With a storm like Felix out there, I've been spreading it around in terms of my blogging. I've just posted about the storm at both The Daily Green and The Huffington Post. Here's the gist from the latter post:
To be sure, it might be the case that there's a natural up-and-down cycle in the Atlantic for intense hurricanes, and we're only now seeing a peak comparable to the 1960s. Some scientists would argue that point, and [you'd] only have to reclassify two hurricanes from the 1960s in order to have just as many Category 5 hurricanes during that decade as we've seen so far during the 2000s. The 1960s were very busy for strong hurricanes, period; and so were earlier decades when our observations were even less reliable.
But nevertheless, I can't get over these numbers: The 1980s saw three official Category 5 hurricanes. The 1990s saw two. The 2000s, so far, have seen eight, all clustered from 2003 to 2007. In this context, the past five years certainly look like a scary anomaly compared to what has come before. And while that might be all that we can say definitively at this point, I think it's worth remembering something that Thomas Kuhn noted in his famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: When enough scientific anomalies accumulate, they can sometimes force a paradigm shift.
Waiting for the next update on Felix in just under a half hour...
- Log in to post comments
And that's why you're a journalist, not a scientist (not that there's anything wrong with that...). The human mind is biased to find patterns, regardless of the underlying data. I have been trying to think of a statistical test that would support your journalistic observations, but I don't think you could squeeze statistical significance out of these data. Dealing with stochastic, low probability events is notoriously difficult for modelers. Add into the mix a pure confound of changing measurement techniques across time, and a single outlier year (2005 accounts for half of all Cat 5 storms this decade), and you really have a very noisy set of data. But it should help sales of the book...
Isn't it amazing what a liberal conspiracy can do? All their hot air and stirring around has led to two Cat-5s in two weeks. Yes, that must be it.
Seriously...
Drip-drip-drip, real world data erodes doubt.
As a skeptical and careful scientist, I'm not ready to say that the increase in hurricane strength is clearly the result of global warming. But the data is making it harder to deny that hypothesis.
On the practical side, I'm sure the financial prognosticators are watching this trend. Coastal residents beware, your insurance rates are about to skyrocket!
The late 60s were when a lot of people became concerned about pollution and the environment after "Silent Spring" came out. Perhaps we forestalled a bit of global warming and climate change with our clean-up efforts throughout the 70s, the switch to smaller less-polluting cars, etc?
And now with so much pollution in China and CO2 rising regardless it seems of what we do, we are there again...
But as long as the storms hit south of the U.S, our politicians won't care. Heck, even with Katrina they didn't care.
Just finished reading Kim Stanley Robinson's 50 Degrees Below - it takes DC seeing a very hard winter in his story before the politicians get around to admitting to climate change.
I think until more of our leaders face actual personal climate crisis damage, not much will change.
Neuro,
I'm a scientist and while you're correct that correlation does not equate with causation, what we do know is reason enough to think about climate change.
No one's debating that over the past several decades, ocean heat content and water vapor have increased. We also know that during a storm, the rising warm moist air lowers air pressure at sea level and propels the cycle of evaporation and condensation that directs the ocean's heat energy into the vortex.
Simply put, despite uncertainty in models, warmer oceans mean more powerful storms.
Sheril -- It has also been suggested that warmer temperatures may lead to greater shear, thus reducing number and strength of storms.
More importantly, my point is not merely that this is a case of correlation with uncertain directionality of causation. Given the confounds I listed, there is no compelling statistical evidence that the correlation (between time and Cat 5 storms) exists. While Chris likes to dispose of this inconvenient truth with his patented "to be sure..." statements, these confounds deserve a far more serious consideration.
Neuro,
The whole point with the hurricane global warming issue is that there is no definitive answer. People can always raise objections like yours, and they always do. That's why I include the caveats that you seem to sneer at (would you want me to *not* include them?).
There are no definitive answers here, but are you seriously telling me that you look at 8 category 5 Atlantic storms in 5 years and think absolutely nothing of it?
This issue contains a lot of lessons for how to think about scientific uncertainty, and that's why I'm discussing it the way in which I do. While I am not presenting knockdown *proof* of anything, I'm showing records breaking in the real world that are consistent with theoretical expectations of hurricane intensification. My argument is that you look at the data, you look at the theory, and even though it's inconclusive, you have grounds to be worried and grounds to take policy steps accordingly.
Chris --
It is unfair of you to suggest that "I think nothing of it." In my previous comments, I have attempted to present historical data and methodological critiques to place my skepticism in a historical and scientific perspective. In fact, I think quite a bit about hurricanes, and probably spend just as much time at the Weather Underground blog as you. I just try to keep a more balanced perspective, aware of the severe methodological constraints in the analysis of multi-decade data.
As a working scientist, I have frequently encountered exciting "patterns" in my data that ultimately turn out to be artifact or statistically insignificant fluctuations in the noise. Even when my data are strong, clean, and statistically significant, journal editors and reviewers typically do not allow me to put exclamation points in my papers. Science is not some big Guinness Book of World Records.
Most importantly of all, I certainly have never proposed that my analysis of the data should provoke a multi-trillion dollar effort that will inevitably choke off the global economy and throw millions into poverty. It really should take a lot more than a few stochastic events to drive such a major change in policy.
Hi Neuro,
Just to be clear, I didn't suggest, I asked whether you thought "nothing of it." I'm glad to hear that you do think at least something of it.
If you check out Storm World you'll see that my answer for how to deal with potentially worsening hurricanes is not to cap greenhouse gas emissions (though I think it's a good idea to do that for other reasons).
Chris -- I've heard you discuss migration to and development of coastal regions as perhaps the main concern with respect to hurricane activity, but I am not sure what your proposed "solution" is.
Neuro-con,
Chris is convinced that AGW is wreaking havoc on the world's climate system. He grudgingly concedes that there are uncertainties in the data but his comments are consistently intoned with emotionally biased statements like, "...the past five years certainly look like a scary anomaly..." . This is what passes for science journalism these days.
He is clearly trying to stake out a niche in a hurricane-AGW connection. If there is no connection he's got no niche.
Lance,
I am sure Chris can stick up for himself, but why are you trying to instigate a fight when a civil and interesting discussion between Chris and Neuro is going on?
I agree with Neuro that Chris is pushing this data farther than it can go, but I agree with Chris that the data certainly deserve attention.
I particularly liked Neuro's post above where he notes that Science is not "a big Guiness Book of World Records," though I part company with him when he characterizes the proposed response to AGW as "a multi-trillion dollar effort that will inevitably choke off the global economy and throw millions into poverty."
Anyway, I suggest that we all ignore Lance's bomb throwing and let the useful dialog proceed.
Hmmm. If this is the same Neuro-Conservative that hangs out at Jay Rosen's blog...
Fred,
I'm not sure how to respond to your replies anymore. I wasn't trying to "instigate a fight" and I think it is inflammatory that you state that I was.
Chris has made his living over the last few years by what I consider politically motivated fear mongering. His books are sensationally titled "The Republican War on Science" and "Storm World".
I'm sure he is convinced that he is fighting the good fight. It is all a matter of perspective I guess. It just so happens that I think the evidence linking hurricanes (and other alleged catastrophes, present, past and future) to anthropogenic CO2 is quite slim.
Chris is certain that anthropogenic global warming is a looming danger to the planet and that those that disagree are misinformed, ill-intentioned or both. You appear to share this opinion. I vehemently disagree and express that disagreement bluntly.
But this is a blog and I have been civil, even when others have not, and will continue to present my point of view as long as I feel welcome here. So please stop acting like I am some off-base provocature. A reply to my points would be the proper and respectful recourse.
Respectful discourse, as requested:
I quote from Lance's earlier post, which he claims was not instigating a fight: "This is what passes for science journalism these days."
I'm sure Neuro-Conservative knew exactly where Chris is coming from and disputed Chris as a scientist.
Lance chose to throw in a gratuitous insult about Chris' professionalism instead. I don't consider that "civil."
Perhaps I should have just let it drop, but I am tired of seeing threads hijacked by such tactics.
By commenting on the potentially inflammatory tactic and requesting that people not respond to it, I am apparently being inflammatory. Oy!
Also, in his more recent post, Lance wrote regarding Storm World: "I think the evidence linking hurricanes (and other alleged catastrophes, present, past and future) to anthropogenic CO2 is quite slim." My reading of Storm World is that it focuses on the question and does not offer an answer any stronger than that the evidence is leaning toward a connection, but that the case is far from closed.
In fact, the primary task Chris set for himself was to explore the connection between warmer sea surface temperature, regardless of the cause, and changes in hurricane patterns. From there, he got to the the way science functions in a politically charged environment.
Also, I noted in the same "inflammatory" message that like Neuro-Conservative, I think Chris is making too much of possible "records" and "paradigm shifts."
That doesn't mean we should dismiss the remarkable data as merely a fluke. It could signal the beginning of a new climate regime in the Atlantic hurricane season. That's a very practical concern, and I'm sure that insurance companies are wondering how they ought to respond. That's in Storm World, too.
Finally, a note about book titles. The publishers use titles as part of the marketing scheme and often ask authors to make them more attention-grabbing. In my review of RWOS (click my name), I responded to the title by saying essentially that it set the bar high for Chris to prove such an audacious thesis. In Storm World, the subtitle is very descriptive of the content: "Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming."
Fred,
Good calls.