We’ve discussed the flawed climate risk analysis presented by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, the non-climate expert thrown up by climate deniers in recent congressional hearings. Dr. Peilke’s ploy in his testimony was to provide a Fox and Limbaugh-friendly sound bite on video, while hiding qualifiers in his written footnotes to cover his pseudo-scientific butt. The nub of his claims were that damages due to climate change are undetectable, and would not emerge, if at all, for decades to come.
His recent hire as “climate expert” for Nate Silver’s purportedly “data driven” 538 blog proved to be such a disaster on all sides, that a chastened Silver promised to find a qualified scientist to straighten things out, and rebut his own blog.
And so he has.
Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of the world’s best known hurricane experts, on 538:
..I’m not comfortable with Pielke’s assertion that climate change has played no role in the observed increase in damages from natural hazards; I don’t see how the data he cites support such a confident assertion. To begin with, it’s not necessarily appropriate to normalize damages by gross domestic product (GDP) if the intent is to detect an underlying climate trend. GDP increase does not translate in any obvious way to damage increase; in fact, wealthier countries can better afford to build stronger structures and to protect assets (for example, build seawalls and pass and enforce building regulations).1 A grass hut will be completely destroyed by a hurricane, but a modern steel office building will only be partially damaged; damage does not scale linearly with the value of the asset.
More seriously, a casual inspection of both graphs (normalized and non-normalized damage over time) presented by Pielke leads me to question the statistical significance of either. This is hardly surprising, since 23 years is not a very long time to detect trends in natural hazard damages, whether such trends are caused by demographics or by climate change. A 2012 study2 by London School of Economics researchers Fabian Barthel and Eric Neumayer looked at damage trends normalized by GDP, a measure they used because others are not universally available. For Germany and the United States, with 29 and 36 years of data, respectively, they detected “statistically significant upward trends in normalized insured losses from all non-geophysical disasters as well as from certain specific disaster types,” but for the globe as a whole, with 19 years of data available, they could find no significant trends.
Since the U.S. alone accounted for roughly half the insured losses over this period, the significance of the longer U.S. record and lack thereof in the shorter global record suggests that 20 years may be too short to detect significant trends. The increasing normalized trends in the U.S. were evident in convective storms, winter storms, flooding events and high temperature-related losses, and were almost statistically significant for hurricanes at the conventional 95 percent confidence level.3 In view of data like this, it’s very hard to accept Pielke’s confident assertion that “[n]o matter what President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron say, recent costly disasters are not part of a trend driven by climate change.”
There is an even more significant problem with Pielke’s analysis. In a nutshell, he addresses trend detection when what we need is event risk assessment. The two would be equivalent if the actuarial data was the only data available pertaining to event risk. But that is far from the case; we often have much more information about risk.
Let me illustrate this with a simple example. Suppose observations showed conclusively that the bear population in a particular forest had recently doubled. What would we think of someone who, knowing this, would nevertheless take no extra precautions in walking in the woods unless and until he saw a significant upward trend in the rate at which his neighbors were being mauled by bears?
The point here is that the number of bears in the woods is presumably much greater than the incidence of their contact with humans, so the overall bear statistics should be much more robust than any mauling statistics. The actuarial information here is the rate of mauling, while the doubling of the bear population represents a priori information. Were it possible to buy insurance against mauling, no reasonable firm supplying such insurance would ignore a doubling of the bear population, lack of any significant mauling trend notwithstanding. And even our friendly sylvan pedestrian, sticking to mauling statistics, would never wait for 95 percent confidence before adjusting his bear risk assessment. Being conservative in signal detection (insisting on high confidence that the null hypothesis is void) is the opposite of being conservative in risk assessment.
When it comes to certain types of natural hazards, there are more bears in the woods. For example, there is a clear upward trend in overall North Atlantic hurricane activity by virtually all metrics, over the past 30 years or so, though the cause of this is still uncertain. But given that only about a third of Atlantic hurricanes strike the U.S.; hurricanes do damage during a very small fraction of their typical lifetimes; and only intense hurricanes (a small fraction of the total) do significant damage, the amount of hurricane data pertinent to U.S. damage is a tiny fraction of the entire database of North Atlantic hurricanes. Thus it is hardly surprising that the upward trend in U.S. hurricane damage is of only marginal statistical significance, and Pielke’s own analysis shows that it takes several decades for such a trend to emerge.
This does not mean that there is no underlying change in the risk, and the priors we have in this case point to a significant increase in such risk. One would be foolish to make plans that have to deal with U.S. hurricane risk without accounting for the evidence that the underlying risk is increasing, whether or not actuarial trends have yet emerged at the 95 percent confidence level.
