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 BAMS 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
maybe even improved grammar?
Said another way, How are a bunch of dixicrats able to listen to an authoritative republican President from Texas? How?
Francis Mann: It may seem to be an easy thing to evacuate if you have the transportation and means to do so; if you don’t, it ain’t necessarily so easy (and given past false alarms it may not seem worth squandering whatever limited means you do have to so).
As for what you saw on Intellicast, I am afraid your memory is playing tricks on you. The real Hurricane Katrina formed well north of the eastern tip of Cuba in the Bahamas, made landfall on Florida (I believe as a very weak hurricane…although it weakened a bit to a tropical storm while over land) and then restrengthened in the Gulf, tracking west and then making a turn toward the north. Here is a map of the track: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/katrina2005trk.gif (It was quite well-forecasted though and so it is true that the forecasters were warning of the very real possibility of it striking New Orleans for about 48 hours or so in advance.)
As Martin said, if you can’t fly, run. If you can’t run, walk, if you can’t walk, crawl. Many people waited expecting someone to come to their door and get them. That’s just stupid. They had notice, they chose not to go.
Emmanuel’s stuff, with Spencer’s stuff, and Willis new agnosticism about oceanic modeling, unsettle scientific foundations.
=====================================
Alex Cull,
It took an entire generation of scientists before continental drift could even make it to scientific journals. The first to revive it were not geologists, that just couldn’t be. It was physicists, namely Sir Peter Blackett and close collaborators, who studied magnetism in rocks (and how it changed over time, indicating drifting continents). When Harry Hess put everything together to form a coherent theory, he didn’t even dare present it as a serious piece of work. He called it “an essay in geopoetry”. Everybody had to be very cautious, because there was such anathema on continental drift.
Given the current over-politicized context, no scientist in his right mind could come up with a full-fledged theory that would overthrow the current “consensus”. But they can first cautiously backtrack from the most outrageous claims (like Emmanuel did). Then reduce estimates of sensitivity, putting more and more emphasis on the lower values. You can bet that those who dominate the field, all the Kerry Emmanuel’s of this world, will make sure that they maintain their lead position whatever happens. Emmanuel could sense the tide turning. You will see the same disgracious ballet (or tango) performed by many others. The wording of the IPCC is very clever: it leaves plenty of exit doors: to be 90% sure that a “majority” of the warming is of “human” origins can mean anything.
@Evan Jones
Where did you learn that CO2 only varied by 10ppm?
If this is true, then where did the CO2 come from in the past? We have had CO2 levels up to 20 times higher then they are now. And as an aside, if you look at the ice core data CO2 goes up 600 years after temperature goes up, which correlates with how long it takes for atmospheric temperature differences to effect the temperature of the oceans.
Also, the atmospheric content of Methane, Nitrates and a few other water soluble gases increased at the same rate as the CO2.
This points, to me anyways, that all of the major atmospheric changes in the past had to do with the solubility of the gases in the ocean.
It was from Ferdinand E. from a thread a ways back.
If this is true, then where did the CO2 come from in the past?
It comes out of the oceans as the temperatures warmed and is dissolved back in as the temps cool. Total variance c. 100 ppm. The CO2 change lags behind the temperature change by 800 – 1300 years, so it is the temps driving the CO2, not the other way around.
Not much big-picture correspondence, really. The minor 100 ppm ups and downs correspond with the Milankovitch cycles.
We have had CO2 levels up to 20 times higher then they are now
To be more explicit, we had 5000 – 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period. It dropped off to under 500 ppm by the Carboniferous and remained until toward the end of the Permian, at which point it spiked up again to c. 2000 – 3000 ppm until the beginning of the Cretaceous. It has been dropping steadily ever since to its current levels.
During this time temps have bounced up and down from 22°C to 12°C. Of the 4 big drops, CO2 dropped twice and rose twice.
The minor 100 ppm variance corresponds with the Milankovitch cycles.
Have they discovered where the “extra” CO2 came from during the Cambrian period, and where it disappeared to? Seems like that is a huge swing in CO2 to go from 5000 down to 500 then back up to 2000 ppm. I did not know the exact numbers, but I had known that the CO2 levels on this planet reached about 20 times our current levels, and I assumed it came from the oceans.
You know what they say about assuming though. 🙂
Have they discovered where the “extra” CO2 came from during the Cambrian period, and where it disappeared to?
I don’t know. Maybe from the initial “animal”-then-“plant” dynamic? Or leftover from the initial moon-formation collision?
A t a wild guess, it was absorbed by land and sea.
Seems like that is a huge swing in CO2 to go from 5000 down to 500 then back up to 2000 ppm.
Yes. Biggest die-off ever around then.
I doubt think it (mostly) came out of the ocean at that time. Maybe from the earth itself, as a result of volcanic activity or a meteorite strike?
But all this is guesswork.
According to a research the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries will suffer the earliest and the most from climate change, according to this year’s edition of the Environmental Review. The report says that, due to their geographical location, low incomes, and low institutional capacity, as well as their greater reliance on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, the poorest countries and people are suffering earliest and are poised to suffer most.
Since the global climate always has and always will change, the above is pretty much an empty statement.
It’s also a reminder why those countries should be allowed to generate wealth so they’re no longer poor and can survive periods of relative climatic differences.
Of course, one reason they remain poor is because they cling to ancient superstitions and religions which cause them to make very bad decisions.
[…] echoes what I reported on April 11th 2008 about Emanuel’s findings as well as what I reported on February 21st 2008 from Roger Pielke Jr. and Chris Landsea at the […]