Over the past several days, I've monitored reports of Sidr, a Tropical Cyclone churning its way up the Bay of Bengal. The forecasting models are based almost entirely on satellite imagery, and earlier in the week the computer models were telling forecasters it would weaken as it headed north. It hasn't:
THE CURRENT FORECAST CALLS FOR A LESS-PRONOUNCED WEAKENING PRIOR TO LANDFALL THAN THE PREVIOUS FORECAST DUE TO THIS ENHANCED UPPER LEVEL OUTFLOW. THE TRACK REASONING HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE LAST FORECAST. THE STORM IS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TRACKING NORTHWARD UNTIL MAKING LANDFALL IN WESTERN BANGLADESH...
Word from news reports and business colleagues in Bangladesh is that the response has been a bit delayed, but is now in full swing. The problem is that they have literally millions of people to evacuate from low-lying land over inadequate infrastructure. While Bangladesh is no stranger to cyclones, I believe we are seeing the impacts of climate change -- and so too do the people of Bangladesh.
A gathering in the Capital earlier this week focused on raising the profile of efforts to adapt to climate impacts. Already, says this article in Newsday, Bangladesh is dealing with loss of land in a country the size of Missouri crammed with 150 million people.
Climate change is the simplest explanation for the increased frequency and intensity of storms, and consistent with the scientific consensus found in the IPCC reports. As Bill McKibben notes, "Even using its conservative projections, the panel states unequivocally that typhoons and hurricanes will likely become more intense; that sea ice will shrink and perhaps disappear in the summertime Arctic; that snow cover will contract."
Sidr, as of the last estimate, is gusting 160kts with sustained winds of 130kts, thus at the top end of a category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Seas have gone from 30 feet to 40 feet over the past 24 hrs and the storm surge will likely go very far inland indeed.
Those least capable in dealing with these impacts, and least responsible for burning fossil fuels, are going to be impacted the most.
More in comments as I get more information.
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Threaded
Sam Wells Posted 5:07 am
15 Nov 2007
In fact, more potential tropical cyclones fizzled than usual, a remarkable phenomena largely explained by wind sheer that literally blew the storms apart.
In the wake of the 2005 hurricane season, with Katrina and Rita, it was popular to credit Climate Change with hurricane intensity. Dr. Emmanuel of Harvard wrote his classic thesis along those lines, although the hurricane experts warned that his predictions would be contaminated by many other variables. It turns out the weather geeks were right and Dr. Emmanuel was acting way above board, drawing conclusions he could not (e.g., records of hurricanes prior to satellite imagery made common in the 1960's).
The extent to which "burning fossil fuels" contributes to tropical cyclones is not proven in the least. Is it plausible and conceivable? Well yes, certainly, any scientist would never close off options that should be investigated. I would suggest perhaps talking with Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground because he is reasonably fair and balanced on this issue, and has a very good grasp of the subject. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:42 am
15 Nov 2007
The same thing is happening to the people on the Mexican coast who were visited by several large hurricanes this last season. They live now but poverty following the storms will take it's toll.
Climate change counts even when it hits those who have little or nothing. If the doomers projections are true a dozen brown people will die for every Northern European discomforted by climate change. We burned the fuel; they die.
I know what it feels like to be a "good German."
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:21 am
15 Nov 2007
Here's an interesting factoid I just read: Science magazine has an article saying that the destruction of forests in Louisiana and Mississippi was much larger than anticipated, and the amount of carbon being released due to decomposing wood and leaf matter is roughly equivalent to all of the CO2 captured by trees in the contiguous US.
Sounds defensible, no?
Onward through the fog
Permalink
James Dailey Posted 5:55 pm
15 Nov 2007
This blog spot has local perpectives on what has occured.
This posting has information from the Meteorological office in Dhaka and helps make a central point, which is that while almost any US Hurricane warrants massive media coverage the rest of the world sees on CNN, a massive Cyclone in the Bay of Bengal hardly warrants a mention.
My last communication with friends in Dhaka - which is hundreds of miles from the coast were that they didn't expect much to happen, except of course that the power would predictably fail. (which it does nearly every day in controlled "load shedding").
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:53 pm
15 Nov 2007
http://www.zsl.org/field-conservation/carnivores-and-peop ...
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
James Dailey Posted 3:32 am
16 Nov 2007
all of Bangladesh seems to be without electricity since 0100h last night.
all of Dhaka is without power for almost 20 hours now. telecom, water and gas is still functioning but unknown for how long. No information available on damage from cyclone or when power is expected back -and no TV to get info from.
critical infrastructure in Dhaka is running on diesel generators so far - including hospitals, shops and banks - for the entire day.
Permalink
hombredelatierra Posted 6:24 am
19 Nov 2007
Indeed, it is; but why do you insult the intelligence of your readers by using it (unless you wrote from ignorance - in which case I apologize).
It is, after all, NOT THE QUANTITY of carbon that is being moved around that is the problem here: it the EXCESS of carbon beyond the amount that should be circulating naturally that is the killer. A human produced .5% excess of circulating atmospheric carbon doesn't sound like much but that amount CUMULATES, year after year. If you added a FIXED amount of CO2 to the air (equivalent to .5% of the natural occurence at some base year), you would, at the end of 50 years have increased your CO2 by a dangerous 50 X 1/2 or 25 percent. If, however, the increase was .5% of the ANNUAL CO2 level ("compound interest" model), the rise would be even faster (and more dangerous). Why do people still continue to use this faulty argument at this - supposedly late - date in the global warming (GW) "debate"?
Such vacuous GW denier propaganda is counterproductive because it suffocates the emergence of new technologies, new industrial processes, new lifestyles and new services - all of which, as technological and industrial history show repeatedly - are JOB and MARKET CREATORS. Thus GW deniers falsify the basic dynamic behind technological and industrial history with their claims that following the new energy enthusiasts would reduce us to "wearing loincloths and killing rabbits with rocks".
As adult members of democracies (I live in N. America), who are supposedly (???) the rulers, don't we DESERVE better than stinky logic upon which to found public debate and decision making? These are weighty times and issues (ostensibly GW is a much greater danger than terrorism: the poverty and chaos it COULD generate would be the true Mother of All Terrorisms. Analysts note that islamoterrorists recruit among the poor and disaffected in black Africa for example..)
Permalink