 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
July 05, 2005
Hurricanes and Global Warming, Another Comment
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change
I’m back from a wonderful vacation, and will have a post on the Barton letters/hockey stick issue very soon, meantime…
Most Prometheus readers will be familiar with the recent publication of two articles on hurricanes and global warming: one a Perspective in Science by NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth and the other a peer-reviewed, collaborative effort that I participated in to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. I've already offered my interpretation on the substance of the two papers here.
I would like to briefly respond to comments made by Kevin in the local Boulder paper a few weeks ago about our paper. Kevin is quoted as saying of our article, '"I think the role of the changing climate is greatly underestimated by Roger Pielke Jr.," Trenberth said Thursday. "I think he should withdraw this article. This is a shameful article."' I find this statement pretty amazing given that the two papers are scientifically consistent with each other.
Upon reading Kevin's strong statements in the press a few weeks ago, I emailed him to ask where specifically he disagreed with our paper and I received no response; apparently he prefers to discuss this issue only through the media. So I'll again extend an invitation to Kevin to respond substantively, rather than simply call our paper 'shameful' and ask for its withdrawal (and I suppose implicitly faulting the peer review process at BAMS): Please identify what statements we made in our paper you disagree with and the scientific basis for your disagreement. If you'd prefer not to respond here, I will eagerly look forward to a letter to BAMS in response to our paper.
Climate change is a big deal. We in the scientific community owe it to the public and policy makers to be open about our debates on science and policy issues. We've offered a peer-reviewed, integrative perspective on hurricanes and global warming. I hold those with different perspectives in high regard -- such diversity makes science strong. But at a minimum it seems only fair to ask those who say publicly that they disagree with our perspective to explain the basis for their disagreement, instead of offering up only incendiary rhetoric for the media. Given that Kevin is the IPCC lead author responsible for evaluating our paper in the context of the IPCC, such transparency of perspective seems particularly appropriate.
Posted on July 5, 2005 11:13 AMComments
Roger, I haven't yet read Trenberth's full paper since a subscription is required to download it but I recently heard a presentation by Tom Knutson given at an environmental science and policy seminar on hurricanes, New Orleans and global warming - notes from which are posted here (http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2005/06/swamp_funk.html#more) at the Post-Normal Times. Though the potential increase in hurricane activity was mentioned, emphasis was on reducing vulnerability of southern Louisiana through restoration of the marshes and some structural measures. Nobody made a case for emission reductions to reduce hurricane risks. What I take away from all of this so far is that hurricane frequency data only goes back to the 40s so what we have are possibilities and reasonable expectations, and, given the uncertainty, some differences in scientific judgements as to their significance. Taking steps to reduce vulnerability to hurricanes makes sense regardless, particularly if one lives in New Orleans. Somehow, it seems useful to be informed about prospects of increased hurricane activity, even if for no other reason than that perhaps it will provide greater public appreciation of scientific uncertainties and the increasing uncertainties of daily life. How it gets spun in the media is another matter - There is also a widespread percpetion that forests are water factories and also control floods but I digress...
Posted by: Sylvia S Tognetti at July 5, 2005 05:29 PM
Seems to me you went off pretty good on Trenberth and he was a mite annoyed. To quote what appeared above his comments from the Daily Camera
--------------------------------------
"Pielke calls connecting global warming and hurricanes "misguided." Plus, Pielke writes, the effect of somewhat stronger future hurricanes would be dwarfed by the costs hurricanes of varying power inflict on ever-growing coastline populations.
They don't quite agree that they're disagreeing.
"The scientific community has consensus on this issue," Pielke said Thursday.
-----------------------------------
Obviously not.
Posted by: Eli Rabett at July 7, 2005 11:20 PM
Eli- Thanks for your comment. Your conclusion illustrates the perils of trying to do (or interpret) science via quotes in the media.
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at July 8, 2005 06:41 AM