1. Why, I do believe it may be the emerging consensus. Imagine that.

    Check out the participant list, not so much for who was there but who wasn’t there.

    The pub list is also interesting. RP Jr. should be thrilled to be among the most-cited, albeit on his disaster cost stuff rather than anything co-authored with the NHC crowd. Among other absences of note, Goldenberg et al (2001) has gone to sleep with the fishes.

  2. I still have to say that after watching the emails fly on the tropical cyclones email list over the past two weeks, a list that contains almost everybody of importance working on tropical cyclones in the world and to which Holland, Curry and Webster have also been posting to in the past two weeks, anybody would be very hard pressed to say that an “emerging consensus” exists amongst that group of experts. Mostly what I’ve seen are very reasonable, very well-considered emails poking major holes in the data Webster used, among other aspects to the “debate.”

    I’ll continue to maintain that while it is very reasonable to infer that increased global T –> stronger hurricanes, “reasonable” means nothing in systems that can be as counter-intuitive as climate/weather.

  3. Pingback: jfleck at inkstain » Blog Archive » An “Emerging Consensus”, part XVI

Comments are closed.