Special Issue explores factors influencing democratic attitudes, and what’s at stake for science in the U.S. after November election

Summary author: Walter Beckwith

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

The health of American democracy is facing challenges, with experts pointing to recent democratic backsliding, deepening partisan divisions, and growing anti-democratic attitudes and rhetoric. In this issue of Science, Research Articles, a Policy Forum, a Science News feature, and a related Editorial highlight how the tools of science and technology are being used to address this growing concern and how the upcoming U.S. presidential election could impact U.S. science. 

 

In one research study in this special issue, Jonathan Chu and colleagues sought to understand whether understandings of democracy differ across societies. They investigated global conceptualizations of democracy by conducting conjoint survey experiments in six countries – the U.S., Italy, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Japan. Chu et al. found that participants consistently identified free and fair elections and the protection of civil liberties as the most essential attributes of a democracy, regardless of whether the country was a well-functioning democracy, backsliding, or non-democratic. Desirable social and economic outcomes were also linked to democracy but, compared to elections and civil liberties, played a smaller role. The findings provide empirical evidence of a universal preference for free and fair elections and civil liberties as the primary markers of democracy, offering a clearer framework for defending democratic norms worldwide.

 

Also in the special issue, Jan Voelkel and colleagues present a megastudy evaluating 25 interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes in the U.S., involving more than 32,000 participants. Rather than expecting single, brief exposures to yield lasting changes, the study aimed to identify which general strategies are effective in influencing partisan and anti-democratic attitudes, thereby enhancing understanding of the key causal forces at play in this space. Voelkel et al. found that many strategies effectively reduced partisan animosity, particularly those emphasizing shared identities or highlighting relatable individuals with opposing political beliefs. Other interventions, like correcting misperceptions of rival partisans' views and emphasizing the risks of democratic collapse, successfully reduced anti-democratic attitudes. However, reducing partisan hostility did not always translate to a reduction in support for anti-democratic practices, indicating that the two issues are distinct. The findings suggest that interventions targeting both partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes can be effective and highlight specific strategies that may bolster democratic attitudes in a polarized society.

 

A summary of a third study in the special issue, led by Michael Tessler and which explores the use of AI to improve democratic deliberation, can be found in a separate SciPak entry.

 

“The articles by Chu et al., Voelkel et al., and Tessler et al. show that online surveys, experiments, and AI-assisted deliberation can help to improve democratic attitudes and build consensus among the public. We welcome the development and refinement of such tools but also caution against focusing too narrowly on public opinion,” write Brendan Nyhan and Rocío Titiunik in a related Policy Forum. The Policy Forum highlights the strengths and/or limitations of the three studies. “Understanding and preventing democratic erosion requires an equal focus on political institutions, electoral rules, and the behavior of elites, the study of which is less amenable to experimentation and is often based on observational research designs and historical data.”

 

A feature story in the special issue by Science’s news team compares and contrasts what the science community could expect from a Donald Trump or Kamala Harris administration, examining issues like S&T funding, science integrity, high skills immigration, and science education. In an Editorial, Science Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp further elaborates on elements in the news feature, including points on which there is agreement in the Trump and Harris camps. “One mat­ter is the US approach to China, a rising research powerhouse,” says Thorp.

 

Podcast: A segment of Science's weekly podcast with Jonathan Chu, related to this research, will be available on the Science.org podcast landing page after the embargo lifts. Reporters are free to make use of the segments for broadcast purposes and/or quote from them – with appropriate attribution (i.e., cite "Science podcast"). Please note that the file itself should not be posted to any other Web site.

 

Raw data and replication code for Chu et al. is available here.

---

Journal

Science

DOI

10.1126/science.adt7697 

Article Title

Same but different

Article Publication Date

18-Oct-2024

 

Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: Censoring hate speech

University of Notre Dame

 

image: 

Matthew E.K. Hall, director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy and the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

view more 

Credit: Jon Hendricks/University of Notre Dame

There is strong disagreement in the United States as to whether, when and how much hate speech should be censored when posted on social media platforms. Democrats and Republicans, in particular, often argue about this question, especially in light of the Israel-Hamas war sparking further consternation over antisemitic and anti-Palestinian hate speech.

In an era of intense polarization, partisans have historically, and mistakenly, believed that members of the other party prioritize protecting certain types or victims of hate speech over others based on stereotypes or their affiliation with those potentially vulnerable groups.

New research from the University of Notre Dame, however, revealed that Democrats and Republicans generally agree on what to censor when it comes to the target, source and severity of hate speech.

“Basically, partisans misunderstand the other party’s priorities,” said Matthew E.K. Hall, one of several co-authors of the study, “Illusory interparty disagreement: Partisans agree on what hate speech to censor but do not know it,” published recently by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“And these misunderstandings over hate speech censorship might lead to even greater polarization because people misrepresent the values and preferences of the other party members, which, in an election year, can reduce cross-party voting,” said Hall, the director of Notre Dame’s Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy and the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies.

The research was conducted by Hall and first author Brittany C. Solomon, the Thomas A. and James J. Bruder Assistant Professor of Administrative Leadership in Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, along with co-authors Abigail Hemmen, a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at Notre Dame, and James N. Druckman, a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Rochester.

Hall pointed out that one major disconnect is that Democrats overestimate and Republicans underestimate the other party’s willingness to censor speech that specifically targets white people. On the flip side, he said, both Republicans and Democrats are especially concerned about antisemitic hate speech and are more supportive of censoring anti-Black speech than any other form of hate speech.

In a survey conducted between Dec. 8 and 22, 2023, the researchers showed more than 3,357 participants a variety of social media profiles containing potentially objectionable speech and asked whether they would remove the post or deactivate the account. The researchers found that members of both parties chose to remove social media posts containing hate speech in the majority of profiles, regardless of the group being targeted. More than 60 percent of respondents recommended removing posts that targeted Black people and more than 58 percent wanted to remove posts targeting Jews. Majorities also chose to remove posts targeting Palestinians (54.8 percent) and white people (54.6 percent).

Some participants felt so strongly about the hate speech that they advocated for deactivating the social media accounts altogether, most commonly for posts targeting Black people (nearly 51 percent) and Jews (nearly 48 percent).

One unexpected finding for the researchers was that neither the source’s partisanship nor position within society affected the participants’ censorship decisions. The bottom line, the researchers wrote, is that “partisans agreed on hate speech censorship based on the source — largely in that the source does not matter.”

This finding was true with one exception: Democrats were more likely to deactivate accounts owned by elected officials versus private citizens.

“Debates on hate speech moderation should focus on understanding misperceptions of censorship preferences rather than on what or who should be censored,” Solomon reiterated.

Another factor considered in the study was the severity of the hate speech content — incitement to violence being the most severe. Partisans also tended to agree on censoring hate speech based on the harshness of the language, with increased support for censorship as severity increased.

While the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, including hate speech on principle, this constitutional guarantee does not allow unfettered hate speech. The government can regulate speech if it is viewed as inciting lawlessness, posing a true threat or breaching the peace, the researchers explained. Furthermore, private actors such as social media platforms can moderate content on their platforms as they deem necessary.

“I think the study’s findings show that social media companies can find consensus policies that can get broad support, even in this highly polarized era,” Hall said.

“Moreover, this research suggests that media framings around partisan debates — like those over free speech — are largely driven by misunderstandings,” Hall explained. “And we need to better educate the public about these misunderstandings.”

At a time when democracy is in crisis, Hall noted that it is important to focus on the country’s core and essential democratic principles, including free speech as well as voting rights and civic engagement.

“Free speech is an essential value in a democratic society, and disagreements over censorship are increasingly prominent in that realm. It’s important to think about how we build and maintain consensus around appropriate levels of censorship in order to preserve core free speech rights,” Hall said.

Hall added that this particular study only focused on antisemitism and anti-Palestinian hate speech given the ongoing war in Israel, as well as anti-Black and anti-white speech given their significance in American culture.

“Further research on hate speech censorship should include additional comparisons across hate speech targeting other social groups,” the researchers noted.

Contact: Tracy DeStazio, associate director of media relations, 574-631-9958 or tdestazi@nd.edu

---

Journal

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

DOI

10.1073/pnas.2402428121 

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Illusory interparty disagreement: Partisans agree on what hate speech to censor but do not know i

 

New study reveals a global consensus on what democracy means

University of Oxford

• Researchers have carried out a new comprehensive assessment on how different people around the world understand the concept of ‘democracy.’

• The results demonstrate that -overwhelmingly- people in diverse countries agree that two factors are the most important for democratic societies: competitive elections and strong protections for civil liberties.
• The findings have been published today (17 October) by the leading journal Science.

Most people in most countries state that they wish to have a democratic government. But the definition of democracy has been contested constantly. Without understanding what people really mean by democracy, the concept is vulnerable to being exploited by dictators and anti-democratic politicians for their own ends. Today, democracy is under pressure within and across societies, even in long-standing democracies such as the United States and India.

A new research study led by the University of Oxford, National University of Singapore, and Emory University has now shed light on the question ‘How do people around the world define democracy?’ The study surveyed over 6000 people from the United States, Italy, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Japan- countries with highly different political regimes, democratic histories, geographic regions, levels of development, and cultural backgrounds. The study explored how people prioritize nine different attributes in their understanding of what makes a country democratic, using examples of hypothetical countries.

Key findings:

• Overwhelmingly, the two most important factors identified by participants were competitive elections and strong protections for civil liberties. The relevance of these was consistent regardless of people’s age, gender, education, minority status, or political ideology.

• Participants were significantly more likely to view countries that select their leaders through free and fair elections as more democratic than countries without elections.
• Participants were also significantly more likely to view countries with strong protections for civil liberties as more democratic compared with countries without such protections.
• After elections and liberties, the two most important attributes were gender equality, then economic equality. Countries in which men and women have equal rights are more likely to be seen as democratic than countries with highly unequal gender rights. Relative equality between the rich and poor (compared with high inequality) also increased the likelihood that a country was seen as more democratic.
• Institutional checks and balances were also seen to be important for democracy, although not as significantly as elections or civil liberties.  Countries where leaders must respect the legislature and courts’ authority in decision making were more likely to be perceived as more democratic compared with countries in which the leader frequently bypasses the legislative and judicial branches when making decisions.
• Finally, participants were generally more likely to see countries in which they can directly vote on policies as more democratic, but this ‘direct democracy’ was relatively unimportant compared to other factors.

In contrast the researchers found little evidence of an ‘authoritarian’ redefinition of democracy taking root anywhere. Even within authoritarian countries such as Egypt or Thailand, democracy was still perceived as being rooted in elections and liberties.

Co-author Associate Professor Scott Williamson (Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford) said: “We found that people across six very different countries consistently emphasize competitive elections and civil liberties as key determinants of what makes a country democratic. This shared understanding of democracy’s most important elements makes it more likely that people can identify undemocratic behaviour and push back against undemocratic political leaders.”

Co-author Professor Jonathan A. Chu (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore) added: "Our research speaks to the international competition over the place and meaning of democracy worldwide, as countries like China advance definitions of democracy that challenge traditional understandings that focus on free and fair elections and individual liberties."

Co-author PhD candidate Eddy S. F. Yeung (Department of Political Science, Emory University) said: “The concept of democracy is increasingly muddled in global conversations, especially in an era of democratic backsliding. Our collaborative effort provides systematic evidence that conventional elements of democracy still play an important role in shaping ordinary citizens’ understandings of democracy."

Notes for editors:

For interviews and media requests, contact Associate Professor Scott Williamson: scott.williamson@politics.ox.ac.uk

The paper ‘People consistently view elections and civil liberties as key components of democracy’ will be published in Science at 19:00 BST / 14:00 ET Thursday, 17 October 2024, DOI: 10.1126/science.adp1274 Advance copies of the paper may be obtained from the Science press package, SciPak, at https://www.eurekalert.org/press/scipak/ or by contacting scipak@aaas.org.

