Drudge Report, Fox News falsely smear Gore

I can’t say that I have read two transcripts or heard two “clips” as you call them, but it is quite clear that Gore is still of the opinion that GW is causing more severe storms and will cause even more.

The point I make is that Gore is spreading Gorespel all over the country through his appointed disciples and soon, no matter what current conditions and near-future observations disclose his plan is to simply say that the worst is yet to come.

The man is playing these tragedies for whatever they’re worth or he wouldn’t have agreed to an interview of the sort now being haggled about.

We must use caution here before we collapse the economy and perhaps the culture itself.

Kerry (Emanuel's) take on his own new study was that it didn't prove his previous study wrong. Somehow I tend to believe his interpretation of his study.

I don't know about you but if I'll ever wake up on the operating table with the wrong body part lopped off, I will not "tend to believe [the doc's] interpretation" of the events. At the least I will seek other people's opinion!

Here is another article interpreting the new study.

"Noted Hurricane Expert Kerry Emanuel has publicly reversed his stance on the impact of Global Warming on Hurricanes."

Also, please see the original article by NYT's Revkin who actually communicated with Kerry on this.

"A fresh study by a leading hurricane researcher has raised new questions about how hurricane strength and frequency might, or might not, be influenced by global warming.
...
[the new study] definitely rolls back Dr. Emanuel’s sense of confidence about a recent role for global warming."

Also please note Kerry's own words in the same article.

"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."

Post #52 has the accurate Al Gore quote on the FOX interview, and he did in fact make a clear implication, so my “give a damns busted” about this so called “smear”.

But let's address “climate change” for a minute.

If there is one thing is a constant in the earth's geological history, it's “change”, yes?

You won't deny that the earth has been warmer in the past, then it is today will you?
The early Holocene "Climate Optimum" period (11 to 9,000 years ago) there is evidence that the Arctic had temps that were a couple degrees warmer then it is today...and yet afterward, most of the earth went through the so called "Little Ice Age" in the 1700's.

So, my question to you, Cog:
Just what is “normal” for the earth's climate...in say, oh, the last 12,000 years?

I prefer the direct comments from the scientist. I'm not going to believe a blogger's characterization of what happened as a "public reversal". I smell the stink of spin in that phrase.

Yes, Emanuel did clearly state there was somewhat of a mystery about why there's been an apparent stronger increase in hurricane strength than the models indicate should have occurred. Note that hurricane strength has clearly increased, and that still needs to be understood. Furthermore, the model supports the previous result that global warming will cause an increase in hurricane strength, which is why Emanuel said it did, with the caveats he added. It's not unusual for models in development to not completely reproduce observations. And that's essentially the pith of Emanuel's "new" position.

No response from Cogitator, either.

I have responded to several comments, as well as I can.

Gore indicated (as he has previously) that increased hurricane strength is a potential consequence of global warming. He clearly indicated that you can't blame any one particular storm on global warming -- which is what the erroneous (deliberate or not) clip made it seem like he did. So to say that Gore said that Typhoon Nargis is a consequence of global warming is incorrect (to put it mildly).

With regard to the clip that was released, if it makes it sound like Gore attributed Typhoon Nargis to global warming, then the clip is inaccurate -- and that's why they apparently felt the need to fix it.

“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

If there is one thing is a constant in the earth's geological history, it's “change”, yes? You won't deny that the earth has been warmer in the past, then it is today will you?

No, that would be utterly incorrect.

The early Holocene "Climate Optimum" period (11 to 9,000 years ago) there is evidence that the Arctic had temps that were a couple degrees warmer then it is today...and yet afterward, most of the earth went through the so called "Little Ice Age" in the 1700's.

This issue comes up frequently. The issue of importance is rate of change, not absolute maximum and minimums. When you address the HCO, ask: how long did it take to warm up to the maxima? How long did it take to decline from the maxima?

The figure is from here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Go there for a description of what records are plotted in the figure. The inset figure is the hockey stick; the big figure is NOT the hockey stick.

However, the hockey stick shows the increase in global temperature from the end of the LIA to now, fairly clearly. Over the course of the Holocene, that change, which I'd estimate started at about a -0.2 C anomaly and is now at a +0.45 C anomaly (and everybody pretty much agrees that the 20th century warmed up 0.6 C anyway) happened in a period of time that for the Holocene was practically instantaneous. (Do the math: 150/12,000 x 100 = 1.25%)

So, to answer:

So, my question to you, Cog: Just what is “normal” for the earth's climate...in say, oh, the last 12,000 years?

I reply: since the end of the Younger Dryas, the Holocene has had a relatively stable climate with only moderately-paced changes in temperature. (Note that the Holocene climate stability has been indicated as one important factor in the rise of human civilization.) These moderately-paced changes would appear to be normal for the Holocene. The current rate of increase is much faster than is normal for the Holocene.

I could go on into why rapid rates of change are probably not a good thing, but I'll stop here.

Is the US part of the Globe?

Because if it is your case is weak. Not only weak on frequency but weak on intensity as well.

And by the way it would seem you should be bound to support yours and Al's hypothesis that AGW causes increases in intensity.

From: “NOAA News Releases” To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Subject: NOAA: Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - February 21, 2008*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404
Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.
“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

Now what do you know Cog that NOAA doesn't?

Now what do you know Cog that NOAA doesn't?

Most tropical storm systems don't hit land, for starters.

Whether or not you're aware of it, there has been an ongoing debate on this subject. I'm not going to try to reproduce it. Landsea and company represent one side of this debate. Some RealClimate folks, and also Greg Holland, Peter Webster, Judith Curry, and Emanuel (notably) represent the other side. If you REALLY want to get into it:

Tropical cyclone history - part I: How reliable are past hurricane records?

Tropical cyclone history - part II: Paleotempestology still in its infancy

Note that both of these are guest commentaries on RealClimate.

Now... I don't want to get into it. This is a complicated subject, the statistics are difficult to work with, and the opinions are, to coin a phrase, heated on both sides. I know I've said previously that to try and judge the state of the scientific community's understanding of the impacts of global warming based on trends (or not) in hurricane frequency and intensity is unprofitable, because they are highly variable systems.

The debate is being conducted properly by scientists, which is as it should be. Gore's characterization of the science was drawn from Emanuel and Holland & Webster's research. I think he stated what they've presented correctly. Scientists like Landsea can counter and rebut their work. I expect that eventually there will be some level of agreement.

A couple of other references:

Misuse of Landfall as a Proxy for Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity (gotta find the journal if you want to read the whole thing)

Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic: natural variability or climate trend?

Have FUN!

You make my point for me well. The science isn't settled. At all. The hypothesis hasn't been confirmed or falsified. But nobody told Al:

"It’s also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is even though any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming — we’ve always had hurricanes — nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the larger ones, the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming. And specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection, energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.
And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated.
And last year a catastrophic storm, last fall, hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China."

The TC models, according to Emanuel, are all over the place. This is not the impression that Al Gore gives at all so your defense of him is, shall we say, inappropriate.

Let's put it this way. I would contend that the IPCC reports represent the "emerging consensus" (Gore's phrase). And here's what the IPCC says about hurricanes in the future:

"About the future: "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."

So I think Gore characterized this statement accurately.

Some models even indicate there will be less hurricanes overall (I think due to increased wind shear), but the ones that do form will be overall stronger. So, I'd prefer to let the scientists do their job and keep trying to figure this out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.