As I read about many instances of the immoral exploitation of Katrina’s impacts to advance a political agenda, it seems to me that there is a good opportunity for the media to contribute constructively to this issue. So Prometheus-reading reporters, by all means ask your experts if Katrina is a result of global warming. But don’t stop there. Please also ask the following question:

“If the US (or the world) were to begin taking more aggressive actions on emissions reductions, when could we expect to see the effects of such policies in the impacts of future hurricanes, and how large would those effects be?”

The question of hurricanes and global warming is interesting scientifically, of course, but for society broadly the question is important for the actions that we might take in the future. So please, go ahead and ask the above question and take the question of hurricanes/global warming to its logical conclusion.

Finally, the considerable misuse of science in the case of Katrina should give serious pause to anyone who thinks that the politicization of science is mainly a US or conservative phenomena. It is not.

Over at GristMill Dave Roberts discusses hurricanes and global warming and asks some “tough questions.” The first of these questions focus on whether or not greens should misuse science to achieve their political goals:

“In the end, greens concerned about global warming face a choice. Do they stick to scrupulous standards of scientific accuracy, with all the hedging and qualifying that entails, at the risk of being boring and losing an opportunity to galvanize action? Or do they fudge a bit, propagandize a bit, indulge in a little bit of theater and showmanship?”

Let’s take a look at the reasons that Roberts gives for why fudging science might be worth doing (and to be clear, I don’t think that Roberts is calling for a misuse of science, but instead suggesting that there is a complicated calculus underlying why one might choose to do so).

(more…)

The final version of our paper, “Hurricanes and Global Warming (PDF)” is now online. Here is the complete citation:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch, in press, 2005. December. Hurricanes and global warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Two things to note. First, if you have the earlier version, toss it out as we have updated the present version to accomodate some recent literature. Second, you’ll see that Kerry Emanuel has dropped off as a co-author, for reasons I understand and respect. The publication date is December, 2005 which is just under the wire for inclusion in the next IPCC reports. We welcome all comments and reactions to the paper.

Here are a few estimates of damage from relevant historical hurricanes had they occurred in 2004. I’d guess, and it is nothing more than a guess, that Katrina will exceed the amounts of Betsy, Camille and Hugo but not Andrew.

1965 Betsy $18 billion
1969 Camille $19 billion
1989 Hugo $16 billion
1992 Andrew $66 billion

For methods, see this paper:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., and C. W. Landsea, 1998: Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925-95. Weather and Forecasting, American Meteorological Society, Vol. 13, 621-631. (PDF)

I was on NPR’s On Point this morning with MIT’s Kerry Emanuel and others to discuss hurricanes and their impacts. When available the show can be found here.

As Hurricane Katrina churns toward New Orleans, I thought that folks might be interested in seeing what happened when Camille devastaed Louisiana in 1969. In 1999 we produced this report for its 30-year anniversary. In particular, have a look at this photo gallery.

Our research suggests that Camille would have been a $20 billion storm had it occurred in 2004. Camille’s track was to the east of New Orleans, sparing the city its full wrath. A direct hit or track to the west of New Orleans could easily result in damages considerably larger than those we estimate for Camille in 2004. Stay tuned, and best wishes for people in the storm’s path.

The Chicago Tribune has a very interesting article today (Thanks JA!) on the recent study of fetal pain and the political leanings of its authors. Here is an excerpt:

“A research article about when fetuses feel pain is sparking a heated debate over the nexus between science and politics and what information authors should disclose to scientific journals. The report, published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, analyzed previously published research and concluded that fetuses probably don’t feel pain until 29 weeks after conception because of their developing brain structures. Undisclosed was the fact that one of the five authors runs an abortion clinic at San Francisco’s public hospital and another worked temporarily more than five years ago for an abortion-rights advocacy group. Several ethicists said they consider those points regrettable omissions that left readers without important information. Other experts consider the authors’ background irrelevant.”

Does it matter what the authors professional or political affiliations happen to be?

(more…)

There is a lot of attention being paid to public bets about the future these days. For example, a climate scientist in Japan, James Annan, has bet two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, $10,000 that the earth will warm over the next decade, as measured by the U.S. NCDC over two different 6-year periods. At this point, such bets are little more than political stunts, but if they move us in the direction of actual futures markets on climate forecasts, then I’m all for it.

Just yesterday I read about a $5,000 bet between New York Times columnist John Tierney and energy industry consultant Matthew Simmons (described here) over whether or not the price of oil in 2010 would be over $200 in 2005 dollars. Tierney is taking Simmons to the cleaners. There is already a futures market for oil, and Simmons can get all the action he wants there at a price of $62.39 for Dec 2010. Anyone who thinks oil prices are going up dramatically can purchase futures and then make a killing if they are proven right. Tierney can simply hedge his side of the bet by, for example, buying $5,000 worth of 2010 futures at $62.39. If the price goes down by as much as 50% he is still in the black as he would win the bet. If the price if over $200 he comes out far ahead as he can pay the bet off from the proceeds of his gains. And the best case scenario for him is a price higher than $62.39 and less than $200, in which he collects on the investment and the bet. There are of course more complicated hedges that would involve a smaller outlay than $5000. From a financial perspective he can’t lose, which is obviously why he states that he will “consider bets from anyone else convinced that our way of life is “unsustainable.” If you think the price of oil or some other natural resource is going to soar, show me the money.” (As an aside, all of this raises some questions for me about the thinking behind Simmons’ analyses about economics and oil, but that is a subject for another time.)

With all of this excitement going on about betting, I’d like to get a piece of the action. I’d consider a bet along the lines of the following:

(more…)

In last Sunday’s New York Times, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin had a letter in response to critical several Times editorials,

“Terminating the shuttle program abruptly, while attractive from some points of view, carries with it grave consequences for the United States’ pre-eminence in space and would be devastating to the work force necessary to conduct any future human spaceflight program.”

There are two responses here. First, the current 2010 retirement date is completely arbitrary, and could just as easily be 2009 or 2008 or 2007. The decision should be made based on technical, financial and political realities and not an arbitrary deadline. Second, what if NASA loses another shuttle? That would certainly result in an “abrupt termination” of the program. Would that also be “devastating to the workforce”? I wonder what NASA’s contingency plans look like for the loss of another shuttle, which is a realistic possibility.

Griffin continues,

(more…)

For those of you following the latest climate science/politics tempest involving my father, Roger Pielke, Sr., here is a link to his blog where you can read his unfiltered perspectives on this and other matters. I may be a bit biased, but his site is worth a visit.

For those of you who may not have known that there are two Roger Pielke’s (Sr., him at Colorado State an atmospheric scientist, Jr., me at Colorado studying science policy) and are here by mistake, please feel free to come back to Prometheus after visiting his site.