Take another try.

While you are at it, since you are so fair and balanced, how about trying to name a few organizations on the otherside, which, for example, are blaming this disaster on “environmentalists” (a much easier job btw)

The discussion of Katrina continues, some of it technical and some of it political or ethical, as we expect for events of this magnitude that reveal much about the functioning of our institutions. The latest in Roger Pielke Jr.’s series of posts touch…

http://www.greenhousenet.org/

And we discussed an organized campaign of fudging science here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000354harbingers_and_clima.html

Name names, and tell us specifically what they are pushing, otherwise this is mere inuendo.

Barry, a little less than 30 years ago (25, to be exact), I was studying Advanced Energy Systems in Mechanical Engineering at Virginia Tech. One of our “texts” was a softcover book published by Scientific American (currently “Scientific” American) in 1971.

In that entire book, called “Energy and the Environment,” there was not a single mention of global warming caused by CO2 emissions. Do you know why? Because in 1971, the earth had been *cooling* for almost 25 years.

But I was studying in 1980…so why wasn’t global warming caused by CO2 an issue then? Well, for one thing, our major concern was running out of oil.

It’s totally useless to play “what if” games about the past. (It’s NOT totally useless to play “what if” games about the future.) What if the plot to kill Hitler in 1944 had actually succeeded? There were so many things that could have happened differently that day:

1) The location of the meeting was changed from an underground bunker to an above-ground building with open windows (had the meeting been below-ground, Hitler almost certainly would have been killed),

2) The briefcase containing the bomb was moved from the inside of the heavy table pedestal to the outside (if it had been left at the inside of the table, Hitler would almost certainly have been killed),

3) There were to be two bombs, but the plotters panicked and didn’t put the second bomb into the briefcase (if both bombs had been in, the second would have been detonated by the first, and Hitler almost certainly would have been killed).

Etc. etc. etc. Again, playing games with the *past* may be fun, but it’s not worth anything. Hitler didn’t die.

Now, playing “what if” with the *future* is worth something. Roger Pielke asked for opinions on what would happen to the earth’s temperature if humans cut CO2 emissions to zero *today*. (Ignoring the fact that this is possible.) I estimated that the earth would warm by 0.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century if CO2 emissions were cut to zero today. I further estimated that, if events were allowed to continue completely as “business as usual” the warming over the 21st century would be 1.2 degrees Celsius. No scientist has ever questioned that assessment, and I don’t expect that one ever will, because it’s a good estimate.

So the earth will likely warm over the 21st century. If we cut emissions to ZERO today, it will be about 0.5 degrees Celsius, and if we forget that CO2 even exists, it will be about 1.2 degrees Celsius. In other words, even the most drastic measures will have little effect.

Compared to that, to me it seems VERY clear that money would be much better spent attempting to reduce the intensity of hurricanes. As I wrote, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if hurricanes could be substantially reduced in intensity (e.g. from Category 4 to Category 2) for a few billion dollars per occurrence. That would be MUCH cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions, which will have virtually no effect on hurricane intensity, at least for the next 50+ years.

OTOH adaptation is not the whole answer. If you use adaptation as an excuse to do nothing about energy policy and carry on emitting GHGs at an ever increasing rate, then the consequences are unforseeable. Even, assuming linear changes in temperature etc with CO2 concentration the adaptation required just increases continually.

My original comment was because your question was unreasonable. It is obvious that the effects of GHG emissions changes will take a very long time to be felt. Mostly GHG reductions will show in the negative, as much worse consequences don’t manifest themselves.

Pielke, Jr., R. A., R.A. Klein, and D. Sarewitz, 2000: Turning the Big Knob: Energy Policy as a Means to Reduce Weather Impacts. Energy and Environment, Vol. 11, No. 3, 255-276.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-250-2000.07.pdf

Please take a look.

What about asking the question: What would the effects of Katrina have been had we started taking aggressive actions 30 years ago? Maybe the winds would have been reduced by 20 knots, or maybe the sea level would have been 30 cm lower? Of course aggressive action now would have little effect on next year’s hurricanes, and probably strengthening the levees would be cheaper just for New Orleans.

Over decades however the world is going to be better served by reducing emissions than by continually plugging gaps that appear. (Which is not to say that we don’t have to keep plugging those gaps).

There have been no published studies that argue for attributing an observed increase in hurricane intensity or frequency to global warming. Emanuel’s recent paper, which I am very familiar with, argues for the existence of a trend in an index that he calls the PDI, which is indeed a measure of hurricane intensity. The paper does not present information for attribution of this trend, and if you look at Emanuel’s recent statements to the media he has been exceedingly responsible in describing his work and its limits. His paper is suggestive of a link, but I don’t think that it allows for the statement that you have made. This is also what the IPCC most recently concluded in 2001. Saying that global warming has made storms more intense is simply not supported by the literature.

But then a fair question is, so what? If this were only a dispute about science then it probably wouldn’t be something I’d be interested in. It is ultimately a debate about action. Gelbspan is arguing for specific actions based on a claim that these actions will reduce the toll of floods, hurricanes, blizzards and other events. It is a misleading claim. If people who suffer the impacts of these events accept his policy argument, they will be sadly disappointed. Selling snake oil under a claim that it will cure disease is immoral.

What you seem to object to is that some people try to use that as an argument for certain policies you find inappropriate.

You have a policy disagreement with these people. So why are they “immoral”? You find their policy suggestions immoral? Or do you find any use of Katrina to make any policy argument immoral? I’m confused.