18 August 2009

The Disaster Myth: PDD Edition

In an article released this week, Daniel Weiss and Erica Goad the Center for American Progress tell us that,
. . . the growing number of presidential disaster declarations is another warning sign that global warming is already harming our people and economy.
The Weiss and Goad article is just wrong. It perpetuates a myth that is not supported by any research, but is allowed to persist by the supine mainstream scientific community and an overly credulous media. Ultimately the joke is on CAP because making arguments that are demonstrably untrue is a gift on a silver platter for opponents of cap and trade legislation. Even if the legislation were implemented and actually reduced emissions, it would have no impact on presidential disaster declarations. Presidential disaster declarations have not increased due to global warming, but rather, because of policy change and political decisions.

What is a "presidential disaster declaration"? When a disaster occurs such as an earthquake, hurricane or even a terrorist attack, the governor of a state can ask the federal government for assistance. The president can approve or decline the request, and when approved he issues a "disaster declaration." In recent decades the number of presidential disaster declarations has increased. Weiss and Goad explain that this increase is due to global warming and suggest that we can stem the increase by passing cap and trade legislation.
The Senate must promptly follow the House’s leadership by passing a clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction bill. Inaction or inadequate pollution reductions by the government would allow natural disasters in the United States to amplify in scale and frequency.
In 2001 Mary Downton and I published a paper that looked at this exact question in the context of floods.
Downton, M. and R.A. Pielke, Jr., 2001. Discretion Without Accountability: Politics, Flood Damage, and Climate, Natural Hazards Review, 2(4):157-166.
In that paper we looked at climate, damage and politics, and guess which one was responsible for the overall increase in declarations?
Disaster relief legislation since 1950 has consistently tended to expand the scope of disaster responses available to the president. . . . . The[1988] change in FEMA’s mission may well have contributed to a spiraling increase in both requests and approvals of disaster declarations during the Clinton Administration. The risk-reduction mission creates an incentive for FEMA to recommend approval of declarations because, once a disaster is declared, FEMA can more easily influence local redevelopment planning and mitigation efforts. As more marginal events receive disaster designation, states are likely to apply for declarations in other marginal events, encouraged by seeing an increased likelihood of approval.
Interestingly we found that disaster declarations increased by 50% during years that the president was running for re-election. And no we did not identify a new atmospheric oscillation on 4-year timescales (except in the years without an incumbent on the ballot). So what about climate?
Although there is evidence of increasing precipitation in the United States, there is no evidence that this is the primary cause of the increase in disaster declarations. By invoking changes in weather, officials divert attention from the role of population growth, floodplain development, national policies, and presidential discretion in contributing to trends in federal disaster costs related to floods.
None of this should be a surprise. A recent CCSP report on extremes in the United States found no long-term trends in those phenomena that lead to most disaster declarations:
1. Over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.

2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.

3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation, there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).

4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms

5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.

6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.
Scientists do indeed predict that there will be more extreme events in the future. However, to date there is no justification for attributing the increasing costs of disasters or the number of disaster declarations by the president to the emission of greenhouse gases. Convincing arguments for mitigation and adaptation policies can be made having "to find ways to exaggerate the threat."

8 comments:

clazy said...

Now THAT'S what I call a reliable proxy.

Sharon F. said...

It might be interesting for some nonpartisan group to keep a list of individual groups and demonstrably false statements on climate change. Then this group could have a prize for most and fewest incorrect statements and issue a press release with the awards annually with possibly a nice carbon free awards banquet (virtual?).

Since there are lumpers and splitters, and varying levels of incorrectness, this calls for a panel of scientists to count and determine the falsehood of statements. They could be paid honoraria for their work. The funding for the nonpartisan group could come from a 1% tax on climate modeling research :). Just a thought.

Not Whitey Bulger said...

Isn't this actually quite representative of all climate change advocacy? What we have here is Dog Bites Man.

Andrew said...

You spelled your co-author's name wrong.

"Ultimately the joke is on CAP because making arguments that are demonstrably untrue is a gift on a silver platter for opponents of cap and trade legislation."

And we are so greatful! Tell them thanks on our behalf Roger!

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-4-Andrew

Thanks, fixed

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

CAP followed this "analysis" with a press release titled:

"Hurricane Bill - Another Sign of the Spiraling Cost of Inaction on Global Warming?"
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/08/18-1

I think this adds another point in Sharon's competition;-)

Stan said...

"Ultimately, the joke is on CAP"

Roger, you didn't really expect anything different. CAP is about politics. They embrace the idea that everything is political. And since climate science has become, like war, simply politics by other means, this is what we get.

Don't expect climate articles to be any more accurate than promises about health care or stimulus or cap and trade.

Andrew said...

Sharon F.-The problem as I see it would be finding an unbiased panel. One could for instance fact check statements made by Gore-say on Larry King Live were he suggested a meter rise in sea level in ten years, fires in California due to AGW, declining agricultural yields in the next ten years in spite of 500% increase in Corn yields since the planet started warming and 100% increase in wheat yields, and so on. The problem as I see it is that "Climate Scientists" mostly just sit back and let false statements fly if they advance the cause. Sure you could put Pat Michaels on the panel (but can you imagine the vitriol directed at the project?!?!?) but that's to much work for one guy-right now it seems that any panel is going to be sifting through statements by Republicans and think tanks that are opposed to "the cause" for anything that they can say "WRONG!" to...Meanwhile even things like the CCSP get away with outright falsehoods and nonsense. An unbiased panel could never be constructed in this Climate of Extremes.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.