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 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 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 on 4/14/2008 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 4
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.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay
Related Articles

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