Hurricanes and global warming

[SkepticLance]

I have been involved in a couple of thread discussions where I have suggested that the short to medium term harm from global warming is not going to be as bad as zealots predict. One of the arguments used against me is the predicted increase in number and force of hurricanes. So when I saw the reference below, I thought it worth posting.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2008/08/080812160615.htm

 

Not that I am a great fan of this kind of computer model. But it is interesting to see that the frequency of hurricanes is now predicted to reduce, not increase.

 

I quote :

 

"Together, these results suggest that in a global warming world, there would be less hurricanes, but those that do form could become stronger."

 

So the prediction now is fewer, not more hurricanes, even if they become somewhat more potent. What is tomorrow's prediction, I wonder?

[CaptainPanic]

Articles often say how models are more detailed, models are more accurate...

 

I'd like to hear how stable these models are. If they also have a butterfly effect built in somewhere... I've made plenty of models (though none of the atmosphere) and sometimes a very small change in the model creates massive changes in results.

 

Although I lack understanding of the models used, I suspect that researchers sometimes tweak the parameters that have uncertainty to create results that are more interesting to be published.

[iNow]

I have been involved in a couple of thread discussions where I have suggested that the short to medium term harm from global warming is not going to be as bad as zealots predict.

 

How do you mean zealot in this case? I've never heard of any branch of science that deals it that (except, perhaps, psychology), so I'm not quite sure where these bad predictions of which you speak originate.

 

Also, you can't possibly be talking about models, since models don't predict anything... they model potential outcomes based on various inputs.

[Pangloss]

"Predict" = "potential outcomes", for these purposes. Certainly the scientists who did the work being reported on here want us to think so, iNow. This is clear from the story, but I would agree with you if you said they were playing that up a bit (or allowing the reporter to do so) for the laurels, though. The direct quotes from the researchers focus more on the search for a link between GW and hurricanes than any realistic predictability.

 

Hurricanes are incredibly complex entities, so it's not surprising that it's going to be very hard to link something like global warming directly to hurricanes. Anybody who mouths off at this point about hurricanes being on the rise due to global warming needs to stop doing that, because they're just fear-mongering. We should all agree on this much, at least.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

Re zealots

 

Zealotry, or fanatic adherence to a belief, is an aspect of human nature that is near universal in application. In other words, every branch of human thought will have its zealots, and science is no different. I see it all the time in environmental science, where people take scientific findings and streeeeeetch the interpretation way beyond what is scientifically justifiable based on the data. You could argue that the whole 'science' of superstrings is based on this principle. Those who promote possible extreme outcomes of global warming are often very zealous.

[Dak]

but there are possible extreme outcomes of GW, and we should bear them in mind (whilst also bearing their unlikelyhood in mind).

 

every single genuinely scientific resource i've heard has always highlighted these as an extreme (and unlikely) worst-case scenario, so i don't see the problem tbh.

[swansont]

I have been involved in a couple of thread discussions where I have suggested that the short to medium term harm from global warming is not going to be as bad as zealots predict. One of the arguments used against me is the predicted increase in number and force of hurricanes. So when I saw the reference below, I thought it worth posting.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2008/08/080812160615.htm

 

Not that I am a great fan of this kind of computer model. But it is interesting to see that the frequency of hurricanes is now predicted to reduce, not increase.

 

I quote :

 

"Together, these results suggest that in a global warming world, there would be less hurricanes, but those that do form could become stronger."

 

So the prediction now is fewer, not more hurricanes, even if they become somewhat more potent. What is tomorrow's prediction, I wonder?

 

Poisoning the well (use of "zealots") aside, the phrasing "the prediction now is fewer, not more hurricanes" implies that people were predicting more hurricanes as the result of GW. Who are these people?

 

What I recall from the IPCC and An Inconvenient Truth was discussion of storm intensity, not number.

[SkepticLance]

To Dak

You are correct, of course. The publication of material that meets the definition of 'zealotry' is not part of formal scientific reports. However, such writings are still very common.

 

To Swansont

 

The phrase 'less than' came from my reference. Obviously, those who prepared this report clearly believed that earlier reports were for significantly greater numbers of hurricanes.

[iNow]

But IINM swansonts bigger point was how the models showed an increase in intensity, not frequency, and hence are valid... So I suppose I'm missing what the big deal is.

 

The fact that a reporter misrepresents what the data showed does not mean that the data itself was wrong.

[swansont]

 

The phrase 'less than' came from my reference. Obviously, those who prepared this report clearly believed that earlier reports were for significantly greater numbers of hurricanes.

 

I don't get that impression from the article. They say there would be fewer hurricanes than we currently have (or have had in the past) and that they were surprised by this. The only discussion of other models says that they agree.

 

"The same prediction has recently been made by other studies using global climate models, and the similarity of the two predictions enhances confidence in the results."

 

So the claim that there were predictions of more hurricanes, and the implication that that this is a contradictory study, would appear to be incorrect.

[iNow]

To iNow

Re zealots

 

Zealotry, or fanatic adherence to a belief, is an aspect of human nature that is near universal in application. In other words, every branch of human thought will have its zealots, and science is no different. I see it all the time in environmental science, where people take scientific findings and streeeeeetch the interpretation way beyond what is scientifically justifiable based on the data. You could argue that the whole 'science' of superstrings is based on this principle. Those who promote possible extreme outcomes of global warming are often very zealous.

 

I really get the sense, Lance, that strategy number two (print media) as discussed in this video has really worked well on you:

 

http://smartenergyshow.com/node/67