The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Less Pollution, More Atlantic Hurricanes
An interesting and surprising research result.
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are expected to lead to increased tropical cyclone rainfall and hurricane intensity. What is less well understood is how more traditional types of air pollution, such as aerosols, may affect hurricane activity.
A new study published in Science Advances, "Substantial global influence of anthropogenic aerosols on tropical cyclones over the past 40 years," finds that reductions in air pollution in the United States and Europe have reduced tropical cyclone activity in the Southern Hemisphere, but may have actually increased such activity in the North Atlantic.
Here is the abstract:
Over the past 40 years, anthropogenic aerosols have been substantially decreasing over Europe and the United States owing to pollution control measures, whereas they have increased in South and East Asia because of the economic and industrial growth in these regions. However, it is not yet clear how the changes in anthropogenic aerosols have altered global tropical cyclone (TC) activity. In this study, we reveal that the decreases in aerosols over Europe and the United States have contributed to significant decreases in TCs over the Southern Hemisphere as well as increases in TCs over the North Atlantic, whereas the increases in aerosols in South and East Asia have exerted substantial decreases in TCs over the western North Pacific. These results suggest that how society controls future emissions of anthropogenic aerosols will exert a substantial impact on the world's TC activity.
For whatever reason, this study reminded of prior research finding that air pollution levels (and their timing and distribution) has an effect on weekday vs. weekend weather.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
More weasel word "science"
The weasel words are necessary for humility.
There is reason we no longer write "laws" of physics, but now term them "theories".
However, this is just models on top of models. There isn't really any research or science here since none of the models can be verified and they have enough tuned parameters to fit a herd of elephants.
My local weather can't even tell me if it is going to rain sometime during the day. In the morning it will be rain all day, but then by afternoon it is sunny and warm. What makes you think they can predict things to this level?
Also, remember after Katrina and we were supposed to get endless "super hurricanes" because of global warming? Yeah and then for the next almost 10 years we got nothing.
These are the same people that predicted New York City would be underwater by 2010 back in 1995. And if you believe them I got a nice igloo to sell you in Florida....
There is a difference between "weather" and "climate".
And your memory will be highly selective - if one scientist says that X will happen, and most other scientists don't, when later X doesn't happen, you'll recall this as "scientists said X would happen".
Is that really the best defense you can come up with? Like there isn't a giant list of "climate" scenarios there were predicted as early as the 1980's that were already supposed to come to pass that haven't even come close. Are all about 1200 of them just my imagination?
Nope, not your imagination. Just about every climate model has failed spectacularly; even feeding them conditions 30 years ago, they can't predict today's climate. They are trash.
Keep going back.
These guys have been wrong over half a century.
Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
Sadly, he was wrong, and we still have both NYC and D.C. with us.
In 1969, CO2 was about 325 ppm in the atmosphere. In 2000, it was 370 ppm. That's only a 14% increase. He was "only" 33% low in his timeline for CO2 increase, and only 320% high on the temperature effects. Close enough for government work!
(CO2 numbers from https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt, temperature from the smoothed numbers at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt .)
The only real difference for "scientific" purposes is that weather is only predicted a few days ahead and somewhat local, but climate is predicted thousands of days ahead and is definitely global.
I used to read journal articles about climate models, and like restaurant kitchens, if you know the kind of slop that goes into them, you'd never trust them again. Things like discovering cloud cover matters -- after using the models for 20 years.
After learning process control and running production units for a while, I don't trust most models very far, and I don't trust a model without feedback any further than I can throw the computer it's running on (and I have a geek's throwing arm). And that is on units where all the inputs are known and measured. How much less can we trust models of a "unit" the size of a planet with unmeasurable inputs that we might not even know about and trillions of butterflies flapping their wings?
These models aren't part of a control system so there really isn't an opportunity to close the loop. It is an understandable mistake though, since mentions of the weather on this blog usually involve manipulating it with giant space lasers.
They are being used as a control loop by the IPCC. You have inputs, predict the outputs and then alter the inputs to get the desired results. That's the entire point of all of this. To convince people to reduce emissions and control the climate.
However, even accepting your point, the predictive power of these models is pathetic. They only have an unknown (but probably small) fraction of the inputs modeled or even measured to any degree of certainty (and the uncertainty is larger than the inputted changes on most of these variables). The segmentation of the world is so large that at least up to 10 years ago, they couldn't even model a hurricane because the blocks they used were too large.
This is not a predictive study; it analyzes historic data. Your generally well-founded distrust in climate models has no bearing here.
The historic data analysis notes that the trends towards increased numbers and severity of such storms go away once you account for the probability that a lot of such storms simply went unnoticed before satellites and higher populations.
Concur - Lots of studies show that there has been little or change in long term trend of total accumulated cyclone intensity of hurricanes once you account for undetected storms. Basically no change in the long term trend as SST has increased over the last 150-200 years.
Yet, unsurprisingly, the "climate scientists" conclude that the Hurricane intensity will increase due to warming SST in the future.
I mean, literally this was mentioned in the study the OP refers to:
" We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes."
Then, having established that the historical data don't agree, they proceed on the basis of the models.
FWIW - I mentioned in the comments at Skeptical Science that very point citing the study that claimed both 1) there was no change in ACE over the last 150+ years in which the SST was increasing, 2) that ACE was going to increase due to rising SST - ie that projection was inconsistent with the historical record,
Of course the pseudo pro science crowd at Skeptical science went ballistic
There's no research funding if the sky isn't falling. In fact, publishing a statement that global warming isn't going to end the world can cause you to lose your job.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/20/24737/
judith curry has lots of good articles on the hurricanes and global warming.
As she notes, the correlation between hurricanes growing in intensity and global warming is quite weak.
go to juditcurry dot com, using the search bar for hurricanes will have 30+ articles
All the good parts are because of heroic democrats taking over stuff at the federal level in the name of global climate warming change.
All the bad parts are because of people who don't like what the democrats are doing.
Add to the paucity of storms, the slight cooling trend since 2015 the models look to need a bit of rework.