Comments on: NOAA’s Mystery Hurricane Report

By: Richard Cathcart

Richard Cathcart — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:07:51 +0000

I’d like to see a thorough expose of the insurance and reinsurance industry. These money-making groups have ’signed on’ to the global warming/future climate-caused disasters scenario wholeheartedly. In other words, they adhere to current public orthodoxy fostered by Greens and the Green-media to raise their rates and profits!

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:45:31 +0000

Nosmo-

Close but not quite … global and 100 years.

Thanks!

By: Nosmo

Nosmo — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:01:12 +0000

Roger you said:
“My own research shows that any action on energy policies cannot have a discernible effect on hurricane impacts as far as the eye can see, so you can guess how I’d answer that last question.”

Is it fair to say that your research is for the US only and that as far as the eye can see is on the order of 50 years? And that even after 50 years, the effect is small compared to development policies?

By: Joseph O'Sullivan

Joseph O'Sullivan — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:57:45 +0000

From the prespective of an advocate I do understand why the administration is doing what it is doing. The tactic is to never cede one inch to your opponents. If you do give in at all, your opponent can use it against you.

In this case the idea is that it is better to say nothing. If the administration said there is no connection someone would call them on that. I think the administration has learned this lesson the hard way.

But if they said it’s possible that there is a connection between pollution and hurricane intensity, then someone could use this (as they actually are) to argue for CO2 regulations.

I wouldn’t call it a bad public relations strategy, but for policy decisions it is bad.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:09:15 +0000

Thanks Jim!

(And for those w/o Nature access, Jim is the reporter there who broke this story.)

Given what you’ve written there seems to be nothing substantively new in the statement, so the news is that NOAA was on a path to produce a document for public consumption and then decided to abort that course. Is this fair?

Thanks!

By: Jim Giles

Jim Giles — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:17:31 +0000

Roger,

The news story explains the background to the document (although I appreciate that many Prometheus readers will not have Nature access). The document is a two-page statement designed to reflect the diversity of views on hurricane science held by researchers at NOAA. It acknowledges that there may be a link with greenhouse warming, but says more research is needed in order to clarify the issue. It doesn’t contain any new research or data. Hope that helps.

Jim

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:34:56 +0000

If society has already decided that the hurricane response will be to do nothing, then climate impacts are useful for determining the cost of this policy.

It is interesting to contrast the federal response to volcanoes and hurricanes, especially when one considers the difference in the frequency of the destructive events that they produce.

By: unbabeler

unbabeler — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 03:25:01 +0000

Roger,

I think it is important to bring out that in terms of liability it is a coup de grace for the half dozen or so mega – engineering corporations to blame their failure of engineering judgement (aka increased profit) on “global warming” instead of the unrelenting pressure to label vulnerable assets as such.

This misdirection allows for their continued irresponsible certification of building in areas susceptible to disaster, and their legal defense thereof much easier.

Ultimately an under-estimated factor in terms of taxpayer dollars.