Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

As Climate Changes Threatens U.S. Gulf States, Federal Agencies Twiddle Thumbs

By Chris Mooney, Science Progress. Posted April 13, 2008.


We ought to be outraged at how poor a job our government is doing when it comes to processing information about global warming.
Advertisement

In late 2006, as I was completing my second book, Storm World-which concerns the relationship between hurricanes and global warming-there was one pesky outstanding piece of information that never seemed to fall into place. Considering the strong grounds that we have for thinking that hurricanes will change in some way due to global warming (and probably worsen, and definitely coast atop higher seas), it seemed obvious to me that relevant government agencies should be taking that fact into account as they go about performing their taxpayer-funded duties.

And so began my long and still unrequited quest to find out what the heck the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is doing with this information as it endeavors to re-defend the City of New Orleans.

Right after Katrina, in October of 2005, the Corps quickly organized a research process to study, among other matters, "risks to New Orleans and the region posed by future tropical storms." And no wonder: The scientific analysis of how hurricanes will change-and, equally important, how much sea levels will rise-will obviously be of dramatic significance to any attempt to defend the city in the future. Indeed, without such analysis it's hard to see how residents, businesses, and government leaders can have sufficient confidence to move back to New Orleans, rebuild their lives, and reinvest there.

So you would think this would be a priority and would be promptly executed...or at least, that's what you would think if you were from Mars and had never hear anything about the legendary Corps. Here we are, fully two years later, and all the agency has produced on the subject is an "interim draft report" that was recently eviscerated by a National Academy of Sciences panel charged with reviewing it. My favorite comment from the NAS critique? I quote: "Central pressure is measured in millibars, not megabytes (VIII-38)."

Initially, the relevant Corps research was supposed to be completed by June 2006. Yet even today, the Corps still hasn't done enough cogent work for the NAS to even perform a "complete review or a full validation of the method that was used." Apparently the Corps is trying to take climate change into account in its planning, but it's unclear exactly how-one of the many matters on which the National Academies' experts fault the agency. "Given the potentially serious consequences that [climate change] may have for New Orleans and all coastal U.S. areas affected by hurricanes," writes the NAS panel, "it would be prudent and appropriate to provide detailed guidance for methods to account for climate change effects."

Just what I've been thinking for well over a year now.

Americans ought to be outraged at how poor a job their government is doing when it comes to processing information about global warming and using it to better prepare the Gulf Coast region for hurricane risks. And it's not just the bumbling Corps that's at fault-or just the fate of New Orleans that's at stake. No-what I'm describing is part of a far broader and much more nefarious pattern under the Bush administration of either ignoring mounting climate risks, refusing to seriously study them, or refusing to release information about them to the public in a timely and prominent way.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, hurricanes, army corps, hurricane katrina, new orleans, gulf coast

Chris Mooney is a Contributing Editor for 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.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Chris Mooney, you were completely correct in your first book
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 13, 2008 6:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "The Republican War on Science" by Chris
Mooney, 2005, Basic Books. It has the following URLs:
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.chriscmooney.com/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05268/576883.stm

See also:
"Undermining Science, suppression and distortion in the
Bush Administration" by Seth Shulman, 2006

"The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney says:

"Because Trofim Lysenko convinced Josef Stalin that
genetics is wrong, 12 million people died of starvation.
The coal companies convinced President George W. Bush
[and Senator Inohe] that global warming hasn't happened
and 12 hundred people died in hurricanes in 2005. For the
same reason, people died in the wildfires in Oklahoma."
12 hundred is less than 12 million, but GWB is still
comparable to Stalin. Both adopted anti-science policies
for ideological reasons and thereby murdered large numbers
of their own citizens.
George W. Bush favors a form of "democracy" called
Theocracy.
There is something that needs to be made explicit: Truth
is not determined by a vote of scientists. Scientists are not
authorities. Nature is the Only authority. There is only
one vote that counts, and Nature casts it. It isn't just "not
nice" to fool Mother Nature, it is impossible. Scientists
understand and believe this so innately that they never say
it, but other people may think that scientists wield power or
authority.
Reference: book: "Science and Immortality" by Charles B.
Paul 1980 University of California Press
The Eloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791)
page 99: "Science is not so much a natural as a moral
philosophy".
page 106: Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the
Only authority. When you try to disobey Nature [In
older language: "When you try to tell God how to run the
Universe".], the result is less subtle than a train wreck: The
rocket explodes on the launch pad. Oklahomans die in
wild fires when it should be winter. The Gulf coast suffers
the worst hurricane season ever. Tornado season extends
into January.
Book: "The Long Summer, How Climate Changed
Civilization" by Brian Fagan 2004 Basic Books
Summary: Small climate changes caused the fall of many
civilizations.

The Religious Right is also giving a war on Science, trying
to convince people that Evolution is wrong and trying to
prevent the teaching of Science in school. As we all know,
religion is caused by mental illness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no hope for New Orleans
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 13, 2008 6:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no hope for New Orleans anyway, except to move the
city to Vicksburg. Sea level could rise 400 feet in a century
or 2. Since the natives of New Orleans refuse to understand that,
what could the federal government do if it wanted to? Since the
republican party has a lot of people who say: "God wouldn't let
that happen," it has to happen. As I have said many times on
Alternet, the paleontologists have discovered that global warming,
regardless of cause, leads to an extinction event when sulfur
bacteria take over the hot oceans and generate H2S, a poison gas.
Worrying about New Orleans is a waste of time. We have a
much bigger problem to worry about. We have to reduce our
production of CO2 by 90% by 2050 and the curve has to start
down by 2015. We don't have time between now and 2015 to do
the research necessary to get wind and solar power to provide the
energy our civilization needs to operate, so we are "stuck" with
converting all coal fired power plants to nuclear at the fastest
possible rate. Let's ignore New Orleans and get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A plan to avoid extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 13, 2008 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just in case the republicans/religionists win, we need a backup
plan to avoid extinction. [NO this DOES NOT mean a plan to
save YOU.] 6.5 Billion people will not be saved by any possible
species saving plan. By species saving plan, I mean a plan to
avoid extinction, not a plan to avoid death. To save the species,
in principle, one pregnant teenager has a 50/50 chance of being a
sufficient number of people to save. This plan will not save the
elite or the rich or any one individual. It will save whoever
happens to be doing research somewhere in space where there
exists the ability to sustain at least one human life without re-
supply from earth. This plan is called "LifeBoat."

The space station we have now is too small to be a self sustaining
colony. The space station we have now does not count because it
relies on supplies from earth. We really need self-sustaining
colonies for the LifeBoat plan to work. That could be a city-size
space station in its own orbit. A colony could be an airtight space
station-like structure on or underground in Mars or the moon or an
asteroid. A colony could mean Mars modified to be like Earth.
See "New Earths" by Jim Oberg. Terraforming modifies the
climate and atmosphere of another planet to allow earth-life to
live there in the open. Anything in between also counts. The
self-sustaining colony has to be just big enough to survive without
contact with earth and has to have enough people to breed more
people. In other words, it has to have at least 1 woman and stored
sperms or 1 very young woman pregnant with a boy.

At first, the entire group could be 3 astronauts who happen to be
drilling a hole on Mars at the time. They will be "chosen" by the
fact that H2S gas has killed everybody on earth, cutting off their
return to earth. What LifeBoat has to do is get NASA to put
more money into research like growing vegetables on the space
station, moon base or wherever. That way, whenever the disaster
happens, survival in space will be more likely. There are no
guarantees. As time goes on, the LifeBoat gets bigger. Larger
numbers of researchers will be on the moon, Mars and asteroids.
Bigger space stations will be built in free space. Eventually,
there will be some space habitat that will be able to support
several people independently. Life will not be good, just
survivable. For example, their only food might be nutritious
pond scum. There is a race between the disaster [H2S] and the
space program. The race decides whether Homo Sap lives or
dies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Report from the paleontology department
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 13, 2008 7:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When agriculture fails, you will forget about New Orleans
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 13, 2008 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 13, 2008 11:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

'Six steps to hell' - summary of Six Degrees as published in the Guardian
23 April 07:

1ºC Nebraska ...shortened... These innocuous-looking hills were once desert, part
of an immense system of sand dunes that spread across the Great Plains from
Texas in the south to the Canadian prairies in the north. Six thousand years ago,
when temperatures were about 1C warmer than today in the US, these deserts may
have looked much as the Sahara does today. ....shortened... devastating
agriculture and driving out human inhabitants on a scale far larger than the 1930s
“Dustbowl” exodus.....shortened...

2ºC ....shortened...Two degrees is also enough to cause the eventual complete
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise global sea levels by seven
metres. ...shortened...

3ºC Scientists estimate that we have at best 10 years to bring down global carbon
emissions if we are to stabilise world temperatures within two degrees of their
present levels. ....shortened... 3C may be the “tipping point” where global
warming could run out of control, leaving us powerless to intervene as planetary
temperatures soar. The centre of this predicted disaster is the Amazon, where the
tropical rainforest, which today extends over millions of square kilometres, would
burn down in a firestorm of epic proportions. ...shortened... Once the trees have
gone, desert will appear and the carbon released by the forests’ burning will be
joined by still more from the world’s soils. This could boost global temperatures
by a further 1.5ºC – tippping us straight into the four-degree world.
....shortened...

4ºC At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed,
it could happen much earlier. ....shortened... hundreds of billions of tonnes of
carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost – particularly in Siberia – enter the melt
zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense
quantities. ....shortened...

5ºC ....shortened... methane hydrates. This unlikely substance, a sort of ice-like
combination of methane and water that is only stable at low temperatures and high
pressure, may have burst into the atmosphere from the seabed in an immense
“ocean burp”, sparking a surge in global temperatures ....shortened... . Today vast
amounts of these same methane hydrates still sit on subsea continental shelves. As
the oceans warm, they could be released once more in a terrifying echo of that
methane belch of 55 million years ago. In the process, moreover, the seafloor
could slump as the gas is released, sparking massive tsunamis ....shortened...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Six degrees continued
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 13, 2008 11:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
6ºC ....shortened... end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. By the end
of this calamity, up to 95% of species were extinct. The end-Permian wipeout is
the nearest this planet has ever come to becoming just another lifeless rock drifting
through space. ....shortened... most of the world’s plant cover was removed in a
catastrophic bout of soil erosion. Rocks also show a “fungal spike” as plants and
animals rotted in situ. Still more corpses were washed into the oceans, helping to
turn them stagnant and anoxic. ....shortened...

One scientific paper investigating “kill mechanisms” during the end-Permian
suggests that methane hydrate explosions “could destroy terrestrial life almost
entirely”. Acting much like today’s fuel-air explosives (or “vacuum bombs”),
major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times
the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Whatever happened back then to wipe out 95% of life on Earth ....shortened... If
they tell us one thing above all, it is this: that we mess with the climatic thermostat
of this planet at our extreme – and growing – peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So how does this fit in?
Posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein on Apr 14, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming Researchers Reverse Stance on Storm Intensity

Michael Asher
DAILY TECH

Author of the theory that global warming breeds stronger hurricanes recants his view

Noted Hurricane Expert Kerry Emanuel has publicly reversed his stance on the impact of Global Warming on Hurricanes. Saying "The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," Emanuel has released new research indicating that even in a rapidly warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity will not be substantially affected.

"The results surprised me," says Emanuel, one of the media's most quoted figures on the topic.

The view that global warming has limited impact on hurricane strength has been previously reported in numerous DailyTech articles.

Emanuel, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, is the author of numerous books and research papers on climate change. For over twenty years, he has argued that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms. In fact, his 1987 paper is often cited as the first appearance of the theory itself.

His 2005 research -- published just one month before Hurricane Katrina struck -- made world headlines, and was heralded as the "final proof" that Global Warming was already having severe impacts on daily lives. Overnight, Emanuel became a media darling. The following year, Time Magazine named him to their "100 People Who Shape Our World" list.

In 2006, Al Gore used an image of a smokestack spawning a hurricane to promote his movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

Emanuel's newest work, co-authored with two other researchers, simulates hurricane conditions nearly 200 years in the future. The research -- the first to mesh global climate models with small-scale high-resolution simulations of individual storms -- found that while storm strength rises slightly in some areas, it falls in others -- and the total number of worldwide storms actually declines slightly.

Emanuel's reversal is certain to reverberate through political circles as well; many politicians and candidates are using the hurricane threat to compel action on climate change.

http://tinyurl.com/5tqkqm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EmmanuelGoldstein: Ask www.RealClimate.org
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 14, 2008 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or I will ask RealClimate for you. I expect that RealClimate will
[or has] post a long comment on this issue [on
www.RealClimate.org, not here]. They would know who Kerry
Emanuel is and they know a lot about climate models because
they are climate modelers. Hurricanes are not the whole climate.
In fact, hurricanes are too small to care about in the broader
scheme of things. The broader effect of an extinction event is
written in the rocks. Regardless of what happens to hurricanes,
we have warmed the climate by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since the
year 1750 and we continue to warm the climate at an ever
increasing rate. Regardless of what happens to hurricanes, we are
in danger of extinction. You can't deny global warming and the
danger just because somebody changed a model. Scientists never
said science is perfect, just better than any other way of deciding.
Science is self-correcting. We don't expect to get perfect
answers, but ONLY science tells you what the probable errors are.
For example, I don't have a date for when the extinction event will
occur. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the date. It could
be as soon as 1 century from now. But that is irrelevant to the
necessity for action. There are a lot of uncertainties in the timing
of positive feedbacks. Once we go extinct, we can't come back
and do it over. Therefore, we have to err on the side of caution.
Kerry Emanuel's new answers on hurricanes changes absolutely
nothing of what I have said in my posts above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whack-a-mole
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 14, 2008 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
7 March 2008
The global cooling mole
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=536
By John Fleck http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/ and William
Connolley http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling
canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global
warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was
imminent?" - must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-
mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down
the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of
us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he
quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in
his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing
anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of
what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time.
But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points
aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is
needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age,
it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they
thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-
politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other
hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then
the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic
Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond
the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at
the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time
human time scales. The results are currently in press at the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice
has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended
version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting
in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different
from what you see today. There was far less integration among the
various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote
sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in
their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in
the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between
1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral


In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you
believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were
doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any
changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping
its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does,
this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful
discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying
back in the 1970s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of a number of RealClimate comments on hurricanes
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 14, 2008 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.realclimate.org/
index.php/archives/2007/04/
shear-turbulence/
24 April 2007
Hurricane Spin
Filed under: Hurricanes Climate Science — group @ 11:47 AM

Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt
A recent paper by Vecchi and Soden (preprint) published in
the journal Geophysical Research Letters has been widely
touted in the news (and some egregiously bad editorials),
and the blogosphere as suggesting that increased vertical
wind shear associated with tropical circulation changes
may offset any tendencies for increased hurricane activity
in the tropical Atlantic due to warming oceans. Some have
even gone so far as to state that this study proves that
recent trends in hurricane activity are part of a natural cycle.
Most of this is just 'spin' (pun intended), but as usual,
the real story is a little more nuanced.
..... most of the article skipped.......
It remains the case that the modeling of Hurricane-climate
change interactions is still at a relatively primitive stage and
this study is very unlikely to be the last word. We will of
course follow the future developments closely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Changes in hurricane theory
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 14, 2008 9:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.realclimate.org/
index.php/archives/2006/03/
reactions-to-tighter-hurricane
-intensitysst-link/
"Fox News interviewed Kerry Emanuel (author of a related study
last year, which was slightly modified following comments by
Landsea in Nature), who is also unsurprised that the longer term
trends are related to SSTs and not to any of the other factors."
"Slightly modified" may have become "totally changed" in the
hands of a journalist. Sensationalism sells, slight modifications
don't sell. That is your most likely truthful explanation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]