Comments on: New Peer-Reviewed Publication on the Benefits of Emissions Reductions for Future Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane) Losses Around the World http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4173 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: fergus brown http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4173&cpage=1#comment-8787 fergus brown Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:52:57 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4173#comment-8787 Roger. Yep, that's clear. The point of mitigation is nothing to do with repeat performances of 'Katrina'. I think I agree completely. This is basically a response to the hysteria following that tragic event which sought to divert attention away from certain failures (in adaptation, for example) by passing responsibility on to 'greater forces', Is this right? I have said before that i feel that more emphasis has been placed on cyclones in the US since that time than elsewhere. I wonder whether this is because such events are the most visible manifestations of 'climate' and such tragedies the most heavily reported in the media. Regards, Roger. Yep, that’s clear. The point of mitigation is nothing to do with repeat performances of ‘Katrina’. I think I agree completely. This is basically a response to the hysteria following that tragic event which sought to divert attention away from certain failures (in adaptation, for example) by passing responsibility on to ‘greater forces’, Is this right?
I have said before that i feel that more emphasis has been placed on cyclones in the US since that time than elsewhere. I wonder whether this is because such events are the most visible manifestations of ‘climate’ and such tragedies the most heavily reported in the media.
Regards,

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4173&cpage=1#comment-8786 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sat, 14 Apr 2007 03:07:48 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4173#comment-8786 Fergus- Thanks for the follow up ... a few replies: When I say that the importance of the societal factors increases with time horizon, this means that as we look out to 2100, using the same approach as used in the paper, the social factors are even more overwhelmingly dominant. Think of it this way ... if losses due to societal changes alone roughly double every decade, then over 100 years this increase is 2^10 or an increase of 1024x, taking the 2100 increase in intensity (as described in the paper) in the paper of 36% and damage function of the 9th power (i.e., the most extreme values) gives a result of 1.36^9 = ~16. This makes the societal factors 64 times more important than the climate factors. Assume for fun a 400% increase in frequency, and the ratio is still 16:1. So I don't think that the longer time horizon actually changes the analysis one bit, and in fact underscores the conclusions of the paper. Does this make sense? Thanks! Fergus- Thanks for the follow up … a few replies:

When I say that the importance of the societal factors increases with time horizon, this means that as we look out to 2100, using the same approach as used in the paper, the social factors are even more overwhelmingly dominant. Think of it this way … if losses due to societal changes alone roughly double every decade, then over 100 years this increase is 2^10 or an increase of 1024x, taking the 2100 increase in intensity (as described in the paper) in the paper of 36% and damage function of the 9th power (i.e., the most extreme values) gives a result of 1.36^9 = ~16. This makes the societal factors 64 times more important than the climate factors. Assume for fun a 400% increase in frequency, and the ratio is still 16:1. So I don’t think that the longer time horizon actually changes the analysis one bit, and in fact underscores the conclusions of the paper. Does this make sense?

Thanks!

]]> By: fergus brown http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4173&cpage=1#comment-8785 fergus brown Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:03:20 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4173#comment-8785 Roger, I agree with most of everything you have said here, but a couple of points niggle: you refer to the relationship between climate change and damage up to 2050. Later you say:'...The importance of the societal factors increases with the time horizon...' Does this time horizon also go up to 2050, or beyond? The argument I am supposing is that, by framing your analysis in terms of the next forty years or so, you are leaving out the whole bag of 'possible' climate changes beyond this time frame which are the real target of mitigation strategies. This does not mean that I think you don't think mitigation is important, only, within the context of your analysis, it does not allow for a realistic measure of the potential effects of mitigation, as these would only be seen in the time frame following 2050 and up to or beyond 2200. Obviously, any work in this area involves many uncertainties, not least about the reliability of model-based effects projections, but would your paper not have covered the 'whole picture' better if you at least considered the longer time frame? Respectfully, Roger, I agree with most of everything you have said here, but a couple of points niggle: you refer to the relationship between climate change and damage up to 2050. Later you say:’…The importance of the societal factors increases with the time horizon…’

Does this time horizon also go up to 2050, or beyond?

The argument I am supposing is that, by framing your analysis in terms of the next forty years or so, you are leaving out the whole bag of ‘possible’ climate changes beyond this time frame which are the real target of mitigation strategies. This does not mean that I think you don’t think mitigation is important, only, within the context of your analysis, it does not allow for a realistic measure of the potential effects of mitigation, as these would only be seen in the time frame following 2050 and up to or beyond 2200.

Obviously, any work in this area involves many uncertainties, not least about the reliability of model-based effects projections, but would your paper not have covered the ‘whole picture’ better if you at least considered the longer time frame?

Respectfully,

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4173&cpage=1#comment-8784 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:45:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4173#comment-8784 Fergus- Thanks for your comment. I have long argued that we need to both adapt and mitigate, and that they are not tradeoffs with one another. As far as hurricanes, they are not by themselves a strong reason for mitigation. I can make a strong case for mitigation saying nothing about hurricanes, and including hurricanes does not add appreciably to that case. Therefore, I believe that hurricanes simply should not enter into mitigation discussions. It is unnecessary, especially given that the overwhelming evidence is that adaptive policies will make the most sense in that context for the short and long terms. Thanks! Fergus- Thanks for your comment. I have long argued that we need to both adapt and mitigate, and that they are not tradeoffs with one another. As far as hurricanes, they are not by themselves a strong reason for mitigation. I can make a strong case for mitigation saying nothing about hurricanes, and including hurricanes does not add appreciably to that case. Therefore, I believe that hurricanes simply should not enter into mitigation discussions. It is unnecessary, especially given that the overwhelming evidence is that adaptive policies will make the most sense in that context for the short and long terms. Thanks!

]]> By: fergus brown http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4173&cpage=1#comment-8783 fergus brown Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:45:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4173#comment-8783 When I spotted this paper, I thought of you, Roger: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029683.shtml A quick look at Jim Kossin's home page shows that he & Vimont are doing some interesting work on cyclones at the moment (along with many others). My question is about timescales: I probably agree with you that mitigative policies are extremely unlikely to have any impact on tropical cyclone intensity in the short to medium-term, but isn't this in a sense self-evident? Adaptation is the way to go where social structures and economics allow. But the purpose of mitigation has always been a long-term reduction of possible problems down-the-line. If the scenario of intensity increasing with SST over time proves to be correct, does this not require that we both adapt and mitigate? I hope my thoughts/questions are clear. Regards, When I spotted this paper, I thought of you, Roger: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029683.shtml
A quick look at Jim Kossin’s home page shows that he & Vimont are doing some interesting work on cyclones at the moment (along with many others). My question is about timescales: I probably agree with you that mitigative policies are extremely unlikely to have any impact on tropical cyclone intensity in the short to medium-term, but isn’t this in a sense self-evident? Adaptation is the way to go where social structures and economics allow. But the purpose of mitigation has always been a long-term reduction of possible problems down-the-line. If the scenario of intensity increasing with SST over time proves to be correct, does this not require that we both adapt and mitigate? I hope my thoughts/questions are clear.
Regards,

]]>