Roger are you familiar with Johnathan Haidt's interview from several years ago in which he cited his open and free debate within one of DC's think tanks in opposition to his experience at UVA? He stated that the University over the last decade and a half essentially codified a way of thinking which silenced dissent of the prevailing "thought" within academia regardless of how it is expressed. But to his surprise, Chaidt found that the think tank in which he worked, usually considered a haven for conservative intellectuals and therefore close-minded, was far more open to debate and discourse over ideas. The fact that he was supported and sought after by a think tank at all was telling. After this experience and in frustration with the ever more authoritarian impulses hardening within academic world, he formed Heterodox Academy with a colleague.
Roger, the Forest Service (another federal agency) has long had a group that does Forest Inventory and Analysis, the results of which are interesting to many people. They have long had an advisory committee of people who care about the data who give input on collection an analysis and also support budget requests. I’ve sat in on very nit-picky scientific discussions about the details of calculations and so on by scientists from an array of organizations who really care that the data is accurate. The idea that it wouldn’t be freely available or that the calculations wouldn’t be shared, or that there wouldn’t be enough info to replicate the findings would be inconceivable.
So now I am thinking that NOAA doesn’t have users; or that users don’t care; or that users are not involved. But really I suspect that, like the NCA, there are really no users to speak of.. no one has articulated the point of collecting the info..because someone somewhere thought that this would be a useful thing to do and (most importantly) they can get money for doing it. And it sounded plausible to those funding. I see “not knowing the point of the dataset” and “not having specific users who want the information” as the underlying problem and the lack of scientific integrity (as you call it) a laziness that is the simple result of the lack of accountability to anyone.
It goes back to my view of applied science at the two settings on a shop vac.. users can vacuum up information or providers simply spew it out and hope someone wants it.
FYI, I have submitted a formal "request for correction" to NOAA's Section 515 Officer under Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106‑554).
Nice going Roger. Nit free AFAICT. Scientific integrity is like virginity. Once lost it can never be regained, and I'm saddened that NOAA has decided to throw it's integrity out the window for what has to be the most trivial of reasons
Not trivial of reasons, there are $trillions in wealth to be transferred based on this scientific disinformation. It's all about profit & power. Scientific truth has been relegated to fields that don't have such corrupting influences, like Mathematics. Our new World run by Psychopaths.
Are you and NOAA just talking past each other? The dataset is the dataset, a billion is a billion, it is right in the name.
MISUSE of a dataset as a climate trend indicator is on the misuser, not the producer.
As you say, "NOAA knew about normalization in 2013...Smith and Katz 2013 further acknowledges that the many factors that contribute to the tabulation of losses “makes any attribution to weather or climate, especially for billion-dollar disasters, difficult.”
There seems to be no actual disagreement here. I find the list useful for picking meteorology undergrad mini-projects for instance. It is fine for that. Who plots it on a time axis and screams global warming? Not Smith and Katz, not me -- take it up with whoever does. Has all the conflict turned you pugnacious to a fault?
1. You ask, Who plots it on a time axis and screams global warming?
Well, NOAA, including Smith, among others, examples;
• The NOAA official responsible for overseeing the dataset claimed that the dataset showed: “Climate change is supercharging many of these extremes that can lead to billion-dollar disasters.”
• At the press conference where the 2022 dataset was released, the NOAA Administrator claimed that the dataset indicated that, “Climate change is creating more and more intense extreme events that cause significant damage.”
• In 2021 the U.S. Department of Treasury identified increasing billion dollar disasters as evidence of the effects of climate change on financial risks.
• The Fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment cited the NOAA dataset as evidence that “Climate change is not just a problem for future generations, it’s a problem today,” and claimed that the dataset, in part, demonstrated “the increasing frequency and severity of extreme events” due in part to “human-caused climate change.”
• In 2023, President Biden attributed all weather and climate-related disaster costs in the U.S. in 20222 to climate change, citing the NOAA dataset: “[C]limate change related extreme weather events still pose a rapidly intensifying threat – one that costs the U.S. at least $150 billion each year … This year set a record for the number of climate disasters that cost the United States over $1 billion. The United States now experiences a billion-dollar disaster approximately every three weeks on average, compared to once every four months during the 1980s.”
2. You are correct that Smith and Katz 2013 emphasize the importance of normalization and the challenges of attribution. Unfortunately, NOAA does not follow this in 2024. Have a look at my paper, the issues raised are both procedural (e.g., data is not shared) and substantive (e.g., the tabulation includes things it shouldn't)
3. You ask, Has all the conflict turned you pugnacious to a fault?
Ha, I hope not. Scientific disagreement is very normal. I'm engaging the issue through a (submitted) peer-reviewed paper. That is what we are supposed to do, right? If I've got it wrong, I am sure I will hear about it, and I should. If I've got it right, then NOAA has some work to do.
Hi Brian, hope you're well. No I believe Roger is correct and, in particular, the billion dollar disasters is most often shown as a time series. As Roger correctly notes, not accounting for GDP means that a time series of Billions is scientifically incorrect and misleading.
I am unsurprised NOAA will take no responsibility for their products other than the deflect to 'peer review'. Kudos actually to Adam for noting this glaring problem in the peer literature. He's a good guy, but stuck with supervisors who require this. Note that the UN sustainability goals metric is GDP indexed, not just inflation. I would urge Roger to point this out also and ask why NOAA does not follow UN guidelines?
Roger's request will go to the science, not PR side of NOAA. A start. However I still believe that it will require legal action to force NOAA to pull this product. Perhaps some sort of middle ground would be to also post, side-by-side, the GDP indexed time series. Note though that this Billion Index is a prominent product in the government-wide important climate metrics, so lots of inertia and support to continue it. This is why I contend only a formal court injunction to remove the product will have any chance.
Thrilled by the new you are joining the AEI. Perfect, and not surprising that they did not respond to a true scientific analysis of their shoddy work. What committee in the house would be responsible to oversee or investigate the obvious errors in the NOAA report. Perhaps we can reach out to the appropriate chair.
Congratulations! Keep that beacon shining, it is being noticed. Your insights are extremely valuable.
Congrats on the AEI move, looking forward to more.
And on the NOAA, I would expect nothing less than for them to send out a press officer to try and enact and enforce narrative control.
It’s because they are scared.
Cockroaches hate the light.
Congratulations!
Congrats on the new role!
Thanks!
Roger are you familiar with Johnathan Haidt's interview from several years ago in which he cited his open and free debate within one of DC's think tanks in opposition to his experience at UVA? He stated that the University over the last decade and a half essentially codified a way of thinking which silenced dissent of the prevailing "thought" within academia regardless of how it is expressed. But to his surprise, Chaidt found that the think tank in which he worked, usually considered a haven for conservative intellectuals and therefore close-minded, was far more open to debate and discourse over ideas. The fact that he was supported and sought after by a think tank at all was telling. After this experience and in frustration with the ever more authoritarian impulses hardening within academic world, he formed Heterodox Academy with a colleague.
Roger, the Forest Service (another federal agency) has long had a group that does Forest Inventory and Analysis, the results of which are interesting to many people. They have long had an advisory committee of people who care about the data who give input on collection an analysis and also support budget requests. I’ve sat in on very nit-picky scientific discussions about the details of calculations and so on by scientists from an array of organizations who really care that the data is accurate. The idea that it wouldn’t be freely available or that the calculations wouldn’t be shared, or that there wouldn’t be enough info to replicate the findings would be inconceivable.
So now I am thinking that NOAA doesn’t have users; or that users don’t care; or that users are not involved. But really I suspect that, like the NCA, there are really no users to speak of.. no one has articulated the point of collecting the info..because someone somewhere thought that this would be a useful thing to do and (most importantly) they can get money for doing it. And it sounded plausible to those funding. I see “not knowing the point of the dataset” and “not having specific users who want the information” as the underlying problem and the lack of scientific integrity (as you call it) a laziness that is the simple result of the lack of accountability to anyone.
It goes back to my view of applied science at the two settings on a shop vac.. users can vacuum up information or providers simply spew it out and hope someone wants it.
Congratulations on joining AEI. Hopefully this will provide more resources and visibility to your excellent work..
FYI, I have submitted a formal "request for correction" to NOAA's Section 515 Officer under Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106‑554).
