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, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.
Read more in the Houston Chronicle: Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact
The peer reviewed BMAS article is available on Kerry Emanuel’s homepage here.
This is another blow to climate alarmists and Gore’s AIT, where the ‘science’ is presented as being ‘settled.’
Let’s see if the mainstream media report on this and if the BBC can post a website article unmolested by ‘climate campiagner’ Jo Abbess.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So why did they not mention all the work already done (and flack taken) by Chris Landsea? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea
“In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.[2] Landsea does not believe that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: “global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 percent or 2 percent”. He strongly questions the accuracy of the historical global hurricane database for comparisons with current observations, citing an uncounted, catastrophic 1970 storm as an example.[3]”
Read his own open letter to the community at, http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html
Not too many wheels left on that old ‘consensus’ cart is there?
Gore’s AIT looks sillier and sillier: Hurricanes coming out of chimney stacks, Category 3 Katrina.
I bet Chris Landsea has a wry smile on his face today.
I suppose actually reading Kerry Emanuel’s latest paper would be too much to expect, and then a reflection on what the IPCC actually say on the issue.
Hilarious.
You slam ANY climate research involving models as being inaccurate, guess work, yet when models tell you something you want to hear:
“Emanuel’s work uses a new method of computer modeling that did a reasonable job of simulating past hurricane fluctuations.”
You turn a blind eye to it. Mott, your right, the consensus cart has fallen over, global warming has clearly been shown to be a sham, and yes Jennifer, now EVERYONE can think for themselves instead of having this Orwellian newspeak pushed onto them! Thankgod we saw through it in time. I for one would like to congratulate the fearless warriors such as Ian Mott and Paul Biggs for slaying the giant.
Who says Dr Emanuel’s models tell us something we want to hear? I certainly don’t. It is the contention of most skeptics of catastrophic AGW, that the models can be constructed (or tuned) to give anybody what they want!
Dr Emanuel’s acknowledgment, is nothing but a candid recognition of what we already knew all along. That there is no proven link, modeled or otherwise, between AGW and hurricanes, surprises no skeptic. Perhaps the only one surprised here is you, and those of your persuasion?
Just filing this information via Marc Morano here:
Update: RE: Hurricane expert: ‘Models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing’
Emanuel told the NY Times: “The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.” Full Story here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/
Houston Chronicle Reporter Attempts to Interpret Emanuel’s Reconsideration of hurricane views (April 11, 2008)
On his SciGuy blog, Eric (Berger reporter for the Houston Chronicle) tried to downplay the significance of Emanuel’s conversion in the global warming debate.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/04/hurricanes_and_3.html
Berger wrote: “This should put to rest a lot of the nonsense about a global warming conspiracy among scientists. Emanuel, faced with new evidence, has moderated his viewpoint. That’s what responsible scientists do, and most are responsible.” [Note: Yes, Mr. Berger, it is quite impressive that Emanuel looked at the hard evidence and reconsidered his views. The scientific community still awaits “responsible” reconsideration of climate views from many prominent promoters of warming fears. Paging James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and Stephen Schneider, to name a few. ]
Berger wrote: “The amount of scientist-bashing when it comes to global warming is generally quite deplorable.” [Note: Agreed. Sadly, it is almost exclusively one-sided and emanates from the promoters of man-made global warming fears. See this report for full details on the well funded smear machine that the climate alarmists employ.
Berger wrote: “If you’re a skeptic, and you welcome these results, please remember that these are the same climate models you bash when they show global temperatures steadily rising during the next century.” [Note: Nice try Mr. Berger, but you came up way short on this point. Emanuel himself speculated that “the models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing.” Which do you believe; models which even the promoters concede are not “forecasts” or real world data? You see, Mr. Berger, evidence based data trumps the virtual world of computer models every time. ]
Note: Emanuel’s conversion is a very important new development in the climate debate. First, 2007 turned out to be the “tipping point” for global warming fears, 2008 continued appears to be the year of vindication for skeptics as many prominent scientists reversed their climate views and more and more skeptical scientists speak out and new data debunked man-made climate fears. Now another major scientist reconsiders his views on a significant aspect of man-made climate fears. MIT’s Kerry Emanuel’s views on hurricanes and global warming have been prominently cited by Gore and other promoters of climate fear. With the new evidence based data flowing in, it is no wonder Gore is being forced to spend $300 million to attempt to once again scare the public. An Oscar, a Nobel and a compliant media all proved woeful at convincing the public to believe in Gore’s “climate crisis.”
