backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by PlasmaBomb.. on May 1 at 9:51 AM


The image of a hurricane-spawning smokestack was used to promote the film, An Inconvenient Truth.
Author of the theory that global warming breeds stronger hurricanes recants his view

Noted Hurricane Expert Kerry Emanuel has publicly reversed his stance on the impact of Global Warming on Hurricanes. Saying "The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," Emanuel has released new research indicating that even in a rapidly warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity will not be substantially affected.

"The results surprised me," says Emanuel, one of the media's most quoted figures on the topic.

The view that global warming has limited impact on hurricane strength has been previously reported in numerous DailyTech articles.

Emanuel, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, is the author of numerous books and research papers on climate change. For over twenty years, he has argued that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms.  In fact, his 1987 paper is often cited as the first appearance of the theory itself.

His 2005 research -- published just one month before Hurricane Katrina struck -- made world headlines, and was heralded as the "final proof" that Global Warming was already having severe impacts on daily lives.  Overnight, Emanuel became a media darling.  The following year, Time Magazine named him to their "100 People Who Shape Our World" list.

In 2006, Al Gore used an image of a smokestack spawning a hurricane to promote his movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

Emanuel's newest work, co-authored with two other researchers, simulates hurricane conditions nearly 200 years in the future. The research -- the first to mesh global climate models with small-scale high-resolution simulations of individual storms -- found that while storm strength rises slightly in some areas, it falls in others -- and the total number of worldwide storms actually declines slightly.

Emanuel's reversal is certain to reverberate through political circles as well; many politicians and candidates are using the hurricane threat to compel action on climate change.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Effect
By RIPPolaris on 4/13/2008 4:41:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Emanuel's reversal is certain to reverberate through political circles as well; many politicians and candidates are using the hurricane threat to compel action on climate change.


I have the feeling that most politicians will ignore this..




RE: Effect
By onwisconsin on 4/13/2008 5:51:41 PM , Rating: 5
They won't listen to you but they'll listen to Ben Franklin and his good friends Washington, Jackson...etc ;)


RE: Effect
By professor1942 on 4/13/2008 7:54:38 PM , Rating: 5
Global Warming is going the way of Y2K and the Ozone Hole.

New scare please. I'm bored.


RE: Effect
By bennie1973 on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Effect
By djkrypplephite on 4/13/2008 11:23:56 PM , Rating: 5
Haha yeah. Actually I can't tell if you're serious or not. Please be joking.


RE: Effect
By phxfreddy on 4/14/2008 8:10:51 AM , Rating: 3
He's joking and serious at the same time. And its a great comment.

New Scare Please! Take this one back...its boring and does not match my shoes.

--Sol Rosenberg--


RE: Effect
By Misty Dingos on 4/14/2008 8:40:44 AM , Rating: 5
What is tragic is the lack of scientific literacy in this country. If just half the people that think like you had any real science clue, you would realize that global warming is a fantasy. Al Gore, the UN, leading you down the primrose path. They are charlatans, idiots and liars.

But it all boils down to this, if you want people to listen to you now days you scare them. Scare the hell out of people and they will listen. It is as simple as that. The news does it. The politicians do it. The priests, imams, and rabbis do it. Hell advertisers do it too. The New World Order is run by are the Aristocracy of Fear.

No I am not suggesting that there is some star chamber filled with the powerful elite guiding the next panic campaign. Don’t want to be manipulated by the AOF? Educate yourself.


RE: Effect
By Michael01x on 4/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Effect
By jcrash on 4/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Effect
By omnicronx on 4/14/2008 3:58:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Tell you what...go make camp on a couple thousand year old glacier in greenland. If your camp is still there in 5 years, you are right. If it isn't (and it won't be), then you are thankfully removed from the gene pool and we know you were wrong.
And thats when you realize, 90% of the worlds ice is located in antarctica, and it although the ice is is melting at a faster pace, no more of this melted ice is actually reaching the ocean than 100 years ago.

Greenland has been melting for thousands of years, at one point it was probably covered in 2x the amount of ice. As we are not dead yet from all this ice melting, I think you may be overreacting.

The Artic, although Al Gore supporters will not agree, does not contain enough ice for what you are proposing, plain and simple.


RE: Effect
By Misty Dingos on 4/14/2008 4:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what I was talking about. Blind fear. Fear of the world not being what you want or expect. This is fear driven into your brain by people that have some axe to grind or agenda.

IF global warming happens in it's worst case vision, sea levels will rise approximately 66 meters (at worst 75 meters) and it will take at least 400 (more likely several thousand) years to happen. If the Northwest Passage opens we will be able to engage in commerce more easily with nations of the pacific. Why do you think people looked for it for so long?

Four hundred years ago they were founding Quebec City and the Jamestown colony. A functional telescope was demonstrated in Dutch parliament. How much will the world change in the next 400 years?

Please get a grip.


RE: Effect
By maverick85wd on 4/14/2008 7:34:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Al Gore, the UN.... They are charlatans, idiots and liars


6!!!


RE: Effect
By cochy on 4/14/2008 12:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global Warming is going the way of Y2K and the Ozone Hole.


Ozone depletion was a serious problem that is being corrected thanks to the international ban on CFCs (Montreal Protocol, hurray for Montreal=)

It was a serious problem. No ozone no life.


RE: Effect
By johnsonx on 4/14/2008 1:09:23 PM , Rating: 1
no, wrong. They've recently figured out that the chemical reactions blamed on CFC's were in fact not occurring, and that CFC's were banned for nothing. Funny thing though, everyone who incurred costs for the CFC ban doesn't get any money back now that it all turned out to be bull excrement.


RE: Effect
By bonerici on 4/14/2008 1:59:44 PM , Rating: 4
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are responsible for the majority of observed stratospheric ozone depletion. These gases had been used as refrigerants and solvents as well as propellants in aerosol cans. Although CFCs are nonreactive in the troposphere, they can be slowly transported to the stratosphere where they break down into molecules such as chlorine monoxide (ClO), which depletes ozone by transforming it back into oxygen gas. The Montreal Protocol has banned production of CFCs throughout the world, and the stratospheric ozone layer is expected to fully recover over the next 50 to 100 years.

Ross J. Salawitch, a senior research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., writing for scientific american


RE: Effect
By geddarkstorm on 4/14/2008 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 5
The ozone layer was only ever affected over Antarctica during about three months out of the year while a very peculiar, Antarctica specific event was occurring, known as the Polar Vortex. Watch actual year time laps images of Ozone levels across the globe, and compare them across the decades we've been watching it. I did that just to find out what was going on, and it is surprising.

Again, no where but Antarctica where the polar vortex occurs, during the few months when it occurs, was ever touched by ozone depletion (coincidentally, there's a MASSIVE buildup of ozone around the ozone hole that only exists and when and looks to be proportional to the hole when it's around). This is because the conditions unique in the polar vortex activate CFCs and other chlorine containing molecules which otherwise are inert in the atmosphere--but also bring the Ozone layer and those molecules together where otherwise they sit at different altitudes as measured by weather balloons.

So it's a combination of many factors that limits the hole only to the Antarctic. Though, no one has ever explained why there's such a build up of ozone around the edges of the hole.

Finally, the ozone reaction itself is constantly created via UV radiation in an equilibrium reaction. This means that as ozone levels go down, the kinetic rate of its formation goes up so that the equilibrium is maintained. Likewise, if ozone concentrations go up too far, the rate of its breakdown increases.


RE: Effect
By Polynikes on 4/15/2008 11:19:10 AM , Rating: 1
Or how about we stop being childish and focus our energies and money on something worthwhile, like fixing the disparity of wealth in this country, or fixing the healthcare system, or social security...

Why do I even bother? Nobody wants to fix real problems, they like to make up sensational pieces of fiction to get money for themselves.


Y2k Oh my
By Earl E on 4/14/2008 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
Because I worked through the computer problems at my bank, we resolved the problems with the systems so when the new century started, it went smoothly. All of the customers didn't feel a thing.

Why is it they think nothing would have happened?

Because we mitigated the future problems with action BEFORE the event occured.

These same people show their ignorance when they say global warming is like Y2k.

When sea level rises, the effect of hurricanes will be substantial. That isn't rocket science. Whether there will be more or less hurricanes doesn't matter when you are underwater.

You y2k disbelievers, please buy up all the coastal property below 5ft above sea level. Please.




RE: Y2k Oh my
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 11:25:20 AM , Rating: 3
> "You y2k disbelievers, please buy up all the coastal property below 5ft above sea level. Please. "

Funny, because in 2005, Al Gore bought a $4M condo in San Francisco, just a few feet from the sea at Fisherman's Wharf. He doesn't seem too concerned.

The IPCC is predicting a sea level rise of ~23 cm over the next century. Even assuming AGW is correct, some 9-12 cm of that rise is natural in origin. That translates to an anthropgenic rise of roughly six inches. Over 100 years.

Holland has dealt with land 10+ feet below sea level...with 19th-century technology, no less. Do you really believe that, with 22nd century tech, a 6-inch rise is going to be a serious issue?

Sea level has been rising consistently since the end of the last ice age, some 7,000 years or more. It's an issue we have to deal with regardless....and its not a catastrophe by any stretch.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 11:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
The problem here is that the IPCC estimates for sea level rise do not account for a large degree of glacial melt caused by meltwater at the glacial base. These were not included, because the subject is still under a large degree of scientific investigation, and the confidence in related estimates was insufficient for its inclusion in the IPCC reports.

In other words, the IPCC estimates for expected sea level rise based on glacial melt are extremely conservative at this point in time.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Andy35W on 4/16/2008 2:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
>The problem here is that the IPCC estimates for sea level rise do not account for a large degree of glacial melt caused by meltwater at the glacial base. These were not included, because the subject is still under a large degree of scientific investigation, and the confidence in related estimates was insufficient for its inclusion in the IPCC reports.

In other words, the IPCC estimates for expected sea level rise based on glacial melt are extremely conservative at this point in time.


Yes, as this latest report seems to confirm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7349236....


RE: Y2k Oh my
By porkpie on 4/16/2008 10:05:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, as this latest report seems to confirm
Thats not a report and it doesn't "confirm" anything. It's just yet another computer model.

The actual data shows sea level rise is still going up at the same slow rate it has for thousands of years.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Andy35W on 4/17/2008 2:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats not a report and it doesn't "confirm" anything. It's just yet another computer model.The actual data shows sea level rise is still going up at the same slow rate it has for thousands of years.


There is no data for the future, unless you have a time machine, so your point on current data is not relevant. It is a forecast and the forecast is that current estimates on the rise are probably too low.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Earl E on 4/14/2008 11:44:51 AM , Rating: 1
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a broad plate of permanent floating ice on the southwest Antarctic Peninsula, about 1,000 miles south of South America. In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase on Earth, rising by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit) per decade.

"We believe the Wilkins(ice sheet) has been in place for at least a few hundred years. But warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a break-up."

So now this sheet broke off last month. Larson B a few years ago. These large events are not indicative of a stable polar region, rather a region where unforseen influences are making formidable changes.

Where are the historical records on ice sheet collapse?

Katrina was a catasrophe? Are we building a dyke around Manhatten? Miami? Bangladesh?


RE: Y2k Oh my
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 12:04:34 PM , Rating: 5
> "The large events are not indicative of a stable polar region"

Of couse. The polar regions have never been stable. Historically, permanent icecaps exist less than 10% of the time in the Earth's history. They form briefly...then melt...then reform again.

As for the temperature record in the Arctic, I give you this story from all the way back to 1922 (almost a full 100 years ago):

quote:
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reporters from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers [all] point to a radical change in clmatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temerpatures in that part of the Earth's surface.

...Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted.
Also from the Washington Post, Nov 22, 1922 :
quote:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway...Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Earl E on 4/14/2008 12:36:32 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, so what is the time frame of the polar collapse? Where is the article from 20,000 bc describing how the end of the ice building was afoot, and how quickly the melting will occur? Where are the weather reports on how things progressed through the warming? So how sure are you that incremental melting will prolong sea-level rising to allow for some humans to mound up dams,dykes and levees?
And what of climate chaos? Are there any fossil records which demonstrate ecological collapse? If so, shall we surmise that they only occured in the past, and cannot occur the day after tomorrow?


RE: Y2k Oh my
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 12:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "Where is the article from 20,000 bc describing how the end of the ice building was afoot"

That "article" is the historical sea level record, which clearly demonstrates the polar icecaps have repeatedly melted and refroze, causing sea levels to rise and fall by over 200 meters at a time.

We also have fossil records, demonstrating periods (such as the Eocene Thermal Maximum) in which the Arctic approached near-tropical temperatures.

> "shall we surmise that they only occured in the past, and cannot occur the day after tomorrow? "

One cannot prove a negative. We can't say that 'climate chaos' cannot occur in the future. We can only say that no evidence for such exists.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Earl E on 4/14/2008 1:25:50 PM , Rating: 1
I thought that the fossil record showed the demise of the dinosours and that previously macroecological changes occured which reduced biodiversity significantly.

If the fossil records indicate chaotic events which reduced significant populations, then it makes sense to infer that future climate changes can result in significant reductions in biodiversity.

Who am I to argue with those who spend their lifetimes digging up bones?

The USA built the atom bomb because they believed Hitler was doing the same.

Did we prevent the Manhatten Project from going forward until every citizen understood nuclear theory?

Why is it that every Tom Dick and Harry has to tell us what they think about climate science when the best of the best climate scientists change their minds from one year's analysis to the next?

Because humans who enjoy the freedom of the combustion engine do not want to give it up despite the alarming projections of some climate models and the fossil record.

If we know the poles were tropical at one time, we know it will happen again. How quickly it happens is what really matters.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/14/2008 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Did we prevent the Manhatten Project from going forward until every citizen understood nuclear theory?

Splitting the atom was hardly a theory in 1940. The idea had been kicked around for almost a half a century (HG Wells wrote about it a few times, decades prior), and the Manhattan Project wasn't even the first attempt.

Nuclear physics, with verifiable predictions and results, was already in text books at the turn of the century. Comparing global warming research to the Manhattan Project is a very poor analogy, and if anything strengthens the argument that current research into global warming doesn't stand the same scrutiny of past superprojects.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By onelittleindian on 4/14/2008 12:56:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase
That peninsula (a tiny part of Antarctica) is right on top of an active volcano region also.

The rest of Antarctica (the vast majority) has been cooling the past 50 years. That's something GW can't explain.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Andy35W on 4/16/2008 2:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That peninsula (a tiny part of Antarctica) is right on top of an active volcano region also.The rest of Antarctica (the vast majority) has been cooling the past 50 years. That's something GW can't explain.


It's hardly a tiny part, it's over a thousand miles long for a start. Secondly there is no actual proof volcanic activity is associated with the increase in temperature.

You have to also consider that the Antartic is unqiue in both being completely surrounded and insulated by ocean which has a constant weather patern and that there is an Ozone hole in that region that reduces temperatures.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By porkpie on 4/16/2008 10:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's hardly a tiny part
It's a tiny part compared to Antarctica as a whole. Open a map sometime.

quote:
there is an Ozone hole in that region that reduces temperatures.
You have it backwards. Low temperatures reduce ozone, not the other way around.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By Andy35W on 4/17/2008 2:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have it backwards. Low temperatures reduce ozone, not the other way around.


No, you have it wrong. Ozone is a greenhouse gas and therefore reduced ozone as per the Antartic is one possible reason why the Antartic has not increased in temperature compared to other parts of the world, as I said before.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By PlasmaBomb on 5/1/2008 9:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry - cooling produces a relative increase in ozone (O3) depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By AlexWade on 4/14/2008 10:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
If the Antarctic temperature is rising, then why was Antarctic ice coverage at record levels last year? And why the Antarctic still well above normal for ice coverage? And why is global sea ice above normal right now too?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

I don't know how things work where you live, but ice melts when it is warmer. So if ice isn't melting but increasing, logically it must be getting colder despite what anyone says. Raw data proves it.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By ghost101 on 4/16/2008 8:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Sea-level rises were never going to be a problem for developed countries. How do you protect the large flood plains in the indian subcontinent where land is at sea level.


RE: Y2k Oh my
By porkpie on 4/16/2008 10:13:10 AM , Rating: 2
You move back a few feet, that's how. Not exactly hard when you have 100 years to do it.

Even in the lowest parts of India, if you move back 40 or 50 feet, the land is going to rise at least six inches.


Causes
By Spherical on 4/14/2008 6:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how a refrigerant behaves as an insulator in the open atmosphere? I have read everything I can find on this global warming business and none of it makes any real sense so far.

Any gas capable of absorbing infrared should be classified as a refrigerant, right? It absorbs heat and immediately begins to convect heat away from the source because of increased Brownian motion? When that happens it transfers energy to the other gas molecules in the atmospheric mix so that they too join in the convection cycle?




RE: Causes
By pliny on 4/14/2008 7:37:32 AM , Rating: 3
Here's one way to see it. At each level of the atmosphere, you have a downward nett flux of sunlight, and an upward flux, which must balance (on average) made up of nett IR and convection. The IR is partly from the ground, and partly re-emitted by the atmosphere.

At the top of the atmosphere, the balancing up flux is IR only, and the atmosphere there must be warm enough to emit it.

GHG partly block IR, throwing the burden of carrying the balancing flux more onto convection. Convection is driven by a temperature gradient, which then must be higher.

So with a constrained top temp, and a higher gradient, the bottom of the atmosphere must get warmer.


RE: Causes
By Spherical on 4/15/2008 6:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
RE:"At the top of the atmosphere, the balancing up flux is IR only, and the atmosphere there must be warm enough to emit it."

But temperatures in the upper atmosphere have not changed significantly and the stratosphere has a convection cycle, just as the troposphere has. The refrigerant gasses are still behaving very much as refrigerants, not insulators.

RE:"So with a constrained top temp, and a higher gradient, the bottom of the atmosphere must get warmer."

As a gas rises in the atmosphere, its pressure falls. As the pressure falls, the gas cools, so it must be emitting infrared radiation. Most of that radiation is going out into space from the top of the atmosphere. I haven't see anything to suggest that the heat is being "trapped" anywhere. If heat were easy to "trap" we would have far more efficient engines, generators, et cetera.

I think that there are several things at work here. First, our means of measuring temperatures is badly skewed because so many of our weather stations are badly placed or have been encircled by urban development. Second, we dump billions of calories of waste heat into the lower atmosphere day in and day out. Three, we obviously have not been doing a very good job of measuring solar flux.

I do not see how carbon dioxide can be the culprit. It is a refrigerant, not an insulator.