About the Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR), University of Oxford

DPIR is one of the largest departments working in Politics and International Relations in the world, and is active in both undergraduate and graduate teaching. With around 90 academic staff, it is world class in international and national research and teaching; in September 2024, The Guardian UK ranked us the Number One University in the UK for Politics. We are home to major research projects, a vibrant community of academic visitors, and a strong group of post-doctoral researchers, supported by highly competitive research fellowships, working across a broad range of disciplinary fields.

About the University of Oxford

Oxford University has been placed number 1 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings for the ninth year running, and ​number 3 in the QS World Rankings 2024. At the heart of this success are the twin-pillars of our ground-breaking research and innovation and our distinctive educational offer.

Oxford is world-famous for research and teaching excellence and home to some of the most talented people from across the globe. Our work helps the lives of millions, solving real-world problems through a huge network of partnerships and collaborations. The breadth and interdisciplinary nature of our research alongside our personalised approach to teaching sparks imaginative and inventive insights and solutions.

Through its research commercialisation arm, Oxford University Innovation, Oxford is the highest university patent filer in the UK and is ranked first in the UK for university spinouts, having created more than 300 new companies since 1988. Over a third of these companies have been created in the past five years. The university is a catalyst for prosperity in Oxfordshire and the United Kingdom, contributing £15.7 billion to the UK economy in 2018/19, and supports more than 28,000 full time jobs.

---

Journal

Science

DOI

10.1126/science.adp1274 

Article Title

People consistently view elections and civil liberties as key components of democracy

Article Publication Date

18-Oct-2024

 

Global CO2 emissions from forest fires increase by 60%

University of East Anglia

A major new study reveals that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from forest fires have surged by 60% globally since 2001, and almost tripled in some of the most climate-sensitive northern boreal forests. 

The study, led by the University of East Anglia (UEA) and published today in Science, grouped areas of the world into ‘pyromes’ - regions where forest fire patterns are affected by similar environmental, human, and climatic controls - revealing the key factors driving recent increases in forest fire activity. 

It is one of the first studies to look globally at the differences between forest and non-forest fires, and shows that in one of the largest pyromes, which spans boreal forests in Eurasia and North America, emissions from fires nearly tripled between 2001 and 2023. 

Significant increases were seen more broadly across the extratropical forests and amounted to an additional half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year, with the epicentre of emissions shifting away from tropical forests and towards the extratropics. 

Increased emissions were linked to a rise in fire-favourable weather, such as the hot-dry conditions seen during heatwaves and droughts, as well as increased rates of forest growth creating more vegetation fuels. Both trends are aided by rapid warming in the high northern latitudes, which is happening twice as fast as the global average. 

The study reveals a worrying increase in not only the extent of forest wildfires over the last two decades, but also their severity. The carbon combustion rate, a measure of fire severity based on how much carbon is emitted per unit of area burned, increased by almost 50% across forests globally between 2001 and 2023. 

The work involved an international team of scientists - from the UK, the Netherlands, US, Brazil, and Spain - who warn that further expansion of forest fires can only be averted if the primary causes of climate change, such as fossil fuel emissions, are tackled. 

Lead author Dr Matthew Jones, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, said: “Increases in both the extent and severity of forest fires have led to a dramatic rise in the amount of carbon emitted by forest fires globally. Startling shifts in the global geography of fires are also underway, and they are primarily explained by the growing impacts of climate change in the world’s boreal forests. 

“To protect critical forest ecosystems from the accelerating threat of wildfires, we must keep global warming at bay and this underscores why it is so vital to make rapid progress towards net zero emissions.” 

Threats to carbon storage 

Forests are of worldwide importance for carbon storage, with their growth helping to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and reduce rates of global warming. They also play a crucial role in meeting international climate targets, with reforestation and afforestation schemes being implemented to remove carbon from the atmosphere and offset human CO2 emissions from hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation and certain industries.

The success of these schemes relies on carbon being stored in forests permanently, and wildfires threaten that. Extratropical fires are already emitting half a billion tonnes more CO2 than two decades ago, and the long-term effect depends on how forests recover. More widespread and severe forest fires are a sign that emissions are now out of balance with the carbon captured by post-fire recovery. 

