Kerry Emanuel, the influential M.I.T. climate scientist who has been at the forefront of making the argument that global warming will lead to more intense hurricanes, has released a new study that backtracks on his earlier findings, revealing more uncertainty on the question of whether such a link exists. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)
I’ve pointed out repeatedly that the question of what global warming would do vis a vis hurricanes is an entirely separate issue — about which there is much less consensus and much more uncertainty, even among the most ardent AGW true believers — from the question of whether global warming is happening (and the subsidiary question of whether, and to what extent, human activity is causing or contributing to it). This new Emanuel study basically reinforces that point. Entirely aside from the broader global warming debate, everyone ought to recognize that we really just don’t know for sure yet what the impact on hurricanes will be, if any. (cc: Al Gore)
Personally, notwithstanding my entirely tongue-in-cheek headline, I think the most important point is the one made by Eric Berger, the Houston Chronicle’s “SciGuy”:
This should put to rest a lot of the nonsense about a global warming conspiracy among scientists. Emanuel, faced with new evidence, has moderated his viewpoint. That’s what responsible scientists do, and most are responsible. The amount of scientist-bashing when it comes to global warming is generally quite deplorable.
Indeed. (I would have loved to see Glenn Reynolds quote that point, instead of rehashing the silly, trivial and misleading point about a “relative paucity of hurricanes over the last couple of years.” See my Pajamas Media article for a full rebuttal to that.) [UPDATE: Glenn has updated his post, adding a link to this post and quoting the very passage I wished he had quoted initially. Thanks, Glenn.]
Berger also points out that “if you’re a skeptic, and you welcome these results, please remember that [the climate models used in this new study] are the same climate models you bash when they show global temperatures steadily rising during the next century.”
Meanwhile, Becky tells me she saw the National Hurricane Center’s new director, Bill Read, talking on The Weather Channel last week about how we need to stop obsessing over the global warming issue when talking about hurricanes, and focus more on promoting greater preparedness. I agree 100% with that, and I would add that we also need to focus on figuring out what to do about runaway coastal development. As I wrote in my PJM article:
[T]he whole argument over global warming really misses the point, in a certain sense. The biggest downside of the politicization of weather is that it has largely blinded us to more pressing issues related to disaster preparedness.
Regardless of whether global warming is real and manmade  and regardless of whether warming ocean temperatures will lead to more active hurricane seasons, which is actually a separate question  it is an undeniable reality that hurricanes are going to become more damaging and deadly in the coming decades because of increased coastal development. It is also undeniable that certain cities (e.g., Houston/Galveston, Tampa, Miami, New York, and, still, New Orleans) are incredibly vulnerable to absolute devastation from a major hurricane, and more steps need to be taken to protect them, regardless of global warming. Disaster preparedness should not be a political issue, but because of intellectual dishonesty and laziness on both extremes in this feud, it has become one.
Whatever our positions on global warming and related political issues, we should all be happy that the 2006 and 2007 hurricane seasons have turned out to be relatively less devastating than some other recent seasons  and we should use that relative inactivity not as an excuse to grow complacent, but as an opportunity to get ready for the next big storm. Because there will be another big storm. That’s one inconvenient truth that nobody can deny.
P.S. Commenter Jason Ward points to a statement in early 2006 by Emanuel and other top scientists echoing the above sentiment (or, I guess more accurately, I’m echoing their sentiment):
As the Atlantic hurricane season gets underway, the possible influence of climate change on hurricane activity is receiving renewed attention. While the debate on this issue is of considerable scientific and societal interest and concern, it should in no event detract from the main hurricane problem facing the United States: the ever-growing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal regions. These demographic trends are setting us up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricane disasters, especially in this era of heightened activity. Scores of scientists and engineers had warned of the threat to New Orleans long before climate change was seriously considered, and a Katrina-like storm or worse was (and is) inevitable even in a stable climate.Rapidly escalating hurricane damage in recent decades owes much to government policies that serve to subsidize risk. State regulation of insurance is captive to political pressures that hold down premiums in risky coastal areas at the expense of higher premiums in less risky places. Federal flood insurance programs likewise undercharge property owners in vulnerable areas. Federal disaster policies, while providing obvious humanitarian benefits, also serve to promote risky behavior in the long run.
We are optimistic that continued research will eventually resolve much of the current controversy over the effect of climate change on hurricanes. But the more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requires immediate and sustained attention. We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes.
Amen. (Emphasis mine.)
P.S. Since I now have a mini-Instalanche headed my way, which inevitably means a global warming flame-war is imminent, I wanted to quote one other key passage from my PJM article. I’ve added a few bracketed points for the sake of clarity.
“All scientists agree,†Berger writes, “that a single hurricane season cannot make or break an argument for global warming having a measurable impact of hurricanes.†Alas, this message is often lost on non-scientists in the pro- and anti- crowds.
Just as it was both unsound and unwise for some global-warming advocates to hold up the 2005 hurricane season as proof of their position, it would be equally unsound and unwise for global-warming skeptics to hold up 2006 and 2007 as somehow disproving the existence of global warming [or of a link between global warming and hurricanes]. Such arguments are unsound because they confuse climate, which is comprised of long-term trends, with weather, which chronicles individual events. They are also unwise strategically because they are so vulnerable to attack when things  predictably  turn out differently in future years.
The heavy reliance on 2005 in certain quarters, which gave some lay observers the false impression that all hurricane seasons would henceforth be similar to the freakish ‘05 season, left global-warming advocates open to cynicism, criticism and rebuttal when 2006 and 2007 failed to live up to expectations. Similarly, a global-warming skeptic who claims today that 2007 disproves global warming [and/or an AGW link to hurricanes] is leaving himself open to the argument, if 2008 is an active season, that ‘08 proves global warming is real [and linked to hurricanes] after all. The more honest (and strategically sound) course, for both sides, is to discuss global warming on its actual merits, and not obsess over minor year-to-year variations that tell us very little, if anything, about long-term trends.
Something for everyone, on both sides, to keep in mind as the 2008 hurricane season approaches.
|
Categories: Hurricanes
|
April 13th, 2008 at 9:32:01 pm
Those big winds are just hot air coming from the Clinton campaign.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:06:04 pm
On your last point, Kerry Emanuel and other hurricane experts issued this statement in 2006 which emphasizes that importance:
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Hurricane_threat.htm
April 13th, 2008 at 10:09:08 pm
I’m sorry, but I’m still skeptical. If he had reversed course before 2006 or 2007, it would have been more meaningful.
What happens if 2008/2009/2010 turn out to be high activity years for hurricanes? Does he change his mind again?
April 13th, 2008 at 10:10:02 pm
Thanks for the link, Jason. I think most scientists are in agreement about that. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to get journalists, politicians and lay commentators (on both sides) to come along for the ride.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:14:45 pm
Just Me, your skepticism says more about you than it does about Kerry Emanuel. It’s perfectly obvious that Emanuel is basing his on opinions on actual scientific evidence, not shiny and distracting irrelevancies like the number of storms in a single season or two. You’re the one who is getting side-tracked by that stuff, as so many laypeople (on both sides of this debate) are.
It is downright silly to claim that Emanuel, a distinguished and universally respected climate scientist, is making the same error (confusing climate with weather) that you’re making. It’s particularly silly to make such a claim when he’s just proven his intellectual honesty and integrity by reversing course after becoming such a key established figure on the “pro-link” side.
But, I guess some people are never satisfied, and will find fault and cynical motives in their opponents no matter what. Those people should not be taken seriously. Kerry Emanuel, on the other hand, should.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:26:54 pm
P.S. One other point. Emanuel’s new study is, I presume, peer-reviewed. If he was merely making stuff up to “go with the flow” after the ‘06 and ‘07 seasons, rather than relying on actual scientific evidence, you’d think his peers would have noticed.
Well, unless they’re part of the conspiracy too, I suppose. *sigh*
April 13th, 2008 at 11:38:06 pm
I congratulate Dr. Emanuel on his honesty. I salute all scientists and laymen who evaluate the evidence and promote the theory that seems right to them. And I especially admire anyone who will accept that new evidence may wreak a well reasoned theory. My problem has always been with those who refuse to accept that others may come to another conclusion that cannot be proven or disproven on the basis of observation, testing and reasoning. There are scientists who treat their theories as fact or as religious dogma. They are the ones who need to be bashed.
I will remain a sceptic on climate change theory of all kinds until better data is available.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:38:48 am
Brendan,
What most folks like me have a problem with is the Chicken Little/The Sky is Falling language we hear so often from the Global Warming Community. Everything is going to end, we are all doomed, and we should now cut back so severely that going to a pre-industrial society is the only answer. Yes, that may only be the shrill ones out there, but those are the ones always on the news, who always get pointed to, and from whom we are always being preached to.
And the hurricane issue was VERY prominent, especially in the aftermath of Katrina. Al Gore made it an important part of his movie, and unless I’m much mistaken, you even made points about hurricane data for the past couple of years. This, we were constantly told, was the result of our inability to control our emmissions.
Such a statement in 2003, prior to the 2004 and 2005 seasons, would have had greater impact. But instead, folks took two years worth of data and poured it into future models. Then they are shocked when we had lower than normal hurricane seasons. They then get indignant when we begin to question what the heck happened.
Unfortunately, the issue is so politicized by both sides nowadays that it’s very difficult to know what to believe. Do I believe the scientist who tells me that Antarctica is melting and raising sea levels? Or do I believe the scientist that tells me the Earth stopped warming in 1998 and is now cooling again?
And I do think Glenn Reynolds has an excellent point - I’ll start believing more of the global warming hype when those who tell me it’s a crisis begin to act like it themselves. When we start hearing more about how we need nuclear power, or when environmentalists and politicians stop opposing wind farms in their own backyards, or folks actually try to cut down on their carbon footprints by decideing that maybe they could fly commercial instead of needing private planes to get to an environmental conference.
I refuse to try and sacrifice when those telling me to do so refuse to sacrifice at all. Or is sacrifice only for us “little people,” and those in power need to continue to flaunt what they’re telling us because they “really really need to use these things?”
April 14th, 2008 at 2:32:57 am
It would also help if the Goreacle gave his speeches for free instead of charging $100,000 a pop. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html
April 14th, 2008 at 3:09:31 am
I note you were quite careful to always qualify your point with “hurricane science.”
Now, let’s go logically to the next step. Global temps, as measured for the past few decades, fell a full degree, thus negating the uptick since 1998, and resulting in an aggregate temperature seen a century ago.
Where is the “universally esteemed” GW scientist recanting the doom scenarios? Where is your plea for someone who was previously in the alarmist camp to take a hard look at this data and explain how the alarmist theories still hold?
I have hard, scientific, data on my side. The same source of the data that you, and most every GW believer rammed down our throats as being indisputable. We dropped a FULL degree and man’s carbon footprint, at a minimum, was elevated this past year as India and China continue to industrialize.
What is the explanation? Where is the cautionary language from those who were so quick to cite the temp data from the past decade prior to 2007?
April 14th, 2008 at 4:35:40 am
1) I wonder if Emanuel would have done the new study if the previous hurricane seasons had conformed to his earlier hypothesis.
2) While I am perfectly willing to accept the premise that the “inaccuracy” of Emanuel’s earlier study is not evidence that man made global warming is “inaccurate”; surely we can agree that it is evidence that the science is not “settled”?
3) The “scientist bashing” that you and others so deplore is in response to the bashing committed by the global warming crowd amid demands that the “ignorant masses” and dissenting scientists acquise to the “consensus”. I recall very few GW scientists being called NAZIs, yet we skeptics are directly compared to holocaust deniers.
4) Berger is missing the point when he says: if you’re a skeptic, and you welcome these results, please remember that [the climate models used in this new study] are the same climate models you bash when they show global temperatures steadily rising during the next century. Those climate models are also the ones used in the old study that everyone now seems to believe is “inaccurate”. Who is to say that next year, two years from now, ten years from now someone will use them in a study that “proves” man made global warming is “inacurate”? We skeptics “welcome” the results only so much as they demonstrate that climate science is not settled.
5) The very fact that the global warming extremists have changed the threat from global warming to global climate change should be cause for skepticism. Of course the global climate is changing….it has been for billions of years.
6) Everyone seems to be overlooking this quote from Emanuel: 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. The best case scenario for the Global warming crowd is that he was wrong in connecting hurricanes to global warming. He is also suggesting that is quite possible that the climate models that global warming activists depend on don’t reflect real world realities. Which is exactly what we skeptics have been saying.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:49:35 am
Lets sum up:
Its wrong to use the hurricane data to prove or disprove any model about the effects of global warming.
That chides both sides.
Who brought up global warming and hurricanes? Thats the one who did the damage to science.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:57:31 am
Given the treatment of Lomborg, the rally around the Mann hockey stick (and the long refusal to peer review or release the fraudulent data), the refusal by Hansen et al to address the woeful temperature recording stations, and NASA’s refusal to publish the groundbreaking debunking of its climate model (because it would hurt funding), it’s a little much to say that one honest scientist absolves all scientists of their sins.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:58:34 pm
““All scientists agree,†Berger writes, “that a single hurricane season cannot make or break an argument for global warming having a measurable impact of hurricanes.†“ {my emphasis} …
2006 … 2007 … that’s *already* more than the 2005 single season which was used by the Cult of Global Warming crowd to proclaim the End of Humanity and that the rest of us who wanted to see the underlying science were merely “GW-deniers” …
Ther science-minded amongst us are going to continue to strongly recommend that we build more state-of-the-art Nuclear Power plants - not because of the Cult of Global Warming, but so that we release less radio-active carbon (and other elements) and less other directly-human-harmful pollutants into the atmosphere …
stan - I’ll be astonished if anyone gets an apology … more likely, the CGW folk will go the way of those in the 70s who proclaimed the impending Ice Age …
I have to admit I like McCain’s take on Kyoto - paraphrasing “Yup, we’ll sign up for Kyoto as long as India and China and everyone else is subject to Kyoto, too !” … that’s my kinda President …
May 21st, 2008 at 8:04:00 pm
The AGW debate team needs better debaters. They are taking a lot of hits lately.