Journal: Agency blocked hurricane report

[sfwx]

Journal: Agency blocked hurricane report By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_ ... ane_report



WASHINGTON - A government agency blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disputed the Nature article, saying there was not a report but a two-page fact sheet about the topic. The information was to be included in a press kit to be distributed in May as the annual hurricane season approached but wasn't ready.

"The document wasn't done in time for the rollout," NOAA spokesman Jordan St. John said in responding to the Nature article. "The White House never saw it, so they didn't block it."

The possibility that warming conditions may cause storms to become stronger has generated debate among climate and weather experts, particularly in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — part of the Commerce Department — in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes.

According to Nature, a draft of the statement said that warming may be having an effect.

In May, when the report was expected to be released, panel chair Ants Leetmaa received an e-mail from a Commerce official saying the report needed to be made less technical and was not to be released, Nature reported.

Leetmaa, head of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.

NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher is currently out of the country, but Nature quoted him as saying the report was merely an internal document and could not be released because the agency could not take an official position on the issue.

However, the journal said in its online report that the study was merely a discussion of the current state of hurricane science and did not contain any policy or position statements.

The report drew a prompt response from Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., who charged that "the administration has effectively declared war on science and truth to advance its anti-environment agenda ... the Bush administration continues to censor scientists who have documented the current impacts of global warming."

A series of studies over the past year or so have shown an increase in the power of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a strengthening that many storm experts say is tied to rising sea-surface temperatures.

Just two weeks ago, researchers said that most of the increase in ocean temperature that feeds more intense hurricanes is a result of human-induced global warming, a study one researcher said "closes the loop" between climate change and powerful storms like Katrina.

Not all agree, however, with opponents arguing that many other factors affect storms, which can increase and decrease in cycles.

The possibility of global warming affecting hurricanes is politically sensitive because the administration has resisted proposals to restrict release of gases that can cause warming conditions.

In February, a NASA political appointee who worked in the space agency's public relations department resigned after reportedly trying to restrict access to Jim Hansen, a NASA climate scientist who has been active in global warming research.

[stormchazer]

Poppy cock! Nature has an obvious slated view of the subject. How does Nature explain this average year? The silence is notable!

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I'm sorry but looking at things objectively, natural cycles explain it all. Areas like New England and the Maritimes for example had more and stronger hurricanes in past centuries (like the 1600s, and 1800s; the 1700s had less activity by comparison) than today (especially since the early 1960s).

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Another major strike against this study is that we do not even know for sure how strong hurricanes were in the latter half of the 20th century using our, now proven flawed, satellite estimates.

[curtadams]

What previous period had 7 major hurricanes hit the US in 2 years?

[stormchazer]

What previous period had 7 major hurricanes hit the US in 2 years?

The US was hit 6 times in one year in both 1916 and 1985.

[HenkL]

There's not much special in the not published report. Between a lot of other things, 'global warming' is mentioned twice, that's all.
The text of this 'no-report' can be read here (the weblog of R. Pielke Jr.).

[Aslkahuna]

Sounds like the so called report was sent back to be simplified so that the low IQs among the media people receiving the Press kit could get some semblence of understandng. A fact sheet BTW is NOT a report but just merely a summary.

Steve

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

What previous period had 7 major hurricanes hit the US in 2 years?

Could have happened several times in the last 1,000, or even 500 years, that (at least 500 years) is the MINIUM amount of time you would require to get an accurate feel for the true nature of North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones. Once again there is strong evidence that New England had two major hurricanes make landfall there in the same year on two separate occasions; 1638 and 1869. Little doubt if that occurred today everyone would be screaming GW did it at the top of their lungs, totally ignorant of the fact it has happened before, twice!

Perhaps some of these tree ring studies will help fill in the gaps for future studies.

[photoguy]

Sounds like the so called report was sent back to be simplified so that the low IQs among the media people receiving the Press kit could get some semblence of understandng. A fact sheet BTW is NOT a report but just merely a summary.

Steve

Nice. The media bashing on this board is obnoxious.

But I certainly would expect more from a professional than such a ridiculous generalization.

Edit: That said, I need to add that I've always been very appreciative of your posts - they are concise and factual. I also appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge and experience here.

[curtadams]

What previous period had 7 major hurricanes hit the US in 2 years?

The US was hit 6 times in one year in both 1916 and 1985.

*Major* hurricanes. Only 1 from 1985 and 2 from 1916 are on the NHC list http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastint.shtml

Again, my challenge: what 2 year-period matched 2004-2005? Remember, these were all horrors - similar storms will be well-recorded if the coast is inhabited, even sparsely.

[mitchell]

Is the probable link between global warming and the frequency and intensity of hurricanes actually in doubt by the members of this forum?

I sort of find that hard to believe given what i understood to be fundamental relationships between atmospheric and ocean temperatures and the amount of energy available for tropical storm formation and intensification, incremental lengthening of seasons in which these threshold temperatures exist (even if only by a day or days each season) and incremental increases in the size of the ocean basins that are warm enough support development and sustain tropical systems.

