First, the contention is not that at leads to MORE hurricanes, it's that it leads to STRONGER hurricanes. Whether there will be more, fewer, or about the same number of hurricanes in a warmer world is a matter of active investigation.
Still, accumulated cyclone energy should increase as strong storms increase, unless there is a concomitant decrease in the total number of storms, such that the total energy is constant or decreases.
Whether or not there is a link between global warming and stronger storms, the connection between warmer water and stronger hurricanes is NOT in dispute. In fact, one of the people that originally demonstrated the connection between sea surface temperature and hurricane formation is William Gray, a self-professed denier of global warming (and yes, he call himself a "denier"). The very strongest storms (major hurricanes and super typhoons) require exceptionally warm water.
I think what this really shows is that there are confounding factors that matter, too. You need not just warm water temperatures but also low wind shear and other factors, some of which are cyclic. As water temperatures increase there may be changes in those other factors that act against storm formation.
It's hard to say what will happen, but without regard to global warming, if regions of warm water expand and sea surface temperatures increase, there will be stronger storms and they'll have greater range unless there are simultaneously other factors that work against that.
One of the problems regarding hurricanes and other types of severe storms is that there numbers are relatively low and good observations only date to the 1960's, so we don't really have good statistics on them anyway. Even without warming their year-to-year variability is quite high.
EDIT to linlyons and Stubby Phillips: I have no idea what "coyoteblog" is, but the original source of the chart I believe is WeatherUnderground, which leads me to believe it is accurate. While the question is not the correct one for this chart, since it does not refer to storm count, I think it is a legitimate question.
Personally, when the papers that purported to show an increase in strong storms came out (one by Kerry Emanuel and the other by Judith Curry and her husband Peter Webster), I thought the data was suggestive, but hardly proof. Numbers such as accumulated cyclone energy (in this plot) or power dissipation index (in Emanuel's paper) have large error bars that depend on the estimation of wind speed, which is not directly measured for most storms. Also, there is a tremendous annual variability, even the world weren't warming, which makes it hard to see any signal from global warming if it is there.
Another EDIT: What I find most telling about the lack of objectivity of deniers is that even when I generally AGREE with what they're saying, they don't accept that either.
I am not aware an increase in the number of hurricanes was predicted, although I note scientists like jim (ha ha) fail to mention that point, as they resort to the usual name calling. What was predicted was a long term increase in the number of more powerful hurricanes out to and beyond 2050, not as deniers seem to be trying to claim within 5-10 years (~2005).
As usual look past the denier hype and they are offering nothing to back the claims they are making, please post a link to a science site that has predicted an increase in hurricane activity.
This site states in black and white that (by the end of the century) we are likely to see an increase in intense hurricanes but a decrease in overall cyclone activity, which is at odds with your unsupported statement.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-...
But then I think you and your denier buddies know that which is why we never see links to actual science sites.
As for jimbo's nonsense, whoever said CO2 directly causes hurricanes, warmer sea surface temps cause hurricanes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is warming both the atmosphere (and more slowly) the sea.
Sea surface temps are rising, that jim calls all this gibberish, sadly tells you how much science he really understands. Although I do like the way he igores your mistake and correctly mentions this is about "causing fewer but stronger hurricanes"
I note none of these deniers seem willing to address Linlyons list (from weatherunderground) showing the years (for the Atlantic) with the most named hurricanes (i.e. the strongest hurricanes) 7 of the 12 are from 2003 onward a period of just 11 years the others are (mostly) one off years separated by decades, 1933, 1995, 1887, 1969 and 1936 I don't see how even a denier could explain away that trend, so they ignore it, always the denier fall back position.
This is for all you misfits who are changing the words of 'the scientists' into a smoothing down of your crooked agenda.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...
In this article dated today it states:
"We simply counted how many extreme cyclones with storm surges there were in warm years compared with cold years and we could see that there was a tendency for more cyclones in warmer years," Dr Grinsted said.
Do all you two bit misfits understand English at all? It clearly states what the asker was asking. You are a sorry bunch of losers. You constantly make statements then you say you never said that or that you were misinterpreted, when all along the chart proves your crooked evil agenda wrong. Rather than admit it you choose your typical Goebbels' way and think you can change history and already taken data with words. If you two bit scientists have any beef at all take it up with Dr. Grinsted.
I'm not sure what your chart actually represents.
Here's a list of active hurricane seasons.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/to...
The dozen most active years, and the number of named storms in each.
1. 2005 28
2. 1933 20
3. 2012 19
3. 2011 19
3. 2010 19
3. 1995 19
3. 1887 19
8. 1969 18
9. 2008 16
9. 2003 16
9. 1936 16
12. 2007 15
There's clear science that shows that, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, it should be warming.
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-... <== here's the physics.
Not long ago, we found that the Indian ocean was warming more than was realized.
http://www.livescience.com/topics/global...
Climate is affected by many things, some of which are not perfectly understood yet. It does seem that, with what we've seen, it should be warming more than we've measured, and I don't think we know why that is. However, it's really not reasonable to come up with this or that fact/graph/ professor emeritus What's His Name' statement, and claim that it's not warming. Quite clearly it is warming.
It is reasonable to expect that global warming will cause more hurricanes and cyclones, why? well because it is heat that drives atmospheric circulation, more heat more energy, more fierce storms.
So if this is not happening what can we conclude from this, hmm perhaps it is because there is no ongoing global warming.
The models predict fewer, but worse hurricanes. But given the usual large variation, it would be hard to claim any change. Anyone claiming that GW causes more hurricane is uninformed.
Your question has an 'if' in it.
There have been hurricanes long before there were humans.
After Katrina Al Gore in his Mockumentarie He said 2006
will be bad . Nothing happened
You have got to love the alarmunists. THey are SO FUNNY...
They basically say that AGW will cause more hurricanes, BUT they have no evidence that the warming has caused any increase in hurricanes. So they went to more "strong" hurricanes and fail to provide evidence for that as well. But they get the old... I gotcha.. when you say "more hurricanes".
Sort of like the crop shortages. AGW will certainly cause crop failures, but crop production is increasing faster than population.
So we are clear... Why is AGW so terrible and scary???
1.) Crop production. If AGW is going to cause ANY significant loss in life, then it would have to be here. But they have no evidence of ANY decrease in crop production, as crop production is stubbornly ignorant of their predictions and keeps increasing.
2.) Extreme weather. Now clearly death rate by extreme weather has been decreasing, which may just be technology. BUT, now we see that they cannot show an increase in extreme weather. I guess the hurricanes did not get the memo.
3.) Sea level rises. This is at the bottom of the problems caused because regardless of what the warmers say, people can move faster that 3mm/year. So the real worst case scenarios are some >100 year old property lost to the seas.
Now when asking the alarmunists how many will die, they will talk about billions upon billions. Of course it is funny asking them how. Evidently they are counting on nuclear war. Why? Because they cannot make their numbers suggest enough deaths.
Let me explain. Lets play a game of pretend where we say crop production is going to fail. How much crop would have to be lost? Since we can currenly produce MORE than the world actually needs, not accounting for ethanol production, it would have to reduce by that amount. BUT the US is currently using 4.9 billion bushels of corn a year for .... ethanol, due to an alarmunist non-solution.
And LOL, if you think they can actualyl give any numbers justifying a 4.9 billion bushels per year loss. BTW, thats equates to about 3 pounds of corn for every person in the US A DAY!!!
The alarmunists are scare-mongering, but are utter failures with respect to logic. And when I say alarmunists, I do not mean the warmers who are saying AGW is occurring and we need to do something. I am talking about the people going around making crap up about extinction, end of the world, loss of billions of people, etc.
Sure, we should reduce CO2. But we don't need multi-trillion dollar solutions that will cause more problem than AGW to do so.
Heck a simple nuclear and solar solution is well within reach, and does not even require increased taxation.
Global warming does not 'lead to more hurricanes'. Perhaps you should stop listening to biased media interpretations on both sides. The number of hurricanes expected to occur due to a warming atmosphere are expected to either decline or remain stable. The intensity of those that do form will become more powerful though.
http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Lectu...
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Global-Warm...
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ace-global-650x379.gif
Your premise is wrong: global warming does not lead to more hurricanes; the prediction is that it will intensify hurricanes.
Alarmists are such a bunch of hypocrites. If there are fewer hurricanes, they will say our CO2 leads to stronger ones. If there are more hurricanes, they will say our CO2 leads to more hurricanes. Whatever is convenient for them is what they go with for the day and tomorrow they will erase all their lines and redraw. Last year, Peg was warning about the drought in the Sierra. I am guessing the next warnings will be floods. The chart title is accumulated cyclone energy. I know they don't mind contortions of logic, but I would like a reasonable explanation how our CO2 is causing fewer but stronger hurricanes. I don't even know why I ask. It is like begging for gibberish.
Easy - Global warming causes more and fewer hurricanes. It also is the reason we have an average number of hurricanes as well. The same believer logic is also the reason why we have fewer, more, and an average number of tornadoes, snowfall, rain, floods, droughts, etc....
That chart comes from a misleading conservative blog that spreads misinformation and most likely received money from the Koch Bros
Denialist lies
wrong claim.
