I like the idea of qualification rather than extended scale and I cannot think of a better word than MAX.
The reference to B737 is sad. Shows what happens when we listen to the Lomborgs of this world talking money instead of the technical community - especially one with a long history.
IF that will help actual policy making: infrastructure investments based on forward looking climate-weather models, better insurance rate making that more closely reflects the risks.
The change in nomenclature does not seem to be very important,
Agree Cat 6 should be added to the scale. I've argued elsewhere that hurricanes are primarily hydrologic events just looking at rainfall alone. Which makes me think it's time to create a Cat system for atmospheric river events. Water transport mechanisms are going to be increasingly important objects of study even though there's not much we can do to alter, much less prevent, them at present. Heat build-up is the primary driver and for something as vast as the ocean, what takes a long time to heat will take a long time to cool.
"A new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences makes the case that global warming is leading to tropical cyclones so intense they warrant a new designation: Category 6"
Umm - that's not the way I read your linked paper. It says that warming is projected to lead to more intense hurricanes, but notes increases in intensity only since 1979. The 1970s were the period of lowest recorded cyclone activity; increases since then represent a reversion to the mean. The IPCC concluded that there is no evidence of any trend in the number or severity of cyclones over the last 130 years.
I don't object to changing the scale - if a new designation would be useful, then let's use it. But it's misleading to claim that we are already seeing evidence of more severe storms.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This isn't a case of "absence of evidence". There is evidence, and there's no long-term trend on the number or severity of tropical cyclones.
As I said, there is an increasing trend since the 1970s (last 4 decades), but no long-range trend (last 13 decades).
From further information in the same IPCC chapter (11.7.1.2 Observed Trends):
"A subset of the best-track data corresponding to hurricanes that have directly impacted the USA since 1900 is considered to be reliable, and shows no trend in the frequency of USA landfall events (Knutson et al., 2019)."
"A similarly reliable subset of the data representing TC landfall frequency over Australia shows a decreasing trend in Eastern Australia since the 1800s (Callaghan and Power, 2011), as well as in other parts of Australia since 1982 (Chand et al., 2019; Knutson et al., 2019). A paleoclimate proxy reconstruction shows that recent levels of TC interactions along parts of the Australian coastline are the lowest in the past 550–1500 years (Haig et al., 2014)."
"But it's misleading to claim that we are already seeing evidence of more severe storms."
But we (i.e. the IPCC) are already seeing evidence of more severe storms; see the AR6 WG1 report, and citations therein. And four decades is long enough to detect a trend.
Expanding the context of my previous IPCC quote:
"The proportion of intense TCs, average peak TC wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense TCs will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming (high confidence). The total global frequency of TC formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence). {11.7.1}"
This very phenomenon was predicted by Kerry Emanuel in 1987 (https://www.nature.com/articles/326483a0). It's now "likely" (within the IPCC's graduated scale) to have been confirmed by observation. What's your problem with it?
Okay - two different issues. You're going back and forth between historical trends and forecasts as if they're the same thing. The trends you cite are for the last 4 decades. It is known that the 1970s were the lowest level of activity recorded. It's not unusual that cyclone levels would return to the long-term average. It's true that there's a trend over the last 4 decades, but no evidence of a long-term trend since 1900. If you think that everything before 1970 is irrelevant, I doubt there's anything I could say that would change your mind, but that's not really a scientific position, and it isn't the position of the IPCC.
The language on forecast of intense TCs is somewhat confusing. The passage you quoted notes that total frequency will decrease or remain constant, while the proportion of intense cyclones increases. This could mean that the frequency of intense cyclones won't change at all. In fact, another passage in the same paragraph says "It is likely that the frequency of Category 4–5 TCs will increase in limited regions over the western North Pacific." This probably means that other parts of the world are not projected to have more Category 4-5 TCs, but they aren't explicit on that. Part of the Executive Summary says "Future wind speed changes are expected to be small;" Paragraph 11.7.1.5 says "The increase in global TC maximum surface wind speeds is about 5% for a 2°C global warming across a number of high-resolution multi-decadal studies (Knutson et al., 2020)." This doesn't sound like a dramatic change to me.
Pacific Ocean typhoons would be the most likely to reach a Cat 6.
Warmer waters in the Western Pacific make typhoons stronger than Atlantic basin hurricanes.
Super typhoon Paka hit the island (Guam) the night before with average sustained winds of 175 mph. One wind gust recorded at nearby Anderson Air Force Base was the strongest ever recorded on earth at 236 mph. - that's tornado strength wind.
MAX has a good ring to it. The coming decades might see the next increment, the SUPER MAX that could conceivably be confused with a lottery. I would also expect that some international standard of metrics be used. Many people outside the USA might be reading your post and pausing to convert 157 mph to metric. Just an idea.
Water vapor / evaporations, continuing to increase in our atmosphere is the cIear cuIprit responsibIe for the increased intensity and veIocities associated with this trend. UnfortunateIy, at present there is a disagreement or misunderstanding amongst a portion of the scientific community.
As far as this researcher understands. Based on the what comes first theory of- the chicken or the egg, cIimate change is an impact from other causes, it is not the cause. There are specific reasons and often many, not aII , reasons are from human impacts. Now I'm more than certain that scientists may have many other reasons.
To finish the comment, excessive water vapor is adding heat into the atmosphere often IocaIized, in regions that often host higher IeveIs of evaporation or water vapor emissions. An exampIe of this:
When coId air roIIs over the Great Iakes in winter the condensating water vaper off the Iakes creates weather , cIouds, and often heavy precipitation
Though we lack all data, the data we have is sufficient to show soil temperatures are heating up, lightning strikes are increasing, oceans are warming, atmospheric moisture is increasing, more warm raining is falling on the polar ice masses as well as Greenland, plant and animal communities are migrating toward the cooler regions, at least those that are able. We are pumping ever more energy into a semi-closed system and even changing the atmospheric chemistry. Climate change deniers notwithstanding, things are changing fast and I don't think ours or the warming deniers' great grandchildren, will live in a world like the one we grew up in.
I wonder if either the addition of the adjective "Max" or the introduction of a Class 6 would generate more evacuations in advance of these major storms?
Direct quote from the research paper in question : "Our results are not meant to propose changes to this scale, but rather to raise awareness that the wind- hazard risk from storms presently designated as category 5 has increased and will continue to increase under climate change." ... The researchers use a hypothetical Category 6 to illustrate their point about climate change increasing storms' intensities.
I like the idea of qualification rather than extended scale and I cannot think of a better word than MAX.
The reference to B737 is sad. Shows what happens when we listen to the Lomborgs of this world talking money instead of the technical community - especially one with a long history.
IF that will help actual policy making: infrastructure investments based on forward looking climate-weather models, better insurance rate making that more closely reflects the risks.
The change in nomenclature does not seem to be very important,
it's important only in the ways that you describe — as a kick in the pants for people & society.
But too often the toe of the boot never connects with the policy pants. :)
Agree Cat 6 should be added to the scale. I've argued elsewhere that hurricanes are primarily hydrologic events just looking at rainfall alone. Which makes me think it's time to create a Cat system for atmospheric river events. Water transport mechanisms are going to be increasingly important objects of study even though there's not much we can do to alter, much less prevent, them at present. Heat build-up is the primary driver and for something as vast as the ocean, what takes a long time to heat will take a long time to cool.
"A new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences makes the case that global warming is leading to tropical cyclones so intense they warrant a new designation: Category 6"
Umm - that's not the way I read your linked paper. It says that warming is projected to lead to more intense hurricanes, but notes increases in intensity only since 1979. The 1970s were the period of lowest recorded cyclone activity; increases since then represent a reversion to the mean. The IPCC concluded that there is no evidence of any trend in the number or severity of cyclones over the last 130 years.
I don't object to changing the scale - if a new designation would be useful, then let's use it. But it's misleading to claim that we are already seeing evidence of more severe storms.
So with more energy entering the climate system every second who would think the weather might get better.
Note to self: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This isn't a case of "absence of evidence". There is evidence, and there's no long-term trend on the number or severity of tropical cyclones.
Huh. The following appears in the Executive Summary to the AR6 WG1 report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11). :
"It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances has increased over the past four decades"
Sounds like a trend toward increasing severity, to me.
As I said, there is an increasing trend since the 1970s (last 4 decades), but no long-range trend (last 13 decades).
From further information in the same IPCC chapter (11.7.1.2 Observed Trends):
"A subset of the best-track data corresponding to hurricanes that have directly impacted the USA since 1900 is considered to be reliable, and shows no trend in the frequency of USA landfall events (Knutson et al., 2019)."
"A similarly reliable subset of the data representing TC landfall frequency over Australia shows a decreasing trend in Eastern Australia since the 1800s (Callaghan and Power, 2011), as well as in other parts of Australia since 1982 (Chand et al., 2019; Knutson et al., 2019). A paleoclimate proxy reconstruction shows that recent levels of TC interactions along parts of the Australian coastline are the lowest in the past 550–1500 years (Haig et al., 2014)."
