Comments on: Australian Scientists Find Substantial Increase in Global Wind Speed

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:06:02 +0000

Sounds like no one knows much of anything when it comes to the climate. Let's sink about five trillion into fixing it, then we can fix what we screw up 50 years down the line. That's worked out great in the Everglades.

By: DB

DB — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:56:00 +0000

In 2007 Wentz et al. looked at rain, both as modeled by GCMs and as measured.

GCMs predict that rain will increase some 1-3% per degree C of warming. However, satellite data since 1987 show an increase of 7% per degree, an amount somewhere between 2.3 and 7 times larger than what is predicted by climate models.

Theoretically, the only way to bring the two results in harmony would be through a decrease in global wind speeds by some 0.8% per decade. Unfortunately, data shows just the opposite, an increase of 1% per decade. The current study by Young also finds increasing global wind speeds.

Wentz writes "the reason for the discrepancy between the observational data and the GCMs is not clear." He also states that this dramatic difference between the real world of nature and the virtual world of climate modeling "has enormous impact with respect to the consequences of global warming" concluding that the questions raised by the discrepancy "are far from being settled."

How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5835/233

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:14:27 +0000

If nothing else, this should create more interest in researching and developing practical systems to convert those seemingly increasing natural forces into usable electrical energy. On the down side, perhaps we should take another look at how we build and live in the coastal areas.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:37:17 +0000

I will assume that all of these observations are legitimate and not faked or tricked up like the climategate nonsense.

We are constantly learning new things about our environment. It is not realistic to pretend that we were watching as closely 20 years ago as we are now and to pretend that we understood what we saw like we understand it now.

For centuries sailors reported rogue waves, a large wave that was 2 to 3 times the size of other waves. This claim was viewed skeptically. It was thought to be a convenient excuse for operator error. As well as the assumption that the sailors who saw the worst examples probably didn't make it back to report them.

Scientists used the linear model to "prove" that these did not and could not exist. Of course that all changed on January 1, 1995 (Less than 2 decades ago) when the first scientific equipment measured a rogue wave on the Draupner oil platform in the North Sea. Now we know what to look for and know there are areas where these are fairly regular occurrences.

The fact is we do not have good baseline data from 20 years ago. You have to know what you don't know.