RE: Causes
By phxfreddy on 4/14/2008 8:13:42 AM , Rating: 1
None of it make any sense because like any fairy tale they are simply made up. If you want to do science pick a REAL topic to work on. Your career will be so much better and you won't look like a complete bozo when its Y2K'O'd


RE: Causes
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 8:53:40 AM , Rating: 1
The comparison to Y2K by hoax aficionados always amuses me.

Y2K was a major, major problem that was averted only because companies took the threat seriously and poured millions and millions of dollars and resources into resolving the problem before it occurred in order to save ten or a hundred times that amount had it been ignored.

I was one of thousands who manned technical systems around the world on New Year's Eve 1999 to ensure the average citizen could be dismissive of the problem on January 1.

There are parallels between the Y2K problem and global warming, but not in the way those making the comparisons intend. Both are significant problems created by short-sighted activities of mankind in efforts to save money, and both are problems that can be solved if taken seriously and addressed early enough.


RE: Causes
By MozeeToby on 4/14/2008 10:44:37 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe you can answer this for me, why on earth would you hardcode a number to be two decimal degits in length. The reason ussually given is to save memory/storage space, but that just doesn't make sense.

The smallest data size that would be used would be an 8 bit short, which would give a year range from 0-255 (127 if you are lazy and leave it signed). If I were the coder I would have used a short and displayed the last two digits, which would not cause any problems for processing since the full number exists whether it is displayed or not.


RE: Causes
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 11:33:31 AM , Rating: 4
Initially it was about memory, storage, and cost. Every digit or character of data to be tracked had to be accounted for and justified. The up-side was that you had very efficient, fast, and disciplined code. Memory was used responsibly, and cleared as soon as it was no longer needed. The elimination of the two-digit century was justified by the belief it was extraneous information and that any code written would undoubtedly be replaced long before it became an issue.

Then two things happened, both due to human nature. One, tracking a two-digit year became a standard convention (We humans are creatures of habit) leading to the problem continuing even in systems where a four-digit year could have been accommodated easily, and older systems kept hanging around and not being replaced (If it ain't broke, don't fix it, combined with the human packrat mentality).

Thus, the Y2K problem.

The downside to the cheap and abundant memory we have nowadays is lazy programmers and bloatware. Slow and inefficient code that is sloppily written and poor at cleaning up after itself.

The bottom line being is that the Y2K problem was very real and very avoidable. But the foundational blame goes to yet another human trait, prevalent when discussing global warming: shortsightedness.


RE: Causes
By MozeeToby on 4/14/2008 11:59:05 AM , Rating: 1
so you're saying that in the code somewhere there exists this code...

year++;
if year > 100
year = 0;

because if there isn't (and why would there be?) and you were using any standard numerical datatype, incrementing past year 100 wouldn't break anything. Holding the number 127 takes exactly the same number of bits that holding number 100 does. I understand that at the time memory was expensive and therefore wellmanaged but limiting the year to two decimal digits adds complexity to the code without producing any gains in memory management.


RE: Causes
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 4
Mozee,

Most systems stored date values as a single unit (e.g. a certain number of seconds past a given date), not as its separate components of years, months, and days. This simplifies date arithmetic, but requires the value to be converted for textual display on the screen or for user input.

That's where most of the problems arose, as those "packing and unpacking" routines assumed a two-digit textual century. A value input as Jan 1, 2000 would be interpreted as Jan 1, 1900...and a system-generated value for the year 2000 would, once displayed on the screen then reparsed, be 'clipped' to the previous century.

Additionally, there were some primitive systems that stored dates as the actual text values, rather than any numeric form. These of course were space-limited within the data representation itself.


RE: Causes
By IGoodwin on 4/14/2008 1:28:04 PM , Rating: 3
Looking at the 'date' issue considering modern langages and data types will give a misleading impression of the situation. A standard 'date' data type was not readily available. The priority was to have human readable data, closely followed by space considerations.

While bindary data types were available, having a date in human readable form was often a higher priority, maning no conversion from database to presentation, as this would have been a large overhead considering the power of the systems at the time. This means the date vey often would be stored in the local stadard form as a character string. Meaning every application, location, or programmer whim, had different date logic. Most databases were not externally described and were little more than flat files interpreted through a structure defined, maybe differently, in each program that used it.

Please also note, that on IBM, equipment for sure, there was hardware support for human readable numbers, meaning a single byte for each digit.

Not an excuse, but an explanation. There was a case, too many years ago, where I had to work on a routine that needed to display the last 12 payrol records for an employee. The programming language did not support reading backwards trough a file, meaning some godawful code was required to remeber up to 12 records read in an array. Necessary at the time, but anyone looking back after reading a data file backwards was intoroduced would be idiotic.


