So I guess a dumb question. I understand P&C insurance companies keep increasing rates for storm damage. Is that unrelated to your insightful conclusions?
Roger, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that natural variability of extreme weather was underestimated or at best somewhat neglected in the early days of climate model development. Would you agree? Yet a clear understanding of natural variability would seem to be absolutely critical to any attempts to forecast, predict, or even "project" climate change in any emissions scenario.
Yes, I think this is fair. That said there is a lot of excellent research out there. The field shifted from empirical climatology to model-based climatology stating in the 1990s.
Great post, sir. Thank you. A fundamental question - in your text, you reference the need for "long-period historical landfall datasets for trend analysis." Is there a precise definition for "long period?" If there is no statistical definition, how would you define it? Does the definition depend on the size of the data set? Does it depend on the "quality" of available data?
Don't misunderstand here - I'm not questioning the need, I just want to know if there is a standard. When I read about "global warming" I wonder if folks account for ice ages, etc.
Thanks for the update Roger. One of my major career achievements was preserving the record of our early satellite data which provides the best record of tropical cyclones. Real story - when I got to NCDC in 2002, I discovered that Bill Rossow had stored the calibration data for the satellite products in the digital file headers, BUT the archive group there did not know that. When they had transferred those data to new media, the header information was not and so all the calibration data was lost. I was able to hire some good folks and we went back to all the data providers, got the original calibration data, and ensured it was permanently saved. Story here - https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/100/12/bams-d-19-0060.1.xml
These data are, by far, the most used and referenced climate data ever (over 15,000 and counting)
So I guess a dumb question. I understand P&C insurance companies keep increasing rates for storm damage. Is that unrelated to your insightful conclusions?
Keep in mind that insurance companies are in the business of not paying out claims.
Yes
See this post for some discussion
https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/the-climate-risk-industrial-complex?r=2n1fv&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
Roger, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that natural variability of extreme weather was underestimated or at best somewhat neglected in the early days of climate model development. Would you agree? Yet a clear understanding of natural variability would seem to be absolutely critical to any attempts to forecast, predict, or even "project" climate change in any emissions scenario.
Yes, I think this is fair. That said there is a lot of excellent research out there. The field shifted from empirical climatology to model-based climatology stating in the 1990s.
Dato mata relato.
Great post, sir. Thank you. A fundamental question - in your text, you reference the need for "long-period historical landfall datasets for trend analysis." Is there a precise definition for "long period?" If there is no statistical definition, how would you define it? Does the definition depend on the size of the data set? Does it depend on the "quality" of available data?
Don't misunderstand here - I'm not questioning the need, I just want to know if there is a standard. When I read about "global warming" I wonder if folks account for ice ages, etc.
Thanks for the update Roger. One of my major career achievements was preserving the record of our early satellite data which provides the best record of tropical cyclones. Real story - when I got to NCDC in 2002, I discovered that Bill Rossow had stored the calibration data for the satellite products in the digital file headers, BUT the archive group there did not know that. When they had transferred those data to new media, the header information was not and so all the calibration data was lost. I was able to hire some good folks and we went back to all the data providers, got the original calibration data, and ensured it was permanently saved. Story here - https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/100/12/bams-d-19-0060.1.xml
These data are, by far, the most used and referenced climate data ever (over 15,000 and counting)