Uh oh. I smell blowback:
A U.S. climate model simulation suggests anticipated increased wind shear over the tropical Atlantic Ocean might inhibit hurricane development.
The study by scientists at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami suggests a robust increase in wind shear will develop over that area due to global warming. The researchers say that might reduce hurricane development and intensification.
While other research has linked global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity, the study is believed the first to identify changes in wind shear that could counteract such effects.
However, the study did identify other regions, such as the western tropical Pacific, where global warming might cause the environment to become more favorable for hurricanes.
Well, I guess in the future we’ll have a ready answer to why they hate us.
Unless, that is, we begin listening to Al Gore, and bring the hurricanes back to New Olreans, Florida, and Mississippi, where they belong!
(h/t Dan Collins)
The ROSENSTIEL school? Sounds like the Jooooooos control the weather now, too. The Algore will not be pleased.
Kyle, Kyle, Kyle. Try to keep up, will ya? The Rosenstiel Device is but one component of The Dark Lord Rove’s Weather Control System, developed by Halliburton. A little wind shear is child’s play. And now that we have ensured that New Orleans will no longer be a chocolate city, we can transfer our attentions to those annoying native Hawaiians.
Did anyone else notice something odd in the video coverage of Tuesday’s VTech shootings? Snow, in mid April, in Virginia?
It’s just gas, had deviled eggs and beer for lunch, sorry…
Global warming is environmental BDS.
Too many hurricanes and too few are both the fault of global warming.
Warm winters and cold winters are the result of global warming.
Cold springs and hot springs are the result of global warming.
Can’t find a reason to justify a socialist agenda? Fire up global warming.
As pointed out by a commenter over at Blair’s, “global warming” (or, more properly, “carbon credit trading”) is an end-run to allow the UN taxing authority.
The rest of it is hoopla designed to recruit useful fools.
Regards,
Ric
I love the lack of accountability and fasifiability that global warming advocates have wrapped themselves in.
“2006 will be the worst storm season on record because of GLOBAL WARMING~!”
“It was one of the mildest storm seasons on record, sir”
“Well, obviously that’s because of GLOBAL WARMING!”
It’s impossible to parody this kind of attitude. The great thing about computer modeling is that you can make it say damn near anything you want. And with such incredibly scant information on global climactic patterns, there’s no gainsaying any of it.
Wait, did someone actually say that?
I haven’t heard any ‘global warming advocate’ use similar terms.
It probably wasn’t RealClimate.
Or here:
Seems reasonable enough to me.
You can’t, you have a hugely complex emergent system, incomparably few controls compared to degrees of freedom. It took two decades of intensive, well funded (cold war) work to model broadly recognizable climate systems, and almost two more decades to produce accurate simulations of our climate’s large-scale features. This would have been entirely unnecessary if one could ‘dial in’ a desired output.
The primitive equations and parameterizations that describe the real world govern the physics of models. Just as with the real world, one cannot predict the output (climate) just by looking at these primitive equations or parameterizations.
That is not true.
RealClimate.org ? Really Lazar, you could have cited someone who actually participates in the scientific method instead of flouting it.
You might try reading the post at the top of the thread. The one that says Global Warming! may be responsible for less hurricanes, which most sane people would consider a milder storm season.
Amazing someone would try to pretend that 2006 was not predicted to be the worst storm season on record because of global warming… then pretend that this very post did not pretend that global warming was causing fewer storms.
Are you kidding me?
And with such incredibly scant information on global climactic patterns, there’s no gainsaying any of it.
I wasn’t referring to present measurements here. I was referring to long-term measurements. Long enough to be able to understand trends and long-term patterns. Like hundreds of years.
And you most certainly can make your computer models say anything you choose. I can’t believe you’d pretend otherwise. You ought not to, but then, you ought not to use scaremongering to increase your funding and try to manipulate peoples’ behavior, either.
You ought not make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. You ought not claim catastrophic results without having some sort of baseline to what the world is supposed to have as a global temperature.
There’s a lot of things that ought not be done, but are, sadly
How does that equate to claiming GW caused the ‘mildest’ storm season in 2006? Where is the prediction of the ‘worst’ storm season in 2006? These were the comments by CT to which I was referring, which you snipped.
Where he wrote…
So, a statistical claim regarding the influence of GW as one among many factors, is not the same as claiming GW caused the worst or mildest [defined how?] storm season in 2006.
From the article:
So, where exactly did it predict the ‘mildest’ storm season in 2006?
Well, I cited them because their comments directly disprove CT’s characterization.
As to their participation in the scientific method, they are actual climate scientists doing actual climate research.
Flouting the scientific method—care to substantiate?
I pretended no such thing. I asked you to provide a direct quotation, since I have never heard such predictions made.
Indeed it did not.
And nowhere did the article claim that 2006 was one of the ‘mildest’ storm seasons because of GW.
That is not true, for the reasons stated, but if you really believe otherwise then have a go.
I do apologize, I linked to the wrong article, should have been “Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE”.
They are also evaluated against the Last Glacial Maximum and the Holocene, and again they perform well.
The evidence for AGW is to my mind, and of many scientists in the field, overwhelming, whilst the evidence against is ~ nil.
Again, who makes these claims? I have not read claims of catastrophy in the scientific literature, so I wonder where they came from.
It depends on whom you are referring as ‘global warming advocates’, if you mean those climate scientists who believe AGW to be highly likely, then how many have predicted ‘catastrophy’? Or do you mean environmentalist groups? Or journalists?
There is no temperature the world is ‘supposed’ to be at, that does not mean adaptation will be painless.
What happened to consensus? I thought that was the key selling point of AGW.