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.
If you knew exactly where to look why never offer anything yourself? By saying this you imply that your profession is or was modelling is that so? I am very experienced in software development both in a formal and practical sense. The objections you give to my wanting study computer models and writing code to show to myself and others how they work is bizarre and does show a great deal about your ignorance of software engineering.
You have insulted, attacked, and misquoted me without having any idea what my capabilities are. If you address that sort ire at some one that you know nothing about then you are saying no one can?
The idea that I dislike you is again strange I would say indifferent. You are self-obsessed to an extreme and oblivious to other viewpoints. At least that's what your persona here shows. That is someone who needs help if it is also in your private life. I know people like this and they are people one avoids like the plague. If they happen to be an employer get another job.
I have said a number of times to ask yourself what are you trying to achieve. I do not accept anything on face value and I see those who offer opposing explanations to GW to yours as being unlikely since I doubt there is an answer. I also see your view (if it is typical) also to be unlikely for AGW the how, proof and solution is an extreme stretch of the imagination. I am more interested in the realization that most live in a deeply superstitions world where uncertainty is never allowed. Your contributions to this blog for me have never shown anything but a know it all who does not actually communicate. What I am saying is your tactics give me no reason to change my opinion the are ineffectual, what are you trying to achieve?
No it only took 5 minutes as I knew exactly what I was looking for. Perhaps if you were a modeller or understood duh princuples of modelling you would comprende. Anyway I think you dislike me. I can sense it. Do you really think I'm disturbed. Maybe I am. Everyone says I am. But I reckon they're just jealous.
So trolling the internet for 5 minutes and dumping links plus cut an paste makes an argument. Then connecting those with irrelevant information and insults does not make and argument. It also does not make an argument to constantly misquote me. I doubt we have an audience here who you trying to impress? What are you trying to achieve? You behave like someone that is disturbed most likely you have real problem please seek help you need it. I am not too busy to continue answering your ranting Luke. I will keep at this until you give up or this thread is archived. Maybe you might realize you have cast yourself in the lunatic fringe many other on the blog see it and ignore you. In other words what you are doing is ineffectual.
No - you got what you asked for - now you're rolling out the "no time excuse". You've been called mate ! You have not got the goods.
You can't connect the points as you have ZERO idea what you're on about. No knowledge or expertise in modelling. Anyone else I know would have immediately surfed up and made some comments of their own. As I said someone who write "I understand the general principles of modelling" inevitably doesn't. You're full of it.
Dropping ad homs like "see a shrink" vividly illustrates the point even further. Who's done their nana !
The reason we get no links from yourself is that you don't know what you're talking about. As for my time to do that - about 5 minutes if you do know. You wouldn't have a clue where to go even. And when showed retorts with "oh I'm too busy". Pathetic.
Luke you have lost the argument you think I should stay and wait for you to reply. I actually have a life and a full time job maybe you don't. It seems you have this obsession and all you can do is spew forth links and cut and paste. They lack cohesion so so you connect with irrelevant nonsense and insults. I think you should see a shrink to find out why you wish to waste you time like this.
yes yes yes Tell us when the reimplementation is completed tosser. How long to re-engineer your first GCM do you think. Mate you aren't going to do diddly squat.
(I was right on the "too busy" account too - predictable !)
Hell Luke you have descended into a rant. Who do you think is reading this? Your tactics obviously don't impress me so why obfuscate? Your comments really do show your ignorance and how far you out of your area of expertise if you have one. Keep typing your disarray shows more and what you are. I will have a look at this again tomorrow have do some programming tonight.
DHMO – well you don’t even read what you’ve written.
Every computer programmer thinks they’re a modeller. Some modellers aren’t bad computer programmers, some should not be let near a computer.
1975 eh – oh we’re so impressed. I was only 1976.
You commented on Fortran and I got a little discursive – but your ego immediately responded with a “well shucks I knew that when I was as 2 years old”.
But gee I have now learnt something – I thought models could only ever be written in Fortran. I never knew there could be other options. 😉 Gee whiz. That's amazing.
You asked about GCM function – you got a good summary.
You asked about CCAM and you got an explanation.
Now it’s irrelevant hey?
But why not use Stella http://www.iseesystems.com/ and write no code at all? Anyway I look forward to you going through 100,000s line of code and “clarifying” it all for us.
“My intention is to attack climate models directly” ROTFL ….
Those Fortran algorithms are so complex too.
Cryptic a=b+c probably means a=b+c – wow !
So now I’ve given you some GCM code sources now – when will be seeing the web site with the OO reimplementation.
I’ll expect the “I haven’t got time to waste” excuse real soon now. LOL.
AC You really don't read do you! If you had then you might have noted "It is imperative that the modellers use Fortran or something like it". You do not have to use Fortran to show and understand a computer model. Thank you for the links I will have a look when I have the time. The links are fine but when will I recieve anything but a spray of irrelavant information from you. Quoting version numbers of Fortran is stupid of course I know that, I have been working with computers since 1975. There are lots of computer languages each specialising in a particular area. I will choose a language that shows the algorithms used rather than being cryptic due the necessities of processing speed. I take it you have no curiousity about this and feel threatened by someone who sees it as entirely feasible to understand and critique them. Keep the links coming I am enjoying your alarm.
Well it may be a shock for those that understand the basic principle of modelling that OOPS doesn't run fast enough (OK I'm sorry). Modern Fortran variants have many more language features than Fortran IV and are highly optimised to take advantage of supercomputer and parallel architecture. But still not OO. Fortran 90 has evolved to Fortran 95 to 2003 with 2008 being worked on. Fortran 77 and Fortan 90 still being common codes.
Speed is everything with climate modelling. For example see projected developments here in Theme 3
http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/meetings/workshops/2008/ModellingSummit/presentations/index.html
This area of scientific computing is high level specialist stuff. Fortran is de rigeur.
http://www.sgi.com/products/software/irix/tools/fortran.html - a modern compiler spec.
As for what a GCM does - this is a good summary on coupled AO models : http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-coupled-ao-gcms-work.html
Conformal Cubic can adaptively change resolution over areas of interest - see slide 19 here. http://www.jamstec.go.jp/esc/research/AtmOcn/hires2005/slides/McGregor.pdf Great presentation. If you think you understand it - your probably don't. Heavy stuff.
Anyway - still think you're up for a critique? Will you still be attacking? 🙂