Today’s New York Times editorializes on hurricanes and global warming, a popular topic these days.

“Mr. McCain, a co-sponsor with Senator Joseph Lieberman of a bill to impose mandatory caps on industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, also ventured where few politicians have dared to go, drawing a link between this calamitous hurricane season and climate change. This is not farfetched: because hurricanes draw their intensity from the heat in ocean waters, and because the oceans (like the rest of the world) are gradually getting warmer, a growing number of reputable scientists say hurricanes are likely to grow in intensity and destructive power, if not frequency.”

Most everyone’s attention is focused on the question, “Will global warming lead to more and/or more intense hurricanes?” and, just as implied in the Times editorial, the answer to the question is received as a proxy for support or opposition to efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. But this is the wrong question. A more appropriate question in the context of policy is the following, “When compared to other available options, how effective are greenhouse gas regulations as a means to modulate future impacts associated with hurricanes (given that the future incidence of hurricanes may indeed be affected by greenhouse gases)?”

This question is almost never asked or answered. In 2000 with colleagues Bobbie Klein and Dan Sarewitz I sought to address this question in our research and we published the following paper:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., R.A. Klein, and D. Sarewitz, 2000: Turning the Big Knob: Energy Policy as a Means to Reduce Weather Impacts. Energy and Environment, Vol. 11, No. 3, 255-276.

I also provide a less technical summary of the same analysis in my 2002 Senate Testimony:

Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2002: Statement of Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. to the Committee on Environment and Public Works if the United States Senate, Hearing on Economic and Environmental Risks Associated with Increasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

In that testimony I conclude:

“An implication of this work is that policy related to societal impacts of climate has important and under-appreciated dimensions that are independent of energy policy. It would be a misinterpretation of this work to imply that it supports either business-as-usual energy policies, or is contrary to climate mitigation. It does suggest that if a policy goal is to reduce the future impacts of climate on society, then energy policies are insufficient, and perhaps largely irrelevant, to achieving that goal. Of course, this does not preclude other sensible reasons for energy policy action related to climate (such as ecological impacts) and energy policy action independent of climate change (such as national security, air pollution reduction and energy efficiency). It does suggest that reduction of human impacts related to weather and climate are not among those reasons, and arguments and advocacy to the contrary are not in concert with research in this area.”

To my knowledge these findings are extremely robust from a scientific standpoint, having been published in a wide range of peer-reviewed literature, and have not been refuted. Yet, such findings are just about completely ignored. Very interesting.