Inconvenient Science And Hurricane Projections

As I was getting ready to set a reminder to tag up with the hurricane shutter guy as we prep for storm season, lond distance, at our South Florida property, hurricane science hit the news cycle today. The findings do not change in any way how I am going to make every effort to prepare for storms, having been through several horrific storms in 2004 and 2005, including Katrina (the younger, in Florida) and Wilma. But the ambiguity of the findings and change in latest science musings may effect me, and millions of people living,working and planning in hurricane strike zones. Because the findings impact expectations and action.

Science is a process, first, and the product is not only new knowledge, but a necessary conversation about that knowledge.
Another piece of science that is extremely important is listening to data and experimental results, even when they do not fit with expectations.
Knowledge, and "good" science can prove to be elusive, often counter to intuition, and open to alternative explanation. Like our experience of our personal lives, reality is highly complex.

On the other hand, radical breakthroughs in science can be abrupt, pre-cognitive insights, from outside of the orderly science knowledge building process. Deceased Scientist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn and others scientists openly debated this over many decades.
Scientists can be highly disapproving of other scientists who step out of the knowledge dialog and into the public dialog. Likewise non-science folks anxious for answers have little time or patience for endless academic pondering, when action may be required.

What to do with all this ambiguity in the global warming arena?
Listen to it.
The paradox is that in the urgent need to address global warming, scientists, the public, policy makers, activists, journalists, bloggers and investors have to slow down and listen to what the science dialog is producing. People in the path of hurricanes, floods and fires have to make critical decisions with imperfect information. Regional economies can be dramatically altered, rightly or wrongly, depending on which beliefs have taken hold.

Thus it is very important and welcome to see that the science community is reviewing new hurricane data, as well as evaluating the public education made available by global warming communicator Al Gore.

Here are some summaries of what is new today a nutshell.

NYT Dot Earth reports on new hurricane modeling research published by Kerry Emanuel. Dot Earth's Andrew C. Revkin reports:

I queried Dr. Emanuel about (his new study)and he sent this note Friday night:

The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.

Other climate scientists also published their views of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

After providing a succinct summary of the state of climate change science... Gerald North from Texas A&M University: "although there are some inaccuracies and exaggerations in the film, on the whole it represents mainstream scientific views on global warming."

So what am I supposed to do with all that detailed, distinctive, well researched and imperfect information? I am going to listen to it, appreciate it, and call the shutter guy ASAP.