From the headlines today at Democracy Now!:
Study: Global Warming Leading to More Intense Hurricanes
A new study out of MIT has determined that the destructive power of hurricanes in the North Atlantic and North Pacific has nearly doubled over the past 30 years, at least in part because of human-induced global warming. The scientist — Kerry Emanuel — says there is a “clear correlation” between increasing strength and length of storms and a temperature increase on the surface of the sea. His findings appear in the journal Nature. Some of the nation’s leading hurricane forecasters, including William Gray of Colorado State University, have criticized the findings. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Gray said that hurricanes are not intensifying and that the cause of the rising ocean temperature is natural, not man-made. [PHOTO: A still photo from the movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”]
I did some poking around, and found out more about Emanuel and his study … BELOW:
From Physorg.com:
“My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in [hurricanes’] destructive potential, and–taking into account an increasing coastal population–a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century,” reports Kerry Emanuel in a paper appearing in the July 31 online edition of the journal Nature.
Emanuel is a professor of meteorology in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
Theories and computer simulations of climate indicate that warming should generate an increase in storm intensity. In other words, they should hit harder, produce higher winds and last longer.
To explore that premise, Emanuel analyzed records of tropical cyclones–commonly called hurricanes or typhoons–since the middle of the 20th century. He found that the amount of energy released in these events in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. Both the duration of the cyclones and the largest wind speeds they produce have increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years.
He further reports that these increases in storm intensity are mirrored by increases in the average temperature at the surface of the tropical oceans, suggesting that this warming–some of which can be ascribed to global warming–is responsible for the greater power of the cyclones.
According to Jay Fein, director of the National Science Foundation’s climate dynamics program, which funded the research, Emanuel’s work “has resulted in an important measure of the potential impact of hurricanes on social, economic and ecological systems. It’s an innovative application of a theoretical concept, and has produced a new analysis of hurricanes’ strength and destructive potential.”
More:
- Los Angeles Times, Aug. 2, 2005
- UPDATE 2-NOAA sees record number of tropical storms in 2005 (Reuters)
- More links
That is it for the Republicans down here if they don’t step fast now and step fucking lively and start acting 100% Environmental!! If this get traction the panhandle it GONE for Republicans, and Florida is GONE for Republicans and this section of Alabama is GONE for Republicans. Remember how depressed I said this community was the day before the hurricane? They were the walking dead down here! Hurricane’s are tough to survive through and these MoFo’s coming through here now are just Fucking devastating. They tear up your livelihood, your house, your life, they even sometimes kill people you love. If this has teeth get ready ya all for some Southern Style Conservationism to flower instantaneously like everything else is right this moment. The whole state of Alabama is “moving” right now 24/7 this time of year. I have never lived any place like this but every species is out there full throttle. It’s like Wild Kingdom!
A co-worker just emailed me that even FOX is covering this story, although their spin is – ahem – a little different than what we would take:
“4 PM – Your World With Neal Cavuto”
“Violent hurricanes and blistering heat waves are just some of the alarming effects of global warming. but will the global market be able to weather the financial fallout?”
The global markets!?!?!
What about the billions in third-world countries?
What about the millions of other species?
What about our species? Our families? Our kids?
I guess I’m happy that they’re not denying climate change any more (although I’ll believe it when I see it, except I won’t watch Fox.)
Maybe if they convince the business branch of the Republican party that a financial meltdown is imminent we might get some action on this issue.
A global disaster might hurt sales. Do you think?
Obligatory reminder: “Correlation does not imply causation.”
While Prof. Emanuel’s work is certainly suggestive and worrisome, and increasingly powerful storms would be an unsurprising result of global warming, it shouldn’t be taken as anything like “proof” of global warming, despite the sloppy wording of some of the coverage that I’ve seen.
I do wish the Globe had noted Prof. Gray’s background as someone who has long been dismissive of the concept of climate change. He generally writes it off as group-think and a funding bandwagon … which makes me wonder about his sources of funding.
There’s plenty of proof of global warming. The issue isn’t whether it’s happening, it’s what will the consequences be. Each decade since the 1970’s has been the warmest on on record and 5 of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 30% in that same timeframe. The overwhelming consensus of climate scientitsts is that global warming is occurring, that it is accelerating, and that it is due in large part to human activity.
The only real questions are how bad will it get, and what can we do to avoid the worst case scenario?
I know. Prof. Emanuel’s report about increasing hurricane intensity isn’t proof, nor is that increase even necessarily an example of climate change. I’m just pointing out that too many reports are sloppily treating it that way.
I’m not a scientist but I’ve worked with them, and the kind of clumsy handling that stories like this often get annoys me. Annoys me enough that I almost became a science journalist just to do the job right, though life kinda sidetracked that possibility. I’d rather have people be on the good side of an issue for rational reasons.
As a scientist, I cringe whenever that “Correlation does not imply causation” disclaimer statement is used. It is simply wrong.
Correlation DOES IMPLY causation, but correlation alone does not PROVE causation.
Much of today’s technology and proven science is based on someone first having noticed a simple correlation. Observation and experimentation were then done to determine whether or not the cause-effect relationship was real. It is important to remember that causation yields correlation every single time.
Here is the “disclaimer” I prefer:
Correlation alone is not PROOF of causation.
I do thank you for your diary, and all of the other GREAT WORK you do here at the greatest blog in the ‘sphere.
should have been:
“Correlation alone is not PROOF of causation.”
Good one-sentence summary.
The problem with the environmental sciences is that you typically get a web of correlations but isolating enough variables to get the kind of proof you get in chemistry and physics is often impossible. So scientists are put in the uncomfortable and uncharacteristic position of having to make a recommendation to government officials based on a “well-educated, well-informed gut instinct and reading of the trends,” or spin their wheels forever while the climate goes haywire.
That “the web of correlations and trends” is bad enough for 11 national organizations of scientists from around the world to speak with one voice in alarm to the world’s politicians should cause fear for anyone who knows how loathe scientists are to make definitive statements – admitting the possibility that you might be wrong is the first trait drummed into you during training in any science.
My two fields of expertise are filled with the same kinds of webs of correlations. Nevertheless we do make progress in these fields. Enough webs of scientifically plausible correlations pointing to the same conclusion lead to a statistical near-certainty of the hypothesis.
And even though astronomers, geologists, and climatologists can not perform classical experiments on whole systems, we are able to perform classical experiments on model micro-environments and with computer models. For example, the particle accelerators used by particle physicists have taught us a lot about what goes on inside the Sun and other stars. We have concluded that the Sun and other stars are fueled by nuclear forces in spite of the fact that we can’t see and experiment on the interior of the Sun.
Likewise, climatologists have studied the properties of certain gases and their effects on our atmosphere, amassed vast quantities of data about how these gases are produced by human activities, and concluded that worldwide warming is happening and that it is related to human-made greenhouse gases.
Climatologists also know that if the surface temperature of the ocean over which a hurricane is forming is above approximately 83 degrees Fahrenheit, the hurricane can strengthen. MORE GREENHOUSE GASES => GLOBAL WARMING => HIGHER WATER SURFACE TEMPS => STRONGER, MORE FREQUENT HURRICANES. …Pretty strong web, I think…
Strong enough for me and those 11 organizations you mentioned.
Thank you Susan. This shouldn’t even be a partisan issue. I want to scream to all the idiot Republicans who think it’s a figment of enviromentalist whackos: “This is human survival people! Get a clue!”
I often ponder just what it will take for people to “get a clue”. Will it be the loss of women’s rights to control her own reproduction? Will it be a draft to provide more bodies for more illegal wars? Will it be a massive depression? Or, will it be something like environmental disaster, say, massive hurricanes over Florida? I cannot in truth say I desire any of these things, but is this how far things will have to go before people wake up and smell the coffee?
I don’t expect a certain segment of the population will wake up and smell the coffee. And that scares me worse than the climate data.
Many fundamentalists seem to be taking a sick glee in all this bad news on the environment. After all, the world is supposed to “wear out like a garment” so it’s said.
If anything could be called evil (and I’m loathe to use that word, as I’ve commented elsewhere) it would be such a sick attitude towards their creator’s possession, given to them on loan (stewardship, anyone?)
All those big ole Fundies live right in the Atlantic Hurricane Alley! Relax and have a Latte and a laugh cause when those huge CoEd hurricanes knock the forever shit out of all of them and they suffer and have no abode and no food or fuel or lights for the umpteenth time and the rapture cometh not…..the dawning of reality will come to those who want to survive. They’ll probably all try to move to a blue state, that’ll be interesting! I wonder how pissed Boca Raton can get as a community and I wonder what that kind of pissed can do when it’s directed?
You’d think this might give Jeb and his Florida friends some pause…
I’ve never seen that enhancement of the future! If Tallahassee isn’t underwater Jeb will still be angling for the sound bite and the photo op. He is so much more photogenic than his brother! No wonder his brother hides out in Crawford Texas all the time! I can’t be sure from that photo you put up but it kind of looks like I may be trading in the lake behind the house for a beach! I figured the Republicans would lose the panhandle over this global warming thing but I didn’t know that they were going to LOSE THE PANHANDLE and can’t find it no place!
the first group (with real power (as in wealth)) to shout “Fire!” over global warming should be the insurance industry. The cost of natural disasters (due in large part to unintended consequences of human activity) has been rising exponentially over the last 100 years.
Unfortunately there are two possibilities; 1) lobbying to create more strict environmental regulations to prevent disaster, or 2) increased incidents of subsidies (i.e., “bailouts”) by the govrenment to the insurance industry.
We already seen an alarming trend towards option #2, e.g., as in the EPA’s sheilding of insurance liability immediatly after 9-11 by declaring the area officially “safe” (amounting to a bailout worth some billions due to avoidance of the relocation and housing costs that would have been necessary). Except this trend to increase. Watch carefully what happens with government money after a natural disaster… who is really benefiting?
Eventually we can expect cost of severe storms, flooding, effect on public health caused by pollution, etc., to overwhelm all other considerations to the point where it will be necessary to recognize and deal with large scale environmental problems regardless of political inclinations or social morals (esp. lack thereof). Fortunately due to the exponential growth of this phenomena we can expect it to happen sooner rather than later. Hopefully it won’t be too late to avert total bankruptcy of entire nations or immense loss of life.
Maybe it’s just me, because I follow this kind of stuff, but I didn’t find this surprising. Scary, yes; surprising, no.
Not surprising because if you turn up the heat on a system (whether on a stove by using the knob, on on the earth by increasing greenhouse gases not allowing as much heat to escape into space) that energy is going to have some effect. The pot boils harder; the atmosphere is more turbulent. I guess the question for me was “Are there going to be more hurricanes, stronger hurricanes, or both?”
Now what really surprises and scares me was the combination of some recent stories:
Uh Oh.
By turning up the heat, we reduce the ability of the system to go back to its former condition. This is called positive feedback. This is a serious problem.
It means that the folks who predicted a sudden transition (sudden = years to decades, not centuries to millenia) from our current climate system to something decidedly more tropical (New York and Philly get the weather of Charleston and Savannah) may be correct. Within the lifetimes of our younger bloggers.
Maybe even in my lifetime (say another 40 years, if this kind of news doesn’t give me a stroke first…)
Oh, the oceans will absorb all that CO2 and the world will sort of get back to normal weather eventually (although there will be a huge extinction event as well), but it takes 100,000 years…
Here’s the link on phytoplankton productivity and El Nino, as promised; sorry for the delay. 🙂
here
when I saw “The scientist — Kerry Emanuel” because a few years ago I taught a student named Emanuel Kerry! Now, he was a very nice kid, and a decent student, but not exactly what one would consider a brilliant scientist.