The Katrina-global warming link 07 September 05

heard an mit prof say there is a realation between warming and intensity of storms. he said 6 months ago he did not beleive it, but he ran numbers and they match

I wrote: ”...would it be possible to work “backwards” like forensic scientists and “deconstruct” one particular climate event, such as Katrina, with whatever we do know—sort of “peel away” the most likely various factors that created Katrina…. “We know there has been some natural SST warming and we know there has been GW contributing to SST warming. Could we “peel away” the most likely portion of that overall warming caused by GW, then figure how destructive Katrina would have been, and subtract that from how destructive Katrina actually was to figure the likely (above 50%, or even 20% certainty) contribution of AGW to Katrina’s destructiveness? Or at least come up with some high-end/low-end range? Something like we are about 50% certain that GW contributed, say, 2 to 5% of Katrina’s intensity. “Then, of course, that additional 2-5% of intensity caused by GW would have done much more damage than the first 2-5% of intensity—it may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back or blew off someone’s roof, or demolished their home.”

The reply was: ”...your suggestion is a reasonable one, I think there is some scope for further study of Katrina. One could, for example, rerun the forecast models that computed Katrina’s development with half a degree cooler SST, say, as a rough-and-imperfect estimate of the potential impact of this extra warming. But ultimately I think studies like the one by Knutson et al. shown in Fig. 1 are more useful than working on a single case study where a lot of random chance is involved.”

Point is, Katrina would have happened regardless of GW, but it might not have been quite so severe. Maybe that levee would not have broken, or maybe someone’s roof wouldn’t have blown off. Right now scientists are trying to get a general picture of GW, but I think in the future they will have enough knowledge & ability to analyze unique events with more certainty. Just think of where science was 50, or even 20 years ago.

The other point is, as lay people we have to do all we can to reduce GW; that GW would increase intensity in future storms (skip whether it contributed to Katrina) should be enough to move every conscientious person to action in reducing GW.

Following on from my response to Jimbo on 4th Sept, I see that Newsnight on BBC2 tonight ran a feature on the risk of a similar catastrophic flood in London. As mentioned before, although the Thames barrier has been in operation since 1983 and has been closed about 200 times since, the frequency of use is increasing, and the planned 1000 yr event design capacity has now become a 400yr event capacity, raising the question of whether new defenses 10 miles further downstream are required.

According to the presenter, Susan Watts, the Environment Agency ran a recent simulation on a hybrid 1987 Hurricane/1953 innundation scenario with a calculated 9.5’ storm surge on top of a Spring tide. The results were apparently worrying and, just like the Gulf coast, the logistics of a large scale evacuation of low-lying coastal land, now densely populated, look doomed to failure.

On a closing note, a comment was made by an ‘environmental scientist’ that with GW already in train, global sea level rises of 10m in 3-400yrs will mean London will cease to exist as a viable city. Let’s see if that timescale changes in a few months when more information about polar ice-melt and glacier speed prompts the IPCC to give us an update.

I will watch out and post the link for the London Assembly’s new flood risk assessment report when it is published in a few days time.

kind regards to all

Colin

It certainly is imperative, Lynn, that we reduce consumption.

John Fleck, Chris Mooney, and Roger Pielke have been going around about the importance of C reduction expenditures vs adaptation expenditures.

John touches on this here, and Roger here.

In an adaptive management environment, the AGW variable is of limited utility, as it is not the most important variable when considering future impacts. It sets a trajectory, but once that trajectory is set, the variable becomes less important in considering uncertainty (variables such as societal reaction are more uncertain and thus more important).

:o)

Best,

D

and is a lot easier to understand & predict (as difficult as that is) than human behavior, which includes psychological, cultural (beliefs, values, knowledge…), and social (political, econ, kinship, “other people,” group nature, groupthink, etc) variables, all impacting each other, and interpenetrating with dynamic human biological & environmental variables.

Simply telling people about GW rarely works, due to all these other considerations (though RealClimate is doing a great job in that department).

Another point re attribution of GW to Katrina. I listened to Emmanuel on that NPR piece you sited, and he mentioned hurricane intensity had doubled over the past 30 years. So, now I think, well, it is just as likely that Katrina’s intensity was more than doubled (or at least impacted partly) by GW than less than doubled or impacted partly (down to zero effect) by GW. Since my standard is less than 50% certainty, that allows me to say (with my less stringent level of confidence) that GW probably intensified Katrina….Or, the dice sure are loaded by GW to make hurricanes a lot worse.

Relatives and friends from India (some very poor) have been calling us to find out if we are all right after Katrina, though we are hundreds of miles away (as they did after 9/11, though we lived near Chicago then).

Today I got this as a forward from my nephew (an Indian in London):

One couldn’t stop making this comparison… electricity status 48hours later..mumbai is back on its feet and is business is as usual

USA...world's most developed nation
India...third world country..

oopss...did i get the last fact wrong???

I came across a news article about a british study looking at increases in soil releasing carbon. And that this was “undoing” any GHG conservation measures of countries… is it beyond the control of humans? (my bias-I’ve always thought it was)

The study was in Nature…

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05384446.htm

in which GW wakes up nature, who really gets involved in releasing GHGs, causing further warming, which causes nature to release more GHGs. That happened in the end-Permian extinction, when 90% of life died. Then it was triggered by excessive volcanic activity, whereas we humans are the ones pulling the trigger this time.

Then again, maybe it’s not to late and we might avert a Venus effect by our GHGs reductions. I don’t think scientists can give us an answer one way or the other at this point.

So, what do you think we should do at this point – make our last will out to whatever ETs arrive later, then curl up and die, or work like hell to reduce our GHGs, and hope we are not too late?

Many of the potentially massive problems which face us with regard to Global Warming seem unlikely to personally affect many of us contributing to this blog. Although we may face some unpleasantness in our lifetimes, it will likely be future generations that will suffer more by our actions (or lack of action); also, by unlucky, typically poorer people in today’s world.

So, I think the discussion that Lynn in particular initiates are moral philosophy issues that could be debated. These can be powerful motivations for appropriate action – whether through religion, and/or more secular approaches, such as Covey’s “habit” of wishing to leave a legacy.

http://www.cybaea.net/Reviews/0743269519.html

He writes in response to the “only affecting future generations” point & how it makes people NOT concerned:

“Does climate change only affect “future generations”? I am middle-aged and expect to still be around in 2050. And the life expectancy of children born today goes beyond 2100. “Future generations” sounds abstract – but climate change will strongly affect the lives of my generation and of our children. And most people care a lot about the kind of future their children will have.”

Even when I started that sci-fi book set in 2080, I realized some young people of today would be around then, and even more likely their children & grandchildren.

It also occurs to me that one thing predictable about climate science is that it keeps changing in a worse direction of racheting up dire predictions. I don’t think it has ever gone in the opposite direction of saying GW is not as bad as we earlier thought. I’m waiting for IPCC’s 4th report, to compare with TAR & SAR & FAR.

So the whole thing could boom-a-rang back on us personally, if not direct physical harm, at least in our assets. I just read “How GW Will Burn Your 401K” (re retirment mutual funds) in PLENTY (Oct/Nov). They site CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) & CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies). A quote:

“When a company has to pay for its direct ecological impact, compliance with environmental regulations, and higher energy costs - or even, in some cases, its reputation as a polluter and lawsuits that arise from its un-green practice [the mention Exxon] - its stock price can plummet.”

Since I’m nearing retirement (in about 4-6 years), I’ve got to look into this….

Just to pick up one of your points, Lynn, (at least in the UK), in terms of making an ethical investment / pension, one thing to consider might be investing in renewable energy stocks. This caught my eye in August 2004.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,,1292238,00.html

Small sector stocks can be quite volatile, and renewable energy stocks didn’t generally do well from 2000-2004. However, and perhaps not surprisingly, they have really jumped in the past few months …

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1565746,00.html

The green energy sector looks very bouyant. Something that Dan pointed me to was this site – http://www.greenenergyjobs.com/

Let’s hope this is the start of something big!

Peter

PS. After writing this – I suddenly got nervous as I don’t want to be responsible for anyone else’s money! ;-) I’m not a financial analyst at all!!! It’s just an idea.

All the best.