James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Roger Pielke Jr. asks why almost every media outlet ignored a new paper in Nature that says "global warming may have a minimal effect on hurricanes" when comparably respectable papers arguing the opposite get oodles of attention. Good question. I'll do my humble bit to draw some more deserved attention to this new piece of research.
The New York Times' Andrew Revkin, writing, sort of apologetically, at his very cool blog, Dot Earth, suspects the reason for the oversight is
...an institutional eagerness to sift for and amplify what editors here at The Times sometimes call "the front-page thought." This is only natural, but in coverage of science it can skew what you read toward the more calamitous side of things. It's usually not agenda-driven, as some conservative commentators charge. It's just a deeply ingrained habit.That's probably true. And for once I'm going to be sympathetic to my journalistic colleagues tasked with making sense of the hurricane-climate change relationship.
Chris Mooney recently produced an entire book, Storm World, exploring the challenges of sorting it all out, and a great read it is. But even Chris leaves us wondering: why isn't it a relatively straightforward concept?
First, the oceans and the atmosphere are warming. The Earth is keeping more of the sun's energy close at hand, rather than re-radiating back into space. That should be mean more heat energy near the ocean-atmosphere interface. And that should mean more kinetic energy in the form of stronger or more frequent storms, or both. Right?
But the authors of the new paper, Gabriel Vecchi and Brian Soden, say that you also have to consider the basic laws of thermodynamics. While it is true that warmer regions of the ocean will produce increased potential for bigger storms locally, warmer air elsewhere can counteract that potential.
...the response of tropical cyclone activity to natural climate variations, which tend to involve localized changes in sea surface temperature, may be larger than the response to the more uniform patterns of greenhouse-gas-induced warming.Both approaches to the issue are seductively simple. On the one hand, more heat energy should lead to more kinetic energy. On the other, widespread warming doesn't supply what storms need: temperature differences.
I'm no expert, but it seems to be that, eventually, global warming should allow for greater temperature differences, and that should allow for more hurricanes. But what Vecchi and Soden are saying is there's no evidence of that. At least, not yet.
What's a poor reporter to make of all that?
Comments
"On the other, widespread warming doesn't supply what storms need: temperature differences."
Another thing that storms need is a sea surface temperature of 27 C. Warmer athmosphere means more potential areas where storms can start. That could open new territories for hurricanes to ravage, e.g. the South Atlantic, where only one hurricane is known so far.
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/brazil_hurricane.shtml
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | December 15, 2007 4:42 AM
The majority heat resources are Sol and our own slow bulk nuclear activity. The insolation is highest to our tropical belt and our radiation is highest at the poles. That is a neat heat-engine imbalance. That 'perfect sphere' model is moderated by 'phase imbalances' occasioned by the fluid water phenomenon that we enjoy. This is a very big mechanism and quick opinions are likely more tentative than one would like. We'll get to chew on these changes degree-by-degree. Sharpen your pencils and ready that slide-rule because you might be without power for a bit.
Posted by: Skeptic8 | December 15, 2007 6:15 PM
Pshaw! In the news timing is everything. And Roger Pielke Jr. should know that. This seems to be a phony controversy like the Fox News "War on Christmas!"
When many of the climate journalists are in Bali and the majority of global warming coverage is focused understandably on this conference, it's not that hard to understand why people ignored a press release from Nature.
The intelligent questions that Pielke Jr. should have asked is, "Why did the editors at Nature release this study during the middle of an international conference?"
Posted by: Ben | December 15, 2007 6:20 PM
The slow but steady sea level rise, neglecting any climate change accelerations, is also a problem for hurricane damage. The recent WMO press release, http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html , says its 1.7mm/year long term, but 3mm/year since 1993, which correspond to an inch of rise every 15 or 8.5 years, respectively. That may seem small, but with return intervals of catastrophic storms to localities on the order of decades, with all other factors being equal, the baseline of water level from which the storm works from could be significantly higher for the repeated storm. I live in an area of subsidence which has a 4.2mm/year long term average ( http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8638610%20Sewells%20Point,%20VA ), adding the recent 1.3mm/year could give us an extra inch to worry about every 5 years over the next century.
Posted by: dave X | December 17, 2007 10:59 AM
I'm no expert, but it seems to be that, eventually, global warming should allow for greater temperature differences, and that should allow for more hurricanes. But what Vecchi and Soden are saying is there's no evidence of that. At least, not yet.
What's a poor reporter to make of all that?
I looked for a dumbfounded smiley face to put here but they didn't have any! LOL! This is the first I have heard of this. I am with you on what are we supposed to make of all of this, but Dave X made a good point about the water levels. I think everyone is going to know how to vote on that eventuality, ( and actuality already)!
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | December 18, 2007 4:30 PM
When many of the climate journalists are in Bali and the majority of global warming coverage is focused understandably on this conference, it's not that hard to understand why people ignored a press release from Nature.
Posted by: sex shop | December 22, 2007 11:00 AM