Dr Jones, a NERC Independent Research Fellow, said: “The steep trend towards greater extratropical forest fire emissions is a warning of the growing vulnerability of forests and it poses a significant challenge for global targets to tackle climate change.  

“We know that forests rebound poorly after the most severe fires, so there is huge interest in how the observed increases in fire severity will influence carbon storage in forests over the coming decades. This demands our close attention.” 

Escalating wildfire impacts masked until now 

Significantly, the increased emissions from forest fires contrasts with the reduced burning of the world’s tropical savannahs during the same period. Previous studies have shown that, since 2001, the area burned by all fires (forest and non-forest) fell by a quarter globally, mainly due to this. 

The latest findings are important because forest fires burn more severely and release larger amounts of harmful smoke to the atmosphere than savannah grassland fires, presenting major threats to those living near fires and to more distant communities exposed to poor air quality caused by smoke.  

The authors say the study debunks the narrative that falling overall annual area burned by fire globally means falling wildfire impact. 

“Until now, reduced burning in the already fire-prone savannahs and grasslands has masked increases in forest fire extent and severity that are hugely consequential for society and the environment,” said Dr Jones. “Our work shows that fires are increasingly happening where we don’t want them to – in forests, where they present the greatest threat to people and to vital carbon stores.”  

Managing wildfires 

Machine learning was key to unlocking new observations about the shifting global geography of forest fires. It was used to group the world’s forest ecoregions into 12 distinct pyromes, allowing the researchers to isolate the effects of climate change from other influencing factors such as land use.  

This knowledge also reveals new insights into which strategies can be most effective for mitigating wildfires and protecting forests. Dr Jones said: “Substantial financing is required to support strategic programs of forest management, stakeholder engagement, and public education, all of which represent a meaningful shift of fire management strategy from largely reactive to increasingly proactive. 

“For example, priority areas for forest management and fire breaks must be defined based on proactive monitoring of forest productivity, particularly in the extratropics. Managing fuel loads in places where they could present greatest danger during fire-favourable weather is a key priority for limiting the severity and impact of fires when they do occur”. 
The work was supported by funders including the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), European Commission Horizon 2020 programme, and European Space Agency. 

---

Journal

Science

DOI

10.1126/science.ado6828 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Global rise in forest fire emissions linked to climate change in the extratropics

Article Publication Date

17-Oct-2024

Extratropical forest fire emissions are increasing as climate changes

Summary author: Walter Beckwith

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

As climate change promotes fire-favorable weather, climate-driven wildfires in extratropical forests have overtaken tropical forests as the leading source of global fire emissions, researchers report. The findings raise urgent concerns about the future of forest carbon sinks under climate change. Fire has long played a role in shaping Earth's forests and regulating carbon storage in ecosystems. However, anthropogenic climate change has intensified fire-prone weather, leading to an increase in burned areas and carbon emissions, particularly in forested regions. These fires not only reduce forests' ability to absorb carbon but also disrupt ecosystems, harm biodiversity, and pose significant societal threats. While climate, human activity, and vegetation all influence forest fire patterns, their relative importance varies by region, making it difficult to untangle the multiple controlling factors that influence wildfire trends worldwide. To better understand global fire patterns, Matthew Jones and colleagues applied a k-means clustering machine learning algorithm and grouped 414 forest ecoregions into 12 "pyromes," which are regions that share similar patterns of fire activity based on climate, vegetation, and human factors. Mapping global forest pyromes revealed significant variation in the factors that control fire extent across different forest ecoregions. While human activities dominate fire patterns in tropical pyromes, climatic factors, such as fire-favorable weather and vegetation growth, increasingly drive forest fires and carbon emissions in extratropical regions. According to Jones et al., between 2001 and 2023, forest fire carbon emissions grew by 60%, with extratropical pyromes now surpassing tropical forests in contributing to fire-related carbon emissions. The findings suggest a potential destabilization of carbon stocks in some extratropical forests, underscoring the critical role of climate change in shaping global fire regimes and the necessity of addressing emissions to safeguard forest carbon sinks.

---

Journal

Science

DOI

10.1126/science.adl5889 

Article Title

Global rise in forest fire emissions linked to climate change in the extratropics

Article Publication Date

18-Oct-2024

 

Catching prey with grappling hooks and cannons

ETH Zurich

 

image: 

Cryo-electron tomogram (left) and 3D model (right) of the onboard cannon of the hunting bacterium Aureispira.

view more 

Credit: Yun-Wei Lien / ETH Zurich

Countless bacteria call the vastness of the oceans home, and they all face the same problem: the nutrients they need to grow and multiply are scarce and unevenly distributed in the waters around them. In some spots they are present in abundance, but in many places they are sorely lacking. This has led a few bacteria to develop into efficient hunters to tap into new sources of sustenance in the form of other microorganisms.

Although this strategy is very successful, researchers have so far found only a few predatory bacterial species. One is the soil bacterium Myxococcus xanthus; another is Vampirococcus, which sucks its prey dry like a vampire.

In a new study, researchers at ETH Zurich led by Martin Pilhofer, Professor at the Department of Biology, along with his colleagues Yun-Wei Lien and Gregor Weiss, have now presented another of these rare bacterial predators: the filamentous marine bacterium Aureispira.

Among the molecular structures that the researchers have identified in Aureispira are ones that resemble grappling hooks and serve a similar purpose. The bacterium also has a kind of bolt gun that it uses to kill its prey.

Like a pirate ship in search of a potential victim, Aureispira swiftly glides over solid surfaces towards its prey, such as Vibrio bacteria. If the attacker is itself free-floating in water, it waits for its prey to approach. As soon as there is close contact, the grappling hooks become entangled with the victim’s flagella, and it can no longer escape.

Within seconds, Aureispira fires its on-board cannons to punch holes in the Vibrio bacterium’s membrane. In collaboration with the laboratory of ETH Professor Roman Stocker, the researchers were able to show that the cell components that leak out of the victim are quickly taken up by the predator as food. “The whole scene resembles a pirate raid on another ship,” Pilhofer says with a grin.

It’s only when the nutrient concentration in its environment is low that Aureispira becomes predatory. As long as the supply of nutrients is sufficient, the pirate bacterium refrains from catching prey and stands down its arsenal of weapons. However, putting the bacterium on a diet awakens its desire to hunt and causes the cell to rebuild the cannons and grappling hooks. Scientists call this selectively predatory lifestyle ixotrophy. Together with Martin Polz's group at the University of Vienna, the researchers were also able to find evidence that this predatory lifestyle does not only occur in the laboratory but actually in marine samples.

New imaging reveals details

The researchers used several imaging techniques, including light microscopy and cryo-electron microscopy, to understand the function and molecular structure of the grappling hooks and cannons.

This method made it possible to preserve and analyse molecular structures free of artefacts and in their cellular context. With an enhanced version of the method, it’s even possible to determine the molecular structure of the proteins that make up the bacterium’s weapons. “All of these imaging techniques are available at ETH Zurich’s ScopeM competence centre, which made this study possible in the first place,” Weiss says.

What are the findings good for? “First and foremost, this is basic research driven by our curiosity,” Pilhofer says. He and his colleague Weiss have been working for ten years to elucidate contractile injection systems – the name given to the pirate bacteria’s on-board cannons.

In other predatory bacteria, contractile injection systems are often also loaded with toxins to kill the prey immediately. It’s conceivable that such bacterial bolt guns could be loaded with active ingredients for injection into individual cells with the help of a molecular machine.

Certain predatory bacteria are known to prey on cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. That means they could be used to combat algal blooms or to stop mass propagation of Vibrio bacteria. “These bacterial predators are very efficient at what they do,” Weiss says.

