6

The BBC reports, under this headline Climate change: Bigger hurricanes are now more damaging

One of the big questions that scientists have wrestled with is how to compare storm events from different eras. Is the increase in financial damages recorded over the last century simply down to the fact there are now more people living in the paths of hurricanes, who are generally wealthier?

Previous research has concluded that the rise in damages was related to wealth, and not to any statistically significant change in frequency.

However this new paper challenges that view.

...

By working out similar figures for events across the last century, the researchers were able to make what they say are more realistic comparisons

...

The authors found that the frequency of the most damaging hurricanes had increased by a rate of 330% per century.

And they believe that is mainly due to rising temperatures.

The report implies that the previous science has failed to validate the idea that hurricanes are getting worse because of climate change but that this new work, unambiguously, clarifies that there is a relationship caused by a changing climate.

Not everyone agrees. Roger Pielke (sometimes accused of being a climate skeptic but also a published expert on extreme weather) disagrees and argues the new results are flawed:

The bottom line here is that a fatally flawed paper on climate science passed peer review at a significant journal. It used a dataset found online that had not undergone peer review, much less any quality control.

The original paper is published in PNAS here. The associated press release claims:

Hurricanes are becoming bigger, stronger and more dangerous -- an improved calculation method now shows a clear tendency

(I mention this explicit claim to avoid any answers claiming that the problem is how the media interpret a technical paper: the key claim in in the press release and the paper. The issue isn't what the media said, but what the paper claims).

So who is right: the new paper or Pielke? Has science now shown that climate change has already caused a large upward trend in hurricane frequency and damage?

Note a related question has been asked before, but the recent paper makes an explicit claim that the science has changed and this question is focussed on that claim.

