 billion years; it is my bad. I have heard about changes in the magnetic field. 

Dear Kenneth, there is a well-known term of precautiousness. All business apply it. If you are not confident in the future outcomes, you prepare to the risky ones and mitigate those, even you have no clear correlation between your mitigation measures and the dropping chance of the next issue. All of us apply this approach consciously or based on instincts.

Emotionally, I feel sorry that the exploitation of natural resources is not significant enough to change the attitude.  Using fossil energy is not different than hunting or fishing to a high. This is harvesting without any investment. This approach is the poorest job provider, not smart and not sustainable. The temporary richness and Nihil later. Using energy what we can acquire from renewable resources - without destroying reserves and taking away all the opportunities from our children - is the right way. It needs more efforts but provides more social benefits (not for fossil shareholders and fat cats). 

Because of the reasons above, I am not committed to any side in the human caused global warming dispute, I have doubts. In spite of that, I have no doubts that using renewable energy is the only way to grow in the long run with or without global warming.

Robert Istvan Radics,

Thank you for this question; it is very timely because soon so called scientific journals will be flooded with opinions disguised as scientific fact, known to often begin with a conclusion as follows: 'Human activity is causing global warming and fueling dangerous......... hurricanes'.

But where were these hurricanes over the past 12 years?

It is time to move beyond our traditional class-room indictrination (this is what you should believe rather than this is how you should think) in our analysis of issues. Scientific theories and findings are not absolute truth, especially in highly complex and extremely dynamic Earth Sciences characterized by intense changes from seconds to millennia.

That said, Hurricanes or Typhoons  are an important part of Earth's natural equilibration mechanism. However, interfering with the weather by nefarious agencies could be definitely a major cause of anomalous weather events such as back to back hurricane (Rita & Irene, Harvey & Irma) and other similar events with uncommon trajectories and characteristics...

Having extensively examined different sides of this climate change issue, I have come to the following conclusions:

the Climate changes; that's what it was designed to do. CO2 and fossil fuel combustion have little but significant impacts on the weather; in contrast to the warming effect of greenhouse gases, industrial aerosols have a stronger potential to cool not warm the climate.

However, anomalous weather events are most likely anthropogenic, but most definitely not what we are being forced to believe. One of the most plausible culprits I have been able to find is a program called HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) (see links attached). Once the weather has been toroughly distabilized through such programs, strawmen are identofied and forced onto the unsuspecting public, then more overt weather modification programs are unveiled and masked as solutions. Solar Geoingeneering or solar radiation management is one of such so called calamities. Whether this is a form of weather warfare and the future of global warefare, or just some mindless scientists trying out thier new toys without a clue as to the consequences remains open for investigation.

Another seemingly crazy idea could be this: is there any possible connection between the recent U.S. Solar Eclipse and these hurricane activities (Harvey and Irma)? What's coming next?

Science should not be a circus made up of performers on the stage (scientists) and the audience (hand clappers and reporters)... That is unfortunately how I see it presently..

Some interesting documentaries linked

Cheers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yQ78kNFJ60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUIiRHrUbpE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1x4bq7zWgk&pbjreload=10

Kenneth... Yes, it is true that the tropical cyclones and the hurricanes are the net result of natural processes. There is certainly a consensus about the major factors such as high temperature of water and the persistent large scale flow pattern controlling the developing system. All the common causes of the tropical cyclones are affected, however, by the changes of the general circulation patterns which are inherently difficult to predict.

Dear Dr. Radics,

The gravity anomalies discussed in : "Spatial distributions of tropical cyclones and gravity anomalies" by Yaroshevich (2013), Izv. Atm. and Oceanic Phys., vol. 49, no 3, pp. 252-257 are describes in the following article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

Dear Janusz,

The cited paper does not imply any changes in the gravity in the past decades compared to an earlier stage, also does not link changes in gravity to weather or climate.

@Janusz, I haven't read that paper, but I think the gravity anomalies are used to determine the changes in the mass column perhaps to see if more moisture is being concentrated in these storms to feed the thermodynamic engine that is a tropical cyclone; I could be wrong, however.  

@Robert, the magnetic field has shown a steady decline in strength over the last 100 years or so (don't quote me on the exact number), with an unusually low magnetic field strength, or minimum, somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean I believe.  It is hypothesized that the gradual weakening of the magnetic field over the last 100 years or so is a result of the magnetic field reversal that happens every several hundred thousand years.  If I can find that source I'll add it

@Robert

The gravity anomalies considered in the paper mentioned in my post are static. The general discussion of such anomalies is presented in the following article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly

The time dependent component of the gravity anomalies attracted a lot of attention in the recent time. The corresponding experimental program GRACE is one of the most important sources of information about the various dynamical processes in the Earth System

ftp://ftp.csr.utexas.edu/pub/ggfc/papers/EPSL-10508.pdf

@Edward

I do not see yet any theory explaining the impact of gravity anomalies on the tropical cyclones. Most of our conclusions are derived from the statistical analysis and the modeling studies. Thank you for your suggestion; I will try to evaluate your hypothesis.

@Kenneth

We are not able to control processes mentioned in your note. The only one feasible way is the slow adjustment of our activities to increase the level of harmony with the Nature. My understanding is that the current "climate debate" is about finding the best route to achieve this goal.

Kenneth... In order to fully understand the scope of such an agreement we need probably to have a very strong background in many areas of policy and economy. For this reason my answer to your question is: I do not understand all elements of this policy. As far as the settling of science is concerned I'm strongly convinced that the science is never settled (by the definition of science). 

 Any good business strategy includes components of risk mitigation; the scope of risks to be anticipated when implementing any major multi stakeholders plan is huge. The adjustments are inevitable. 

In the mean time we will have new scientific results which are likely to influence the future policies. Personally I do not believe that any complex system could be static, even with respect to the big policies. 

This observation is particularly evident when watching the footage demonstrating the power of hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. We are just trying our best and I still have a lot of hope in our wisdom.

Kenneth,

By anthropogenic I do not mean CO2-induced. I am making allusion to weather modification. Given the information currently available, this is a more plausible option to explain recent anomalous weather events...

Cheers

http://www.globalresearch.ca/haarp-secret-weapon-used-for-weather-modification-electromagnetic-warfare/20407

One of the predictions about global warming is that the atmosphere will become more violent, because of the thermal equilibrium which is being developed in these years. Every time hurricanes are more violents, that ii to say, they presents winds with very high speeds; and this kind of hurricanes are more frequent now-a-days. All hurricanes are part of this global warming including Harvey. Right now, we have THREE hurricanes in the Atlantic.

The problem of connections between climate and the hurricanes was debated over sixty years ago; the best account of the past knowledge in this area is succinctly described in the following quote:

"Another problem, of much more far-reaching consequences, presents itself. What kind of secular changes may have existed in the frequency and intensity of the hurricane vortices of the Earth? And what changes may be expected in the future? We know nothing about these things, but I hope [to] have shown that even quite a small change in the different factors controlling the life history of a hurricane may produce, or may have produced, great changes in the paths of hurricanes and in their frequency and intensity. A minor alteration of the surface temperature of the sun, in the general composition of the earth's atmosphere, or in the rotation of the earth, might be able to change considerably the energy balance and the balance of forces within such a delicate mechanism as the tropical hurricane. During certain geological epochs, hurricanes may have been just as frequent as the cyclones of our latitudes, or they may have occurred all over the oceans and within all coastal regions, and they may have been even more violent than nowadays. During other periods they may have been lacking altogether. In studying paleo-climate and paleo-biological phenomena, especially along the coasts of previous geological epochs, it may be wise to consider such possibilities." 

- Tor Bergeron, 1954 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_Bergeron

 It is evident that our doubts are the same. Some important progress is reported in the presentation of K. Emanuel: "Hurricanes: their physics and relationships to climate"

http://library.psfc.mit.edu/catalog/online_pubs/iap/iap2013/emanuel.pdf

The presentation contains very interesting ideas and references. I would suggest to look at slides 45 and 46 presenting the conditions for self organized criticality.  This concept is essential in the analysis of the development of tropical cyclones and it can easily accommodate many factors triggering transition to the critical state.

The compilation of data pertinent to the Atlantic hurricanes is available at the site of NOAA Hurricane Research Division

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

The connection between "global warming" and the hurricanes is indeed hidden in the "haystack" of the critical phenomena. Correct mathematical model is still to be formulated. This observation brings us back to Bergeron and the Bergen school of meteorology. They formulated the majority of concepts of the dynamic meteorology falling short only with respect to the critical phenomena. This is definitely a challenge even today.

DR. KENNETH TOWE: "What research on "high strangeness?"?

You seem to dismiss anything that does not correspond with your world-view, without any (proper) investigation.

In the book entitled: 'Angels Don't Play This HAARP',  the authors Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning write this:

" HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead. HAARP Boils the Upper Atmosphere. HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an "ionospheric heater".

According to Begich, one of the patents upon which the technology is based (Eastlund's patent) said:

"the technology can confuse or completely disrupt airplanes' and missiles' sophisticated guidance systems. Further, this ability to spray large areas of Earth with electromagnetic waves of varying frequencies, and to control changes in those waves, makes it possible to knock out communications on land or sea as well as in the air" (could this be the reason for the disappearance of airplanes from the sky?).

The patent also said the following:

".... this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art, particularly by detonation of nuclear devices of various yields at various altitudes... "

"... large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude ............."

 "Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device....................

... molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased."

With this information,

• What makes you think that the same technology cannot be used to design anomalous weather events or alter them?
• What are the odds that three Hurry-Kanes allinged in the Atlantic, probably for the first time in recorded History (Katia, Irma and Jose) are merely a product of nature?
• When is the last time such a scenario was observed?
• Does the fact that probably the only time we saw this was in the 2004 movie 'the day after tomorrow' cause anyone to want to look beyond their high school textbooks? (See attached file).

Maybe as a scientist, you can start by doing some real research or reading on the subject of HAARP and weather modification/warfare prior to concluding it is a joke.

That said, I also wish to propose a radically new idea here:  maybe it is time we stopped wasting our energies talking about catastrophism and start focussing and proposing ideas in two main areas. 

1. innovative ways to protect (via mitigation and adaptation measures) vulnerable populations from natural hazards of all types;

2. Designing systems to harness the immense energy locked-up in hurricanes for societal benefits. The blue-print for such a system should be the subject of intense discussions and debates by honest scientists and engineers, rather than irrelevant arguments on social media, meanwhile humanity's fate hangs on a string in the hands of a handfull of scientists and military engineers who consider the Earth to be their playground.

I hope this causes someone to snap out of their revelry and actually start pondering over real issues...

Cheers

Human actions on a smaller scale than natural actions may end up causing global climate action. The gradual destruction of coral barriers, which absorb carbon dioxide, and the reduction of natural forests, which reduce the percentage of moisture in the atmosphere, are factors that can be more easily evaluated. As for other factors, it is usually associated not with anthropomorphism, but with weathering. In an article I posted found at https://www.editoraroncarati.com.br/v2/phocadownload/opiniao_seg/05/files/opiniao05.pdf, under the title: Global Warming: Armageddon or a case of environmental indulgence? I present my opinion that it is structured in weathering as the main causes. The formation of hurricanes occurs, due to its high thermal gradients, associated with intense drought regimes. The size of the storm is associated with the surface temperature of the Caribbean sea water. It is not yet possible to associate human actions with these two situations. I believe that if the north of the African continent were maintained as 2,000 years ago, still with dense vegetation, there would be fewer hurricanes. Human intelligence, coupled with technological evolution, still has no means of assessing climatic conditions, 10 days in advance.

Mr. Kenneth M Towe, we are going through moments of climate change and the behavior of our tiny planet, which I call P3, where punctual human actions actually have the capacity to cause timely climatic damage. The regeneration capacity of P3 is very large, and 60 million years ago it proves that regeneration has occurred. It happens that we always have to evaluate the causes, associating them with the consequences, not in isolation, but in a coherent and associated way. That we humans are destroyers I believe that many agree, just as many agree that population densities contribute to increased flood damage. The question today, in my opinion, is that we have not yet been able to insert into a single equation all the unknowns necessary to understand the theme - global warming - We can not even predict when the next eruption of the submarine volcano in the Bay of Naples much less Yellowstone. What we can and must do is reduce the losses we have already caused over thousands of years on this planet. Your articles and comments are very important so that we can mature on this subject and always learn from your knowledge. Best Regards

The answer to the cause for ocean warming may be in 'plate climatology'. Geothermal heat released through subaerial and submarine volcanic eruptions is poorly studied at present. It is an underestimated natural cause which may be mistaken for human-induced warming. A good example is the North Pacific Blob triggered initially by the Nishino-shima submarine volcanic eruption 940 km south of Tokyo. In the North Atlantic we have submarine volcanism along the mid-oceanic ridge.

The Climate is changing, no doubt about that; the question is: what is causing this change? Apparently, NASA is just waking up to the fact that the bulk of the CO2 circulating in the atmosphere derives from natural processes on Earth! Where does that leave the AGW hypothesis?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2639/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earths-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/

The sequences of occurrences of hurricanes and typhoons are relatively frequent and these frequencies are well known through numerous studies and published publications, some of them almost 100 years old. As a rule, the phenomena depend on two moments: the formation caused by the velocity of rising air currents and sea waters with temperatures above 28ºC. This is known to everyone. Aside from this, the air currents of our planet, moments in which the sun releases more heat, among other factors, make these climatic phenomena more destructive or not. There is no proven evidence that engages human actions throughout this training process until the destruction caused by hurricanes and typhoons. Just to exemplify, in work where he acted as risk manager, occurred two centuries old waves affecting the construction of jetty to protect water from nuclear power plants. These two centenarian waves occurred in a period of 30 months, between 1984 and 1986, on the coast of Angra dos Reis, in the town of Itaorna, where the nuclear plants are located. How can one affirm that human actions were relevant to the production of two centuries-old waves? How can we say that the warming of the surface of the Caribbean Sea is due to human action?