The report from the National Academy of Sciences was not the only climate study released today. A pair of scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research released a study -- to be published in the coming issue of Geophysical Research Letters -- that purports to show that the majority of the warming of ocean waters that led to the horrendous hurricane season of 2005 is attributable to global warming.
Sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic in 2005 were an average of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1900-1970 average:
Their calculations show that global warming explained about 0.8 degrees F of this rise. Aftereffects from the 2004-05 El Nino accounted for about 0.4 degrees F. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60-to-80-year natural cycle in SSTs, explained less than 0.2 degrees F of the rise, according to Trenberth. The remainder is due to year-to-year variability in temperatures.
This, needless to say, strongly contradicts the common claim that the AMO is responsible for most of the rise in hurricane activity over the last decade. I don't know anything about these two guys -- Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea -- or their reputations, and of course I have no way of knowing how these results will hold up over time, but at the very least it's a provocative finding in an area of science and culture that is fiercely contested.
For that reason I'm somewhat surprised that the study hasn't gotten more attention relative to the NAS report (which, after all, just confirmed conventional wisdom). ThinkProgress flagged it and it got mentions here, here, and here, but it's received nothing close to the mainstream press coverage.
Even if the study holds up, it doesn't mean global warming is "half to blame" for a given hurricane, and it certainly doesn't mean that global warming is responsible for half the damages caused by a particular hurricane. But it does put a solid foundation under the galvanizing claim that global warming is going to lead to more vicious storms -- not a pleasant prospect.
Comments
View as Flat
mihan Posted 1:41 am
23 Jun 2006
Unfortunately, so is William Gray.
Permalink
jyoungster Posted 6:19 am
23 Jun 2006
This study is the latest to challenge that. A study published a few weeks ago by Kerry Emanuel of MIT and others goes even further, saying the AMO doesn't exist at all--it's all about climate change.
Living on Earth's clever and handsome Washington reporter (ok, me) did a piece on that a few weeks ago. here's the link:
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=06-P13-00023#feature2
comfort the afflicted; afflict the comfortable
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:55 pm
23 Jun 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:30 pm
23 Jun 2006
Now can the drought related fires, floods, and extra strong tornadoes be tied in? The Katrina refugees in Houston were recently submerged again.
The costs related to storm and drought alone dwarf the cost of converting to renewable electric energy. Not even calculating in the astronomical cost of moving whole cities because of rising ocean levels.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink