Permanent Address: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-category-6hurricanes-coming
Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?
Tropical cyclones like Irene are predicted to be more powerful this year, thanks to natural
conditions, but researchers disagree on how to rate that intensity
By Jim W. Harper | Tuesday, August 23, 2011 | 27
STRONGER HURRICANES?: Some scientists
wonder if a new category is needed to describe the strongest hurricanes. Image: Courtesy of
NOAA
Atmospheric researchers tend to agree that tropical cyclones of unusual ferocity are coming this
century, but the strange fact is that there is no consensus to date on the five-point scale used to
classify the power of these anticipated storms. In what may sound like a page from the script of
the rock-band spoof Spinal Tap with its reference to a beyond-loud electric guitar amplifier
volume 11, there is actually talk of adding a sixth level to the current Saffir-Simpson hurricane
scale, on which category 5 intensity means sustained winds higher than 155 miles per hour (250
kilometers per hour) for at least one minute, with no speed cap.
The lack of an upper limit on the scale results in all of the most intense tropical cyclones getting
lumped together, despite their wide range of power. Category 5 becomes less descriptive when it
includes 2005's Emily, which reached peak wind speeds of 257.5 kph (160 mph) and six hours in
category 5; the same year's Katrina which held peak wind velocity of 280 kph (175 mph) for 18
hours in the category; and 1980's Allen, churning with peak winds at 305 kph (190 mph)
maintained for 72 hours in the highest category.
And now the ferocity forecast for the century adds to this classification problem. "The severe
hurricanes might actually become worse. We may have to invent a category 6," says David
Enfield, a senior scientist at the University of Miami and former physical oceanographer at the
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This new level wouldn't be an
arbitrary relabeling. Global satellite data from the past 40 years indicate that the net destructive
potential of hurricanes has increased, and the strongest hurricanes are becoming more
common—especially in the Atlantic. This trend could be related to warmer seas or it could
simply be history repeating itself. Data gathered earlier than the 1970s, although unreliable, show
cycles of quiet decades followed by active ones. The quiet '60s, '70s and '80s ended in 1995, the
year that brought Felix and Opal, among others, and resulted in $13 billion in damages and more
than 100 deaths in the U.S.
The pros and cons of categories: Five or six?
The average difference between the current categories equals nearly 20 mph, so a category 6
label would likely be applied to hurricanes with sustained winds over (280 kph) 175 mph. The
speed and destruction of hypothetical "category 6" storms is speculative, despite the hurricanes
with winds at that level.
After all, meteorologists and climate researchers may not even choose a category 5 storm from
the record books if asked to identify the most powerful tropical cyclone in history, because the
Saffir–Simpson scale fixates on maximum wind speed lasting for at least one minute and
disregards the many other large-scale components that factor into a storm's level of devastation.
The whole index should be thrown out the hurricane-proof window, some say.
"If I could do it, I would do away with categories," says Bill Read, director of NOAA's National
Hurricane Center (NHC). "The whole indexing [of hurricanes] was done back in the '60s and '70s
when we had no way to convey the variables of damage that the storm did. We didn't measure it
that carefully; we didn't have the tools."
Even nowadays, instruments to measure actual wind speed are often destroyed during extreme
storms, so estimates have to be extrapolated from satellite images and other data. Actual
observations can also be suspect. It took 14 years for the World Meteorological Organization to
acknowledge that an anemometer in Australia recorded a world record wind speed of 407 kph
(253 mph) during Tropical Cyclone Olivia in 1996. Wind speed science has improved over the
years. Since the 1990s direct wind measurements from hurricane-hunter aircraft have replaced
central pressure measurements, which were often a proxy for wind speeds.
Variables used by meteorologists and climatologists to assess damage can go beyond wind
speeds to include duration over land and the extent of deadly storm surges. Read sums it up this
way: "Size matters: Katrina, Rita, Ike—all of them made landfall at a 2 or 3 level, but look at the
damage they caused. Obviously a category did not accurately describe the impact."
A transition to "impact forecasting" began last year when NOAA's National Hurricane Center
simplified the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale and renamed it the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind
scale. This change involved stripping away the scale's former central pressure, flooding and
storm surge estimates. These factors among others are now forecast separately. In 2009 the
National Weather Service began using new probability models that provide storm surge
estimates ranging from 0.6 to 7.6 meters (two to 25 feet).
What the future holds
History keeps us guessing about where and when the next big tropical cyclone will hit on the
U.S. Atlantic or Gulf coasts. As for the most powerful hurricane ever, experts are divided. Some
say 1998's Gilbert.; an official answer from a NOAA Web site lists three: 1969's Camille, 1980's
Allen and 2005's Wilma (the World Meteorological Organization agrees with the latter).
William Gray, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University in Fort
Collins and the "grandfather" of annual hurricane season forecasting, picked the category 4 Great
Miami Hurricane of 1926. NHC Director Read went with an unnamed Caribbean hurricane from
1780.
The Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to November 30 annually, is predicted to
produce more and stronger storms than average this year, although active years have been the
norm since 1995. That year the Atlantic entered a period of warm sea-surface temperatures of
what is called the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, and such cycles typically last two to three
decades.
"If the future is like the past, we should have another 10 to 15 years of this active period," Gray
says.
This oscillation means the Atlantic is expected to cool in the future, obscuring links among
hurricane activity and global warming. Perhaps counterintuitively, recent computer modeling
studies predict fewer tropical cyclones if the ocean heats up further as a result of global warming.
But they also predict intensification of the ones that do form, albeit with limited confidence.
Frequency drops by 6 to 34 percent this century, according to 2010 review article in Nature
Geoscience, whereas intensity rises 2 to 11 percent.
Today, water is a bigger concern than the wind when it comes to property destruction and loss of
life. Look for more emphasis on storm surges in future forecasts, because it is the main reason
why evacuations become necessary. Many planners suggest following Read's prescription: "In
the U.S. 'Run from the water, hide from the wind' is pretty good, simple advice."
As for the addition of a new category 6, Read insists it is not needed. "I'd be totally opposed to
that, even if they did get stronger," he says. "I'll fight 'em tooth and nail under my regime. We'll
keep what we have now, but I'm going to focus more on the impacts."
Tuesday
"My Mom Deserves to Know the Truth."
Posted by Mark Thompson Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Marine Lance Corporal Harry Lew
Since reporting Monday on Rep. Judy Chu's revelation that her nephew, Lance Corporal Harry
Lew, killed himself after being hazed by fellow Marines in Afghanistan, we've spoken to several
people about the tragic case. It turns out it wasn't so much tragedy as torment; some might even
call it torture. "LCPL Lew was identified by…means of personal association and ID tags," said
one Marine message shortly after he died. "LCPL Lew was wearing the new Kevlar helmet,
scalable plate carrier with front and rear ESAPI [Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert] plates,
two side ESAPI plates, ballistic goggles and Nomex gloves." But all the armor in the world
couldn't protect him from the slings and abuse of his comrades, 7,700 miles from home in the
middle of a hot war zone in the middle of the night.
Rep. Chu's stunning announcement Friday before a congressional panel only scraped the surface
of what happened to the 21-year old rifleman in April. Even the Marines – in the 58-page
investigation into his death – said comrades knew Lew "as a quiet and well mannered Marine
with a good sense of humor." His father's final words to his son as they bid farewell following
Harry's last home leave last October: "Don't get yourself killed."
So what happened in the early morning hours of April 3 in Helmand province? It's not a pretty
story. The names of those involved have been redacted from the copy of the investigation
obtained by Battleland. All except Harry Lew's.
What follows are excerpts from it:
The date that Lew deployed to Afghanistan, according to this official Marine investigation -"November 2011" -- hasn't happened yet. Makes one wonder about the level of work that went
into the entire investigation. The Marines should be more than ashamed -- they should be
furious. Semper furious. (The Los Angeles Times, in an article shortly after Lew's death, said he
"arrived in Afghanistan in November 2010.")
Wednesday
America Needs Its Edge Back
Obama is right. We need new roads and schools. But the Tea Partiers will fight him all the way.
by Michael Tomasky | September 12, 2011 1:0 AM EDT
Finally, Barack Obama found the passion. “Building a world-class transportation system is part
of what made us an economic superpower,” he thundered in his jobs speech on the evening of
Sept. 8. “And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster
railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right
here in America?”
Obama’s urgency was rightly about jobs first and foremost. But he wasn’t talking only about
jobs when he mentioned investing in America—he was talking about our competitiveness, and
our edge in the world. And it’s a point he must keep pressing.
