Global Warming Not Linked To Increased Hurricane Activity
In consensus statements found on the Web site of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), scientists involved note that, “Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.”
Indeed, according to Stanley Goldenberg, meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, based in Miami, “Numerous hurricane meteorologists agree that the historical data has not produced any evidence of changes [due to climate change] in the number or intensity of hurricanes, particularly in the Atlantic Basin, and even globally.
“There are some who have done studies that do claim a link, [but] virtually all those studies have been heavily rebutted by others in the hurricane community,” he noted. “In my opinion, the flaw in those studies is an improper utilization of historical databases. I have been a specialist in hurricane climate data for close to three decades, and others who know the databases well agree with what I am saying.”
Mr. Goldenberg pointed to a number of confounding problems in such studies, including the time frame chosen, the techniques available now and in the past to measure hurricane activity, the ways in which such activity was recorded, and the availability of satellite data—or lack thereof.
“The biggest fallacy is that people think that a hurricane feeds off a warm ocean, and if the ocean gets warmer, we will have more intense hurricanes,” he explained. “But there are other factors involved, such as vertical wind shear, which is the difference between the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere. You could also have drier air. These are far more critical factors than the ocean being warmer.
“Everything else being equal, if you warm the ocean under a storm, you might get a stronger storm—but everything else is not equal,” said Mr. Goldenberg. “Warming may increase vertical shear and therefore inhibit storms. The ocean itself warming is such a little effect.”
He added that while many of today’s forecasts for future climate and hurricane activity are based on computer climate models, “We can’t even reliably forecast El Niño. When you look 50 years into the future, you’re getting a picture, but could you be totally wrong? Yes!”
Some climate models, he noted, say that if there is continued warming, higher vertical shear would reduce the frequency of hurricanes, but might result in stronger storms. “I am skeptical of those who would state those results as something like an undeniable fact for the future,” he stated. “It is a possible guide for the future. But certainly the models are not pointing to increased activity.
Natural or man-made?
“I did not say if there is global warming, it would be man-made,” Mr. Goldenberg emphasized. “Not all scientists agree that the warming we’ve seen is necessarily anthropogenic. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
According to Peter Dailey, director of Atmospheric Science at AIR Worldwide, based in Boston, “There is now a near consensus that global air temperatures are increasing, however, there is no consensus on how this has affected the temperature of the world’s oceans, and in particular in the Atlantic Ocean, or how much of the recent warming trend is attributable to man’s activities. This is critical for scientists to understand the impact of climate change on land-falling hurricanes that affect North America.
“Recent scientific research indicates that in a future warming world, the Atlantic may experience two primary effects related to hurricane development,” he explained. “First, a warmer environment may continue to elevate sea surface temperatures (SSTs), thereby providing more fuel for tropical cyclones to develop and intensify. Second, there may be a trend for more frequent or more intense El Niño events which in turn increase wind shear in the Atlantic—an unfavorable environment for tropical cyclones to develop.
“So, while it is true that warmer SSTs may lead to more frequent hurricane activity, elevated wind shear may counteract, or possibly even overturn this effect,” he continued. “Which of these factors critical to the development of tropical cyclones will ultimately win out is the subject of lively debate within the scientific community and beyond.”
Mr. Dailey also reported that recently published studies indicate that hurricane activity could decrease as a result of other competing factors. “For example, simulations of tropical cyclone activity carried out at the GFDL using climate conditions projected for the 21st century indicate the potential for decreased hurricane activity under more pronounced global warming conditions, and cautions against a reliance on statistical extrapolations of recently elevated activity levels through the end of the century,” he said.
Although she asserted that global warming “is driven primarily by human activities,” Christine Ziehmann, director of model management for Risk Management Solutions, based in Newark, Calif., cautioned that, “It is not clear what effect global warming is having, and will have, on the frequency, intensity and geographical distribution of hurricanes in the Atlantic basin.”
According to Ms. Ziehmann, computer models of the global climate tend to suggest that global warming should, in the long term, lead to less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones globally. “However, models are less clear about hurricane activity in individual ocean basins,” she noted. “For instance, in the Atlantic, some models suggest a long-term increase in frequency with others suggesting a decrease.”
She added that, “The evidence shows that there has been an increase in the average intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic since the 1970s and an increase in frequency since 1995, but it is not clear what contribution, if any, global warming has made to these changes.”
In an interview in 2001, renowned hurricane researcher Prof. William Gray told National Underwriter that a complex combination of factors including ocean temperature, ocean currents and the salt content of the ocean at a given time is most likely to affect the frequency of hurricanes. He emphasized that changes in these factors are “natural” and not man-made.
“Professor Gray is absolutely correct that hurricane formation and development depend on factors such as sea surface temperature,” said Ms. Ziehmann. “However, it would be wrong to suggest that these factors could only be affected by natural changes in climate and not by man-made global warming.
“Both natural climate variability and man-made global warming influence hurricane formation and development,” she stated. “The real question is to what extent they contribute over the time-scale of interest. This is still an open scientific question.”
