Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wind Shear By Global Warming May Curb Hurricanes  
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3288 posts, RR: 31
Posted (7 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1620 times:

Study: Increase in Wind Shear Caused by Global Warming May Help Curb Hurricanes

Maybe global warming isn't spawning more powerful hurricanes, after all.

A new study conducted by two atmospheric experts, one at the University of Miami, has found that global warming is producing increasingly stronger wind shear over the Atlantic, and that might hinder hurricane formation. That conclusion would seem to temper earlier studies that insist hurricanes are becoming more intense as the atmosphere heats up. Those studies point to storms such as Katrina, Rita and Wilma, all of which reached Category 5 status during the tumultuous 2005 storm season.

The most recent study doesn't altogether disputes that. Rather, it asserts that wind shear will compete against warmer ocean temperatures, and the stronger force will determine the strength of tropical storms. "Which one is going to be the dominant factor, the wind shear or the warm ocean, we still don't know that," Gabriel Vecchi, lead author of the paper and a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said. "They're kind of conflicting forces."

The study is to be published today in the Geophysical Research Letters, a scientific journal dedicated to studying the Earth's atmosphere. It is the first analysis to find a steady increase in greenhouse gases will correlate with stronger wind shear. Wind shear, a change of wind direction or a strengthening of wind speed with altitude, can prevent hurricanes from forming or tear them apart. Because global warming has been in progress for the past few decades, wind shear already is having some impact on storms, but not much, the study's authors said.

That is because the amount of wind shear is increasing slowly, by about 1.25 mph for every degree increase in the atmosphere. Over the next century, that should amount to about a 10 to 15 percent increase over current wind shear levels, Vecchi, based in Princeton, N.J., said. Practically speaking, he said, that means keep your hurricane shutters handy.


Source


1) Milk is good for you.
2) Milk is bad for you.
3) Milk is good for you.

I'm gonna go bury my head in the sand...  Yeah sure


"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTZ757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2866 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1613 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Thread starter):
1) Milk is good for you.
2) Milk is bad for you.
3) Milk is good for you.

I'm gonna go bury my head in the sand...

Another reason why I live my life the way I want it. Sometimes its right, sometimes its wrong. Depends on what part of the year it is.



LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Let me get this right:

We may have more hurricanes because of global warming
or
We may have fewer hurricanes because of global warming
or
We may have roughly the same number of hurricanes because of global warming

What do we get if there is no global warming, and how could we tell?

Further, how do we accurately measure the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
Is it by statiscal modeling? Can we acurately measure the change in atmospheric content or are we estimating?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Thread starter):

1) Milk is good for you.
2) Milk is bad for you.
3) Milk is good for you.

I'm gonna go bury my head in the sand...

4) It's best to drink milk in reasonable amounts.

Competing mechanisms are more the norm than the exception, and this is another one of many effects which will probably require additional research and observation.

Fact is: If you're rocking the boat, expect an "interesting" ride. If you think it's already "interesting" enough, calming it down may be a good idea...


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2):
Further, how do we accurately measure the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
Is it by statiscal modeling? Can we acurately measure the change in atmospheric content or are we estimating?

It is certainly possible to take gas samples and test them for carbon dioxide concentration. For prehistoric records, gas samples trapped within ice cores from the polar regions are used.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Thread starter):

1) Milk is good for you.
2) Milk is bad for you.
3) Milk is good for you.

But I hope we all can agree that cold milk is better than hurricanes.


User currently offlineBHMbaglock From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting Agill (Reply 5):
But I hope we all can agree that cold milk is better than hurricanes.

Only if you have Oreos.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3288 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
and this is another one of many effects which will probably require additional research and observation.

Indeed.

Problem is, with so many mixed signals being thrown at us by the experts, at some point people are just going to write off future reports as laughable and not even take them seriously anymore...hence, my analogy to the milk debate in the opening post.

Do you know how many people around here are already writing off the recent prediction for an extra-intense season this year, on the notion that they said the same thing last year and it turned out to be a dud?

It's mixed signals like these that take away credibility of the system in the eyes of the general public. And they wonder why such an overwhelming amount of the population wait until literally the last minute to stock up on necessary supplies and take the proper precautions...



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 7):
Problem is, with so many mixed signals being thrown at us by the experts, at some point people are just going to write off future reports as laughable and not even take them seriously anymore...hence, my analogy to the milk debate in the opening post.

The main problem is that the US news media seems to be unwilling to bother their audience with actual analysis or even context outside of a few magazines... Science doesn't fare particularly well in soundbite format. Proper context is even more important there than it is for other topics.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
It is certainly possible to take gas samples and test them for carbon dioxide concentration.

Sure, but it is easy to see that the atmosphere is not uniform. How do we know that these greenhouse gas numbers being thown around like baseball statistics are based on accurate models? It seems that it would take large scale global sampling to develop a truly accurate model. For all the rhetoric, it would be nice to to know that there is reliable data.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1525 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 9):
It seems that it would take large scale global sampling to develop a truly accurate model.

I'm guessing that scientists are smart enough to realize that maybe they ought to take a bunch of samples from all over the place.  Big grin



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineT56A15 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

I think a lot of the problem with this issue is the politico's rush to plug in short term atmospheric episodes into long term climate change. Example: All we heard about in early 06 was the impending doom of the upcoming hurricane season. When it didn't materialize, we get another hurried study and explanation of why they are still right. C'mon! Where is credibility and an unbiased opinion of what is really going on? I have no doubt the planet is warming. I also agree that we should be good stewards of the environment we pass on to our children. Wasted energy resources is a waste of capital. All common sense items. BIMHO, nobody up to this point has been able to make the case that the warming problem is even close to being man made.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Quoting T56A15 (Reply 11):
All we heard about in early 06 was the impending doom of the upcoming hurricane season.

Which in the US media soundbite form consists of one uncautious scientist remarking that the season might become intense and the sensationalist interpretation of the commercial news media running it as a "certain" prediction in heavy rotation for days.  crazy 

Drilling down to the original statement is almost always revealing, and always useful.

Don't get me wrong - our own commercial media are just as bad, but they're completely dominated by the much more serious public media so they can't get away with it as easily.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1484 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 7):
Problem is, with so many mixed signals being thrown at us by the experts, at some point people are just going to write off future reports as laughable and not even take them seriously anymore...hence, my analogy to the milk debate in the opening post.

Quite. And the mixed signals make it very hard even for technically-trained people to make sense of what's true and what's not, let alone the general public.

There's no doubt that shearing forces play an imp[ortant role in suppressing hurricanes -- it's why they have to form close to the equator. IIRC the latitude range is about 5 deg to 10 deg N (or S for that matter). Closer to the equator the Intra-Tropical Convergence Zone suppresses them and north of the limit, shearing forces tear them apart before they get well-organised.

So it _may_ be that larger shearing winds will suppress hurricane formation -- we'll all just have to wait and see. Starting in a few weeks, most likely.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3288 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
The main problem is that the US news media seems to be unwilling to bother their audience with actual analysis or even context outside of a few magazines... Science doesn't fare particularly well in soundbite format. Proper context is even more important there than it is for other topics.

Klaus, you're missing the point entirely.

Every time a new scientific report surfaces, the US news media can run a full hour-long special on prime time television with every minute detail of the report being micro-analyzed, and people will still get to the point where they'll no longer take it seriously...merely because every subsequent report tends to contradict the previous.

When there isn't a perceived consensus among the scientific community, there certainly won't be a high level of credibility for them among the general population, no matter how it's presented.

And people wonder how anyone can question the validity of human-induced global warming...



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineT56A15 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
Don't get me wrong - our own commercial media are just as bad, but they're completely dominated by the much more serious public media so they can't get away with it as easily

The 24 hour news dominates here. No time to get the story right. Get the story on first and don't exceed anyone's attention span. This issue requires careful study before we start wrecking economies and re-distributing manufacturing bases. The very people that will suffer the most from the CNN solution to warming are more worried about American Idol than the economic future of their families.

I've worked in coal fired power generating plants for close to 30 years and have witnessed first hand how fast and effective technology has controlled emissions. SO2 and now mercury can be contained with scrubbing technology and NOx with advanced combustion techniques. Cap and trade programs give industries more options on how to comply with more restrictions on emissions as years go by. CO2 emissions will be prohibitively expensive to control. We had better make sure the solutions that are implemented WILL make a difference.


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3243 posts, RR: 45
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1435 times:

Sorry, but milk is never bad (provided it's white cow's milk and it's nice and cold).  Smile

Hehe... I couldn't resist.

