“Wildfires can be a disaster”

Yes they can. They certainly were in Australia in February. And yet there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that GHG emissions have led to an increase in wildfire disasters. Here I’ll remind you of what we are talking about, my assertion #4:

“There is currently no evidence that allows us to attribute to human-caused climate change any part of the decades-long trend of a rising toll of disasters, a record which is dominated by floods and storms.”

You dismiss the increasing trend when you write:

“An impact from climate change does not require that it initially be tied to absolute numerical increases in economic or mortality impact . . .”

But it is the specifically documented increase in disaster losses that is the focus of this thread.

We seem to have reached a point where we are debating the semantics of the word “evidence” – we are in agreement when you say:

“I agree that no climate signal has been positively identified yet. he evidence that exists now is part of the process of finding that signal. If and when a paper publishes a claim to finding that signal that stands the test of time, it will build upon the evidence that currently exists.”

Fair enough. We still await that paper

The subject is a climate change connection to disasters. Wildfires can be a disaster.

“With respect to the RC post, it does not change the fact that there is no long-term increase in losses from bushfire in Australia.”

This was not the subject of the post. There are many areas where risk to the public has decreased dramatically in recent years. An impact from climate change does not require that it initially be tied to absolute numerical increases in economic or mortality impact since at first it may just be countering improvements from better science and technology.

It seems to me that you’re debating in circles. Is climate change having an impact on disaster occurance? The proof is not absolute, but there is evidence that it is contributing to disasters (as opposed to causing them). Is that level of evidence adequate such that it helps to justify mitigation policies? That depends on the burden of proof required, which is not a scientific question. For you, the burden of proof has already been met, but not by any climate-disaster connection.

But I still say that it is not accurate to say that there is no evidence tyng climate change to frequency and severity of disasters, including extreme weather events. But I agree that no climate signal has been positively identified yet. The evidence that exists now is part of the process of finding that signal. If and when a paper publishes a claim to finding that signal that stands the test of time, it will build upon the evidence that currently exists.

I’ll ask about the comments, thanks for the heads up.

With respect to the RC post, it does not change the fact that there is no long-term increase in losses from bushfire in Australia. So whatever the role of climate change may actually be, it has not been so large as to emerge from all of the other factors that lead to bushfire losses. This is not to say that there is no signal, only that whatever signal there may be, cannot be seen in the impacts data. Nonetheless, tehre are plenty of good reasons to improve bushfire policies in Australia, as argued by mcAneney et al. in the link above.

Thanks. IPCC Table 14.1 deals with wildfire and ecosystem disturbance. It does not deal with loss of life or property damage from extreme events, which is the focus of this post. There is some research that has looked at wildfires in Australia from the standpoint of economic losses, climate change and attribution:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/trends-in-homes-lost-to-autralian-bushfires-4950

As far as what level of certainty is needed to improve adaptation, we crossed that threshold long ago. I’ve been arguing for more attention to adaptation for 15 years.

What I (and others) object to, is the idea that mitigation policies can be an effective tool in reducing disaster losses. There are plenty of good reasons for mitigation policies that do not require making false claims about attribution. Dan Sarewitz and I took this on, among other places, in The New Republic in 2005:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1694-2005.01.pdf

Again, no claim that this is the missing signal, but it strikes me as initial evidence with which to search for that signal, and seems to contradict your assertion that there is no evidence.

Now admittedly, this doesn’t rise to the level of proving the signal. It is however, a certain level of evidence that moves us toward finding that signal. So are we really just talking about level of burden of proof? You say you haven’t seen _any_ evidence. I found the above in a few minutes, and am sure I could find more such examples, particularly if I had access to a journal library search tool.

Also regarding your #3:

3. But there is no evidence that energy policies focused on climate change can be an effective tool of disaster mitigation.

What level of proof do you think is required to enact public safety policy? Obviously you don’t think we have reached that level yet. But since many public health threats and risks have very long lag times (whether chemical exposures or climate change), we shouldn’t require absolute certainty before enacting policy. Can you put a percentage of certainty that you think should be required (or characterize it some other way)?

PS – I have off-and-on been unable to access comments to Prometheus. The system just hangs. It comes and goes.

I’ve looked and haven’t found or seen any evidence, anyone else who knows different should just show the evidence (and presumably write up an article for Science or Nature!).

This seems to me a rather strong statement. I have certainly seen many studies that indicate otherwise. Yes, you have studies also. No I haven’t read them. The reason being that in these kinds of disputes, the technicalities are beyond me to evaluate. So I’m not saying you’re right or you’re wrong. I’m saying that the issue seems to me to be in dispute.

Although some AGW activists treat it as resolved and a part of the consensus, I don’t see it as being in that category. All I’m saying is that there is a big difference between listing your extensive published research above and asserting that the signal is not (yet?) visible, and asserting that there is absolutely no evidence for a different point of view.