|
Post by hunter on Feb 27, 2010 15:59:11 GMT
AGW promoters are relentless in trying to sell their fear. The 'predictions' made in the referenced article are no more accurate than reading the entrails of young goats. And at least if you butcher a young goat, you can have some nice cabrito. The only point of the article is to sell faith in AGW's catastrophic claims.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 27, 2010 20:01:04 GMT
It would appear that there may have been some careful wording and cherrypicking of statements both to the press and in the abstract.... www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/pdf/ngeo779.pdfRead the abstract ... "Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100|[nbsp]|km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies" but then this part of the paper "The intensity changes projected by various modelling studies of the effects of greenhouse-gas-induced warming (Supplementary Table S2) are small in the sense that detection of an intensity change of a magnitude consistent with model projections should be very unlikely at this time37,38, given data limitations and the large interannual variability relative to the projected changes. Uncertain relationships between tropical cyclones and internal climate variability, including factors related to the SST distribution, such as vertical wind shear, also reduce our ability to confidently attribute observed intensity changes to greenhouse warming. The most significant cyclone intensity increases are found for the Atlantic Ocean basin43, but the relative contributions to this increase from multidecadal variability44 (whether internal or aerosol forced) versus greenhouse-forced warming cannot yet be confidently determined."A full discussion is at wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/wmo-we-cannot-at-this-time-conclusively-identify-anthropogenic-signals-in-past-tropical-cyclone-data/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 2, 2010 3:29:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 2, 2010 12:07:37 GMT
Should we now be afraid of global cooling? Anyway, possible relations between AGW and tornadoes are even weaker than between AGW and hurricanes: we just don't know what's going to happen. It is an interesting experiment though, if you are a climate scientist.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 3, 2010 22:28:35 GMT
More along the same line as nautonnier's post (Reply #16 on Feb 27, 2010, 3:01pm), Pielke has provided a review of the WMO's Consensus Perspective: Pielke, Jr, Roger A. . “Updated WMO Consensus Perspective On Tropical Cyclones.” Policy Analysis. Science & Public Policy Institute, February 27, 2010. scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/updated_wmo.pdfIt is roughly the same as rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/updated-wmo-consensus-perspective-on.htmlBottom line (emphasis added)? ". . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data."
The latest WMO statement should indicate definitively (and once again) that it is scientifically untenable to associate trends (i.e., in the past) in hurricane activity or damage to anthropogenic causes.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 9, 2010 13:10:30 GMT
Looks like there may not be a lot of energy to fuel hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and mid-Atlantic - and the Gulf Stream source being so cold may be bad news for Europe. The jet-stream running south has kept the entire area of the Gulf and Florida more than 10F lower than normal. Also looks like El Nino is fading now.
|
|
mello
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by mello on Mar 9, 2010 15:35:17 GMT
For the Atlantic season, those SSTs concern me a little now. We're still a ways away, but if that large swath of +1-2 anomalies between 10-20N over to the Gulf stayed there, it would be some good fuel for hurricanes. The cooler Gulf Stream would have some effect, but when the season is here, those SSTs near the US coast will be able to support a hurricane regardless. Same is true with the currently cold Gulf. As far as ENSO, there's still some very warm water subsurface. We'll see how it plays out, but I wouldn't be surprised if we stay in a mild El-Nino up to the summer months. Hopefully it keeps Atlantic wind shear high. Here's a good post on Jeff Master's blog about current SSTs. www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1444
|
|