Response to Revkin, Part 1

In class on Monday, we discussed Andrew Revkin’s objection to Bill McKibbon, who wrote of Hurricane Irene, “Irene’s got a middle name — and it’s global warming.” I was chastened to learn that research has indicated that Global warming is predicted to increase wind shear upon Atlantic storms aimed at the US coast.  I did not know this. I misspoke.  More importantly, Bill McKibbon did not raise this issue in his piece, a choice that may indeed strain his credibility with some. Reading McKibbon’s piece, however, I am left feeling it is still more useful than Revkin’s. 

Revkin refers to research about wind shear “in the part of the Atlantic that is a nursery for the kinds of hurricanes that tend to strike the United States,” thus wind shear is predicted to winnow out forming hurricanes bound for the US, leaving fewer to actually reach the east coast.  He quotes researcher Chunzai Wang: “Keep in mind that the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season had 12 hurricanes, but not a single hurricane made landfall in the United States.” I am curious about where these 12 hurricanes were hatched, and the role of trajectory Vs origin locale. How is wind shear is effecting hurricane formation throughout the world?  I plan to look at Wang’s study. If an increase in the number of storms is expected globally, I’m inclined to forgive McKibbon for not emphasizing the wind shear benefits the US may realize.  

McKibbon did not rename hatchlings in the Atlantic, he renamed the storm that did make landfall, and traveled all the way up through New England.  Irene was more dangerous because of global warming. McKibbon’s piece accurately portrays that storms reaching the US coastline are strengthened by warmer waters and moister air, and will dump their rain on land more likely to already be saturated in a wetter world.  All accurate, and newsworthy.