Will railed about global warming-hurricane link claim; ignored actual scientific data on hurricane intensity
On the September 25 broadcast of ABC's This Week, George Will asserted in a panel discussion that no scientific evidence supports a correlation between global warming and recent intense hurricane activity, stating that such claims are as baseless as blaming the hurricanes on the "prescription drug entitlement." As host George Stephanopoulos and guest David Gergen attempted to point out, Will's comments on hurricane frequency ignored the heart of the current scientific debate that postulates a link between hurricane intensity -- not frequency -- and warming trends.
Will's attempt to downplay any relationship between warming and hurricane activity relied on a chart documenting the frequency of hurricanes striking the mainland United States. National Weather Service data show that the number of hurricanes striking the United States has not increased in recent decades but rather has fluctuated from decade to decade.
The main question for scientists in investigating links between global warming and hurricanes, however, has not been "How often?" but instead "How intense?" By presenting data on hurricane frequency relative to the mainland United States, Will showed only that hurricanes originating in the Atlantic Ocean are not occurring any more frequently than in past decades. Although this observation is accurate, it does not address the fact that hurricanes are becoming increasingly powerful, a trend identified in research on hurricanes worldwide.
A recent study by the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which appears in the September 16 issue of Science magazine, revealed that "[t]he number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years" and that "[t]he shift occurred as global sea surface temperatures have increased over the same period." Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has conducted similar research, suggesting in the August issue of Nature magazine that current and future global warming may well increase the destructiveness of hurricanes. According to Emanuel, "The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime."
Further, Emanuel stated: "[E]verywhere we have looked, the change in hurricane energy consumption follows very closely the change in tropical sea surface temperature. When the sea surface temperature falls, the energy consumption falls, and conversely, when it rises, so too does the energy consumption." He continued: "[R]ecords strongly suggest that the 0.5 degree centigrade (1 degree Fahrenheit) warming of the tropical oceans we have seen in the past 50 years is unprecedented for perhaps as long as a few thousand years. Scientists who work on these records therefore believe that the recent increase is anthropogenic." Will's research therefore omits the kinds of changes in hurricane activity that may indeed be linked to global climate change.
From a panel discussion that included Stephanopoulos, Will, Gergen, and political strategist Donna Brazile on the September 25 broadcast of ABC's of This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it comes, and I wanted to pick up on something that [National Hurricane Center director] Max Mayfield said there. It looks like this is just the beginning of what could be a long stretch of hurricanes. And the big debate is we know that the oceans are warming, we know that we're in for this era of hurricanes, but the big debate, George Will, is how much of that is caused by global warming? I think I know what you think about this, and I think you've got some backup from Max Mayfield.
WILL: I do. We have a graphic here that will really underscore what he told you, which is, "This is just a normal cycle." If you could put the graphic up of U.S. hurricane strikes by decades. The bar graphs are the white bars show the total number of hurricanes per decade. The red graph shows the severe category 3, 4, and 5 ones, and what they show is it was particularly bad in the 1910s, 1930s, and 1940s -- before someone had decided that global warming was the cause of this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but if you look at -- we're only halfway through the decade barely, we've had six very intense hurricanes this decade, and we do know, David Gergen, that the ocean is warming and a lot of scientists have looked at this -- Science magazine, Nature magazine -- and say we don't know for sure, but global warming could be playing a part in this.
GERGEN: We certainly know that ocean temperatures have increased in temperature by about a degree in the last 30 years. We know that in the Gulf [of Mexico] it's about five degrees above normal. We know that warmer waters produce more severe hurricanes, and we know that in the last 30 years or so we've had an increase of 80 percent in the intensity of hurricanes. In other words, we've had 80 percent more Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes in the last 30 years. Now, that is not conclusive proof of global warming causing hurricanes. George is absolutely right about that -- there is a natural cycle here. The question, though, it does seem to be under these circumstances this is a wake-up call to take global warming and climate change more seriously and to investigate this more seriously not to sigh and to treat dismissively.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Donna's nodding, and George is sighing.
WILL: I have an alternative theory. I think these two hurricanes were caused by the prescription drug entitlement. You will say, "How can you say that? The entitlement hasn't even started." There's no conclusive evidence that global warming, that is to say, an unprecedented, irreversible, and radical change has started. You will say, "There's no scientific proof." Same answer. You will say, "Aren't you embarrassed, Mr. Will, to be attaching your political agenda to a national disaster?" Yeah, I'm embarrassed, but everyone else is doing it.














will is one of those who seems to lack a grasp of basic science. unfortunately too many ignorant americans buy his nonsense. the warmer the temperature the stronger the storm. ocean temperatures are rising. hurricane intensity is on an upswing. 1+1=2. the polar ice caps are not rebuilding completely every winter. glaciers are melting.
"will is one of those who seems to lack a grasp of basic science. unfortunately too many ignorant americans buy his nonsense. the warmer the temperature the stronger the storm. ocean temperatures are rising. hurricane intensity is on an upswing. 1+1=2. the polar ice caps are not rebuilding completely every winter. glaciers are melting." --Mefirst
-----------------------------------------------------
I normally agree with you, but I need to point a few things out. I believe most scientists would agree that the Earth's temperature is rising and that humans play a role in that rise, but we should all be open to dissent on this theory.
The thermodynamics involved are extremely complex. We should not shut our ears when people bring up problems with the data not matching theories in question. To do so would be to be as blindly dogmatic as the Republicans have become on most issues of science.
I have some deep problems with the data on global warming. Historical data on global temperatures have become less useful over the years because of the inaccuracy of some of the first measuring tools as well as the increase of data points to record temperature. Cities create heat islands (mostly from the heat absorbing properties of asphalt) that make it difficult to measure ground temperatures accurately as well.
Some studies on the polar ice caps show that the North Pole may be shrinking, but the antarctic ice caps may be both shrinking and growing at the same time in different places.
This question may not be definitively answered for at least 40 years or so. I think it would be wise to take precautions to limit our C02, methane, CFC, etc. production. I believe it should be a goal for Republicans and Democrats to reduce our footprint on our environment (if for nothing else then to be good stewards of the Earth) despite the seductiveness of doing next to nothing in the name of commerce.
we've moved beyond the point where we can keep ignoring the subject of global warming. the fact is that with very little trouble we could increase car mileage. but the energy cos. and the republicans [mostly] won't approve anything that reduces oil co profits. the gop keeps doing everything it can to increase our dependency on oil. the american public needs to stop their ten commandments, flag burning crap and start worrying about real subjects. u.s. grant, warren harding, and other presidents let their pals feed at the public's expense, but they did not threaten the country the way these ideological dummies have. [and nuclear power needs to be considered.]
The technology already exists. Plug-in hybrid diesels, running on 20% biodiesel could easily eliminate our dependence on foreign oil (saving $Billions in overseas military expenditures) and significantly cut the global warming pollutants.
The only "negative" effect is that oil company profits would probably drop significantly.
George Will worries about the effect that a mininum wage increase or an evironmental regulation will have on the economy but he finds it hard to imagine that actually changing the chemistry of the atmosphere will have any negative effect. Next time Someone like GW wants to poo poo the idea that 6 billion people might have a negative effect on the planet, someone should say then that certainly something as vibrant as the republican lead US ecomony should be resilient enought to handle paying someone more that 6 bucks an hour.
Remember, it is very convenient for these people to sweep environmental problems under the rug. It gets in the way of their blessed ideology.
If science is in agreement that one degree Celsius of ocean warming over the last century has contributed to increased hurricane intensity, no one has PROVEN that a one degree increase in ocean temperature over the last century is due to fossil fuel emissions.
Geological evidence of tropical zones in the North and Ice Ages in the South proves that the Earth has experienced extreme climatic variations well before industrialized man showed up in his Escalade.
Please explain your experiment which controls all variables except emissions and global temperatures to prove your point that ocean warming is due to the Cadillac man.
Good luck!
"Please explain your experiment which controls all variables except emissions and global temperatures to prove your point that ocean warming is due to the Cadillac man."
If there's no evidence that emissions are a contributing factor to global warming, why all the denial? If there's no evidence that there's anything that mankind can do to alleviate the problem, then they should just admit it exists and say that, right?
Regional variations in climate are not the same as global variations. And the worldwide monitoring of global temperatures has shown a noteable increase. Therefore, global warming is fact, not imagination.
The cause of global warming, is indeed not fully understood. But the evidence from complex models clearly show the the pollutants we emit are at least 1 factor. Since we can't create a control world and a test world to experiment with, science is limited to models based on the best understanding of the world.
Unless you've been asleep for 30 years, not doing anything to try to delay global warming is about the stupidest "option" one could ever imagine. So please tell me why we should continue to pollute at the same rates, when technologically we could easily reduce them?
By the way, do you enjoy breathing the air that comes out of your Cadillac exhaust? I don't.
Why are you so stuck in trying to blame all pollution on cars? Industrial air pollution far out measures consumer air pollution.
Those that understand that humans are contributing to global warming and thus are affecting the climate:
- The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report in 2001. [link to www.ipcc.ch]
- The National Academy of Scientists [link to books.nap.edu]
- US Environmental Protection Agency [link to yosemite.epa.gov]
- American Geophysicists Union [link to www.agu.org]
Those that don't understand that humans are contributing to global warming and affecting the climate:
- George Bush, politicians, institutions receiving backing from the Right and energy companies, pundits (including George Will) and those who believe all the former. [link to www.rushonline.com]
Do you really think that: - The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - The National Academy of Scientists - US Environmental Protection Agency - American Geophysicists Union
know as much about science as such leading scholars as George Will, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity?
The one thing I don't understand about George Will's statement is this: How does global warming benefit the agenda of the left? Does Will consider years of scientific inquiry to be simple fearmongering?
While I do not often agree with George Will, and while I do believe that global warming does exist and it is caused, at least in part, by human activity; that is not the point of Media Matters. The point of Media Matters is whether false statements or comments were made by individuals in the media. After having reviewed the text and the video, including the chart used by Mr. Will, I must regretably conclude that Media Matters is in error.
Media Matters accused Mr. Will of only discussing the frequency of hurricanes, but not intensity. That is the charge. However, when one reviews the video and the text, it is clear that both the number of total hurricanes and the hurricanes of classes 3, 4, and 5 were included, and that the chart does show a random pattern in both number and intensity as Mr. Will indicated.
Had Media Matters indicated that Mr. Will's chart was fallacious, that would be a different story. But Media Matters did not. It only stated that Mr. Will ignored the issue of intensity which he clearly did not. Beyond the issue of factually accurate statements, Media Matters strays at its own peril. In this case, it has gone down in flames, and owes Mr. Will an apology.
Will's chart only covers strikes on the US. It doesn't covers storms that hit Mexico or drift out into the Atlantic. It also shows the intensity of the storms only at the time of landfall. The NCAR study not only looks at mmore storms, but also looks at their duration and peak strength.
Had media matters challenged Will on this basis, I would not have objected. Thanks for the information.
just remember global warming is not real. bombay did not have a record 37 unches of rain in one day a couple months ago. 200 did not drown. ocean temperatures have not risen. florida did not have a record four hurricanes last year. ivan did not decimate alabama and pensacola. charley did not decimate punta gorda. three powerful hurricanes,dennis katrina rita, have not hit the northern gulf coast so far. katrina did not destroy hundreds of square miles of the mississippi coast. trent lott's house, which survived a direct hit from camille, was not swept away. none of these things happened. let me show you this nice brochure for this suv. 12 miles to the gallon.