Crazy Atlantic, Crazy Dean

And the amazing thing is that Erin, which was never more than a tropical storm and hit a developed country USA instead caused more fatalities (22 at last count) due to flooding in several states.

Chris. I was surprised to see you use the word "factoid". For me this means something which is assumed to be true but is not actually true.

A quick google and Wiki says the word is ambiguous and best not used. Maybe it's an age thing or a "which side of the pond" thing.

Pedantically

Douglas Coker

Interesting to be watching the reports on Dean while reading Storm World. I started interpreting everything in new ways.

For me, one of the observations that most msm reports missed is the way that the wetlands of the coast N. of Chetumal. It is a reminder that we need the mangroves to hold a delta in place in Louisiana.

That is one place where Landsea and Webster and all the others agree while the politicians like Inhofe make policy decisions on the lack of 100% agreement. I am tired of their claiming that the best information we have is not good enough for policy purposes, and in doing so, make policy based on ignorance.

Listened to the interview and can't get over people are still asking if we should wait for more data.

Wes,

I am "skeptical" about AGW but totally agree with wetlands protection. I see AGW as a huge distraction from other more tangible environmental issues.

It is quite clear that coastal waterways have been disrupted and there is an urgent need to address this issue. Instead environmental groups like the Sierra Club focus the majority of their efforts, and funds, on CO2 mitigation.

You can't scare people into protecting wetlands.

I think that a factoid is half a fact or a fact out of context - a fragment of truth.

For example, something I read yesterday is a factoid: "Women who wear makeup make 23% more money." That's mildly interesting but not enough information. Do women who wear more makeup look better, and thus enjoy a "halo" effect that makes people also evaluate them as more competent, etc.? Or do women who have more money buy more makeup? Or a bit of both?

It's interesting to me how we've moved from "We have to drain this swamp!" to "We must protect our wetlands."

Mangrove swamps are also the nurseries for many kinds of fish and shrimp. Clear them and your fishery starts to decline. Sorry -- declines more quickly.

Superpowerful hurricanes, floodings, heatwaves, drought... really I think looking up the predictions people had for global warming and juxtaposing them to today's data might be a fun look back. Besides, maybe we'll like this climate more.

Chris -- As you are well aware, comparison of recent and historical hurricane strength is an unfair apples-oranges comparison. In earlier decades, satellite measurements were not available, and hurricane hunter planes were not used far from the coasts. Thus, more recent storms benefit from measurements taken throughout their course across the sea.

For example, Katrina & Rita were measured as a Cat 5 over water, using measurements that would have been unavailable in the past, but made US landfall at Cat 3. It is impossible to state that these were more powerful than, for example, the Labor Day hurricane of 1935 or the Galveston hurricane of 1900. A more fair apples-to-apples comparison of hurricane strength at US landfall demonstrates the following ranking, according to Wikipedia:

1 "Labor Day" 1935
2 Camille 1969
3 Katrina 2005
4 Andrew 1992
5 "Indianola" 1886
6 "Florida Keys" 1919
7 "Okeechobee" 1928
8 Donna 1960
9 "New Orleans" 1915
9 (tie) Carla 1961

In other fields of science, it is considered a basic tenet of valid methodology to maintain consistent measurement standards. And it is a basic principle of scientific reasoning not to confuse reality with our (imperfect) measurements.

Factoid can also refer to:

a brief (usually one sentence and usually trivial) news item
from
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I think this is the context that Chris was after.

Lance wrote: "Instead environmental groups like the Sierra Club focus the majority of their efforts, and funds, on CO2 mitigation."

Now *that* is a factoid, although some might prefer to call it a good old-fashioned lie.

Lance - AGW is the big deal because it sits over everything else. Think of it like an old house. You have X amount of cash. The Lomborg argument is that you could do lots with that cash around the house. The problem is that the roof and walls are about to collapse. Sure, you could make the place a lot more pretty, but when the roof caves in, you no longer really have a house, just a pile of rubble.

The Sierra Club have actually campaigned for both wetland protection and the slowing of climate change - the two are not incompatible - indeed with larger storms possibly on the way, the natural defences wetlands provide will be needed more than ever. And can you scare people to save wetland? Since Katrina, there has been a lot more questions asked of the Corp of Engineers and their attitude towards wetlands. You could argue that you have to scare people to save wetlands.

On a more personal note, it seems that my family in Belize were all OK, and suffered no more than heavy rain. Chetumal was not so lucky (although it could have been a lot worse). But this is only the start of the season, so hopefully there is plenty of luck to go around.