Does Global Warming Mean Fewer Hurricanes?

U.S. Government Study: Warmer Waters May Lessen Chances Of Hurricanes Hitting Land

(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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

3. exceptionally warm%u2026.The area affected by tree death is one of the largest ever documented from an insect outbreak in North America (Werner 1996)." (source: http://www.cgc.uaf.edu/Newsletter/gg6_1/beetles.html ) Dead trees don%u2019t absorb CO2.
Personally, I have no problem with nuclear power plants, and I''d love to see a wind farm in my back yard - I think they''re cool.

2. There are hundreds of millions of human beings %u2013 most of them incomprehensibly poor %u2013 living within a few miles of the coastline. Sea levels ARE rising. That has already been demonstrated. A warmer climate will create unimaginable problems for human civilization.
"Longer growing seasons to supply more food and alleviate hunger, fewer cold related deaths (human and non-human), adaptation, increased biomass generation." With these statements, you%u2019re doing exactly what you accuse the "enviros" of doing - conjecture. Hotter temperatures don''t automatically equate to "longer growing seasons" because crops require more than warm weather. Some regions are already seeing extreme droughts, while others are witnessing massive flooding. Both conditions make it tough to grow corn. Warmer temperatures might prevent some people from freezing to death, but it will also bring a spread of diseases that have formerly existed only in tropical or sub-tropical regions, because insects spread them. If the temperature stays warmer, fewer insects are going to die, meaning more will live to spread disease. And insects don''t only spread disease. They also eat trees. In recent years, there have been major attacks on sub-arctic forests from the spruce beetle %u2013a heat-limited insect. "Recent (since 1977) climate warming in Alaska has removed those limitations; winters especially have been milder and a few summers (e.g. 1989, 1991, 1993) have been

1. Squidly8: the indigenous people that have to change their way of life believe the climate is warming. Some Pacific islanders are planning evacuations because their nations are slowly being swallowed by the oceans. Indigenous Alaskans are moving their villages due to erosion of the coastlines and melting permafrost. The animals that are migrating to different regions are doing so as a reaction to warming. I live in Florida and grew up in Michigan, but two years ago, I saw birds up there that I had NEVER seen that far north. And fire ants weren''t there when I was growing up, but they''re there now. Indigenous Greenlanders are changing from a hunting/fishing way of life to farming/tourism. There is plenty of evidence to support the warming theory without uttering a politician%u2019s name or invoking a single scientific study.
"Why do you believe that our current climate is the optimal climate? That is sort of arrogant is it not?%u201D Human civilizations arose within the last 6-8k years. That occurred almost simultaneously around the globe %u2013 not only in the Middle East, but also in Africa, China, and the Americas. It happened because the climate was optimal for the development of large populations of massively consuming human beings. (massively when compared to any other species %u2013 we%u2019re the only animal that clear cuts forests to build homes, quarries rock to build temples, and raises other animals for food.) This climate is optimal for human civilization.

[squidly8]

Hominatrix53, I believe we are close in our desire to be good stewards of our environment but just differ on the side of the fence. You believe MMGW and want to arrest it. I am not convinced the earth is actually warming and that if it is, man is responsible.

[squidly8]

Part 2

My personal near term solution is nuclear. It is safe, efficient, efficient land use, sustainable. What is in the way is simple fear mongering. People protest because of the remote possibility that they will ever be exposed to a nuke plant generation radiation particle but have no qualms about stopping at the hospital or dentist for that xray. Or increase their exposure by flying closer to the sun with nary a thought.

Why do you believe that our current climate is the optimal climate? That is sort of arrogant is it not? The perceived negatives are always cited %u2013 flooding, extinction and proliferation poison ivy but what of the benefits? Longer growing seasons to supply more food and alleviate hunger, fewer cold related deaths (human and non-human), adaptation, increased biomass generation.

What was the cause for the receding of the last ice age? It warmed much more significantly then and hominids were not the cause. What about the medieval warming period %u2013 what caused that. The earth%u2019s climate is dynamic %u2013 it ebbs and flows without effort on our part.

Sanity in the discussion is what is needed.

[squidly8]

Part 1

What needs to be debated is an agreed upon approach to determine if we believe the earth is warming at all. A disjointed effort with a politician screaming the loudest isn%u2019t the way. From that a decision point we decide if it is manmade or not. Manmade? Then accurately define and address the issues. Natural? Well then we aren%u2019t in control are we? History has shown that our forays into trying to control nature usually result in disastrous unintended consequences being generated.

Along the way, we fund incentives for alternative energy research and efficiency increases. Remove roadblocks to the siting of projects. Nobody wants a nuke plant in their backyard but blocking an offshore wind farm because you might catch a glimpse of it on the clearest of days from your vacation mansion is a little silly. In a nearby town, people are freaking out because they don%u2019t want a bio-diesel plant. Densely packed generation sources on gov%u2019t land is probably the answer. Minimize the concessions the people will have to make but also minimize the power the public has to derail in the interest of public good.

CO2Max: Don''t you think more progress would be made if we stopped the ad hominem attacks on those that don''t agree with our position? I''m working hard on finding common ground. How about you?

[co2max]

Economics is very important in this issue as we all discuss the need to adapt to natural change versus trying to spend ourselves silly in a vain effort to change our civilization in such a way that we might be able to induce nature to act differently. From that standpoint, we have no way to judge how effective we can be in doing that. Odds are, on a local level we can wage an influence (to what benefit), but on a global scale, who really believes all 6.7 billion of us can cooperate and make a change? 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.

Squidly8: "Dont you think it odd that enviros want to stifle the debate. They are done communicating and only are interested in enforcing their path"

The failure to communicate lies in what deserves to be debated, and what does not. If you don''t think humanity is responsible for warming, if you don''t think there is anything we can do to slow it - do you agree that warming exists? If so - what effect do you believe a warming climate will have on sea levels? Or are you of the opinion that global climate is not changing at all?

[squidly8]

Failure to communicate. Interesting. Dont you think it odd that enviros want to stifle the debate. They are done communicating and only are interested in enforcing their path.

No understanding of the issue. Never said they had no understanding of the issue. What I have said is that circumstantial events are being displayed as "proof". Proof involves a rationale discussion of uncertainty in measurements, statistical shifts, definitions of the variables by those that are qualified to do the work. Not Gore or politicians or psychologists or accountants. Then the politics needs to be set aside to determine IF there is a problem and if anything within human capability (now and in the future) can be done about it.

The house fire/fire department analogy doesn''t fit as we know that houses will burn down for whatever reason necessitating the FD. We do not know that global warming will occur due to manmade (controllable) practice. We know pollution occurs and we should do what is practical but it is impossible to ever eradicate so a goal to get every last particle is not a rational goal. We have the EPA - their effectiveness is certainly debateable.

Legislative mandates are a somewhat useful tool but not wholly effective. What is best is to give incentives to homeowners and business to increase efficiency and to find alternative solutions. Governments are not efficient and not imaginative - solutions come from industry and associated incentives to do so.