« The Honest Broker »

This email just showed up in my inbox, coming from Resource Media's "partners" - The National Wildlife Federation. Let me be clear, the misrepresetation of the state of the hurricane-climate debate smacks of a coordinated media campaign to misrepresent the state of the hurricane science debate, and while this is the job of spinmeisters, it is disappointing to see leading scientists participating:

---------------
BREAKING NEWS ALERT
Final Piece of the Puzzle: Burning Fossil Fuels Linked to Hurricanes

When it comes to global warming and deadlier hurricanes, the science now has a bottom line: new scientific research finds human action
is the key factor driving more intense hurricanes.

Since Hurricane Katrina hit a year ago, a large body of research has emerged establishing the link between global warming and the
growing number of intense hurricanes. Until today, a key question remained: is global warming pollution from burning fossil fuels a
factor? We now have the answer.

New research by 19 of the worlds preeminent hurricane and climate scientists shows that human-induced build-up of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere is the primary driving force behind increasing hurricane activity in hurricane-prone Atlantic and Pacific regions. The
study used a combination of observations and computer models to analyze the effect of human activity on sea surface temperatures from
1906 - 2005.

We already know that higher sea-surface temperatures fuel more intense hurricanes. This new paper, published today in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, makes clear that the increase in sea surface temperatures in hurricane-prone Atlantic and Pacific
regions is predominantly human-induced.

Specifically, the paper reasserts findings over the past year that:

1) Globally, the average number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled in the past 30 years.

2) Sea surface temperatures are steadily rising; tropical sea surface temperatures have risen .5 degrees Celsius since 1970.

3) Increasing numbers of more intense hurricanes are directly and primarily related to the rise of sea surface temperature.

The paper then adds the further, crucial, finding that:

Human-induced warming is the most powerful driver of sea surface temperature increases in the tropical waters that give birth to
hurricanes. Specifically, the findings show that at least two-thirds of the increased sea surface temperatures are caused by global
warming pollution from burning fossil fuels.

For more on the latest hurricane science, see today's San Francisco Chronicle article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/12/MNG5HL3S611.DTL

Contact: Aileo Weinmann, NWF Communications, 202-797-6801, weinmanna@nwf.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NWF's mission is to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children's future.

Aileo Weinmann - Communications Manager
Phone: 202-797-6801 | Fax: 202-797-6646 | Cell: 202-538-5038 | weinmanna@nwf.org
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th St. NW #501
Washington, DC 20036
www.nwf.org

For those interested in some recent work on hurricanes that identify natural pseudo-cyclic variations as playing a role in patterns of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity (while not eliminating the possible influence of human activity), see the new papers (within the last week) by Knight et al. and Zhang and Delworth, both in Geophysical Research Letters. Funny how little press these papers have received!

We tossed our two cents in about their implications at:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/09/07/a-knights-tale/

and

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/09/12/more-support-for-an-amoatlantic-hurricanes-link/

As Roger points out (from Chris Landsea), there is little contention anywhere from anyone that greenhouse gas increases are not repsonsible for some increase in Atlantic SSTs. A lot of scientists seem intent on making this the end all and be all of the issue. But it is not. For one, it is far from being clear as to how great the human impact on SSTs is (e.g., Knight et al. and Zhang and Delworth) and for another, it is even more unclear as to how great a role SSTs play in creating more and/or stronger hurricanes (as our recent work in GRL attests to (i.e. Michaels et al., 2006)). Some role, no doubt, but it seems unlikely that they are solely (or perhaps even largely) responsible.

In addition:

The NWF news alert says the following:

"new scientific research finds human action is the key factor driving more intense hurricanes"

Contrast that with Andy Revkin's coverage in the NYT:

"But while environmentalists and some researchers have asserted that storms like Hurricane Katrina were already measurably stronger because of warming caused by humans, Dr. Santer said his study did not address that issue."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/science/12ocean.html

A clear misrepresentation of science.

There have been statements made by many involved in the global warming promotion that we should "get rid" of the medieval warm period to further promote the idea of contemporary global warming since it is easy for anyone, including nonscientists, to see that the medieval warm period was not caused by human activity. This call for meteorological facts and history to go out an Orwellian memory hole is beyond scary. Why is this happening? All to get more federal grant money? Do they not see that we could easily go into a new dark age where science is determined by the dominant political thinking of the day all to obtain easy money? The winter of 1985 broke all records for the coldest winter of the Southeastern United States. Middle Tenn. had ovenight lows between -17 to -20F. The hottest summer for the western US occurred in the summer of 1936 with Steele N.D. reaching 121F and Lincoln Neb. had an overnight low of 93. I guess those figures will have to be edited because they happened in the opposite time period one would expect so that we won't look at them and say we have been duped by this modern Orwellian saga.

There's a recent paper in the International Journal of Climatology that looks at the poor relationship between the absolute coldest days and the annual and decadal average temperatures in regions. I suspect a similar relationship exists in the hottest temperatures.

It's not at all clear that 1936 is the hottest summer for the western US. It's certainly a candidate, but the problem is how to define "hottest summer." If you use the single hottest day of any year, then it's true for many places. If you look at the average high temperature during the summer months, it would end up about 4th or 5th, depending on where you put the end points. If you look at most days above some warm threshold, then it may or may not be, depending on the threshold. For Oklahoma City, for instance, 1936 has the warmest day on record and has 3 of the 5 days in the record at or above 110. If you use a lower threshold (105, 100, 95, 90, etc.), 1936 drops progressively on the list. It was a year that had a very hot period, surrounded by essentially normal temperatures. In comparison, this year was a year that was well above normal for a long period of time with very few record high temperatures set. As a result, it'll end up as, at the lowest, 3rd on the list of 90 degree days, behind 1998 and 1954. By many measures, the hottest year in the Southern Plains was 1980, but again, it depends on how you look at it. 1936 is also memorable in the Oklahoma City record for having the most consecutive days below freezing (38).

Bill-

Thanks for your comments. Funding issues of course matter, but I do not think that they are central. I do think that the trend of scientists aligning with interests groups has many different causes.

It is in my view less Orwellian and more politics as usual. I do agree that the scientific community, as compared to political advocates, does have the most at stake.

Thanks.

This is a perfect exemple that the end justify the mean as describe in a few thread a few weeks back.

It is welcome to mis-represent the science as long as it is use to blame GW on mankind.

I notice that scientist don't put much effort to come up front and distance themselves from these erroneous statement. The only time they will correct these erroneous statement is when they ask a direct question about it. They seem to be more pro-active to correct such statements when it is opposing their view of the situation.

It's not only scientists who have a lot to lose from the politicization of science. The big loser is of course the public.

Would those of you who are lucky enough to be paid to investigate nature and explore ideas-- paid in most cases out of the public purse-- please try to remember your obligations to the public?

Treating this issue as a political football is disgraceful and a grave disservice to the nation and the world.

Roger, thank you for a very interesting post. On this one, I agree with Landsea and Klotzbach (well sort of). The Santer paper is an interesting one with an experimental design that is quite good. However, in the context of the hurricane and global warming debate, the main contribution is to firm up the issue as to whether the warming in the tropics of the last century has been externally forced or not. No one (other than Bill Gray) seems to be questioning this.

I've gotten a number of queries from reporters about this, but no one wants to report what i have to say on this (in fact The Weather Channel cancelled a televised interview at the last minute, apparently my comments in the phone interview were too unexpected or nuanced). Reporters have asked whether the 22 papers supporting global warming/hurricane link (against a smaller number on the other side, depending on what you count) mean that the skeptics are being converted to support this idea. The answer is no (although many new players are joining the side of global warming argument, i don't see this happening on the "other side"), since the key points in the debate center on the quality of the tropical storm data (which will take some time and hard work to resolve) and the attribution of the cooling during the period 1940-1970 (which is convoluted with the AMO). These are the two big issues that need to be addressed, and there are also some others related to the interplay of the spatial distribution of SST variations and the atmospheric dynamics.

In my opinion the hurricane/global warming arguments haven't taken any real major "hits" thus far, but this is not the same as saying the arguments and research have been sufficient to declare "consensus" or to be completely certain that the "hits" won't come in the future (I have no idea at this point how the various reanalyses of hurricane intensity data will play out).

I think we have to be careful. If and when we can declare "victory" in terms of a fairly airtight case with some broad consensus, we want to make sure that the public and policy makers can tell the difference relative to things that have been overhyped.

Judith said:
"If and when we can declare "victory""

Interesting concept. I thought we were actually trying to figure out what was going on with climate. I wasn't aware it was a battle.

I also disagree with the interpretation. I think more and more mainstream scientists are beginning to realize there is more to climate change than just the ogre of CO2 emissions as the Oil for Food guys and their henchmen at the IPCC would have us believe. Maybe much more. Maybe so much more the CO2 signal is lost in the noise. Maybe lost in a greening world. Just maybe. Say it - "Maybe."

Hey, how's that nonexistant Atlantic hurricane season treating you?
So, if Katrina was proof of global warming, is non-Katrina proof of non-global warming?

Judy- Thanks much for weighing in!!

Steve, scientists are trying to figure out what is going with the climate. The public and policy makers seem to care about this issue. Climate model projections, if correct, have enormous socioeconomic implications. The "battles" are being fought in the blogosphere (note esp realclimate vs climateaudit), the media, dueling advocacy groups, contentious congressional testimony, etc. From a scientists' perspective, if this was just about trying to understand climate research, then climate researchers wouldn't have been subject to such intense media attention, public attacks, requests to give congressional testimony, subpoena of personal financial records in the case of mike mann (or now, be sucked into the blogosphere). A year ago, i think the press coverage that Emanuel/Webster et al. received would have made most politicians and movie stars envious (people who actually like and seek publicity). My current interest is trying to figure out how to maintain the integrity of climate science in the face of all this, and increase the public credibility of climate research. I have no idea how to do this, but I am stepping up my activities in the blogosphere to explore ideas on this topic (after initially resisting this medium).

Judy -

I am envious of those scientists studying climate, trying to actually figure out what’s going on. It’s a quite noble endeavor. However, there are some who are not trying to do that, but are only trying to convince others of their preconceived dogma.

To say there must be a balance between being effective and being honest necessitates that being effective precludes being honest. It is that dishonesty that initiated such an egregious display of distrust in climate scientists. If your “interest is trying to figure out how to maintain the integrity of climate science in the face of all this” maybe you should consider the cause?

Maybe climate scientists should clean their own house?

Don’t feel sorry for e.g. Mike Mann – he made his bed and now must sleep in it – along with many others he has dragged into it by association. Those giving him praise and recognition must also, eventually, sleep in the beds he and his cronies have made.

That might be a start...

And to clarify, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of intentionally misleading by presenting skewed information, but what of a continued effort at a coverup? Yet another crusade...

Daily there is dishonest information making the news. Maybe those people should be held accountable by their own community?

Excellent points Mr. Hemphill, this subject has been ruined by the cheap and shoddy science many are practicing while spreading their political agenda on AGW.