Emanuel%26#039;s new study on hurricanes.? There was a thread about the study earlier, but so much misinformation was being spread that I had to make some corrections.

Here is the link to the study: ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/...

Now for the main conclusion:
%26quot;A new technique for deriving hurricane climatologies from global data, applied to climate
models, indicates that global warming should reduce the global frequency of hurricanes,
though their intensity may increase in some locations.%26quot;

Says that there should be a reduction in overall frequency and intensity *may* increase in *some* places.

In the summary:
%26quot;This suggests either that the greater part of the large global increase in power dissipation over the past 27 yr cannot be ascribed to global warming, or that there is some systematic deficiency in our technique or in global models that leads to the under-prediction of the response of tropical cyclones to global warming.%26quot;

Additional Details

4 months ago

That last quote essentially means that the increase in power dissipation over the last 30 years is not related to global warming or else current models are useless.

For the record, I think that this means that there is still much to learn--so many uncertainties. Current models don%26#039;t mean much in my book.

4 months ago

Tuba in the Rose said:
%26quot;This is a good example of a scientist finding a flaw in his earlier work and asking his peers to help him find and correct the error. It doesn%26#039;t prove or disprove anything.

If you want to track and critique his every word while he works on the problem, like paparazzi chasing Britany Spears, go ahead.%26quot;

If all Emanuel wanted was help from his peers, it is not necessary to write that up in a study. This paper was an explanation of a new technique for predicting long term hurricane trends, and it is conflicting with earlier models (the new technique was meant to better match observations).

I never proposed that this work %26quot;proves%26quot; or %26quot;disproves%26quot; anything--I was merely pointing out his real conclusions, which aren%26#039;t that dramatic. Hardly sounds like %26quot;paparazzi.%26quot; Your response to this thread seems odd, Tuba. Do you not wish to hear Emanuel%26#039;s conclusion?

As I pointed out above: this study means that there is still much work to be done.

This is a good example of a scientist finding a flaw in his earlier work and asking his peers to help him find and correct the error. It doesn%26#039;t prove or disprove anything.

If you want to track and critique his every word while he works on the problem, like paparazzi chasing Britany Spears, go ahead.

Well, any ignorant lout who watched %26quot;The Day After Tomorrow%26quot; is going to be pretty sure global warming will bring catastrophic hurricanes and all the science you quote them won%26#039;t overcome their indoctrination.

In most of the population, fear is so much stronger than fact and reason.

It will be disreguarded along with any other studies that people with no agendas produce stating that it is a big fat hoax. Does it really matter to the true enviromentalist who want a return to horse and buggy days or socialized big govt?
NO!.

Global Warming is a Big Trouble.......

Let me see... Misinformation, on top of misinformation, backed by more misinformation, qualified by more misinformation. Remember that ozone hole thing? Yea, that%26#039;s how global warming got started in the first place. Some people that happen to be in positions that allow them an audience, hears of an obscure theory and thinks... Hmmm, I could get very wealthy off of this... Then touts a bunch of bull for everyone to feed off of.

Can%26#039;t paint a pile of dung pink and call it pretty. It just is a pile of dung, as in the global warming hoax.

They (IPCC) have known that hurricanes and tornadoes are clearly random and cannot, in any way be attributed to global warming. It is the nutbags that keep associating psunami%26#039;s, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and tornados to global warming. Their theory is so outstretched, which it is intended to be, so that people are so shocked that they cannot see through the confusion or are willing to challenge the science... Thereby you get %26quot;the debate is over%26quot; statements. Still global warming is one of the greatest laughable theories to date.