Does Global Warming Mean Fewer Hurricanes?

(AP)  Global warming could reduce how many hurricanes hit the United States, according to a new federal study that clashes with other research.

The new study is the latest in a contentious scientific debate over how man-made global warming may affect the intensity and number of hurricanes.

In it, researchers link warming waters, especially in the Indian and Pacific oceans, to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean near the United States. Wind shear - a change in wind speed or direction - makes it hard for hurricanes to form, strengthen and stay alive.

So that means "global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States," according to researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Miami Lab and the University of Miami.

With every degree Celsius that the oceans warm, the wind shear increases by up to 10 mph, weakening storm formation, said study author Chunzai Wang, a research oceanographer at NOAA. Winds forming over the Pacific and Indian oceans have global effects, much like El Nino does, he said.

Wang said he based his study on observations instead of computer models and records of landfall hurricanes through more than 100 years.

His study is to be published Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters.

Critics say Wang's study is based on poor data that was rejected by scientists on the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They said that at times only one in 10 North Atlantic hurricanes hit the U.S. coast and the data reflect only a small percentage of storms around the globe.

Hurricanes hitting land "are not a reliable record" for how hurricanes have changed, said Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Trenberth is among those on the other side of a growing debate over global warming and hurricanes. Each side uses different sets of data and focus on different details.

One group of climate scientists has linked increases in the strongest hurricanes - just those with winds greater than 130 mph - in the past 35 years to global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said "more likely than not," manmade global warming has already increased the frequency of the most intense storms.

But hurricane researchers, especially scientists at NOAA's Miami Lab, have argued that the long-term data for all hurricanes show no such trend. And Wang's new research suggests just the opposite of the view that more intense hurricanes result from global warming. The Miami faction points to a statement by an international workshop on tropical cyclones that says "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

Former National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield said regardless of which side turns out to be right, it only takes one storm to be deadly. So the key for residents of hurricane-prone areas, he said, is to be prepared for a storm "no matter what."
© MVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[Hominatrix53]

the_quietman: Recovery from the last glaciation ended about 10,000 years ago. The atmosphere doesn''t just start warming up again without reason. This time, it''s anthropogenic. Some scientists are now suggesting that we are in an age subsequent to the Holocene, and they''re calling it the Anthropocene.

[Hominatrix53]

CO2Max: I know what you were doing. My reference to being a creationist was a comparison to a ridiculously
absurd argument, saying that humans can have no effect on nature, when in fact, we impact nature every minute of every day, and We''ve been doing so for thousands of years. Why are you so frightened of sustainable development? Do you not understand what it is?

[Hominatrix53]

the_quietman: and you know this...how?

[the_quietman]

In other words, we are in an extended period (nearing the end of a cycle) of climate change (gets warmer, then gets colder and so on), not global warming. Human population is too large for the planet but that, too, will change.

[the_quietman]

The planetary alignment cycle not included. Sunspot activity cycle not included. 62 million year extinction cycle not included (we are 3 million years into the it). Volcanic activity beneath the ice in Iceland, Greenland and Antartica not included. Increased volcanic activity in South America, the South Pacific and North Atlantic not included.

[co2max]

Hominatrix53- You seem to insist on being the inflammatory one. You ask if I am becoming a creationist, by citing my words: "We have become more powerful than nature," when you should read more carefully and see that I am paraphrasing what the global warming fanatics seem to believe. You and I can disagree, but please do not reduce this thread to accusations about Creationism. We may be able to impact nature through use of technology, but that doesn''t mean it is a good idea. I am quite surprised that you would advocate such a thing. That strikes me as completely backward to what the global warming movements seeks to achieve.

[Hominatrix53]

Please tell us what the climate models don''t include that they should.

[the_quietman]

This really is not new data, just data ignored by the purely political Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They trust computer models ( G.I.G.O. ) while the real climate research is done the scientific way, observation and recording accurate data. They also ignore major cyclic history like extinction cycles, planetary alignment and sunspot cycles. Computer models only work if ALL the pertinant data is included, not just the data that you THINK should be included.

[Hominatrix53]

"All this consideration based on speculation that humans are causing nature to behave different or even that we have become more powerful than nature. Any who buys that needs to take a long nap."

CO2Max: "Causing nature to behave different?" Huh? Nature "behaves" according to rules - something the IPCC scientists, and every other competent scientist knows. One of the rules is that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. "Nature" doesn''t care what produces the gases - it just reacts according to the rules. "We have become more powerful than nature" Huh? Have you become a creationist now? Of course we can impact nature with technology. We do it every day. Your choice of words is a bit inflammatory, no?

[co2max]

Hx53 - Agree with you on that. Ad hominem attacks are useless. On the other hand, you have to deal with harsh criticism. Ever go before a review board? Ever get acclaim for your insight in one forum for your insight and creativity, only to get squashed by a committee in the same subject the next day? It''s a mean world and the only way to survive is to stick to what we know to be the truth. That truth turns out to be different things to different people which is why we welcome debate and voicing of opinion, even if we bang heads in the process.