So far, the consensus of forecasts augurs that President Obama’s first hurricane season will be an “average” one: Something like 10 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 intense ones of Category 3 or greater. The reasons are at least twofold: Sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic region are cooler than average right now, having been stirred and mixed by strong trade winds; and there is the possibility of the development of El Nino conditions that tend to tamp down Atlantic hurricane activity. (For a fuller discussion of the current forecasts, see here.)

Forecasters quickly add, however, that it only takes one storm to turn a milder year into a very bad one. It is notable that one possible analogue year for 2009, according to Colorado State University forecasters William Gray and Phil Klotzbach, is 1965. That’s the year of Hurricane Betsy, which was—before Katrina—the worst storm to hit New Orleans in modern times.

So as we survey the latest forecasts and prepare for the 2009 season, it’s important to bear in mind that anything that encourages hurricane complacency—including predictions of mild weather—is itself a danger. Throngs of experts have repeatedly warned that we’re extremely vulnerable to these storms, and not nearly where we ought to be in our preparedness measures. Indeed, I would argue that as a society, we still haven’t adequately processed, or responded to, all of the lessons of Katrina.

In 2006, following the devastation caused by that storm as well as by Hurricanes Rita and Wilma, the National Science Board released a report observing that “the present Federal investment in hurricane science and engineering research relative to the tremendous damage and suffering caused by hurricanes is insufficient and time is not on our side. The hurricane warning for our Nation has been issued and we must act vigorously and without delay.” Yet the 2007 National Hurricane Research Initiative Act, a response to this report and the general post-Katrina sense of hurricane vulnerability, did not make it out of committee in the last Congress. So much for acting “without delay.”

Legislators will try again to pass a version of this law in the 111^th Congress, but by now we have strong reason to question whether making dramatic new investments in hurricane research counts as a congressional priority. One would think such funding would rank high among legislative no-brainers; that hurricane funding bills would pass as easily as resolutions naming bridges and highways. But if our leaders couldn’t act in the wake of Katrina, why expect them to act in the wake of Ike?

Someone ought to tell Congress that while we have the best hurricane forecasters in the world at the National Hurricane Center, their hands are still tied by inadequate scientific knowledge. Numerous factors constrain their abilities, most notably our incomplete understanding of why hurricanes intensify or weaken. Forecasters have become excellent when it comes to pinpointing where storms will go, but they can’t yet tell you with as much accuracy how strong they’ll be when they get there. As strong storms cause dramatically more damage than weak ones, this is a key vulnerability.

And then there’s global warming, another arena in which, despite considerable controversy and research, we still just don’t know enough about its effect on hurricanes. Having followed this debate for years, I must confess myself more uncertain than ever about the takeaway message, at least when one gets into matters of any significant detail.

There remains a general expectation that storms will get worse as oceans warm; there is evidence, albeit contested, that this is already apparent in the Atlantic region (along with an increase in storm numbers). And yet the more research that comes out on this subject, the more questions we encounter. Consider, for instance, recent published work by Thomas Knutson of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a scientist known as a cautious moderate in the hurricane-climate debate. Knutson’s latest published study, using a regional model of the Atlantic region and examining hurricane trends under greenhouse warming, suggests we may see fewer storms in total, but also more intense ones. This would appear to contradict what we have seen during the last 15 years or so in the Atlantic, years that have featured both more numerous storms and also stronger ones.

The point is that we have many reasons to learn more about, and prepare more for, hurricanes. Indeed, we have essentially no reasons to do anything else. The question, then, is whether what we do will be reasonable. A good defense, in this instance, is exactly that—a good defense; and investment in the necessary forecasting research and preparations will protect our vulnerable coastal communities that are still rebuilding in the wake of the last miscalculation.

Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”

There’s still a great deal that we still don’t know about hurricanes.

Meanwhile, hurricanes are already disrupting the political campaign season in a massive way, moving even ahead of the struggling economy as a central focal point of media attention. We could be en route to a repeat of 2004, when four hurricanes—Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne—crisscrossed Florida during the election home stretch and drew both Bush and Kerry down to survey the damage and offer their aid and support. But of course, the stakes are higher now, post-Katrina, than they were then; we all realize the full severity of the danger from these storms, something that seems to have been conveniently forgotten for decades as the Atlantic went relatively quiet during the 1970s and into the early 1980s.

But if we’re going to see an election punctuated by storm threats and looming disasters, let’s hope we can translate all that blaring 24-7 media attention into something beyond mere shots of CNN’s Anderson Cooper dodging flying billboards—namely, constructive policy action on the part of whichever candidate attains the highest office (or even action by Congress before the election). Consider the following pressing hurricane-related policy issues, which remain unaddressed:

Research Funding. There’s still a great deal that we still don’t know about hurricanes. In particular, while the National Hurricane Center has become masterful at forecasting their tracks, it isn’t nearly as good at predicting their intensities—and Hurricane Gustav provides a perfect example. Gustav intensified much more, and much more rapidly, than forecast before smacking Cuba; and yet the storm failed to intensify as feared when it tracked over the deep, warm Gulf of Mexico loop current. Until we achieve a mastery of hurricane intensity forecasting that can rival our mastery of hurricane track forecasting, the U.S. coastline will remain exceedingly vulnerable to storms that behave unexpectedly—in other words, many or most of them.

You might think, therefore, that the funding of hurricane research would be a priority. But it has now been fully three years since Katrina, and Congress still has not passed legislation to create a so-called National Hurricane Research Initiative, which would better align our scientific priorities with the incredible danger that hurricanes pose to us. In 2006, the National Science Board reported that “the present Federal investment in hurricane science and engineering research relative to the tremendous damage and suffering caused by hurricanes is insufficient and time is not on our side. The hurricane warning for our Nation has been issued and we must act vigorously and without delay.” But of course, we delayed: Although the NSB called for an immediate $300 million-per-year ramp up in federally funded hurricane research, it still hasn’t happened.

The Insurance Crisis. The hurricane years of 2004 and 2005 caused unprecedented damage in the United States, and racked up more than $70 billion in insured losses. Insurers and reinsurers alike were staggered—they had never seen anything like it. And of course, they began trying to raise rates dramatically, or even to pull out of coverage for some vulnerable areas.

In the state of Florida the insurance situation has perhaps been the most dramatic—according to a study by Environmental Defense, homeowner’s rates increased 77 percent between 2001 and 2006. By 2007, such trends resulted in a special session of the Florida state legislature, in which elected representatives did something overwhelmingly popular (but otherwise questionable)—they tried to lower rates by having the state (and its taxpayers) assume much more hurricane risk exposure through Florida’s so-called “catastrophe fund.”

No matter how you slice it, then, global warming worsens hurricanes.

Now, though, we find Florida’s leaders complaining because rates haven’t declined anywhere near what had been hoped for. The truth is that although they have been vilified, for the most part insurers are simply responding to an increased recognition of risk, and trying to price it into their calculations. There is no easy answer when millions of people are living in vulnerable places, and have been encouraged to do so by decades of quiet hurricane years and artificially low insurance rates. Now that the weather (and insurance market) are adjusting, there will continue to be a lot of pain and disruption, unless and until we find a comprehensive policy to adapt our societies to the real risk we face.

Global Warming. Which inevitably brings us to contemplating the future—one in which we will be even more exposed to hurricane risks. While it remains hard to predict precisely what global warming will do to hurricanes, we know that it will raise sea levels, and probably intensify storms on average, not to mention increasing their rainfall rates. No matter how you slice it, then, global warming worsens hurricanes—and, accordingly, hurricane-related insurance costs—which makes it a more-than-legitimate topic to invoke in the context of this year’s hurricane threats and landfalls.

From a policy perspective, however, irrespective of what we do to mitigate global warming through reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, hurricane risks (much like sea level rise) call for a national global warming adaptation agenda that does not currently exist. We are already committed to substantial global warming, and can think of its effect on hurricanes, sea level, and much else as the metaphorical ball that has already left the pitcher’s hand and is traveling towards home plate. We haven’t had our eye on that ball for some time.

The Next New Orleans. It is a matter of continuing mystification to me: Why not start now when it comes to protecting other major cities that could see hurricane catastrophes? At the top of the list are Houston, Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, and New York. There ought to be, but is not, a comprehensive plan to protect these cities in a manner parallel to the ongoing Army Corps of Engineers work in New Orleans. Sure, the cost would be great, but not as great as the cost of a worst-case-scenario hurricane landfall. Projections for a catastrophic strike on Miami—where a Hurricane Ike could arrive by week’s end—estimate that damages could exceed the $80 billion total caused by Katrina, and cost $ 100 billion or more over all.

And for that matter: The New Orleans situation remains singularly unimpressive. Gustav was a Category 2 storm at landfall and missed the city, but still represented a close call for its levee system. It is easy to imagine a far, far worse hurricane in terms of its track towards New Orleans and its intensity. Three years after Katrina, we haven’t done nearly enough to protect the city, and another menacing hurricane season should inspire us to redouble our efforts.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.