What’s this “conversion” nonsense. There is nothing to be converted to. I suppose reading Emanuel’s paper is too much to ask.
And again you guys are now “believing” in (gasp) “models”.
What a Gore.
Luke, Moore, which part of “The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing”, do you not understand.
Talk about heads up your own backsides. The models are not replicating nature so the models must be wrong. But you two try and and paint it all as some sort of double standard or selective application of principle.
A predictable response from a couple of soon to be extinct Bimbolopithicus climatensis, who’s once mighty riverine mirage has dwindled to a dry, sand swept river bed in what was always an intellectual desert.
Models are diagnostic tools, which can’t represent all the known and unknown factors in the climate system, not crystal balls that tell us what will really happen in, say, 2100.
Models will always be trumped by real data. The real data says that there is no established link between hurricanes and global warming – which is what I have been consistently saying.
Hurricanes don’t come out of chimney stacks and Katrina wasn’t caused by global warming.
Like it or not Kerry Emanual is shifting his position. Science will always self-correct itself eventually, despite the best efforts of the UN IPCC to prevent it happening.
Indeed, Paul. Global warming could not have caused Katrina because global temperatures have not increased since 1998. Lets get the tense right here. The globe warmed for a decade or so and then it stopped, and then it cooled.
And as cooling is the only phenomenon that is currently underway, the only concept deserving of a ‘present continuous’ tense is Global Cooling.
“The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.”
Luke,
Who is quoted here?
Paul is correct.Modeling is a DIAGNOSTIC tool.
That is why I have asked people including our resident AGW scientist Gavin.The question about how can 50-100 years into the future temperature models as posted by the IPCC be validated?
Gavin gave me “watching waves at the shoreline” (paraphrased) crap as his answer.LOL
Making such ill use of a diagnostic tool for something OTHER than it was origionally designed for.Is a sign of a poor researcher.
MIT Flashback to 2005:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html
Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming, says an MIT professor who warns that this trend could continue.
“My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in [hurricanes’] destructive potential, and–taking into account an increasing coastal population–a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century,” reports Kerry Emanuel in a paper appearing in the July 31 online edition of the journal Nature.
Emanuel is a professor of meteorology in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
Theories and computer simulations of climate indicate that warming should generate an increase in storm intensity. In other words, they should hit harder, produce higher winds and last longer.
To explore that premise, Emanuel analyzed records of tropical cyclones–commonly called hurricanes or typhoons–since the middle of the 20th century. He found that the amount of energy released in these events in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. Both the duration of the cyclones and the largest wind speeds they produce have increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years.
He further reports that these increases in storm intensity are mirrored by increases in the average temperature at the surface of the tropical oceans, suggesting that this warming–some of which can be ascribed to global warming–is responsible for the greater power of the cyclones.
According to Jay Fein, director of the National Science Foundation’s climate dynamics program, which funded the research, Emanuel’s work “has resulted in an important measure of the potential impact of hurricanes on social, economic and ecological systems. It’s an innovative application of a theoretical concept, and has produced a new analysis of hurricanes’ strength and destructive potential.”
2008:
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, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. 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. What that role is, however, remains far from certain.
Emanuel’s work uses a new method of computer modeling that did a reasonable job of simulating past hurricane fluctuations. He, therefore, believes the models may have predictive value for future activity.
During and after the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, which were replete with mega-storms and U.S. landfalls, scientists dived into the question of whether rising ocean temperatures, attributed primarily to global warming, were causing stronger storms.
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.
Other factors likely
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.
“Kerry had the good fortune, or maybe the bad fortune, to publish when the world’s attention was focused on hurricanes in 2005,” Roger Pielke Jr., who studies science and policy at the University of Colorado, said of Emanuel. “Kerry’s work was seized upon in the debate.”
After the 2005 hurricane season, a series of other papers were published that appeared to show, among other things, that the most intense hurricanes were becoming more frequent.
What has not been as broadly disseminated, say Pielke and some hurricane scientists, is that other research papers have emerged that suggest global warming has yet to leave an imprint on hurricane activity. One of them, published late last year in Nature, found that warming seas may not increase hurricane intensity.
That paper’s co-author, Gabriel Vecchi, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Emanuel’s new work highlights the great uncertainty that remains in hurricane science.
“While his results don’t rule out the possibility that global warming has contributed to the recent increase in activity in the Atlantic, they suggest that other factors — possibly in addition to global warming — are likely to have been substantial contributors to the observed increase in activity,” Vecchi said.
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 hurricane activity. Most climate models, which simulate global atmospheric conditions for centuries to come, cannot 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.
‘A lot of work to do’
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.
For example, with Atlantic hurricanes, two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.
“The take-home message is that we’ve got a lot of work to do,” Emanuel said. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty in this problem. The bulk of the evidence is that hurricane power will go up, but in some places it will go down.”
The issue probably will not be resolved until better computer models are developed, said Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a leading hurricane and climate scholar.
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.
The generally emerging view, she said, seems to be that global warming may cause some increase in intensity, that this increase will develop slowly over time, and that it likely will lead to a few more Category 4 and Category 5 storms. How many? When? No one yet knows.
Sunny: On the question of tools, I came to the conclusion some time ago that we have many “tools” for hire on the internet.
Hired guns and book peddlers don’t make up for a good debate.
Paul: “The issue probably will not be resolved until better computer models are developed”, said Judith Curry.
We take it climate change is real? And better climate models are the way forward?
While we are stuffing round with numbers, location and intensity of storms your Hadley center is predicting more global drought. Population centers and food production regions are at constant risk while we procrastinate over details of who knows what re these hurricanes.
More energy more turbulence, simple pot boiling observations.
I suppose reading his paper is too much to ask.
This must be the first time a climate model has ever predicted a negative impact of CO2 that does not increase. Nevermind, I’m sure
the other modelers will soon be able to tell us what’s wrong with it (or at least average it into oblivion).
Gavin, “Population centers and food production regions are at constant risk while we procrastinate over details” blah blah. Constant risk of what? And at what realistic probability? And examining the science is now nothing more than “procrastinating over details”?
Now you may not have intended it this way but you just pulled out scam number 7 in the spiv and shonks handbook. Avoid the detail and just rush them into the desired action without due dilligence.
Time to get back under that rock, matey, the slime mould is getting lonely.
“Sunny: On the question of tools, I came to the conclusion some time ago that we have many “tools” for hire on the internet.
Hired guns and book peddlers don’t make up for a good debate.
Posted by: gavin at April 14, 2008 09:11 AM”
LOL,
I noticed that you did not contradict anything I stated.You are just slipping around.
I have come to the conclusion a while ago.That you stopped being a good scientist to be a peddler for an ideology your boss spouts.
James Hansen is getting more and more exposed for his statistical game playing.For his overt environmentalism.For his lies of being muzzled on a regular basis.And so on.
Maybe it is time for you to get out from under the growing political stench that GISS is and regain your quality you once had as a scientist.Then your weird postings dry up and regain a rational basis for discussion.
What Luke says RTFP
Emanual 2005: Theory1 and modelling2 predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures,
2008: two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.
Yep – exactly. And lots more work to do.
Journal reference: Nature (DOI:10.1038/nature03906
Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years
Kerry Emanuel said:
Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.
Global Warming Surpassed Natural Cycles in Fueling 2005 Hurricane Season, NCAR Scientists Conclude
June 22, 2006
BOULDER—Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.
By analyzing worldwide data on sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea were able to calculate the causes of the increased temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic. Their calculations show that global warming explained about 0.8 degrees F of this rise. After effects from the 2004-05 El Nino accounted for about 0.4 degrees F. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60-to-80-year natural cycle in SSTs, explained less than 0.2 degrees F of the rise, according to Trenberth. The remainder is due to year-to-year variability in temperatures.
Previous studies have attributed the warming and cooling patterns of North Atlantic ocean temperatures in the 20th century—and associated hurricane activity—to the AMO. But Trenberth, suspecting that global warming was also playing a role, looked beyond the Atlantic to temperature patterns throughout Earth’s tropical and midlatitude waters. He subtracted the global trend from the irregular Atlantic temperatures—in effect, separating global warming from the Atlantic natural cycle. The results show that the AMO is actually much weaker now than it was in the 1950s, when Atlantic hurricanes were also quite active. However, the AMO did contribute to the lull in hurricane activity from about 1970 to 1990 in the Atlantic.
Global warming does not guarantee that each year will set records for hurricanes, according to Trenberth. He notes that last year’s activity was related to very favorable upper-level winds as well as the extremely warm SSTs. Each year will bring ups and downs in tropical Atlantic SSTs due to natural variations, such as the presence or absence of El Nino, says Trenberth. However, he adds, the long-term ocean warming should raise the baseline of hurricane activity.
So has Kerry’s latest results changed that much. Assuming of course you can tear yourself away from Al Gore’s musings for a moment.
A modest increase with non-linear effects can increase destructiveness considerably.
Why they should keep researching. Ain’t over by a long shot.
Long term ocean warming??
Luke, some facts please.
Louis:
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/abslmp.shtml
Paul – “2008: two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.”
Since when did you think that computer models are OK. I thought they were parameter driven fools games intended to deceive. Why are you hanging on their every prediction now?
Just filing this here:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/04/the_inconsistency_of_cranks.php
The inconsistency of cranks
Category: Cranks • Global Warming Denialism
Posted on: April 17, 2008 11:28 AM, by MarkH
One of the most salient features of cranks is their inconsistency. A major difference between someone who is trying to reason scientifically and someone who has a fixed belief they are trying to defend against rational inquiry is the scientific thinker is looking for synthesis. They want things to fit together nicely, to make sense, and incorporate as much of the data as possible into a cohesive picture or theory that is convincing to ones peers so they adopt your view…
A crank, on the other hand, doesn’t care about internal consistency, presenting a cohesive picture of any kind, or creating a body of knowledge to be adopted and utilized by their peers. If someone has a different theory that is completely different from theirs they don’t care, as long as it remains opposed to the scientific theory that impinges upon their fixed belief.
Case in point, Jennifer Marohasy’s blog features this post which exclaims with glee that Kerry Emanuel has reversed his position on the role of global warming on hurricanes based on this news piece. In an example of crank magnetism Dave Scot at Uncommon Descent has also picked up this thread only he exclaims that Emanuel has reversed his position on global warming itself (check out the intellectual company you keep when you’re a global warming denialist, sheesh)…
As far as Kerry Emanuel reversing his position, they got that wrong too. Here’s what he told me:
Unfortunately, reports about my paper have been greatly distorted. I am certainly not denying global warming, nor am I denying a link to increasing hurricane power, but I am pointing out that one particular technique suggests less of an increase going forward than we previously feared. Also, the technique, when applied to historical climate data from 1980-2006, strongly re-affirms earlier analyses that show that hurricane power has increased by about 50% over the past 25 years….
Err – a classic straw-man:
Kerry Emanual Reconsiders Global Warming Impact on Hurricanes
Posted by Paul, at 05:32 PM
One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.
As for hurrucanes increasing over the past 25 years – so what!? It’s the old “let’s use a short record” con and ignore earlier periods when there was high hurricane activity. Pretty much everything in nature is cyclical, including hurricanes.