All of these factors seem to support that link yet there seems to be so much inclination to dismiss it or say we don't yet have enough data to prove the hypothesis.

I agree, not nearly enough data (even 2004-2005 included..two years is not enough) to prove that it has happened or is happening. But do we generally agree that the physics of TS development suggests that the link SHOULD exist and probably does exist?

I do.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

If you have high wind shear the hottest SST in the world isn't going to give you crap as far as TCs go. It isn't that simple.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Another thing if GW causes the world's arid lands to get bigger (as most claim it will); than the link would be broken. Dry air tends to kill hurricane seedlings in the Atlantic.

[mitchell]

If you have high wind shear the hottest SST in the world isn't going to give you crap as far as TCs go. It isn't that simple.

true...and if global warming increases wind shear by a certain amount, then maybe it more than offsets warmer atmospheric and SSTs which intuitively seem to me to increase the frequency and intensity of Tropical Storms.

[curtadams]

Another thing if GW causes the world's arid lands to get bigger (as most claim it will); than the link would be broken. Dry air tends to kill hurricane seedlings in the Atlantic.

True; but global warming's effects aren't quite that simple and actually the Sahel gets *wetter* as a result of global warming http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fu ... language=1 Gray has found that a wet Sahel correlates with active Atlantic seasons. The mechanism is that the tropics widen and so the subtropical desert zone moves away from the equator - already observed. http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 624672.ece

The other way that dry air interferes with hurricanes is that dry middle and upper tropospheric air suppresses convection. That too, will get wetter as a result of global warming, and we're already seeing that too. http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fu ... language=1

So while many areas will get drier the air relevant to hurricanes will get wetter.

[Aslkahuna]

From my understanding, there are actually studies that suggest that GW could result in a DECREASE in number but an increase in intensity of Tropical Cyclones.

Re the media: My excessively low opinion of the media comes from having dealt with them a number of times and having been seriously misquoted by them. Also, having been bounced off a local radio station because I refused to the follow the totally anti-environment stance of the local and State Government officials tells me that agendas exist (it was probably my comment about the seriousness of the air pollution in Phoenix and my refusal to blame a local episode on Mexico while the anti environment Governor was in town that ended my two year stint on the radio).

Steve

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Another thing if GW causes the world's arid lands to get bigger (as most claim it will); than the link would be broken. Dry air tends to kill hurricane seedlings in the Atlantic.

True; but global warming's effects aren't quite that simple and actually the Sahel gets *wetter* as a result of global warming http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fu ... language=1 Gray has found that a wet Sahel correlates with active Atlantic seasons. The mechanism is that the tropics widen and so the subtropical desert zone moves away from the equator - already observed. http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 624672.ece

The other way that dry air interferes with hurricanes is that dry middle and upper tropospheric air suppresses convection. That too, will get wetter as a result of global warming, and we're already seeing that too. http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fu ... language=1

So while many areas will get drier the air relevant to hurricanes will get wetter.

These are all highly speculative assumptions. After all we can not even yet accurately predict TC intensity changes on a storm by storm standard, what makes anyone think that we can accurately predict the response of a Global System to GW (natural caused, or otherwise)? Look at how completely everyone failed with their predications for the North Atlantic hurricane season.

We all know that the lead time for an accurate forecast is between 48 and 72 hr, and that after five days, other than picking out possible trends, your usually just guessing. What it boils down too is that predicting the effects of GW is murky at best, and pseudo-science at worst.

[curtadams]

These are all highly speculative assumptions. After all we can not even yet accurately predict TC intensity changes on a storm by storm standard, what makes anyone think that we can accurately predict the response of a Global System to GW (natural caused, or otherwise)? Look at how completely everyone failed with their predications for the North Atlantic hurricane season.

We all know that the lead time for an accurate forecast is between 48 and 72 hr, and that after five days, other than picking out possible trends, your usually just guessing. What it boils down too is that predicting the effects of GW is murky at best, and pseudo-science at worst.

Nothing I posted is speculative. Global warming-induced moistening of the Sahel and the upper troposphere were predicted and supported by observational tests - the very essence of scientific theory. I posted links to reports - you can go look at them. The link between upper trophospheric moisture and cyclone formation is also well-established. I suppose you could argue with Dr. Grey's correlational connection of Sahel rainfall and hurricane activity, but even that is certainly not speculative.

There's a lot more to climate science than short-term numerical prediction models. Do we need accurate daily forecasts for weeks or years in advance to say Antarctica gets colder in June? If not, why do we need them to predict associations between hurricane activity and atmospheric conditions?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I like this thread for the variety of information members are providing in debating the subject...however, I do not like that fact that an agency blocked the hurricane report...regardless of the report's position...I think that the agency should have
just added a disclaimer to the report instead of blocking it. Blocking infringes on
freedom of press...the agency should have allowed it but with a disclaimer...regardless of whether A Report supports or rejects a Global Warming-hurricane link, it should still be allowed with a disclaimer, ensuring that its report is based in factual evidence
that may support one or more positions.