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

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...

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 on 4/14/2008 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 4

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
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
The theory that...CO2 [is] destroying our upper atmosphere is false because it goes against the scientific method.

Who is saying that? Link?

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesAMD, Zen Processor might power the upcoming Apple MacBook Pro
September 30, 2016, 5:00 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Are you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Apple’s Siri Speaker is a Game Changer
September 26, 2016, 5:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki