« Climate Change »

Judy- Thanks much for commenting.

I did not say anything suggesting that you or Peter (Webster) had advocated greenhouse gas reductions as a strategy for reducing hurricane impacts. I think that the views that you have expressed here are right on target. As such I would in fact encourage you to discuss policy and politics when you have an opportuntiy to meet with policy makers. The views that you expressed here in your comment would go a long way toward helping policy makers place your well-respected research into a decision making context.

And as far as knowing no one who is advocating greenhouse gas reductions to address hurricane impacts, one need not look far, see, e.g., this ad which was run in major papers:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/000753the_big_knob.html

Thanks again.

Roger,

Thanks for prominently posting my remarks, and for your reply. I have one further remark on this subject. Policy makers don't want to hear politics and policy recommendations from scientists on a politically charged issue such as hurricanes and global warming. Our audience with Governor Bush was arranged by a group that sold this meeting on the basis that we did not have a political or policy agenda, and that we would explain both the natural variability and global warming components.

After considerable deliberation and investigation on the appropriate role for research scientists in this debate (note I have a BAMS paper in press on this issue), I decided that we can be most effective in influencing policy by sticking only to our scientific message, and not to tarnish our scientific message by the appearance that we have an "agenda." I think that we can be most effective in influencing policy on this issue by doing our best to educate the public and policy makers on this issue and the associated risks and by working with NGOs including the more responsible advocacy groups and to make sure that they are connected with appropriate technical expertise on the climate science, alternative energy technologies, etc.

I would also like to add a further comment regarding the economic impact of hurricanes on FL. The $50B in damages that are directly attributed to the 2004-2005 hurricanes reflect only a fraction of the economic impact of these hurricanes. Uninsurability of property, falling property values, destroyed beaches, damage to ecosystems etc. and other things of relevance to tourism are having a horrendous economic impact on the state.

There are now many and various policy options on the table, including the ones that academic policy researchers such as yourself propose (the various advocacy groups insure that many different options are on the table). An understanding of the risk, combined with the varying political, economic, ecological, social equity, moral etc. issues will eventually determine what policies are adopted. As scientists, we need to make sure that the decision makers understand the risks, and that the policy makers are connected with the appropriate technical expertise.

It is a challenge not to lose our scientific credibility in this process, one that we all need to take very seriously.

Judy

With respect, you need to find some group that is saying "if we want to stop bad hurricanes we have to stop GW". You keep pointing to examples of people saying "if we don't stop GW, hurricanes will get worse". I suggest that these are significantly different points of view. I suggest that while it is not a scientific consensus yet, there is credible evidence to support that second statement.

For just about every single likely consequence of rapid GW, there is probably a targeted response that is more cost effective and/or more effective in human terms than emission reductions. However, the most effective overall policy decisions need to take all of these issues into consideration at once.

More powerful storms is a legitimate GW issue.

With new science pointing to a likelihood (my interpretation here) showing that in the next 50 to 100 years hurricane damage resulting from ongoing GHG emissions is likely to go up considerably more than previously thought, Roger's POV on the hurricane-AGW connection has become counter-productive. The process of him abandoning it in order to salvage some credibility will be interesting to watch.

Roger,
A while ago you were arguing that there is no policy that will have a significant effect on the climate in the next forty years. My impression was that for a policy person, forty years is long time frame. It seamed that one of the differences in your perspective and those of some others here, is a variation in time frames.

When I read your arguments about hurricanes, I donot see much energy spent on changing coastal development policy. What comes accross is "Don't use an increase in hurricane strength to argue for GHG reductions", not "hurricane damage is going up so we need to change insurance and development policies and here are a few thing we can consider...." I know you have talked and written about the later but it gets burried by the former.

Steve,

With respect, perhaps you're missing the point a bit here. The credibility of Roger's POV is fine in that it advocates -irrespective of scientific consensus- taking real measures to avoid human and economic costs (a worthy pursuit). Rather getting sucked into distracting debate, efforts should be concentrated on strengthening infrastructure to deal with these disasters NOW. As stated elsewhere on this blog, there are plenty of other good reasons to reduce GHG's.
You could run around shouting about the possible link between drugs and crime, trying to stop every drop of drugs being taken - or you could lock your car which would have a real and significant immediate effect, irrespective of the debate over the link. (There are obviously similarly good reasons for reducing drugs use irrespective of the link with crime).

Regards,
Ben

Judy-

Thanks. One argument that I often make here is that the clean separation of science and politics is not possible. You write:

"Our audience with Governor Bush was arranged by a group that sold this meeting on the basis that we did not have a political or policy agenda, and that we would explain both the natural variability and global warming components."

And according to this news story:

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/NEWS01/606010316

The groups that arranged your visit were two environmental groups:

"At the invitation of the National and Florida Wildlife Federations, the two were in town to share those findings with Gov. Jeb Bush and gubernatorial hopefuls Charlie Crist and Tom Gallagher."

And according to the story I linked before:

"Webster and Curry's meeting came as environmentalists seek to push to the state level efforts to curb the emission of so-called greenhouse gasses that are blamed for causing global temperature increases."

If the NWF or FWF are among the groups advocating greenhouse gas emissions as a strategy for dealing with hurricanes and having you appear on their behalf, I'd suggest thinking carefully about what kind of message this sends to people observing.

I think that such an arragement would have been highlighted if you had been some other scientists with a different message and your meeting had been brokered by ExxonMobil.

There is no science absent politics, and especially on the issue of hurricanes and global warming.

Thanks.

Roger, thanks again for hosting this excellent discussion.

Regardless of the political points, I think that this quote from Dr. Curry is unassailable and should be made as clear as possible to stakeholders of every stripe.

"Florida and other coastal cities need to urgently reassess their risk to hurricanes to allow for the risk of increased hurricane activity. No matter what we decide to do about the greenhouse warming issue, the most vulnerable coastal cities need to reconsider their coastal engineering, land use practices, emergency procedures, etc. in view of the risk of increasing hurricane activity and the longer range prospect of sea level rise."

Roger,

One further nuance. Yes, our meeting with Governor Bush was political: It addressed a scientific topic that is a political hot potato, and the meeting was also arranged by an advocacy group (albeit a responsible and nonpartisan one). We do not accept funds from an advocacy groups (even for travel), and we make it clear that the science we present is independent. We would have been equally happy if this trip had been arranged by Cato or whoever.

However, as scientists, we stuck to our scientific message, and did not discuss politics or policy options. As scientists, we do not have a political agenda other than to educate the public and policy makers about the risks of hurricanes and global warming.

All science is not political. But some science is politically relevant, and we have certainly gotten ourselves embroiled in a highly relevant research topic. The message that i am trying to make is that the scientific message is more credible if scientists are not personnaly associated with specific policy recommendations.

Judy

Let's be frank about the global warming shenanigans, shall we? Anyone interested in the brazently political campaign by climate scientists only needs to observe the current crusade against the Canadian government’s position on the Kyoto Treaty.

Now, there is nothing wrong in lobbying governments. But let's get out of the system the smokescreen puffed up by some scientists that they are only interested in the "science:"

You can't get it more obvious than this:

Scientists decry change in policy: The country's climate science "brains trust" yesterday urged Canada and other countries to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that go "far beyond" the Kyoto Protocol.

The formal declaration from the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, meeting in Toronto, amounts to a rebuke of the recent climate change policies of the federal Conservatives.

Earlier this month the Harper government ordered federal officials to oppose stricter emission curbs at a United Nations meeting in Bonn to begin negotiating a post-Kyoto pact.

Delegates to the society's annual conference said they "recognized the challenge of implementing the current [Kyoto] agreement."

"However, the scientific evidence dictates that in order to stabilize the climate, global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions need to go far beyond those mandated under this Kyoto Protocol," said a statement endorsed by the conference.

Although outwardly mild, the criticism is especially telling since most climate scientists who work for the federal government are among the society's 800-plus members. Other members include most of the top university climate researchers and all the country's computer climate modellers.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149198613069&call_pageid=968332188492

If Canadian climatologists intended to be viewed as *political* opponents of a recently elected government with a different climate policy, then they have certainly achieved their goal. After all, the Candian public had a clear choice over Kyoto as climate policy was a major election issue.

I suggest that the climate community should better accept that the public voted for the Harper government partly because of his well-publicised Kyoto-scepticism. Otherwise they will soon be regarded by many governments that are clearly unable to comply with Kyoto targets as irritant rabble-rouser and troublemakers.

Judy- Thanks for the dialogue! But you now have me confused. You write:

"The message that i am trying to make is that the scientific message is more credible if scientists are not personnaly associated with specific policy recommendations."

As frequent readers of this site know, I disagree with this perspective in general, but as a practical matter in this instance, you also wrote in your comments the following:

"Florida and other coastal cities need to urgently reassess their risk to hurricanes to allow for the risk of increased hurricane activity. No matter what we decide to do about the greenhouse warming issue, the most vulnerable coastal cities need to reconsider their coastal engineering, land use practices, emergency procedures, etc. in view of the risk of increasing hurricane activity and the longer range prospect of sea level rise."

And you were quoted as saying:

"We have the technologies, we still have some time to reduce our greenhouse gases there is no reason we shouldn’t be doing this"

Both of these statement qualify as making policy recommendations in highly political contexts. I am unclear what you mean then by claiming that you stick to a scientific message and don't discuss policy or politics.

Your own words would seem to bear out my (and a whole field of STS!) claims that walling off science from politics is only possible in the most simple of decision contexts.

I'd be interested in your response.

Thanks!

Roger,

The specific agenda for the National and Florida Wildlife Federation is protection of Lake Okeechobee. Draining the lake is having very damaging impacts on the ecosystems of South Florida. The dike is in bad shape, the lake is at substantial risk for breaching the dike during the hurricane. Lake Okeechobee is arguably the biggest short term risk to FL associated with hurricanes. During the meeting with Governor Bush, the Wildlife Federation did not mention anything related to emissions control/reduction or whatever.

With regards to the statement that i emailed you several weeks ago regarding a misqoute in the media that you asked me about. The reporter was asking both me and landsea what is the downside if we are wrong in our respective opinions on the link between hurricanes and global warming. I said the worst that could happen is that people would be implementing alternative energy strategies. We have the technologies, there are alot of reasons for doing this, why not do it. There is no reason not to start implementing alternative energy technologies. Even President Bush, arguably a global warming skeptic, is pushing alternative energy technologies.

Being misquoted by a reporter is a far cry from advocating a specific policy to a major decision maker.

Judy

Judy- Thanks. I do think that scientists should work to place research results into a meaningful context for decision makers -- this typically means addressing the "so what?" question that you have addressed here.

I've got no problem with your answers to this question. However at the same time they a far cry from claiming to only "stick to the science."

Thanks!!

I don't know if Judy would agree with this or not, but I would say that there's a big distinction between advocating for a *general* policy (as in "we need to reduce GHG emissions by amount X within time Y in order to avoid dangerous climate change") vs. the wide variety of *specific* policies one might choose to achieve that general policy. Applying this to the hurricane issue, I think it would be justifiable for a scientist to say something along these lines:

"We already see a global warming signal in TC power, and all else being equal continued increases in GHG levels will worsen that trend. Therefore, one reason to reduce GHG emissions is to reduce the power of future TCs and thus the likely damage from them." Of course it would be appropriate to link such a statement to a recognition of the immediate steps that can be taken to reduce damage from current TCs.

Even beyond that, I think it's appropriate for scientists to weigh in on the effectiveness of various specific policy options and, most importantly, as to whether the package of specific policy options that has been selected is sufficient to the requirement.

"No matter what we decide to do about the greenhouse warming issue, the most vulnerable coastal cities need to reconsider their coastal engineering, land use practices, emergency procedures, etc. in view of the risk of increasing hurricane activity and the longer range prospect of sea level rise."

It's worse than that. It's easy to find an engineer who will tweak the calcs and shrink up the flood plain a little so somebody can build on it. We are continually encroaching. Even with no change in hurricane strength (a la Bill Gray, a guy who actually believes in facts, as opposed to computer gamers) the average damage will be worse in the next 10 years than it was in the last 10 years (Well, maybe not counting the faux pax by the Corps of Engineers illustrated by Katrina, a meager 3)

It's like the cancer of wasting arable land in the 3rd world. There's going to be a big problem soon, no matter what.

So, let's listen to the original sin contingent and call it our fault? Maybe we should figure out what's really happening, and maybe take advantage of an enhanced food supply for the bottom of the food chain (flora)?