Since the release earlier this month of the new IPCC Summary for Policymakers (PDF), I have been watching closely to see if the document sparks any prominent quarrels between scientists over the relationship between hurricanes and global warming. Frankly, I thought the IPCC's claim that global hurricanes have "more likely than not" intensified due to human causes would indeed create some sparks.
Contrary to my expectations, however, I've seen very little conflict of any significance. Indeed, I was waiting for this subject to be brought up by Republicans on Capitol Hill last week with Kevin Trenbeth as a witness...but nothing happened. Roger Pielke, Jr., who watches this debate at least as closely as I do, didn't seem to think the Summary for Policymakers' final wording would cause any significant controversy, and his expectation turns out to have been more accurate than mine thus far.
But as we all know, journalists love conflict. Indeed, in our article on media coverage of the hurricane-global warming debate from last year, Matt Nisbet and I noted this tendency, and in particular how in the temporary absence of new studies on the hurricane-climate relationship early last year, journalists started writing stories about how the scientists involved were fighting with each other. Which, indeed, they were (much more than now, at any rate).
Now they're not fighting, however--or at least, not nastily and publicly. But along comes a journalist and tries to start it all up again. There is no new information that I can see in Michael Cabbage's February 14 piece on this subject for the Orlando Sentinel. No scientist prominently involved in the debate has released a statement slamming the IPCC report, for instance (or if one has, I haven't seen it, and Cabbage doesn't quote it). As for sparks flying in public, the best Cabbage can do is quote a spat from back in October between Trenberth and Colorado State's William Gray. Okay, fine, they argued then...but isn't there anything more recent? And if not, how can Cabbage claim that the new IPCC report has "rekindled the argument"?
Again, as I've said, the last few weeks seem to have been noteworthy for their lack of vigorous public argument on hurricanes and global warming, especially in light of how controversial this subject has been in the past. So instead of going looking for controversy, Cabbage should have written a different and more useful piece...say, for example, about what the implications of the latest IPCC report's statements about hurricanes are for people in Florida. Not a bad idea, no? Or here's another story angle, one that's been covered on this blog: How the hurricane-climate debate has shifted of late from one centering on global storm intensities to one centering historic storm counts in the Atlantic.....
P.S.: Prometheus has a related post that you should read....
- Log in to post comments
Well considering how two other fights are dominating the news cycle. One about the mess in Iraq, and the other about Nicole Smiths body -there just would be no chance to get attention anyway.
"Now they're not fighting, however--or at least, not nastily and publicly. But along comes a journalist and tries to start it all up again."
Nothing new there, in either regard.
Scientists ordinarily reserve their disputes to the journals and conferences and even then, the spats are usually not underlain by personal animosity.
The case of global warming is an exception and it is no accident that in this case, some journalists seem to be "in the middle" of the whole thing -- and, no, I don't mean that in the "Andy Revkin Middle" (self-complimentary) sense.
Don't forget homicidal astronauts!
Chris, you may be interested in this article, "Don't Politicize Science (Unless You're on My Side)", downloadable from the Social Science Research Network. It's a review of your book.
Chris; I've enjoyed catching you on several radio and TV programs over the last few weeks while you've been out promoting your book. Indeed, the ideologically distorted presentation of skewed science is a dreadful and serious problem. I wish it only existed on one side of the aisle, but there's no question that the political ramifications of the current assault is tantamount to criminal negligence of the worst kind.
On top of the frustration generated by the acrimonious ideological arguement about climate, I'm frustrated and puzzled that there is so little discussion about a serious long range approach to energy production in the world. I will presume that you've spent the time it takes to watch Dr Bussard's interesting lunchtime lecture at Google last November, and that you are informed enough about the basic science behind his recent research bringing nuclear fusion power generation into the real world, and that you recognize the obstacles that the current DOE directed efforts regarding "break even" with the on-going Tokomak research. I'd love to know your take on this, particularly since it offers such a potent prescription for changing and eliminating what has long been targeted as the cause of so much pollution as well as the generator of so much greenhouse gas; energy production. It's kind of mysterious to me. I've searched as widely as as I can and I don't seem to hear the kind of noise one would think such groundbreaking research with such widespread implications would bring to the public forum. Of course the "dumbed down" MSM has yet to find it sexy enough to take the effort to inform the public (once again ignoring its agreement to do so in exchange for it's governmental license (to print money). Forum members in a few blogs that are primarily focused on nuclear technologies have, after initial reluctance to believe that there's something to Bussard's findings, most techies who are into this are finding themselves in agreement with his research and agree that Dr Bussard's work needs funding, $200 million, which has been denied it under the current research regime where the DOE has monopolized all research money for this in order to support its multi-billion dollar baby, the Tokomak. Let's hope that those who challenge and expose the GOP's purposely ignorant and selfishly motivated steps to block our taking the kind of steps both in research and in policy that will responsibly address the problems at hand, will also employ their vehemence toward helping us understand how new technologies are striving to come to fruition, but that they are shivering in the dark recesses of a research environment where lack of funding is suffocating what could be the solution we've been hoping to develope for decades.
So..is it true PBS is gonna do a program on the science of disposable astronaut diapers?
I hate to say it, but the government has been chasing the holy grail (fusion) and throwing billions of dollars at it for over 30 years now with little to show for it -- and $200 million would pay for a lot of R & D into more efficient vehicles and other energy using devices that would save big time on energy use -- and greatly reduce emissions.
We have seen this claim many times before, that "I've got the way to make fusion work" -- about the TokamaK and laser induced fusion. That is not to say that no money should be spent on research in that area, just that money spent there is money that can not be spent elsewhere, in areas (like efiiciency R & D) with a proven track record of tangible emissions reductions.
Dark Tent is absolutely right about fusion.
In the late 1970s, I was excited to work with a group hoping to develop commercial fusion power. It was still at a stage where the government was funding industrial research looking ahead about 30 years, and my employer had a proposal in for a major piece of the action. We lost, and I was soon working for another company in a completely different field. (Automotive engine control systems to minimize pollution and maximize efficiency.)
Now, 30 years later, fusion power is still viewed as a project looking ahead 30-40 years. It's worth pursuing, but we can't count on it. The science is understood well enough, but the engineering is a bear.
In the 1960s, fusion power prognosticators thought it was 20 years away. In the 1980s, they thought it was 30 years away. Last few years, I've been reading 40, or 50 years away.
It seems akin to climbing a mountain - one thinks, gee, if we can just get over that next rise, we'll be nearly there ... but at the top of the next rise, one learns the peak is much further away than previously believed.
Wake me up when the fusion power people reach the foot of the Rongbuk glacier.
llewelly,
The glacier may be gone before they get there...
Back to the Chris' topic, I have had a similar experience in planning a showing of An Inconvenient Truth at our Temple. One of our environmental subcommittee members is a right-wing libertarian who lives a conservationist life but continues to call the IPCC consensus "hogwash." It finally hit me that (probably thanks to talk radio, which is a particularly perverted kind of journalism) he treats this issue as just another partisan political difference of opinion, while I consider it a moral issue that arises from the scenarios based on massive, careful scientific work.
I am working hard to keep our panel discussion focused on the science and the appropriate response guided by religious values of stewardship of the planet. Those values can guide people of any political persuasion, and even agnostics, skeptics, and atheists can benefit.
(I'm in one of those categories but won't say which one.)
Chris - your readers might be interested in this interesting example of how different agencies arrive at different estimates for tropical cyclone intensity.
Compare the NOAA SSD Dvorak estimates for TC Favio to the JTWC to the RSMC estimates for the same storm:
20/1430 UTC (NOAA/SSD) T6.0/6.0 (~115 kts)
20/1200 UTC (JTWC) 105 kts
20/1200 UTC (RSMC) Dvorak 6.0 , 100 kts (10min wind max)
20/0830 UTC (NOAA/SSD) T6.0/6.0 (~115 kts)
20/0600 UTC (JTWC) 95 kts
20/0600 UTC (RSMC) Dvorak 5.5 , 90 kts (10min wind max)
20/0230 UTC (NOAA/SSD) T6.0/6.0 (~115 kts)
20/0000 UTC (JTWC) 80 kts
20/0000 UTC (RSMC) Dvorak 5.0 , 80 kts (10min wind max)
19/2000 UTC (NOAA/SSD) T5.5/5.5 (~102 kts)
19/1800 UTC (JTWC) 75 kts
19/1800 UTC (RSMC) Dvorak 4.5 , 70 kts (10min wind max)
19/1430 UTC (NOAA/SSD) T5.0/5.0 (~90 kts)
19/1200 UTC (JTWC) 70 kts
19/1200 UTC (RSMC) Dvorak 4.5 , 70 kts (10min wind max)
And here's an RSMC sat image
There are several apples-to-oranges elements to this comparison - for example, JTWC uses multiple Dvorak estimates in addition to other tools, and, presumably, RSMC does as well. I seem to recall the RSMC relationship between Dvorak appearance and estimated intensity is based on a different database than the relationships used by the JTWC and NOAA/SSD .
I don't have any more links handy, but I seem to recall that different storm databases show different trends in storm intensity, despite containing many of the same storms. The only thing the trends of different databases seem to have in common is an increase in TC intensity.
Why do I bring all this up? It's yet another very unfortunate reminder the US govt is using the latest and greatest remote-controlled and robotic aerial recon on a failed war, rather than studying the transformation of our climate.
I don't have any more links handy, but I seem to recall that different storm databases show different trends in storm intensity, despite containing many of the same storms. The only thing the trends of different databases seem to have in common is an increase in TC intensity.
In the Western Pacific, that's not true. Wu et al. [(2006) Trends in Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Intensity, EOS, 87, 537-539] used the JTWC, RSMC, and Hong Kong Observatory databases and found an increase in fraction of Cat 4 and Cat 5 in JTWC in the period 1990-2004 compared to 1975-1989, but a decrease in the other two databases. All three were statisically significant at p<=0.05. PDI had a statistically significant increase in JTWC and an insignificant increase (decrease) in RSMC (HKO). For accumulated cyclone energy, JTWC showed a significant increase, RSMC an insignificant increase, and HKO no change.
Whether there has been an increase in intensity or not in the western Pacific depends on which database you use.
The discrepancies appear to be due to different methodologies and until a single method is agreed upon, there will continue to be disagreement.
From "Trends in Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Intensity"
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070109/20070109_15.pdf
"Accounting for Discrepancies
One likely reason for the discrepancy in
the reported trends in category 4-5 typhoons
obtained from the JTWC and RSMC best
track databases is the use of one-minute
average wind speeds to estimate tropical
cyclone intensity by JTWC and 10-minute
averages by RSMC-Tokyo.This difference
results in JTWC intensity estimates typically
being higher for tropical cyclones with maxi-
mum winds exceeding 100 knots.
Another difference is that RSMC-Tokyo
uses a Dvorak technique that was modified
according to the study of Takemura and
Osano [1989] to assess tropical cyclone
intensity.This modified technique causes
tropical cyclones below typhoon strength to
be assessed as stronger than what the tradi-
tional Dvorak technique would give, and
causes intense typhoons to be assessed as
weaker."