ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-8758-9]

RIN 2060-AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 23 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Determination of Acceptability.

SUMMARY: This Determination of Acceptability expands the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The determinations concern new substitutes for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning, fire suppression and explosion protection, and foam blowing sectors.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2009.

Information taken from http://www.cyberregs.com

Abstract

The annually-laminated (i.e., varved) sediment record from the Lower Mystic Lake (near Boston, MA), contains a series of anomalous graded beds deposited by strong flooding events that have affected the basin over the last millennium. From the historic portion of the record, 10 out of 11 of the most prominent graded beds correspond with years in which category 2–3 hurricanes are known to have struck the Boston area. Thus, we conclude that the graded beds represent deposition related to intense hurricane precipitation combined with wind-driven vegetation disturbance that exposes fresh, loose sediment. The hurricane signal shows strong, centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12th–16th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17th–19th centuries. These frequency changes are consistent with other paleoclimate indicators from the tropical North Atlantic, in particular, sea surface temperature variations.

But yes, make our own conclusions. So where are the original questions? It sounds like one interview chopped up, of course it’s unknown if the questions were prepped, on the fly according to answers, or instead something pre-written as discussion by Dr. Emanuel.

As the first story wrote:

global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain.

Or as Vecchi said:

“While his results don’t rule out the possibility that global warming has contributed to the recent increase in activity in the Atlantic, they suggest that other factors — possibly in addition to global warming — are likely to have been substantial contributors to the observed increase in activity,”

And remember, the original report says only 28.6% of the model runs for the Atlantic showed a decline in intensity, or as Emanuel said:

“There’s still a lot of uncertainty in this problem. The bulk of the evidence is that hurricane power will go up, but in some places it will go down.”

I don’t see how this is at odds with

In the many different computer runs with different models and different conditions, “the fact is, the results are all over the place,”

And I certainly agree this doesn’t disprove anything.

“The idea that there is no connection between hurricanes and global warming, that’s not supported,”

Or in other words, we’re at the same point in the process; how a newspaper story or press release or blog determines how to spin “We don’t know, and nothing’s proven or disproven in either direction.”

I’d be interested in seeing the full set of remarks from Emanual, rather than bits and pieces strung together in the way the author wants to present or paraphase them. Certainly it seems the MIT release is trying to downplay certain aspects.

The proper headline for the MIT release would be more like: “Study fails to invalidate hurricane predictions” or “New computer simulations still a mixed bag in their output”

As in some of the caveats earlier in the release:

But the new work shows no clear change in the overall numbers of such storms when run on future climates predicted using global climate models.

Or

the new work also raises some questions that remain to be understood. When projected into the future, the model shows a continuing increase in power, “but a lot less than the factor of two that we’ve already seen” he says. “So we have a paradox that remains to be explained.”

Theoretically, a hurricane is a very brief transient event in a restricted location. If surface sea temperature is to have an influence, then one should use localised SST not global or hemispherical.

Here is a link to Micheals reply to an Emanuel critique and references to his paper on using local SSTs to characterize TCs.

Your reference to the transient and brief nature of TCs gets me back to my story that I am sticking with (in Peter Webster fashion although as a layperson without a reputation to defend) that NATL TCs fit a Poisson distribution if the changes in detection capabilities over time are compensated for and one uses a two separate distibutions depending on whether the AMM index is positive or negative. I do not see any data presented here in the past several posts or anyone, for that matter, refuting my view (which may also arise because would-be critcs are not going to waste their time addressing conjectures from a layperson).

Theoretically, a hurricane is a very brief transient event in a restricted location. If surface sea temperature is to have an influence, then one should use localised SST not global or hemispherical.

I have not done the heat transfer equations, but intuitively I cannot see how a delta T of 1K in SST would provide the extra (localised) input to change either the intensity or frequency of the event. Is there a reference showing how the heat balances work and how deep the sea temp changes as the hurricane forms and progresses? I can only see local temperatures acting akin to a catalyst in a chemical reaction. Please convince me I’m wrong.

Until then, I have to agree with MPaul.