matt_black
  • 56,186
  • 16
  • 175
  • 373
  • 5
    "a dataset found online that had not undergone peer review" Genuine question: Is it common to peer review datasets, rather than conclusions from datasets? – Oddthinking Nov 16 '19 at 02:11
  • 3
    @Oddthinking Yes, and some funding sources now require data to be both published and peer-reviewed. It's gaining faster in "model sciences" like meteorology and climatology. For an overview, see: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/11/what-constitutes-peer-review-research-data/ – bishop Nov 16 '19 at 06:16
  • @Oddthinking I think Pielke's criticism of the dataset was that it was a fairly dodgy and unreliable dataset and the users had not tested of questioned this or sought the underlying sources. "Peer review" is not the core point he is making. – matt_black Nov 17 '19 at 17:09
  • You've got your Pielkes mixed up. This is Roger Pielke Jr. He does political science, not meteorology. He is most definitely not an expert on extreme weather. His father, Roger Pielke Sr, is the meteorologist. – 410 gone Nov 18 '19 at 14:42
  • @EnergyNumbers "he does political science not meteorology" would be true if he had only ever done political science. In fact (check [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.) if you think I'm wrong), he has published two books on climate science and has authored *many* technical, peer-reviewed papers including some of the leading work on hurricane frequency [for example](https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf). – matt_black Nov 18 '19 at 14:53
  • 2
    He has commented as pundit. He's not an expert. His father is the meteorologist. His own speciality is punditry. (With a well-honed sideline in sophistry) – 410 gone Nov 18 '19 at 15:48
  • Related: [Atlantic hurricane#Trends](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane#Trends) – DevSolar Nov 18 '19 at 16:09
  • @DevSolar Amusingly, that wikipedia page quotes both a paper by Pileke Jr. and the WMO as saying there is no trend in normalised hurricane damage. – matt_black Nov 18 '19 at 16:25
  • 1
    @EnergyNumbers Am I missing something? Did Pielke Jr. fake all those peer-reviewed scientific papers like the one quoted in the wikipedia page on hurricane trends? I realise his punditry has annoyed some people but I seem to see a variety of scientific papers with his name on covering this very topic. – matt_black Nov 18 '19 at 16:29
  • @matt_black: That's not all that WP page quotes, and if that is all you're taking from it, no answer I could give would satisfy you anyway as you already seem to have made up your mind. – DevSolar Nov 18 '19 at 16:31
  • @DevSolar I haven't made my mind up. I was responding to EnergyNumbers assertion that Pielke is primarily a pundit and knows nothing of this topic and has no scientific credibility. That is blatantly untrue. Is he right on the science? That's a different question. This is supposed to be a place where the facts rule and there is no credibility granted for *ad hominem* attacks. – matt_black Nov 18 '19 at 16:51
  • @matt_black yes, you've missed a lot. Having a peer-reviewed paper on a topic doesn't remotely make one an expert. Pielke's spent a long time outside the scientific mainstream. – 410 gone Nov 21 '19 at 00:20
  • @EnergyNumbers outside the mainstream in the sense he has never contributed to the topic or been an expert in it? And, even if he isn't, are his criticisms of that latest analysis correct or not? And how many papers or how much science has he published (I only quoted one because it is referenced on the wikipedia page on the topic not because it was the only one)? Has he published nothing else of relevance? – matt_black Nov 21 '19 at 00:36
  • "sometimes accused of being a climate skeptic " please, just for once can you try and keep the partisan sniping out of the questions. It doesn't do anyone any good. There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, so it is rhetoric to say someone is "accused" of it. –  Nov 21 '19 at 12:21
  • 1
    "So who is right: the new paper or Pielke?" why not let science decide in the usual manner, which is not to publish articles in a business magazines, but to submit your objections to peer-review by submitting a "letter to the editor" of the journal or to publish a full paper on the subject. You point out correctly that Prof Pielke is a published expert on this topic - so ask yourself why he isn't behaving like one in this instance? –  Nov 21 '19 at 12:25
  • 2
    Prof Pielk Jr is making the error of assuming that a lack of statistical evidence for an increase is evidence that there isn't an increase. That is a fundamental statistical error as hypothesis tests are not symmetric, and you would also need to perform an evaluation of the statistical power of the test. https://skepticalscience.com/statisticalsignificance.html . It is also worth noting that Pielke accused the author of "pure statistical malpractice" on his Twitter account and refused to acknowledge his error when it was pointed out. Your mileage may vary, as they say. –  Nov 21 '19 at 12:28
  • 1
    @mat_black I think it would be reasonable to say that Pielke Jr has published some well-cited papers on the statistics and economics of hurricanes, but that does not mean he is an expert on the meteorological aspects of it. However as I said the key question is why is he using Forbes to promulgate his theory and making accusations of malpractice, rather than following scientific norms and publication practices. Probably because he doesn't want to be subjected to peer-review. –  Nov 21 '19 at 12:35
  • 2
    Pielke's own biography at the end of the Forbes article says 'I have degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science'. He is not qualified as a climate scientist. If this climate science paper has errors, then it is for the climate science community to address them through peer-review. – Jay Moore Nov 21 '19 at 15:00
  • @DikranMarsupial The argument that Pielke is wrong to comment on this topic in the popular press seems odd when the original peer he was criticising was accompanied with a press release that got huge (and uncritical) media attention in the popular press. Perhaps the original authors are also guilty. Besides where the paper was *discussed* is a distraction form the question of whether its claims are right. – matt_black Nov 23 '19 at 10:36
  • @matt_black outside the mainstream in that his position contradicts that of the overwhelming mass of actual experts. I find it ironic that you refer to him as "climate skeptic", as his work requires a considerable lack of scepticism in his audience. – 410 gone Nov 24 '19 at 12:40
  • 1
    @matt_black the paper had a press release AFTER it has been through peer review. Prof. Pielke Jrs criticism has not. Personally I am against papers getting an immediate press release, but going to the press BEFORE that basic step to enforce a degree of skepticism is obviously worse. I note you ignore the point I made criticising the content of Pielke's argument. –  Nov 25 '19 at 09:55
  • @DikranMarsupial if the criticism of Pielke is sound science then write an answer. But don't forget: this question isn't about pile's credibility at all, it is about the claims made in the new paper. I'm slightly mystified why you and others are so concerned to make *ad hominem* attacks of Pileke's credibility that is essentially irrelevant to the actual question and is not exactly a sound line for proper skeptical argument. – matt_black Nov 26 '19 at 00:29
  • I haven't mentioned Pile. I haven't made an ad-hominem attack. I am criticising his promulgation of his view of the science in a business magazine rather than taking the normal peer-review approach. If you read my comments, you will find I said that Pielke does have a suitable background to comment on this (it is largely about statistics and damages). –  Nov 26 '19 at 07:39
  • I note you STILL are ignoring the scientific point I raised. I don't have the energy to write a full answer, but I object to your insinuations, especially as they ignore what I have actually written. –  Nov 26 '19 at 07:40
  • @DikranMarsupial "pile" was a typo for Pielke. And what, exactly, am I insinuating? I merely point out that the question isn't about Pielke at all but about the claims made in a new paper. If there are scientific mistakes in his critique, fine, that would be useful in an analysis of the paper. But the question *isn't about Pielke*. – matt_black Nov 26 '19 at 16:01
  • "And what, exactly, am I insinuating?" you know perfectly well what you are insinuating my your attacks on other participants about ad-hominems. You STILL have not addressed the technical point I raised, nor acknowledged that Pielke's criticisims have not been subjected to peer-review, in the usual scientific process, whereas the original paper has. That is not an ad-hominem as I am criticising an action, not the person. –  Nov 27 '19 at 07:17
  • If you want scientific criticism, wait until the scientific communitity have assessed the work in the normal manner. Publication in a peer reviewed journal is the FIRST step of the process of acceptance by the scientific community, not the last. –  Nov 27 '19 at 07:18

1 Answers1

3

Short answer: Maybe yes.

Long answer: There's still a lack of papers and data making a clear correlation between global warming and the frequency and strength of storms. There's one study suggests maximal hurricane winds to be increasing in the last thirty years as well they process of formation is faster. But as far I can find there's not much increase beyond "slight".

Another thing to consider is population growth in risky areas, it can only increase the damage toll and I was unable to find a proportional increase in investment in disaster prevention and mitigation for all the affected areas.

The bottom line as far I can tell is the damage, measured in the billions of dollars figures, must fluctuate in accord with the population growth and the "casualty statistical economic evaluation" for each location.

Why it's possible yes? Because if you think the global climate as an inhomogeneous system, more energy it gets (warming) more strong and frequent will it's energy concentrations (storms). It's like a letter soup, more letters you put in it more and more lengthy words can randomly form.

Some external links:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509081944.htm

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/gav0802.pdf

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research_highlight/the-role-of-atlantic-overturning-circulation-in-the-recent-decline-of-atlantic-major-hurricane-frequency/

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/ElsnerKossinJagger2008.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215877172_Hurricanes_and_Global_Warming

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

Muntasir
  • 103
  • 1
jean
  • 139
  • 1
  • 8
  • 4
    There is an important distinction to make between papers that *forecast* stronger or more frequent storms in the future and this that study the *historic* data. This question isn't about the future but about the historic record and whether or not that recent analysis is reliable. Some critical analysis needed, not least because newspaper headlines keep telling us one thing (storms are getting worse). But the question is: does the science agree? – matt_black Nov 18 '19 at 14:56
  • @matt_black An important distinction for sure, I'meditting the answer – jean Nov 18 '19 at 16:16
  • 1
    And it is also super important to understand causation and correlation. The jump from correlation to causation is non-trivial, and is extremely hard to do with scientific rigor for something like the weather system of an entire planet (until we can start creating control planets...) – Nelson Nov 22 '19 at 08:20
  • @Nelson I agree, that's why I put (sorry if not clear) we expect (due to logic induction) the number and intensity to rise but that was not observed yet (scientific rigor). Yeah we are just starting to understand the complexity of a global weather system, the greenhouse effect is nothing more than the basics and we just found it in part thanks to observing other planets – jean Nov 22 '19 at 10:19
  • 1
    @matt_black "not least because newspaper headlines keep telling us one thing (storms are getting worse)." your main critical sources is a magazine article. Your will probably find that science does not have a single position on this kind of question where there is significant uncertainty. "Does science agree?" is not a binary issue in such cases. –  Nov 27 '19 at 07:45
  • @DikranMarsupial You are right there may not be an agreed consensus. But this question exists because the popular press keeps reporting this issue as if there is. – matt_black Nov 28 '19 at 13:51
  • 1
    @matt_black the popular press does not generally care about consensus, they tend to just get excited about each new paper that comes along. If you read the IPCC reports they are quite cautious about their statements on these issue which shows where the mainstream scientific view actually lies. Note the BBC article doesn't suggest that there was a confident consensus position on this, but that it was the subject of uncertainty/lack of information. –  Nov 28 '19 at 14:37