This is particularly so when one accounts for another form of prior information: theory and models. While some disagreement remains about projections of the weakest storms, which seldom do much damage, both theory and models are now in good agreement that the frequency of high category hurricanes should increase, as should hurricane rainfall and the flooding it produces.
Looking ahead, I collaborated with Yale economist Robert Mendelsohn and his colleagues in estimating global hurricane damage changes through the year 2100, based on hurricanes “downscaled” from four climate models. We estimate that global hurricane damage will about double owing to demographic trends, and double again because of climate change. These projections are not inconsistent with what we’ve been seeing in hurricane data and in economic damage from hurricanes. Besides this study, there are robust theory and modeling results that show increased risk of hydrological extremes (floods and droughts) and heat-related problems.
Some of these predicted trends are beginning to emerge in actuarial data. Governments, markets and ordinary people are beginning to account for the increased risk. Those who wait for actuarial trends to emerge at the 95 percent confidence level before acting do so at their peril.
Below, my interview with Dr. Emanuel following Hurricane Sandy.
Climate change might change the geopolitics too. Due to heavy storms and other climate disasters that will hit the USA, Russia might (or they think they will) become more powerfull. That is again one good reason for you americans to be even more worried about CC.
Oh, I forgot. We finns think the russian bear is sometimes a little bit unpredictable.
Pielke’s mindset is very much that of “monkey see, monkey do” (action based on observation) – While the human species actually have evolved pretty far to also cater the “priori information” into how we assess a situation. Physics is priori information – but Pielke doesnt “believe” in physics does he?
What disagreement between Emanuel and Pielke Jr?
KE says RPJ cannot state that there is “no” climate signal. Perhaps. OTOH KE cannot state that there _is_ a climate signal. Talk about uncertainties, uh?
KE says GDP is not a good way to measure. Perhaps. Let’s see the peer reviewed literature on not using GDP.
The rest is irrelevant. RPJ has never said we need to wait for a stronger climate signal before acting – he has written repeatedly the exact opposite. RPJ’s argument was about the observational record, not the future – and yet KE fills a large portion of his article talking about the future.
It’s still 2010 out there.
Nice trolling, how many fish did you hope to catch with this one?
I do notice you “catch” one or two every now and then. Not bad, but with the intelligence level of the crowd here, you really are way out of your league.
I’m giving it a 60-40 chance that you’ll eventually get bored and move on to easier pickings, as opposed to getting booted from this site. Any takers?
Why does this blog attract calluous anonymous non-contributors who can only drone their silly complaints about what others have written, without having any original thought?
If KE and RPJ disagree on anything of substance, somebody please explain what that is.
Omno: “If KE and RPJ disagree on anything of substance, somebody please explain what that is.”
Hahaha. Priceless. OK, try this instead: come back to us with a 300 word summary: “what are the substantive differences between the positions of Pielke jr and Emmanuel?” They’re really impossible to miss. Your asking the question either means you’re trolling or you don’t understand.
Eheheh…Dan, if you don’t know what to write, just don’t.
It looks like we just trolled a troll…lol
Eheheh (and Ahr Ahr) in addition to LOL.
“I’m giving it a 60-40 chance that you’ll eventually get bored and move on to easier pickings, as opposed to getting booted from this site. Any takers?”
I’ll take that bet. Narcissists like O-Log never get bored feeding their own egos and enjoy living in their delusionary world of imagined superiority. Omno will visit Crock forever if Peter allows it, and Peter’s need to have some useful idiots on board means Omno will have to behave much more badly before he gets booted. As incoherent and annoying as Omno may be, he is harmless compared to the daveburtons, kuingdubes, and swallows that have plagued us in the past.
I repeatedly suggest to Omno that he “go away” knowing that it is largely an exercise in futility. It is merely giving him the attention he seeks and so badly needs. So I’m afraid we are stuck with him. (You didn’t specify any time frame for this bet, so when you decide you agree with me, make a small contribution to your local mental health charity in Omno’s name).
Eheheh and an Ahr-Ahr, in addition to your LOL
“I’m giving it a 60-40 chance that you’ll eventually get bored and move on to easier pickings, as opposed to getting booted from this site. Any takers?”
I’ll take that bet. Narcissists like Omno thrive on the attention they receive (even though it’s generally all negative for him here on Crock). He will never get bored with admiring his self-imagined superiority and will continue provoking us into paying attention to his babblings. Peter views him as a comparatively useful idiot and likely won’t ban him until he reaches the negaitive effects level of daveburton, swallow, and The Dube.
So, we’re stuck with him. You didn’t specify the time frame for this bet. Once you’ve decided that I’ve won, send my winnings to your local mental health charity and dedicate the donation to Omno.
Against my better judgement.
“KE says GDP is not a good way to measure. Perhaps. Let’s see the peer reviewed literature on not using GDP.”
GDP measures one thing, and one thing only, the value of all finished goods and services produced by a country. Even then it has well known limitations e.g. it doesn’t measure the ‘underground’ economy (cash-in-hand and bartering transactions aimed at tax avoidance, plus criminal activity), it doesn’t measure/allow for the effect of negative externalities (pollution effects, GHGs, environmental degradation)… Per cent changes in GDP, adjusted for inflation, are indicators of economic growth but that measure is not an absolute.
Natural disasters should impact on economic growth which will be reflected in the per cent change in GDP. (In a perverse way, expenditure on improved infrastructure after a natural disaster has the capacity to promote economic growth which complicates using GDP as an indicator of the impact of natural disasters.) But, the validity of using per cent change in GDP is dependent on ceteris paribus applying i.e. all other things are equal over time which they rarely are. To get that valid comparison over time, amongst other things, adjustments have to be made to the per cent GDP change to allow for defensive mitigation measures to reduce natural disaster impacts. Then there is the questionable validity of a global GDP. What complicates the combination of the GDP for different countries is their different levels of foreign currency reserves, different sizes of economies (small GDPs get lost among the much larger GDPs), lack of purchasing power parity for the same goods and services among different countries, day-by-day varying currency market exchanges rates… Then there is the problem of what constitutes a natural disaster i.e. not every government has the same criteria for declaring an event a natural disaster.
“What disagreement between Emanuel and Pielke Jr?”
Emanuel doesn’t like the way that Pielke Jr hasn’t allowed for defensive mitigation measures, has only looked at continental landfall of major weather events, has limited the hurricanes to categories 4 and 5, hasn’t allowed for variations in infrastructure robustness across countries, hasn’t allowed for variations in relative size of areas affected by natural disasters to the total size of each country, hasn’t removed the effects of volcanoes and tsunamis from the natural disasters, …
OT. There are those who are willing to unreservedly accept and overlook the inadequacies of economic climate-risk models but are hypercritical of science climate models. Probably shows the pulling power of dismal science. Just saying.
Thank you George. I am aware of the limitations of the GDP analysis. As a matter of fact I have completed a university-level sets of courses plus dissertation that included a review of the ways of measuring health, wealth and well-being.
If you’d like to know I’m a fan of vulnerability theory. So I am not unreservedly accepting anything.
My question though was about any peer-reviewed work that has tried to use any of those other tools, and compared the results to GDP-based papers.
Mann, Abraham, Trenberth and now Emanuel should write or encourage to write such kind of papers, if they have problems with RPJ’s work. And as I said I’d be surprised if RPJ would not accept most of criticism as proper caveats to his findings.
Kerry Emanuel :
“Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes. The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime.”
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane):
“However, some argue that Emanuel’s own research in 2008 refuted this theory and others contend that the trend does not exist at all …”
Historical Changes in Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storms, Vecchi and Knutson, Updated: Mar. 14th, 2014 (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records) :
“Recent papers ( Vecchi and Knutson 2008; Landsea et al 2010; Vecchi and Knutson 2011 .; Villarini et al. 2011 ) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database ( HURDAT ) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring.”
“However, to gain insight on the influence of climate change on Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency, we must focus on longer (> 100 yr) records of Atlantic hurricane activity …”
“If greenhouse warming causes a substantial increase in hurricane activity, then the century scale increase in global and tropical Atlantic SSTs since the late 1800s should have been accompanied by a long-term rising trend in measures of Atlantic hurricanes activity.”
“Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, correlated with rising SSTs …”
“… after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero …”
“Thus, we interpret the increase of short duration storms as further evidence for a spurious increase in Atlantic tropical storm counts since the late-19th Century. Further, the absence of an increase in moderate duration tropical storm counts is consistent with expectations from high-resolution dynamical models of a modest (and possibly negative) sensitivity of North Atlantic tropical storm counts to increasing greenhouse gases …“
“… if we look at US landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend …”
“… the US landfalling hurricane record … … suffers from degraded signal-to-noise characteristics for assessing trends.”
Such a natural ‘noise’ for the past 30 years can be, eg, phase transitions AMO from negative to positive …
Read this Guardian article by Bob Ward on the same topic
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/26/ipcc-climate-change
Despite the article being ‘against’ Pielke Jr, it was quoted positively by him, as it comes to the usual conclusion…we cannot see trends, and that’s because there is not enough data, the data is noisy, the data is sparse…and therefore we cannot see any climate signal.
Let’s address Bayesian priors. What do we know about the general effects of AGW and how might they be expected to affect hurricane dynamics?
We know that AGW increases temperatures, energy levels, atmospheric water saturation. We would expect these factors to increase hurricane damage.
That we have not been able to verify increases to a statistical high probability over the short term does not mean that these prior probabilities disappear and does not mean that Pielke’s analysis is as equally reasonable as his detractors.
I can see two main points here.
1. Has RPJ correctly answered the questions he posed to its own 538?
2. Does it matter and how?
On point 1, having seen KE’s reply article, and now even ATTP’s, the answer is “yes” To the best of our current abilities and using the best data available, it is not possible to see any climate-change-related increasing trend in losses. This may or may not change in the future, however if we restrict our discussion to past data RPJ is right.
On point 2, I do not understand why the general warmist’s obsession with attacking point 1 (à propos of which RPJ is right) when everybody knows that AGW/CAGW is a matter of risk management for the future. Correct me if I am wrong, but the IPCC AR5 WG-II is unanimous on that point.
As the old warmist meme goes, if you’re falling from the Empire State Building when you pass by the 3rd floor it is both correct to say “nothing so far” and “big trouble ahead” – one doesn’t exclude the other, no?
I know our host, trained in the picture professions, can’t help trying to find AGW/CAGW outside of his and Barbara Boxer’s window. But that’s just folklore, whilst the risk remains and alas remains undebated, as all energies are focused in defending Mann and attacking the Big Bad Denial Monster.
“and now even ATTP’s, the answer is “yes”.
ATTP and many others have commented on that article – he actually says “So, Roger Pielke Jr is right. Or is he?” And then spends another 1000 words or so digging into that question.
But why would you use nuance or, you know, actually read the article, rather than just cherrypick the bits that support your argument? (Just as Pielke Jr and Curry have.)
Splitting hair as new alarmist pastime whilst awaiting for the pause to go away, I see.
As implied by KE, and as elucidated by ATTP, and as ought to be clear to anybody without a prejudiced brain, RPJ’s answer is “yes” with caveats. I wonder if any of those caveats has been publicly renounced by RPJ himself.
So it is mightly incorrect to claim that RPJ’s article was replete with errors or what. He set out to answer a question and there is unanimity on his answer…as long as everybody understands all the caveats under which the question is answered with a “yes”.
This is a discussion similar to the global-cooling-in-the-1970s where silence falls every time I present evidence showing that whilst the answer is “no” for the 1970s it is “yes” for the 1972-1975 period 😉
The sign of the alarmist is exactly the combatant attitude that prevents from showing any ability to be reasonable especially about the recent past. And that’s what RPJ has seen.
Anybody wants to compare KE’s words to Abraham’s? Perhaps Emanuel is a closet denier (ahr ahr).
RP, Jr. is right only insofar as constrained by the very narrow criteria he follows. By ignoring criteria that would contravene his desired conclusions, he has done the equivalent of tracking the flight of a dandelion seed to disprove the Law of Gravity.
Here’s an interesting paleo study that belies the short term, poorly constrained and highly stochastic variability of historical records, behind which Pielke hides his impact denial:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140127/srep03876/full/srep03876.html#ref9
Something I find of interest is the tendency in many locales for wealthier businesses and home buyers to locate in areas of lesser risk from extreme meteorological events, and the concomitant displacement of poorer, uninsured people into higher risk areas.
I know there’s been some research on this, but I haven’t located it.
Jp – that’s a fairly well known effect. Simply those with resource move out because they can. I hope it’s always included in the calculations.
It’s included already regarding tumors and overhead power lines. As those are ugly and vaguely threatening nobody really likes living next to them and so the resourceful just leave. The poor remain and that can be seen in an increase in % of tumors, because tumors are more common among poor people.
Anybody wanting to investigate a physical connection between overhead power lines and tumors need remove this effect.
One of Omno’s wackier comments. Tumors and overhead power lines? Without any reference to the current/voltage character of the lines? And there’s an increase in tumors among them because the poor “remain” next to the power lines?
Lord love a duck! Has Omno confused causality and correlation? Or is this just his usual illogical and incoherent rambling? PLEASE, Omno, provide us with some links discussing the relationship between tumors, poor people, and proximity to those “ugly and vaguely threatening” overhead power lines.
FYI, where I live in Northern VA, there are many rather expensive homes located right “next” to some very high voltage overhead power lines. The fact that many are on 2 to 5 acre lots does provide some buffer. In my particular neighborhood, which is neither rich nor poor, ALL utilities are buried—not a pole or overhead wire in sight.
Of course, we do have some rather BIG wires carrying lots of juice running close to our houses (but underground where at least they’re not “ugly”). I’m sitting around 40 feet from a 75KVA transformer box at the corner of my property right now. When the power company upgraded the lines, we did have some worries about EMF, and the company did come in and take measurements—-their conclusion, “Don’t worry, Be happy”. Now you’re telling me I’m going to get tumors?
Unsurprisingly you didn’t get a word I wrote . I simply described how Jp was correct in identifying a potentially confounding effect. I then explained how that effect is already considered by scientists when investigating if overhead power lines cause tumors.
Now if you are really dying to know there’s zero evidence of any causal physical link between overhead power lines and tumors. Effects such as the one described above perfectly explain all increases in tumor numbers next to overhead power lines.
Of course I “didn’t get a word you wrote”. YOU didn’t get a word you wrote either. jpcowdrey was talking about the “confounding effect” of extreme meteorological events causing wealthier folks to abandon higher risk areas while poorer folks seemed to concentrate there. All about weather and calculating economic losses due to extremes—-and richer folks moving out and poorer folks staying could certainly complicate calculations of loss. NOTHING was said about human heath or cancers anywhere on this thread.
YOU, on the other hand, wandered off into the recesses of your fragile brain and came up with AN INCREASE OF TUMORS IN POOR PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LIVE UNDER POWER LINES.
I am still waiting for a link. If you maintain that all increases in tumors among people who live under overhead power lines are due to the fact that they are poor, CITE SOME EVIDENCE. You will forgive me if I don’t lend much credence to your bald assertions.
No, really, in case some other super dumb misunderstands…
1. Power lines don’t cause cancer
2. An increase in the incidence of tumors has been observed near some power lines
3. This increase can be explained as consequence of richer people moving away from living near power lines
4. A similar effect could be expected in other unpleasant areas such as those prone to weather disasters and extremes
Omno continues to evade.
“1. Power lines don’t cause cancer”
A rather definitive statement, Omno, especially from someone like you who carries on so about “proof”. Actually, those who have studied the EMF and cancer issue have concluded that it’s not likely but can’t yet be completely ruled out, because they have found some small bits of evidence, as in childhood leukemia, which appears to be an indicator of the presence of environmental hazards (like chemical contamination of drinking water). Many “cell phone causes brain cancer” conspiracists are still alive and well, and seem to think they have “evidence” also.
“2. An increase in the incidence of tumors has been observed near some power lines
3. This increase can be explained as consequence of richer people moving away from living near power lines”
Yes, you’ve said all of this, and we are STILL waiting for you to offer some proof. WHO observed an increase in tumors? WHEN? WHERE? Has this alleged “study” been peer-reviewed?
“4. A similar effect could be expected in other unpleasant areas such as those prone to weather disasters and extremes”
COULD be expected? Says who? That sounds like “bald assertion” and “unsubstantiated opinion” to me, Omno. Are you saying that we should expect to see more tumors in the areas hard-hit by Sandy with some kind of causality linkage to the socio-economic standing of the residents? Actually, the “richer” folks may be the only ones who can afford to rebuild and stay, and the “poor” folks may have to leave.
You really need to either put up or shut up, Omno. It was idiotic to bring up tumors, power lines, and poor people in this context. But no one who visits Crock would ever accuse you of shying away from idiocy. Now that you’ve again embarrassed yourself, either dig your way out with the who-what-when-where or drop the subject.
As the article says, if you see more bears… Watch where you are stepping. 🙂 here’s the idea. Higher sea surface temps > more storm energy > more damage. Kerry Emanuel is famous for the first two. Storms cost money. Either more expensive structures or more damage. What will it cost to respond to SLR? Not free. So look for increasing storm intensity.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3302/07-hott-nf.html
I forgot to add, Whaaat? Emanuel proved a climate signal in 2005. What is under discussion is the effect of increasing storm energy. Anyone care to hazard a guess? Does a bear fggffg in the woods? Statistically speaking, of course.
Yes Christopher we’ve been discussing if a climate change signal can be identified in the costs of disasters but you still haven’t noticed. That’s life.
In other news Revkin has weighed in on RPJ’s side. It’s a collapse for the failed Mann Trenberth Dana Abraham line.