How global warming may lessen chance of another superstorm Sandy

Global warming could further lower the likelihood of the atmospheric conditions that last year shoved superstorm Sandy due west into New Jersey, a new study says. But stronger storms will worsen with global warming, the study found, and outweigh changes in steering currents predicted by the study's computer models.

|
Mel Evans/AP/File
Two heavily damaged homes are seen on the beach in Mantoloking, N.J., in February. Man-made global warming may decrease the likelihood of the already unusual steering currents that pushed superstorm Sandy due west into New Jersey in a freak 1-in-700 year path, researchers report.

Man-made global warming may further lessen the likelihood of the freak atmospheric steering currents that last year shoved Superstorm Sandy due west into New Jersey, a new study says.

But don't celebrate a rare beneficial climate change prediction just yet. The study's authors said the once-in-700-years path was only one factor in the massive $50 billion killer storm. They said other variables such as sea level rise and stronger storms will worsen with global warming and outweigh changes in steering currents predicted by the study's computer models.

"Sandy was an extremely unusual storm in several respects and pretty freaky. And some of those things that make it more freaky may happen less in the future," said Columbia University atmospheric scientist Adam Sobel, co-author of a new study on Sandy. But Sobel quickly added, "There's nothing to get complacent about coming out of this research."

The study published Tuesday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looks at the giant atmospheric steering currents, such as the jet stream. A spate of recent and controversial studies has highlighted unusual kinks and meanders in the jet stream, linking those to extreme weather and loss of sea ice in the Arctic. This new study looks only at the future and sees a lessening of some of that problematic jet stream swerving, clashing with the other studies in a scientific debate that continues.

Both camps agree on what happened with the weird steering that shoved Sandy, a late season hurricane that merged with a conventional storm into a massive hybrid, into New Jersey. The jet stream plunged in an odd way. A high pressure system off the coast of Canada and Greenland blocked the storm from moving east, as most do.

That high pressure block now happens once or twice a year in August, September and October. Computer models show the jet stream will move further north, so the "giant blob of high pressure" will be even less frequent next century, said study lead author Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State University.

But Barnes and Sobel said because so many other factors are involved this doesn't mean fewer storms hitting the New York region. This is only one path; storms usually come from the south instead of from the east like Sandy.

Scientists agree that future storms will be slightly stronger because of global warming and that sea level is rising faster than researchers once thought, Sobel said. Those factors likely will overwhelm the predicted change in steering currents, he said.

Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis, one of the major proponents of the jet-stream-is-changing theory, said she doesn't see the jet stream becoming stronger and moving north as Barnes says the models predict. Her work and others points to more Sandy-like storms, especially because there seem to be more late-season tropical storms.

"The matter is not settled," said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to How global warming may lessen chance of another superstorm Sandy
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0903/How-global-warming-may-lessen-chance-of-another-superstorm-Sandy
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe