Skip to comments.Hurricanes and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?
Posted on 05/27/2006 10:41:56 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Several prominent scientists and a host of climate alarmists have claimed that the intense Atlantic hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005, together with their considerable human and economic impacts, were linked to CO2-induced global warming. To help set the record straight on this important issue, Pielke et al. (2005) review what is fact and what is fiction about the matter.
With respect to hurricane numbers, the five scientists report that "globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades," citing the studies of Lander and Guard (1998), Elsner and Kocher (2000) and Webster et al. (2005) in support of this statement. Furthermore, they note that research on possible future changes in hurricane frequency due to global warming has produced studies that "give such contradictory results as to suggest that the state of understanding of tropical cyclogenesis provides too poor a foundation to base any projections about the future."
With respect to hurricane intensity, Pielke et al. note that Emanual (2005) claims to have found "a very substantial upward trend in power dissipation (i.e., the sum over the life-time of the storm of the maximum wind speed cubed) in the North Atlantic and western North Pacific." However, they report that "other studies that have addressed tropical cyclone intensity variations (Landsea et al., 1999; Chan and Liu, 2004) show no significant secular trends during the decades of reliable records." In addition, they indicate that although early theoretical work by Emanuel (1987) "suggested an increase of about 10% in wind speed for a 2°C increase in tropical sea surface temperature," more recent work by Knutson and Tuleya (2004) points to only a 5% increase in hurricane windspeeds by 2080, and that Michaels et al. (2005) conclude that even this projection is likely twice as great as it should be.
Perhaps of greatest significance of all to the issue of future hurricanes and the destruction they will cause is the nature and degree of human occupation of exposed coastal locations. By 2050, for example, Pielke et al. report that "for every additional dollar in damage that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects to result from the effects of global warming on tropical cyclones, we should expect between $22 and $60 of increase in damage due to population growth and wealth," citing the findings of Pielke et al. (2000) in this regard. Based on this evidence, they state without equivocation that "the primary factors that govern the magnitude and patterns of future damages and causalities are how society develops and prepares for storms rather than any presently conceivable future changes in the frequency and intensity of the storms."
In concluding their review, Pielke et al. note that many climate alarmists continue to claim a significant hurricane-global warming connection for the purpose of advocating massive anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions that "simply will not be effective with respect to addressing future hurricane impacts," additionally noting that "there are much, much better ways to deal with the threat of hurricanes than with energy policies (e.g., Pielke and Pielke, 1997)."
We agree. We should be doing the right things for the right reasons. Anything less not only hurts us, it debases us.
What I refer to as "Eco-Communism" has NEVER been about either the environment OR wildlife.
The REAL "Green" Goal... How to destroy America's Economic System...
SURE there's a connection, it's all just a means to try to regulate, dominate, and control American business and American private property!
After all, why not use lying propaganda to try to take over America? Nothing else seems to be working!
I saw a climatologist say something a while back that gave me pause. He was talking about the dangers of the extremes of El Nino and La Nina, then said that were in the extreme pattern between the two.
I guess if it's too hot it's too hot,and if it's too cold it's too cold,and now apparently it's too just right.
Hurricanes are driven because of differences in temperature. Warm tropical waters fuel the huricane, as temperatures in cooler realms create pressure differences.
However, IF Global Warming is happening; the temperatures between those Warm tropical waters ( which remains somewhat stable)and the 'cool' air are now a few degree's closer together. Thus, if anything Global Warming will reduce both the frequency and the intensity of Hurricanes.
I don't think theres any relation. We don't have to destroy our economy and stop burning oil right now like those environmentalists urge. The ice caps aren't going to melt tomorrow.
So sick of this argument. There were periods just 70 yrs ago where we went through these kinds of patterns...hell I am sure there were some that were even worse 300-500 yrs ago that we have no record of.
Last year's season was busy...yes. But the dust storms off Africa prevented hurricanes from forming off the coast..period.
Meaning...if there is going to be a drought due to global warming in Africa...we can actually count on LESS hurricane activity due to NO storms coming off the African coast. The activity last year was entirely Caribbean related.
The Al Gore's and other global warming nazi's need to go get a life.
View "Day After Tomorrow", a climatologist's dream movie.
There must have been a whole lot of fossil fuel burning by prehistoric creatures to have forced the glaciers to recede from such spots as Long Island, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
Someone should have warned them.
I've finally had an epiphany regarding science. In the realm of the sciences, faith is a bad thing. It just seems that science is no longer looking at discoveries as theoretical, they're looking and behaving as if their theories were fact.
Science is becoming less of a method of inquiry and more of a secular religion, with scientists acting as the clerics of a religion. Anyone who does not support the "theory" is treated like an heretic and often their carreers are burned at the stake.
It's dangerous to be a non-believer.
something is happening and the question is what? not if?
The next bad wsinter will have the Gore's and the
Kennedy's complaining about the "Planet Cooling>"
Hey..this stuff is all caused by a grand design..and
only one guy has all the answers...and it's not anyone
walking around down here?????? Jake
"something is happening and the question is what? not if?
Sure something is happening. SOMETHING has happened since our planet was created and will continue to happen until the end of time.
Global warming scientists are the same as the DDT scientists but with LOTS more grant money. A scientist can't say there is no global warming without lots of proof. They can say that "something is happening and please give me more grant money to study it."
The sampling point the global warming chiken littles are basing their scare tacics on is a blip in the history of this planet. Its a bunch of baloney and is an effort to control the economies of select countries.
The global warming scientists are the same people saying that cows farting in Europe are a significant cause of greenhouse gasses. Of course the next step is to tax the farmer.
The leading legislative effort to control greenhouse gases is the Kyoto Protocol. Why did this treaty not include China and India? The two most populated countries on the planet.
we just dont know and both sides are really dug in
The connection is indisputable. The only question is which is the cause and which is the effect.
But we do know a lot of things. We know the measurement of the earths surface temperature has only been taking place for a short time. We know that proponents of global warming use it as a hammer to attack SOME indistrialized countries. We know the sun is the single largest factor in the earths temperature and that its putting out more energy than before. We also know they blame bovine flatulence as a significant contributing factor.
Their answer is always to limit and to control. Freedom is apparently the root cause of global warming.
i dont know you have one group with there heads in the sand and one group stating the sky is falling i guess somewhere in between lies the truth
There are two separate questions:
1. Is our planet getting warmer?
2. If warmer, what is the cause of the warming?
It amazes me how scientists who are supposed to be so logical and analytical blur these together instead of dealing withem as separate and distinct matters. They push the evidence for warmer temperatures but don't talk as much about data suggesting we are to blame. Since we have evidence of past warming prior to our possible ability to influence the earth's climate, a more likely explanation si we are in a warmer climate cycle. We are also not that far off from experiencing another ice age based on historical cycles so the warming could be the calm before the storm.
If we are not to blame for the warming we could waste precious resources in a futile attempt to stop the warming, i.e. Kyoto protocols, instead of directing those resources to more productive efforts to adapt to the inevitable warming.
nah you prove its not and please no childish tirades from your part
Greg Holland's research base -- the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. -- receives overwhelming evidence for the human contribution to global warming constantly now, challenging NCAR's ranks of world class climatologists (and their sleek black humming supercomputers in the basement) to produce ever more refined predictions of the planet's rising fever over the next few decades.
Great reporting -- where does Holland receive the "overwhelming evidence" from, and what is it? Does he hear voices from outer space? No clues in the article, except to suggest Holland is right and everyone else, including NOAA, is wrong.
The article's a good example of why there's so much controversy -- few facts, lots of hype, dumb reporters.
Don't miss the fact that it's from ABC too.
you sound like a child, take a nap