Zugzwang

Zugzwang is a position in chess where where you have your choice of how to lose, but not much else. Over the past few weeks Eli has been asking Roger Pielke Jr. about his estimates of hurricane costs

Another issue, of course, is the cost of increased flood and storm protection. Muir Wood mentions this in passing, but it is a major cost imposed by increasing flood danger. Perhaps you have discussed this somewhere? If so, how does that affect your analysis?

The crickets are chirping in the background, and with about four feet of snow outside the door, those are scary crickets, especially given Roger's recent all out attacks on Nicholas Stern and the IPCC for their statements on storm damage

A while ago Roger challenged Eli to show that his writings on policy were mistaken. The Bunny took a first step, showing that Roger's "honest broker" construct was as bankrupt as Lehman Bros. and the arguments he made in his book were not very sophisticated.

This post deals with the fundamental incoherence between Roger Pielke Jr.'s policy statements on severe weather damage and adaptation to climate change. Briefly put Pielke holds that there is no evidence of any increase in the cost of hurricanes (and other severe weather) that might be attributed to climate change. This certainly is an arguable position given the data we have, although it requires qualifications. While Pielke estimates a null trend, for example, Schmidt, et al found an annual increase of 4% since 1970, but no trend if one starts in 1950. A large part of Pielke's argument consists of careful parsing of what others say, and he is quite capable of omitting important information when describing the work of others, for example Schmidt. For example, Pielke states on his blog

After a detailed look at the data they conclude quite properly:

There is no evidence yet of any trend in tropical cyclone losses that can be attributed directly to anthropogenic climate change.

They do speculate about a link based on the conclusion of IPCC 2007

while, as Eli points out, if one reads Schmidt, et al, they say

No trend is found for the period 1950–2005 as a whole. In the period 1971–2005, since the beginning of a trend towards increased intense cyclone activity, losses excluding socio-economic effects show an annual increase of 4% per annum. This increase must therefore be at least due to the impact of natural climate variability but, more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings.

In parallel with Eli's ruminations, Nils Simon, has been thinking about the same issues and coming to a remarkable conclusion. Pielke in a 2008 paper states that

The normalization methodologies do not explicitly reflect two important factors driving losses: demand surge and loss mitigation. Adjustments for these factors are beyond the scope of this paper, but it is important for those using this study to consider their potential effect.

but Simon searches in vain for any such consideration as has Eli.

There are two reasons this is important

First, it is obvious even to a stuffed animal that the costs of flood control and surge barriers to limit damage from storms has increased substantially over the last fifty years. If such expenditures have NOT been included in the storm cost estimates, and the trend without them is flat, the trend WITH such costs MUST increase substantially. Any estimate that neglects these costs must be stated as a LOWER LIMIT. Neither Eli or Nils can find any such statement, not just from Roger Pielke. Therefore in true "Honest Broker" form, Rabett Run concludes that (OK, draw your own conclusions from what Roger calls others who mis-state something)

Second, and this is Nils' insight, NOT to include such costs or deal with their effect when you are aware of them, is either dishonest or a statement that such adaptation has no effect. Since we have been adapting to increased storm damage like crazy. Pielke is in Zugzwang.

The Birdie or the Birdie

Roger can choose door A, storm cost has been increasing mightily in the past century or door B, adaptation has no effect. Ethon is standing behind both doors. Which of his policy principles does he want to feed to the birdie?

However, Nils can help him. He points out that flood barriers build since 1950 in the Netherlands and northern Germany certainly have protected the coasts against flooding at similar to the destructive events of 1953. More interestingly Simon points to a NOAA study which discussed how houses could be toughened against hurricanes (Eli is eating Nils' lunch here, so if you read German, go take a look)

In North Carolina according to NOAA (PDF) 200 of 205 houses built to the proper standard directly on the coast survived Hurricane Fran in 1996 while over 500 older nearby houses were destroyed.

Further Nils points out that there has been an immense investment in hurricane observation and modeling which allows better preparation, smaller evacuations, and provides quicker and more effective responses to hurricane threats.

Not to take this into account is double entry bookkeeping. On the cost side of the ledger the lower damage expense is taken fully into account. This decreases the costs of storm damage as a function of time. On the expense side of the ledger the costs of the satellite, plane and buoy operations that track the hurricanes, the National Hurricane Center, flood control and more are not taken into account. When this is done the cost of dealing with hurricanes INCREASES. For policy purposes the proper metric is the total cost of dealing with hurricanes, not the cost of the damage

Nils and Eli eagerly await Roger's reply.

Comments?