Hurricanes and tropical storms will become less frequent by the end of the century as a result of climate change, US researchers have suggested.
But the scientists added their data also showed that there would be a "modest increase" in the intensity of these extreme weather events.
The findings are at odds with some other studies, which forecast a greater number of hurricanes in a warmer world.
The researchers' results appear in the journal Nature Geoscience.
BBC News website: 'Fewer hurricanes' as world warms
Nature Geoscience: Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions
Abstract:
Increasing sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have been reported to be strongly correlated since at least 1950 raising concerns that future greenhouse-gas-induced warming could lead to pronounced increases in hurricane activity. Models that explicitly simulate hurricanes are needed to study the influence of warming ocean temperatures on Atlantic hurricane activity, complementing empirical approaches. Our regional climate model of the Atlantic basin reproduces the observed rise in hurricane counts between 1980 and 2006, along with much of the interannual variability, when forced with observed sea surface temperatures and atmospheric conditions. Here we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.
You led the way with your language. I know people people who speak this way and what they are will colour my view of yourself. I don't know if that is what you think is effective or if that is way you behave all the time but do know it will denigrate anyones opinion of you here. What is puzzling is that you last post sounds more reasonable but others are of a cretan yobo. Is this an act or are you in fact more than one person?
Yes creating a model is entirely possible and there are many environmental models you have made to many assumptions which blinker your view. It needs to be done these models are being used to rule us in many areas of life. They are opaque to most and to those who could understand the inner workings are hidden. If they are to be used to alter the way we live transparency is needed. If you look similar things have been done and James Hansen actually does not a degree in software engineering. The whole point of what I said was that I seek to learn how they are produced and used. Then I would show others among those I expect some would want and be capable of helping. Possibly the most complex software development efforts are computer operating systems and yes a number have been produced in similar way.
Asking for instance answers like you have is saying where is your specification? The fact that specifications are not available from anyone is why there is a need. Give me one and the development could start tomorrow but then maybe I would not feel the need.
Your request of a scientific discussion is not reasonable you should know that. I am at the beginning of this as I have always said.
Next time do we bad Luke or good Luke? I think bad Luke means I withdraw. I don't think I have much else to say to you any way.
Hey - how actually have you engaged yourself - by an ongoing psychoanalysis of myself - There is no "other" viewpoint on AGW being defended here - except my incredulity that you are going to investigate and reimplement a number (plural) of GCM codes. It's not a AGW is right/wrong discussion. Frankly I think AGW has got some issues. And sceptics have more !
Just level with me - do you feel confident to undertake this task. I would not be myself. It's massive. I'm not an elite mathematician/physicist.
I have yet to hear one word from you on algorithms, land surface or grid schemas, different varieties of GCM - perhaps what modules to focus on?
I wonder why that is - so feel free to lead off with a sciencey type discussion ... you can leave me languishing in my "mental decrepitude" with minimal concern.
As I said "you self-obsessed to an extreme and oblivious to other viewpoints". You are not engaging you are again spouting insults probably to prop up your feelings of inadequacy. I am not on the opposite side yet your tactics do not move me why not?
"Never offer anything myself" - um you're kidding - have a really good look over many diverse threads.
So - You've decided "to attack" the climate models and you have adequately demonstrated you don't know jack. It's simply outrageous. I don't object AT ALL to you analysing GCMs and re-writing them but I don't think we'll be seeing anything actually. A big fat zero. Why am I bolshy about it - your lack of respect for the science contained in those codes.
As for other viewpoints - actually I spend heaps of time chasing down many links posted on here. I doubt you guys do the reverse. But that's OK - it's my education not yours.
Mate everything after "comprende" was a joke.
I'm not asking you to change your opinion on AGW - but do you really seriously think you're going to reverse engineer an AOGCM - dare I suggest that this is a non-trivial exercise - mathematics, science computing wise, physics and modelling wise - just tell me you're serious ! If you can I'm in awe !!
Your entire lack of any response to the considered links I provided indicate to me just a bit of ego biffo going on.
Anyway - sorry for bolshiness.