|
|||||||||||
April 11, 2008Kudos to Kerry EmanuelPosted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Disasters | Risk & Uncertainty | Science + Politics I have always held Kerry Emanuel in high regard, because he calls things like he sees them, but he also listens to others who might not share his views. He is, in short, a great scientist. So it was not too surprising to see that Kerry's views have evolved on the issue of hurricanes and climate change, as science has progressed. A Houston Chronicle story reports today the following: One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand. I emailed Kerry to ask if the story accurately reflected his views. He replied that it was a bit exaggerated, but basically OK. Those engaged in the political debate over climate change who are skeptical of a link between hurricanes and climate change might try to make some hay from this news report. But here at Prometheus we'd suggest viewing Kerry's evolving view in the much broader context, which we have shared on multiple occasions, namely: there are good reasons to expect that any conclusive connection between global warming and hurricanes or their impacts will not be made in the near term. So don't get to excited about the latest paper in hurricane climatology, the field evolves slowly, and the views of of our best scientists evolve with it. Posted on April 11, 2008 03:04 PMCommentsI hope Kerry doesn't think I exaggerated his reputation! Seriously, I think the paper, which is written frankly and clearly shows his doubts about the relationship between global warming and hurricane intensity, displays his open mind about the topic. There are idealogues everywhere in the global warming debate. Many are Republicans who loathe Al Gore, but there are definitely scientists who are idealogues as well. Clearly Emanuel is not among them. This reporter also appreciates him because he's wonderfully accessible. Eric Berger Posted by: Eric Berger Maybe at least some AGW scientists have figured out that if "the science is settled" we can shift resources from doing science to implementing solutions. I think "more study is needed" will be the mantra for a very long time. Posted by: charlesH Maybe at least some AGW scientists have figured out that if "the science is settled" we can shift resources from doing science to implementing solutions. I think "more study is needed" will be the mantra for a very long time. Posted by: charlesH That's funny Charles. You think the science is settled? How can the "science be settled" when exactly zero models predicted this: No, there is a long way to go. We can either let a few people get really rich off everyone else's suffering (and they have one heck of a propaganda machine going), or we can spend our resources figuring out what's really going on. Our computational ability is extremely weak, as shown in Figure 10 at the bottom of this: Then, of course, we have this for those without the bigger picture in mind: As Emanuel shows, the more we know the more we know we don't know. If you think the science is settled, where does that put you on that spectrum? Posted by: Harry Haymuss Oops - I was incorrect when I stated no models predict Antarctica cooling. This one does: Posted by: Harry Haymuss Post a commentThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||