On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:23:42 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:

Question:

Leavingout all data from before 1970 enhances the study?

He didn't. He concentrated on global data from the 70s fwd because it
met the requirements. There's a myth around that he didn't look at
data before this, and focused incorrectly on the Atlantic basin.
Neither are true.

My point is that by using a period of time of below normal activity the
study skews.

Using bad data does the same thing. Emmanuel's primary contribution
to the process is the new perspective of total energy dissapation.
Studying temporal satellite data allowed him to do that.

Example:
Using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, North Atlantic Hurricane
Activity.

1950 to 1971 inclusive (22 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 11

Normal 7

Below normal 4


1972 to 1994 inclusive (22 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 3

Normal 7

Below normal 12


1950 to 1994 inclusive (44 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 14

Normal 14

Below normal 16

Now you're the one making the error because you've focused on the
Atlantic Basin.

"The analysis by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology shows for the first time that major storms
spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have
increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent."

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn..._stronger.html

And the number of events world-wide has not changed from a range of
low 80s to about 90. So your objection that he chose a low to accent
the growth - is incorrect.

Altho your criticism doesn't reflect knowledge of Emmanuel's study, if
you read the article it's pretty clear that this is a new look in a
new way. And the right approach comes from the science - chew on it
for a while before any saying yea or nay to any conclusions or
connections.