Archive for November, 2005

Presentation on Hurricanes and Global Warming

November 4th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Yesterday I participated in a panel session of the Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Research Council. Also on the panel were Kerry Emanuel (MIT), Greg Holland (UCAR, and co-author of the recent Webster et al. 2005 paper in Science), and Rick Anthes (UCAR). It was an interesting panel with good questions from the BASC and others who attended.

If you’d like to see what I presented, basically a summary of our forthcoming BAMS paper, you can downoad it is PDF here.

Old Wine in New Bottles

November 3rd, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Earlier this week the Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment issued a report titled, “Climate Change Futures: Health, Ecological, and Economic Dimensions” (PDF). Reports on climate change in the “grey literature” are a dime a dozen, but this one is worth singling out.

The report includes a section (pp. 21-25) focused on “Trend Analyses: Extreme Weather Events and Costs,” a subject that we have discussed here in some detail. The Harvard Report repeats some of the same old inaccuracies. The report states, “With weather-related losses on the rise and extreme events more frequent, can we look back on historical data and draw conclusions about the likely impact of climate change on future losses? Can we tease out the role of climate from other factors when looking at specific events? The consequences are due to the combination of inflation, rising real estate values, the growth in coastal settlements and the increasing frequency and intensity of weather extremes… Climate signals in rising costs from “natural” disasters are evident in many aspects of the data.”

This statement is simply inconsistent with the current state of scientific literature on this subject, which we summarized in a recent letter (PDF) in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), “Future research may yet reveal a connection between climate change and trends in disaster costs, but at present it is premature to attribute trends in disaster costs to anything other than characteristics of and changes in societal vulnerability.”

(more…)

Politics, Apollo, Ed David and Richard Nixon

November 2nd, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

The webcast and transcript of our visit with Ed David, science advisor to Richard Nixon from 1970-1973, are now available online. Dr. David related a story that I had never heard before about how the scheduling of the Apollo missions were affected because of political considerations related to the 1972 presidential election. In short, President Nixon was worried that an accident might hurt his reelection prospects. Here is how Dr. David described the events:

“Another interesting situation I found myself involved with was the Apollo program. When I arrived on the White House scene, two Apollo missions had already been canceled. They were Apollo 18 and 19. There were originally plans, as I remember, for 20 and 21, but 21 never really got off the drawing board. The possible cancellation of Apollo 16 and 17 was in the wind, it was talked around, even though those two missions were slated to provide important scientific information about the moon, and they were basically the payoff of all of the efforts that went into the Apollo program. Most of the man-hours on the moon came during those two missions. In fact, most of the scientific measuring equipment the astronauts placed on the moon at that time are still there and many of them are still operational. So there’s an awful lot of data coming in. Now, after examining this issue closely with the help of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which was called PSAC in those days, and specifically the help of Professor Tommy Gold of Cornell, who some of you may know, I wrote a memo to the president saying, in effect, that the nation had bought everything for these trips except the fuel, and that we ought to go ahead in light of the potential knowledge to be gained. That memo had some effect, and Apollo 16 and 17 proceeded, and Apollo 17 put the first scientist on the moon. And he’s a good friend of mine now.

(more…)

Challenge Update 2

November 1st, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Michael Mann has written me a thoughtful email declining the invitation to contribute. He writes, “However, the issues you raise have already been dealt with already in some detail on RealClimate.org. A good place to start would be the post by my colleague Stefan Rahmstorf at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114. I’m sure you will find this, and the other materials there quite relevant to the issues you raise.”

While I regret that Michael Mann won’t be participating, the invitation to contribute remains open to any other member of the RealClimate team, or other relevant collaborators.

Interesting Report on my Work

November 1st, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

A group called the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP) has produced a report (PDF) on disaster trends and climate change that relies heavily on my work. A few weeks ago, I was approached by CSPP with a draft of the report and asked to read it over for accuracy, an opportunity which I appreciate. The report is an accurate summary of peer-reviewed work that I have been involved in and some of my blog postings on this subject.

The CSPP notes on its webpage that it is a “non-partisan public policy organization” but then I see that it is part of the highly conservative group called Frontiers of Freedom. It is difficult to reconcile the claim of “non-partisanship” with the partisan zeal seen on the Frontiers of Freedom website.

I see also that the CSPP report on my work is cited in a press release by the Free Enterprise Action Fund which is led by Steven Milloy, who is also known as the proprieter of the www.junkscience.com website. The press release states:

(more…)

Challenge Update

November 1st, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

In spite of my less-than-complementary characterization of the hockey stick debate, Steve McIntyre has graciously agreed to provide his thoughts on “so what?”, characterizing it as a “fair question.” He has even opened up a discussion forum on his blog related to this “challenge”, and has already received much advice on how he might craft his reponse.

A couple members of the RealClimate team have weighed in with comments under my original post, and that is appreciated. But as yet, I’ve received no response to the “challenge.” I remain hopeful that one of the team will respond formally to the opportunity to answer the “so what?” question. Many of us are curious about the answer.

Stay tuned!