Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming

by Chris C. Mooney

Are hurricanes increasing in ferocity and frequency because of global warming? In the wake of Katrina, leading science journalist Chris Mooney follows the careers of top meteorologists on either side of this red-hot question through the 2006 hurricane season, tracing how the media, special interests, politics, and the weather itself have skewed and amplified what was already an intense scientific debate.

In this fascinating and urgently important book, Mooney—a native of New Orleans—delves into a compelling consequence of the great inconvenient truth of our day: Are we responsible for making hurricanes even bigger monsters than they already are?

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Climate Change, Environment, Nature, Audiobook, Politics

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Chris Mooney is an energy and environment reporter for the Washington Post.

Reviews

[Peter Corrigan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty well done account of the history (up until 2007) of the debate over the connection between hurricanes (intensity, frequency) and global warming. He delves into the deeper history of tropical cyclone research and it was fun to read about the great old names of tropical meteorology like Herbert Riehl, Erik Palmen, Tor Bergeron and Jule Charney and of course the legendary William Gray who becomes the anti-hero of Money's book. Other greats of the meteorology and climate world make numerous appearances including Kerry Emanuel, Kevin Trenberth, Christopher Landsea, Phil Klotzbach and many others, like a trip down memory lane for me! Much is made of the struggle between the observational empiricists (Gray and his proteges) and the numerical modelers. The intensity of the debate is well-chronicled and seems reasonably accurate coming from a non-scientist. Have no real complaints about the authors take, he seems fair enough and he obviously did a lot of research and many interviews. It is a fascinating tale as the debate intensifies amidst the amazing 2004 and especially 2005 hurricane seasons. Easy to forget how astounding the 2005 season was with 28 named storms and such monsters as Katrina, Rita and Wilma. 2020 with 30 named storms may have topped it but not even close on ACE (250 v 180). He has lots of negative stories about how the evil Republicans tried to muzzle the global warming-hurricane true believers but in retrospect it was nothing compared to the suppression of alternate viewpoints during the Covid crisis.

[Andrea · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm going to preface this review by saying that I'm a meteorologist who is all for reducing GHG emissions. But... *Sigh* Another journalist posing as an objective reporter, and almost pulls it off. In this round, Mooney actually does a really good job of summarizing the history of hurricane science, and the inductive vs. deductive clash between two of its most famous names. But ultimately this is an over-simplification of the debate, and from a somewhat "insider" perspective, it seems Mooney has only researched the aspects that will lend credence to his Bush-bashing. In Mooney's defense, the atmosphere/hurricanes are so complicated that I'm not sure its possible to fully explore this subject within one book, especially since the line between science and politics very quickly becomes blurred.

[Jackie Brady · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ho-hum. I better understand the politics and battles within the fields that study hurricanes and weather forecasting after reading this book, but I can't say that I care too much. Basically, we know enough to be able to say that humans are impacting global climate change and that ocean temperatures and other key factors linked to hurricanes are being altered as a result. That's all. How will these changes affect hurricanes in the future? Nobody agrees. The author makes some weak statements about how insurance companies, risk assessors, and governments should prepare for the range of possibilities, and he chastises us for moving en masse to vulnerable areas, but he includes little actual advice. All in all, I found the book slow-moving and only moderately informative.

I will say that this book might be a bit more interesting to those living in active hurricane regions.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't really follow the details of the science. My main takeaway was the overall impression of the philosophical divide between modelers and empiricists, and the general conclusion that we only know that climate change impacts hurricane intensity and numbers without really knowing how much. It all seemed pretty reasonable, but it's hard to have any basis for indpendent judgment in reading a popular science book like this when you don't have an independent grounding in the science.

Hurricaines are a problem whether or not they are made worse by climate change. Climate change is a problem whether or not worse hurricaines are one of its effects. We need to take action against both whether or not they are interrelated.

[Anja247 · Rating 1 out of 5]

It’s a subject that interests me a lot, written in such a way that my brain blanked out in boredom.

[Leah Pitfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear, comfortable read

[Joe Zagrodnik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Storm World is basically a history of hurricane science, starting with the 1800s but focusing most on the years 2004-2006, when the author met with leading experts in the field and attended all of the major research conferences. This was a unique period for the hurricane research community, as a combination of major US hurricane landfalls and new research linking global warming to increasing hurricane activity threw the hurricane researchers directly into the national spotlight.

The major strength of Storm World is the accuracy in which Mooney presents the science behind the hurricane/climate debate and most importantly, the importance and impact of each piece of science on a broader scale. Often books about science topics are grossly oversimplified or written from an outsider’s perspective. Mooney is so immersed that could easily be mistaken for a hurricane researcher in the field. It is clear that Mooney has carefully read all of the relevant scientific research and most importantly, he successfully contextualizes the important findings and conclusions from the results and correctly places them in the framework of the hurricane research paradigm. Generally, Mooney lets the involved scientists speak for themselves until the conclusion, where he gives recommendations for how scientists and policymakers should be acting in light of the available knowledge.

An important theme is the implication of a lack of scientific consensus. Bill Gray (the empiricist) and Kerry Emanuel (the theorist) represent two opposing viewpoints about the relation of increased hurricane activity to global warming. When the 2005 hurricane season threw their debate into the spotlight, the normally internal squabbling between the two camps boiled over into a political firestorm that brought national attention to this often bitter dispute. Many shortcomings of the hurricane research community were exposed in the process. Science is often considered to be slow and objective, with an emphasis on peer reviewed journal articles. Mooney shows how in reality, the personalities and background of the scientific researchers relate to the perspective of that particular viewpoint, which in turn adds a subjective influence to the final research results. While communicating with colleagues is still important, it is essential for scientists to understand how to work with the media and disseminate their conclusions to policymakers and to the general public. Mooney mentions that blogs have gained acceptance as a way of accomplishing this goal.

Mooney criticizes Dr. Gray for stubbornly clinging to his disdain for numerical modeling, but the issue of projecting future hurricane numbers and intensity remains largely unsettled. The final conclusions offer advice on making policy decisions in light of this lack of scientific consensus. Mooney falls in the middle of the two sides, as he notes that the hurricanes are almost certainly related to climate, but the nature and extent of the relationship is still unclear. However, when considering policy and planning for future storms, it is necessary to prepare for the possibility of stronger storms. Scientists will always be disputing some issue related to the topic; it’s a necessary part of the scientific method. But instead of emphasizing the points of contention, society must focus on the areas of agreement and calculate the risk accordingly. Scientists are obligated to help, not hinder that process.

Mooney’s interpretation of the hurricane/climate debate will not become easily outdated. Even though the science continues to advance, the debate hasn’t gone away and Storm World presents advice for scientists of all disciplines. As Atlantic hurricane activity has quieted down over the past few years, the story has fallen out of the spotlight while the US remains vulnerable to major hurricane strikes. Inevitably, a new hurricane will bring these issues back into the spotlight, and hopefully the scientific community will be better prepared for the next media invasion.

Note: I am a graduate student in meteorology (specializing in satellite remote sensing of hurricanes) and I work with Dr. Hugh Willoughby who was accurately quoted several times in this book.

[John Willis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of history on hurricanes and the science behind that. I enjoyed the book but it wasn't a page turner.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review title: Change in the weather
Storm World provides a fast-moving history of hurricane measurement and forecasting, and an insight into the surprisingly tempestuous splits in the forecasting community. Historically, hurricane researchers had focused on gathering data and looking for patterns in the data to understand the conditions that fostered hurricanes and fed them to higher levels of fury. Then, with the advent of computing power, some turned their attention to creating models that could be validated against past data and used to forecast future conditions.

In reality, both disciplines, the empirical and the theoretical, contribute to a fuller understanding of the genesis and forecasting of hurricanes, but as Mooney points out, the water was muddied as these views were merging by the specter of global warming. When model variables were adjusted to dial in rising ocean levels and temperatures, the resulting predictions were questioned (often vociferously and quite personally).

Truth be told, the projections turned out by the models under global warming seem to be questionable, as they don't follow expected patterns, and result in outcomes that based on existing data, seem unlikely and unpredictable. To his credit, Mooney points this out, but make no mistake--Mooney clearly states his bias toward acceptance of aggressive global warming theories, and it clouds his arguments throughout the book. The same material in the hands of a more even-handed writer would have had greater impact and raised my rating of this book by one or two points.

Throughout the controversy, the reasonable scientists on any side of the arguments pointed out the logical conclusion (which Mooney seems to accept only reluctantly) that regardless of the impact of global warming on the frequency and strength of hurricanes, social and geographical conditions such as those brought to light during Hurricane Katrina must be addressed first. Increasing populations perched on ocean shores at risk for hurricane landfalls need to be moved, protected, and evacuated or insured in event of impending disaster, any and all of which actions must be started now, will be expensive, and will involve political and social consensus which will be hard to achieve.

[Janelle C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think the human element in "objective" science is fascinating. Mooney does a great job showing how the personalities, methodological frameworks and ideologies shape what we know about global warming and hurricane intensity. He sets up the primary rift in the debate as based on methodology: empirical meteorologists tend to think that there is not enough evidence to know if the warmer oceans are causing stronger storms, while scientists who use mathematical models to predict weather outcomes have repeatedly found connections between increased CO2 levels, warmer oceans and more severe storms. He explains the scientific findings in laymen's terms, makes connections and explains the debate. He does not pose as an "objective reporter", rather he places himself as a (minor) actor in the debate surrounding global warming. He is fully aware that the media has also played a role in twisting outcome of the debate and the warped transmission of the findings.
He does not focus too much on who benefits or looses if the connection between global warming and stronger storms is made, but rather focuses on how the scientific findings are filtered through politics.

[Todd Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Storm World looks at the state of science relating global warming and their relation to hurricanes. What is their relationship? The evidence isn't clear. Scientists have established a link between human activity and global warming, and a link between global warming and rising sea temperatures, but how these rising temperatures influence the frequency and magnitude of hurricanes is unknown.

Though the topic is interesting as is the description of how scientific knowledge progresses, Mooney's writing isn't. The last half of the book in particular drags as Mooney outlines every single storm that occurred during 2005, the location, path, intensity, and monetary damage.

Why spend so much time and energy going into this minute level of detail? So he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one really knows whether global warming and hurricanes are related.

[Dave · Rating 2 out of 5]

mooney is a good reporter but he's not a particularly good writer. he's also hindered by the fact that he wanted to write a book about how global warming is making hurricanes more frequent and/or intense and the sceince just doesn't say that yet. the result is that he drifts from science history to contemporary history/political reporting to popular science, but never seems to know just what kind of book he's writing.
that said, some of the science is interesting and he's pretty good at covering the recent history, especially the politicization of hurricane and climate science (though he wrote an entire book on this subject already)

[Fred · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lots of insight to be gained into the politics of global warming in this explanation of the disconnect between hurricane researchers and climate modelers.

The author is clearly in camp with the atmospheric modeler community, but does a pretty fair summary of the strengths and weaknesses in the science of both communities.

Finally, there is some documentation of the Bush administration's PR filter on NOAA scientists. None of this is breaking news, but presented in this very readable books makes you feel like you have a good handle on the current science, issues and personalities involved in the ongoing debate.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful, even-handed and timely book from the author of 'The Republican War on Science' that seeks to answer the question of whether global warming is currently making hurricanes stronger (or will in the future). (Inadequately short answer: probably yes, but it's complicated.)

I really enjoyed how Mooney delves into the messy process of scientific advancement, how it's driven by personality and happenstance, and yet somehow manages to lurch slowly toward the right answer.

[Kyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I borrowed this book from my boss. We both really liked it. I'm not sure if people whose lives don't revolve around learning about climate change would enjoy it. I found it interesting because some of the names were familiar or people I'd met. It was also nice to have read his previous book (Republican War against Science) because he used terms like "sound science" which he'd described in detail in that earlier book. Anyway, I liked it. I recommend it with reservation. I learned a ton.

[Julia · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book presents the scientific history of the global warming debate and how it got wrapped into politics. Being a geek, it was nice to finally understand the basis for the arguments between climate scientists and meteorologists. The bottom line seems to be that global warming is happening, that humans are at least partially responsible, but that we can't really say the effect it will have on hurricanes.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent look at the history of science with particular attention to the science of tropical cyclones (going back to the 19th Century), the rise of weather forecasting, and the impact of global climate change modeling. Fascinating look at not only the science but how the process of scientific understanding occurs.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really thorough and balanced look at the global warming/hurricane debate. To deny global warming is foolish but to also say one storm is due to global warming is equally foolish. His prediction of a category 3 storm hitting NY came true with Sandy so one can only hope that they won't rebuild in the same spot as storms are likely to get more intense.

[Heidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was stolen from me, stolen I tell you! I will read it eventually, but I'm getting it from the library later.

[Adam Schwebach]

Just starting to read

[Ruth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and interesting read.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really good book for gaining some insight into the global warming right vs. left debate and the science vs. the media on the topic.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book relating what happens to science and research as it enters the public square of debate.

[Edward ott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mooney is a great writer who is able to get across the science of hurricane studies and global warming to the average reader. A must read if you live in a coastal area .