Nice going Roger. Nit free AFAICT. Scientific integrity is like virginity. Once lost it can never be regained, and I'm saddened that NOAA has decided to throw it's integrity out the window for what has to be the most trivial of reasons
Not trivial of reasons, there are $trillions in wealth to be transferred based on this scientific disinformation. It's all about profit & power. Scientific truth has been relegated to fields that don't have such corrupting influences, like Mathematics. Our new World run by Psychopaths.
Congratulations on the new role, Roger!
Congratulations on joining AEI.
Are you and NOAA just talking past each other? The dataset is the dataset, a billion is a billion, it is right in the name.
MISUSE of a dataset as a climate trend indicator is on the misuser, not the producer.
As you say, "NOAA knew about normalization in 2013...Smith and Katz 2013 further acknowledges that the many factors that contribute to the tabulation of losses “makes any attribution to weather or climate, especially for billion-dollar disasters, difficult.”
There seems to be no actual disagreement here. I find the list useful for picking meteorology undergrad mini-projects for instance. It is fine for that. Who plots it on a time axis and screams global warming? Not Smith and Katz, not me -- take it up with whoever does. Has all the conflict turned you pugnacious to a fault?
Thanks Brian
A few replies:
1. You ask, Who plots it on a time axis and screams global warming?
Well, NOAA, including Smith, among others, examples;
• The NOAA official responsible for overseeing the dataset claimed that the dataset showed: “Climate change is supercharging many of these extremes that can lead to billion-dollar disasters.”
• At the press conference where the 2022 dataset was released, the NOAA Administrator claimed that the dataset indicated that, “Climate change is creating more and more intense extreme events that cause significant damage.”
• In 2021 the U.S. Department of Treasury identified increasing billion dollar disasters as evidence of the effects of climate change on financial risks.
• The Fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment cited the NOAA dataset as evidence that “Climate change is not just a problem for future generations, it’s a problem today,” and claimed that the dataset, in part, demonstrated “the increasing frequency and severity of extreme events” due in part to “human-caused climate change.”
• In 2023, President Biden attributed all weather and climate-related disaster costs in the U.S. in 20222 to climate change, citing the NOAA dataset: “[C]limate change related extreme weather events still pose a rapidly intensifying threat – one that costs the U.S. at least $150 billion each year … This year set a record for the number of climate disasters that cost the United States over $1 billion. The United States now experiences a billion-dollar disaster approximately every three weeks on average, compared to once every four months during the 1980s.”
2. You are correct that Smith and Katz 2013 emphasize the importance of normalization and the challenges of attribution. Unfortunately, NOAA does not follow this in 2024. Have a look at my paper, the issues raised are both procedural (e.g., data is not shared) and substantive (e.g., the tabulation includes things it shouldn't)
3. You ask, Has all the conflict turned you pugnacious to a fault?
Ha, I hope not. Scientific disagreement is very normal. I'm engaging the issue through a (submitted) peer-reviewed paper. That is what we are supposed to do, right? If I've got it wrong, I am sure I will hear about it, and I should. If I've got it right, then NOAA has some work to do.
Hi Brian, hope you're well. No I believe Roger is correct and, in particular, the billion dollar disasters is most often shown as a time series. As Roger correctly notes, not accounting for GDP means that a time series of Billions is scientifically incorrect and misleading.
I am unsurprised NOAA will take no responsibility for their products other than the deflect to 'peer review'. Kudos actually to Adam for noting this glaring problem in the peer literature. He's a good guy, but stuck with supervisors who require this. Note that the UN sustainability goals metric is GDP indexed, not just inflation. I would urge Roger to point this out also and ask why NOAA does not follow UN guidelines?
Roger's request will go to the science, not PR side of NOAA. A start. However I still believe that it will require legal action to force NOAA to pull this product. Perhaps some sort of middle ground would be to also post, side-by-side, the GDP indexed time series. Note though that this Billion Index is a prominent product in the government-wide important climate metrics, so lots of inertia and support to continue it. This is why I contend only a formal court injunction to remove the product will have any chance.
I wish I could like this post more than once. Congratulations Roger, and keep on keepin' on. We need it!
Thrilled by the new you are joining the AEI. Perfect, and not surprising that they did not respond to a true scientific analysis of their shoddy work. What committee in the house would be responsible to oversee or investigate the obvious errors in the NOAA report. Perhaps we can reach out to the appropriate chair.
Congratulations
House Science & Senate Commerce
Yay! How exciting :-)