From a NOAA press release that came out to me via email just minutes ago:
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People,
Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.
“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”
On the Web:
NOAA National Hurricane Center: http://www.hurricanes.gov
Link to paper:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf
UPDATE: URL to paper as originally posted above was missing a period, works now, try again if you missed it before.
Well that pretty much says it all don’t you think? Will Gore revise AIT now?
Sorry for the OT nature of this, but I’d like to get some professional opinion on this story: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
Anthony, maybe it needs a separate entry?
REPLY: I’ve seen it and I can’t believe NCDC wasted time on this, the whole study is just spin. The lead professor at my university switched focus from tornadic mesocyclone studies to “global cooling” in 1978 based on the science at the time. He even talked me into doing a 30 minute TV special about it then.
Petersons study is nothing more than an attempt to cover the past with a sugar coating.
It’s no surprise that there was some concern about cooling thirty years ago. We’d just had three decades of cooling, just as we’ve now had three decades of warming. The difference is that the last three decades have had a rising CO2 level approximately in line with rising temperatures. This, along with human guilt about damaging our environment, has made possible the logical fallacy, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, which is the widespread belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming. That, and that there probably is a small greenhouse effect from CO2.
What amazes me is the credulity of masses of scientists.
==========================
Thanks Anthony. Pretty much what I figured. Also wondering how he only found 71 articles covering a 15 year span. I would think the number would have been closer to several hundred, if not thousands of total articles on climate change.
Was this a random sampling? I suspect the answer is “no”. If not, then was it cherry-picking?
Coincidence the lead author of that “report” is listed as an IPCC author?
I’m just sayin’…..
OK, last comment on the article. One of the “authors” has posted a comment about the article here: http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/content/view/6406/#read-comments?mosmsg=Comment+Saved
I’ve asked him if the sample of articles was randomly picked and if not how did he determine which 71 articles out of the obviously several hundred written on the topic over the 15 year period to use.
Oddly, my comments are not showing up. I wonder if I’m being censored? I wonder why he wouldn’t want to answer that question?
REPLY: You can ask William Connolley over on STOAT the same question, he was co-author. He’s a bit cantankerous, so use finesse.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
interesting – wonder what TWC will look like after this
Students at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication soon will begin benefiting from a new partnership formed between the university and Weather Central.
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsrooms/asu_journalism_students_weather_0222/
REPLY: Weather Central is a different entity from TWC. They provide display systems.
sorry, my bad
I’ve been flamed from time to time for saying there was just as much consensus on global cooling as there is on global warming. The “flamers” were, of course, missing my point that I’m really not seeing any more consensus today. What I am seeing is a much more effective application of sheep dip.
If we are heading into a few decades of cooling, do you think carbon emissions will be become popular again? If we are getting a new solar minimum, will carbon emissions become mandatory? And what will it take for James Hansen to quit saying that we can deliberately prevent the next ice age?
See, with AGCC, it doesn’t matter whether it warms or cools. C02, or “carbon” as they like to call it is the ultimate skapegoat for everything bad that happens weatherwise or climatically. They’ll probably refuse to admit there’s any cooling trend, and/or downplay it, and say that the heat is being absorbed by the oceans, to come back later to haunt us. C02, or “carbon” as they like to call it will still be the enemy. Which reminds me, I need to get rid of all my pencils to reduce my carbon “footprint”.
Ottersaid>>
No, i hadn’t noticed.
We don’t have that many hurricanes in the country i live in.
What we are having is the most severe drought in living memory.
This drought is due to a shift in rain patterns in the tropics – the rain we need is falling as monsoons across southeast Asia, rather than as ‘normal’ rain into our catchments. This shift is caused by Global Warming, not by housing developments on the Florida coast.
So, i’m sorry, but you guys can argue about Florida and the phantom menace of the hurricane count as much as you want. In Australia we are living Global Warming on a daily basis.
I would appreciate it if the United States of America weren’t to become complacent about Global Warming because it’s not affecting you as much as you first thought.
There are other people in the world. People who don’t have oil, but who you have to worry about anyway.
Deal?
Global Warming is a buzz phrase designed to imply that everything’s going to hello in a handbasket and that people are to blame.
Now all we need to do is get rid of all the people, and Mother Gaia will be fine.
Everyone’s just as worried about everyone else. I lived in a place in the US once a long time ago where there was a draught that lasted about 8 years long.
Gullybogan , what makes you think that the drought in Australia is caused by global warming?
Do you know exactly how much warming there has been over the last thirty years in the Southern Hemisphere? Around one third of one degree Celsius.
Forgetting for a minute every other debate about AGW, do you really think that this 0.35 C rise over the last thirty years is really the dominating factor in the weather? This rise is blamed for ever weather experience from floods to droughts to hurricanes to tornados to snowstorms; but actually there is no convincing evidence that such a small change is responsible for any of them. As I am sure you know there have been lots of severe droughts in Australia over the years, even when temperatures were a little cooler than they are now.
I would not worry about the australian view on global warming. They have really lost the plot. They are spending millions of dollars on new jobs in climate change for nothing and have a strong vested interest in keeping this thing going. They have just released a report by a “Garnaut” who is an economist of the stern ilk advising Australia to cut Co2 emmissions 80% in a cooling world. Its been raining cats and dogs in Australia for the past 3 months and rain averages are way above normal in all east australia (drought). They dont realize that global temsp have been flat since 2004 and have been going down 0.6 jan 08 as well as SH ice 35% above normal etc could go on and on but its pointless. they will only reallize when they freeze over LOL
gullybogan is an Australian who needs to keep up with the news. There has been record rainfall across most of eastern and western australia. Parts of Queensland had an eye-popping 65 centimeters of rain in 24 hours last week. If global warming caused the drought then we are definitely into global cooling.
And BTW, tropical cyclones in the Australia region have been declining for 30 years and this year will be at or close to a record low of activity, which has made the north of Australia relatively dry.
“I would appreciate it if the United States of America weren’t to become complacent about Global Warming because it’s not affecting you as much as you first thought.
“There are other people in the world. People who don’t have oil, but who you have to worry about anyway.
“Deal?”
Perhaps the US would become complacent if there were five or so years of post-40s style cooling. That’s our attention span regarding such issues. In the meantime, cooling or warming, there is going to be a lot of attention paid both in terms of science and media.
We need to find out if the temperatures are being measured correctly.
We in the US (and the rest of the developed world) will not suffer terribly if stringent anti-GW measures are put in place. But I fear greatly for India, China, Indonesia, and Africa. If those areas slow their development, they will continue to suffer, and suffer badly. If the DCs cut back, the UDCs (most of whom are without much oil, but have coal) will suffer very badly as an indirect result.
If there is a serious GW problem, it will require a high level of both wealth and tech. The world is at a “tipping point” economically. If we break through, which we will in the normal course of events within the next three decades, we will be far more able to shape both ourselves and the world.
Out capabilities, if not restrained, will overtake the crisis even it it is a real and serious concern.
I am well aware of the Pascal’s conundrum posed by those who would act quickly.
I throw Pascal back at them: Not overreacting will greatly enhance our power to deal with the crisis if it is real. And, if there is no crisis, it would be MUCH better if we did not expend $trillions and cause even more $trillions never to be created.
To those who say millions MAY be affected by GW. I say many millions WILL die and billions will be condemned to poverty if we waste those trillions–whether or not there is a crisis.
And while the DCs would not suffer in the same way, the huge technological advance that expended/not-created wealth would engender will be lost to the world, or at the very least tragically delayed.
That is the other side of Pascal’s conundrum.
So we in America will not ignore global warming. We will study it, and we will observe it. And we will not turn out backs on the UDCs.
And if there is a real crisis and we have the wealth and technology to deal with it (as yet we have neither–but we WILL if we move forward for two or three decades), we will with GREATLY increased capabilities deal with the crisis.
But please consider ALL the alternatives, and don’t forget that the sabre of Pascal slashes both ways. Most especially for those people who don’t have oil.
Deal?
Just as a note Gullybogan, here in N E Alabama USA we have been in a extreme drought beginning in 2005. as of this date since Jan 2005 we are about 60 inches short in rainfall. In 2007 where I live we are in one year 37 inches short in rain. Our normal rain is about 48.5 inches here. Yes we know about drought. many of our farmers and livestock producers have suffered terribly. not some of the water ponds went dry, all of them did. and they had to pump county or city water at premium prices to have a seed herd to survive. the farmers just lost out. As you can see we are familiar with drought.
As a thought in the 1960’s before the great population growth on the Florida coast most of the houses were relatively flat roofed because of the power of the tropical systems. In the late 70’s more of the norther people moved down and elected their own local officials and they as is normal hired for consultants the engineers they were used to also mostly from Northern areas. Now don’t misunderstand but the building codes changed and 6-12 gable end houses with windows up there for the great view over the water or everglades were the new order of the day. Unfortunately most of the gables were east-west oriented for the view of the sunset or sunrise. If you study some of the pictures of the aftermath of hurricane Andrew you can see the difference between the older flat roofed homes and the newer high gable ended roofs. That big flat gable end acts as a big sail and there goes the roof.
As an aside the standard from the old timers in FL was that the northern designer’s put the steep roofs on so that the snow could slide off the roof easily.
bill
[…] Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction NOAA: Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction « Watts Up With … […]
“In Australia we are living Global Warming on a daily basis.” No, what you are living is Global Warming Hysteria. Big difference. Do yourself a favor, GB, look at some actual science, for a change. It will do you a world of good, believe me.
Maybe PH can answer this riddle:
Hudson bay
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
but latest time lapse
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.0.html
so overall sharp drop in last 24 hours as shown in main
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
same with Hotosk ice (compared with most recent time lapse doesn’t make sense. Don’t mean to be picky but can someone check?
And starting to do the Funky Chicken.
re vincent: And now this
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/index.html
Hard to consider this non-biased source anymore in the light of this as well
http://mikelm.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-image-was-downloaded-from.html
october 2007. Hope it is an honest mistake.
Someone posted in this thread that “it isn’t like Global Warming is made up”. I am starting to wonder if it is. There are some serious doubts in my mind concerning the validity of the data being used to generate these global averages. My belief is that not only is the data itself junk but in many cases it is “adjusted” such that it the input data is modified to reflect the desired conclusion before it is averaged.
I have absolutely no faith in the ground station temperature measurements. The data I do believe shows a brief period of warming lasting about 20 years from the 70’s to the 90’s that is consistent with past periods of warming in both duration and amplitude.
We are wasting billions. We have “experts” flying all over the world, being moved about it limos being treated like royalty. Of COURSE they are going to continue saying what they have been saying if it gets them the kind of treatment they have got so far. They are human beings.
Another example is my house, which is 30 miles from the Gulf of Mexico (close enough for bad winds). When my roof is reshingled this March the installer will be using additional nails, stronger roof vents and a modified practice for installing the lowest row of shingles. This is not required by local law but rather has become an expectation by house buyers. Nearby counties do require by law these measures plus others.
the Pielke paper ignores all improvements like this.
it does assume that a 2003 house will suffer the SAME damage that a 1902 house would.
do you notice the flaw in that his approach?
Considering that the measurement is merely real cost over time compared with population and actual storm occurrence, there are any number of factors that are not being taken into account.
Including value of houses (on the side of increased damage), and the strength of houses (on the side of decreased damage), etc.
The far greater fallacy, as widely practiced by others, is to assume that increased $damage correlates with increased hurricane activity.
[…] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the US Department of Commerce (NOAA) announced last Thursday that a team of scientists studying the economic impact of hurricanes over the past century have […]