The Webster/Holland/Curry/Chang work in Science this week received a load of press coverage. Little of it was intelligent. (Roger slammed one piece last Friday here.)

In my experience, often one of the most important sections of any Science or Nature paper is the last two paragraphs. Here’s what the last two paragraphs say in Webster et al.:

“We deliberately limited this study to the satellite era because of the known biases before this period (28), which means that a comprehensive analysis of longer-period oscillations and trends has not been attempted. There is evidence of a minimum of intense cyclones occurring in the 1970s (11), which could indicate that our observed trend toward more intense cyclones is a reflection of a long-period oscillation. However, the sustained increase over a period of 30 years in the proportion of category 4 and 5 hurricanes indicates that the related oscillation would have to be on a period substantially longer than that observed in previous studies.

“We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.”

Among many crucial caveats in both paragraphs, the second half of the last sentence is especially crucial to how this paper was covered. Not only is 35 years of data in an ocean-atmosphere climatology context is too short to say much of anything, 35 years effectively becomes zero years placed in the context of the multi-decadal cycling of the Tropical Atlantic Variability (itself interacting with the North Atlantic Oscillation and Meridional Overturning Circulation). This crucial caveat is obvious to Webster and his colleagues and so was mentioned in their paper, but it was not discussed in any popular media coverage that I could find. Instead, all popular media accounts picked up the message of abstract, which had no such caveats:

“We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade.”

And so the media coverage went, even while briefly interviewing dissenters, not examining the whole paper. The NY Times picked up the AP story which reports controversy according to Roger’s formula but does not discuss the real issue: does 35 years of data in an environment with strong multi-decadal variability say anything? Roger highlighted the 9/16 Juliet Eilperin Washington Post story, which similarly missed the issue. Newsday wrote their own story here.

The climatology community will easily discern for themselves how much or little importance to place on the Webster et al. study, but the public and policy-making communities rely on somebody else for that kind of insight. Invariably the non-expert community relies upon media coverage to form their opinion. And in this case, instead of giving a complete picture, reporting both on the abstract and the last paragraph, the media has portrayed all abstract. In this they do a great disservice, deemphasizing the big picture in order to make a printable story.

Where does the fault lie? With Webster et al. for not mentioning the caveat more prominently, or with journalists for being too lazy to read and absorb the entire study? In my opinion, both.

The journalists are an easy target, so I’ll forgo that discussion. As for researchers, they ordinarily get a free pass when simply reporting research while keeping their political opinions mostly to themselves. But this is not an ordinary case. Webster, Holland and Curry have been in this game for years. They know they are publishing compelling research in the U.S.’s most prominent science journal on a very sensitive topic with heightened current relevance, within a larger controversial political context. They would have anticipated the interest their article received, and should have anticipated the likelihood of their main results being parroted without the special caveat any climatologist would immediate recognize and accept. To write a paper with such a charged backstory while burying its most important caveat is in my opinion irresponsible.