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

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.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Related Articles
















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