9 ms·

UN's climate link to hurricanes in doubt

24 points by anamax 17y ago

brazzy 17y ago
Does anyone have a source that explains the results of the report with a bit more scientific depth, specifically why global warming would lead to fewe but slightly stronger hurricanes rather than more? AFAIK the fundamental cause of hurricanes is the evaporation and condensation of water. Higher temperatures cause more evaporation, so it seems pretty obvious that it would cause more opportunities for hurricanes to form.
- ars 17y ago
  No, that's not the fundamental cause of hurricanes. The fundamental cause of hurricanes is the difference between water and air temperatures. If both go up together nothing changes. The difference is measured from absolute zero, so if both go up 1 degree there is actually even less of a difference than there was before. Since the water is warm, and the air cold, and every model shows water temperature rise lagging air temperature rise, global warming should cause less hurricanes. The higher intensity might be because the water would become warmer, and air temperature is not a constant. If a hurricane should happen to form when it's cold out, it'll be somewhat more powerful.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Isn't the driver the difference between surface temperatures and stratospheric ones, right? It all goes back to the adiabatic lapse rate. The question I would have would be how greenhouse gases would affect that. Anybody have that information?
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    " ... global warming should cause less hurricanes." Do you mean lesser, or fewer, hurricanes?
    - gambling8nt 17y ago
      The original article indicates fewer, but slightly stronger.
KirinDave 17y ago
NEWSWIRE: Continued scientific research updates predictions. Slightly less devastating storms predicted. This is normal for science. Deniers try to use process as wedge for false-dichotomy argument. Aside, this exact same story from a different news outlet already flooded through here last week and got no play. Why submit it again?
- dantheman 17y ago
  Well it's not just that the prediction was off a by a bit, the entire relationship was wrong. It was GW -> More Storms, now it's GW -> Less Storms. Now of course this is just science being done, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Climate Scientists claim to have a much better understanding than they do. As Feynman said, it is the duty of the scientist to bend over backwards to inform you of all the ways they might be wrong. In Climate Science, you hear this is the consensus, not that we have data for 30 years of 10000 year cycle and we think that this will happen. In my opinion it's not honest.
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > In Climate Science, you hear this is the consensus, not that we have data for 30 years of 10000 year cycle and we think that this will happen. In my opinion it's not honest. I don't know how much more honest an admission that a prediction was wrong by respected scientist can be. What do you want? This AGW issue is so politically charged that we want the scientists to be constantly going over the data and trying to reproduce it. It's not like the IPCC was trying to hide this. If anything, the entire way this scenario played out should be a reassurance that the IPCC and cooperating scientists are acting in good faith. They're not trying to "cover up" failures; they're acting on the established scientific process.
    - CamperBob 17y ago
      What do you want? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. (I heard that one from an environmentalist, ironically enough.) Extraordinary calls to action, such as rewiring the global economy, require ironclad proof.

24 points by anamax 17y ago

Does anyone have a source that explains the results of the report with a bit more scientific depth, specifically why global warming would lead to fewe but slightly stronger hurricanes rather than more? AFAIK the fundamental cause of hurricanes is the evaporation and condensation of water. Higher temperatures cause more evaporation, so it seems pretty obvious that it would cause more opportunities for hurricanes to form.

ars 17y ago
No, that's not the fundamental cause of hurricanes. The fundamental cause of hurricanes is the difference between water and air temperatures. If both go up together nothing changes. The difference is measured from absolute zero, so if both go up 1 degree there is actually even less of a difference than there was before. Since the water is warm, and the air cold, and every model shows water temperature rise lagging air temperature rise, global warming should cause less hurricanes. The higher intensity might be because the water would become warmer, and air temperature is not a constant. If a hurricane should happen to form when it's cold out, it'll be somewhat more powerful.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Isn't the driver the difference between surface temperatures and stratospheric ones, right? It all goes back to the adiabatic lapse rate. The question I would have would be how greenhouse gases would affect that. Anybody have that information?
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  " ... global warming should cause less hurricanes." Do you mean lesser, or fewer, hurricanes?
  - gambling8nt 17y ago
    The original article indicates fewer, but slightly stronger.

KirinDave 17y ago

NEWSWIRE: Continued scientific research updates predictions. Slightly less devastating storms predicted. This is normal for science. Deniers try to use process as wedge for false-dichotomy argument. Aside, this exact same story from a different news outlet already flooded through here last week and got no play. Why submit it again?

dantheman 17y ago
Well it's not just that the prediction was off a by a bit, the entire relationship was wrong. It was GW -> More Storms, now it's GW -> Less Storms. Now of course this is just science being done, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Climate Scientists claim to have a much better understanding than they do. As Feynman said, it is the duty of the scientist to bend over backwards to inform you of all the ways they might be wrong. In Climate Science, you hear this is the consensus, not that we have data for 30 years of 10000 year cycle and we think that this will happen. In my opinion it's not honest.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  > In Climate Science, you hear this is the consensus, not that we have data for 30 years of 10000 year cycle and we think that this will happen. In my opinion it's not honest. I don't know how much more honest an admission that a prediction was wrong by respected scientist can be. What do you want? This AGW issue is so politically charged that we want the scientists to be constantly going over the data and trying to reproduce it. It's not like the IPCC was trying to hide this. If anything, the entire way this scenario played out should be a reassurance that the IPCC and cooperating scientists are acting in good faith. They're not trying to "cover up" failures; they're acting on the established scientific process.
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    What do you want? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. (I heard that one from an environmentalist, ironically enough.) Extraordinary calls to action, such as rewiring the global economy, require ironclad proof.