Thanks to Anthony and the other weblogsfor summing up Emmanuel’s newest paper, as I don’t have time to go through it myself (My wife already thinks I’m spending (wasting!) too much tin me on this).It is encouraging that Emmanuel is behaving according to the data he sees, and not the intolerant ideology of Gore’s Church of Carbonyl.
I still don’t understand how he can predict hurricane intensity and frequency in the future. Either he is factoring in solar cycles, or he’s ignoring them. In the case of the latter, then his study ain't worth the paper it’s printed on. As I previously reported in my post titled: Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction, it appears that the “link” cited by Gore and others trying to equate global warming to hurricane frequency is rapidly evaporating. A new study published in BEAMS has just gotten some press coverage.
We have this story from the Houston Chronicle:
One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand. The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this week unveiled a novel technique for predicting hurricane activity.
The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.
The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes. His changing views could influence other scientists.
“The results surprised me,” Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes but what that role is remains far from certain.
[...] Among the first to publish was Emanuel, who, just three weeks before Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, published a paper in Nature that concluded a key measurement of the power dissipated by a storm during its lifetime had risen dramatically since the mid-1970s. In the future, he argued, incredibly active hurricane years such as 2005 would become the norm rather than flukes. This view, amplified by environmentalists and others concerned about global warming, helped establish in the public’s mind that “super” hurricanes were one of climate change’s most critical threats. A satellite image of a hurricane emanating from a smokestack featured prominently in promotions for Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
[...] In the new paper, Emanuel and his co-authors project activity nearly two centuries hence, finding an overall drop in the number of hurricanes around the world, while the intensity of storms in some regions does rise. [...] By publishing his new paper, and by the virtue of his high profile, Emanuel could be a catalyst for further agreement in the field of hurricanes and global warming, Curry said.
LINKS:
See the news article excerpted above at the Houston Chronicle here.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has a review of the paper here.
See the paper from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society here.


Ads by Google
Blammo, No More FearNo Longer Fear Buying a New Car Control the Entire Buying ProcessCar-Buy-Help.com
Green Building DesignReceive free e-newsletter on sustainability of concrete.www.concretethinker.com
Bicycle CityAn Eco-Friendly Place to Live, Work & Play.BicycleCity.com
Women Are Waiting to ChatSingle Women want to talk to You Free Chat Rooms with Local Womenwww.bestlocalchat.com/Free-Chat
I know what it’s like to try and get things done with crumb-crunchers nipping at your heals, but I think it’s the Houston Chronicle. I couldn't’t imagine this story in the SF Chronicle!
Other than that, please keep up the good work.
REPLY: My chronometer was off and I have chronic distractions. Thanks for reminding me it is the right chron and not the left chron. Fixed.All this wont really matter very much. We all know that when the next big hurricane hits the hysteria will start all over again regardless of whatever facts there are In spite of the evidence, Emmanuel still can’t be a true scientist and let go of his pre-conceived notion. He just has to say GE has something to do with it, he just doesn’t know what. That’s not very scientific.
The AGW proponents were quick to accept and publicise his original paper. I wonder if they will be as quick to do the same with this one or will he now be considered a ‘crackpot’ scientist with no knowledge of climate.
Also, I wonder if Roger Harbin of the BBC will cover this story……
Every little bit helps. Nature arbitrates. But Congress legislates.
11 04 2008
Toady's Current Events in the Environment » Alert - “global warming” (21:02:06) :
[...] Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact By wattsup with that As I previously reported in my post titled: Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction, it appears that the “link” cited by Gore and others trying to equate global warming to hurricane frequency is … Watts Up With That? - http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com [...]I live near Houston and most people that I know around here believe that it is very left leaning.
In this year of remarkable events, what with a missing solar cycle (sort of expected) temperature drops (a happy? consequence?), falling CO2 levels at Marna Lao (gobsmacked, but ultimately more informative than predictive), comes this news. I’ve been in the same auditorium with Emanuel and D’Aloe (it gets chilly!) and have heard Emanuel dismiss Gray as an empiricist. Of course, neither Gray nor Emanuel have done all that well in the forecasting department in the last couple of years.
Emanuel, the theorist, simplifies a system and finds that a hurricane is an ideal heat engine. From that he concludes that warmer water (and cooler tropopause) means stronger hurricanes and refuses to see cycles in hurricane activity. Gray, firmly hanging on to the seat of his pants, looks for predictors in noisy records, relying on cycles Emanuel can’t see. Gray notes we’ve been through all this before and points to all the reasons why hurricanes often don’t reach the potential theory offers, e.g. wind shear and Saharan dust.
The Houston Chronicle reports:
Scientists wrangling with the hurricane-global warming question have faced two primary difficulties. The first is that the hurricane record before 1970 is not entirely reliable, making it nearly impossible to assess with precision whether hurricane activity has increased during the last century.
The second problem comes through the use of computer models to predict future hurricane activity. Most climate models, which simulate global atmospheric conditions for centuries to come, are not sensitive enough to detect individual tropical systems.
Emanuel’s new research attempts to get around that by inserting “seeds” of tropical systems throughout the climate models and seeing which develop into tropical storms and hurricanes. The “seeds,” bits of computer code, tend to develop when simulated atmospheric conditions, such as low wind shear, are ripe for hurricane formation.
Trying to use hurricane activity, at least North Atlantic activity, to demonstrate global warming was never a good idea, the historical record is poor or worse, and there are cycles. All told, the signal to noise ratio is just too high.
In this year of phenomenal phenomena, wouldn’t be neat if the model writers could work with Gray. The writers could implement theory, Gray could study the output and point out stuff that just doesn’t fit the reality he’s seen for many decades. Those observations could help make a lot more progress than is being made now.
Hey - we could call it a positive feedback loop. That would be a refreshing change from all the negative feedback in this crazy field.
Of course, the other conclusion to be drawn from the data is that the Earth isn’t warming.
BTW, Australia gets about the same number of tropical cyclones and of equal intensity as the USA get hurricanes (same thing just different names).
Models predicted a severe cyclone season just ended. In fact we had the quietest cyclone season in at least 20 years.
Anyone have data for cyclone frequency at solar minimum?Does this make him a crackpot whose missed the boat now?
Thanks to Anthony and the other we blog for summing up Emmanuel’s newest paper, as I don’t have time to go through it myself (My wife already thinks I’m spending (wasting!) too much tinme on this).It is encouraging that Emmanuel is behaving according to the data he sees, and not the intolerant ideology of Gore’s Church of Carbonology.
I still don’t understand how he can predict hurricane intensity and frequency in the future. Either he is factoring in solar cycles, or he’s ignoring them. In the case of the latter, then his study ain't worth the paper it’s printed on.
You can’t make climate predictions without weighing in solar cycles - Period!
Philip B,I was wondering the same. I haven’t taken a close look at it, but it seems the worse hurricanes have hit when scientists were warning of global cooling, 1950s, 1960s.And here’s an icecap link concerning F3 - F5 tornadoes.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/F3F5Yearly.jpg
Problem is, data before 1960 or so are not very reliable, and thus we’re forced to rely on anecdotal data.
To generate big turbulence, you need temperature big differences…like cooling poles and warm tropics.
Way off subject!(Sorry)Just to show there’s no shortage of kook theories out there.http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080411/D8VVUAHG0.html
Hey! If the media covered this like they do AGW, you’d get a consensus on this too.John Gets (06:32:06) :
The New York Times “Dot Earth” posted a piece on the paper. There is an almost overt admission in this post that the science is not settled.
The Anthropogenic (they refer to themselves as “Poggies” in my neck of the woods) seem to be losing their grip over the reality of the matter. For openers, temperatures have been on a steady decline since 1998 with a larger than usual drop so far this year; sunspot activity has come to a virtual standstill, hurricane numbers and strengths have not met predictions, CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa have been falling, the UN chief admits their models are “slightly off,” and now this. In reaction, Gore has launched a $300 million pro global warming advertising campaign and those in the opinion forming media have become strangely quiet.
Have we reached that dreaded “tipping point” when the public has finally wised up to this fraud?
Jack Koenig, EditorThe Mysterious Climate projecthttp://www.climateclinic.com
For what it’s worth, I’ve been monitoring the Houston Chronicle blog and am please to report the comments are running roughly 11 to 1 against global warming. I’m amazed by this since the HC has been considered a liberal, pro Pogie “newspaper.”
Interestingly, the Pogies have launched their usual slanderous campaign aginst those with the audacity to speak negatively of their scam by claiming Emanuel is in the pay of the oil companies.
Hmmm…… I wonder why they didn’t claim so when he was promoting the GW-Hurricane link?
Jack Kongo, Editor The Mysterious Climate projecthttp://www.climateclinic.com
This is a typical example of what I call the scientist’s tango. Go in one direction, and then suddenly change and go the other way, always with the same confident look. Now, they’ll tell you that this is how science works, that it is self-correcting, and so on and so on, but that, nevertheless, GW is real. But next they’ll tell you it’s still serious, but that a major catastrophe will be averted. Then, it will be that it’s not quite that bad. And subtly, they’ll all become quiet, until finally, they all change their tune, and claim there is a new paradigm, that we now understand climate, and it’s link with the Sun. GW will disappear from the language. They will never admit their mistake, or else they’ll find a couple of scapegoats, like Hansen and Mann, and blame it all on them.
If you look at the history of science, you will find how, with each paradigm, it is rewritten. The heroes of the past become the villains. The much ridiculed “deniers” become the valiant, but misunderstood, precursors of the new theory. Look at continental drift, it’s a perfect example.
The New York Times “Dot Earth” posted a piece on the paper. There is an almost overt admission in this post that the science is not settled.
But only concerning hurricanes, and not AGW in general, I’ll wager.
CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa have been falling,
I think it’s way too early to say anything like that.I don’t expect to see CO2 concentrations go down in my lifetime. With India, China and the rest of the world joining progress, emissions will increase. Cooling will absorb CO2, and so maybe we’ll see a more gradual slope upwards.