RE: Causes
By Earl E on 4/14/2008 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
The hardcode was in 1970, I started working at the bank in 1999. Don't care why they did what they did. Just fixed it so you wouldn't be mad at the bank 1-1-2000. And that is what humans do, resolve problems before it becomes an emergency.


RE: Causes
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2008 2:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how a refrigerant behaves as an insulator in the open atmosphere? I have read everything I can find on this global warming business and none of it makes any real sense so far.


And it won't make sense. Know why ? Because nobody knows. The theory that CFC's and CO2 destroy our upper atmosphere is false because it goes against the scientific method. And that is, you must TEST your hypothesis ! Its impossible to test these theories so they use computer models and projections which time and time again are proven wrong. And in the worst cases are simply, to use a laymans term, fudged with nonsense logic and fudged math.


RE: Causes
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 3:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The theory that...CO2 [is] destroying our upper atmosphere is false because it goes against the scientific method.

Who is saying that? Link?


Is this a reversal?
By pliny on 4/14/2008 1:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Emanuel had believed, like most scientists and the IPCC, that there was no reason to expect more frequent storms, although they may well increase in strength. His noted 2005 letter, ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE0390... which you mention, starts out:
quote:
Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend
His new paper says
quote:
Basinwide power dissipation and storm intensity generally increase with global warming, but the results vary from model to model and from basin to basin. Storm frequency decreases in the Southern Hemisphere and north Indian Ocean, increases in the western North Pacific, and is indeterminate elsewhere.
Is this a "reversal"?




RE: Is this a reversal?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 1:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
You have to go a little deeper than the abstract. From the article itself:
quote:
...this suggests either that the greater part of the large global increase in power dissipation over the past 27 yr cannot be ascribed to global warming, or that there is some systematic deficiency in our technique or in global models that leads to the underprediction of the response of tropical cyclones to global warming.
Given Emanuel's original stance as the "father" of the GW-induced megastorm hypothesis, his new position is indeed a full reversal. His 2005 paper was cited endlessly as proof of the exact opposite of the above -- that GW was *already* causing significant increases in storm strength.


RE: Is this a reversal?
By pliny on 4/14/2008 3:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
Well, this relates to an explanation of past total power dissipation, not prediction of frequencies or intensities. And he doesn't say the GW had no role. But he is explicit about the consistency of the results of his new technique and previous studies:
quote:
Thus, the present results are broadly consistent with those of global model studies in that both generally show an increased frequency of very intense storms, but some tendency toward a reduction in the overall frequency of events in the Southern Hemisphere. The simplicity of the intensity model and natural selection technique employed here allows us to draw a fairly definitive conclusion about why the frequency of events declines in some places in our simulations.


RE: Is this a reversal?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 9:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "And he doesn't say the GW had no role."

He says either GW has no role in increasing storm intensity, or his models are wrong. At little as two years ago, he was saying his models proved that GW strenthened storms.


RE: Is this a reversal?
By pliny on 4/14/2008 7:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
It may be nit-picking, but:
quote:
the greater part of the large global increase in power dissipation over the past 27 yr cannot be ascribed to global warming
is not saying that none of it can be ascribed to global warming. It it is similar to this 2005 caveat:
quote:
The above discussion suggests that only part of the observed increase in tropical cyclone power dissipation is directly due to increased SSTs; the rest can only be explained by changes in other factors known to influence hurricane intensity, such as vertical wind shear
And he didn't say in 2005 that his models proved anything, he said
quote:
My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential


RE: Is this a reversal?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 7:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "He didn't say in 2005 that his models proved anything"

He most certainly did. Not only in hundreds of media interviews, but also in his book, What We Know About Climate Change:

http://www.amazon.com/About-Climate-Change-Boston-...

> "...is not saying that none of it can be ascribed to global warming"

You have this in reverse. What Emanuel is saying is that the evidence says there's no link to GW. The "greater part" he refers to is the only thing he has data far.

Is he ruling out entirely a minor increase not shown in the data? Of course not..no one can ever disprove below the margin of error. But he's saying no evidence for it exists.


RE: Is this a reversal?
By pliny on 4/14/2008 8:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, he wrote a lot. But I wish you'd give quotes of what he actually said.

Here's a press release that went with his 2005 Nature paper - perhaps his period of greatest prominence, The most you'll find is
quote:
Also of concern, he says, is that the increases in storm intensity are mirrored by increases in the average temperatures at the surface of the tropical oceans, suggesting that this warming is responsible for the hurricanes' greater power. Since hurricanes depend on warm water to form and build, Emanuel warns that global climate change might increase the effect of hurricanes still further in coming years.
The first sentence might sound like he's linking AGW and hurricanes. But he's just pointing to a correlation between observed SST rises and hurricane power. The AGW link is possible, but he's not claiming it is proved.


RE: Is this a reversal?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 10:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
From an MIT press release:
quote:
Earlier in the summer, Emanuel reported that hurricanes have grown more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming...
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricane-quote...

From a media account of his research:
quote:
Hurricanes have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, [Emanuel] predicts...
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/2005-0...

From the intro to an interview with Emanuel, aired in 2005:

quote:
Emanuel’s latest research, published in Nature Magazine, shows a startling global increase in hurricane strength and duration, which he correlates to rising sea temperatures linked to global warming .
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05...

From the intro to a speech given by Emanuel
quote:
his latest research, published in a recent issue of the journal Nature, which correlates the greater increasing hurricane intensity with human-induced global warming...
http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/ols/lectures/Em...


Masher scores again!
By ttowntom on 4/14/2008 10:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
I remember reading your story last year about GW not making hurricanes stronger and thinking wtf? Its good to see you were ahead of the curve once again.




RE: Masher scores again!
By Ringold on 4/14/2008 5:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
When it comes to political pseudo-science, I think a stock market tactic applies here as well.

If activists say issue X is bad, it's probably good. If they say item Y is going to go up, it'll probably go down. If they say Z is out of control, everything is probably fine.

When activists go silent, or start saying everything is jolly, then I'll start converting cash to gold and building a fall-out shelter in the mountains as rapidly as possible.


RE: Masher scores again!
By callmeroy on 4/16/2008 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
I just think, and I'm not pointing my finger at anyone specific, its so interesting that on Internet forums a hot topic comes up and everyone is the instant expert.

The most fun though are when regular forum bloggers just debunk articles or research from established PhD in a particular field of study.

WoW you mean all I have to do is spend an afternoon reading Wiki articles and trolling through google searches and instantly I'm as qualified on a field of study as someone that spent 20-30 years studying the field and have multiple degrees and affliations (and get paid six figures at least)?

HAHA....those fools....I know more than them and I still have pleny of time to watch some tv and then go play WoW.

;)


RE: Masher scores again!
By onelittleindian on 4/16/2008 5:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and instantly I'm as qualified on a field of study as someone that spent 20-30 years studying the field and have multiple degrees
There are lot of people with multiple degrees and 20-30 experience in the field who don't believe in AGW. Masher quotes them in his articles.


Ocean and Ice
By KuhnKat on 4/15/2008 11:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Since 2003 the oceans have NOT been warming:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006...

The icecaps and ocean ice have returned to "relative" normal:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

The Solar output has been on idle since 2007/02:

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

See the chart at the bottom of the page.

And air temps have been flat (falling at altitude):

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

Yet, CO2 has continued to rise:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The AGW HYPOTHESIS is FALSIFIED.




RE: Ocean and Ice
By Michael01x on 4/16/2008 8:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
AGW theory does not require that temperature rise in lockstep with CO2. AGW theory is that CO2 is a human induced climate forcing toward warming that is continuing to rise and is not cyclical, as opposed to natural forcings.

These natural forcings can work either in concert with the CO2 forcing from manmade emissions or in opposition to it. Natural variations such as a decline in solar activity and La Nina will work in opposition for short durations. As a result, it is not uncommon or unexpected to see a short term leveling of temperature or even a decline. But, once again, these are for short durations during the existence of these conditions. As you might expect, the opposite of these cycles, El Nino and high solar activity, reinforce AGW and drive temperatures higher.

As others have noted here, we have already seen several cycles of El Nino/La Nina and the 11-year solar cycle, and the long term temperature trend throughout the industrial era has been upward.

The RSS satellite temperature data you link is exactly what you would expect to see from anthropogenic warming, a warming of the lower atmosphere and a cooling of the upper atmosphere. Were the long term temperature rise due to solar activity, the stratospheric temperature would be rising along with the tropospheric temperature, but that is not what we are seeing.


RE: Ocean and Ice
By porkpie on 4/16/2008 10:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the long term temperature trend throughout the industrial era has been upward.
That warming trend started over 250 years ago though, long before we were generating CO2 in bulk. How do you explain that?

quote:
The RSS satellite temperature data you link is exactly what you would expect to see from anthropogenic warming
No it isn't. AGW predicts the troposphere should warm much faster than the surface. It isn't.


RE: Ocean and Ice
By Michael01x on 4/17/2008 7:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That warming trend started over 250 years ago though, long before we were generating CO2 in bulk. How do you explain that?
With a dramatic upswing after the start of the industrial era.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...
quote:
No it isn't. AGW predicts the troposphere should warm much faster than the surface. It isn't.
The related RSS link displays temperature data at various levels of the atmosphere, reflecting tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, as expected from AGW.

As for tropospheric temperatures rising faster than surface temperatures, that depends on latitude.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17645...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...


Somethings haven't changed
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 8:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
What has not changed is global warming's influence on ocean temperatures. Taken together with warming's influence on other natural forces at play in the process of hurricane formation such as wind shear, warming may or may not lead to an overall increase in the frequency of hurricanes.

However, when conditions are favorable for hurricane formation, the increases in water temperatures which fuel hurricane development must necessarily lead to stronger storms that develop very rapidly.

The 2007 season was a prime example. In terms of number of storms, the season was relatively quiet. However, when storms did form, they were eye-openers. The season had two Category 5 hurricanes make landfall for the first time in known history, and within two weeks of each other, with Felix escalating from a tropical storm to a Category 5 in only 51 hours. And there was also Humberto which strengthened from a tropical storm to a hurricane in only 19 hours, one of the fastest intensifications ever recorded and very close to shore.




RE: Somethings haven't changed
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 9:33:31 AM , Rating: 3
> "In terms of number of storms, the season was relatively quiet. However, when storms did form, they were eye-openers"

In terms of ACE (accumulated cyclone energy, a metric which gauges not only the number of storms, but their total strength and duration), the 2007 season was very quiet-- a full 31% below average.

As for Humberto being "one of" the fastest intensifications, I believe it was actually *the* fastest on record. But the record only stretches back to the late 1970s, to the point we had full satellite coverage...and a period in which hurricane activity was in it's cyclic low period.


RE: Somethings haven't changed
By Andy35W on 4/17/2008 4:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
We need to forget hurricanes completely for the moment in regards to climate change, there is just not enough data to say and they are subject to too many other influences.

Trend in SST's on the otherhand are worth watching in relation to climate change.


By bonerici on 4/14/2008 2:09:16 PM , Rating: 3
correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the majority of atmospheric scientists believed that the global warming effect on hurricane strength was small enough to be not measurable within the range of error, especially given the normal cyclic effects of weather on hurricanes.

So the story isn't about a majority of scientists reversing course on the impact of global warming on hurricanes, but that some rogue researchers have come back to the mainstream view.




Why We Fight
By EidolWays on 4/15/2008 1:54:07 PM , Rating: 1
Y'know, in reality I'm sure quite a few global warmning skeptics such as myself aren't really opposed to the idea of global warming. The proposed solutions are such things as reducing pollution, increasing recycling, be more conservative with resources, etc. These things I am not at all opposed to. I entirely support the pursuit of a bluer sky.

What I am opposed to, and where I'm sure a large number skeptics will most certainly agree, is when activists and politicians not only use questionable information to try to prove their point, but then also try to use what information they have to demonize the common man and insist that we must all live as Neanderthals while they themselves continue to fly about in their Gulfstream jets and live in houses that consume electricity at a rate several times that of the national household average.

Alarmism, hypocrisy, and the forceful removal of individual liberty. That is what I am opposed to.




RE: Why We Fight
By RobberBaron on 4/15/2008 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY! Well said. Just because some of us think the GW theorists are wrong (or just pushing there own agenda) doesnt mean we dont want a greener planet.


Watch for the Curve
By clovell on 4/14/2008 1:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
I read an article just the other day on how AGW had been found to actually decrease tropical cyclone activity. It was spun in such a way as to emphasize that climate change is happening - with noticeable, and unpredictable effects - fear mongering in the face of reality.




Greenpeace <3 Nuclear Energy?
By Oscarine on 4/15/2008 6:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
The ultimate bit of irony.

Co-Founder of Greenpeace speaks in favor of nuclear energy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753?GT1=43002




Y2k? Ozone?
By jcherrybon on 4/24/2008 4:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's absolutely hilarious that people talk about Y2k as a scam. Yeah, I guess all of the teams of Y2K conversion programmers working furiously before Y2k to correct the problem were all in on it. The fact that their work prevented problems from happening means it was all a lie to begin with.

You guys also realize that they could measure the hole in the ozone layer? It's real. We know what causes it.

As for global warming, I have never seen such blind faith from a group as I do from the anti-GW people. Almost every week a new anti-GW talking point is offered up, and the zealots all pick it up and run with it.

This is the best part:

*global warming doesn't exist because it was cold the other day
*then when it is shown to be a fact, "Ok, so it is happening but it is 100% the result of the sun. Humans have zero influence on it"
*further data shows that we are contributing and we are seeing the effects so now it's "Well it's probably a good thing anyway.. who wouldn't want a shorter trip through the north passage?"
*then we have a record cold one day and it's all a big hoax again; "Global warmin'? It's cold today!"
*Al Gore sucks! (as if Al is a scientist and came up with this idea himself)

One of the most amusing anti-GW positions I hear is that it's a devious plan to destroy capitalism and spread socialism.

It's so hard to keep a straight face when I hear that.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki