« Climate Change »

If I'm reading you right, then you are not rejecting Emmanuel's research relating greater hurricane intensity to gw, but saying: 1) that's not completely proved at this time; and 2) gw has a smaller impact than societal (development, population, wealth growth, etc.) factors. Nevertheless, it would seem that societal factors, while certainly deserving consideration on their own, would be very likely to significantly interact with and amplify any potential gw contributions to intensity, and ultimately, outcomes. Given this potential interaction it would seem to me that a two pronged policy approach would be quite appropriate.

Here also is a link to a press release about another presentation of mine on the same subject from another panel discussion (that also included Kerry Emanuel) from a few weeks ago:

http://geinsurancesolutions.com/erccorporate/news_events/press_release/london_hurricane_symposium.htm

The link you posted above is a bad link.

mb- Thanks. It doesn't work for me either, but when I cut and paste it into my browser it works. I can't explain. Sorry about that.

http://www.geinsurancesolutions.com/erccorporate/news_events/press_release/london_hurricane_symposium.htm

this thing SUCKS! I could write and thik up better crap than you can! hahaha! in your face~

To mb,

You must remember that it is not Roger Pielke's responsibility to prove Mr. Emanuel right or wrong. It is the responsibility of Mr. Emanuel to provide the physical evidence that supports his hypothesis, in order to convince others. Mr. Pielke has pointed out that Mr. Emanuel did not present sufficient information to support his claim. Therefore, the hypothesis should be regarded as 'untrue' until such evidence is presented. The idea that we should accept any scientific hypothesis as true until proven false by skeptics, is not only stupid, but dangerous. I know of no other branch of science were this twisted notion is as prevalent as climate change.

Secondly, Mr. Pielke made an argument that societal influences are much more of a factor in storm damage than any potential climate change effect on hurricanes will ever be. That alone would indicate that hurricane mitigation efforts should be almost entirely directed at societal factors, like the strength and location of construction, and so on, than on any attempts to change future climate. But what Mr. Pielke did not include is a cost/benefit analysis, which would show the cost of controlling climate to be extraordinarily high with no indication of any net benefit. On the other hand, the cost of mitigating hurricane damage through societal changes would be a fraction of the cost of controlling climate, born only by those who need to protect themselves from hurricanes, be extremely cost effective and with guaranteed results.

There is no information in there that would justify a 'two-pronged' attack for hurricane damage mitigation.