Dr. "Show me the data" Kerry Imanuel of MIT

[Old Rocks]

KERRY A. EMANUEL

NAMEKerry A. Emanuel
TITLECecil & Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science
[email protected]
PHONE(617)253-2462
OFFICE54-1814
WEBSITE
http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/
EDUCATION
Ph.D.(1978), MIT
BIO AND INTERESTS
Kerry Emanuel is working on various aspects of moist convection in the atmosphere, and on tropical cyclones. He is interested in fundamental properties of moist convection, including the scaling of convective velocities and the nature of the diurnal cycle of convection over land. His group has developed a promising technique for inferring tropical cyclone activity from coarse-grain output of climate models or re-analyses.

RECENT GRADS
Neil Zimmerman
Brian Tang
William Boos



A very good explanation of where our understanding of where we are now, and the unknowns in that understanding.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A technique for modeling, sounds so dreamy.

The chart you posted shows that we're in an overall warming cycle for the past 14,000 years

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll tell you what we need...We need a 6c warming by 2050 to show the deniers reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll tell you what we need...We need a 6c warming by 2050 to show the deniers reality.

You're boring me, Socrates.

How many failed predictions before you realize your theory sucks?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'll tell you what we need...We need a 6c warming by 2050 to show the deniers reality.

That is precisely the amount you need to have ANY of your CAGW predictions come true.. The sun isn't going to play your game.. The earth isn't going to play your game... Looks like you will be playing with yourself...

 

[flacaltenn]

"There is nobody in Climate Science who will tell you we are very confident in our forward projections.."
"We don't know a lot about what happening with Climate Systems" ........... "We don't know a lot about hurricanes."

This is an expert in atmos convection.. And an extremely honest guy..

Ooopsie.. His grants may be toast..

 

[Old Rocks]

On the contrary, his chances at grants improve, as he is completely upfront in what he sees. Note that the unknowns are on both sides of the equation. And thus far, the rapidity and scope of the changes observed, weather, ice, and side effects, have exceeded the scientists predictions.

 

[flacaltenn]

On the contrary, his chances at grants improve, as he is completely upfront in what he sees. Note that the unknowns are on both sides of the equation. And thus far, the rapidity and scope of the changes observed, weather, ice, and side effects, have exceeded the scientists predictions.

Nothing about weather has "exceeded the scientists predictions" except in your mind. When you read all those vagues Coulds and MIGHTs -- you forgot the part where they were talking about 60 to 100 years from now..

PLEASE don't post the maniac lady from Rutgers again.. She also said no such thing in that video you adore..

 

[Crick]

When was it the denier crowd lost the basic understanding that real science is never fully settled and thus absolute statements and "proofs" within it are as rare as hen's teeth? You're not the first denier poster here, FCT, to complain about the expressions of potentials and possibilities and likelihoods, you're just one of the folks I thought had a sufficient understanding of 7th grade level science to avoid expressing such ignorance.

And yes, the science that says CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we're putting significant amounts of it into the atmosphere and it's causing the Earth's temperature to rise, is all settled science. Challenge it if you like, but you're going to need your own mountain of evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On the contrary, his chances at grants improve, as he is completely upfront in what he sees. Note that the unknowns are on both sides of the equation. And thus far, the rapidity and scope of the changes observed, weather, ice, and side effects, have exceeded the scientists predictions.

Yeah, that fits perfectly with how the AGWCult treats the skeptics like Curry, Moore, Soon, Lindzen and Dyson, they're revered in the AGWCult circles for their hinesty

 

[flacaltenn]

When was it the denier crowd lost the basic understanding that real science is never fully settled and thus absolute statements and "proofs" within it are as rare as hen's teeth? You're not the first denier poster here, FCT, to complain about the expressions of potentials and possibilities and likelihoods, you're just one of the folks I thought had a sufficient understanding of 7th grade level science to avoid expressing such ignorance.

And yes, the science that says CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we're putting significant amounts of it into the atmosphere and it's causing the Earth's temperature to rise, is all settled science. Challenge it if you like, but you're going to need your own mountain of evidence.

So is Dr. Emanuel a denier?? Since he says there is no climate scientist with very much confidence in the modeling and projections? What does that do to your 97% claim??? Don't make this personal. DEFEND your position...

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Emanuel stated very definately that we are warming, and that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the reason. And that there are some very real consequences for doing that. He put up a probability chart that pretty well stated that if we go beyond doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, that those consequences will almost certainly be severe.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dr. Emanuel stated very definately that we are warming, and that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the reason. And that there are some very real consequences for doing that. He put up a probability chart that pretty well stated that if we go beyond doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, that those consequences will almost certainly be severe.

Of course we are warming. And CO2 is PART of the reason.. But NONE of that justifies front page news. Because the unadultered warming power of CO2 is NOT the issue of contention. ALL of the fear and hype and panic and politically expedient lying come from the ADULTERATED power of CO2 to TRIGGER Catastrophic results Results which "they" say would be unstoppable. ALL of those MIGHTs and COULDs and MAYBEs are based on 4 or 8 degC by 2100.. And NO amount of man-made CO2 would get us there. EVEN IF you melted 50% of the permafrost and let the CO2 and methane escape.

The "permafrost" melted by probably 50% while man was on this planet -- and never raised the atmos concentration above 300 ppm.. And that 50% was HUGE compared to 50% of what is left..

Even in the warmest of the DINO epochs, CO2 just barely reached where a 2nd doubling since Industrial Era would put us...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ MIT Climate "science"

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Emanuel stated very definately that we are warming, and that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the reason. And that there are some very real consequences for doing that. He put up a probability chart that pretty well stated that if we go beyond doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, that those consequences will almost certainly be severe.

Of course we are warming. And CO2 is PART of the reason.. But NONE of that justifies front page news. Because the unadultered warming power of CO2 is NOT the issue of contention. ALL of the fear and hype and panic and politically expedient lying come from the ADULTERATED power of CO2 to TRIGGER Catastrophic results Results which "they" say would be unstoppable. ALL of those MIGHTs and COULDs and MAYBEs are based on 4 or 8 degC by 2100.. And NO amount of man-made CO2 would get us there. EVEN IF you melted 50% of the permafrost and let the CO2 and methane escape.

The "permafrost" melted by probably 50% while man was on this planet -- and never raised the atmos concentration above 300 ppm.. And that 50% was HUGE compared to 50% of what is left..

Even in the warmest of the DINO epochs, CO2 just barely reached where a 2nd doubling since Industrial Era would put us...

Mr. Flacaltenn, perhaps you had better link to your source. Mine shows that the second doubling would put us at 1/2 the level of 60 million years ago.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years Abstract Nature

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years
Paul N. Pearson1 & Martin R. Palmer2

1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
2. T. H. Huxley School, Imperial College, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK

Correspondence to: Paul N. Pearson1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.N.P. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Abstract
Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

Half the permafrost has melted in the past 200,000 years? Really? Link, please. No amount of CO2 would cause an increase of 4 degrees? Again, a link to a real scientist that states that. Seems that Venus has achieved a rather higher temperature than 4 degrees would put us at with CO2.