An underwhelming hurricane season winds down

My (slightly premature) wrap-up of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season has been posted at Pajamas Media.

They asked me to write something about the slow hurricane season in the context of the global-warming debate. I'm not sure if they got exactly what they expected, but I tried to be fair, balanced, and honest in my assessment. I'm not the person to ask for a dissertation about the science of global warming itself, but if I can convince a few people on either side of the debate -- most likely the skeptics in this particular instance, given PJM's core audience -- to drop some of their more specious arguments, I would consider that a success.

Comments

[jt]

This was not a favorable hurricane season if you live in the SE and are running out of water. Sonny Perdue recently called for religious leaders to come together for a rain prayer. I'm not making that up. Call it the modern rain dance.

[Hartley]

Hello Brendan,

An excellent article, and a very thorough treatment. There is only one aspect I would have liked to see you cover, and it's more of a "human issue" than a weather one - do you think that a lot of the snark that's being aimed at the unrealized forecasts might be a reaction to the loud (and scientifically unfounded) claims made in 2005 about the source (global warming, Kyoto, GWB, etc.) of that year's extraordinary season?

[Brendan]

Thanks, Hartley!

To answer your question, yes, I do think that. That's what I was getting at when I wrote: "The heavy reliance on 2005 [as proof of global warming] in certain quarters, which gave some lay observers the false impression that all hurricane seasons would henceforth be similar to the freakish ‘05 season, left global-warming advocates open to cynicism, criticism and rebuttal when 2006 and 2007 failed to live up to expectations."

And similarly, if 2008 is an active season (which even Alan Sullivan, a vocal global-warming skeptic and "count-padding" critic who bucked the conventional wisdom and predicted a slow season this year, thinks it might be, because of El Niño), it will leave the anti-Gore crowd open to cynicism, criticism and rebuttal, if they now do the equivalent of what the pro-Gore crowd did in 2005, making, as you put it, "loud (and scientifically unfounded) claims" that the 2006 and 2007 seasons are proof of something they're not actually proof of at all (in this case, the absence of global warming).

It's almost overwhelmingly tempting for both sides to play "gotcha," given that each side believes the other is being fundamentally dishonest, but I guess I'm making a plea to stop the cycle of loud, scientifically unfounded back-and-forth nonsense, and get back to a place where storm counts are a meteorological issue, not a political one.

[gahrie]

A fairly even handed article.

I wish to note however that my point all along has not been that the past two seasons disprove global warming, it has been that they disprove global warming hysterics like Al Gore.

[Brendan Loy]

the past two seasons ... disprove global warming hysterics like Al Gore

Well, yes and no. To the extent that the "hysterics" were claiming that every season would be active from now on, or that 2005 was proof, in and of itself, of global warming, then yes, the past two seasons disprove that portion of the hysteria (not that it needed disproving; it was self-evidently ignorant/fraudulent).

The past two seasons do not, however, disprove that global warming is an imminent threat or that we should take drastic measures to combat it, as the "hysterics" contend. Just as the 2005 season didn't prove that underlying point, the 2006 and 2007 seasons don't disprove it. Individual hurricane seasons have very little to say about that more fundamental question, which ought to be debated on its own merits.

[gahrie]

My position isn't that the Earth isn't warming, it might very well be. My position is:

1) The Earth has a historical and geological record of fluctuating between warmer and colder periods.

2) We cannot accurately predict the Earth's climate in the future.

3) If the Earth is warming, as the rest of the Solar System is, we do not understand the reasons why.

4) The Sun is far more likely to be responsible for any changes to the Earth's climate and weather than man.

5) The Earth's climate is a self-correcting system, as opposed to Mars or Venus, which is why it was possible for life to develop here. Thus earth's climate will adapt and seek equlibrium.

[Brendan]

If the Earth is warming, as the rest of the Solar System is...

This is false.

More global-warming myths debunked here.

[Russ]

Global warming, no global warming, caused by man, caused by the sun, whatever.

It doesn't matter, taking care of the planet should be a high priority. Air and water polution, diminishing natural resorces, population growth, and other factors all contribute to the decline of our wonderous Earth, even if not by warming it unnaturally.

[gahrie]

????

Your link conceded that both Pluto and Mars are warming. It just tried to dispute that the cause is the same cause as the Earth's warming. It talked about the sun's "output" without specifying what output they were talking about. Heat? Solar wind? Radiation?

Besides most scientists postulate that the sun's effect is not tied to any "output", but instead sunspot activity.

But for the sake of argument, let's state that the Earth's climate is not effected by the sun.

What caused the earth's cycle of warming and cooling before the industrial revolution?

[Brendan]

You might prefer this link. It goes into more detail about the notion that the Sun is causing global warming.

The earlier link was simply meant to point out that: 1) the evidence that "the Solar System is getting warmer" is based on observations of only two bodies, Mars and Pluto, which hardly constitute the entire Solar System; and 2) we know very, very little about why those planets are warming, though it's being extensively studied, and the early returns suggest the cause is very probably different than the cause of what's happening here on Earth. Therefore, for someone who constantly objects to the certitude with which manmade global warming is often postulated to then turn around and state as a fact that "the rest of the Solar System is" getting warmer (and further assert that "the Sun is far more likely to be responsible for any changes to the Earth's climate and weather than man") is, well, rich with irony.

But for the sake of argument, let's state that the Earth's climate is not effected by the sun.

No one is claiming this. It's a straw man. Try again with a real argument.

What caused the earth's cycle of warming and cooling before the industrial revolution?

No one is denying the previous (and ongoing) natural cycles of warming and cooling. The argument is that this latest warming is happening more quickly and thus will be more devastating for human civilization. Again, straw man. Try again.

[Brendan]

most scientists postulate that the sun's effect is not tied to any "output", but instead sunspot activity.

Actually, most scientists postulate that the current trend toward global warming is caused primarily by human activity.

If we're going to talk about what "most scientists postulate," we might as well be accurate about it, eh?

[Jon]

Good article Brendan. It was well thought out and did a good job of sticking to the science and stopping the people who might use your piece incorrectly on both sides of the global warming debate.

I'm still not sure why we care about global warming. We might lose some coastal areas, but so what? Humanity has lost cities by water before. We move and adapt. The warming trend over the past millennium has done nothing but help humanity.

Also, while I'm against pollution and unnecessary destruction. Using the resources of the earth, increasing our population, and changing the face of the planet is a bad thing? Humanity is changing the face of the planet and in the process is increasing the overall health and advancement of our species. This is a good thing. It's different for Earth, but overall it's good.

[Becky]

I wish more people would use the global warming debate as an excuse to be more earth-friendly and I wish that there were greater efforts to educate adults about how to make earth-friendly choices. I also wish there was a hybrid minivan out there! Are you listening Honda?

[JRDickens]

Global warming, as it is currently practiced, falls far more into the category of religion than it does science.

It is defended with as much zeal as any Imam defending Muhammed. It also requires great leaps of faith to believe in.

LoF #1...The earth is actually warming.
Given the differences in measurement technologies over the past 50,000 or so years, the margin of error HAS to be gigantic. The method used to take the temperature that long ago (guessing)compared to todays more accurate instuments and then comparing the differences seems to me to be wildly inaccurate. Also, there have been references made to consensus by scientists. This consensus is most often stated as fact. It is not. Consensus is not a scientific method.

LoF #2...Global warming is man-made.
If you accept LoF #1, the second pillar of this particular belief system is that WE must be causing it. Again, science's understanding of the atmosphere and its workings is in its very early infancy. One only has to reference the predictions for the last 2 hurricane seasons to understand that there is much yet to learn about how the planet works. Once again, circumstatial evidence is dressed up as fact.

LoF #3...Global warming is bad.
This is yet another assertion that cannot be proven. Some coastal cities will no doubt be inundated with water, over the course of hundreds or thousands of years. I believe people will have ample time to MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE in that length of time. What is often left out are the potential benefits of Global Warming. Longer growing seasons in the northern latitudes would seem to be one of the best benefits. For instance, Canada is phisically larger than the US. Larger parts of it will be open to agriculture than is now available.

I am certain I will get flamed for all of this, much like infidels and heretics get flamed by some religions. It only goes to further underscore my feeling that GW is more religion than science.