The Virginian-Pilot
©
Global warming will not have the influence on hurricanes along the Atlantic coast as often described by environmental activists such as Al Gore, a study concludes.
Based in part on the work of an Old Dominion University scientist, the study instead makes a slightly different forecast for the 21st century:
There likely will be fewer, not more, hurricanes and tropical storms during the century because of a warming planet. At the same time, the ones that do form are likely to be the bigger, more destructive kinds, the Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.
Based on a mix of 18 different computer models, the study "projects nearly a doubling of the frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms by the end of the 21st century," according to a copy released Thursday.
The entire study, to be published today as the cover story in the journal Science, predicts that this trend will be especially true in a zone between the Bahamas and the Southeast U.S. coast, including Virginia.
"That's probably the most alarming part of our report," said Robert E. Tuleya, an ODU adjunct professor and co-author of the study. "And that's certainly not very comforting to us who live and work on the East Coast."
Tuleya joined ODU after retiring in 2002 from the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey. There, he led efforts to develop computer models that more thoroughly predicted hurricane activity, formation and intensity. He described this latest study, conducted with colleagues at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as one that "both sides of the global warming debate will probably take and run with."
Tuleya said skeptics are likely to point to the study as evidence that existing computer models are flawed, and that predictions from environmentalists about climate change and hurricanes are exaggerated, if not wrong.
Those who believe global warming is real and a serious threat will cite the study for its forecast that hurricanes will be more intense and potentially devastating as the planet slowly heats up, he said.
Asked his own view, Tuleya said he is "more of a middle-of-the-road guy."
"The popular theory that if we heat up the Earth and the sea surface, we're going to increase hurricanes and their intensity is, to me, too simplistic," he said. "Hurricanes are much more complicated than that."
He said global warming and hurricane activity should be seen as "different animals."
"You can believe that global warming is due to man's influence and, at the same time, not believe in its impact on hurricanes."
Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, often is portrayed as a harbinger of things to come, the consequences of global warming. Tuleya said this perception is "a real stretch."
"There is little evidence tying Katrina to global warming and man's influence," he said. "It could easily be natural variability."
As for the future, he said the experience of Hurricane Andrew, which tore through south Florida in 1992, might be more instructive. Andrew was the only major hurricane that year but was one of the most destructive of its kind ever.
"Fewer storms but more powerful storms," Tuleya said.
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Global Warming - who's telling the truth?
This is to set the record straight as far as global warming goes. It's ashame how easily influenced we all are by those who use political influence to fulfill their greed! Everyone that wants to know the truth about global warming should read Genisis 8:21 & 22. If you cannot believe what you read in these two verses then maybe you're not listening to the greatest politician / teacher ever known to mankind.
Yeah, right
I might also interfere with Santa's sleigh.
What else are Global Warmists wrong about?
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are simply in error and not something more sinister.
Regardless, shouldn't we know for sure -- not "consensus." Consensus is picking out a couch with your spouse that goes with the carpet and drapes. If it's science, shouldn't you be able to test it and reproduce the experiment?
I mean, before we tank an entire industry and attempt to create an entire new energy economy out of whole cloth?
Two groups
There's two groups involved here. There are scientist interested in a rational and objective study like Robert Tuleya sounds like in this article. Then there are those that are pushing a political agenda and try to justify reducing individual rights with fake and distorted science.
Here's a good quote from the
Here's a good quote from the Accuweather Chief Hurricane Forecaster: "My view on global warming is that it's a gigantic financial scam to funnel money to these countries that think they ostensibly are going to use to improve conditions in their country, environmentally and so on, but officials use ... to hire hookers, ride around in limos and in cases of some of these diplomats and some of these countries buy cocaine..." Now let me ask, where did the funding for this study come from? And let me take a wild guess as to the answer: Government. Through funds and grants, our government literally employs scientists who cannot find employment in the real world, with the hope they will publish new studies promoting the global warming scam. If they do not publish such studies, the funding is cut off. So what do you think happens? The global warming scam benefits government's massive power grab and its power over the American public.
A convenient non-truth
"...global warming is due to man's influence..." is not a true statement. There is an anthropogenic component to the current climate change scenario, and I do not mean to discount that component, but the factual truth is that the geologic record indicates Earth has been warming its way out of a glacial period for some time and that for nearly all of that time there has been no man-made input.
Real Objective
Global Warming = Jobs Program = vote buying
Comments to/from writer of this story (start at bottom, read up)
ME: As for the newspapers losing business, sure, most of it is due to other ways of obtaining information. However, some of the loss in business is due to presenting biased coverage and in some cases, blatantly wrong information.
As for global warming, you point out to me that what I am arguing is simply "opinions", but it's those conflicting "opinions" that are being presented as absolute fact by those that believe in the scam, and anyone that presents evidence otherwise is labeled as someone that's out of touch. It's ok to print articles telling of those that believe in man made global warming and the doomsday that awaits us if it's not changed, but never do I see a story presenting the other side of the story that others are trying to get out. The media is simply contributing to the publicizing of a 1-sided argument.
Scott: Wow, you sure have a lot of opinions, sir. Please remember that they’re just that – opinions – and don’t represent them as “proven” or “scams” as you did in your first email. As for the state of the newspaper industry, geez, it has nothing to do with politics or agendas. It has to do with the Internet taking newspaper articles for
SAY IT ISN'T SO
What exactly is going on here? Are you a Va Pilot staffer responding publicly to email criticisms? Please advise.
Who don't see the big picture?
Global warming is not necessarily our doing. There is documented evidence this planet has warmed and cooled several times over the last 10,000 years or more. This whole "Global Warming" scam is just a big opportunity for Government to tax each and every one of us based on our "Carbon Footprint". Cap & Trade ring a bell? All about carbon credits....and yes within the last month or so most of these so called scientist are backing up on earlier claims of global warming. For crying out loud folks, get your head out of the sand and open your eyes! This whole deal is about our Government taking more of our money!!!