The researchers also addressed the political debate that has attached itself to aspects of climate change.
“For the layman, there is sometimes a tendency to regard every new ‘discovery’ or scientific finding from the latest published paper as an inviolate fact,” said Mr. Dailey. “In reality, rarely is there ever a last and final word in studies of complex systems such as earth’s environment. Rather, science is a dynamic process based on the scientific method in which researchers test hypotheses leading to new discoveries, but also reexamine earlier theories and try to improve, build upon, or extend them.”
Mr. Goldenberg of NOAA added, “There are those who want to attribute any perceived increase in natural disasters to anthropogenic global warming. I predict that if we have an active hurricane season, someone will attribute it to AGW. They’re not really looking at the science; they’re looking at the disaster.”
Charlie:
Ara,
Wow, nothing like a dose of inconvenient truth to start the day. Of course, you know you are going to be attacked from all quarters by the AGW wingnuts–you know, the ones who say blowing up the economy is a small price to pay in the unlikely event that the bunch over at the UN is right.
Anyway, good for you. This piece of yours will be added to our stack of reference material for when we negotiate this year’s cat treaty–near the top.
Charlie
August 20, 2008, 6:59 amSteve Mercer:
I Totally agree. Global warming is based on rogue science and is perpetuated by power hungry liberals who wish to control us through fear and untruths. They need to move to another country.
August 20, 2008, 7:46 amDavid:
Just because there is debate over whether or not global warming creates more frequent and/or more intense hurricanes, one cannot argue that there is no global warming or that it isn’t man made. The issues are separate.
For those who argue that global warming doesn’t exist, I would equate them to the same folks who say that cigarette smoking doesn’t cause health issues. It is clear from measurements of the earth’s overall temperature that we are warming up. Check out this NASA web site: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Now if you debate whether the warming is man made or not, that’s a different issue and one where you could argue for more study. I happen to believe that much of global warming is man made, but let’s say for the sake of argument that it is still largely unknown. If that’s true, what do we do while we are still studying the issue? Do we continue our current lifestyle and let the marketplace determine when we switch from fossil fuels to renewal resources?
What if it turns out you’re wrong? What are the consequences? Oh, nothing. Only a potentially permanently warmed world with people (mostly poor) who are more unable to support themselves due to changes in rainfall distribution and amounts, possible destruction of the world’s oceans (coral reefs in particular) and many other serious consequences. But that’s ok. At least I got to live my own lifestyle without being inconvenienced by having to reduce/reuse/recycle, drive a car that doesn’t go 0-60 in 4 seconds or shorten my showers in the morning.
On the other hand, what if we take the man made global warming theory seriously and adopt the attitude that we can slow or perhaps even stop it if we change our lifestyle? What happens if we’re wrong then?
Well, we’ll probably still have global warming (or maybe it will stop), but the side effect for taking action is a cleaner environment for our children, with more resources for them and perhaps we can even become self sufficient in energy production so aren’t held hostage by the Middle East.
Some believe that this switch will destroy our economy. I say that our economy is already destroyed in large part because we have relied on fossil fuels for too long and that switching to cleaner and better ways of doing things will not eliminate jobs, just redirect them to different technologies.
We will still need transportation, energy production, houses to live in and food to eat. People will simply be employed doing it differently and our children will be the beneficiaries.
August 20, 2008, 11:25 amAl:
Whoever wrote that last response is either naive, ignorant, or both, on subjects like ecomonics, climate, and apparently common sense. I would rather trust the marketplace than those who think they know better, to deal with this issue, even if it is as urgent as it’s proponents insist. Proposing to dismantle our economy and dreaming that we’ll magically reinvent it overnite due to “green energy” production is insane. That may play well for many as a presidential campaign slogan, but surely you are not serious?
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.” —H. L. Mencken
August 20, 2008, 2:26 pmLars:
Maybe David should try to check other sources than climate activist James Hansens NASA GISS data. WattsUpWithThat has posted on this topic several times. Have a look at this post: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/all-the-curves-that-are-fit-to-print/. It is indeed strange that RSS-MSU, UAH and Hadley always seems to have lower temperatures than NASA. But then NASA does not trust satellite measurements (!) but rely on ground based thermometers.
Also try to look at some of the other posts on how not to measure temperature. That is quite revealing and says a lot about the quality of the temperature data.
Maybe you should also check on http://www.climateaudit.org/ and see how old temperature measurements are altered again and again by NASA mostly with the result that the past look colder than it actually was.
David also argues that nothing will happen if the economy is ruined because of the costs of reducing carbon dioxide. Well David, what happens and indeed does happen now, is that people die. Maybe not in the western world but in poor cuntries. When the price of rice doubled in Haiti, people started adding fresh clay to their staple diet of rice cakes - it does fill the stomach. Eventually you die from lack of nutrition and bacteria from the clay. Why does rice, wheat and corn prices go skyward? Because the western world is subsidizing ethanol production with billions of dollars. So instead of producing food for human consumption we pour it into cars. This is what happens when the politicians are being pressured by “green” lobbyists.
August 20, 2008, 4:23 pmmememine69:
ya, like human monkeys can change the temperature of planets. The theory is 25 years old now and a quarter of a century ago they did not predict that two and a half decades later we would have the coldest winter in 12 years, the coldest April on record and a summer so perfect it was like living in a freaking mall.
August 20, 2008, 4:41 pmThese global warming witch burners will be laughed at soon. Get ahead of the curve.
Charlie:
David–certitute with respect to warming, irrespective of cause, is misplaced as well. The placement/accuracy of the devices used to measure so-called global temperatures is dubious at best. Then there is the motive of the cause’s champions–from Gore to Pickens to the so-called scientists who are on record for stating that our planet’s future–the future of our children–hinges on our ability to generate a moderate reduction to a greenhouse gas that represents an insignificant percentage of our atmosphere–so that we can decrease our global temperature by an insignifcicant amount over fifty years–is utter nonsense. This dubious logic is being promoted by guys like Pickens and Gore, who are not only on record as stating that lying is OK if the cause is pure, but stand to make enormous sums of money if we buy their jive. In normal times, people like this are indicted.
We need to get past this nonsense, and ponder more critical issues–which is almost anything.
August 21, 2008, 7:26 amNinderthana:
David,
I let you in on a little secret. Rather than trying to control other peoples lives by using fear of the unknown, why not invest a little time into actually looking at the science.
If you had bothered to keep up with the latest research you would find that we are currently entering a cooling phase, with the world’s mean temperatures leveling out or falling between now and 2040.
I won’t bother you with the details, as they would not mean much to someone who is happy to spend trillions of dollars on a problem that will have little or no inpact upon humanity over the coming century.
August 21, 2008, 10:03 amDavid:
Allow me to respond to the detracters of my statements:
August 21, 2008, 4:39 pmFirst, to Al. I never said we should dismantle our economy so please don’t put words in my mouth. But we do need to provide incentives, strong ones, to redirect ourselves away from fossil fuels and encourage conservation of resources, not only for global warming, but to preserve resources for those who come after us. If we had trusted the marketplace entirely without government intervention in the past (EPA clean air and clean water regulations, for example), we’d have a far worse pollution problem than we now experience. You think the marketplace would have made cars and industry cleaner?
And I do have a degree in Economics so I’m not ignorant at all. It’s just that, unlike some folks out there, I don’t believe that the marketplace cures all ills. In my view, that’s naive and lacks common sense! There is a fine line between marketplace freedom and the need for necessary restraint. You and I just disagree on where that line is.
For Ninderthana, let’s see–2007 was tied for the second warmest year on record (with 1998), behind the warmest year of 2005 and we’re entering a cooling period? The past couple of years, for the first time in recorded history, we have been able to navigate by boat through the Northwest passage and we’re entering a cooling period? Did you look at the web site that I referred to in my blog above? If so, then I must conclude that you either think that NASA/Goddard Institute is bad science or that we can conclude that we are entering a cooling period based on less than a year’s worth of data. Whatever your “latest research” is, appears pretty suspect to me.
David II:
David:
(Yes, I’m a David as well, so to remove ambiguity, let’s say I’m David II.)
Unfortunately, you are wrong about what was the warmest year and warmest decade in history. The 30’s-40’s period was warmer and they have the glory of containing the warmest and second warmest years on record. NASA had to retract their statements on this once they were shown how their “temperature correction” was in error.
Further, competent scientists, using traditional statistical techniques and high quality regressiona analysis, have extracted the temperature signals of some of the natural cycles (e.g., el nino and PDO) so as to look at the underlying temperature trend. This residual trend should be heavily influenced by any anthropogenic heating. Result? The trend is downward and the 95 percent confidence interval around that trend does not include the so-called “consensus” about warming that has been hard wired into the IPCC models (all 22 of them).
Too many scientists have now taken the high risk step of doing serious science that has the potential to either support or impeach the climate change theories upon which so many, like you, are building your policy proposals. The science is getting in the way of the IPCC’s assumptions. It has become so obvious to some of us in the environmental protection community that we are begining to disregard the climate change subject and reposition our efforts back to the real problems of water pollution (non-point source) and third-world public health (lack of safe drinking water, sanitation, energy, transportation, housing, disease).
I won’t stand in the way of you continuing to promote efforts to shift from carbon-based fuels, but don’t do it in a way that eliminates my efforts to actually do something valuable for the environment and for the poor.
August 22, 2008, 8:29 amRandy:
How can it possibly matter to the environment if the US switches from hydrocarbon fuel? Someone, somewhere is still going to burn every available hydrocarbon molecule. Result - the same CO2 levels, we just have a lot less - of everything. Including food. The more important point is that we should be reserving our fuel supplies for food production instead of squandering it to preserve our wasteful and out of date trucking and auto industries while people starve.
August 28, 2008, 11:31 pm