"But it's misleading to claim that we are already seeing evidence of more severe storms."
But we (i.e. the IPCC) are already seeing evidence of more severe storms; see the AR6 WG1 report, and citations therein. And four decades is long enough to detect a trend.
Expanding the context of my previous IPCC quote:
"The proportion of intense TCs, average peak TC wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense TCs will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming (high confidence). The total global frequency of TC formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence). {11.7.1}"
This very phenomenon was predicted by Kerry Emanuel in 1987 (https://www.nature.com/articles/326483a0). It's now "likely" (within the IPCC's graduated scale) to have been confirmed by observation. What's your problem with it?
Okay - two different issues. You're going back and forth between historical trends and forecasts as if they're the same thing. The trends you cite are for the last 4 decades. It is known that the 1970s were the lowest level of activity recorded. It's not unusual that cyclone levels would return to the long-term average. It's true that there's a trend over the last 4 decades, but no evidence of a long-term trend since 1900. If you think that everything before 1970 is irrelevant, I doubt there's anything I could say that would change your mind, but that's not really a scientific position, and it isn't the position of the IPCC.
The language on forecast of intense TCs is somewhat confusing. The passage you quoted notes that total frequency will decrease or remain constant, while the proportion of intense cyclones increases. This could mean that the frequency of intense cyclones won't change at all. In fact, another passage in the same paragraph says "It is likely that the frequency of Category 4–5 TCs will increase in limited regions over the western North Pacific." This probably means that other parts of the world are not projected to have more Category 4-5 TCs, but they aren't explicit on that. Part of the Executive Summary says "Future wind speed changes are expected to be small;" Paragraph 11.7.1.5 says "The increase in global TC maximum surface wind speeds is about 5% for a 2°C global warming across a number of high-resolution multi-decadal studies (Knutson et al., 2020)." This doesn't sound like a dramatic change to me.
Storms are getting worse, as expected. Insurance companies know this, but feel free to tell them not to charge more.
Pacific Ocean typhoons would be the most likely to reach a Cat 6.
Warmer waters in the Western Pacific make typhoons stronger than Atlantic basin hurricanes.
Super typhoon Paka hit the island (Guam) the night before with average sustained winds of 175 mph. One wind gust recorded at nearby Anderson Air Force Base was the strongest ever recorded on earth at 236 mph. - that's tornado strength wind.
6, it is only going to get worse in the future; therefore number scale would be considerably more appropriate.
MAX has a good ring to it. The coming decades might see the next increment, the SUPER MAX that could conceivably be confused with a lottery. I would also expect that some international standard of metrics be used. Many people outside the USA might be reading your post and pausing to convert 157 mph to metric. Just an idea.
Water vapor / evaporations, continuing to increase in our atmosphere is the cIear cuIprit responsibIe for the increased intensity and veIocities associated with this trend. UnfortunateIy, at present there is a disagreement or misunderstanding amongst a portion of the scientific community.
As far as this researcher understands. Based on the what comes first theory of- the chicken or the egg, cIimate change is an impact from other causes, it is not the cause. There are specific reasons and often many, not aII , reasons are from human impacts. Now I'm more than certain that scientists may have many other reasons.
To finish the comment, excessive water vapor is adding heat into the atmosphere often IocaIized, in regions that often host higher IeveIs of evaporation or water vapor emissions. An exampIe of this:
When coId air roIIs over the Great Iakes in winter the condensating water vaper off the Iakes creates weather , cIouds, and often heavy precipitation
Though we lack all data, the data we have is sufficient to show soil temperatures are heating up, lightning strikes are increasing, oceans are warming, atmospheric moisture is increasing, more warm raining is falling on the polar ice masses as well as Greenland, plant and animal communities are migrating toward the cooler regions, at least those that are able. We are pumping ever more energy into a semi-closed system and even changing the atmospheric chemistry. Climate change deniers notwithstanding, things are changing fast and I don't think ours or the warming deniers' great grandchildren, will live in a world like the one we grew up in.
I wonder if either the addition of the adjective "Max" or the introduction of a Class 6 would generate more evacuations in advance of these major storms?
Direct quote from the research paper in question : "Our results are not meant to propose changes to this scale, but rather to raise awareness that the wind- hazard risk from storms presently designated as category 5 has increased and will continue to increase under climate change." ... The researchers use a hypothetical Category 6 to illustrate their point about climate change increasing storms' intensities.
Thanks, I added an update to the post.