Scott on April 18, 2007 at 3:27 pm
National Geographic’s latest issue has an article on hurricanes and global warming. Interestingly enough, this article looks at recent studies that show that global warming may, in fact, lead to weaker hurricanes, not stronger ones.
Previous simulations had found that as global atmospheric temperatures rise, sea surface temperatures rise as well. And because warm ocean waters fuel hurricanes, that temperature rise was predicted to increase hurricanes.
The models, however, also project that the difference in wind speed and directionâ€”an effect known as wind shearâ€”will also increase due to rising temperatures. An increase in wind shear could counteract the effect of rising sea surface temperatures and actually inhibit hurricane formation.
So how is this a setback? Well, a couple thoughts come to mind:
1) For the last couple years, climate hysteria has insisted that global warming was leading the world into a time of increased storms of Biblical proportions, including class V hurricanes that will devastate the coastal regions. Al Gore was SO SURE of this that he even insisted that Hurricane Katrina was proof of the tragic effects of global warming on humanity (forget the facts that Katrina was barely a Class III when it hit shore and that the tragedy of New Orleans was caused by poor levy construction and not apocalyptic weather patterns). This article demonstrates that even those who claim to be so sure about climate science and global warming aren’t standing on the solid ground that they pretend they are.
2) Much of the global warming histrionic has been based on “models.” Computer models to be precise. These computer models are provided with a lot of data and asked to make predictions based on any number of variables. The problem is that the models are only as good as the data they are given, so if the data is incomplete or faulty, then the model predictions are also incomplete and/or faulty. This leads us to a quote from Kerry A. Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
“I think it’s a very interesting study, and the technique they’re using is pretty good…[clip]…The only reservation I have about it is, to do this, [the researchers] took the output from 18 climate models and they kind of averaged these results…[clip]…They’re averaging a lot of things together to get a consensus, which is almost like treating these models democratically. Not all models are created equal. Some of these models are pretty awful.”
I guess my point is that if a guy from M.I.T. has a problem with the methodology, then shouldn’t we all have a problem with it? And if we have a problem with this type of “averaging” of weather models when it comes to analysis of hurricanes and wind shear, then shouldn’t we also have a much larger problem with the much larger practice of averaging computer models when it comes an analysis of the entire global warming theory?
I’m just saying…
Category: Climate Change & Environment |