Finally, the 2005 hurricane season is over (as of midnight tonight, I suppose). This was the most active (20-some named storms) and, by at least one measure, damaging (subtract a city) season on record. Fittingly, researchers are at odds over whether the increasing intensity of hurricanes is a trend (i.e., from my grad school days: money matters, no it doesn't). From the 11/27 Raleigh N&O (Debate warms ...):
... as the trio of Katrina, Rita and Wilma were battering Southeastern coasts, a controversy was brewing over the reasons for the rise in hurricane havoc. At issue: Is it a natural fluctuation or a product of global warming?
... a pair of scientific papers this year detected an unexpected spike in storm intensity over the past several decades, suggesting that global warming might already be having an effect. The research set off a passionate debate in the small community of storm scientists. It is still far from settled.
The article focuses on the spat but misses the important policy implications, a bit. Climate change policy will have no impact on the damages from the expected spike in storm intensity.
The policy implications:
The studies spell more trouble for coastal areas vulnerable to fierce storms, where the population is rising fast. The risks are being borne by all U.S. taxpayers. The federal government has been asked repeatedly for hurricane relief money, and the post-Katrina tab has been estimated at $150 billion.
"We have to decide as a society whether that's a problem," Pielke [Roger, Environmental Studies Prof at Colorado] said. "Obviously, the benefits of living near the coast outweigh the costs because people are doing it. The question is: In the face of inevitable property damage and loss of life, how well do we prepare?
Correction: the subsidized individual benefits of living near the coast outweigh the costs. A benefit-cost analysis might find that the social benefits are less than the social costs.
"Either way," he said, "we are going to see many more years of intense hurricanes. Scientists on both sides agree on that."
And no U.S. climate change policy will change this fact. Any action on the part of the U.S. won't be felt for at least 30 years. The only hurricane policy that will successfully deal with storm damage is to allow people to make location decisions while bearing all of the costs of their actions (e.g., no federally subsidized flood insurance, etc).
Note: the rest of the article discusses a fun, in the academic sense of the word (i.e., not fun, maybe amusing, and sure to turn ugly) little spat over interpretation of hurricane activity data.
