The Bush Administration continues to fervently hope, against all scientific evidence, that global warming isn't happening. Today, perhaps a nod to industry or media, or fellow politicians, Bushe pressured NOAA to suppress climate science that gives more evidence of the effects of humans on climate.
With media fanfare, the Bush administration declassified conclusions from a report on the state of flourishing terrorism. Media leaks about the report were not flattering to the administration's Iraq actions, so apparently the White House was compelled to release the actual conclusions. Consistent with this candor_only_under_intense_pressure approach, news from Washington Post says that last spring, the Bush administration tried to suppress a National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) report that global warming tied to stronger hurricanes. Actually, reports Nature, the White House "quashed" the review.
The ubiquitous associated press report about the science journal's article says that Ants Leetmaa, who headed the panel reviewing hurricanes and global warming data for NOAA, was advised in May by e-mail from the Department of Commerce that the language in the panel's conclusions was too technical and should not be released to the public. NOAA's pre-hurricane season press release last May detailed the cause hurricanes and how it related to climate change:
"Warmer ocean water combined with lower wind shear, weaker easterly trade winds, and a more favorable wind pattern in the mid-levels of the atmosphere are the factors that collectively will favor the development of storms in greater numbers and to greater intensity. Warm water is the energy source for storms while favorable wind patterns limit the wind shear that can tear apart a storm's building cloud structure."
But then, strangely, concluded: "This confluence of conditions in the ocean and atmosphere is strongly related to a climate pattern known as the multi-decadal signal, which has been in place since 1995...". Their conclusion that cyclical climate patterns were responsible contradicted scientific evidence. Notably, two studies published at the time of the press release strengthened the link between anthropogenic warming, ocean temperatures and hurricanes. Matthew Huber et al published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters showing that the intensity and frequency of storms had doubled with a one-quarter degree increase in global temperature. Emanuel Mann et al reported in a study in Eos that warming ocean temperatures, not cyclical warming, were responsible for increased hurricane intensity.
But while climate scientists are publishing studies weekly, if not daily, The New York Times reported at the time that a meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stanley B. Goldenberg was unimpressed by the new research:
'[he] expressed skepticism about any connection between global warming and hurricane intensity, [and] said he had not seen the new papers but had read nothing in other recent research to change his view...."There's going to be an endless series of articles from this circle that is embracing this new theology built on very flimsy interpretation"'
It's alarming that a NOAA spokesperson doesn't admit science done by it's own agency. But today NOAA is denying the influence of politics and White House manipulations. NOAA is refuting Nature's report saying that the product of the panel was not a "document" but a "two-page fact sheet". Referring to the May hurricane report, a spokesman said that the fact sheet wasn't complete by the time the pre-hurricane press kit went out. Other news reports on the event say that the report was "merely an internal document", and the agency could not take a position on the science. What is true? Was it a report? A two page fact sheet? Insignificant? For internal use only? Was NOAA really challenged to get the two page fact sheet out in time for the press release? Isn't it NOAA's job to report science?
The evidence for global warming is well established, and the link to hurricane intensity has been growing since at least 1987 with Kerry Emanuel's work The evidence has grown in the past two decades, and researchers continually refine their understanding of growing amounts of global data that spans decades, centuries or longer. Emanuel says that the power of tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and Pacific has doubled since 1950. Webster et al (Science, Sept. 16, 2005) provided evidence showing that the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased globally in the past three decades. Researchers are still refining the details, since this type of analysis is difficult. But they don't argue over the ever more solid connection C02, global warming and hurricanes. Even NOAA says somewhat obliquely on its website:
"An implication of these studies [the review doesn't include recent studies] is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms."
What to do? Insist that your government provide you the most up to date "technical details" of global warming available, and that to do otherwise is pedantic at best. Or criminal. Follow current research on global warming. Search for information, it's bountiful. Real Climate, has thorough, detailed analyses of the research.
This story is continued in our article "Tell Me About the Multi-Decadal Variations"
