Probable Cause Are scientists too cautious to help us stop climate change?
BY KERRY EMANUEL | NOVEMBER 9, 2012
The world has suffered an extraordinary string of weather disasters over the past decade, ranging from crippling droughts and floods, to severe tornado and hail outbreaks, to highly destructive hurricanes. Insurance industry statistics reflect a substantial increase in damages from these events, but in only a few cases can scientists confidently attribute them to climate change. (For example, increased incidence of droughts, floods, and high category hurricanes may be partly pinned on climate change.)
But we know next to nothing about the relationship between climate change and other weather phenomena, such as tornadoes, and we have yet to establish a link to hybrid storms like Sandy. For all but a few of these phenomena, the scientifically correct conclusion is that we can’t rule out the possibility that they were purely manifestations of natural variability. But from a public policy perspective, it would be prudent to assume that climate change might be behind some of these changes, given that it is manifestly changing the environment in which these events develop.
There is no evidence that the weather has become more extreme over the last century. Hurricane strikes have declined in the US.
www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt
Severe tornadoes have declined in the US.
Droughts have declined in the US.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/drought/wetdry/bar-mod-110-00/190001-201202.gif
Emanuel’s entire thesis is based on flawed, lazy assumptions. He has no idea what he is talking about.
Emanuel is just another climate change charlatan bloviating about a non-crisis. He and the other so-called scientists promoting the AGW quackery should be prosecuted for fraud and cut off from all federal research grants.
Until recently bad weather was simply bad weather. Now every day the weather isn’t nice, there are grave implications. Even too much good weather has grave implications.
It is interesting to note that despite all the angst and hand wringing about last year’s severe tornadoes, 2011 did not even rank in the top five for number of severe tornadoes.
The global cooling movement used the bad weather narrative for a while until everyone decided to ignore them and they went away. Can’t really do that today with the green movement now a minority political force sometimes holding the balance of power in governments.
I have decided that there is little point in presenting the facts to these people, because to them, the “theory” is much more important than the facts.
‘Insurance industry statistics reflect a substantial increase in damages from these events’
I always love this argument as ‘evidence.’ Let’s see, would more insurance damage reflect an increase in storm strength & number, or… more coverage on increasing number & value of construction the we put in the way of these storms?
Storms aren’t increasing. People, and their stuff, are.
Sorry… I am a brazilian and I would like to know: Is this guy a… cientist ? really ? Is difficult to me believe.
The actual published research on ‘extreme weather’ in relation to storm damage, etc., shows no trends. I.e., there is no evidence of these claims in the literature, in fact the opposite.
Is Kerry Emanuel speaking:
a) as an MIT professor of meteorology
b) as an activist scientist and Nobel Laureate (sic) involved in the IPCC reports
c) as a member of the board of directors of an insurance company
d) for community outreach efforts required by his current NSF grant
e) to increase his name recognition to replace Steven ‘Eurogas’ Chu at DOE
Yes, that’s the point exactly. Kerry Immanuel is hip-deep in insurance company consulting
Is it any surprise he cautions we should assume more “storminess” in the future?
Insurers gotta raise premium rates if things are gonna get “worse”, eh-hem.
All of the above, plus he is a card carrying member of the Chicken Little Brigade.
There IS undeniable evidence that Global Warming/Climate Change has increased the costs of living. Increased electricity and insurance premiums have a disproportionate impact on the poor whilst the well off can claim subsidies for ofsetting the carbon footprint with massively subsidised solar panels.
The evidence that the effects postulated about Global Warming/Climate Changeare responsible for these increases in cost burdens is completely completely non existant however – evidence shows fraud.
I recall an article back in the late 1980’s in either the NY Times or the Washington Post. It was how we’ve been in a lull with respect to hurricanes making landfall leading to too much development close to the shore and in low lying areas. But 25 years later there is a different narrative.
“The scientifically correct conclusion is that we can’t rule out the possibility that they were purely manifestations of natural variability” – WHAT
…Sandy was a result of natural variability. There’s no evidence of that “man-made” variability.
“We don’t understand how climate works” – Well there you go. If you don’t understand, you try to find a conclusion. Too bad AGW is just a fraud.
There no method to differentiate between natural variability and any other cause of weather variability. If and when these ‘scientist’ can prove the difference that would be a different matter. currently they can’t.