Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Storm World: Understanding hurricanes today

New book on hurricanes and global warming

Posted by Kit Stolz (Guest Contributor) at 11:03 PM on 16 Jul 2007

Storm WorldOn his site, science writer Chris Mooney recently posted a fascinating pair of graphs, courtesy of collaborator Matt Nisbet, which chart public interest in global warming.

As the years march by, the charts show what happens when scientific reports are released, when politics intervene -- and when hurricanes strike, as measured by coverage at the Washington Post and the New York Times.

What the graphs show is that in these thoughtful newspapers, political and scientific developments can spur stories, but when hurricanes strike, global warming coverage -- and, presumably public interest -- soars.

This is why Mooney's new book, Storm World, matters -- even though the writer takes every possible opportunity to remind readers that we cannot definitively link global warming to any hurricane.

The book matters because our fears as a nation do link global warming and hurricanes, and when it comes to modern-day hurricanes the size of Texas, as we saw in 2005, our eyes open wide.

Mooney opens the book with a visit to his mother's house in New Orleans, after Katrina, and seeing it "substantially damaged," in the understated lingo of government disaster workers. He then takes us to the heated debate over global warming and hurricanes at the 2005 American Geophysical Union meeting, where leading researcher Kerry Emmanuel of M.I.T. argued forcefully that, yes, global warming does mean bigger, stronger hurricanes and offered mathematical evidence for that description.

But instead of moving forward into an anti-global-warming polemic, Mooney then flashes back over the history of hurricane study, grounding the present-day dispute between hurricane forecaster Bill Gray and hurricane modeler Kerry Emmanuel in an old dispute between scientists who seek to understand hurricanes via observations, and scientists who seek to understand hurricanes according to their processes.

Opening the historical aperture proves enormously useful; even if you believe with climatologists Kerry Emmanuel and Kevin Trenberth that, yes, global warming inevitably will change hurricanes, and not for the better, nonetheless reading this book will give the tools you need to understand the controversy.

Emmanuel himself went from believing in the l990s that global warming had a slight if discernible effect on hurricanes that could become serious in the future, to publishing an article in 2005 arguing that hurricanes were already substantially stronger by 2000 than in years past. He found a new mathematical method to describe hurricanes by the amount of power they dissipated, which turned out to correlate closely with rising sea temperatures. Mooney makes this clear as day.

Yet reporters -- like scientists -- are supposed to stand back unemotionally from the data, and Mooney is a good reporter. In the case of this book, this leads to a curious irony. Far from writing a polemic, Mooney has written a book about hurricanes that stars, more than any other scientist, Bill Gray, once a leader in the field but now a global-warming denier.

In recent years Gray has resorted to quoting Michael Crichton, illustrating his talks with stick figures mocking fellow scientists, and even comparing Al Gore to Adolf Hitler. As a great magazine piece by another reporter, Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post, put it last year, Gray has "no governor on his rhetoric."

The result in Storm World is hugely informative scientifically, but dramatically limp. Despite any number of enormous storms churning the seas in the background, the book focuses on the decline and fall of Bill Gray's reputation as a scientist, which is sad, and in the long run, perhaps a little beside the point.

Mooney also is eager to criticize publications such as Time for declaring that we should be "very worried" about global warming, but at numerous points makes virtually the same point himself, less forcefully ("Yet just because we can't perfectly quantify changing levels of risk doesn't mean we have no right to feel concerned," he offers at one point, in language that would make George Orwell furious.)

This is Mooney's second book; his first was The Republican War Against Science, which was something of a miracle -- a brilliantly focused and detailed book on a subject that had barely even been reported. Anyone wishing to understand the politics of science in this country today must begin with that book.

Storm World is not as crucial, because -- by its own description -- it's not as big a subject, and because it doesn't risk as much. But for any nonscientist wishing to understand the science of hurricanes, it's still enormously helpful.

By the way, here's another interesting pair of graphs from the SciGuy at the Houston Chronicle, showing why we maybe should be concerned about this year's hurricane season ...

Brain Teasers


Here's something for you guys to work on.   This bum says he can predict anything with 95% certainty:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17tier.html

Dr. Gott has used his technique to successfully forecast the longevity of Broadway plays, newspapers, dogs and, most recently, the tenure in office of hundreds of political leaders around the world. He bases predictions on just one bit of data, how long something has lasted already; and on one assumption, that there is nothing special about the particular moment that you're observing this phenomenon. This assumption is called the Copernican Principle, after the astronomer who assumed he wasn't seeing the universe from a special spot in the center.

Suppose you want to forecast the political longevity of the leader of a foreign country, and you know nothing about her country except that she has just finished her 39th week in power. What are the odds that she'll leave office in her 40th week? According to the Copernican Principle, there's nothing special about this week, so there's only a 1-in-40 chance, or 2.5 percent, that she's now in the final week of her tenure.

How could it be applied to global temperature forecasting....

Uh, duh

Any freshman statistics student learns that it's not hard to predict things with 95 or even 99 percent certainty -- you just widen out the confidence interval and you're good to go.

The 5% Project
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks