Global warming's effect on hurricane strength disputed in new report
binauralsounds
Posts: 1,357
The Associated Press
Posted July 28 2006, 4:09 PM EDT
MIAMI -- Scientists linking the increased strength of hurricanes over recent years to global warming have not accounted for outdated technology that may have underestimated storms' power decades ago, researchers said in a report published Friday.
The research by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center challenges two studies published last year by other respected climatologists.
One of the studies, by Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was considered the first major research to challenge the belief that global warming's affect on hurricanes was too slight to accurately measure and that climate change likely won't substantially change tropical storms for decades.
And, if Landsea and his three co-authors are correct, it was fundamentally flawed.
``The methodology is fine. There's no problem with the way they analyzed the data,'' said Landsea, who is science and operations officer at the hurricane center. ``The problem is with the data itself.''
The study claims historical storm data has been rendered out-of-date by new technology that better estimates the strength of hurricanes. He pointed to advancements in the quality of satellite imagery that is used to estimate a storm's strength when it can't be directly measured by aircraft or on land.
In short, Landsea said, there were far more Category 4 and 5 storms in decades past than previously thought, because satellite imagery has improved so greatly.
The article was published in the journal Science. It is co-authored by Bruce Harper, an Australian engineer who is an expert on Pacific cyclones; Karl Hoarau, a professor at Cergy-Pontoise University in France; and John Knaff, a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It looks at only a small sampling of historical storm data, though the authors plan to examine further hurricane information they believe will further prove their thesis.
Emanuel discounted the Science piece and said he put considerable effort into accounting for changes in estimating storm strength.
``They ignore the most significant finding from my Nature paper _ that Atlantic hurricane activity is highly correlated with sea surface temperature, which is comparatively well-measured,'' Emanuel said by e-mail from the Queen Mary 2, where he is lecturing on storms. ``This cannot be explained away by invoking rather qualitative arguments about data quality.''
Emanuel analyzed records of storm measurements made by aircraft and satellites since the 1950s. He found the amount of energy released in these storms in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans increased, especially since the mid-1970s.
His study was published last year, along with another Science piece that linked a double in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1970 to the rise of ocean surface temperatures.
Landsea said he did not dispute global warming was occurring or that it could influence hurricanes; he said it simply was not proven by the storm information available.
The studies did not address fluctuation in the number of hurricanes, only in their intensity. But researchers agree that the Atlantic basin is in a period of higher hurricane activity that could last decades.
Posted July 28 2006, 4:09 PM EDT
MIAMI -- Scientists linking the increased strength of hurricanes over recent years to global warming have not accounted for outdated technology that may have underestimated storms' power decades ago, researchers said in a report published Friday.
The research by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center challenges two studies published last year by other respected climatologists.
One of the studies, by Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was considered the first major research to challenge the belief that global warming's affect on hurricanes was too slight to accurately measure and that climate change likely won't substantially change tropical storms for decades.
And, if Landsea and his three co-authors are correct, it was fundamentally flawed.
``The methodology is fine. There's no problem with the way they analyzed the data,'' said Landsea, who is science and operations officer at the hurricane center. ``The problem is with the data itself.''
The study claims historical storm data has been rendered out-of-date by new technology that better estimates the strength of hurricanes. He pointed to advancements in the quality of satellite imagery that is used to estimate a storm's strength when it can't be directly measured by aircraft or on land.
In short, Landsea said, there were far more Category 4 and 5 storms in decades past than previously thought, because satellite imagery has improved so greatly.
The article was published in the journal Science. It is co-authored by Bruce Harper, an Australian engineer who is an expert on Pacific cyclones; Karl Hoarau, a professor at Cergy-Pontoise University in France; and John Knaff, a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It looks at only a small sampling of historical storm data, though the authors plan to examine further hurricane information they believe will further prove their thesis.
Emanuel discounted the Science piece and said he put considerable effort into accounting for changes in estimating storm strength.
``They ignore the most significant finding from my Nature paper _ that Atlantic hurricane activity is highly correlated with sea surface temperature, which is comparatively well-measured,'' Emanuel said by e-mail from the Queen Mary 2, where he is lecturing on storms. ``This cannot be explained away by invoking rather qualitative arguments about data quality.''
Emanuel analyzed records of storm measurements made by aircraft and satellites since the 1950s. He found the amount of energy released in these storms in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans increased, especially since the mid-1970s.
His study was published last year, along with another Science piece that linked a double in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1970 to the rise of ocean surface temperatures.
Landsea said he did not dispute global warming was occurring or that it could influence hurricanes; he said it simply was not proven by the storm information available.
The studies did not address fluctuation in the number of hurricanes, only in their intensity. But researchers agree that the Atlantic basin is in a period of higher hurricane activity that could last decades.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
www.myspace.com/jensvad
you are exactly correct. but then liberals would have one less thing to hate america about.
However, there are just as many studies of things like ice core samples in the arctice, coral beds, and ocean bed cores which this argument would be completely invalid against.
The Earth is warming, yes, there should be a warming trend according to scientific analysis of the Earth's natural processes.
The debate is how much the post industrial era has aided and been a catalyst for the warming to accelerate.
Ocean currents are changing at phenomenal rates, massive pieces of glaciers are melting and sinking into the sea.
There are changes happening which we shouldn't even be able to measure because historically they've happened over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
There is no doubt in my mind that the effects of industrialized civilization have effected the overall macroenvironmental balancing forces of the Earth. The real debate, and the only real debate that has been taking place for the last decade is the extent of our influence, the exact processes, and how to curtail those forces.
It is FACT that it is changing. The warmest years on record have all occurred within the last decade, with each year breaking the previous year's record. CO2 has gone up every year. The statistics support this.
We know the mechanisms for hurricanes to form. Warm sea water is the fundamental ingredient. Warmer temps=more hurricanes.
Right, there will be more frequent and more severe hurricanes. The dispute is how soon and if it is happening already. The statistics support that it is happening already. This article is reexamining the techniques used to measure this.
This is exactly what I've been trying to say about all the "science" surrounding global warming - that our measuring technologies today are vastly different than they were just a short time ago...nevermind anything more than 100 years or so ago. We're not getting an apples-to-apples comparison.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I believe the fact tha we're measuring differently now contributes to those so-called warmest years on record.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Measuring the strength of hurricanes in the ocean, hundreds of miles from any equipment, and checking the mercury on a thermometer are completely different things.
Compared to the earths age, our record doesnt mean dick. "Warmest years on record" are nanoseconds in the normal cycles of earth. Im not saying we dont affect it at all, just that I doubt we're truly capable of inducing as much change as we give ourselves for.
BTW, jut for giggles, how long have we been keeping usable accurate records of global temperatures?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
200,000 years
not as amusing as being ignorant and wrong though
I don't blame the storms on global warming.. it's just a big big issue that everyone is talking about that coincided with a heavy storm season.
But global warming exists... it'll take a while longer to see any big effects though.
By the way, why the hell wouldn't you want to lower dependance on fossil fuels and clean the air anyway? This shouldn't be a liberal issue, it's just making all the conservatives who go out and completely disagree with everything that remotely evidences climate change look like dicks.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
EDIT: Nevermind.. damn it, our days are shorter now!
* change in length of day: -2.676 microseconds
* polar motion excitation X : -0.670 milliarcseconds
* polar motion excitation Y: 0.475 milliarcseconds
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLATETEC/RotationQk2004.HTM
We've been studying them for 200,000 years?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I don't get your point here. Have we been part of "Global Cooling" since the settlers came? If we are where we were at when the settlers came, why is that a big deal?
Just do it.
Thanks, peace, out.
What I meant to say was: Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, instead.
But measuring temperature all around the globe is probably just a wee bit more consistent now than it was 100 years ago. And before that...it's all just a guess. And 100 years ain't a really good scientifically relevant sample.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Just like after F9/11 was released. Sure, I think Bush is a retard, but it doesnt mean I should trust a propaganda flick to be all truth. I think Bush is a jackass, but it doesnt mean I cant think Moore is a jackass too.
just a different group of sheeple, as far as i can see.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The processes involved are overpopulation and industrialization - we didn't start taxing the limits of our resources before 200 years ago - the mechanisms for the massive amounts of pollutants and chemicals spewed into the air weren't around 100 years ago - so the fact that we can measure an increase - according to data from samples around the world unaffected by human pollution in the deep sea beds and ice core samples in fact make it extremely relevant.
Of course there will always be doubt, we don't have processers powerful enough to track every air molecule on Earth yet, but the temperature readings are simple and sound, it's not taking an entire Earth temperature - it's collecting specific readings from thousands if not hundreds of thousands of places around the globe and scientifically analyzing the data to find an indisputable warming trend for 100 years which is unparalelled in any samples we've found dating back hundreds of thousands of years
Valid point, but we do have a record of CO2 that goes back 650000 years and they by using other types of evidences ie. glacier activity, tree ring analysis, core samples etc, we can get a pretty decent idea of the the fluxuations in temperature.
So are you asserting that those scientists collecting the data are also just sheep who's research is shaped by Hollywood? If you can dispute the science or have a problem with its findings, than that is a valid reason for being a skeptic, but because so and so said something so you must believe the opposite is not persuasive. I've studied the phenomenon and read the studies and this is where I get informed. I don't even have a TV, so I'm not sure how I'm a sheep.