This is an interesting point raised. Warmer oceans would definately potentially create stronger and/or more widespread hurricanes, however I'd never thought about the wind. Naturally it factors into hurricane severity as well. It will be interesting to see which direction science takes this one (a little pun, if you can pick it out).

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

We don't have to worry about hurricanes anymore because of global warming? Hell, I think I'll go turn on all the lights in my house and turn on the engine of my hummer sitting in the driveway.... because goddamnit, I'm going to live how I want to live. Its my God given right and its the American way. Screw the rest of y'all...


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 14):
When there isn't a perceived consensus among the scientific community, there certainly won't be a high level of credibility for them among the general population, no matter how it's presented.

I agree that this is one of the reasons why many non-scientists do not believe in human-caused global warming. What they don't realize is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that we are helping to make the planet warmer. What is debated is how much of the warming is us versus natural cycles, and what the precise effects of that change will be (beyond saying that it's less predictable). People confuse the small disagreements for disagreement on a broader scale.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineTZ757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2866 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 17):
God given right

I agree, do what you want, you only live once.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 17):
American way

Eh, not so much anymore. We are becoming "greener" now.



LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 19):
I agree, do what you want, you only live once.

Noooo kidding! You only have one chance, one life. One shot at living excessively comfortably at the expense of others around the world and at the expense of the environment. Its not as if you need a healthy landbase - land, air, water - to survive or anything. So live well, party hard, and do your part to stop hurricanes from destroying another American city. Because while warmer waters caused by global warming may have increased hurricane strength, even warmer waters will bring them back down to controllable levels of destruction.

God Bless America. God Bless our Way of Living. And God Bless the Environment (because we can't really do anything to keep it healthy anyways).



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTZ757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2866 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 20):
because we can't really do anything to keep it healthy anyways).

Eh, goin to disagree. There is always "preventative maintenance" when it come to the environment. Being greener, do more natural stuff, etc



LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1266 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1405 times:

I can't believe anyone still drinks this Kool-aid.

"Global warming is going to cause a record hurricane season!"

*everyone braces*

.....

*nothing happens*

er, turns out we we forgot to carry the one..

"Global warming is going to cause fewer hurricanes! Don't worry, we are still right about this!"



You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (7 years 19 hours ago) and read 1384 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 14):
Klaus, you're missing the point entirely.

I don't think so.

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 14):
Every time a new scientific report surfaces, the US news media can run a full hour-long special on prime time television with every minute detail of the report being micro-analyzed, and people will still get to the point where they'll no longer take it seriously...merely because every subsequent report tends to contradict the previous.

That is because the well-coiffed bimbos of either sex playing "news anchors" are completely incapable of and disinterested in actual reporting on orders from their commercial sponsors - which would to a large extent consist of putting things into perspective.

Not just one-upping the competition with a ten-second-spot which seemingly "counters" the earlier report to make things "interesting" when it merely omits the more complicated relationship between story 1 and story 2 - which would be the really interesting story to see.

Quoting T56A15 (Reply 15):
CO2 emissions will be prohibitively expensive to control.

No. Most of it is pure waste anyway - it is prohibitively expensive to continue!

[Edited 2007-04-19 12:32:39]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pollution May Slow Global Warming posted Fri Dec 23 2005 18:47:51 by MaverickM11
Hurricanes=Not Due To Global Warming, Say Experts posted Sat Sep 24 2005 03:01:34 by Komododx
BBC: Global Warming Link To Big Hurricanes? posted Fri Sep 16 2005 23:30:22 by SATX
Global Warming...yeah Right! posted Tue Apr 10 2007 15:00:20 by KaiGywer
Honest Look At Global Warming: posted Mon Apr 9 2007 02:40:50 by Galaxy5
John Travolta Lectures On Global Warming posted Sat Mar 31 2007 15:20:43 by N62NA
Global Warming - Not Only On Earth Now posted Sat Mar 17 2007 07:05:07 by NWA742
Global Warming - Ships Are The Villains! posted Sun Mar 4 2007 03:12:21 by NAV20
Mirrors In Space To Combat Global Warming posted Sat Jan 27 2007 05:06:51 by N229NW
New Study On Potential Effects Of Global Warming posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:09:39 by Mir