The New York Times is running a story today covering the weather record for 2011:
A typical year in this country features three or four weather disasters whose costs exceed $1 billion each. But this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has tallied a dozen such events, including wildfires in the Southwest, floods in multiple regions of the country and a deadly spring tornado season. And the agency has not finished counting. The final costs are certain to exceed $50 billion.
“I’ve been a meteorologist 30 years and never seen a year that comes
close to matching 2011 for the number of astounding, extreme weather
events,” Jeffrey Masters, a co-founder of the popular Web site Weather Underground,
said last month. “Looking back in the historical record, which goes
back to the late 1800s, I can’t find anything that compares, either."
 |
| William Luther/The San Antonio Express-News, via AP |
But the more important and core thrust of the story is why our government agencies are not doing all they could to build good analysis of extreme events, which would help inform business and government about what to prepare for in the future:
Lately, scientists have been discussing whether they can do a better
job of analyzing events within days or weeks, not years.
“It’s clear we do have the scientific tools and the statistical
wherewithal to begin answering these types of questions,” Dr. Santer
said
But doing this on a regular basis would probably require new personnel
spread across several research teams, along with a strong push by the
federal government, which tends to be the major source of financing and
direction for climate and weather research. Yet Washington is
essentially frozen on the subject of climate change.
This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better
climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it.
The idea had originated in the Bush administration, was strongly endorsed
by an outside review panel and would have cost no extra money. But the
House Republicans, many of whom reject the overwhelming scientific
consensus about the causes of global warming, labeled the plan an
attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on
climate.
There's a lot more, it's worth your time:
Harsh Political Reality Slows Climate Studies Despite Extreme Year