"while econometric methods remain valuable for identifying current sensitivities to climate variability, they may be less reliable for long-term projection." But they provide insight, and can guide policy, even if not market investments. Wish I could be there...

7. "SRM could exacerbate rather than ameliorate some regional changes in climate..." Seems like an understatement to me. All schemes that I examined produced seasonal drought somewhere, especially in the south. And bulk tropical cyclone metrics are highly uncertain. link.springer.com/article/10.1...

We discussed this a bit in our original article. Most would recognize that the SS scale is a poor warning system as it is only wind based and most deaths are due to either fresh or salt water. NHC maps/summaries are infinitely better warnings. See our last paragraph. www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1...

2of2 But just a discussion of cat6 raises awareness that storms are now worse than ever because of AGW. Which was the intent of our article. And for that it has served our purpose. www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1...

1of2 My thinking hasn't changed much since Jim Kossin & wrote the PNAS article. The SS scale is very inadequate for communicating imminent danger. But it is not (probably never) going away. A single number can't convey this & we encourage folks to use NHC maps instead or listen to local TV weather.

I have been to both many times. Some rooms at EGU can be a lot smaller, so if there is a session you really want to go to, I advise going early to get a seat.

It would be interesting to calculate the partitioning of cooling by upwelling compared to energy converted to storm energy.

Some more literature. Risk is increased near shore which is not good. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/...

Thanks. And btw, in our cat 6 paper, we do not see substantial risk in the open Atlantic.

Does eyewall replacement cause the expansion in size? Or is it some other physical mechanism like available energy?

Jeff, what is the mechanism causing this expansion in physical size?

I am an executive editor for a journal. I would ask now. It may be that they are having trouble finding a suitable AE. Or it may have slipped between the cracks. In any event, the editor should let you know.

And to consider the change in risk of near shore intense storms agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/...

You may not want to assume that the risk of landfall remains constant at 11% www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

I presume these values are from the NOAA look up table. Recent work finds that they underestimate the heat index for very high values. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...

Probably not above the upper bound. But generally more than 7 standard deviations is "impossible" www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

"Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, are becoming more frequent and intense..." Present tense; attribution is recognized with this statement.

Congratulations Ben!!!

There are very few of us doing rigorous event attribution in the US. Extreme weather events are increasing but attribution scientists numbers are decreasing.😞