Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters”-Roger Pielke
By Paul Homewood
Roger Pielke Jr has long challenged the fraudulent “billion dollar” disaster disinformation campaign.
Now he has gone one step further with this peer reviewed paper:
Abstract
For more than two decades, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published a count of weather-related disasters in the United States that it estimates have exceeded one billion dollars (inflation adjusted) in each calendar year starting in 1980. The dataset is widely cited and applied in research, assessment and invoked to justify policy in federal agencies, Congress and by the U.S. President. This paper performs an evaluation of the dataset under criteria of procedure and substance defined under NOAA’s Information Quality and Scientific Integrity policies. The evaluation finds that the “billion dollar disaster” dataset falls short of meeting these criteria. Thus, public claims promoted by NOAA associated with the dataset and its significance are flawed and at times misleading. Specifically, NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA’s claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change. NOAA’s claims to have achieved detection and attribution are not supported by any scientific analysis that it has performed. Given the importance and influence of the dataset in science and policy, NOAA should act quickly to address this scientific integrity shortfall.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44304-024-00011-0
Roger has also written an explanatory post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
this scientific integrity shortfall – that’s one way of putting it 😏
“Climate scientists” and integrity…
Interesting concept.
Along with accuracy and honesty….
The definition of Oxymoron.
Shouldn’t that be a CO2-moron ?
Junior Pielke is hopelessly naive. The government simply doesn’t care if it is fibbing.
And his declaration of orthodoxy, “Some of my best friends work for NOAA,” says, “You can dismiss what I say.”
Climate crisis reasoning lacks logic through out the entire chain. There is zero evidence CO2 causes global warming, if it has any effect its most likely microscopic cooling. Then there’s all the claims warming causes disasters, backed by zero evidence. Followed by a raft of more idiotic ideas like intervention to cause cooling and environment destroying ‘green’ energy plans to ‘save’ the environment. The whole AGW thing is madness, environment destroying, economy destroying, society destroying madness.
“There is zero evidence CO2 causes global warming.” – An increase of the CO2 concentration in the the atmosphere will lead to an increase of the average temperature, ceteris paribus. That’s a simple matter of radiation balance and is not in dispute. The controversy is about the magnitude of the effect.
A lot of eminent scientists say the temp increase precedes the rise in Co2. Quite the opposite of the AGW computer based theory.
From 1979, there is no correlation between GMT and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Observation doesn’t match your theory.
That doesn’t mean your theory is wrong per se, however if correct, it means there are other forces that overwhelm any CO2 effect. Hence, Man’s obsession with CO2 is preposterous.
Sorry, but radiative effects are just a small part of energy transfer, and the calculations produced are purely theoretical.
There is NO empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in an atmosphere rule by the gas laws.
Feel free to produce some if you have any.
“Feel free to produce some [evidence] if you have any.”
Black body temperature – Oxford Reference
Without the greenhouse effect, the equilibrium temperature of the earth would be 38 below the current value.
This can be calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which is very well established:-)
The word “theory” has appeared in this thread, which – in the context of AGW – can cause confusion because a “scientific theory” is very different from a “non-scientific theory”.
The former should be supported by repeatable experiments and/or accurate models where the models are based only on empirical data.
The latter has a variety of meanings, including “I’ve got this theory in my head” and “It’s only a theory”.
I totally agree with you, George. Those with a different opinion are sadly misinformed.
Energy leaves Earth by radiation. The AGW theory assumes the radiation comes from the surface and is blocked by GHG ‘Green House Gas’. This assumption is wrong! Every photon GHG ‘blocks’ is re-emitted, half towards space and the rest towards earth. Heat can reach the GHG by convection as well, and if there were no GHG, that energy couldn’t leave earth, so if all energy left by convection, increasing GHG would cool the earth. The important question is: What’s the ratio between BBR ‘Black Body Radiation’ and GHG radiation. The amount of convection heat transfer by N, O2, & CO2 is small but H2O is a different case. Water has 600 times the heat transferring capacity of air and when clouds form, most of the thermal energy radiates into space. This means a scientific understanding of H2O is necessary for a realistic climate model, yet our most powerful computers are unable to model a single molecule of water at this time. Therefore current AGW theories are 100% BS.
malfraser9a75f35659
It is certainly a fact that in the geological past, a rise in atmospheric CO2 has followed a rise in temperatures, not the other way around. It does not, however, rule out the possibility that part of the subsequent rise was due to increased atmospheric CO2. So on its own it does not counter the argument that CO2 has an effect on temperatures.
