Kruse Kronicle

Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Reuters: Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes (HT Marc Vander Maas).

MIAMI (Reuters) – Global warming could increase a climate phenomenon known as wind shear that inhibits Atlantic hurricanes, a potentially positive result of climate change, according to new research released on Tuesday.

The study, to be published on Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters, found that climate model simulations show a "robust increase" in wind shear in the tropical Atlantic during the 21st century from global warming.

Wind shear, a difference in wind speed or direction at different altitudes, tends to tear apart tropical cyclones, preventing nascent ones from growing and already-formed hurricanes from becoming the monster storms that cause the most damage.

…….

In recent years some scientists have suggested that human-induced greenhouse warming may be increasing the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes by heating up the sea water from which they draw their energy.

In February a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "more likely than not" that humans contribute to a trend of increasingly intense hurricanes.

But researchers in the new study said increased wind shear could counter the effect of warming waters in the Atlantic.

"The environmental changes found in the study do not suggest a big increase in tropical Atlantic hurricane activity during the 21st century," said Brian Soden, a co-author of the report.

Note that IPPC reports qualification of "more likely than not." They have concluded that it is very likely that CO2 is the driving cause of surface temp changes.

What are we to conclude from this? Two things are dead giveaways in this story. First, they talk about a "potentially positive result of climate change." Second, they directly challenge the findings of the IPCC. Now we know there is an absolute, unqualified, unquestionable, consensus on what causes climate change and its impacts. We know the IPCC is the final court of appeal on such matters. Therefore, the explanation is clear. The University of Miami's Rosenstiel School and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Princeton, New Jersey, are front organizations for Exxon and right-wing political groups. It's that simple.

*grin*

Also see NOAA Revisits Historic Hurricanes and Warming not behind hurricane activity: Forecaster.

Comments

8 responses to “Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes”

  1. University Update Avatar
    University Update

    Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes

    Reply
  2. Peter Kirk Avatar
    Peter Kirk

    Michael, I am offended that I made a comment here pointing out a factual error in your post and you have deleted it without correcting the factual error. Please give me a good reason why I should not denounce you on my blog as a deliberate deceiver.
    For the record, the factual error is in your claim that IPCC has “concluded “more likely than not” that CO2 is the driving cause of surface temp changes” when in fact they have concluded that this is “very likely“, a term which is defined in their report (page 10) as clearly distinct from “more likely than not“.

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Peter, I don’t know what to tell you. I have not deleted any of you comments that I am aware of. This is the first comment I have seen.
    Yes I understand the distinction between the two definitions. Very likely is certainly more than likely. I mistakenly put quotes where I did not intend but I have altered it to your language.
    Also, you seem to take these post personally. They are not directed at you. I have been posting on this topic off and on for 1.5 years now.
    This is my blog. It is where I articulate my take on issues. I welcome converstaion and even disagreement. I value the many posts I have read of yours at Better Bibles. But it seems to me that my posts send you into a rage. If so, maybe you shouldn’t come here. Life is to short to get this worked up about blog posts.

    Reply
  4. Peter Kirk Avatar
    Peter Kirk

    Michael, I saw my previous comment come up on a copy of this page. If it was deleted by a system bug or a hacker rather than by yourself, I apologise and withdraw my complaints.
    Thank you for making the correction.
    My rage is not against you but against the conspiracy between oil companies and the US government to muddy the waters on this issue and spoil God’s creation for all of us for their own selfish gain. Should I simply stay quiet about this?

