Researchers debate warming, hurricanes
The debate over whether global warming affects hurricanes may be running into some unexpected turbulence. Many researchers believe warming is causing the storms to get stronger, while others aren’t so sure. Now, a new study raises the possibility that global warming might even make it harder for hurricanes to form.
Vecchi and Soden used 18 complex computer climate models to anticipate the effects of warming in the years 2001-2020 and 2018-2100.
Included in the results were an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical Atlantic and eastern Pacific oceans.
[…]
“We don’t know whether the change in shear will cancel out the increased potential from warming oceans, but the shear increase would tend to make the Atlantic and East Pacific less favorable to hurricanes,” said Vecchi, of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.“Which one of the two — warming oceans or increasing shear — will be the dominant factor? Will they cancel out? We and others are currently exploring those very questions, and we hope to have a better grasp on that answer in the near future,” Vecchi said.
Also factoring into this is the simple premise of WHY we have weather to begin with. Temperature contrasts between equator and poles. If this contrast lessons, we have less active weather. PERIOD. The earth has been warmer than it is right now and humanity somehow survived.
*frustrated with the “religion” of global warming*
While certainly hurricanes are not a desirable thing from a human standpoint, they act as the Earths air conditioning, necessary for “blowing off steam” so to speak. If they are suppressed, wouldnt that cause even more increased warming? I remember how warm the oceans were before a ‘cane and how cool after they passed.
#1 – Based on that logic, the earth is self regulating and it would be impossible for us to truly damage it. Interesting…
I computer models are so accurate, why do they seldom seem to predict the same things?
I’ve noticed that global warming discussions have heated up considerably over the last hundred years. It is entirely possible that the heating up of discussions is caused by CO2 exhalation.
Once again, let’s go back to the basics here. The models are getting better every day. But, predicting local effects of global warming is difficult, as is predicting the weather 2 weeks out.
This has no effect on our evidence for the global temperature rise. What we know for sure is:
1) The temperature is rising and has already had some disastrous effects.
2) Global warming is human caused.
3) The cryosphere is already melting.
4) At a certain point, the warming of the earth, if left unchecked, will go into a positive feedback loop that will cause the effects to be irreversible.
People, get a grip. We need to take action right now. (Actually 30 years ago would have been better.) We must take action. We must not get bogged down in the specific local effects predicted by any particular computer model.
Hi John, I just caught your latest show. 6 hours, 7 hours, or however many hours of sleep you got, It was still a good show. P.s. If I use an Apple TV box to watch your show, Can I now call it an I.P.TV program? Just wondering. Also Dvorak uncensored was great today! Thank You.
Dieter K.
Aside from the odd dolt who knows enough jargon to sound half-witty, the discussion is an interesting one that may affect the whole planet.
Between the two choices offered in rather a sketchy premise, I’d tend to come down on the side of ocean temperatures. Anyone at work in an occupation bothered by inclement weather — has already learned to keep an eye on predictions for El Nino or La Nina — both critically formed by water temperature.
In the last 10 years, those computer models have become quite accurate predictors – and continue to improve.
#6, we know that global warming is human caused? But I thought that was where much of the debate lies…
8 – Yes, but “different computer models are converging on….” is still a phrase seen in weather forecasts. That reflects how little we really know about the dynamics of weather.
I’d long assumed that if you heat up a heat engine like the Earth you’d get more chaos. But Ed Roberts (#1) notes it’s the heat differences that power the weather, so I guess if the ice melts it would get more drowned but boring here on Earth.
Personally, I think we’re bugs that have overrun the petri dish and the second-order effects are only starting to manifest. Disappearing bees and swordfish are only the tiniest harbingers of our transformation of Earth into the Gray Sludge Planet. The effects aren’t instantaneous, and the longer we take to act, the more traumatic any corrective steps we can take will have to be. And so it will go for my grandkids. I don’t expect to be around to participate.
#6 – 30 years ago, we were worried about a second ice age coming, or what we could call global cooling in today’s terms, from man-made elements. It always seems every year that humans are the supposed cause of the end of the earth and we always have to do something right now to change it even though year after year we are still here and still flourishing.
Also how come it is only CO2 from emissions that blamed for the rise in levels. Last I checked, the world population is near 7 billion people and just seems to keep exploding. And us humans do give off a lot of CO2. Maybe a solution for those treehuggers ts to make war not love to thin the herd.
People, get a grip. We need to take action right now. (Actually 30 years ago would have been better.)
That’s funny, 30 years ago I was told we were heading towards another Ice Age and that we had to stop global cooling.
Looks like 11 and 12 were in the same Junior High reading the Weekly Reader. Or comparable sources of climate science study.
#11 Calin
Not by the scientist you weren’t. If you check back you will see it was the mass media that pushed the global ice age idea
Hooray For Global Warming! More mosquitoes and bugs. Death to the pine forests and more funny diseases. Crank up that heat folks!
#14 – the mass media is also behind the current frenzy. Read the actual papers: scientists mostly agree that the Earth is warming. Scientists mostly agree that Man had no part of the warming in the 1st half of the 20th century. Scientists mostly agree that Man had some part of the warming in the 2nd half of the century.
Now here’s where it really gets interesting: NO reputable scientist backs the loss of all ice, oceans rise 20 ft by 2100 scenario. Algore invented that and the media is playing along. The latest studies predict an 18 inch rise in the next century at worst.
We’re not all going to die and it’s just not that big a deal. Period. People want to believe we can destroy the planet because it strokes their ego and makes them feel important – they’re “saving” thae planet. “How great I am that I have the power to save the planet…” Phooey.
Personally I believe Global Warming (TM) is caused by Japanese toilets catching fire.
I’m all for controlling pesticides, cleaning up our water supplies, reducing the smog in our cities, etc. Those things are more attainable than stopping the earth from heating up, whatever the cause is. We should be attacking the many individual problems that most affect us now and then move on to the larger issue of global warming… if it still exists at that time.
#9 – Mike,
I’d suggest using scholar.google.com and reading only peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject for a while. All other information, much like the info in this blog, could be typed by anyone, usually with realistic sounding credentials, but no more reliable than this blog.
The debate over whether global warming is human caused does not truly exist. It exists only in the popular press, a group trained to believe that good journalism means presenting both sides. In this case, there really is just one side. So, they go to the ever decreasing number of crackpots and Exxon employees to find another side. These few get equal time with the thousands of others.
The IPCC is a group composed of hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, including China, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S., the largest coal burner, oil exporter, and oil importer respectively. These people operate on consensus. If just one scientist doesn’t agree with the statements they make, they don’t get made. So, when they say 90% probability that global warming is human caused, it means that the most conservative scientist in the bunch said s/he had 90% confidence.
The one thing guaranteed when IPCC says something is that it is an understatement of the real problem.
#11 – Chris,
Yes. Thirty years ago, when there was more particulate polution in the air, which has since been cleaned up in much of the world, though not China, it appeared there was cooling. A small but significant number of scientists warned of this. This mistaken belief did not go on for 20 years culminating in a multinational scientific consensus.
And, yes, a localized tactical nuclear war could reverse the trend of global warming. Are you suggesting this as a real solution or just getting cute over the two most likely causes of human extinction in one breath?
Misanthropic Scott . I wish I could find something,anything that could believe in that much. And I am a religious guy. Your faith in this is nothing short of amazing.
Yes. Thirty years ago, when there was more particulate polution in the air, which has since been cleaned up in much of the world, though not China, it appeared there was cooling.
I was thinking (searching memory – like I say, I know everything, I just can’t access it quickly 😉 ) about this recently and you beat me to it. The particulate pollution (smog) created a higher ‘albedo’ for the Earth (meaning light was being reflected back into space instead of being absorbed by the ‘usual suspects’, ground, water, plants, etc.) That created a drop (small but measurable) in the average temperature, and especially locally.
I’m especially interested in ‘heat islands’, where cities have so much asphalt/concrete/metal and glass, that they actually retain heat and give a higher average temperature as the area that’s ‘paved’ grows.
J/P=?
P.S. didn’t I just see you over on MoJo?
#19 – stew,
If you have any serious interest in the subject, I’d say you should read The Weather Makers. It’s funny that you talk about believing in global warming as if it’s a faith. It’s just about believing a preponderance of data. And, please reread my comment about IPCC. The group consists of scientists from many countries, and quite a few have economic reason to deny global warming or deny that it is human caused. But, despite all of that, the data leads them to the same conclusion. Here’s a link for The Weather Makers on best book buys.
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/9780871139351
#20 – John Paradox,
P.S. didn’t I just see you over on MoJo?
Probably. And probably with similar content to my posts as well.
I don’t know of a source of info for the heat islands, but feel free to come to New York City in summer. We sort of have the reverse. The majority of Manhattan is a heat island. But, go to a neighborhood with a few trees and you feel the difference, or better yet, Central Park, of course.
The earth has been warmer than it is right now and humanity somehow survived.
That’s a vague and meaningless statement.
First, it’s possible for some humans to survive while society perishes. In fact, it’s possible that that’s happened many times in the distant past. We really don’t have any way of knowing whether humans really lived in caves for 70,000 years before discovering the integrated circuit, or whether they had, at various times, some more advanced societies that have since disappeared without a trace.
Maybe it’s OK with you if the smattering of your descendents who survive (if any) will be living in caves, but I’d prefer to leave something better.
*frustrated with the “religion” of global warming*
No doubt you prefer the “religion” of an all-knowing all-merciful diety who loves you (but hates everybody else.) And I wasn’t aware than any of the global warming believers met regularly once a week and sang songs about global warming, or invoked the name of global warming during funerals, etc. Or did you mean something other than “religion”?
Global warming may or may not eventually be a real problem. Global warming may or may not be caused by humans. I don’t know, and neither do you. But to ignore strong evidence because of a stubborn knee-jerk anti-environmental points of view is retarded. In the end, what difference does it make whether humans cause global warming or not??? Humans don’t cause hurricanes, but we prepare for them and do everything we can to mitigate the damage from them. And we don’t wait until a hurricane is blowing in the Gulf of Mexico. Just knowing that there’s a possibility is enough to keep most reasonably intelligent people from just sitting around saying “duh… man didn’t create hurricanes so there’s nothing we can or should do about them.”
Start thinking logically and quit letting the corporate shills cram disinformation down your neck.
#20 – John Paradox,
If you happen to be in New York City or can make it here, check this lecture on heat islands.
http://tinyurl.com/2ewdtq
BTW, wouldn’t a pair-o-doxies be more fun?
#22 – venom monger,
Excellent points all. Check out George Carlin’s wording of the deity issue, you may find it amusing, if you haven’t heard it already:
When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!
I have anecdotal evidence..
I was vacationing in Waveland, MS the days before Katrina landed there, and my made one trip to the beach the Saturday before.
I can tell you the water was so hot it was disgusting. There was no enjoying the sun then cooling off in the water, it was like a 95 degree bathtub of salt water. Two days later Waveland no longer existed.
#18 – MS – In a thread with some of the calmest, least agenda-ridden musings I’ve seen on global warming, your description of the IPCC was especially useful to me. Sometimes in all the howling (how did data collection get so politicized anyway? – oh yeah, look who’s in charge) I’ve forgotten there are a lot of serious people looking at huge amounts of data, being paid by bosses with interests counter to their findings. The “most conservative approach.” That puts a very useful perspective on it.
Lot of good thinking in this thread. Thanks, guys.
If you happen to be in New York City or can make it here, check this lecture on heat islands.
I’ll take a look after work (Oh.. hi, bosss!)
New York City? Last time I was there was for the World’s Fair (yup, I’m a geezer), and lost (ahem) a wallet – ironically the only thing in it was a copy of the infamous Disney Orgy. 😉
J/P=?
$26 – John Paradox,
I’m old too. But, you’ve got me beat by a few years. I’ll assume you mean the 1964-5, not the 1939. I was a bit young to be at the former, or at least too young to remember it. My parents might have been at the latter, but they were a bit young then.
New York has changed quite a bit since then. It’s a lot safer now. I usually don’t worry about keeping a wallet in a back pocket now, as long as it buttons or zippers. Some younger people are more lax with theirs. Old habits die hard.
OK, I’ll bite. What was the infamous Disney Orgy?
#4 “If computer models are so accurate, why do they seldom seem to predict the same things?”
I don’t think anyone thinks computer models are 100% accurate.
Yet they are still more accurate predictors then anything else we have.
There are multiple reasons for why weather models are not 100% correct, and may never be.
1.) Chaos
and the “Butterfly Effect”
2.) In practice, almost all real world measurements are not infinitely precise as repeated measurements do differ, i.e. unavoidable mistakes and rounding errors.
3.) Not every atom/molecule is measured, instead a square mile average. To understand take both extremes,
-use the average temperature of the entire earth to model weather, not likely.
-use the temperature of every atom/molecule (every indivisibly small area) and model weather, again not likely because it’s not practical or possible.
In practice the earth is divided up into mile square grids (or what the current state of art may be), these averages is what is feed into the model.
4.) Computer models are not inclusive of all possible weather influencing parameters (measurements), but; they have become significantly more accurate predictors – and continue to improve.
Global warming deniers like to seize on the lack of 100% accuracy to discredit the science. Oh well, we will always have ignorant citizens, don’t let ignorance impede science.