In a quickly reordering global world, infrastructure and innovation are key measures of a
society’s seriousness about its competitive drive. And we’re just not serious. The most recent
infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gives the United States a
D overall, including bleak marks in 15 categories ranging from roads (D-minus) to schools and
transit (both D’s) to bridges (C). The society calls for $2.2 trillion in infrastructure investments
over the next five years.
On the innovation front, the country that’s home to Google and the iPhone still ranks fourth
worldwide in overall innovation, according to the Information Technology & Innovation
Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank on such questions, which conducts a biannual ranking.
But we might not be there for long. In terms of keeping pace with other nations’ innovation
investments—“progress over the last decade,” as ITIF labels it—we rank 43rd out of 44
countries.
What’s the problem? It isn’t know-how; this is still America. It isn’t identifying the needs;
they’ve been identified to death. Nor is it even really money. There are billions sitting around in
pension funds, equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, just waiting to be spent.
The problem—of course—is politics. The idea that the two parties could get together and
develop bold bipartisan plans for massive investments in our freight-rail system—on which the
pro-business multiplier effects would be obvious—or in expanding and speeding up broadband
(it’s eight times faster in South Korea than here, by the way) is a joke. Says New York
University’s Michael Likosky: “We’re the only country in the world that is imposing austerity on
itself. No one is asking us to do it.”
There are some historical reasons why. Sherle Schwenninger, an infrastructure expert at the New
America Foundation, a leading Washington think tank, says that a kind of anti-bigness mindset
developed in the 1990s, that era in which the besotting buzzwords were “Silicon Valley” and
“West Coast venture capital.” Wall Street began moving away from grand projects. “In that ’90s
paradigm, the New Economy–Silicon Valley approach to things eschewed the public and private
sectors’ working together to do big things,” Schwenninger says. “That model worked for
software, social media, and some biotech. But the needs are different today.”
That’s true, but so is the simple point that the Republican Party in Washington will oppose
virtually all public investment. The party believes in something like Friedrich von Hayek’s
“spontaneous order”—that is, get government off people’s backs and they (and the markets they
create) will spontaneously address any and all problems. But looking around America today, can
anyone seriously conclude that this is working?
The most pertinent bill in Congress is the one Obama name-checked in his speech: an
infrastructure-bank proposal sponsored by Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and
Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. It’s designed specifically to try to win
bipartisan backing: the bank’s initial funding would be only $10 billion; it would have to become
self-sufficient within a few years; it would be overseen by an independent board; there’s even a
provision for making sure rural projects don’t get shafted. The public-private nature of the
proposal is key, says Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, lead sponsor of a
companion House bill. “If we can really bring clarity to that,” she says, “we have a shot.”
Hutchison, who got interested in infrastructure when George H.W. Bush appointed her to a
commission, says she thinks the bill could appeal to Republicans, but she hasn’t spent much time
talking it up to her colleagues. “It’s a kind of complicated and in-the-weeds type of legislation,
so I have not tried to get a big sponsorship,” she says. Kerry holds on to optimism. “The idea is
so powerful and such common sense that my hope is that the better angels will prevail for the
good of the country,” he says. A member of the recently formed “supercommittee” tasked with
meeting the spending numbers agreed to in the debt-ceiling deal, Kerry says that the panel has a
broad-enough mandate that his bill could be included in any deficit-cutting agreement.
But that’s an awfully tall order. Janet Kavinoky of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the
chamber endorsed the Kerry-Hutchison plan and has backed the infrastructure-bank idea since
1982. Trying to get Republicans on board, she says, has been daunting. “We’ve got several who
say, ‘We believe you, and we’d like to do this,’ but getting people to say publicly that they want
to make infrastructure an exception is a real challenge.”
This is all the more maddening because support for such investments among the general public is
broad and deep and crosses ideological boundaries, notes Nicholas Turner, who heads
transportation initiatives for the Rockefeller Foundation. “The bipartisan support was stunning,”
Turner says. In a poll the foundation commissioned in February, even 59 percent of Tea Party
supporters considered infrastructure investment to be vital. But as long as Barack Obama is for
it, the Tea Partiers in Washington will fight it.
It may be too much to think Obama altered that reality on Sept. 8. If the Republicans go for any
portion of his plan, it’s more likely to be the tax cuts than the large public investments. That’s all
the more reason he needs to keep pressing forcefully for the latter. The need is clear, and the
public support is there.
September 12, 2011 1:0am
Thursday
Regulation Nation: Farmers Worry Over
Crop of New Rules
By Wes Barrett
Published September 14, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Farmers are concerned that some new, tighter federal regulations on agriculture are stunting the
growth of their businesses and say regulatory uncertainty makes it difficult for them to plan for
the future.
Steve Baker owns a small hog farm in Shenandoah County Virginia and while many of the
federal standards that apply to larger operations wouldn’t normally apply to him, similar
Environmental Protection Agency rules intended to cut down on runoff into the Chesapeake Bay
do. He has a professionally developed nutrient plan that governs his manure management and he
closely monitors and documents where and how each load of manure is spread on his fields.
“Thirty years ago, it wasn't as big of an issue as today but today it is right in the forefront but,
you know, we've just got to address it,” Baker said. “It does take additional effort but we do what
we have to and yeah, we do keep diligent records.”
The EPA says it works with farmers when it develops regulations to find a balance between
fulfilling its mission and being burdensome to agriculture.
“EPA is in close consultation with America’s farmers and ranchers,” a spokesperson said in a
statement. “We have listened to their concerns and made them a part of the work we do.”
But as much as current regulations, farmers say that uncertainty about what could come from
Washington is one of their main concerns. Baker says he hears that from farmers all over the
Shenandoah Valley.
“How their everyday practices may be affected and that change,” he said when asked about their
worries. “They're not really sure of how change is going to affect them.”
Regulatory uncertainty from the EPA helps keeps eastern Virginia grain farmer Calvin Haile
awake at night. His family’s farm includes 2,600 acres of corn and soybeans in Virginia’s
Northern Neck.
“[A]ny kind of regulation from the EPA is worrisome to us,” he said. “They have lot of power
and nobody seems to have hold on what they can do.”
Like Baker, EPA rules dealing with the Chesapeake Bay are a central part of Haile's business.
Those regulations have kicked into high gear in recent years, something that’s been noticed by
farmers in other parts of the country.
At a stop on his Midwestern bus tour in August, an Illinois farmer noted the EPA’s regulations
on farmers along the Chesapeake Bay watershed in a question to President Obama.
“As a fourth-generation farmer, we're very concerned with some of the regulatory challenges that
are coming our way as it relates to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,” the farmer said to
the president. “We're concerned with what's going in the Chesapeake Bay, and the fears that that
might come to the Mississippi River Basin.”
The president played down the concerns, saying that early regulatory ideas that aren’t slated to
become law can be blown out of proportion. Some others agree.
“You've heard of urban legends, well these are rural myths,” said Don Carr of the Environmental
Working Group, a Washington non-profit that advocates health and environmental regulation.
“The big myth is that EPA is going to come in and regulate folks when the truth is that
agriculture enjoys severe exemptions from the Clean Water Act and they're not regulated at all
from row crop.”
Carr contends the federal government should place more regulations on agriculture since, he
says, farmers get money from Washington to meet those regulatory burdens.
But agriculture advocacy groups say local farmers are still shouldering a lot of those burdens.
“[T]hat doesn't mean farmers aren't expending their own money,” said Katie Frazier, executive
director of the Virginia Grain Producers Association. “It's not just a handout. There is actual
money that is put out by farmers, between 50 and 75 percent sometimes on environmental
practices are cost shared from the farmer's perspective”
And, Frazier says, it’s difficult for farmers to meet regulations from multiple federal agencies
when they use different sets of data to create farm regulations. She points to differences in how
the Department of Agriculture and the EPA measure certain acreages in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed and how they differ on credit given to farmers who change their environmental
practices proactively.
“When you don't even have two federal agencies that can agree on the data, or might have a
difference on the data, that causes some concern,” Frazier said. “If at end of day if things would
continue to go and [regulation is] not based on scientific data, some producers will probably
decide to pack up and leave.”
But the EPA says it doesn’t have specific, major regulations on the horizon for agriculture and
that many regulatory rumors simply aren’t true. The agency points to reports of new dust
regulations, state nutrient limits, spray drift standards, methane limitations on livestock and
requirements to treat milk spill as oil spills as all being false.
The EPA says it is has instituted practices to cut down on the amounts of nutrients from animal
waste generated by large operations and says the nutrient management plans and standards that
govern the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been beneficial to both farmers and the environment.
Farmers like Baker believe being proactive and trying to stay far in front of future federal
regulation is key. Several years ago, he spent $15,000 to install a manure pumping and holding
system that allows him to have much more control of what’s being applied to his land. While the
money and time spent staying ahead of federal regulations are taken away from his business,
Baker hopes regulations have to catch up to him, rather than him having to catch up with the
federal government.
“We want to do what absolutely needs to be done because this is our livelihood, this is what puts
a roof over our heads,” he said.
Haile is also working ahead on conservation measures in anticipation of further regulations. He
has been testing equipment that injects fertilizer under the soil, sending it closer to the plant’s
roots and helping prevent runoff. Haile uses global positioning on his equipment that works in
tandem with a computer program to develop a plan that uses the least fertilizer to get the best
crop yield. None of that is mandated and Frazier says it’s an example of how the market can
work better than the “regulatory hammer” to help the environment.
“You don't always have to have regulations to make a positive difference,” he said. “Farmers
have decreased the amount of fertilizer that they've been applying while increasing their yield for
grain and corn production for the past 20 years.”
Carr says that’s not enough and that as commodity prices have risen, so has production. But he
adds federal funding to help push farmers toward more conservation are dwindling.
“The problem with these conservation programs is they're constantly underfunded, they're
constantly slashed with cuts, yet the farm subsidies that encourage production--and the end result
is runoff pollution--those farm subsidies stay in place,” he said.
Farmers say they fear more regulations would hurt a fragile business that is already working to
avoid harming a fragile ecosystem.
“It's a big concern,” Haile said. “I'm worried they're going to regulate us right out of farming… I
just won't be able to farm profitably and comply with all the regulations, that's my concern for
the future.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/14/regulation-nation-farmers-worry-overcrop-new-rules/#ixzz1Xx2kS9pl
Friday
Geothermal Energy
Tapping the Earth's Heat
This Ggeothermal power plant in Reykjavik, Iceland, is using their underground reservoirs of steam and hot water to generate
electricity and to heat and cool buildings directly.
Photograph by Medford Taylor
Geothermal energy has been used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and
heating. It is simply power derived from the Earth's internal heat.This thermal energy is
contained in the rock and fluids beneath Earth's crust. It can be found from shallow ground to
several miles below the surface, and even farther down to the extremely hot molten rock called
magma.
These underground reservoirs of steam and hot water can be tapped to generate electricity or to
heat and cool buildings directly.
A geothermal heat pump system can take advantage of the constant temperature of the upper ten
feet (three meters) of the Earth's surface to heat a home in the winter, while extracting heat from
the building and transferring it back to the relatively cooler ground in the summer.
Geothermal water from deeper in the Earth can be used directly for heating homes and offices, or
for growing plants in greenhouses. Some U.S. cities pipe geothermal hot water under roads and
sidewalks to melt snow.
To produce geothermal-generated electricity, wells, sometimes a mile (1.6 kilometers) deep or
more, are drilled into underground reservoirs to tap steam and very hot water that drive turbines
linked to electricity generators. The first geothermally generated electricity was produced in
Larderello, Italy, in 1904.
There are three types of geothermal power plants: dry steam, flash, and binary. Dry steam, the
oldest geothermal technology, takes steam out of fractures in the ground and uses it to directly
drive a turbine. Flash plants pull deep, high-pressure hot water into cooler, low-pressure water.
The steam that results from this process is used to drive the turbine. In binary plants, the hot
water is passed by a secondary fluid with a much lower boiling point than water. This causes the
secondary fluid to turn to vapor, which then drives a turbine. Most geothermal power plants in
the future will be binary plants.
Geothermal energy is generated in over 20 countries. The United States is the world's largest
producer, and the largest geothermal development in the world is The Geysers north of San
Francisco in California. In Iceland, many of the buildings and even swimming pools are heated
with geothermal hot water. Iceland has at least 25 active volcanoes and many hot springs and
geysers.
There are many advantages of geothermal energy. It can be extracted without burning a fossil
fuel such as coal, gas, or oil. Geothermal fields produce only about one-sixth of the carbon
dioxide that a relatively clean natural-gas-fueled power plant produces. Binary plants release
essentially no emissions. Unlike solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is always available,
365 days a year. It's also relatively inexpensive; savings from direct use can be as much as 80
percent over fossil fuels.
But it has some environmental problems. The main concern is the release of hydrogen sulfide, a
gas that smells like rotten egg at low concentrations. Another concern is the disposal of some
geothermal fluids, which may contain low levels of toxic materials. Although geothermal sites
are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific locations may cool down.