| Bad Timing for These Two Hurricane Experts |
|
|
| Written by Steven D. Levitt, NY Times | |||
| Friday, 06 April 2007 | |||
|
The 2005 Hurricane season was the most active and destructive in recorded history. The devastation from hurricanes like Katrina, Rita, and Wilma was powerful evidence that man-made global warming had triggered an onslaught of unforeseen consequences — at least, that was the way the media tended to portray it. Maybe I am wrong, but I think the current focus on global warming in this country would be much weaker had those hurricanes not hit landfall, or had they hit Mexico instead of the U.S. The scientific community, however, never argued a strong link between global warming and hurricanes. At the Sixth International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones held by the World Meteorological Organization in November of 2006, the participants came to the following conclusions: Consensus statements by the workshop participants In general, I am not a fan of science by consensus. It is interesting, however, that you can get a bunch of scientists to basically agree that they don’t even know whether global warming will cause hurricanes to increase or decrease. The conclusion is especially surprising because no one ever wants to look like they don’t know the answers, and because scientists who work on hurricanes have strong incentives to convince everyone else of the important of their research. This statement clearly avoids that latter temptation. Recently, a new study was released that flies in the face of the scientific consensus. Researchers Greg Holland and Peter Webster make the claim that global warming has nearly doubled the number of hurricanes over the last century. Reading between the lines of the various media reports on this study, I don’t think Holland and Webster have convinced many climatologists; in the four or five articles I read, there wasn’t a single endorsement from another scientist. One researcher actually came out and called it “sloppy science” in this Miami Herald report. Also, could the timing of the article’s release be any worse? Two months into what was supposed to be a very active season, with 7-10 hurricanes predicted, so far not a single hurricane has appeared. By this time in 2005, there had already been three hurricanes. The biggest losers in all of this are the reporters — just think how much fun they could have had with this study had a hurricane been about to make landfall on the U.S. coastline. Source 3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved." |
|||
| < Prev |
|---|







