Centerfield: Katrina, Rita, and climate change: Is there a connection?

September 28, 2005

Katrina, Rita, and climate change: Is there a connection?

With Katrina and Rita dominating the news recently, there's a good deal of talk out there about the relationship between hurricanes and climate change (or global warming). And it comes down to this: Are these larger, more powerful hurricanes related to climate change, or not? In other words, has climate changed caused these larger, more powerful hurricanes? (Of course, there's also the lingering question of whether climate change is myth or reality, but, to me, this is a no-brainer akin to evolution -- yes, it's a reality, however much head-in-the-sand naysayers insist on living in denial and avoiding one of the major problems of our time (or any time).

According to USA Today, Admiral James Watkins, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, finds two major culprits, the natural cycle of hurricane frequency, which is currently on the upswing, and climate change, which is raising sea levels and ocean temperatures, thereby intensifying hurricanes. In other words: "The recipe for a hurricane is simple. Conditions are ripe whenever large thunderstorms occur over tropical seawater heated to at least 80 degrees. Essentially, hurricanes are circling weather machines, sucking the heat out of the ocean and turning that energy into high waves and heavy rains."

Reuters: "Scientists say it's not easy to tell if global warming caused hurricanes Katrina and Rita but on Monday they forecast more unpredictable weather as Earth gets hotter. Even skeptics agree that global warming is under way and that human activity is at least in part responsible. Climate experts also agree that this warming is likely to make the weather more extreme -- colder in some places, hotter in others, with droughts and severe rainstorms both more common. 'Global warming, I think, is playing a role in the hurricanes,' said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. 'But a lot of what is going on is natural. What global warming may be doing is making them somewhat more intense,' said Trenberth, a member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.'"

And there are calls for something to be done. The Boston Globe's Derrick Jackson:

As the media screams about the one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the question becomes how many more times does America need to be knocked to the canvas before we answer the bell on global warming...
In this tragic season of hurricanes, research continues to increasingly tie global warming to an increase in the intensity of tropical storms.

One was published last month in the journal Nature by Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Another was published last week in the journal Science by atmospheric researchers at Georgia Tech and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

While there has been no increase in the actual number of storms worldwide, the Georgia Tech/NCAR study found the number of hurricanes that reached categories 4 and 5, with winds of at least 131 miles per hour, have gone from comprising 20 percent of hurricanes in the 1970s to 35 percent today. This is with only a half-degree centigrade rise in tropical surface water temperatures.

The percentage of big storms in the North Atlantic has increased from 20 percent to 25 percent...

In the 1970s, no ocean basin saw more than 25 percent of hurricanes become a 4 or 5. Today, that percentage is 34, 35, and 41 percent, respectively, in the South Indian, East Pacific, and West Pacific oceans. The biggest jump was in the Southwestern Pacific, from 8 percent to 25 percent.

Emanuel, who formerly doubted that hurricane intensity was tied to global warming, said that he was stunned when his research showed that just that half-degree rise in tropical ocean temperatures has also seen a 50 percent rise in average storm peak winds in the North Atlantic and East and West Pacific in the last half century.

Meanwhile, the right-wing (head-in-the-sand, denial-inhabiting) Washington Times has unsurprisingly come out against any link between climate change and larger, more powerful hurricanes like Katrina and Rita. Admittedly, it bases its case largely on the testimony of the director of the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield, who blames the natural cycle of hurricane frequency, but its presentation is decidedly (and characteristically) one-sided -- the case for climate-change (and for its impact on hurricane frequency and strength) is reduced to John Lawton, chairman of Britain's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, who is quoted to look like an idiot.

**********

Regardless (why dwell on the hopelessness of the anti-environmental right?), my friend Grace Miao recently sent me a link to RealClimate, "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists". A recent post -- "Hurricanes and Global Warming -- Is There a Connection?" -- is a must-read. Here's an excerpt:

Katrina was the most feared of all meteorological events, a major hurricane making landfall in a highly-populated low-lying region. In the wake of this devastation, many have questioned whether global warming may have contributed to this disaster. Could New Orleans be the first major U.S. city ravaged by human-caused climate change?
The correct answer -- the one we have indeed provided in previous posts (Storms & Global Warming II, Some recent updates and Storms and Climate Change) -- is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible. We only have one Earth, and it will follow only one of an infinite number of possible weather sequences. It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have. Weather events will always result from a combination of deterministic factors (including greenhouse gas forcing or slow natural climate cycles) and stochastic factors (pure chance).

Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming -- and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.

Yet this is not the right way to frame the question. As we have also pointed out in previous posts, we can indeed draw some important conclusions about the links between hurricane activity and global warming in a statistical sense. The situation is analogous to rolling loaded dice: one could, if one was so inclined, construct a set of dice where sixes occur twice as often as normal. But if you were to roll a six using these dice, you could not blame it specifically on the fact that the dice had been loaded. Half of the sixes would have occurred anyway, even with normal dice. Loading the dice simply doubled the odds. In the same manner, while we cannot draw firm conclusions about one single hurricane, we can draw some conclusions about hurricanes more generally. In particular, the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make -- and possibly already is making -- those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been.

The key connection is that between sea surface temperatures (we abbreviate this as SST) and the power of hurricanes. Without going into technical details about the dynamics and thermodynamics involved in tropical storms and hurricanes (an excellent discussion of this can be found here), the basic connection between the two is actually fairly simple: warm water, and the instability in the lower atmosphere that is created by it, is the energy source of hurricanes. This is why they only arise in the tropics and during the season when SSTs are highest (June to November in the tropical North Atlantic).

SST is not the only influence on hurricane formation. Strong shear in atmospheric winds (that is, changes in wind strength and direction with height in the atmosphere above the surface), for example, inhibits development of the highly organized structure that is required for a hurricane to form. In the case of Atlantic hurricanes, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation tends to influence the vertical wind shear, and thus, in turn, the number of hurricanes that tend to form in a given year. Many other features of the process of hurricane development and strengthening, however, are closely linked to SST.

Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina's path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios.

Fascinating stuff, and a balanced assessment of the relationship between climate change and hurricane frequency and strength. There may be more to the story than climate change, and it may be true that we are witness the upswing of a natural cycle, but it would be wrong to claim that climate change has had nothing to do with what's been going on. Indeed, such claims are nothing if not grossly ignorant grotesquely irresponsible.

Which is yet one more reason why the problem of climate change must be tackled. Now.

**********

Previous posts on climate change at The Reaction:

On climate change, they know the truth in Tuktoyaktuk

Meet the polar bear, a victim of climate change

Posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at September 28, 2005 02:39 AM

Comments

Mike, this is really an aside, but word to the wise. As a long-time Boston Globe reader, I can warn you that Derrick Jackson is one of the least trustworthy opinion columnists on the planet, especially when it comes to selectively citing data. He goes beyond selectivity to willful disregard. So when you think about quoting any facts he cites, consider doing some verification. He borders on being innumerate. As a math editor, I've found his "reasoning," whenever it involves data to be sorely lacking.

The recent upswing in serious storms is indeed troubling. Ask Bob Young to put you onto some good graphs. But as you point out, everyone should always be aware that it's a dicey thing to make attributions based on short term trends. It's hard to say the extent to which these upticks are going to be sustained.

And as a hardcore skeptic on most matters, I have to complain about insulting attacks on those who still harbor doubts. The data that was actually compelling and reliable and comprehensive is just now beginning to be generated. So to dismiss those reticent to jump on board what felt like a chicken little train is IMO, disingenuous.

I'm willing to be concerned about global warning to the extent that I'm convinced its real. The word I have been hearing is that more skeptics are saying OK. So now, IMO, it's time to be concerned in such a way as to ask the next obvious questions that chicken littlers are loath to consider, which are like these: are we sure that all the changes that global warming may bring are certain to be negative ones? I see lots of stories about the negative effects on very warm (more tropical storms!!) and very cold (omigod the permafrost is melting) regions. But what about Minnesota, Northern Maine, and similar climates in other countries. How much are we as a people willing to chaneg our lifes in the service of preserving the presumed ideal of the current climate, and is it reasonable to expect that we can?

Why are we sure that the climate of the 19th century is ideal? And if so, are we sure that the human effect won't be swamped by other long-term natural trends? There have been ice ages before, after all. And periods when the earth was far warmer.

And the biggest one is this:how sure are we that we have enough rope to hang ourselves? If GW has been caused by burning fossil fuels, then what's the maximum damage that we can cause by burning all of it. If you are going to take a several year trend line and point it into the stratosphere, count me out.

Any concern about mitigating the effects of an emerging graph tracking global warming has to concern itself seriously and responsibly with sensible projection. One thing those "rightwingers" you have slammed have been right to point out is that the previous prognostications of environmental alarmists have been embarassingly inaccurate. Personally, I have the sense that many of them are more politicans than scientists, and willing to overstate their case to make political headway and scare the crap out of people. I have little reason to trust such action groups. And I submit to those whose consider themselves responsibly green that such alarmists have done the movement a serious disservice.

it would be wrong to claim that climate change has had nothing to do with what's been going on. Indeed, such claims are nothing if not grossly ignorant grotesquely irresponsible.

Would it be grotesquely irresonsible to say that we currently have no solid data that can be taken as evidence of a causal relationship? because that's how science works...until you can solidly prove yes, the default is unproven, which means no, or not yet. I think that environmentalism is another spot where centrism is badly needed. We need reasonable sober data-driven analysis, sans hysteria. Conflating GW with hurricanes in the aftermath of the recent hurricanes may well in some sense be an opportunity to capture the public imagination, but only as long as it isn't done in such a wqy as to inflame and beget hysteria. The message should be that this a serious question worth detailed study. But if the concerned greens traffic in alarmism and demands for immediate and draconian change they are just going to get ignored.

Posted by: bk at September 28, 2005 09:45 AM

Brian,

I agree with much of what you say. But, just a couple of points. I thought that Michael's point that you mentioned was really that it was irresponsible to disregard climate change as a cause without serious consideration, not that it was stupid to question whether climate change was real. The concern I have is that the debunkers on the right often refuse to even consider the possibility that GW is real.

Second, your point about how do we know that the 19th century climate is ideal? We don't, but we at least know that it was sustainable and livable. We can't say that for certainty about climate changes brought about by human action. You are right--it's possible that those changes could be beneficial in some regards. But we can't really know if that's the case and there is always the problem of unintended consequences. So, it seems to me that it is a real gamble to count on climate change being beneficial. At least with the natural climate, we know what we are getting.

I agree with you that a lot of so-called scientific statements reflect an agenda more than objective analysis. But probably not all of it. I think it's too easy to simply dismiss concern over climate change as propaganda. My concern, like yours, is that the environmentalists are too willing to assume that the only important value is the environment and ignoring economic concerns. But the converse is true too-conservatives are too quick to ignore or make fun of any concern with the environment. And, frankly, given what they have done in the past, I don't have a lot of faith that we are seeing objective analysis about climate change coming out of this administration.

Posted by: Marc at September 28, 2005 10:01 AM

The call to "do something" about climate change is silly, for the same reason that blaming human activity for causing the change is. The climate is going to change, regardless of what we do. Humans routinely think we can control/disregard/overcome nature, and we are all too often shown the foolishness of that belief. We're too small to control, for good or bad, something as complex and powerful as the climate of an entire planet.

Our efforts would be much better spent to try to predict climate change and adjust to it than to try to massage a system we don't understand, hoping to end up with something we think we want. Law of unintended consequences, anyone?

Posted by: Justin at September 28, 2005 10:22 AM

Well, not not forget that the call to "do something' is really in essence a call to "stop doing something." there's a reasonable point to be made here that potentially human activity represents playing with fire. It is very true that the only constant is change, and he human challeneg will alwys be to adapt to that change.

But from there, it's a substantial logical leap to say that because we can expect change and may not be able to control it, we should therefore throw up our hands. It seems reasonable to me to prsume that human actions are having some impact. With hard work, we can try to figure out to some extent what that impact is, and if the impact is especially deleterious, we should try whichever activities are the cause.

Here's the thing Justin: we are already currently "massaging" the system by adding a crapload of byroducts of the burning of fossil fuels. So if you are suggesting that we should minimize impacting a system we don't understand, then aren't you advocating a curtailment of fossil fuel burning? What am i missing?

Posted by: bk at September 28, 2005 10:43 AM

As far as Katrina and Rita specifically are concerned, an explanation not involving global warning is in yesterday's NY Times Science section. The main factor seems to be loop currents in the Gulf of Mexico, which would explain why both Katrina and Rita were Class 1/tropical storm before entering the Gulf, but became Category 5s in the Gulf.

On global warming in general: the sharp increase in the percentage of storms becoming category 4 and 5, as reported on realclimate.org, is something which is consistent with global warming.

>>>it would be wrong to claim that climate change has had nothing to do with what's been going on. Indeed, such claims are nothing if not grossly ignorant grotesquely irresponsible.
Would it be grotesquely irresonsible to say that we currently have no solid data that can be taken as evidence of a causal relationship?

Not all such claims can be categorized as such! There is a sharp difference between making a claim that "we don't know that global warming is involved" and claiming that "climate change has had nothing to do with what's going on." The latter is engaging in the same sort of certainty you claim is your only objection. It is one thing to quote critics who rely on genuine holes in our knowlege of climate science, but when someone like Sen. Inhofe claims that it's all "a hoax," that cannot be construed as anything other than "the jury is in, there's no global warming."

For what to do, the important thing is to balance the probability of human-induced climate change occuring, the consequences of it occuring and costs of mitigation. Those who criticise environmentalist exaggeration of the first two ignore the right-wing demagogues exaggeration of the last. Simply put, becoming more energy efficient has costs in becoming more efficient but can have substantial savings, both direct from using less energy and indirect from not needing to build infrasture for more energy consumption. For example, building a house with better insulation costs more money for the insulation, but it reduces energy requirements for indoor climate control and if done sufficiently can reduce the need for HVAC infrastructure offseting the insulation costs in other areas of construction. For more information see the September 2005 issue of Scientific American.

Posted by: Scott Smith at September 28, 2005 11:33 AM

Would it be grotesquely irresonsible to say that we currently have no solid data that can be taken as evidence of a causal relationship?

Scott I'm not trying to defend all other claims. I'm just trying to make an accurate and defensible statement of my understanding. I'm not siding with any of those who want to call "hoax." The only thing I'm trying to defend is that there is a legitmate skeptical viewpoint. That legitimate view questions BOTH "environmentalist exaggeration" and subsequent "right-wing demagogues exaggeration." the skeptical view, which I'm arguing is the centrist view here, is anti-exaggeration. As a skeptical centrist, I object to whatever extent Michael is lumping skeptics in with partisan deniers. I'm not a denier, I'm a doubter. If you are a genuine green, you need to recognize that the greens need to get the doubters on board, and the only ticket is compelling data.

Posted by: bk at September 28, 2005 01:02 PM

Just to add fuel to the fire. A friend recently pointed out to me an article in the L.A. Times (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050921/sc_nm/space_mars_dc ) which quotes NASA scientists as determining that the polar ice caps of Mars are also melting....and that Mars appears to currently be going through a period of global warming just as the Earth is.

I suppose our driving of SUV's is responsible for Global Warming on Mars as well as hurricanes on earth? Or could it just be that it's not the global warming skeptics who are the ones burying thier heads in the sand and maybe human action isn't as significant a factor as some people would like to believe?

The bottom line is that global climatology is in incredibly complex issue with a myriad of contributory factors that all interact with each other in a host of ways and our understanding of it is on far less sure footing then many so called experts would like to portray.

I'm no flat earther and I'm no defender of industry at all costs advocate. I supported laws regulating the amount of CFC's we put up into the atmosphere to keep the 0zone hole from expanding. I support laws against pumping huge quantities of toxins into our aquifers and vast amounts of sulfides into the atmosphere to come raining back down on us. I support cleaning up our bays and harbors. I support strongly devoting resources to alternative and sustainable energy sources... like wind and solar.... those make sense REGARDLESS of Global Warming. I'm a HUGE supporter of trying to limit human population growth.... something that is the LARGEST and MOST relavent factor in determining how much of an effect humanity will have on the environment but those on the LEFT have considered TABOO to even mention for fear of being labled racist and anti-immigrant.

Bottom line though, we need to base our actions on cold scientific fact.... not overblown rhetoric and cause advocacy. It's not sticking your head in the sand to recognize that even scientists sometimes try to represent (and I'm sure honestly believe) that they have alot better handle on things then is often the case.

Posted by: Cengel at September 28, 2005 01:11 PM

If you want to get beyond newspaper articles and look at the real science going on use the realclimate.org link that Michael provided. They have posts about things like isotopic analysis to determine the source of the CO2 and similar weighty subjects. It's a good site to start borrowing beyond the veneer of mass media.

My money is on Mother Nature teaching us a very nasty lesson about science, skepticism and politics. From looking at the data, next years should be even more interesting.

And this year isn't over yet.

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 28, 2005 02:31 PM

That was supposed to be "burrowing" not "borrowing".

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 28, 2005 02:39 PM

My money is on Mother Nature teaching us a very nasty lesson about science, skepticism and politics. From looking at the data, next years should be even more interesting.

My money is on Mother Nature reinforcing the value of skepticism. Again. Just like it has every other time. Science without skepticism is not science at all, it's credulity.

Skeptical Enquirer Online Articles

Posted by: bk at September 28, 2005 03:35 PM

which quotes NASA scientists as determining that the polar ice caps of Mars are also melting....and that Mars appears to currently be going through a period of global warming just as the Earth is.

Damn!!! those little Mars rovers must put out a helluva lot of emissions!!! Posted by: c3 at September 28, 2005 03:46 PM

bk: Skepticism is a wonderful thing. I use it a lot myself.

But how do you draw the line between skeptical and foolhardy.
What about those who stayed in NOLA. Which were they? If the storm had missed they would be labeled skeptical. Instead many were stuck on roof tops and labeled foolhardy.

When it's your life hanging in the balance, it's better to error on the side of caution.

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 28, 2005 04:09 PM

which quotes NASA scientists as determining that the polar ice caps of Mars are also melting....and that Mars appears to currently be going through a period of global warming just as the Earth is.

Don't you know that Halliburton is already drilling for oil on Mars? I know, even the progressive press have been reluctant to reveal ALL the fantastic details and have downplayed how far along the project really is, but those of with inside connections to the Rovian Illuminati know the sordid truth!

Posted by: Tully at September 28, 2005 04:17 PM

When it's your life hanging in the balance, it's better to error on the side of caution.

Agreed. I don't see what's to be skeptical about in the verifiable facts of the data that a cat4 or cat5 hurricane is headed right at you. Now you're not talking about skepticism, you're talking about pure probabilistic assessment of risk. The risk is there because the hurricane exists. It may or may not miss you, sure, but I think if you're considering staying put under such circumstances you are not exercising skepticism, you're simply gambling.

Now I'm not sure in that last comment whether or to what extent your want to relate this to global warming. I'd say we've got a certain level of certainty about the existence itself, one that's greater than it used to be before. And we've got a much lower level of certainty about the extent of its danger, since we are not entirely certain about the whether, when, how much, how fast, etc. etc.

I'm not a big believer in any pure precautionary principle that it's always better to be safe than to be sorry, because this ignores the possiblity that by trying too hard to be safe, you may be sorry later on that you made such a big deal about it. Opportunity costs. There are no free lunches.

Posted by: bk at September 28, 2005 04:27 PM

I agree with Brian to an extent about the dangers of unrestricted application of the precautionary principle. But with respect to global warming, I don't think it's necessary to follow the principal to it's illogical conclusion to still think that it makes some sense to err on the side of caution. That doesn't mean you have to completely disrupt the global economy (as a lot of sky is falling environmentalists admittedly would like), but it seems just a foolhardy to wait for absolutely definitive evidence of global warming. It seems to me that there are many steps you could take to combat global warming that would be good in themselves even if global warming is not the problem some think and that would not require that we return to the Pleistocene. ("Return to the Pleistocene" was the motto apparently of some nutty radical environmentalists.) My guess is you will probably never have completely definitive proof of human effects on global warming, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to take at least some precautionary measures.

Posted by: Marc at September 28, 2005 04:56 PM

This is worth referencing here, I think:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml

Posted by: Justin at September 28, 2005 05:03 PM

Agreed. I don't see what's to be skeptical about in the verifiable facts of the data that a cat4 or cat5 hurricane is headed right at you. Now you're not talking about skepticism, you're talking about pure probabilistic assessment of risk. The risk is there because the hurricane exists.

To carry your example over to climate change, something equivalent to a major storm being present would be for a quantity of the polar ice caps to melt which is clearly greater than anything that can be explained by natural cycles. Accordingly, then we could proclaim with absolute certainty that the earth is warming and take corrective actions to make sure that the rest of the ice caps don't melt, raising sea levels over 100 feet. One problem, by the time this happens, there would be enough heat in the atmosphere to melt the rest of the ice caps with just additional time. This is why we have to rely on the best information we can obtain from modeling and indirect methods.

Posted by: Scott Smith at September 28, 2005 05:17 PM

When I used the word "demagogues" in my initial comment, I was not referring to the deniers' assessment of the risks of climate change, but to their assessment of the costs of taking ANY action to prevent it. With several states adopting a cap-and-trade approach to CO2 equivalents, we should have data in a few years on actual costs of mitigation and estimates of how many tons of CO2 equivalent can be reduced by taking that approach nationally.

Posted by: Scott Smith at September 28, 2005 05:24 PM

I certainly wouldn't hurt if we had a nice Newtonian crisis like a comet on a collision course. Then you can point to the sky and say “We're all going to die”.

Instead we have have a fuzzy crisis were the experts say things like “probably”, “may influence” and “ indications are”.

I work as a physicists so I'm use to talking like that. I'm more than will to act when a colleague say “indications are”, because I know I won't be getting a more definitive answer till it's to late.

Thus far the public has not been willing to give up their “death star” size SUV's because some geek says “probably”. I figure one more catastrophic multiple cat 5 hurricane season will tip the balance, and in two more years they will start lynching the skeptics.

Wellll, probably lynch the skeptics. I mean all indication are the skeptics will be lynched, but other factors my influence the final outcome :-}

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 28, 2005 06:35 PM

Tully;

Don't you know that Halliburton is already drilling for oil on Mars?

At least its safe from hurricane damage.

Posted by: c3 at September 28, 2005 07:50 PM

Having ice at both poles is actually a rarity in Earth's history. In fact, the average temperature of the planet has been 10-15 degrees higher than today. Without burning a single bit of fossil fuels.

I'm curious, say this warming episode is being driven by increased solar output. What corrective actions would you suggest we take?

Posted by: Justin at September 29, 2005 07:23 AM

I was hoping no one would make this leap, or maybe I was. I respond to this by saying, "well, no, you can't really carry the analogy of probabilisitic risk assessment of cat4/5 hurricaneses over to global warmingses." We already have a very good idea about the tangible risk that a cat4/5 hurricane represents. So in that case, the question is "how willing are you to roll the dice in the face of the well-established risk?"

With global warming, we don't know what the risk is yet. Even presuming that all of the current warming is due to man, we don't know how much warming will occur, how soon it will occur, and what each and every outcome both positive and negative will be. But I do agree with whoever said its reasonable to be cautious especially when there are mitigating steps that can be taken that would be good anyways.

Here's the thing: if the most alarmist of the GW Greens are the closest to being right about what the future holds, we're screwed. I freely admit that. But my experience has been that the most alarmist are seldom closest to right in a useful substantive way. Anyone who wants to cite exceptions is welcome to trot them out, but I already know they exist, which is why I said "seldom" instead of never.

I have serious doubts that the sea level is going to suddenly rise 100 feet, and this is the sort of scary stuff that alarmists traffic in, and they like to traffic it without mentioning things like say "by rising a few millimeters per year for centuries."