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “I apologise ….”
    Forgotten and gone. I get an e-mail each time a comment is posted. I did go back to see if there was one with your comment. I couldn’t find one. What concerns me is that this may be happening to others.
    “Should I simply stay quiet about this?”
    Certainly you should state perspective. But this is the context I detect you are operating from:
    A.) You are absolutely convinced that human CO2 emissions are the driving factor in the changing climate. We have this on the highest authority.
    B.) You are convinced that failure to subscribe this view will potentially lead to catastrophic, even apocalyptic, consequences.
    C.) Two types of people are obstacles to doing something about this. 1) Wealthy interests (US government and big oil) who are running a misinformation campaign to protect their interests and 2) well-meaning but ignorant people who fall for this misinformation, possibly in part because it is a comfortable scenario for them to hold on to in avoiding change. I don’t sense and option three is available here.
    Let me tell you how familiar this feels. Here is a parallel context:
    A.) The Bible is the absolute indisputable truth. We have this on the highest authority.
    B.) Failure to acknowledge the truth contained within the Bible will potentially lead to catastrophic, even apocalyptic, consequences.
    C.) Two types of people are obstacles to doing what the Bible teaches. 1) Atheistic and pagan deceivers who are running a misinformation campaign to protect their interests and 2) well-meaning but ignorant people who fall for this misinformation, possibly in part because it is a comfortable scenario for them to hold on to in avoiding change.
    In our climate change debate, you are the Christian and I am the skeptic. I question the legitimacy of the authority behind your doctrine and I question the doctrine itself. That is sacrilege. I feel like I am debating a fundamentalist who is angry with me because I will not accept what is self-evidently true. Therefore, I am either deceitful or ignorant. I fell like a mainline Presbyterian at a Southern Baptist conference on women in ministry. *grin*
    I write this blog to articulate things I’m thinking about and working on. I am not going to quit posting my perspective on this but I’m also not going to spend my time responding to animosity. Life is too short. (And getting shorter all the time. *grin*)

    Reply
  6. Peter Kirk Avatar
    Peter Kirk

    Well, Michael, I don’t accept that the authority I appeal to on global warming is as high as God or the Bible. It is the authority of the consensus of the scientific community – except for a few dissenters. I could make an extended comparison with the evolution vs. creation debate, with you in the position of a creationist, but that might not get me very far except to turn things round so you are the Christian and I am the sceptic. So I’ll just let you write on, and maybe make occasional comments but try to avoid animosity.

    Reply
  7. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Fair enough! The climate science question intersects with two issues (among several) I am deeply passionate about: public policy and science. You raised the evolution issue. I think there are two big threats to science. One is coming from powerful religious pressures to interject religious teaching (ID) into science. Of necessity, science has to operate using a methodological materialism (as opposed to an ontological materialism.) Because some notable scientists over the years have so belligerently overstepped their bounds in making pronouncements about religion, we now have reactionary movement of young-earth creationism. Despite the role of scientists in provoking this it will be very damaging if this movement gains the political power to mandate its views.
    The other challenge I see to science is the increasingly incestuous relationship between government funding (and therefore political agendas) and science. Many people remember Eisenhower’s parting words in 1961 about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. In that same
    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must always be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become a captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
    I wrote a post Sept 2005, Publicly Funded Science, Global Warming, and Christian Responsibility>, that fleshes out some of my concerns. If interested you can take a look.
    So for what it is worth, my two driving concerns are about how to factor climate change questions into the overall milieu of challenges that face the world and the politicization of science through government intrusion.
    Also, where I strongly differ with you, and what I hope to challenge others to reflect on, is the issue of consensus. Science is not determined by consensus. Scientists do not determine matters of science by a democracy. They determine them be conceptualizing models, rigorously testing them, and then once they have withstood testing they hold them with a tentative finality while remaining open to challenges from empirical research. There is no tested and relied upon model at this time. We have a variety of informed opinions but that is not science. What political forces like (e.g. Al Gore) have done is successfully mislead the public into believing that because a number of scientist share some informed opinions, that we have a scientific justification for public policy action. The dissenters are not few and they dissent for a variety of reasons just as those embracing the catastrophic view have embraced their view for many reasons. Climatology is still in its infancy.
    I see this interjecting of consensus into science decisions as being just as dangerous as the “god of the gaps” interjection by ID types. That is part of what drives me to post on this stuff.

    Reply
  8. The Pixie Avatar
    The Pixie

    If “everybody knows” such-and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one. Robert A. Heinlein

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading