It is human nature to report research results that benefit you in the future. In the travel industry, there are prominent "research" organizations that consistently that every state agency in America runs highly effective advertising campaigns. They then get lavish checks from the people about whom they make these comments. Not surprisingly, they are always asked to do followup "research" which produces the same results.
So we might ask whether it's surprising that research by climatologists shows dramatic consequences to climate change. First, let me say that I have no doubt that CO2 is increasing. I'm willing to accept tentatively that it is causing an increase in average global temperature, although I'd be more comfortable if I saw an explanation for global cooling in the quarter century after WWII when CO2 was also increasing.
But there aren't going to be any conferences to attend or research budgets to spend just because we're getting a little warmer. The trend in American populations has been steadily towards warmer climates over the past half century. It's what people want in the place they call home. They aren't likely to panic if they face the prospect of a little more summer heat and less winter snow.
So research is stretched to devise consequences. We are constantly hearing about rising sea levels. The actual change in the average level has been trivial, less than the height of waves on the calmest day imaginable on the ocean. Here on the Oregon Coast, parts of the coastline are rising and others falling. Anybody who builds a structure next to the ocean on the assumption that nothing will change for 100 years is a fool. In actuality, the shoreline shifts and people rebuild a few years farther inland.
Then we have hurricanes. Those who have pointed out that we got warmer and then Katrina happened, from which they deduce that we got warmer and therefore Katrina happened, ignore the Butterfly Effect, which in its classic form says that a butterfly flaps its wings in Beijing and months later the pattern of Atlantic hurricanes changes.
The research that purports to show the increase in hurricane activity, which must be linked to global warming, fails many times as science. The first is that the trend itself shows up only over a period when sampling improved. They claim that this is a minor factor, but that's an assumption that can't be tested. They claim a causal relationship that can't be tested. I can hypothesize a variety of causes and provided my independent variable grows steadily over time, it will do just as well.
The "science" is that increased heat energy in the water will lead to increased hurricane activity. Sounds reasonable to me, but there doesn't seem to be a very good correlation. Last season we supposed to be hyperactive and although CO2 continued to rise, it was a medium season. This year, we were supposed to have a medium season. The hurricane guru for Wunderground predicted in late June that the odds of a named storm in the first half of July was 70%. We're about to finish the entire month of July without one. The last named storm was around June 1. I wonder what the last sixty-day period during hurricane season was when no named storms developed.
There are many reasons why hurricanes form. And don't form. However, a hundred people like me can say that no clear pattern has emerged and nobody will notice. One "research" result showing a connection, however, and it's a headline. People prefer to get headlines. We should all keep that in mind.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment