Der Spiegel reports on a paper in Nature written by Hans von Storch and Matthias Zahn claiming that elevated greenhouse gas concentration will lead to fewer North Atlantic storms by the year 2100. Der Spiegel writes:
Instead of 50 to 60, there will only be about half as many Arctic hurricanes, the scientists say.
After every big winter storm, e.g. like Kyrill, we get here in northern Germany, we always hear the media crow about how it is due to global warming. Now the opposite is claimed. We’re a long way from settled science, aren’t we?
The mechanism leading to the Nature paper’s claim is described in the abstract as follows:
This change can be related to changes in the North Atlantic sea surface temperature and mid-troposphere temperature; the latter is found to rise faster than the former so that the resulting stability is increased, hindering the formation or intensification of polar lows.
I can certainly buy that. But then the authors apply bold science.
In the Nature abstract it is written:
Now, in projections for the end of the twenty-first century, we found a significantly lower number of polar lows and a northward shift of their mean genesis region in response to elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
The elevated greenhouse gas/lower number of polar effect is quite a hypothesis. The authors are assuming that more CO2 will lead to higher atmospheric temps and thus fewer storms. That’s awfully bold science.
But wait, it gets even bolder, Der Spiegel writes about the scientists:
Using computer models, that also used the climate prognoses of the United Nations, the scientists have played out the development of the northern seas up to the year 2100.
Making a projection for the year 2100 with that methodology? Now that’s really bold. I’m doing all I can to rein in the sarcasm here. The authors then add:
Our results provide a rare example of a climate change effect in which a type of extreme weather is likely to decrease, rather than increase.
I haven’t read the full Nature paper, as it is behind a pay-wall. I just wonder where the authors come up with: “a rare example”. This is probably a case of: whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks, which one has to submit to when dealing with Nature and government funding.
There are actually many examples that warm climates are more beneficial than not. After all, who the hell wants to go back to a little ice age, let alone a big one?
Why not just leave the crap out? I’d have no problem with a paper presenting a couple of if-then hypotheses, like:
1) If temperatures rise, our dynamic models show that there will be fewer storms.
2) If the temperature drops, then there will be more storms.
Leave the global warming faith and religion out of it.