Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pielke and Landsea paper on intensity of storms--from EMF living earth view

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=173#comments [quote] Rasmus- On the costs of hurricanes, insured and total, please see these two papers: Pielke, Jr., R.
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 26, 2005


      On the costs of hurricanes, insured and total, please see these two

      Pielke, Jr., R. A., and C. W. Landsea, 1998: Normalized Hurricane
      Damages in the United States: 1925-95. Weather and Forecasting,
      American Meteorological Society, Vol. 13, 621-631.

      Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. W. Landsea, M. Downton, and R. Muslin, 1999:
      Evaluation of Catastrophe Models Using a Normalized Historical
      Record: Why It Is needed and How To Do It. Journal of Insurance
      Regulation. 18, pp. 177-194.

      You can find some updated numbers using these methods here:


      More on this:

      [Response:Thanks for the links, Roger! I guess the question in this
      case (referring to comment #33 regarding whether there really has
      been a trend and the reference to Michaels and hurricane loss) boils
      down to weighing the normalisation of hurricane loss (used to adjust
      the trends in total hurricane loss) against the calculations by
      Emanuel as well as the degree of representativeness in this case. -

      Comment by Roger Pielke, Jr. — 25 Aug 2005 @ 3:44 pm [/quote]

      My comment:

      As you all know by now, I think that tropical storms are part of a
      living earth which modulates climate electrically. Dampents it.

      The most costly storms appear to be Andrew and a storm in 1928.

      What I think is extremely important to consider is both Andrew and
      that 1928 storm followed significant volcanic activity. That would
      have meant that the atmosphere contained a greater degree of SOx
      emissions, and then that in turn has significant microphysics

      That is, rainwater has a pH of about 5.6. The cloud material of a
      tropical storm, of course, contains a great deal of salts from spray
      against the ocean, and that helps the extreme DC fields between
      ocean and atmosphere that change microphysics to work in a different
      dynamic. Consider, again, that the lower ionosphere is relatively
      positively charged and the coupled regions on the ocean, with
      opposing charges attracting, become relatively negative. SOx, as in
      sulpher acids, are essentially a positively charged ion that will
      exist in the super cooling water droplets in convecting clouds.
      Those clouds will find more intense microphysics changes near the
      negative aspect of the capacitive coupling--namely on the ocean
      surface, given that the ionosphere is positively charged by
      thunderstorms globally. It is no accident that the surface
      mesovortices winds of Andrew and the 1928 storm were so intense.
      Meanwhile, a storm like Bret which had a landfalling BP similar to
      Andrew, essentially had low near surface winds, and was a
      substantial flooding storm, capable of moving inland without slowing
      as much from the friction of interacting with land. The danger of
      storms, therefore, that come outside of periods when there is high
      volcanic activity is flooding and stalling. The danger from storms
      that occur relative to volcanic events, on the other hand, with high
      SOx emissons is wind damage. This is how Andrew was what it was and
      Mitch was what it was.

      Again, if you do not look at the MECHANISM of cloud organization,
      you fail to see the significance of the volcanoes, or the
      significance of higher CO2 from human activity and what that added
      CO2 means for more intense storms.

      It also should be pointed out that in terms of assessing the damage
      from a 'storm' what that storm means in relation to a living earth--
      all of the earth. If there is a terrible drought and no hurricanes,
      such as in the 1930s, you can make a conclusion about climate change
      not warrented, as the 1930s gets to biological changes brought about
      by human activity and hydrology, namely dams and levies and man made
      lakes with the Mississippi, Rio, and Colorado rivers. Human
      activity and CO2 has a general meaning, having to do with
      conductivity meanings in the oceans, particularly a signal in lower
      salinity zones in the oceans, where the relative ion count
      increases. That is why the Pacific high has been so impacted, for
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.