• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming may hinder hurricanes

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
At the risk of starting another GW thread that'll probably go the same way as all the rest of them...

Not a year ago, Global Warming was claimed to mean more hurricanes, and more severe hurricanes. On this forum, we were treated to people showing us the "first ever South American hurricane" (it wasn't) and the big 2005 hurricane season as "proof." Also, 2006 was supposed to be the worst season ever. Instead, it was the mildest.

Now, it looks like there's a complete reversal going on:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/171/story/89642.html

Now, the brighter side of global warming: It might not strengthen hurricanes after all, and it eventually could inhibit their development and growth.Illustrating the bewildering complexity of the climate, a study scheduled for publication today found that global warming will strengthen a phenomenon called "wind shear" -- crosswinds that tear apart or substantially weaken hurricanes.

And that could counteract global warming's baking of the Atlantic Ocean, which some experts have predicted will grow so hot by the end of this century that it turbocharges hurricanes.

"Global warming is producing other changes in the environment besides a warming ocean, and these changes are acting to offset ocean temperatures," said Brian Soden, co-author of the new study and a climate scientist at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
Click to expand...

The peer-reviewed study, set for publication in today's issue of Geophysical Research Letters, seemed certain to reignite one of the most heated debates in science: What effect, if any, does global warming have on hurricanes?

Some scientists say they have found evidence that global warming already has intensified the storms and will continue to do so, largely because hurricanes feed on warm water.

Others call that evidence sketchy and inconclusive, and they say any link between global warming and hurricanes is so tiny that it cannot be accurately measured.

The new study, also conducted by Gabriel Vecchi of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., examined 18 computerized forecast models that were tweaked to reflect a steadily warming climate.
Click to expand...

Amazing what you find out when you listen to people who do real science, instead of the alarmists. So are the alarmists going to abandon the Global Warming = More Hurricanes scare?

Also, if the warming of the oceans is counteracted, then that means that Global Warming will not mess up the Gulf Stream and consequently will not plunge Europe into a new ice age. Will the alarmists give up that, too?
 
No one ever said 2005 was proof, it was an extraordinary year that broke numerous records, and made you wonder if it was indicating a new trend. Studies have shown the strength of hurricanes is increasing. I recall saying that it would still take more time years to be able to make a conclusion about the issue.

Wind shear is a factor, as is the El Nino, since it affects prevailing winds (IIRC). Last year, there were the average number of hurricanes generated, but they were nearly all blown away from the US mainland.

To make the an assumption that one of the basic building blocks of a hurricane, sea water temperatures, could increase the effects of hurricanes is a sensible one. I would also be interested to see if tornado patterns are changing, since these would also be affected by sea water temperatures. Warmer seas would help with the creation of the warm, moist air that is a
factor in the creation of tornadoes.

Catarina was a cylcone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Catarina

2005 also saw a hurricane form of Spain, and hit that country as a tropical storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Vince_(2005)
 
shanek said:
Now, it looks like there's a complete reversal going on:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/171/story/89642.html

Amazing what you find out when you listen to people who do real science, instead of the alarmists.
Click to expand...
And then again there is "real science" that says otherwise.
Global warming provided much of the ocean heat that fueled last year's record-setting hurricane season, two Boulder climate scientists contend. link
Click to expand...
Human-induced climate change, rather than naturally occurring ocean cycles, may be responsible for the recent increases in the frequency and strength of North Atlantic hurricanes, according to MIT and Penn State researchers. link
Click to expand...
skanek said:
So are the alarmists going to abandon the Global Warming = More Hurricanes scare?
Click to expand...
Maybe you will take a momentary pause from bogie-man'ing to acknowledge that it's counter-skeptical to reject out of hand those studies that contradict your preconceptions and accept only the studies that support your preconceptions.
 
Last edited:
Global environmental issues like AGW must be an absolute thorn in the side of Libertarians; after all, how is the free market going to help issues such as this? How will this not require government regulation?

How is it 'real science' to try and discredit something that clashes with your political ideals?
 
Ripley Twenty-Nine said:
Global environmental issues like AGW must be an absolute thorn in the side of Libertarians; after all, how is the free market going to help issues such as this? How will this not require government regulation?

How is it 'real science' to try and discredit something that clashes with your political ideals?
Click to expand...

This, of course, is what brings anti-regulation ideologues into discussions of scientific matters - from the health-risks of smoking to AGW, via acid-rain and the ozone-hole. Externalities are the Achilles Heel of laissez-faire extremists, so they must be denied, and any evidence of them ascribed to the politically-motivated propaganda of shadowy conspiratorial groups (such as the IPCC).

Have you noticed how similar "IPCC" is to "CCCP" if you just change one letter and mix them around a bit? ("CCCP" stands for "Central Committee of the Communist Party", for those not in the know :) .)
 
CapelDodger said:
Have you noticed how similar "IPCC" is to "CCCP" if you just change one letter and mix them around a bit? ("CCCP" stands for "Central Committee of the Communist Party", for those not in the know :) .)
Click to expand...
Unless you speak Russian, where CCCP stands for the Russian translation of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
 
shanek said:
Also, if the warming of the oceans is counteracted, then that means that Global Warming will not mess up the Gulf Stream and consequently will not plunge Europe into a new ice age. Will the alarmists give up that, too?
Click to expand...

The mechanism of formation of huricans is completely different from the gulf stream. In the latter case it is largely a non issue (in the former it is an issue which is why huricanes are so uncommon in the southern atlantic).

This is basic stuff.
 
geni said:
The mechanism of formation of huricans is completely different from the gulf stream.
Click to expand...

But according to the article, the same effect that stops the hurricanes also cancels out the warming in the oceans, which is what they say will affect the gulf stream.

Really (not directed at geni), I'm appalled at the lack of willingness to discuss the actual science of this subject...
 
Does anyone have access to the Nature article I linked in post #3? I did a PubMed for Soder and got a few hits, but Vecchi only had one article (this one).
 
shanek said:
But according to the article, the same effect that stops the hurricanes also cancels out the warming in the oceans, which is what they say will affect the gulf stream.
Click to expand...

Why has this effect not prevented the warming of the oceans if it cancels out any warming?

Really (not directed at geni), I'm appalled at the lack of willingness to discuss the actual science of this subject...
Click to expand...

Discussing the actual hypothesis, the observed warming of the oceans contradicts it.

Science involves hypothese that explain observed phaenomena and predict as-yet unobserved phaenomena. The hypotheses contrarians such as yourself latch onto as "science" are those that predict why things will stay much as they are - well within your ideological comfort-zone - with no reference at all to what has gone before. That's not real science.

The North Atlantic Drift is only an issue with contrarians, not real scientists, because it's at the extreme of tipping-points. Hurricane activity is a regional effect that's only an issue because the region includes lots of 'Murricans, directly or through their infrastructure.
 
shanek said:
But according to the article, the same effect that stops the hurricanes also cancels out the warming in the oceans, which is what they say will affect the gulf stream.
Click to expand...

Bad phraseing. It might counter the effect of warming in the oceans as far as huricanes are concernd (enough wind shear and the temp of the ocens becomes largely irrelivant see south atlantic). There is no reason to think it will effect everything else caused by the warming of the north atlantic.

IF you want to know what increased wind shear will do look at the south atlantic and ignore the exceptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cyclone_Catarina_from_the_ISS_on_March_26_2004.JPG

Really (not directed at geni), I'm appalled at the lack of willingness to discuss the actual science of this subject...
Click to expand...

Um suggesting that wind shear will have an impact on the gulf stream isn't science. Suggesting wind shear will have an impact on the gulf stream without provideing a halfway plauseable mechanism suggests a lack of knowlage of ocean currents (and probably hurricane formation). The Brazil Current exists in the south atlantic which should provide a fairly solid example of wind shear haveing minimal impact on ocean currents.
 
Something from the folks at RealClimate (who do real climate science)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/shear-turbulence/#more-437

V+S find that the IPCC AR4 models produce an decrease in shear near the equator and an increase in the subtropics. Over the 'Main Development Region' for Atlantic hurricanes, the results are mixed and, to our eyes at least (see Figure 2), don't provide a compelling argument for hurricane activity reductions. However, the conclusions rest heavily on something that is not robust at present; the prediction of mean changes in the Walker circulation. As we have discussed in some detail, this latter issue rests upon considerations that take us to the heart of where the models are currently at their weakest--getting marine stratocumulus clouds right, producing a realistic intertropical convergence zone in the tropical Pacific, producing realistic Kelvin wave behavior in the tropical Pacific ocean--things that are all critical for an accurate representation of the Bjerknes feedbacks which are, in turn, so central to the mean state and variability of the Walker circulation (and El Niño). It is conceivable that the various simulations in the AR4 ensemble analyzed by V+S are at the same time mostly in agreement, and yet wrong, in what they predict for future Walker circulation changes. The prediction of increased wind shear in the tropical Atlantic is no better than the underlying predictions in the models of Walker circulation changes.
Click to expand...



Finally, a cautionary note seems warranted. Suppose that the V+S findings are in fact correct, and that increased wind shear will play a substantial role in future changes in TC behavior. This could be a mixed blessing. Wind shear in the tropical Atlantic will remain highly variable from year to year, changing at the whim of individual El Niño and La Niña events which influence the Walker Circulation. Temperature trends, on the other hand, are far more steady over time, and every simulation examined by the Vecchi and Soden predicts substantial warming in the main development region for TCs in the tropical Atlantic in the decades ahead. While increases in wind shear could offset the impact of tropical temperatures in some -- maybe even the majority -- of storm seasons, one might worry about what happens during those seasons where there is anomalously low shear (e.g., a very strong La Niña event). The warm ocean will still be sitting there, waiting to produce tropical cyclones and Hurricanes--and the prospects for destructive Hurricane activity during those seasons could be especially grim. In short, the V+S results could presage a future where there is increased interannual variability in TC behavior, and where the worst Hurricane seasons are considerably more destructive than today.
Click to expand...

So the Vecchi and Soden theory, even if it holds up, is not a Get Out Of New Orleans Free card.

The findings of V+S represent an important contribution to the ongoing scientific discourse on the issue of climate change impacts on tropical cyclones, and the study should spur additional work looking at the complicated issues involved in greater detail. It remains the case that the modeling of Hurricane-climate change interactions is still at a relatively primitive stage and this study is very unlikely to be the last word. We will of course follow the future developments closely.
Click to expand...
 
shanek said:
Not a year ago, Global Warming was claimed to mean more hurricanes, and more severe hurricanes.
Click to expand...

by who exactly, and where?

the claim that it could mean more hurricanes, or change el nino frequency, or other, is based on a very simple argument that energy in the tropics is going to move toward the poles somehow, and we are not sure how.

the Nature article is about the Walker Circulation which is very very big and can be seen in todays models (like a tiger); a hurricane is very very small (like a virus) and unlikely to be in our GCMs for a decade or three (assuming computer power continues to increase exponentially).

our models are not able to answer the question of hurricanes per se, but which science papers claim they can? to say: "hey look, this could happen" is just to propose a mechanism for equator-to-pole heat transport, it need not be alarmist (i understand you many not point to the scientists but towards the media as alarmist here).


does that count as " willingness to discuss the actual science of this subject"???
 
The movement of weather patterns south (in the case of the southern hemisphere) is already being observed in Australian. The cold fronts that bring rain to the South of the country are now tending to drift south of their usual paths, meaning the south of the country is missing out on an important source of rain.
 
a_unique_person said:
The movement of weather patterns south (in the case of the southern hemisphere) is already being observed in Australian. The cold fronts that bring rain to the South of the country are now tending to drift south of their usual paths, meaning the south of the country is missing out on an important source of rain.
Click to expand...

Bad for South Australians, but good for people living south of them. It's a game of swings and roundabouts, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom