Should We Talk About the Weather?
How to Navigate Climate Science During Hurricane Season
SOURCE: NOAA/AP
We should use hurricanes to discuss global warming, but we have to do it with rigorous fidelity to the current state of scientific understanding. Above: Cyclone Gonu over the Arabian Sea in 2007.
Print
With a very active hurricane season upon us—and Hurricane Ike about to enter the Gulf of Mexico and, it is feared, explode in intensity—a perennial topic arises: How can one discuss, responsibly, the relationship between hurricanes and global warming?
Hurricanes are incredibly dramatic—we’re talking about storms capable of swelling to the size of Texas and churning out as much power as the entire world’s electricity generating capacity.
After all, for those advocates and bloggers who desperately want to draw attention to climate change, storms pose an often irresistible opportunity. And who can blame them: Global warming is a subject that the media has a great deal of trouble handling, because it is a slow-moving, uncertain, long-range threat that always has to compete with sudden, urgent problems and scandals for attention. Accordingly, there are many grounds upon which to slam press coverage of climate change (see a full discussion here and here by Columbia Journalism Review’s Curtis Brainard). Personally, I think one statistic says it all: According to a study by Yale University’s Anthony Leiserowitz, the fantastical 2004 global warming disaster flick, The Day After Tomorrow, garnered ten times as much media attention as the 2001 release of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report, the definitive scientific study of climate change and its impacts. In short, in the total media arena, a climate change blockbuster with little connection to reality made a vastly bigger splash than the release of the single most important scientific study.
Hurricanes, however, command intense and sustained media attention whenever they threaten. And no wonder: In many ways, they’re much more like a movie than a new scientific paper. Hurricanes are incredibly dramatic—we’re talking about storms capable of swelling to the size of Texas and churning out as much power as the entire world’s electricity generating capacity—and provide plenty of visuals, ranging from sublime satellite images of hurricane eyes to on-the-ground footage of wind-whipped reporters occasionally dodging palm tree fronds and flying billboards. No wonder advocates ranging from Al Gore to, most recently, the National Wildlife Federation have sought to emphasize the hurricane-climate connection.
The science, though, is tricky. There’s a general scientific expectation that the average storm ought to be able to achieve a greater intensity due to climate change’s heating of the oceans—but it’s also quite possible that total storm numbers may decrease, and that different parts of the world will be affected differently. Moreover, regardless of theoretical expectations, there’s an open debate over the extent to which global warming can explain recent, high levels of hurricane activity, of the sort that we’ve seen in the Atlantic region since 1995.
My own view is that while hurricanes can and even should be used to discuss global warming, it must be done with rigorous fidelity to the current state of scientific understanding—something that’s hardly easy to achieve when scientific understanding on this topic is a moving target. Nevertheless, using a language that emphasizes risk rather than certainty—and, of course, avoiding the causal attribution of any individual storm to climate change—generally insulates against criticism. For instance, regarding an eerie, record-breaking storm like 2007’s Category 5 Cyclone Gonu, I might say something like this: “Scientists predict that hurricanes should worsen due to global warming…and when you see a seemingly unprecedented storm like Gonu, doesn’t it at least make you worry that they’re right?”
Gonu occurred in the Arabian Sea, but we can translate a similar argument easily for the Atlantic region. For instance, one might observe that: “Since 2003 in the Atlantic, there have been no less than eight Category 5 hurricanes—an unprecedented number. Even though scientists continue to debate the issue, doesn’t that make you wonder whether global warming could be at work here?”
For Gulf Coasters, meanwhile, there’s an approach that may resonate even more, and that suffers from less scientific uncertainty. One of the most scientifically airtight aspects of climate change is sea level rise, as higher temperatures cause the thermal expansion of seawater and melt land-based ice, which flows into the world’s oceans. This effect is, essentially, built into the definition of global warming, which means we can basically promise, for any coastal area, that seas are already rising and will continue to do so for decades or even centuries to come. As this occurs, any future land-falling hurricane will drive its wall of water substantially further inland than before. Ergo, the hurricane risk increases because of global warming—it’s that simple.
And there’s something else that Floridians, recently drenched by Tropical Storm Fay, might duly note: Global warming also, by definition, increases the intensity of precipitation in storms, because air holds more water vapor at higher temperatures. This is nothing more than basic physics, but its implications are profound. Hurricanes are, in essence, a triple threat—they can hurt you through wind, through their storm surges, and through their sustained downpours. And the downpours, on average, ought to be worse as a result of climate change. Once again, that’s hard to dispute.
However, here’s something that, as a global warming advocate, you really can’t do: Make an opportunistic leap from these arguments about hurricanes to a very different atmospheric phenomenon: tornadoes. As I reported in New Scientist last month, the science in this area is just too new, and too uncertain, to let us predict whether tornadoes ought to become more numerous or worse due to climate change. Indeed, scientists are just beginning to study the effect that climate change may have on the severe thunderstorms that spawn these tiny, short lived, but very intense whirlwinds—but the second order change to tornadoes themselves is far too uncertain to characterize at this time, and impossible to include in climate models due to problems of scale. Making a strong link between recent intense tornadic activity and climate change thus represents true opportunism and ought to be avoided—at least until more studies come in on this very novel and little-researched topic.
In the end, given the uncertainty and the careful language that advocates must use to discuss hurricane threats in the context of climate change, one could argue that better messaging strategies are called for. When presidential candidates, politicians, and the Center for American Progress itself talk about “Green Jobs,” after all, they’re basically talking about climate change, but in an economic context where the science isn’t really subject to dispute, because it isn’t part of the message at all. When storms threaten, we may want to talk about them—but most of the time, for most audiences, messages that involve positive and hopeful economics, rather than uncertain and contested science, are probably the way to go.
Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.
Comments on this article
I would like to know if anyone thinks that Global Warming could possibly not matter on the bigger picture!
Many scientist have proven that we are going through a cycle that is inevitable and global warming is indeed accelerating this cycle faster that ever in history. So is the real problem a problem or is it the earth responding to the bugs that have infested it and renewing itself.
Energy is always flowing from one extreme to the other. This is apparent in our global timeline, weather and all the way down to our unique ability as humans to live bi polar lives. I am in no way saying that we should stand back and live our continued consumerist live similar to a vacuum that sucks everything in its path. I am saying that the debate of whether it is important or not is taking away the real problem, that is our extremely abusive life people live. One that is only about escaping our thoughts through consuming.
While my idea of global warming is only that of opinion, psychology is indeed not. We just choose to remain comfortable with the debate of Global Warming and also the convenient ways we live that stimulate our “Accelerated” Global Destruction. Maybe if we were living truly equal lives, in terms of giving as much “energy” as we use, we wouldn’t have a threat looming over our head!
Mark Babineaux
September 10th, 2008 at 10:53 amhttp://progressyourlife.com
No offense Chris, but … you’ve cried wolf this whole summer about hurricanes to be worried about … and none of them have come close to being the harbingers of doom you claim they can be. So yes, we can talk about the weather, but there comes a point when you saturate the airwaves to the point where people won’t listen when it’s actually happening.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pmTomJoe said:
“and none of them have come close to being the harbingers of doom you claim they can be”
Try to tell that to the relatives of the hundreds of dead people in Haiti.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:45 amTry to tell that to the relatives of the hundreds of dead people in Haiti.
I’m not saying that there hasn’t been damage done and lives lost … just not on the grand scale that Chris keeps alluding to with every blog entry entitled: “This hurricane REALLY scares me …”
September 11th, 2008 at 7:52 amTomJoe, how do you define “Grand Scale”?
Fortunately, we haven`t had another Katrina yet, but just a glance to this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7603749.stm) will show that this is being a very dramatic hurricane season so far.
The fact that countries such as Haiti are not well prepared to endure a category 4 hurricane doesn’t mean those hurricanes are not scary.
I agree with you that Chris, likes most reporters, loves a catchy headline, but I don’t think we should trivialize the situation.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:33 amSantiiiii: By “Grand Scale”, I was referring to hurricanes like Katrina ($75 billion in damage & 1,200 deaths). I’m not trying to trivialize the situation. As I said, there is only so many times that people like Chris can cry wolf before no one (particularly lay people) shows up (or cares) anymore. Stop sensationalizing every single tropical depression that pops into existence, making it out to be potential Armageddon. That was my point.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:57 amNobody gets into a automobile accident every time they climb into a car. But most people put on a seat belt, and most people try to follow the rules of the road, every time they get into a car. If you refused to put on a seat belt until you were sure you’d be in a car accident, you’d doubtless end up in the accident without one.
In a similar fashion - if people want to be prepared for a major hurricane landfall - they must face up to the fact that hurricanes cannot be predicted with absolute certainty. They must face the fact that the damage of a major hurricane landfall, especially to those unprepared, is so severe that one must prepare for it even if the probability of landfall is low. There will inevitably be more calls to put up stores and hurricane shutters than there will be encounters with hurricane force winds. There will be more evacuations than major hurricane landfalls on major cities. This is unavoidable, and because death is worse than multiple evacuations, it is preferable.
When I was about 10 years old, I read a national geographic article about the dangers New Orleans faced in the event of a major hurricane landfall. I read another 5 or 6 later, another when I was in my early 20s, and so on. All along many pundits insisted the danger was overrated, there was no danger, the scientists were ‘crying wolf’, and on and on. Nothing was done to prepare. We know the result. Your kind of thinking promotes a dangerous misunderstanding of probability which would result in a repeat of that episode.
As to your insistence that damage ‘on the grand scale’ has not yet occurred, A tropical cyclone earlier this year killed 146,000 people.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pmllewelly:
I never said that the danger was overrated. I said that hyping every storm and whipping people into a frenzy was going to have the inverse effect of preparing them for the “big one”. Case in point (anecdotally), Gustav. I can’t begin to count how many people interviewed after returning to New Orleans said they wouldn’t evacuate the next time because they considered it a waste of time and money. And that’s an evacuation I agreed with 100%. It illustrates my point that people will eventually stop caring (even if it’s in their best interest) if they’re forced to take action too many times. They get sick and tired and apathy sets in. Then, they’re unprepared for the next “real thing”. You (and I) think evacuation is preferable than death. I imagine most people in the hurricanes path would prefer living too. But after being asked to foot the bill several times a year to evacuate from their homes for weeks on end, they’re going to say to hell with it.
You seem to think I’m being a denialist, which is as far from the truth as possible. I’m trying to be a realist. I’m not the only one who thinks reporters need to stop sensationalizing everything that comes their way. As for the cyclone that hit Myanmar, I stand corrected.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:50 pmIf you really believe that someone is ‘hyping’ a storm, you also believe they are overrating the storm. If that is not what you believe, you used the word ‘hyping’ mistakenly.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:50 pmYou’re right to point that reaction, and the very serious concern it is for all emergency warning agencies. Those people are engaging in a common fallacy: they assume that what they know now (that the Gustave didn’t drown New Orleans) will be knowable the next time a hurricane is forecast to head in the general direction of the NHC. That’s equivalent to assuming they can out-forecast the NHC - hurricane scientists, who have studied and forecast hurricanes for decades, who understand over 100 years of hurricane-related research, who have supercomputers at their beck and call, who have data from aircraft recon and a dozen satellites, who have computer models designed by the world’s best thermodynamicists. Those bitter evacuees - if I may call them such - do not understand how difficult it is to avoid calling for mandatory evacuation and only later learning that the storm didn’t destroy their home after all.
This fallacy has always made the NHC’s task extremely difficult - the NHC knows that as bad as an evacuation such as the Houston evacuation in 2005 - it’s not nearly as bad as an inadequate evacuation, such as the inadequate evacuation of New Orleans in 2005. But they also know what you’ve been saying - that when people are evacuated, only to return to find their homes relatively unscathed, people feel sour about evacuations, and become resistant to future evacuations. Hurricane scientists have written reams of peer-reviewed papers on this, based on questioning many evacuees, and put a great deal of effort into accounting for this resistance to future evacuations. More importantly - they cover this issue in their public education programs. Every NHC forecast tries to impress on everyone the degree of uncertainty which exists in the forecasts. You can find remarks about this in every NHC forecast discussion on Gustav made with about 6-7 days of its landfall on the Gulf coast. You can find similar remarks in most NHC forecast discussions made with 5 or fewer days of possible landfalls. They are very much aware of the problem, and devote a great deal of time and energy trying to avoid provoking it. (Notably - their job is complicated by the fact that other local government officials have the final word on evacuations - the NHC can really only advise.)
Chris - whatever his faults - has been very careful to respect the degree of uncertainty expressed in the NHC forecasts. More importantly, he’s never pretended to be an official forecaster, or an official source of evacuation notices. But no-one - NHC or otherwise - can avoid false-positives in hurricane forecasts. It would be worse than useless to wait until the hurricane was already coming ashore to order an evacuation - but not until that point are landfall location and intensity are known for certain.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:20 amIn my previous post, I meant ‘Gustav’, not Gustave. My apologies.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:22 amIf you really believe that someone is ‘hyping’ a storm, you also believe they are overrating the storm. If that is not what you believe, you used the word ‘hyping’ mistakenly.
Hype and overrate are not equivalent. Or so says Merriam and Webster, and Oxford.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am“[…] One of the most scientifically airtight aspects of climate change is sea level rise, as higher temperatures cause the thermal expansion of seawater and melt land-based ice, which flows into the world’s oceans. This effect is, essentially, built into the definition of global warming.” But no, it’s -not- scientifically airtight. Please see: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/staffpages/boldale/capecod/quest.html
“[…] global warming might cause sea level to fall. Warmer air over Greenland and Antarctica that are now polar deserts (the air is very dry and there is only small amounts of precipitation) might cause more snow to fall. In this case, the glaciers would grow by removing water from the ocean basins and sea level would fall. […]”
The difference in the situations faced in the Dominican Republic and Haiti can be attributed to the strength of the hurricane or to the fact that the latter country has been so terribly mismanaged that practically the entire countryside is deforested or stripped bare of vegetation which has led to erosion, sometimes down to the bedrock.
Yes, we need to talk about the weather. People need to understand how the clouds above their heads are formed and where the water below their feet comes from, we do need to talk about global warming but don’t forget geology and soil science. Either way, please we can’t oversimplify or sensationalize; you are right on the button with that point.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:29 pm