‘How does this stuff pass review?’ Extreme weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr rips new media hyped study claiming hurricanes are hitting U.S. ‘more often’
Dr. Pielke ridicules the study for not including Hurricane Andrew as top destructive storm. "Andrew not in top 20? LOL."
Pielke Jr.: "I should point out that this group published similar bombshell findings about hurricanes in 2012 (Also in PNAS). That study was recently updated by the WMO TC assessment and WMO found that its results did not hold up."
Dr. Pielke's note to Associated Press' Seth Borenstein:
The Associated Press is hyping a new study that is claiming “The most destructive hurricanes are hitting US more often.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Big, destructive hurricanes are hitting the U.S. three times more frequently than they did a century ago, according to a new study. Experts generally measure a hurricane’s destruction by adding up how much damage it did to people and cities. That can overlook storms that are powerful, but that hit only sparsely populated areas. A Danish research team came up with a new measurement that looked at just the how big and strong the hurricane was, not how much money it cost. They call it Area of Total Destruction.
But extreme weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has some problems with the study.
Because, as we all know, wealth in the U.S. is perfectly evenly spread geographically
How does this stuff pass review? https://t.co/wIWqIZ3FhQ pic.twitter.com/57FPyMarJy— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 11, 2019
I should point out that this group published similar bombshell findings about hurricanes in 2012 (Also in PNAS).
That study was recently updated by the WMO TC assessment and WMO found that its results did not hold up.
By contrast, my 2012 critique did: https://t.co/jxe55vVHyP— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 11, 2019
Seth @borenbears interviewed me about new study focused on our work
My comments didn’t make his story
I applaud the authors for trying out a new normalization approach
But as always don’t look for climate trends in economic data look at climate data
Also Andrew not in top 20? LOL https://t.co/MmrcqraXSJ— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 11, 2019
Here is what we say in our analysis https://t.co/NtFyP3PrqK pic.twitter.com/6ZC2gOiwIR
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 11, 2019
Dr. Pielke ridicules the study for not including Hurricane Andrew as top destructive storm. “Andrew not in top 20? LOL
Here is what we say in our analysis https://t.co/NtFyP3PrqK pic.twitter.com/6ZC2gOiwIR
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 11, 2019
If you want to know if hurricanes have increased just look at hurricane data
Klotzbach et al 2018. Continental US hurricane landfall frequency and associated damage: Observations and future risks BAMS 99:1359-1376. https://t.co/R7ZGLTm4Mm pic.twitter.com/zgNqq556Rd
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 11, 2019
The two figures show (a) all landfalling hurricanes and (b) the subset that are major landfaling hurricanes (of which there were none 2006-2016)
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 12, 2019
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1193996224300404737
Anyway, it’s great to see more efforts at loss normalization – we can all learn from new research, whether it stands the test of time or not.
I’m a big fan of using climate data to look at climate signals, not heavily manipulated economic data. But that’s just me.
/END— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 11, 2019
#
Related Links:
Real Science’s Tony Heller notes: “Three years ago, the Washington Post was terrified by the lack of hurricanes.
