Director of NOOA Max Mayfield question.

[Ksec]

His statements imply he doesnt really believe in global warming but says its just natural weather changes that are happening.

Anyone have any info on why he would imply this?

[movonne]

1. Because he wants to keep his job....

[rzemanfl]

2. Natural cycles. There is a chart of hurricane activity by decade

posted on the NOAA website. I'm not sure I agree with him, but at least he won't lie for the Bush administration.

[Ksec]

3. Who appointed him?

[Igel]

4. Because there's a fairly robust hurricane cycle:

there were far more hurricanes in the '40s and '50s than in the '70s-'90s. The 1900 Galveston hurricane was part of the previous high point in the cycle.

If there's any kind of a normal distribution for hurricanes, having more hurricanes means that you'll get more average ones and more extreme ones.

To maintain that Katrina and Rita is part of global warming, you'd need to show that hurricane numbers and intensity increased in lockstep with warming: but in the '60s-'70s, their numbers tapered off, and stayed low, and I don't think (but don't really recall) that their intensities increased. Then there's a big increase in the last few years. On cue for a cycle, but not fitting neatly into the secular trend we expect.

The relation of this to global warming is going to be statistical: On *average*, are hurricanes increasing not only in numbers, but also in intensity, in a way that we don't expect from the limited information we have concerning hurricane cycles. Applying statistics to a single event, or even two events, given the kinds of errors in the predictions of global warming, and our knowledge of the hurricane cycle, is a problem. Advocates may say there's a direct connection, but it's only possible, not yet even probable, in the views of many who rely on statistics and history--even those who believe in human causation for global warming (which are a subset of those who believe in global warming).

I have no idea if Mayfield believes in global warming, or human causation for it, or just refuse to assert a direct link between global warming and Katrina/Rita given the paucity of data.

[Ksec]

5. So proving its human causation

is damn near impossible since the warming trend started in the 60s /70s and the intensity and occurence rates lulled then?

OK , I think I get it. Thank you

[Igel]

6. Give it a decade.

Right now we have lots of suspicions. It'll take a few years, maybe not a decade, if the trend is strong enough.

Somebody said (unsourced) there were 22 cat. 5 storms from 188x to 2005; with decades of no category 5 storms, that allows for some bunching. Two in one year is unheard of, but it's not like we have more than 3 cycles or so under our belts; moreover, most of the observations were made on land, and even Katrina rated only as category 4 upon landfall; it's just possible Rita may even be a strong category 3 upon landfall. So we can't nicely compare old data with new data.

It's why academic discussions are so damned frustrating: you have a really, really neat story, and the data supports your story. You're convinced. But there's no evidence deciding between your story and another, competing story, that you don't like. (Many linguists use the word "story" to mean "account or hypothesis", what you want the data to tell about.)