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."

[mcvet]

I hope this is true.. It would be one of a very few good things to come out of it.

[squidly8]

Oh this makes me laugh. I thought the science was settled. Gore and his Katrina antics. We don''t know enough about climate science to make doom and gloom predictions of tipping points and temperature rises 100 years from now to justify spending how many trillions of $. That is a fact and emotions don''t change facts.

Wait, next we will hear and see links to websites showing how the study author is bought and paid for by the oil industry.

[extremophil]

Fewer Hurricanes? Another plus for global warming!!

[global_chick]

Um, I thought it was the opposite?? Wonder what Al would have to say...oh yeah, he refuses to debate global warming. Guess we''ll never know. I am laughing my butt off at the sheep who swallowed this nonsense for so long. At the very least, the concept of global warming required further study. However, the cultists behind the practice decided to shut down the debate. Nice job.

[raised4952]

global warming,this is a subject that confuse''s myself as i am sure that others may be confused by it too,the reason for the confusion is that the schools teach students that the earth and sun move closer to one another every year..i wish that scientist could get thier story straight on this matter..

[rf35]

"...no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
That about says it all. For hurricanes. Nothing has been settled, just another question raised. Regardless of the hurricane situation, global warming is still a problem and still needs to be addressed. Changes in hurricanes aren''t the only consequence of climate change. People who use this as some sort of pro-oil rallying point need to wake up! I doubt the folks in Florida will much care how intense the next decade''s hurricanes will be if their homes are under water.

[olebd]

It''s all just a bunch of theories (educated GUESSES)

I''ve noticed, in the past few years, weather forecasting seems to have become less accurate despite better technology. If you hear there is a 50% chance of precipitation, chances are good better these days that it WON''T happen. Forecasts are also revised more frequently than they used to be but they seem less accurate.

Doesn''t seem like any of these scientists know for sure what is going on.

[squidly8]

Who said anything about being pro oil? That is the classic environmentalist tactic - attack anyone who doesn''t believe as they do as a shill of the oil industry. I am all for increasing the efficiency of the way that we do things - with oil, gas, geothermal, solar, nuclear - whatever. Why? Because who can argue with using our resources more efficiently? It is simply the right thing to do.

What I am against is the chicken little scare mongering over something that in all likelihood, humans are not in control of. Fact - It is not proven that man is responsible for any changes to global temperature now and 100 years from now. Some have theory and emotion but those are not facts even though they are spread as such. Using fear mongering to spend trillions of $ to ''fix'' something that we don''t even know is broken let alone if we are even the cause is at an undescribable level of ridiculousness.

Throwing money at a problem without the absolute root cause known is flushing it down the toilet. You don''t know that you are ''fixing'' the right thing or even if your ''fix'' will compound the problem.

rf35. What specifically do you propose that spend money on that will absolutely fix global warming? What is that fix? How do you quantify if you fixed it? How long will it take to see a change? How much will your plan change the global temperature? How much will it cost? Who is in charge of the money? Where does the money come from? Show us your plan!

[ibzjem]

Throwing money at a problem without the absolute root cause known is flushing it down the toilet.
Posted by squidly8 at 12:08 PM : Jan 23, 2008

So do you think the same way about medical "research"? Seems to me most people think differently about the "science" behind big Pharma and their miracle pills. Do you know that there has been no cure for anything from medical research? Do they know how to cure cancer or what causes it in every case/type? No. So I guess we should stop spending the money there too.

I think the old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" goes for the environment as well.

[global_chick]

ibzjem, that''s the whole point. I think many people would have been more open to hearing about the possibility of global warming had we been given the facts and been able to question what was being stated. Instead, Gore and his friends made the decision to shut down the debate and treat anyone who might have questions as an outcast or an oil company shill. That is where things went off-track for me, and I''m sure, for a lot of other people. By the same token, I am not going to "throw money" at anything via my tax dollars until I have the facts.

[easeup-2009]

OK so they blamed all the 2005 hurricanes on global warming now they are saying less hurricanes is the result of global warming.......hmmmmmm.....

Next year: "Scientists conclude that an average number of hurricanes, give or take, is the direct result of global warming."

[squidly8]

ibzjem. You are simplifing the medical research process to one where money is just spent without any justification and the shifts with the wind direction. I would sincerely doubt that any medical research institution allows their $ to be spent without any formal review process. "Here Mary, take $20M and spend it on the effect of ball point pens on skin cancer" Show that the research has some quantifiable benefit against this KNOWN problem. We don''t know that global warming is even true let alone a problem!

Al Gore said it was a problem so you believe. Conned you into believing it caused Katrina and melting snow on Kilamanjaro and polar bears stranded on icebergs and the "hockey stick" chart. It might be enough for you to throw your money in but for a thinking person it shouldn''t be. It isn''t for me.

[displeased]

rf35. What specifically do you propose that spend money on that will absolutely fix global warming? What is that fix? How do you quantify if you fixed it? How long will it take to see a change? How much will your plan change the global temperature? How much will it cost? Who is in charge of the money? Where does the money come from? Show us your plan!
Posted by squidly8

I don''t rebut or advocate global warming since I also have many questions, but it would be more beneficial if we invested our money in implementing alternative sources of energy instead of squandering it to Iraq and Dubia. An economic disaster is inevitable because of our oil addiction which our government greedily supports.

[one_american]

Man-made Global Warming is turning out to be the largest hoax ever played upon the American public, since the broadcast of "War of the Worlds" by Orson Welles in 1938 - and Al Gore has become the world''s biggest huckster.

[republic1776]

Moose farts contribute to Global Warming.
A drive from NY to LA generates the smae as a Moose ***.
Why don''t we start eating Mooose, EAT MEAT!

[ora734]

The global warming scientists can''t see past their face on the basis that fewer hurricanes aids in their argument that the earth is warming up, it''s so simple they trip over it.
Their argument that the ice melt at the artics is proof of warming, but clamor that the seas are warming up, is fouled thinking. The fresh water melting into the oceans is cooling the oceans, which cools the gulf stream. What drives a hurricane? Warm water.
A lot fewer hurricanes is proof to me that it is warming up in the atmosphere, which is causing the cooling of the oceans. The speed at which this is happening is whats alarming to me. This will cause the reverse of global warming eventually. Once the balance is lost it takes cataclysmic events to rectify the balances.

[one_american]

Since the last two years have produced no hurricanes for the United States, the Global Warming zealots want to re-write their junk "science" to fit the current conditions so they can continue with their ruse on the American people.

[one_american]

The next thing they will try to tell you is - Global Warming will cause the next Ice Age.

Liberals are never allow truth or scientific facts get in the way of their agenda.

[robertkjjj]

The 2nd paragraph in this shows the inherent media bias that assumes global warming(GW) is human-caused. It says:
"The new study is the latest in a contentious scientific debate over how man-made GW may affect the intensity and number of hurricanes." Note the "man-made" phrase. Also, note this article is not even dealing with the question of IF GW is man-made. It''s about hurricanes and their frequency. It''s mind-boggling how obvious the liberal bias is on this question. Please remember that there are two major, yet separate, questions on this issue. (1) Is GW occurring? Some say yes, some say no. Each side has "scientists" that support their view. (2) If GW is occurring, is it caused by human activity? Some say yes, some say no. Each side has "scientists" that support their view. There are 2 chronic problems with the media reporting on GW. One, the media lumps the two together, and asks absurd questions such as %u201CDo you believe in global warming?%u201D It%u2019s an impossible question for many to answer. For example, I believe GW IS occurring(on a small scale), but like many I believe it%u2019s a natural cyclical occurrence, and not human-caused. But, the question itself is a trick, as it assumes that if you say %u201Cyes%u201D that you agree that GW is man-made. The whole scientific argument and questions have been %u201Cdumbed down%u201D for the masses. Like nuclear power, there is really no way to make this discussion %u201Csimple%u201D.

[prairiefox1]

HERE IS AN ARTICLE I READ YESTERDAY AND FOUND VERY INTERESTING! AND IT BLOWS GORES HYPE TO PIECES!
PART 1
Western winters are getting shorter because of dust kicked up by urban and agricultural development, a University of Utah
researcher said.
Thomas Painter, head of the school''s Snow Optics Laboratory, said in a lecture at the downtown library Monday that disturbed
particles from the Colorado Plateau mix with snow, limiting the heat it can reflect. As a result, today''s snowpacks melt about a
month earlier than they once did. Painter''s research affirms longtime anecdotal claims that the dirtier snow is, the faster it
melts.
"That has enormous implications up and down the line," Painter said. He said it''s important because when the snow cover
dissipates earlier than it should, the ground is exposed at a time when the sun is highest in the sky. This can hurt the local
ecology.
"That has some impact on regional climate," he said. "We''re seeing a 1.5 degree Centigrade temperature increase."
Painter, a recent addition to the university''s geology department, is now studying the Wasatch Range. He says the snowpack
there is under serious assault from dust and soot. Wasatch canyons provide most of Salt Lake City''s water and are
economically significant for winter recreation.

[prairiefox1]

PART 2
If it''s possible to clean up the snowpack, we can buy significant time to increase snowpack duration," he said. "We have
enormous amounts of research to do. I look forward to doing it over the next decade."
Painter said dust''s effects on snow are a global problem. The disappearance of central Asia''s Aral Sea, for example, magnifies
ecological devastation by sending plumes of dust off the dry lake bed. The dust blows east and settles in China''s Tienshan
mountain range, where it disrupts the snowpack''s hydrologic cycles.
Old lake bed sediments document changes over time, in the way historic weather patterns are written into tree rings. Reading
these sediments reveals a surge in dust emissions around the world, Painter said.
___
Information from: The Salt Lake Tribune, http://www.sltrib.com

[jimfinster]

I see the genius warming-denier crowd is in full force today. Sad sad sad.....

[hawksprings]

"OK so they blamed all the 2005 hurricanes on global warming now they are saying less hurricanes is the result of global warming.......hmmmmmm.....

Next year: "Scientists conclude that an average number of hurricanes, give or take, is the direct" Posted by easeup


Yes, easeup, Circular Reasoning is Proof Enough for the jimfinsters of the world that man-made global warming is behind all the weather.

They just don''t realize yet how silly they look.

[prairiefox1]

WE WILL ALWAYS THE NAYSAYERS AMONG US! AND I SEE YOU HAVE ARRIVED! TRY DOING RESEARCH YOUR SELF INSTEAD OF TAKING THE CHEESY WORDS OF OTHERS! ON MY POST I HAVE INCLUDED A ADDRESS FOR YOU TO READ FOR YOUR SELF! AND YOU MUST ALSO ASK IF GLOBAL WARMING DUE TO POLLUTION IS MELTING THE ARCTIC THEN WHY IS THE ICE CAPS ON MARS ALSO MELTING? QUESTION THE CLAIMS AND YOU WILL SEE THROUGH THE LIES!

[global_chick]

Jim,

I go by facts and evidence, not the faux science that Al Gore and his friends try to give me. And the above article clearly shows that more evidence and more study are needed on this issue.

[hawksprings]

Ooops, I cut of easup''s post:

"OK so they blamed all the 2005 hurricanes on global warming now they are saying less hurricanes is the result of global warming.......hmmmmmm.....

Next year: "Scientists conclude that an average number of hurricanes, give or take, is the direct result of global warming."

Posted by easeup



Yes, easeup, Circular Reasoning is Proof Enough for the jimfinsters of the world that man-made global warming is behind all the weather.

They just don''''t realize yet how silly they look.

[global_chick]

I think it''s pretty funny that the cultists behind global warming are here again trying to shut down the facts through insults, shouting and silliness. Try presenting facts.

[mediapreachr]

According to Al Bore''s the genius we''re suppose to have more hurricanes,not less...Ahh,the stories concocted by bureaucrats,just to to have a reason to dig in our pockets.

[prairiefox1]

WE WILL SEE THROUGH THE LIES AND DEMAND GORE SERVE PRISON TIME FOR THIS SCAM!

[hawksprings]

"Its the liberal mindset that gave you science. So for all you conservative retards out there, keep your mouth quiet. Youll be doing yourself a favor."
Posted by californiar


Oh yeah, real liberal mindeset you got there californiar... talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[global_chick]

He''s the world''s most cited climatologist, according to an analysis in the journal of the British Institute of Geographers. He''s also the fifth-most-cited physical geographer in the world, and the 11th most cited among all geographers.

He has written some 230 articles and five books, including in such fields as geology, limnology, meteorology and archeology.

He has twice seen his papers in Environmental Conservation awarded prizes for being "best paper of the year," and he''s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honour, created to recognize "outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment."

He''s Dr. Reid Bryson, considered by many the "father of scientific climatology," and he''s also pronounced on the most consequential climate issue of the day -- man-made global warming. His verdict: "That is a theory for which there is no credible proof."

So who will I trust? Al Gore, or a man considered "the father of climatology," who has YEARS of scientific accolades behind him? I choose the latter.

[jimfinster]

Jim,

I go by facts and evidence, not the faux science that Al Gore and his friends try to give me. And the above article clearly shows that more evidence and more study are needed on this issue.
Posted by global_chick

Ah, do tell. What are your "facts and evidence" to support your position? Wait, let me guess. Because Rush Limbaugh told you!

[hawksprings]

The Global Warming Sheep told us that because of Man-made Global Warming we would have more and more Extreme Hurricanes.
Now they''re telling us we''ll have less hurricanes.

The Global Warming Sheep told us that because of Man-made Global Warming, the planet would get hotter and hotter.
Now they''re telling us it''s also the reason it''s getting colder in spots.


When will they admit they are full of Double-Speak?
It''s so Orwellian.

[global_chick]

JimFinster,

I trust scientists -- real scientists. Since you apparently missed my earlier post, I''ll post it again. See below.


He''s the world''s most cited climatologist, according to an analysis in the journal of the British Institute of Geographers. He''s also the fifth-most-cited physical geographer in the world, and the 11th most cited among all geographers.

He has written some 230 articles and five books, including in such fields as geology, limnology, meteorology and archeology.

He has twice seen his papers in Environmental Conservation awarded prizes for being "best paper of the year," and he''s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honour, created to recognize "outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment."

He''s Dr. Reid Bryson, considered by many the "father of scientific climatology," and he''s also pronounced on the most consequential climate issue of the day -- man-made global warming. His verdict: "That is a theory for which there is no credible proof."

[hawksprings]

global_chick,

You gotta understand that people like Jimfinster are part of a religion and you''re not going to convince them otherwise. It''s the Church of Man-Made Global Warming, and Father Algore is the High Priest.

What''s really funny about this all is that all Man-Made Global Warming continues to be bebunked and fall apart, it''s followers are going to be left in the same boat as the Flat Earther''s.

[hawksprings]

Rest assured that if this summer we have a couple of big hurricanes that make landfall, all you will hear is that it''s Man''s fault.

[jimfinster]

I trust scientists -- real scientists. Since you apparently missed my earlier post, I''''ll post it again.
Posted by global_chick

So you trust this one scientist, but don''t trust the thousands of other scientists? Maybe because it fits your position?

[ajmarine1]

Rest assured that if this summer we have a couple of big hurricanes that make landfall, all you will hear is that it''''s Man''''s fault.

Posted by hawksprings at 02:10 PM : Jan 23, 2008


They have been predicting more storms and stronger than normal ones ever since Katrina;........I don''t think we have had a hurricane hit the US in the past 2 years.

[global_chick]

Again, Jim. The father of climatology vs. Al Gore, who has no scientific credentials. Yes, I think the decision is pretty obvious. Obviously, Reid Bryson isn''t the only one whose voice has been squashed by this madness, but he probably has the best credentials. I can''t believe the same people who call Bush a "moron" are willing to accept the words of a non-scientist lock, stock and barrel.

[global_chick]

Zoe, you have no evidence and no proof. All you have is rhetoric based on what the global warming crowd tells you. Try using statistics instead of insults and ranting.

[ajmarine1]

Georgia, Alabama had servere drought this past summer/fall.

Posted by zoe20006 at 02:23 PM : Jan 23, 2008

That''s because of a lack of hurricanes that normally help supply them with rain. It''s been 2 years since Katrina and how many hurricanse have there been?

[global_chick]

Agreed, hawksprings. As much as they decry religion, that is precisely what global warming is. Anyone who claims to take a stand on a position, but refuses to defend it or debate it, or shouts down those who disagree, should NEVER be taken seriously. The IPCC is a bunch of governments. It is not, and never was, made up of qualified scientists. Check out this article on what the IPCC really represents.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=2

[jimfinster]

Again, Jim. The father of climatology vs. Al Gore, who has no scientific credentials. Yes, I think the decision is pretty obvious.
Posted by global_chick

You did not answer my question. Forget Gore, he is just a strawman arguement for the far right. You know it and I know it.

Why is this one guy right but all the rest wrong?

[global_chick]

zoe, why do you even bother posting? You have no scientific evidence about anything -- all you can do is rant and repeat whatever Al Gore and CNN tell you. You''re a parrot, nothing more.

[jimfinster]

hawksprings:

I find it amusing that you call this a "religion."

But I understand, most non-scientists can''t understand this subject. So they resort to their political positions. Ever wonder why it is the conservatives that overwhelmingly "believe" that global warming is a fraud? Could it have something to do with their corporate ties?

[erasmus6]

hawksprings

I have heard that there won''t necessarily be MORE hurricanes but the ones you will get will be stronger.

Did you watch 60 Minutes the other night?

If you go to the top of the page and click on "60 Minutes" and then on the left in red, click on "60 Minute Podcast" and then click on "The Age of Warming" you will be able to hear it.

If you want to be well informed about what is going on you should listen to it. I think you would find it interesting.

It also tells about how Bush is forbidding the top scientist to tell what he knows and how he had a lawyer editing all things about global warming before it can be printed. It showed the papers that were edited and how they had crossed out whole paragraphs of stuff they didn''t want the general public to see.

[jimfinster]

LOL Global Chick telling other ppl to cite statistics when she offers none herself.
--- Just thought that was funny ---
Posted by fedupwithit1

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. She cites one contrarian expert, but ignores the majority of other experts. That is called positional bias, ie when one ignores all evidence except that which fits ones position.

[global_chick]

I have posted links to more than one article that contains statistics. Unfortunately, you seem unable to read. And if trusting credentialed scientists over politicians makes me a moron, then so be it.

Danish scientist refutes global warming:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/03/15/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/

Global warming cyclical, says scientist
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Science/Global-warming-cyclical-says-climate-expert/2005/06/12/1118514924793.html

The problems in modeling nature
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/science/20book.html?_r=3&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/D/Dean,%20Cornelia&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[global_chick]

What experts? The IPCC? That''s a government panel, not a group of expert scientists. And the media and the environmentalists have thus far REFUSED to allow any scientific debate from the other side. Unlike some of you, I am not a sheep who swallows whatever one side tells me.

[jimfinster]

global_chick:

There is a very short list of warming deniers. Posting links to them or blogs does not mean much. If you have facts to support your position, lay them out. But I suspect you do not understand the science enough to do so. If that is the case, just say so.