NOAA and Hurricanes

February 16th, 2006

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

NOAA has edited its press release that originally asserted a “consensus” among NOAA scientists, which we discussed here. How does this change the landscape of the hurricane climate issue? While it is a positive step forward for public relations, it doesn’t alter the current state of the science or most importantly, our understanding of what sorts of policy actions make the most sense in hurricane policy. Read on for details.


The material that NOAA added yesterday to their September 2005 press release reads as follows:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This consensus in this on-line magazine story represents the views of some NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters, but does not necessarily represent the views of all NOAA scientists. It was not the intention of this article to discount the presence of a human-induced global warming element or to attempt to claim that such an element is not present. There is a robust, on-going discussion on hurricanes and climate change within NOAA and the scientific community.

The headline and paragraph could have more clearly stated:

“Agreement Among Some NOAA Hurricane Researchers and Forecasters”

There is agreement among a number of NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the tropical multi-decadal signal.”

The Wall Street Journal discussed this in an article today, and adds this detail:

Scott Smullen, NOAA’s deputy director of public affairs, said the article was never meant to be an official position, and added that the use of the word “consensus” was a mistake made by one of his staff members. “There is no consensus,” Mr. Smullen said.

As we’ve stated before, NOAA should not be in the business of issuing an agency perspective on areas of science, so from the perspective of NOAA public relations this would seem to be a positive step. But what does it tell us about the science of hurricanes and climate change? Absolutely nothing. It has been no secret that different scientists have different firmly held views about what future research will reveal. Because of the overlay of politics this has become a nasty personal debate among some scientists, fanned by media attention, fame, and hubris. What should we observers expect? Dan Sarewitz provides a guide:

When political stakes associated with a controversy are relatively low, high certainty is more permissible than when the stakes are high (e.g., Collingridge and Reeve, 1986). Fewer disciplines, institutions, and stakeholders are likely to have strong and competing interests in any particular assertion of uncertainty levels. . . But when the costs and benefits associated with action on a controversy begin to emerge and implicate a variety of interests, both political and scientific scrutiny of the problem will increase, as will sources of uncertainty.

In short, we should expect to see many studies on this subject coming out in the peer reviewed literature in coming years. Some will likely be supportive of the notion that GHGs, others will not. Advocates and scientists alike will cherry pick among these to make their case. And because the issue is so politicized only the most high-minded and responsible scientists will avoid getting caught up in mud slinging. From where I sit, both Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea, on different sides of this issue, have exemplified such responsibility.

But this public debate over global warming and hurricanes is also dangerous. It completely drowns out discussion, debate, and advocacy about those actions most likely to be effective with respect to hurricane policy. Politics sure is fun, and conflict draws attention. But the reality is that the scientific debate over hurricanes and climate change is going to be with us for many, many years. No matter how it is resolved, if ever, one way or another it won’t be particularly significant for policy. And the U.S. hurricane season is less than 4 months away.

8 Responses to “NOAA and Hurricanes”

    1
  1. Chris Weaver Says:

    Hi Roger,

    I was curious if you had a sense of which research directions within hurricane science are the most relevant to near-term hurricane policy. For example, are the short- and medium-range forecasting systems good enough to support most any disaster management option? I suppose if we could more precisely place the landfall, the intensity of winds at landfall, and the amount and time distribution of the precipitation that will fall, we could be more selective about when and where to evacuate, but we might already be doing close to as well as we can.

    Is there anything coming down the pipe in hurricane research that will really change how we respond to the threat? Or is all the low-hanging fruit on the social science, risk communication, local government, infrastructure, etc. side?

    Thanks, -Chris

  2. 2
  3. Brad Hoge Says:

    This may be the most recent conflict between “responsible” science and “responsible” public policy, but it’s the same pattern as other climate related “debates” or even older ones such as acid rain or dioxin. The science is not complete, so we can’t say with any certainty whether the increased hurricane activity of 2005 is related to global warming. Therefore, we can’t make predictions about future years based on the science available. As a public policy issue, however, many people will want to be proactive in case we are experiencing an increased risk. Better safe than sorry. While others will want to wait until the research is in. Science can’t settle this debate but is inevitably caught in the crosshairs.

  4. 3
  5. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Chris-

    Thanks much for your questions. The below is surely more than you want, but it is what I provided to the National Science Board last week in a workshop on where hurricane research priorities should lie. (I have not reproduced the NSB questions, but they should be obvious.) Bottom line: Advances in policy implementation do not await further discoveries about the behavior of storms. Not all existing knowledge is well used in huricane policy, especially in developing countries.

    —————
    The relevant scientific communities have prepared detailed summaries of research priorities. The social science community held a workshop last year with a summary paper available here:

    Social Science Research Needs for the Hurricane Forecast and Warning System – December 5, 2005, Hugh Gladwin, Jeff Lazo, Betty Morrow, Walter Gillis, Hugh Willoughby
    http://swiki.ucar.edu/sip/uploads/31/2005.05_Social_Science_Research_Needs_for_the_Hurricane_Forecast_and_Warning_System.pdf

    The U.S. Weather Research Program in 2000 prepared a report describing research priorities for hurricane research:

    http://box.mmm.ucar.edu/uswrp/implementation/hurricane/USWRP_IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN_921.htm

    Last year’s Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference discussed research priorities:

    http://www.ofcm.gov/ihc05/linking_file_ihc05.htm
    ————–
    While there is always a need for long-term basic research, for research justified in terms of contributing to societal goals there is a pressing need for research on research to better understand what research has (a) been effective in advancing hurricane-related policies, and (b) holds the greatest potential to be useful to decision makings in the future.

    Such research on research can be used to help shape research and research portfolios in traditional science and engineering disciplines – that is to align research priorities with the expected benefits of research. For example, would research on inland flooding processes hold greater potential benefits than research on storm surge?

    Additional research is needed to improve processes of technology transfer and to turn research results into products and services of government and the private sector
    —————
    Leadership is needed to elevate the importance of the research proposed in #1 and #2 above to a greater level of prominence than it has received within the community.

  6. 4
  7. Chris Weaver Says:

    Thanks, Roger, I’ll wade through some of that!

  8. 5
  9. Steve Bloom Says:

    Roger, sorry to ruin the happy mood, but let us not lose sight of the fact that despite the nice new footnote anyone at NOAA who disagrees with the Mayfield-Landsea-Bell line on the hurricane-GW connection remains thoroughly gagged.

  10. 6
  11. Roger Pielke Jr. Says:

    Steve- Thanks, but you might want to re-read that WSJ article from yesterday, Tom Knutson is quoted.

  12. 7
  13. Roger Pielke Jr. Says:

    Subject: Message From the Under Secretary –
    Encouragement of Scientific Debate and Transparency Within NOAA
    Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:44:57 -0500
    From: Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., USN (Ret.)

    Message From the Under Secretary

    Feb 14, 2006

    There have been several print and internet articles recently that have tried to make a case that NOAA scientists are being muzzled. For example, a few recent media reports have (incorrectly) asserted that some NOAA scientists have been discouraged from commenting on the question of whether human caused global warming may be influencing the number or intensity of hurricanes. Let me state in the most direct terms that I am a strong believer in open, peer reviewed science as well as the right and duty of scientists to seek the truth and to provide the best scientific advice possible. When I answer questions on NOAA missions, my answers are formed on the basis of the scientific papers that I have personally read, or have been informed by you in the course of NOAA business.

    Peer reviewed science speaks for itself and doesn’t need me or anyone else to interpret or modify the results. For those of you who know me personally, you realize that I encourage and actively pursue vigorous debate on all topics, particularly including science related to NOAA’s mission. The purpose is to get as close to the truth and the facts as possible. I expect my management team to adhere to this policy of scientific openness as well.

    Our media standards also reflect an open policy. We encourage our public affairs staff to keep abreast of media interests. I encourage our scientists to speak freely and openly. Dozens of you every day are talking to the media and providing the results of peer reviewed science across a wide variety of NOAA topics. We ask only that you specify when you are communicating personal views and when you are characterizing your work as part of your specific contribution to NOAA’s mission. Also, I ask that you respect, and seek to understand, each other’s work within NOAA. We have many disciplines and centers of excellence within NOAA, all contributing substantially to the body of earth science knowledge. Be tolerant of each other as would your colleagues around the nation and the world. “One NOAA” should apply to our work as scientists as well as our management structure!

    Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
    Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
    Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator

  14. 8
  15. Rabett Says:

    One NOAA, one govenment, one president.

    History again repeats itself as farce.