---

Journal

Science

DOI

10.1126/science.adp0614 

Article Title

Mechanism of bacterial predation via ixotrophy

Article Publication Date

17-Oct-2024

 

FSU research improves hurricane intensity forecasting

Florida State University

 

image: 

Mark Bourassa, a professor in the FSU Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science and the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Predictin Studies.

view more 

Credit: Devin Bittner/FSU College of Arts and Sciences

Oct. 17, 2024

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Hurricanes are massive, complex systems that can span hundreds of miles as they swirl around the low pressure of the storm’s eye. In such a complicated situation, predicting how powerful a hurricane will grow is a difficult undertaking.

A new collaboration between researchers in South Korea and Florida State University is improving hurricane forecasting by incorporating the effects of sea spray into the models that predict hurricane behavior. The work was published in Environmental Research Letters.

“We know forecasts predicting hurricane tracks are pretty good most of the time, but the intensity forecasts have traditionally not been as good, and we're trying to figure out why,” said Mark Bourassa, a professor in the FSU Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science and paper co-author.

As hurricanes churn through the ocean, wind and waves at the surface disperse droplets of water into the air, known as sea spray. As these droplets of warm water evaporate, they cool while releasing heat and moisture into the atmosphere near the ocean surface. The heat lifts more moisture-laden air, a process that powers hurricanes.

The researchers looked at data from probes dropped by hurricane hunter airplanes and found there was a lot more thermal energy being transferred from the ocean into the air than they expected. That pointed to a potentially overlooked feature that was influencing storm intensity.

Previous studies into the role of sea spray in hurricane intensification relied on proxy measurements such as wind speed to approximate how sea spray reduces drag, which also increases the intensity in modeled storms. But those simplifications didn’t capture how spray increased the energy fueling storms, especially for wind speeds greater than 20 meters per second.

The weather model used by South Korean and FSU researchers included a wave model to provide greater accuracy for sea spray production and incorporated changes in the heat and moisture transferred to the atmosphere.

“It’s an amazing amount of energy that we've been missing in these storms,” Bourassa said. “When we incorporated data showing how sea spray changes the flow of heat and moisture in a storm, we found that intensity forecasts were remarkably better than they were when we ran the same model without that single change.”

To validate their findings, the research team analyzed four major Atlantic Ocean hurricanes — Ida (2021), Harvey (2017), Michael (2018), and Ian (2022) — which caused significant damage in the United States. With the help of colleagues in Korea, they also examined four Pacific Ocean typhoons.

Existing science is typically reliable at predicting a hurricane’s path, but meteorologists want to refine their modeling to better understand and forecast the intensity of storms. This research suggests that operational models could be modified to provide better intensity forecasts.

Future research motivated by this paper could focus on rapid intensification of storms, Bourassa said, helping to add another piece to the complicated puzzle that is hurricane forecasting.

Research team members from FSU were Chaehyeon Chelsea Nam, an assistant professor in the Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science; DW Shin and Steven Cocke, research scientists at the FSU Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies; Sinil Yang of the APEC Climate Center, Republic of Korea; Dong-Hyun Cha of Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology; and Baek-Min Kim of Pukyong National University, Republic of Korea.

This research was supported by the Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Agency, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of Korea, the Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute, Korea Ministry of Environment, the National Research Foundation of Korea, and the Korea Meteorological Administration Research and Development Program.

###

---

Journal

Environmental Research Letters

DOI

10.1088/1748-9326/ad7ee0 

Article Title

Unveiling the pivotal influence of sea spray heat fluxes on hurricane rapid intensification

 

Mpox in Africa was neglected during the previous outbreak, and requires urgent action and investment by leaders now to prevent global spread

PLOS

Mpox in Africa was neglected during the previous outbreak, and requires urgent action and investment by leaders now to prevent global spread, claim experts from The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, ex-NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, former Liberian President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and other global health specialists. 

####

Article URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0003714

Article Title: Mpox: Neglect has led to a more dangerous virus now spreading across borders, harming and killing people. Leaders must take action to stop mpox now

Author Countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States

Funding: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is supporting the ongoing work of The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response under INV-059481. CM, HEM, AN are consultants under this grant. CM led the writing and coordination of this manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

---

Journal

PLOS Global Public Health

DOI

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003714 

Article Publication Date

17-Oct-2024

COI Statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.