Everyday adults look at their own climate and see no or precious little change over what they experienced as children. So for the vast majority, it feels reasonable to presume that either there isn't much change going on, or that whatever change is happening will be gradual, and thus manageable. Of course, this discounts the possibility that the change leads to the passage of the environment past some threshold, at which point it becomes substantially different and substantially worse. This discounting goes on in very large part due to the poor record of the most vocal apocalyptic predictions about population explosion, running out of oil and water, and so on, not to mention the experience of a generation with scientific reports telling us first one thing, then another, then a 3rd about what's good and what's bad for you.

So if the GW apocalypse comes to pass precisely in the way that the most alarmist are saying it will, they'll pat themselves on the back and blame the feckless public for ignoring them. The feckless public will point to the generation of wolf-criers, and deal with a sudden surplus of water, a dearth of real estate, more vacation spots that have monsoon seasons, and far fewer ski resorts. Collectively, we'll have brought it upon ourselves. Stay tuned.

Posted by: bk at September 29, 2005 09:43 AM

Doomsayers have been around for centuries, starting with David Ricardo who predicted that mankind would face massive starvation because of increased population. Paul Ehrlich wrote a book titled "The Population Bomb." IN general, as Brian says, the most extreme predictions never happen, in part because such predictions are based on simple extrapolations of current trends, which almost never happens. For example, there were predictions in the 1800s about how NY would become inundate with horse dung--obviously this didn't come about because of the advent of cars. We came up with more efficent ways of growing food and began having fewer children (at least in parts of the world). Technology will have an effect. People discount the most extreme predictions.

What bothers me, though, is the way that many on the right simply discount the issue, either because (1) they think we have time to deal with the problem later, or (2) they think the problem really doesn't exist. I don't know what the thinking was at the time of the Clean Air and the Clean Water Acts but I would imagine many conservatives were against those laws. Yet, they have clearly had beneficial effects even if we can't say that the most dire effects would have resulted from not having the laws.

Frankly, I think people are right to be skeptical about such dire predictions. Some of the predictions are made to advance an agenda. I was always somewhat skeptical about Carl Sagan's theory of nuclear winter. But, by the same token, you can't allow skepticism to override a rational concern with climate change. It seems to me that many scientists have expressed concern and I doubt that they are all intellectually dishonest and advancing an agenda.

Posted by: Marc at September 29, 2005 10:48 AM

Correction: It was Thomas Malthus, not David Ricardo that predicted doom because of overpopulation and starvation.

Posted by: Marcq at September 29, 2005 10:53 AM

Marc,

I think it's legitimate to be concerned about potential climate change. I even think it makes sense to take some precautionary steps to head off the potential problem if those steps don't have a SEVERE price tag in themselves. As has been pointed out, there are many steps that make sense to do regardless of global warming.

The problem is that in addition to a legitimate field of scientific inquiry Global Warming has become a big bussiness both politicaly and monetarly (in terms of grants and the creation and funding of organizations, non-profit donations, book sales, etc) and unfortunately alot of individuals ARE pushing steps that do have a severe price tag... and may not even neccesarly address the problem.

Your right that there are people on the Right who wouldn't even acknowledge the problem if it slapped them on the face...because they don't want to contemplate the consequences of dealing with it. However, there are plenty who are simply saying... lets not try to pretend we know things with greater surety then we do. It's very difficult to formulate the correct solution to address a problem if you don't understand the nature and extent of the problem very well..... and pretending that you understand it better then you actualy do can lead to some very poor decision making. Heck, we don't have to look too far in todays politics to see examples of that do we?

Posted by: cengel at September 29, 2005 12:58 PM

We may already be paying a steep price. There's a village up in Alaska, Shishmaref, that has to be moved at a cost 140 million dollars.

