Hurricane Debate Shatters Civility Of Weather Science

[Strelnikov_]

Worsened by Global Warming?
Spats Are So Tempestuous, Sides Are Barely Talking, Charge of 'Brain Fossilization'
By VALERIE BAUERLEIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A1

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06033/648772.stm

William Gray, America's most prominent hurricane scientist and an ardent foe of the belief that global warming has worsened hurricanes, was supposed to join a panel discussing the storms. So was Greg Holland of the National Center on Atmospheric Research -- who disagrees with Dr. Gray. But the organizers withdrew the invitations after deciding the dispute had grown so nasty it was too risky to put the two in the same room.

. . .

His adversary Dr. Holland is among a group of prominent scientists who argue that the recent burst of powerful storms isn't part of a normal pattern. In a recent article, he and co-authors said that global warming caused by human activity, while not affecting the number of hurricanes, appears to be causing more of them to be very intense. Dr. Holland went to the meeting despite the cancellation of his joint appearance with Dr. Gray and presented his paper's conclusions during a session on a wide variety of weather issues.

. . .

Dr. Gray attacked the Science article on his Web site, agreeing that ocean temperatures were climbing but maintaining that the rise was largely attributable to long-term heating and cooling trends. The rise in water temperature has negligible connection to the hurricanes, he argued. He complained that "the near universal reference to this paper over the last few weeks by most major media outlets is helping to establish a false belief among the general public...that global warming may be a contributing factor" to devastation such as that from Katrina.

. . .

Scientists on both sides say they expect follow-up studies proving they are right to be published before the next hurricane season starts in June. Drs. Trenberth and Emanuel are submitting separate studies to major journals arguing that the influence of natural cycles has been greatly overestimated, a mutinous theory in established hurricane science. Dr. Landsea says he has submitted his own analysis to a major journal confirming the natural ebb and flow of storms argued by Dr. Gray. Both sides are waiting to see which papers will be accepted.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I have to disagree with Dr Gray's assertion that

"water temperature has negligible connection the hurricanes." Believe it or not, this subject has been big news on the gulf coast for about six months now. I don't know what his definition of "negligible" is but there is little to no doubt that higher water temperatures result in more intense storms. Just about every meteorologist from Pensacola to Galveston have done stories on the phenomenon and they have no political axe to grind.

[bloom]

2. It's not surprising that the WSJ would highlight the disagreement

It figures they would be pro-"confusion" on the issue of global warming.

"The sides disagree about how much global warming is attributable to natural cycles and how much to human activity such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels...."

[hatrack]

3. Because we mustn't do anything - ANYTHING - until we know . . .

To within 1/100th of a percentage point just exactly how much of the disruption is due to human activity and how much is due to natural cycles.

Anything else would be just WRONG.

:puke: on the WSJ's editorial board with projectile force.

[skids]

4. "pro-confusion" -- brilliant!

...and widely applicable. You get my best meme of the week award: :beer:

[megatherium]

5. It's an old meme in the computer industry: FUD

You attack your competitor's products by spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.