Kristof on Hurricanes
September 12th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
In his column yesterday, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof jumps on the bandwagon suggesting that greenhouse gas policies can be used as a tool to modulate future hurricane behavior. We’ve covered this subject in some detail here, but there are two points worth making on this column.
First, Kristof goes out of his way to avoid the obvious issue of societal vulnerability. He quoted Kerry Emanuel as follows: “My results suggest that future warming may lead to … a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century.” Kristof’s ellipses significantly change the meaning of Emanuel’s statement. Here is the full quote from Emanuel’s paper (PDF), including the information replaced by Kristof with ellipses, “My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and-taking into account an increasing coastal population- a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty- first century.” This is playing a bit fast and loose with Emanuel’s statement, given that Emanuel says elsewhere, “For U.S.-centric concerns over the next 30-50 years, by far the most important hurricane problem we face is demographic and political.” Of course, as we’ve documented here, for at least the next half century and probably longer, societal vulnerability to hurricanes dominates any projected greenhouse gas effects, so in an essay advocating greenhouse gases as a tool of disaster management, it is obvious why Kristof would want to pretend that this issue doesn’t exist.
Second, Kristof relies on the opinions of scientists rather than what you find in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Now, the scientists that he cites are surely very intelligent people, and the peer reviewed literature has its own flaws, and of course Kristof is a columnist not an IPCC contributor. But it seems to me that we have the peer-reviewed literature for a reason, and that in general it is likely a more reliable guide to what we know than predictions of smart scientists as to what future research will reveal. Kristof relies on the opinions of smart people whose views are convenient to his argument, and ignores the opinions of smart people whose views are inconvenient. This is called cherry picking. One way to adjudicate among different opinions of scientists is to consult the peer-reviewed scientific literature (this is of course what the IPCC does), and when there are different perspectives in the peer-reviewed literature, then that is a reality of science.
Over the last few weeks it has become apparent to me that the controversy over hurricanes and global warming exists because different scientists have different views as to what future research will reveal, and they have been outspoken in advancing these opinions. Bill Gray, for example, expects future research to reveal no discernible connection between hurricanes and global warming. By contrast, Kevin Trenberth believes that a connection will be found. Future research will help to clarify this dispute. But if one takes a look at the peer-reviewed science available today (and later this week), there is in fact a clear consensus on this subject.
In his column Kristof cites the useful, but non-peer-reviewed Real Climate weblog and Emanuel speculating that, “The large upswing [in the PDI] in the last decade is unprecedented, and probably reflects the effect of global warming.” This last statement is what scientists call a hypothesis. It may in fact be correct. Bill Gray may also be proven correct. To address such divergent views is one reason why we do research in the first place. We could save a lot of money in research funding if we substituted scientific opinions for research. But lets be very clear — as of today, as we documented in our BAMS paper, research has not been conducted that would allow for a definitive conclusion on these different opinions on hurricanes and global warming. And unless there are some surprises in the publication pipeline, it does not look like there will be any peer-reviewed scientific studies available by the end of 2005, and thus available to the next IPCC, that clarify the issue of attribution of greenhouse gas effects on hurricanes.
Scientists would do themselves and decision makers a favor by clearly identifying knowledge that can be supported by the peer-reviewed literature and that which is based on opinions by scientists as to what future research will reveal. Our forthcoming BAMS paper on hurricanes and global warming should be interpreted as an assessment of what statements can be made based on the peer-reviewed literature available today. Some scientists of course want to make stronger statements, on one side or the other, and they of course have every right to, but they should be careful to qualify such statements as hypotheses or statements of expectation and not of findings. Otherwise, if scientists’ opinions are as good a basis of knowledge as peer-reviewed studies, then what is the point of the peer-reviewed literature at all?
September 12th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Seems to me this piece is working the cherry-picking bit too much and it is getting worn, anyhow. Does not any picker try to get the best cherries, lest the strawboss reject his pail? It is like the rats that leave the sinking ship….does not everyone who has any brains ? Excepting your present leader who stays aboard holed up in his cabin with his faithful entourage, muttering epithets at a mirror.
September 12th, 2005 at 11:12 am
It seems to me that an opinion column should be held to the same standards in establishing the informational basis for its arguments as a straight news story, and that ellipsizing of Emanuel’s quote would never pass muster at the humble little newspaper where I work.
September 12th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Kristof mayhave chosen the wrong statement of Dr. Emanuels’. Professor Kerry Emanuel’s statements are unambiguous about seeing a link between global warming and hurricanes and they are up on the MIT website for all to see.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricane-quotes.html
September 12th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Another Poseur
I’ve pointed out how bad Nicholas Kristof is before. See Energy Posers. Roger Pielke Jr. perfectly encapsulates what is so repulsive about Kristof: Kristof relies on the opinions of scientists rather than what you find in the peer-reviewed scientific…
September 12th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Here is the article from MIT News office which might be of interest, with references to Dr. Emanuel’s views.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html
Kristof should have linked that one perhaps, in addition to the reference to the Nature paper. At least it would be clear on what Dr. Emanuel’s scientific views on the subject.
September 12th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Roger, if we lived in a world run by sane policy-makers, they’d be talking about not re-building much of what Katrina wrecked, or rather re-building it at reasonable distance inland (and not below sea level). So, somehow the information that you and others have developed and that is very obviously correct isn’t sinking in. I realize this is more of a political “science” question, but just how do you propose to change that? Given how high the global warming issue has become in the public consciousness (see, e.g., the CA public opinion poll I posted here a couple of months ago), doesn’t it make some sense to take advantage of that consciousness to advance policy with regard to hurricane protection? I think that’s the rationale underlying many of the public statements you’ve been finding fault with.
Regarding your quote of Emanuel with repect to the next 30-50 years, as you know it is the 50-100 year time frame that is of more concern with regard to global warming impacts. I know you’re not really saying this, but putting it in those terms buys in to the “discounting the future” mentality that’s gotten us into the pickle we’re in now. From the point of view of one of these politicians, when they hear that we don’t have to worry much about global warming impacts until 50 plus years out and combine that with information about the likelihood that another levee-breaching event will hit NO in the next 50 years, they see that as a free pass to make only minor adjustments to present coastal development patterns. And of course it is very likely indeed that they, just like the past politicians who decided to only build the NO levees up to a cat 3 level, will be long gone before it’s time to pay the piper.
This is an example of what we’re up against: I spent much of the day yesterday interviewing candidates for the Sierra Club endorsement for mayor of Oakland, CA (SF Bay area, pop. 400k). Because of Katrina, just now the issue of what will happen in the inevitable maximum earthquake on one or the other of our local faults (the Hayward or the San Andreas) is rather higher on their agenda than would normally be the case. The level of ignorance was still amazing. Not one of them was able to successfully answer the general question of how good our current plan and preparations are for the event. There were even more at sea with respect to the specific question of how much of Oakland’s population will be rendered homeless and how that will be handled (even assuming the situation isn’t compounded by major fires). Again, this was in the SF Bay Area where one would expect the level of information about such things to be rather better than average. Underlying their ignorance (I think) is an unconscious assumption that probably “the big one” won’t happen during their political careers.
Sorry if that turned into a bit of a rant, and of course this discussion is far more complex than I’ve had the time to lay out here. I’ll close by suggesting that it might be that you would make a more effective contribution to the present debate if you focused more on the damage that will result from increasing global warming, and less on it not being a major short-term factor (and this is not to suggest any softening of your stance on current exposure absent any AGW effect). Your present approach may be good science, but the one I suggest is equally good science and has the advantage of not sending an unintended mixed message to the politicians.
September 12th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Gore’s taking up the issue as well. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm
I see no problem with stating that there is evidence to suggest GW effects weather, if that’s true. Considering the fact that GW probably has a small effect on hurricanes, and that reducing emissions won’t do much to stem them for quite some time, it seems to me to be the wrong focus.
The issues more brought into focus are whether the federal government should play a role in natural disasters, and how to get government to listen to science (which, in the end, will help the “cause” of Gore more, since the science is being ignored there, too). What would benefit Gore the most is a return of a respect for science’s role in informing policy makers, and a recognition that federally funded research has a purpose.
I think environmentalists are latching onto this because they want a concrete example of GW. This is due to the fact that although consensus clearly shows a human contribution to climate change, we spend all our time in the media debating about “if”, when it should be about what, if anything, should be done about it. So we never actually get around to discussing the points Pielke raises about whether reducing emissions is the right route to go because accepting consensus would cause CNN get angry e-mails shouting “Why didn’t you show the other side?”
We’ve successfully avoided the policy debate by keeping the focus on whether it’s occurring at all. The lasping onto Katrina by environmentalists seems to be motivated (not justified) by a desire to settle the argument of whether it’s occurring once and for all.
One last point: I do think journalism has a lower bar for bringing up certain topics. There’s no consensus on String Theory, for instance, but you can talk about it. Scientists can voice their opinions, and these are valuable because scientists are experts in their field. (What I ojbect to is pundits offering their uninformed opinions as science). As long as it’s clear where consensus lies, and what the data shows vs. where researchers think it’s heading, I’m okay with it. At least it’s a scientist’s view of these things, which is an improvement. But you’re right, the peer-reviewed research is the bottom-line, so to speak.
September 12th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Check out this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2125908/
“It’s easy to use the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to call attention to human-caused global warming, as Nicholas Kristof did in his New York Times column on Sunday. But the scientific evidence currently is too thin to blame Katrina and other hurricanes on carbon dioxide emissions. And environmentalists may risk embarrassment if they exploit the theoretical link to promote their causes.”
September 12th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Dylan, what do you mean when you say it’s “the wrong focus”? Are you suggesting that the longer-term impacts of global warming should appropriately be discounted? Imagine yourself in a conservation with a New Orleans politician:
Dylan: We need to protect against a cat 5, but we don’t need to concern ourselves immediately with global warming effects because those impacts are 50 plus years out. Of course, we could get more abrupt global warming than the models call for, but that’s unlikely.
Politician: When is that next cat 4 or 5 likely to hit NO?
Dylan: It could happen soon, but probably it will be at least 30 to 50 years.
Politican: Just to make sure I’m clear on this, let me be more specific: Will it happen during my active political career?
Dylan: Well, probably not.
Politician: OK, then I’ll take your good advice about global warming and apply it across the board. After all, neither are really immediate threats.
Dylan: Yes, but what about the statistics showing all that hurricane damage in the next 30 to 50 years?!
Politician (getting into his SUV): That’s for the entire coast! You just admitted that another hit on NO in that time frame isn’t very likely.
Dylan (desperately): But I only wanted you to discount the 50 to 100 year future!
Politician (driving off): What I needed was something consistent I can tell my voters. Thanks for giving it to me!
—————
I would suggest that a single focus with two aspects would be a better approach.
Also, speaking as one of those accursed environmentalists, I think we’re pretty well surrounded by more than sufficient evidence for global warming. Per current polling, the public is rapidly coming into agreement with that. The seizing of the Katrina issue is motivated not by the desire to convince sceptics (who will ever be with us) of global warming’s reality but by the need to demonstrate that we have to start doing something serious about it now.
Also, Roger should correct me if I’m wrong, but I think his “no regrets” argument very much favors immediate major emissions reductions on the grounds that there are plenty of good environmental, economic and security reasons to do so even if global warming were not happening. I don’t disagree in principle, but would observe that those other good reasons in and of themselves don’t seem to have been enough so far (although the peak oil and national security factors have changed so much recently that they may yet do the job once their implications have a chance to sink into the collective thick noggin of the American body politic).
September 12th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Steve,
I think you’re making the wrong analogy to Katrina. It’s not about whether GW causes hurricanes. It’s that clear evidence, whether it’s about anthropogenic warming or flooding NO, is routinely ignored.
Whether GW makes hurricanes worse, or reducing emissions is good policy are moot points if our government doesn’t listen to evidence, or the media refuses look seriously at any issue that generates negative e-mails from a small segment of the population. It doesn’t matter what effect GW has on weather because our government will ignore it just the same.
There will be many Katrinas in many different forms. GW is just one of them.
September 13th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
I wonder what you think of this statement by Kristof’s ideological opposite, Charles Krauthammer, in his Washington Post column, Friday, Sept. 9: “There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period.” Isn’t this going too far in the other direction?
September 13th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Keith-
Thanks for the question. I do think that Krauthammer’s statement is too strong. I’d be comfortable with something like the following:
“Scientists have yet to prove any causal relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes.”
September 14th, 2005 at 8:09 am
I happened to read the Nature paper by Dr. Emanuel and wanted to mention that what was striking was a strong correlation between the Sept SST and the intensities of hurricane in North Atlantic PDI (Figure 1).
Correlation does not mean causation and the Nature paper indicates that only part of the sharp increase in PDI in recent years can be directly explained by SST (Pg 688). Other factors such as vertical wind shear, temperature distribution are just as important.
I do not work in this field, but would be very interested in knowing if scientists can conclusively say that the same causes that might increase global warming (land-use pattern shift, rainforest reduction, atmospheric pollution etc, etc) are causing more intense hurricanes, thus showing a strong correlation between SST and hurricanes.
thanks,
Joyoni Dey, PhD
September 16th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Thanks to Dr. Pielkes, for reference to the latest Science paper, which came out today:
“Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment” by Webster et al.
Here is the concluding paragraph, which I found interesting:
“We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricane, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment(29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of C0_2 may increase the frequency of 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 roles of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean even in the present climate state.”
September 16th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Roger is comfortable with:
“Scientists have yet to prove any causal relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes.”
Webster says (in his interview on the AAAS site):
“The variability of hurricane intensity is almost certainly a complex interaction of natural variability superimposed on a longer term warming trend. Natural cycles of variability (such as El Niño, North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation) individually have signals that are predominant in certain regions.” He didn’t exclude the North Atlantic basin from this assessment.
The two statements are not literally inconsistent, but a certain figurative difference is apparent.