Extreme Weather, Climate Change, and Public Reporting

If you have had any exposure to this subject, you probably already have your mind made up about my title. As I’ve gained exposure, via multiple disciplines, I’ve changed my mind. And that allows me to look at climate reporting in new ways.  Take this article and interview for instance. It’s meta-related, masked by the climate’s relationship to extreme weather. There are thousands of examples of conservatives ignoring science when it suits them. Doing so actually has more to do with conservatives operating from their value system. Are there similar examples of others ignoring science when it similarly suits them? I think it would be foolhardy to assume otherwise. Here is what I think about this article.

First, the mask: climate-extreme weather. There is no documented causal relationship between the two. In fact, the number of identified causal relationships between climate change and anything is still relatively small. There is a strong temperature signal. There is a growing ocean acidification signal. The sea level change signal is small but present and growing. How about precipitation? Nothing definitive. How about snowstorms? Nothing definitive.

But those signals are small against much stronger climate signals. Would something like drought or hurricanes or floods or tornadoes exhibit a stronger signal. In a word, no. There simply is not a detectable climate and extreme weather link today. That is not to say a future signal will not exist – there very well might be. But as of today, there is not. What science backs up that claim? The 2008 U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis Report for starters (p.42; 2.2.2.1):

When averaged across the entire United States (Figure 2.6), there is no clear tendency for a trend based on the PDSI. Similarly, long-term trends (1925-2003) of hydrologic droughts based on model derived soil moisture and runoff show that droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century (Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006).

So as of the early 21st century, U.S. droughts have become less severe, not more. The IPCC’s global analysis on extreme events concurred (p.171):

There is not enough evidence at present to suggest high confidence in observed trends in dryness due to lack of direct observations, some geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and some dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts (e.g., southern Europe, west Africa) but also opposite trends exist in other regions (e.g., central North America, northwestern Australia).

One big impediment to our extreme event trend ascertainment is our basic inability to monitor events in the first place. But based on the observations made, there is, in the IPCC’s own language, only medium confidence that droughts in some areas of the world are increasing in severity while decreasing in other places. Is climate change increasing extreme events? Not droughts – not yet.

What about storms like Sandy or Katrina (note: the former was a tropical system that changed to an extratropical system at landfall while the latter was a full-fledged hurricane at landfall)? There is at this time no global trend in hurricane frequency or intensity that demonstrates a clear causal relationship to climate change. There are indexes that a few scientists have developed to examine the data in different ways with differing results, but they require fairly complex methodologies to calculate. If I created my own index that demonstrated a relationship between the type of food I ate and climate change, does one cause the other? Certainly not directly. The hurricane-climate change relationship should exhibit a detectable signal in 50 more years or so. Until then, scientists cannot confidently say the data supports such a relationship. Extratropical storms increased in strength a little over the past century, although the locations of increase are limited. Their frequency has not increased.

Quickly, the same thing holds for floods and tornadoes. Datasets are simply too limited in space and time to currently identify a robust relationship.

As I wrote above, there are clear signals that we have already detected. The effects of those signals are mostly well-known, although some surprises are certainly in store for the planet. Extreme weather is not one of those signals. At least, not yet. If people are concerned about the level of inaction taken on climate change to date, it is folly to chase down or exaggerate signals that do not yet exist. If arguments based on signals detected are not enough to propel action, then we need to address their sets of values and how we communicate them. Fear-mongering and purposeful ignorance of science are not adequate substitutes.

Finally, I question the following from the article:

“I quote the climate skeptics or deniers — whatever term you prefer — when they’re relevant. So when I’m doing a piece about the science itself and what the latest scientific findings are, especially if that’s a short piece, I don’t necessarily feel obliged to quote the climate skeptics the same way that if you were doing a story about evolution, a New York Times reporter wouldn’t feel obliged to call up a creationist and ask them what they think. On the other hand, the climate skeptics are politically relevant at this point in American history [in a way that] the creationists are not, for example. So we have a fair chunk of the Congress … that sees political traction right now in questioning climate science or purporting not to believe it, so in a political story or in a longer story, I usually do give some amount of space to the climate skeptics.”

This quote comes from Justin Gillis, who writes about climate change for The New York Times. Does any of the above evidence make it into his interview with NPR? Here is my question: is Mr. Gillis a climate change writer or a politics writer? Scientific climate change writers should focus on the science. If Mr. Gillis wants to be a political climate change writer, he and the NYT owe it to their readers to make that distinction clear. Especially when double standards are applied to a different type of science writing. I would argue that creationists have a considerable amount of political traction right now also. I do not agree with their viewpoint, but if Mr. Gillis and the NYT want to write comparison pieces and not news pieces, I do not see why that effort should stop at climate change.

2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season & Gulf of Mexico Loop Current

NOAA has issued their last pre-season projection for the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season.  In short, a very active season is possible.  Here are the highlights:

We estimate a 70% probability for each of the following ranges of activity this season:

14-23 Named Storms,

8-14 Hurricanes

3-7 Major Hurricanes

An ACE range of 155%-270% of the median.

The seasonal activity is expected to fall within these ranges in 7 out of 10 seasons with similar climate conditions and uncertainties to those expected this year. They do not represent the total possible ranges of activity seen in past similar years.

I like to see numbers in context.  I’ll start with the 14-23 named storms.  On average, 11 storms are named every year.  The most active Atlantic hurricane season on record was 2005 – the same year of Katrina, Rita and Wilma – when there were 31 named storms.  The first storm formed on the 8th of June and the last storm dissipated on the 6th of January, 2006!   For those unfamiliar with hurricane naming conventions in the Atlantic, see this page.  The set available this year are the same as those used in 2004.  So if there are 14 named storms, Nicole will be the last of 2010.  If there are 23, then just like 2005, the list of names will be exhausted.  In 2005, storms after Wima were assigned Greek alphabet names.  That convention could be used again this year if things get really ramped up.

There were 15 hurricanes in 2005.  So this season’s projection calls for fewer hurricanes (tropical storm systems that attain 74mph sustained winds) than 2005.  Last season, there were only 3 hurricanes.  2008 saw 8 hurricanes form – so this year could be more similar to that year.  The average number of hurricanes per year is 6.

3-7 major hurricanes – those are big numbers.  The average number of major hurricanes per year is 2.  A major hurricane is one that reaches Category 3 strength on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale.  Storms typically have a minimum of 111mph sustained winds.  Of those 8 hurricanes in 2008, 5 reached major hurricane status: Bertha, Gustav, Ike, Omar and Poloma.  Of the 15 hurricanes in 2005, 7 reached major hurricane strength.  The difference between 2005 and 2008 in terms of number of major storms then was only 2.  A lot of factors determine how strong hurricanes get.  So the difference between 2 major hurricanes and 3 is a lot more than just a number.

The ACE measurement is a relatively new one.  It is the Accumulated Cycle Energy, used to measure individual storms as well as entire tropical seasons.  The ACE is calculated by squaring the the estimated maximum sustained wind velocity of each cyclone with sustained winds over 35 knots (tropical storm strength) every six hours.  Those values are then added together over the life-cycle of the storm.  The ACE values for every year since 1851 has been calculated by Chris Landea at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center.  A projected ACE of 155%-270% of the median is obviously indicative of a very active season.

One of the factors that has a big influence on how strong tropical systems that enter the Gulf of Mexico can get is the position and strength of the Gulf Loop Current.  This is the same current being discussed in relation to the oil volcano currently erupting off the Louisiana coast.  The good news for the potential future spread of oil away from the Gulf of Mexico is an eddy has broken off the Loop Current.  Oil within the eddy will more likely stay in the Gulf rather than be transported out of it, as Dr. Jeff Masters explains in this blog post.  The last Loop eddy that broke off is still in the western Gulf off the coast of Mexico, having traveled 3-5km per day since it broke off the main current back in July 2009.

Unfortunately, what’s good for limiting the spread of oil can be bad for tropical systems entering the Gulf.  The eddy maintains very warm sea temperatures to great depths, making high energy available to passing storm systems.  Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of this.  She crossed the Florida peninsula on 26Aug2005 with 75mph sustained winds.  One day later, as she passed north of the western side of Cuba, she had strengthened to 115mph winds (a Category 3).  She stayed at that strength for another day while she passed over the northern edge of the Loop Current.  Then, she encountered a loop eddy.  Four hours later, her sustained winds jumped from 115mph to 144mph, becoming a Category 4 storm.  12 hours later, her winds were 161mph, becoming a Category 5 storm.  16 hours later, they had rocketed all the way up to 173mph.  In just over half a day, Hurricane Katrina went from a weak Category 3 storm to a Category 5 monster – mostly because she passed directly over the warmest core of the Loop Current eddy.  Thankfully for the residents of the Gulf Coast, that eddy was still in the middle of the Gulf.  If it had been closer to land, Katrina would have been even stronger at landfall.  In fact, Hurricane Rita passed over that same eddy later in 2005, rapidly strengthening just like Katrina did.   Rita’s path took her over even more water before landfall than did Katrina’s.  Rita still caused Houston to be partially evacuated and did plenty of damage after landfall.

So conditions are prime for another above-average hurricane season.  Individual storms will of course form where they will and little can be confidently said about their potential impacts on the Caribbean or Mexico or the U.S.   Potentially dangerous storms can quickly come together with all of the conditions that presently exist.  2010 could be another infamous season.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Record High Atlantic SSTs: Active Hurricane Season To Follow?

Sea surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic Ocean were higher in March 2010 than any other time in the past 160 years – the UK’s Hadley Center has data going back to 1850.  When temperatures in this region are warmer than average, very active hurricane seasons usually occur.  There are some complex interactions between Atlantic SSTs and other phenomena across the globe, most notably El Niño, so the relationship isn’t exact or direct.  2005 was the last year Atlantic SSTs north of the equator were also significantly warmer than usual.

How much above average were SSTs?  1.26°C above average during March.  That might not sound like it’s too much warmer than usual until you realize the previous record, set back in 1969, was 1.06°C.  This year’s record handily beat that value.  For additional context, the temperatures observed in March are closer to what are normally observed around June.  Finally, the record tied with June 2005 as the biggest positive departure from average in the dataset.

Read on for a more detailed explanation of why this has happened.

State Farm Cancels Thousands of Florida Policies As Potential For Damaging Hurricanes Increases

I saw this interesting article today.  State Farm is sending notice to 125,000 Floridian policyholders of their intent to cancel their house insurance in six months time.  Why?  Because State Farm couldn’t get a 47% rate increase approved by Florida regulators.  Why the desire to increase rates that much?  Because of events in the past and potential events in the future.

Three hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 caused $38 Billion in losses.  As a result, State Farm hasn’t issued a new policy in the hurricane-prone area in over a year now.  Climate change denialists would make for terrible insurance companies.  The power of each potential future landfalling hurricane is expected to increase as a result of climate change.  While the denialists certainly don’t care, insurance companies like State Farm obviously do.  Their business model isn’t prepared to deal with more powerful hurricanes that strike Florida.  This is interesting considering the past two years have been relatively quiet in terms of landfalling tropical systems in the Atlantic basin.  As El Nino fades away, I would expect the next couple of years to look more like the 2005/2008 seasons.

This also comes on the heel of a decision in North Carolina not to insure properties on the Outer Banks for much the same reason.  Increasing chances of more severe hurricanes means insurers can’t make a profit in the face of a riskier environment.

I expect to see more stories like this as time goes on and insurers are faced with crippling claims from millions of people affected by climate change effects, which are also forecasted to increase in number and severity.  It would behoove State Farm and other insurance companies to lobby the Senate to get a climate bill passed as soon as possible.  The sooner our greenhouse gas pollutants are reduced, the sooner our maximum climate forcing will happen, the sooner it will make sense to continue to insure people for their belongings and properties.  How they approach legislation will go a long way in signaling how seriously they take this issue.

Cap and Trade Expenses Overblown

Critics (ideologically driven climate change deniers, mostly) have said that a carbon cap and trade program is too expensive (additional posts on this to follow).  One critical fact these short-sighted do-nothings are purposefully not talking about is that we have already spent billions on the effects of global warming, and it will only get worse.  Indeed, if the deniers have their way and we do nothing, the expenses on our society, what I will start terming the Cons’ Climate Tax, will get much, much worse.

I submit the following three examples for consideration:
- We have lost $1.3 billion as a result of crop loss from Georgia’s drought in 2007.
- It cost $300 million to repair rail transportation after Hurricane Katrina.
- We spent $272 million in 2007 as a result of increasing flood damage.

Those examples don’t include droughts in the rest of the country, wildfires, loss of viable timber, etc.

Is that not convincing enough? Okay, how about this: Four global warming impacts alone — hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs — will come with a price tag of 1.8% U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.  The total cost will cost 3.6% of U.S. GDP.  Contrast that with the cost of a cap and trade program: The median projected impact of climate policy is less than one-half of one percent of U.S. GDP for the period 2010-2030, and under three-quarters of one percent through the middle of the century.

A growing body of studies are clearly demonstrating the damage the Cons’ Climate Tax would introduce to our society.  Unsurprisingly, their concern over deficit spending when it comes to American interests is as false as anything else they’re “concerned” about.  If they were concerned with the costs we’re passing along to future genertions, they would whole-heartedly embrace a carbon cap-and-trade program.  We can spend a few hundred billion dollars for a few years now and alleviate future climate change impacts.  Or we can push this problem off to the next generation and they can pay $4 trillion annually to deal with the effects.

But every time a Con gets to talk to the corporate media, they should be required to explain why taxing future generations for health care isn’t alright, but taxing them for climate change (or the occupation of Iraq or ever-increaing war budgets) is.  Either they’re fiscal hawks or they’re talking point recorders.  Talking point recorders don’t have any business deciding policy.

Climate Change Effects Come Further Into Focus

As the science over the cause of climate change has become increasingly solidified, many researchers are expanding their examination of the effects of climate change.  Among other examples, some recent items of note include:

North American bird species are wintering further north. An Audubon Society study conclusively shows that hundreds of species of birds are spending winters further north in recent winters than they did 40 years ago.  Climate change has affected northern latitudes more than the mid-latitudes and tropics: they’ve grown warmer faster than any other region.  Migratory birds’ wintering patterns have been shifted.

Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse.  An important study that came out in last Friday’s issue of Science looks more closely at how sea levels around the world would be impacted if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapsed.  Contrary to the incomplete assessment that was part of the 2007 IPCC Report, sea level rise won’t be equitable across the globe.  Due to gravitational effects and uplift as ice mass disappears from land surfaces, oceans bordering North America and in the Indian Ocean could rise ~30% higher than previously assumed.  For instance, the IPCC forecasted a 5m sea level rise for areas near Washington, D.C.  The new assessment indicates a sea level rise of  6.3m (1.3m more) due to additional effects.

Okay, I’m going to bring up a couple of short-comings of this study, one of which the authors identified.  This assessment did not take into account the Greenland, East Antarctic or mountain ice sheets.  Anything that causes the collapse of the WAIS will undoubtedly also cause collapses elsewhere across the globe.  Thus, that 6.3m sea level rise for Washington, D.C. could easily go much, much higher.  The authors acknowledge that serious concerns about the impact on coastal communities is increased as a result of this study, not decreased.  Second, the authors compare their assessment to the IPCC’s.  As I’ve written before, recent observations from across the planet indicate that every model used in the 2007 IPCC Report underestimated recent climate change.  The poles are warming faster than any model used indicated.  Climate zones are shifting faster.  Drought areas are expanding further.  Birds’ wintering areas are shifting north sooner.  CO2 concentrations are higher and positive feedback mechanisms have been initiated.  This doesn’t mean the results of this Science paper are invalid, only that the specific sea level rise number used for contrast is already out of date.  Policy makers must be made aware of the most recent valid research, like this paper.  The challenge facing researchers is being able to provide robust, comprehensive assessments so that strong policies can be created.

Weeds will appear in new areas and disappear in others.  Land managers could have a short period of time to reintroduce native plants in areas that have been taken over by invasive species.  The biggest question is where will precipitation fall most often.

Hurricanes’ roles in influencing Northern Hemispheric winters are being explored.  The view that hurricanes are important in maintaining the balances the atmosphere works toward in much the same fashion as mid-latitude cyclones (think of the low pressure systems that typically move west to east) has gained traction in recent years.  This article describes another effort at working to determine how that mechanism compares to mechanisms like El Nino.

News Links & Discussion 9/2/08

Personal incomes fell in July by 0.7%.  Remember, inflation in June was over 9%.  Americans had 10% less buying power than they did before.  Republican economics at work!

FAA computer practices leave quite a bit to be desired.  Two computer centers are supposed to operate for the entire country?!  Similar systems in different industries require multiple redundancies.  The FAA has also had many problems with adequately staffing properly trained air traffic controllers.  That’s a trend that started under St. Ronnie Reagan’s union busting days.  Republicans argue that investing in new technologies would require (gasp!) raising taxes.  Because crashing planes and a crippled air system are so much more desirable.

Union members make more and have better health insurance.  Their wages and benefits are part of the reason why corporations and their Republican lackeys have always attacked unions so viciously.

The Arctic becomes an island.  For the first time in recorded history, the Arctic ice sheet can be circumnavigated.  This year’s 2nd lowest ice extent (so far) on record means it will take quite different conditions to build the pack back up to the 1979-2000 average.  What’s left is thinner and weaker than before.

EPA emission limits are rejected by a federal appeals court.  It is absurd to think that the EPA should be able to limit what emission targets states can set for themselves, as long as they aren’t higher than the federal standard.  This decision is yet another slap in the face to the Bush-friendly EPA managerial appointments.  Not that that will stop them from continuing to act like a-holes for the next 120 days.

Marilyn Musgrave wants more debate time with challenger Betsy Markey, who has led in polls since May for the CO-04 seat.  This is a direct reversal of the 2006 race when Musgrave refused to debate challenger Angie Paccione as she led in polls all the way to election day.  Don’t give her any chance, Betsy!

The Space Shuttle program could be extended past the currently planned retirement date of 2010.  NASA is rightfully concerned that the U.S. would then have no platform to get astronauts to the ISS and Low Earth Orbit until the Orion capsule’s planned 2015 service entry.  One of the things Iraq has shown us is that projects and policies aren’t about available money, they’re about political will.  There is no reason for NASA to be beholden to an increasingly contentious Russia for passage to a space station that American taxpayers mostly paid for.

Oil prices down and this is the money quote:

Stocks slumped more than $7 a barrel Tuesday morning as investors bet that the damage from Gustav was not as bad as had been feared. Prices also dropped due to the stronger dollar, which makes dollar-traded commodities cheaper for overseas investors. Additionally, investors continued to bet that global demand for oil is waning.

Isn’t it nice to know that we’re getting gouged at the pump while Wall Streeters bet on this and that and the other thing?  Also note that oil prices have fallen 25% off their high of $147.20 on July 11.  Has American demand fallen by 25% this year?  Has American supply risen by 25% this year?  Nope.  More importantly, global demand has in no way fallen this year. Neither has global supply.  Republicans keep talking about the “free market” and how it will lower oil prices.  Those prices weren’t supported by market fundamentals.  They were propped up by speculators that have been scared off by the threat of regulation introduction by the Democratic Congress.  The lesson: Republicans cause oil and gas prices to rise; Democrats cause oil and gas prices to fall.

Will future Gulf landfalling hurricanes weaken like Katrina & Gustav?  Joe Romm argues that with much warmer future oceans (based on a business as usual approach), hurricanes moving across the Gulf may not have to contend with cooler sea surface temperatures closer to land.  That would mean more devastating storm damage as storms would maintain some or much of their open-water potency.  Also of concern: warmer Mississippi waters and warmer delta waters that would allow stronger hurricanes to affect more areas inland from the Gulf.