Print 97 comment(s) - last by TheSpaniard.. on Jan 22 at 8:27 AM

Cold periods had fewer storms, natural ocean cycles the largest cause of hurricane variability.

I've always been skeptical of the view that global warming leads to stronger hurricanes. The argument behind it seems overly simplistic -- hurricanes feed off warm water, so warmer sea surface temperatures will lead to more frequent and powerful storms.

Elsewhere in our solar system, the exact opposite seems true. Blisteringly hot Venus, for instance, seems to have extremely weak storm activity, whereas icy Jupiter has massive hurricanes that last centuries, large enough to swallow the entire earth several times over. This is only suggestive rather than conclusive, but clearly there's more to storm activity than just raw temperature.

Basic thermodynamics helps to explain why. Storms are essentially large heat engines. It's not temperature that drives a heat engine, but differences in temperature. Global warming, which warms the poles more than the equator, would seem to decrease the latitude-based differential that helps drive a hurricane's rotational energy.

So went my pet theory, at least— but no hard data supported it.

However, the other side had no hard data either. While climate modelers claimed global warming might strengthen storms, actual hurricanologists were adamant that no actual evidence existed. Some pointed to research on wind shear, which suggested that a warmer climate would reduce the conditions that allow hurricanes to form, despite warmer surface water.

In 2005, one hurricanologist, Emmanuel Kerry, broke ranks and claimed to have actual proof that global warming increased hurricanes. For this, Time Magazine quickly named him "Man of the Year". However, last year Kerry publicly recanted his view, admitting that his earlier work was flawed.

With Kerry's renunciation, hurricane scientists were unanimous in their view that global warming wouldn't lead to measurably stronger storms.

But could it do the reverse? Could global warming actually reduce hurricane activity? A pair of Chinese researchers now says this very well may be true, at least for some parts of the earth.

The researchers, using a new branch of science they call "paleotempestology", looked backwards through several thousand years of the earth's history. Using sedimentary deposits, core samples from caves, and other geological proxies, along with documented historical records of hurricane landfalls, they built the longest record of hurricane activity ever constructed. They then correlated it to the varying temperature at each period..

On the global level, the researchers found no link between climate and hurricane activity. Surprisingly, though, cold periods such as the Little Ice Age had the most hurricanes, at least in some regions, a result the team said "begs adequate explanation".

However, the study found a strong link between natural patterns such as El Nino and hurricanes, a clear pattern of rising and falling activity on decadal time scales. These oscillations, known as "ENSO", tended to suppress and enhance hurricanes on a regular cycle, with the cooler "la Nina" years having the most activity.

The research was published in the Chinese Science Bulletin, and can be viewed here.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By tookablighty on 1/20/2009 3:09:44 PM , Rating: 1
Stop making baseless statements! What evidence do you have to support this
Lots of countries ban guns entirely. But no country in the world has zero gun violence. That's proof enough. If you ban guns, only criminals will have them.

there as a grand total of 51 gun related deaths in England for the entire year.
But England tens of thousands of murders. You think banning guns stops violence? It just means someone kills you with a club, knife, or something else.

See my other post. The nations with the highest murder levels all have very strict gun laws. Banning guns doesn't make you safer. It means the criminals who own guns don't have to worry about you shooting back.

previous statement that Hitler took away guns from everyone was already proven untrue
Sorry mate, he took them away from everyone he wanted to persecute.

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938

Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.


By omnicronx on 1/20/2009 3:59:34 PM , Rating: 3
Lots of countries ban guns entirely. But no country in the world has zero gun violence. That's proof enough.
Congrads, you proved that you can never stop gun violence completely, too bad this is not the topic at hand. Never did I imply that you can stop gun violence completely, my entire argument is based on the fact that the US has more gun murders (per ca pita by a factor of 2) than any first/second world country that has implemented any form of gun control. 1 is larger than 1/2, now thats proof.

And before you come back and say once again that, 'only the criminals will have them' take this into account;
I live in Toronto and yes we do have gun violence, but out of the 20 or so people that die every year, perhaps 3 are not involved in gang/drug activity. If gun control means that criminals keep on killing criminals, then I am all for it. How many innocent children die every year in the US via a gun related crime? Just thinking about it makes me shudder inside.

Sorry mate, he took them away from everyone he wanted to persecute.
When someone says, as previously stated, perhaps you should have actually read what what that person wrote before making a comment about it.

From the post that your quoted comment was referencing:
Gun registration was not passed by Hitler but by the previous German government, the speeches about him supposedly re leaving weapons from those on the registry is no more than a myth, most of which circulated by books written by 'pro-gunmen'. (none of the facts line up). There were more stringent gun laws past in 1938 but most of those were to keep guns out of the hands of jews and non German citizens , NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
aka.. those he wanted to persecute..

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki