There's been a lot of beating up on NOAA--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--for squelching the viewpoints of some of its scientists on issues such as global warming and global warming's relation to hurricanes. And there certainly has been some troubling stuff reported on this front in the past by major newspapers. But that doesn't mean NOAA can't clean up its act, and this press release is clearly a huge step in the right direction. Let me quote:
May 1, 2006 -- The region of the tropical Atlantic where many hurricanes originate has warmed by several tenths of a degree Celsius over the 20th century, and new climate model simulations suggest that human activity, such as increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, may contribute significantly to this warming. This new finding is one of several conclusions reported in a study by scientists at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., published today in the Journal of Climate.
As I said, NOAA has had problems in the past. But moving forward into the future, it will certainly be a lot harder to make a case that the agency is engaging in routine censorship if it's putting stuff like that into a press release....
- Log in to post comments
"But moving forward into the future, it will certainly be a lot harder to make a case that the agency is engaging in routine censorship if it's putting stuff like that into a press release...."
Call me cynical, but until I have an indication that the above press release is part of a trend, I will continue to see the "glass half-empty".
The tornado is very cool by the way.
New models suggest that cows eating grass may contribute significantly to warm cow-pies (WCP) and odiferous methane (CH4). Whereupon a feisty old Yankee farmer near Barnard, Vermont said; "Ayyuup."
Some brother Yalies are almost surely documenting your politically incorrect use of the term; "global warming." You even done real bad, maybe the worsest, with your cavalier; "global warming's relation to hurricanes."
Just try to package and market - never mind adapt to the bugaboo - GLOBAL WARMING with all its fearsome urgency and quantification possibilities. Careful or you could piss away some attractive offers from the Alexis de Tocqueville Instituto for Brain Damage.
I'm a little less optimistic, Chris. A press release for a study like this outside of hurricane season is one thing, but let's not confuse it with permission for people like Knutson to speak to the press during hurricane season while Lautenbacher, Mayfield and Landsea are in the midst of a damage control exercise (should the need for one arise during the 2006 season). I have a strong suspicion that the gag remains very much in place for that scenario.
First nit: Katrina was never in the Main Hurricane Development Region (MDR). (Neither was Rita.)
(However, I do not know of any researcher who has seriously suggested Knutson's findings do not apply to hurricanes outside of the MDR. Emily and Wilma both formed and peaked in the MDR.)
Second nit: In addition to extending from 10 N to 20 N, the MDR also extends from 20 W to 90 W. So much of the MDR is a long way from the Cape Verde Islands.
Katrina's TCR: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf
Rita's TCR: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL182005_Rita.pdf
Laurence, you must mean 'hurricane', not tornado. No tornadoes were mentioned in the press release. (However, some tornadoes were spawned by Katrina, as is typical of powerful hurricanes.)
I'm sure Lawrence was referring to the tornado in the History Channel ad.
The number of tornadoes spawned by hurricanes is independent of the intensity. The direction of motion at landfall and the upper-air pattern ahead of the hurricane are much more important. Storms moving towards the north at landfall are much more likely to be associated with tornadoes. As an example, Frances (2004) was essentially tornado-free when it made landfall on eastern Florida, but produced a large number of tornadoes as and after it made landfall as a tropical storm on the Florida Panhandle.
I think Laurence was referring to Chris's flash ad, which does a tornado animation thing every once in a while. (You might need the right browser version to get it to show up.)
>>I think Laurence was referring to Chris's flash ad
Yep, that would be it. I was talking 'bout important things (for a change)
Isn't it amazing, however, that even the most innane of statements can be interpreted in so many different ways?
I guess it all depends on your "frame of reference" -- or your browser, in this case.
As everyone knows, tornados (or is it tornadoes? Gotta ask Dan Quayle) only exist if one is using Netscape 8.1.
Well, that explains it. I disable all ads that use flash. Sorry for the confusion.