If we go way back into the geological past, when the only oxygen in the atmosphere was tied up as part of the CO2 molecule, the greenhouse effect from this high concentration balanced the lower output of the Sun’s energy in order for life to develop. One can therefore use the distant past to also support the warming effect of CO2.
bnice2000
Different greenhouse gases have a limited range of I/R bands in which they react. Of the 3 main ones of CO2, one overlaps with water vapour, and another partially overlaps. One of the band frequencies is specific to CO2.
If one looks at measurements of the I/R bands at the top of the atmosphere, it can be clearly seen that this band has been totally absorbed. If you want empirical evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you need to look no further.
John Hart
‘The amount of convection heat transfer by N, O2, & CO2 is small but H2O is a different case. Water has 600 times the heat transferring capacity of air’
Like the rest of your post, just full of mistakes.
It is not water as a liquid that is convected but water vapour. Yes , it has a higher heat transfer capacity, but only circa 2 times that the other atmospheric gases. Only 4 times that of liquid water.
Water (liquid) – 4.2 Jg-1K-1
Water vapour – 1.9Jg-1K-1
dry air – 1.01Jg-1K-1
When water condenses and forms clouds, the heat of vaporization is released. Blocked by the clouds the energy radiates off into space, cooling the earth. Clouds also block the sun and prevent the energy from reaching the surface. Cloud formation is the key, not CO2, and its not well understood. Clouds are ‘modeled’ by arbitrary constants that are adjusted so model output matches equally adjusted temperature reconstructions. Making it worse, temperature is a poor proxy for heating or cooling in terms of energy, which is what’s really important for understanding climate. The average global temperature can be rising as global thermal energy falls and visa versa. At this time, ‘Climate Science’ is mostly BS funded by oligarchs to create fear they use to gain more power. And if CO2 emissions were an environmental problem, the solutions so far are more damaging than the ‘problem’ they claim to solve.
Telegraph Ageing power stations to keep energy bills high until 2030 (telegraph.co.uk)
Britain’s ageing fleet of gas and nuclear power plants will keep prices high until the end of the decade, energy analysts have warned”
However this is due to having to keep them going to back up unreliable renewals. The article seems to be directing blame at the wrong place – and not the reckless dependency on dodgy green tech. It actually refers to the auction price of £65 per kW as being high even though this is miniscule compared to the wind prices
It means that a 1GW CCGT plant can expect about 91% (the expected availability factor) of £65m p.a. or £59.15m p.a. to stay open and cover depreciation, financing, maintenance and standby costs, while a 1GW offshore wind farm gets about £7.15m p.a. at its lower 11% availability factor as extra bunce, since it only cuts generation due to maintenance or curtailment, for which it may be paid.
At these prices it would normally be more than sufficient to bring forward newbuild capacity: depreciation and financing on a newbuild would be less than this, and it could expect a relatively high utilisation as modern, efficient plant, giving a chance to earn a margin. However, government plans to phase out unabated gas mean they have to recover the investment (less salvage realisation for selling a nearly new plant abroad) in perhaps just 10 years instead of 40. The result is we will end up paying over £100m per GW p.a. for emergency dispatchable capacity as the old capacity is retired, when we would not to pay a bean if we limited renewables to an unsubsidised rump.
It doesn’t… Too complicated for me but I have repeatedly said that we have too much wind capacity. The need for back up is a fact that will not change and for our preferred CCGT back up to be viable they need to be running at an annual output of more than 50-60% of nameplate. They should also be operating on distillate fuels (i.e. the Ireland Alternative Furel Obligation).
‘NOAA’s claims to have achieved detection and attribution are not supported by any scientific analysis that it has performed.‘
NOAA itself has become a disaster if this is how it carries on.
I listen to a variety of YouTube documentaries, mainly history, while I doing things like cooking and ironing. Today I was listening to one about the events leading to the surrender of Cornwallis.
It mentioned that a lot of Royal Navy ships were damaged in 1780 by the most destructive hurricane every recorded. So I had a look in Wikipedia that well known sceptical source It says of the 1780 hurricane season
Total storms≥ 8
Hurricanes7
Major hurricanes(Cat. 3+)≥ 4
Total fatalities ≥ 28,000 (Deadliest Atlantic hurricane season on record)
Total damageUnknown
Considering the lack of data in 1780 then the predictions made by NOAA for this year’s hurricane season don’t seem exceptional by 1780 standards although greatly hyped by Sky, ITV and of course the BBC.
NOAA hurricane predictions are completely useless. NO ONE takes any action based on their predictions. Their predictions are for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.
Suppose you have interests along coastal South Carolina. In May, as the season approaches, you check your supplies to make sure you are prepared.
Then you wait. It has FA to do with NOAA’s predictions. Whether you get a storm has FA to do with NOAA’s predictions.
Hi again Glen, as the subject is scientific integrity, here is yet another example of just how far the Met Office has stepped away from any remote form of credibility. One of yesterday’s record temperature in Scotland was 21.1 °C at “Dyce”
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/57%C2%B012'17.8%22N+2%C2%B012'19.3%22W/@57.2050004,-2.2062348,147m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m10!1m5!3m4!2zNTfCsDEyJzE4LjAiTiAywrAxMicxNC40Ilc!8m2!3d57.205!4d-2.204!3m3!8m2!3d57.204943!4d-2.205355?entry=ttu
Is it just me or are the Met Office taking the piss? This type of station is quite common (most daily records are set at airports) and amazingly they do NOT rate it as Class 5 but rather Class 4. I presume it is specifically designed to record aircraft exhaust temperatures.
Ray: The national press today have reported in all serious ness that May was the warmest ever. The young people believe and swallow this drivel.
The national press today have reported in all serious ness that May was the warmest ever.
Ray’s work undermines all such claims.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the Met Office data cannot be trusted. At the very least, current Met Office temperature data should be qualifed with “plus/minus 5 degrees C” to reflect the stated inaccuracy of the most inaccurate Met Office weather stations.
Ray’s work undermines all such claims.
For clarity, the above was aimed at claims by the meedjia, not at Vernon
Thanks Ray, Dyce aka Aberdeen Airport is used for a lot of helicopter flights to the North Sea Oil rigs.
Will we see a drop in temperatures recorded there when Miliband closes all oil extraction?
John Swinney did a lot of swirming when challenged about the SNP and their policy in the leader debate.
Dear Paul
<
div dir=”ltr”>Did you pick up
It was my misfortune to watch Countryfile on Sunday.
Tom Heap was doing a piece on 4G masts in the Highlands ruining the wilderness. He gave someone a hard time about were they necessary, nobody wants them spoiling the wilderness and so on.
I couldn’t believe my ears, well I could, here was a man who extols green energy which requires huge areas given over to Solar PV and Windfarms, connected from remote areas with huge pylons up hill and down dale across large expanses the country.
I complained to the BBC and am expecting a response that Heap has an electric car, solar panels, wears thermal underwear and is cutting his us of Fossil Fuels by not flying to any location to make his reports for the BBC and Sky.
Now that El Nino has given way to a Neutral Status, the UAH Temperature Global Number/Metric/…Whatever… , has started to drop. The ‘spikes’ from El Ninos generally culminate in Northern Hemisphere Spring-time.
Full blown La Ninas are thought to influence Atlantic weather, but we do not have one yet.
The water above which Caribbean Hurricanes can develop is a little warm:
These conditions potentially lengthen the Season but so far nothing of note has actually happened.
Sir, you have been duped by climate “science.”
is a little warm
The waters of the tropical North Atlantic get hot enough, 80F to a depth of 100 feet, to support cyclones every year. Water temp is NOT a limiting factor. A little warm, or the HOTTEST EVAH!, makes no difference.
The effects of ENSO on hurricanes is with weather patterns, not water temp.
”… are in part a consequence of human caused climate change…”
Yes but which part; how much? They never say, because they don’t know and by not being evidence-backed specific, their claims can not be falsified.
Not science, quackery.
Not science, quackery.
= belief.
“I believe, so you must believe as well.”
I wrote, “lengthen” the Season (and therefore possibly increase the number of tropical cyclones) , not, “make it more intense.” Surface water temperature reaches a threshold in the Atlantic MDR during Summer such that the evaporation of light water vapour into the atmosphere can make local air parcels unstable. If – for any, or no, reason – the threshold is reached earlier than usual or lingers later than usual, the number of opportunities for Invests randomly to develop into something more, as they waft from the Coast of North Africa towards the Americas is increased. Once started, of course, any vortex is self-sustaining, and pulls in (curl) energy from the surrounding atmosphere and hardly any transformed (thermal) energy from the water under it. So the exact temperature of that water is rather unimportant.
Just one more fraudulent claim after another. That seems to sum up the Global Klymutt Scam in a nutshell.