A less than little explanation as to how global warming can influence climate. In a basic model the intense equatorial heat causes the air to expand vertically and the center of the airmass to rise in the equator. Up in the cooler polar regions the denser air mass has a lower center of gravity -it's closer to the surface- and so you have higher surface air pressure at the poles. This gives you a pressure gradient from the denser north to the lighter south. The movement of denser polar air towards the equator is meridional circulation or flow. THere's actually more than one big flow in each hemispehre - depending on teh seasons there are 2 or 3, hence we have a polar jet stream and a subtropical jet stream. Heating up the atmosphere warms the poles more than it warms the equator (basic thermodynamics) and this decreases the meridional circulation. Current thought is that this means that the jet streams can meander more to the north and south and this leads to great variability in climate. Doesn't mean things get warmer, just more variability in local climate. This could include hotter or cooler seasons.
ANother problem and a potentially bigger one. This warming means polar ice melts sooner and less of an ice pack will be apparent in the arctic and antarctic ocean regions each season. Water absorbs a LOT fo heat compared to snow and ice which tends to reflect more. This turns into a positive feedback mechanism of more warming, less ice, less cooling etc.. That's the scary scenario. Even scarier, once the Arctic ice goes the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may not be further behind.
Russian climatologists in the 60's like Budyko played around with this scenario because the russians were thinking that pumping warmer ocean water from the Bering Sea could halp keep Arctic seaports open longer if not all year round.

LAst but not least there are huge resevoirs of methane hydrates in the ocean. They may be a source of future natural gas but there are some major problems if oceans warm up a bit on their own and you start getting large outgassing of these compounds into the atmostphere. Of particular concern are methane hydrate deposits in teh Carribean since they are closer to the surface.

Seems to me prudence should steer us towards avoiding making things worse.

Posted by: Marcus at September 29, 2005 06:33 PM

The methane hydrates are the wild card. If they go, we could end up in a bad "Mad Max" sequel.

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 29, 2005 08:30 PM

"If you want to get beyond newspaper articles and look at the real science going on use the realclimate.org link that Michael provided. They have posts about things like isotopic analysis to determine the source of the CO2 and similar weighty subjects. It's a good site to start borrowing beyond the veneer of mass media."

-----------

Bob,

I think it's just this sort of attitude that leads people to question the objectivity of many of the proponents of GW hypothesis. The article may have been published in a newspaper but it wasn't a reporter that made the observation it was Michael Malin, "principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera" that did.

Now is it your contention that Mr. Malin's observations were inaccurate or that his statements were distorted by the paper?

Is it you contention that observation of a similar phenomenom on Earth's closest neighbor in the solar systems holds no relevance for the study of causation of the same phenomenom on earth?

I looked at the link provided by Michael. I'm not a climatologist or even a scientist (I'm an engineer) so I have limited ability to judge the accuracy of the material they present. I tried to follow thier arguements as well as I could. However, the tone evinced by the site did seem more that of a strident partisan defender of a position rather then a dispassionate and objective observer willing to consider all data based on it's merits regardless of the implications it has for a particular theory (i.e. A scientist).

THAT I am able to judge, even without having the appropriate expertiese to evaluate the substance of thier arguements.

Again, I'm no die-hard anti-environmentalist. I'm willing to believe that the global warming phenomenom is real. I'm willing to believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions may even be the primary cause of such. What I'm not willing to do is accept this hypothesis on blind faith simply because the "scientific community" say so. Not when the "scientific community" seems hell bent to blindly dismiss, discount or riducule any critic or any data that casts doubt on thier nicely fomulated pre-concieved notion of whats going....or calls into question whether they really know as much as they claim. Note I use "scientific community" in quotes because it seems that any scientist who questions this particular doctrine no longer counts as a member of the "scientific community".

I'm a huge supporter of scientific method and science but from where I sit, what I'm observing resembles religious dogma alot more then anything I was taught about science.

Posted by: cengel at September 30, 2005 01:51 PM

Cengel: None of the above. I was just commenting on the realclimate.org site. If you click on some of their links they take you to actual professional journals rather than mass media.

No mars comment was intended. The earth is cover with thermometers and people are still arguing about whether its warming. If we can't agree about whats going on here why talk about mars? I think mars is a red planet herring. (Besides everyone knows the Martians come out at night and mess with the instruments.)

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 30, 2005 02:14 PM

Ask a for instance: A couple of minutes of clicking on real climate and I found a link to a NATIONAL ACADEMIES report on “RADIATIVE FORCING OF CLIMATE CHANGE”

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095069/html

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 30, 2005 02:21 PM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

September 28, 2005

Katrina, Rita, and climate change: Is there a connection?