 |
M.I.T. Scientists: Warming Will Actually Reduce Number of Hurricanes
Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
Sunday, July 28, 2008
After Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, global warming alarmists claimed greenhouse gas emissions had led to a season that had 22 named tropical storms. Recent reports raise strong doubts about those claims.
“Former Hurricane Center head Max Mayfield is among experts who believe we’re in a cyclical pattern of more violent tropical storms, while others say global warming may be the culprit,” ABC’s Sam Champion said on the Sept. 4, 2007 “Good Morning America.” “Earlier this year, a UN backed panel of scientists linked more powerful and frequent hurricanes to global warming and projected even more intense hurricanes in the future.
But according to two recently published reports – hurricane activity may actually decrease due to the effects of global warming. That is a conclusion from a study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Kerry Emanuel, published in the March 2008 issue of the “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.”
(Article continues below)
“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,” the study by Emanuel, Ragoth Sundararajan and John Williams said.
Emanuel pointed out to the Business & Media Institute that he isn’t denying a relationship exists between global warming and hurricanes.
“I am certainly not saying that there is no link between hurricanes and global warming,” Emanuel said. “There indeed appears to be a close relationship between ocean temperature and hurricane power. My most recent study shows that this relationship is not much in evidence in climate models, pointing to a possible problem with climate models”
Another study by meteorologist Tom Knutson makes a similar conclusion. According to a study authored by Knutson, Joseph Sirutis, Stephen Garner, Gabriel Vecchi and Isaac Held, published in the May 18 issue of Nature Geoscience, climate models show the amount of Atlantic tropical activity will decrease by 18 percent by the end of the century.
“Here we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced,” the study’s abstract said.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
15 Responses to “M.I.T. Scientists: Warming Will Actually Reduce Number of Hurricanes”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am
What you idiot Global Warming deniers don’t understand is that human-caused Global Warming can cause more hurricanes one year, and less hurricanes the following year, or high global temperatures one year and low global temperatures the next year. In fact, Global Warming causes everything. I don’t know how we ever got along without it.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:41 am
how about you watch your mouth gregory. I wont call you an idiot for buying into the global warming bs.
peace
July 28th, 2008 at 7:49 am
I agree, Gregory. In fact, I’m going to get Global Warming to do my tax this year.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
So, if global warming reduces the number of hurricanes, global cooling will produce more. This is what will be observed since we are going in global cooling. But of course, Gore will use this and say he was right and he showed this in his propaganda piece of crap.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
From what I am reading here, the meterologists are not saying that global warming will reduce the number of hurricanes, but rather, that the current computer models in use today do not factor in temperature increases from global warming, thereby, making the current computer models incorrect.
I believe global warming is real, and that the Earth is definitely heating up, but I agree with Alex Jones, in that the primary cause for this is the temperature of our sun increasing, and not man made green house gases.
Therefore, all of this carbon taxation crap really is just another scam the globalists have sold to the sheeple.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
1st there was global cooling in the 60’s , then there was global warming in the 70’s, and now for the new century there is talk of global “dimming”. Okay, I PROMISE to take these claims seriously, just as soon as you folks figure out the proper way to merge what you see on your computer models with the satelite data from NASA, and the ACTUAL readings that suggest we are going into a cooling phase the next ten years, and that the level of CO2 is and has been at a historical, all-time low for a decade now. We live in a carbon starved enviroment. And the global temps have been flat if not decreasing the last few years. Do your homework before you come with such viriol. (CO2 skeptics.com icecap.us, heartland. us, NASA.com) Thank you!
July 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Too many Nostradamuses,
some even with Nobel premiums,
next must be Bush in line for Nobel,
did’nt he killed enough people to get one?
July 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Here we go loop de loo, Here we go loop de light…
Same story, different interpretation. I can recall in the past several years that almost once every couple of months or so a new garage band of scientists put out a report on the results of global warming. Each report has a new scenario, a different set of affects for the planet, and a massively new interpretation of final results for mankind. It’s laughable! Does anyone even pay attention to the local weather reports? Sure they do…but they don’t take them very seriously. You’re better off to just stick your head out the window and take a wild guess than to listen to these butholes, let alone give any merit whatsoever to a group of scientists claiming that they have the Almighty power to predict the future. What a pathetic joke.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Christar – we never said that global warming did not happened. Yes, it did and you have to be a real idiot to say to the contrary. But what we say is that we are not entirely responsible for it. I guess we can be blamed for a tinny fraction (mush less than 1%) of the effect and even that needs to be proven. But we are also not blind to the fact that we must clean our act regarding our emissions and be careful to what we put in the air and water. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant at the present concentrations and not even at concentrations of 1000 – 4000 ppm. There were times in the past that the concentration was extremely high > 4000 ppm and as you can see outside your window, the planet is still green. There is life on this planet.
Obviously the sun plays a much greater part in this effect and of course water vapors are the main greenhouse gas on this planet and this is good because without it it would be permanently -15 Celsius here. As much as like is based on carbon and this beautiful carbon cycle, we also depend on water in all its phases. And water is really abundant on the surface of the earth and there are no natural water sinks else than in the form of precipitations. Just for fun calculate the amount of water on earth and the amount of water vapor in equilibrium in the air and compare that to what we exhale… peanuts!!! I would certainly not be surprised that the next tax will be on water emissions… bad greenhouse gas is water!!!
July 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Haven’t you got it yet? ‘Global Warming’ will be responsible (by amazing co-incidence) for exactly those things that happen next year!
More rain- that’s Global Warming.
Less rain- that’s Global Warming.
Same rain- that’s Global Warming.
Luckily, pseudo-science can hide behind the mechanics of real science, and safely deny the demand for accurate predictions ahead of time. How? By giving some science-y sounding explanation for non-predicted events in retrospect. You see, as they say “hindsight is 20-20″, so ‘Global Warming’ pseudo scientists now do all their main work using after the event explanations.
This doesn’t break the logic of science, since science can also accept theories that seem to explain historic data. The Global Warming con knows that the utility of predictions of immediate ‘danger’ has gone. Fear mongering must now be about some time suitably far away, and claiming responsibility after the fact for every natural disaster.
DOES THIS RING A BELL? It really should do. The tactic is the same as that used by organised religion, claiming ‘god’s work’ whenever anything happens that can be used to influence the sheeple.
GLOBAL WARMING TRULY IS THE NEW WORLD-WIDE RELIGION.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I just want to know why perfectly lagitimate scientist have been discredited and fired for not going along with the hype. reference to the Green House Conspiracy, you tube.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:13 am
@Gregory Fegel
Hey Mr “Ice Age is coming!”, have you figured out what an interstadial period is yet? I can’t take ANYTHING you say seriously because you don’t even know the basics of the science.
—-
@john anonsen
That’s good, because he DOESN’T. In fact he believes an Ice Age is coming. So he’s a step above the average liar and denier idiot.
—-
@RayB
“So, if global warming reduces the number of hurricanes, global cooling will produce more.”
Or you just don’t know wtf you are talking about.
“This is what will be observed since we are going in global cooling. But of course, Gore will use this and say he was right and he showed this in his propaganda piece of crap.”
Yep, you ARE just an idiot who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
—-
@Christar
“From what I am reading here, the meterologists are not saying that global warming will reduce the number of hurricanes, but rather, that the current computer models in use today do not factor in temperature increases from global warming, thereby, making the current computer models incorrect.”
Actually, it seems they are saying that current climate models predict greater hurricane activity and intensity from surface warming, but the raise in activity does not seem to be occuring, even though an intensification does seem to be occuring. A problem with the models, no doubt, but not fatal to the theory – we probably just haven’t got the models fine grained enough.
“I believe global warming is real, and that the Earth is definitely heating up, but I agree with Alex Jones, in that the primary cause for this is the temperature of our sun increasing, and not man made green house gases.”
That would be because you, like Alex Jones, are way in over your head and do not know what you are talking about. The Sun’s output does fluctuate, but nowhere NEAR enough to account for the measured warming by itself. During most of the time since the 50’s, Solar intensity has remained the same, only dropping a small amount in the last few years. So how has the plaent warmed during that time? Magic?
But hey, why listen to the scientists who have studied this stuff for their entire academic careers? I’m sure Alex Jones’ and YOUR “belief” is all we need. We can just shut down all those Universities etc, because they are just a waste of time and money. You don’t need to STUDY climatology – feelings, guesses, and assumptions are more than enough. Right?
“Therefore, all of this carbon taxation crap really is just another scam the globalists have sold to the sheeple.”
Actually it IS a con, but totally independent of the science involved. Carbon Tax is an elite way to 1) make money off AGW, 2) con people like you into taking THEIR side (by denying the science) and 3) to do NOTHING about the problem.
You need to learn to seperate the POLICY from the SCIENCE. The former is BAD, the latter is GOOD. We KNOW GW is happening, and AGW is the best explanation. A Carbon Tax does nothing to change that.
—-
@rw3
“1st there was global cooling in the 60’s , then there was global warming in the 70’s, and now for the new century there is talk of global “dimming”.”
Actually, you are almost totally wrong about that, but I don’t blame you. The liars and deniers have spent MILLIONS to confuse people like you into not having a clue what you are talking about.
One recent review of the literature PROVES the lie of those claims. In the 70’s there was THREE studies suggesting warming, for every study suggesting cooling. THE MEDIA jumped on the latter because it sounded more sensational, but the reality is it was never the prefered explanation for the observations.
Over time, our observations got better, the data became more complete, and it became clear that GW was occuring. All that time the liars and deniers were setting the stage for the denial, claiming all that sort of shit you said in your quote. NOW, there can be NO ARGUMENT. Global Warming IS occuring, and even the liars and deniers don’t try to REALLY deny it any more.
Now they are trying to say “yes, but… it’s not us”, regardless of the mountains of evidence that it is. Look at this very thread, you can see the whole gamut of “not happening”, to “happening but not us”, to “happening but not ALL us”. Why are their views all over the place? Because thats the exact kind of confusion the elites want – just like they did with tobacco. You’ve all been conned into denying what they don’t want you to accept! Well done, fools.
“Okay, I PROMISE to take these claims seriously, just as soon as you folks figure out the proper way to merge what you see on your computer models with the satelite data from NASA”
You mean the satellite data that PROVES global warming, but that was manipulated by a liar and denier to seem to show otherwise, by leaving off the last part of the data? THAT satellite data?
“and the ACTUAL readings that suggest we are going into a cooling phase the next ten years”
Nicely done. “ACTUAL readings” of WHAT? Your IQ?
“and that the level of CO2 is and has been at a historical, all-time low for a decade now.”
Oh, fuck off. Go sell that BULLSHIT to someone stupid enough to believe it. If anyone believes what this retard said, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you; cheap!
The reality is, atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been this HIGH in over 650 THOUSAND YEARS.
“We live in a carbon starved enviroment. And the global temps have been flat if not decreasing the last few years.”
Total, utter bullshit. The last year or so has seen a slight downward bump thanks to La Nina, but current temps, even with the downward bump of La Nina are still as high as 1998, AND, 2005 was a record temp year.
As for a “carbon starved environment” – the truth is this idiot suffers from an oxygen starved brain.
“Do your homework before you come with such viriol. (CO2 skeptics.com icecap.us, heartland. us, NASA.com) Thank you!”
AHAHAHA nasa dot COM??? Really? Idiot. I’m not gonna even bother going to those other sites, because in all likelyhood they are UTTER BULLSHIT – especially if THIS IDIOT (rw3) thinks they are good.
Notice, NOT ONE OF THEM is any kind of authoritative source. Try the NOAA site (http://www.noaa.gov/) or any of the University sites, hell even Wikipedia is more accurate than the bullshit that is bound to be on those sites.
—-
@Alienation
“Same story, different interpretation. I can recall in the past several years that almost once every couple of months or so a new garage band of scientists put out a report on the results of global warming. Each report has a new scenario, a different set of affects for the planet, and a massively new interpretation of final results for mankind.”
You’re kidding! You mean science evolves over time? I thought science meant jumping to a conclusion and sticking to it no matter what! How could I have been so wrong?
“Does anyone even pay attention to the local weather reports? Sure they do…but they don’t take them very seriously.”
Oh I see your problem – you think WEATHER and CLIMATE are the same thing. Ignorance is bliss eh?
“You’re better off to just stick your head out the window and take a wild guess than to listen to these butholes, let alone give any merit whatsoever to a group of scientists claiming that they have the Almighty power to predict the future. What a pathetic joke.”
Wow. Just wow. OK Mr Caveman, go back to your cave! Obviously science has NO USE for YOU. Fool.
——
@RayB
“Christar – we never said that global warming did not happened. Yes, it did and you have to be a real idiot to say to the contrary.”
Oh bullshit. You liars and deniers can attempt to flush your previous bullshit down the memory hole, but those of us with a brain KNOW that you lot USED to deny GW altogether, and some still do.
“But what we say is that we are not entirely responsible for it. I guess we can be blamed for a tinny fraction (mush less than 1%) of the effect and even that needs to be proven.”
Well, if you GUESS it, then it MUST be true! Who needs science, studies, theories etc etc – RayB has guessed the answer, we can all stop worrying now!
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant at the present concentrations and not even at concentrations of 1000 – 4000 ppm. There were times in the past that the concentration was extremely high > 4000 ppm and as you can see outside your window, the planet is still green. There is life on this planet.”
Oh god how ignorant can you get? Yes, there is life on the planet NOW, but back when CO2 was at its peak in our atmosphere life was all but impossible. For example, did you know that at one point CO2 was over 7000ppm and Earth was extremely hot, but then something happened and it dropped down to around current levels. Then the Cambrian Explosion took place. Before that “cold snap”, life was rare and simple.
And you want to reverse that process?
Thanks, but no thanks.
“Obviously the sun plays a much greater part in this effect and of course water vapors are the main greenhouse gas on this planet and this is good because without it it would be permanently -15 Celsius here.”
Actually, -18 deg. C, but at least you aren’t stupid enough to not even know that.
“As much as like is based on carbon and this beautiful carbon cycle, we also depend on water in all its phases. And water is really abundant on the surface of the earth and there are no natural water sinks else than in the form of precipitations. Just for fun calculate the amount of water on earth and the amount of water vapor in equilibrium in the air and compare that to what we exhale… peanuts!!! I would certainly not be surprised that the next tax will be on water emissions… bad greenhouse gas is water!!!”
I am not surprised that you are too stupid to realise, that even though another GHG is more “powerful” than CO2, that does not mean CO2 is not the most dangerous. We are not only pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, but the raise in temperature due to the CO2 results in more water vapour in the air too! Take away the excess CO2, and water vapour drops back to natural levels fairly quickly.
A simple analogy that even you should get – I shoot you five times in the leg and then once in the head. Which is the most dangerous to your life? Obviously the shot to the head, even though it only makes up 1/6th of the wounds. Excess CO2 acts much like that last shot. Even though it by itself is minor, it triggers changes that can do damage out of all proportion to it’s initial effect.
Not to mention that CO2 is the variable we have the most control over. Warming is real, and it is dangerous. Water vapour is MORE dangerous then CO2 but we can’t directly control that very easily – we CAN control CO2 output though. So we can offset the extra damage caused by the water vapour using CO2 as a proxy mechanism.
—
@vein
“Haven’t you got it yet? ‘Global Warming’ will be responsible (by amazing co-incidence) for exactly those things that happen next year!
More rain- that’s Global Warming.
Less rain- that’s Global Warming.
Same rain- that’s Global Warming.”
Haven’t YOU got it yet? Yes ALL those things can be the result of Global Warming. Global Warming means a rise of global mean temperature, it doesn’t mean, and never has meant, that whole world rises in temperature all the time.
That’s why the focus should be on climate change not global warming – the latter causes the former, and the effect can be everything from colder wetter areas, to warmer drier areas
“Luckily, pseudo-science can hide behind the mechanics of real science, and safely deny the demand for accurate predictions ahead of time. How? By giving some science-y sounding explanation for non-predicted events in retrospect. You see, as they say “hindsight is 20-20?, so ‘Global Warming’ pseudo scientists now do all their main work using after the event explanations.”
Well, I shall take your criticism of the scientific method with a grain of salt or two billion…
Since when has there been a demand for accurate predictions AHEAD of time? Hmm? How could we ever know about ANYTHING that happened before now unless retrospective predictions are also valid? Hmm?
See scientists try to make a prediction, then observations are made. If their prediction is wrong, they modify the theory/model and try to get it to predict what was missed before, then they try to do a new future prediction, etc etc ad infinitum. If they DIDN’T do that there would be no such thing as science, because they would just assume they have to KNOW everything IN ADVANCE, and they would never LEARN anything. That is called religion.
We learn by our mistakes, getting closer and closer to the absolute truth. But you do NOT need to know the absolute truth in advance to come to a close approximation of the truth. Ever heard of Newton? Turns out he was wrong BUT his theory was close enough for general purpose use. Do you want to deny that Newtonian physics was right and important for human development, because it wasn’t true in ALL cases?
So yeah, keep your criticisms to yourself – at least until you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about.
“This doesn’t break the logic of science, since science can also accept theories that seem to explain historic data. The Global Warming con knows that the utility of predictions of immediate ‘danger’ has gone. Fear mongering must now be about some time suitably far away, and claiming responsibility after the fact for every natural disaster.”
OMG – You even KNOW what I said above, and STILL don’t understand it! Damn you are thick.
“DOES THIS RING A BELL? It really should do. The tactic is the same as that used by organised religion, claiming ‘god’s work’ whenever anything happens that can be used to influence the sheeple.”
Yes, YOUR tactic does ring a bell, and it DOES smell of religion. You make assumptions that are without merit and then reject ANYTHING that doesn’t agree with YOUR belief. Exactly like religion. The very thing you CRITICISE science for, is the very thing that makes it different from religion. Then you have the amazing gall to project your “faith based” version on to them. Yep, sounds exactly like the typical religious tactic.
——-
@johnyboy
“I just want to know why perfectly lagitimate scientist have been discredited and fired for not going along with the hype. reference to the Green House Conspiracy, you tube.”
Well, largely any scientist who was fired, was fired FOR LYING. Being wrong is not a firing offense – falsifying your findings IS. So, name some of these “legitimate scientists” who were fired for “not going along”.
Then I will find the TRUTH behind it that shows they were fired for NOT being LEGITIMATE scientists.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:43 am
“Global Warming” is all about selling you stuff you don’t need.
It is an excuse for raising your insurance rates and taxes.
It is a theory that has been deemed “politically correct” (so they can sell you stuff) and is being used as an excuse to get rid of anyone, including scientists, who dare to question it.
As far as I know, the media determines what is politically correct or not, and the media is owned by advertisers which I have noticed is mostly by huge corporations which seem to own everything — especially the polls — and there is an enormous amount of potential in this area to sell to you or governments their stuff.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
@Karmakaze
Rather caustically put, but to the point. For some reason, everyone wants to believe that the garbage we put into the air will magically have no unpleasant consequences. Even though it actually will, particularly as the garbage builds up and up and up. Carbon and methane, etc, will by laws of physics they operate under, behave as greenhouse gases. It doesn’t matter what the process was that got them into the air.
That the neocon crazies are using the situation to their own greedy advantage…? Well, duh-h-h-h… But that doesn’t make the situation any less dangerous.
Using the atmosphere as an open sewer is just as much a bad idea as using waterways as open sewers.
It’s just time to stop using sloppy, slobby, ecologically destructive ways to get done the things we want to get done.
Was watching a documentary on air-powered cars last night. Now, there’s a useful idea whose time has come. I wouldn’t mind having one of them. Be great for local trips. And great for longer trips if service stations included compressed air as a “fuel” they sold for cars. And if on-site solar electricity-generation or wind or whatever were used for refilling the stations’ air tanks, that would lessen power being drained off the national power grid. (And yes, the car makers made sure that the cars’ air tanks were as safe as possible by making sure if a tank lost its integrity, the air would just escape instead of blowing up. A *whole* lot safer than gasoline, if you ask me, as there’s no chance at all that a car will burst into flame.)
The point here is that there are better, less destructive ways of doing things. Just because grandpa and grandma did things in a certain way, that doesn’t mean things should still be done in that way. Or even really should have been done in the first place at all.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....nvironment
July 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
@Steve Williams
I have to admit I have been rather caustic on this site lately, not least because I have been called everything from a “NWO agent” to an idiot for “buying the GW hoax” to I don’t know what.
Over and over again I have explained the basics, and shown where the articles themselves have been full of lies, or were being misrepresented, and the best most of these guys have come up with is “You’re WRONG!”
So forgive me if I have become pissed off. Utter stupidity does that to me.
The next person is a case in point:
—-
@Robert
““Global Warming” is all about selling you stuff you don’t need.”
Utter bullshit. Not even the liars and deniers claim GW is not real any more. They are now trying to blame everything under the Sun (including the Sun!) for the very thing they denied even existed as little as 5 years ago. The memory hole must be getting quite full…
“It is a theory that has been deemed “politically correct” (so they can sell you stuff)”
Is it? Then why do the politicians fight it? Hmm? Why is Fox News, the mouthpiece of the elites, anti-AGW? Can you explain that?
“is being used as an excuse to get rid of anyone, including scientists, who dare to question it.”
Name a single scientist that was fired for “questioning” AGW, rather than for falsifying the data to “prove” a lie. I bet you can’t.
“As far as I know, the media determines what is politically correct or not, and the media is owned by advertisers which I have noticed is mostly by huge corporations”
Well done noticing that. So how come these corporate mouthpieces keep giving column space to PROVEN LIARS so they can LIE again about how AGW isn’t real? Hmm? Why does Fox News keep putting deniers on air? IF they are trying to suppress the “truth” that “GW is a hoax”, why do they keep giving the opposition a platform?
Don’t even TRY to say it’s because they are “fair and balanced”!