Climate Change Changing Cyclones?
A new Nature study on hurricanes contradicts the finding of a previous Nature study Art covered back in February. The new report found that global warming may actually decrease the frequency of tropical cyclones, or hurricanes, in the Atlantic Ocean. The last report said the opposite.
Even though the new study finds that global warming could result in fewer hurricanes, researches also say that climate change may cause slightly wetter and more intense storms. (Think Katrina and Nagris, which some have argued are frightening consequences of global climate change.) Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration used a new model to simulate regional hurricanes, which some climate scientists are already questioning.
The findings support three 2006 studies that also used climate model projections, Real Climate points out. But, they are refuted by several papers in the last year that warn against warming oceans.
The takeaway point is that we shouldn't be so quick to point fingers at global warming. The science isn't [all] in yet.
Comments:
Posted 05/20/2008 01:17pm with
Suemedha, this article is both bad science and bad journalism. First, you need to point out that this study is based on a particular climate model run. You should never look at these in isolation. In essence it is a data point and you are extrapolating from one point. Second, there has never been a consensus in the science community about whether global warming will have an effect on the FREQUENCY of storms. There is a consensus—and this study is another data point in the consensus—that global warming will, over time, increase the INTENSITY of storms either because of ocean warming and/or sea level rise. Third, there are numerous studies that show that storms are a mechanism for the planet to discharge heat buildup—basic thermodynamics here—and so a heat buildup can create one large storm or several smaller storms to accomplish the same amount of heat discharge. There, may in fact, be an inverse correlation between storm frequency and storm intensity. Fourth, there are already scientific responses on this study available on the internet. Just google and read Trenberth’s comments. Lastly, as journalism, your takeaway “The science isn’t [all] in yet” is completely irresponsible. First, the science is never all in. That’s what makes it science. Second, this is the mantra of the right-wingnut climate skeptics who try to exploit the necessary tentativeness of all science to make people doubt the broad scientific consensus about global warming. Google around and you will see them playing up this story as an example of why we should doubt all climate science. You should know better.