Thanks. The issue of how and when probabilities matter for adaptation is not simple, and involves a range of different perspectives. See for example:

Dessai,S. and Hulme,M.(2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy 4 107-128.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml

How would NOAA’s operational products look different if they included global warming factors? Can you point to examples of such forecasts being made experimentally?

Thanks!

First I acknowledge an error. Of course I know that NOAA provides forecasts of weather and climate. And you know I know that. I was talking of what one might infer about chnages to weather and ENSO forecasts relative to global warming.

But that is incidental. I am amazed that a person interested/involved in policy is disintersted in probabilities. How can one make rational decisions (all the way from crossing a road to determining whether or not a city should be evacuated ) without considering probabilities. I thought they were the grist of policy. And I thought for once we would agree. Alas, perhaps I don’t understand policy making as it is currently undertaken. Perhaps it is best way to deterimine policy should be made (dare a scientist say such a thing?) and one not practiced enough. Or is it that you like to argue a point, any point for the sake of argument. I think there is a high probability of the latter!

I guess it doesn’t really matter.

Peter W

And, come on now: I clearly wasn’t arguing for a larger endnote font, but against administration politicals burying a federal climate scientists’ fact sheet that helps to set the record a bit straighter.

Thanks. I accept that you may not like how NOAA has responded to criticism of its handling of the hurricane/climate issue. After this week it is clear to me that they still have a ways to go.

But as far as “damage,” I seriously doubt that a bigger font on a web page is going to change what Rush Limbaugh says. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to provide evidence of any “damage” done by NOAA’s behavior, except to NOAA itself. But if you have such data, do share it. Rush Limbaugh statements don’t make it.

Thanks!

Thanks much for weighing in. A few replies and a few questions:

1. Are you suggesting that NOAA has disallowed publication of certain scientific papers? I haven’t seen or heard anything about this. If so it would be a far more serious issue than the “fact sheet” or press releases.

2. You assert, “NOAA is not performing its mandate in providing the probability of meteorological and oceanic events occurring be they of short term (hurricane tracking and intensity forecasts, for example) or longer term (e.g., ENSO forecasts) or the probability that global warming may effect these shorter term probabilities.”

NOAA does provide ENSO forecasts:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.forecast.html

And seasonal hurricane forecasts:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

As an operational agency NOAA product necessarily must go through a process of “technology transfer” — i.e., a proof of concept. Products in this phase are listed “experimental”, e.g., see this list:

http://products.weather.gov/viewliste.php

I am aware of no one in the hurricane community — in the US funded by any agency or abroad — who has developed methods for seasonal forecasting that explicitly incorporate global warming. Are you? If the research is not there, nor proof of concept products, how can NOAA operationalize a product? After all seasonal hurricane forecasts were made on an experimental basis for more than a decade before NOAA operationalized them.

3. You write, “From an adaptation perspective alone it would seem to me that information from NOAA on linkages of global warming and hurricanes is critical. Without an assessment of the probabilities of increasing intensity/frequency/location the job of adaptation in hurricane effected regions becomes particularly difficult.”

This is simply incorrect based on a wide range of studies of hurricane impacts and the role of predictions in decision making. Improved adaptation can proceed based only on a rough sense of probabilities (we know where hurricanes hit) and a detailed sense of vulnerabilities. We prepare well for earthquakes without precise knowledge of probabilities.

4. You write, “I also believe that the evidence is sufficiently strong for probabilities to be assessed.”

Does this mean we can expect future seasonal forecasts to come from your group?

Thanks again!

Here is the issue as I see it. NOAA has allowed papers to be published that have a particular slant: global warming has no or minimal impact on hurricane intensity and frequency. Further, it has made statements that this is the consensus of NOAA scientists. But it has also muzzled scientists with contrary opinions by not allowing the press access to them. Finally, a report from a group of NOAA scientists is not allowed distribution. The draconian aspects of censorship aside (and they are hard for me to put them aside) The issue to me is simple. NOAA is not performing its mandate in providing the probability of meteorological and oceanic events occurring be they of short term (hurricane tracking and intensity forecasts, for example) or longer term (e.g., ENSO forecasts) or the probability that global warming may effect these shorter term probabilities. In other words, NOAA is not performing a scientific due diligence on a problem of possible consequence. Nor are they allowing their scientists to perform a scientific due diligence. From an adaptation perspective alone it would seem to me that information from NOAA on linkages of global warming and hurricanes is critical. Without an assessment of the probabilities of increasing intensity/frequency/location the job of adaptation in hurricane effected regions becomes particularly difficult.

I believe that there is still a lot of work to be done on the issue of hurricanes/tropical storms and global warming. But I also believe that the evidence is sufficiently strong for probabilities to be assessed. Simply, the public deserves better than the actions of the NOAA administration.

It is sad to see politics run roughshod over science and service.

Peter W

I now have multiple copies of the document (thanks to all who have responded!) with different dates. The substance is the same, so I have removed the date from the original post.

Thanks!