Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog

Australia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Chilling Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:39:00 +0000

In Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has given the most chilling speech (PDF here) with respect to open policy debate that I have ever heard from a leader of a democratic country. The focus of his speech is on "climate change deniers." Who are these people? They include people who are skeptical of climate change science, but remarkably, they also include people who believe that climate change is real and a problem, but disagree with the Prime Minister's preferred policy approach. Rudd states that "climate change deniers" fall into one of three categories:

· First, the climate science deniers.

· Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.

· Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.

He says of these groups:

As we approach the Copenhagen conference these groups of climate change deniers face a moment of truth, and the truth is this: we will need to work much harder to reach an agreement in Copenhagen because these advocates of inaction are holding back domestic commitments, and are in turn holding back global commitments on climate change.

Rudd uses extremely strong terms to characterize those who disagree with his policy prescriptions:

Climate change deniers are small in number, but they are too dangerous to be ignored. They are well resourced and well represented by political conservatives in many, many countries.

And the danger they pose is this by collapsing political momentum towards national and global action on climate change, they collapse global political will to act at all. They are the stick that gets stuck in the wheel, that despite its size may yet bring the train to a complete stop.

And that is what they want, because they are driven by a narrowly defined self interest of the present and are utterly contemptuous towards our children's interest in the future.

This brigade of do nothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer.

Our children.

And our grandchildren.

Rudd explains why it is that the Copenhagen meeting may fail:

If Copenhagen does not deliver the outcome we so urgently need, no individual climate change skeptic will be responsible, but each of them will have played their part.

Rudd explains that there is no place in government for people holding these views, a position seemingly reinforced this week when the CSIRO stands accused of censoring a paper critical of the Australian ETS:

Climate change skeptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives. They are radicals.

They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence.

The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government.

Can witch trials and pogroms be far behind? What bothers me about the speech is not so much the criticism of people who reject mainstream science. Fine, criticism of them as rolling the dice on a minority view is fair and appropriate. What bothers me is the explicit equation of people who question a policy's effectiveness or desirability with the idea of being a "denier" and thus being "dangerous." Rudd is openly conflating views on science with views on politics. Not only does this further the politicization of science, but it also make a mockery of democratic governance. Imagine if George W. Bush had given this same speech in 2003 but about people who deny the merits of his desired policy of going to war in Iraq. There would have been national and international outrage, and rightfully so.

Rudd may be trying to set the stage for domestic failure of the CPRS and more generally that in Copenhagen. But he is doing so in a way that stomps on the notion of democracy and the fact that people have different values and perspectives that can only be reconciled through the democratic process. An observer at the Lowy Institute (where the speech was given) said afterward (emphasis added):

The implication was that these descriptions applied to anyone who opposed the Government's climate change agenda — the PM seemed to admit of no possibility that anyone of good will could be opposed to that agenda.

That is a pretty good description of the climate debate. Demonizing one's opponents and calling their views "dangerous" is a first step down a path we don't want to go.

Nicholson vs Grainger plc, An Interpretation by Mike Hulme

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:37:00 +0000

A guest post by Mike Hulme (m.hulme@uea.ac.uk; www.mikehulme.org)

A recent case brought before a UK Employment Appeal Tribunal raises some interesting questions about what constitutes belief in anthropogenic climate change and the (claimed) moral imperative to live a low-carbon lifestyle and persuade others to do the same. Under UK employment law, the judge has ruled that the plaintiff – Tim Nicholson – is entitled to bring a claim of unfair dismissal (claimed to be because of his belief in anthropogenic climate change) against his former employers – Grainger plc – on the grounds that his belief amounted to ‘a philosophical belief similar in cogency and status to a religious belief’.

Let me summarise the case and the arguments first, before reflecting on what the case signifies for the relationship between science, belief and personal behaviour with regard to climate change.

The Case

Tim Nicholson (aged 42 and ex-head of sustainability at Grainger plc, the UK’s largest listed residential landlord with assets of £2.3bn with a further £3bn under management) is claiming he was unfairly dismissed from his job in July 2008 because of his beliefs about climate change. He has brought his case under the UK Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. These regulations enlarge the notion of religious belief to include other ‘philosophical’ beliefs which are ‘similar’ to those of religion. According to the regulations, a qualifying belief must ‘have sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and be worthy of respect in a democratic society’. Nicholson is claiming that his belief in anthropogenic climate change and the moral imperative to adjust his lifestyle accordingly is exactly this - ‘I believe we must urgently cut carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change’ – a philosophical belief.

Grainger plc defended the case on the grounds that Nicholson’s beliefs are in fact ‘rooted in a scientific view of climate change rather than in a philosophical one’. Grainger claimed that ‘philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof’.

It is important to be clear about what has thus far been at stake with the legal hearings. It is not whether Nicholson was unfairly dismissed from his job in July 2008. The Tribunal has not yet reached this stage and may or may not eventually find in his favour. What has been at stake thus far is whether or not Nicholson is entitled to bring the case of unfair dismissal to the Tribunal on the specific grounds that he holds a philosophical belief in climate change. If it is ruled that he is so entitled on these specific grounds, then the law protects him from being discriminated against - just as would the law protect someone from being dismissed for holding Jewish or any other religious, or indeed atheistic, beliefs.

The preliminary hearing at a regional tribunal in March 2009 gave Nicholson permission to bring the case to the London Central Employment Tribunal in October. This he duly did and the judge of this full Tribunal, Justice Sir Michael Burton (who incidentally was the same judge who ruled about the ‘nine scientific errors’ in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth), delivered his verdict on 3 November 2009.

Judge Burton’s ruling was that there is sufficient evidence that Nicholson’s ‘asserted’ belief in anthropogenic climate change is ‘capable’ of being regarded as a legitimate philosophical belief and that therefore Nicholson is entitled to bring the case of unfair dismissal against Grainger plc on these specific grounds. Note that the judge recognises that cross-examination of Nicholson will be necessary in the subsequent dismissal hearing to establish the genuineness of his belief. Also note that Burton is not ruling that Nicholson was in fact discriminated against by Grainger plc. That was not the purview of the hearing held in October and the final verdict on the unfair dismissal claim is still to be established and delivered.

But the importance of this initial judgement is that under UK employment law it has now been ruled that in principle a belief in anthropogenic climate change, and the consequent demands such a belief might place on personal lifestyle choices and on the need to proselytise others, can constitute a philosophical belief.

The Arguments

In passing his judgement, Judge Burton evaluated the arguments brought by Nicholson and by Grainger plc. Nicholson summarised his philosophy as follows:

“Mankind is heading towards catastrophic climate change and therefore we are all under a moral duty to lead our lives in a manner which mitigates or avoids this catastrophe for the benefit of future generations and to persuade others to do the same”.

Grainger plc brought forward three arguments as to why this belief should not be seen as constituting a philosophy similar to a religion. Judge Burton rejected all three. First, Burton said that it was not necessary for Nicholson’s belief about climate change to be part of a larger system of beliefs; pacifism or vegetarianism as ‘one-off beliefs’, he said, could also qualify under the terms of the Regulations. Second, Burton said that, contrary to Grainger’s claim, even if Nicholson’s belief could be shown to derive from a set of cogent political beliefs, it could still quality as a philosophy under the terms of the Regulations. And, third, Burton said that, contrary to Grainger’s claim, even if Nicholson’s belief could be shown to be based on scientific (as opposed to ethical or metaphysical) evidence, it could still qualify as a philosophy under the terms of the Regulations. The example he gave here was that Darwinism could also qualify as ‘a philosophical belief’ even if it were based entirely on scientific considerations.

The Implications

The implications of the ruling seem to me to be both more and less significant than is being claimed by environmental advocates in the UK – for example see ‘Green beliefs win legal protection’.

The ruling is perhaps more significant than is claimed because it potentially includes a huge range of personal beliefs under the terms of UK employment regulations on unfair dismissal. Veganism, pacifism, socialism could all qualify as philosophical beliefs under the terms of the Regulations, as implied by Judge Burton. But it also opens the way for employees with other subjectively held deep beliefs such as astrology, flat-earthism or even a disbelief in HIV-AIDS to bring cases of unfair dismissal on the grounds of their ‘philosophical beliefs’.

But the ruling is at the same time perhaps less significant that some of the claims made of it. I suggest this for two reasons. First, it places a great onus on the claimant being able to demonstrate successfully coherence between their intellectual belief about anthropogenic climate change and its consequences on the one hand, and their personal lifestyles on the other. When he is cross-examined at the subsequent full dismissal hearing, Nicholson will have to be able to show and defend how his belief is driving his behaviour across a wide variety of lifestyle choices. Is he in fact a credible believer. Whether or not Nicholson is able to demonstrate this, there may be many others in his intellectual position whose professed beliefs are not matched by their actions. And they, of course, will not be the first who have had shown up in public – sometimes quite distressingly - the value-action gap that most (all?) humans are subject to. Believing that one has a moral duty to do something does not always easily lead to the implied behaviour!

The second reason it is perhaps less significant than has been claimed is that the ruling in fact leaves entirely open the question about the lines of evidence and reasoning that contribute to Nicholson’s philosophical belief. Judge Burton explicitly allows such belief to be derived entirely from scientific evidence (as in the Darwinism example), but also for belief to be derived from purely ethical judgements, religious considerations, political ideologies, etc. He therefore adopts a very catholic view of how people reach personal beliefs which matter to them and which, they claim, drive their personal behaviour. Tim Nicholson might possibly have reached his philosophical belief on climate change and his evangelical zeal by reading all the reports of the IPCC, but it seems rather unlikely.

In this sense, therefore, Judge Burton’s ruling is both instructive and wise – and maybe not as radical as some would like to claim it to be. It is instructive because it recognises that human beliefs and lifestyle decisions are formed through a complex interplay of cultural, psychological and scientific factors and considerations. It is wise because it places the label ‘philosophical’ on such beliefs about climate change – rather than merely the labels ‘political’, ‘religious’ or ‘scientific’ beliefs. Such philosophising is in fact what we all have to do with the issue of climate change. Each of us has to construct our own philosophical position on climate change, drawing upon many lines of evidence and reasoning that should include, but should also extend well beyond, the science assessed by the IPCC.

And of course in weaving together our own climate change philosophies we will not always come up with the same formula as the one Tim Nicholson has constructed. His beliefs about climate change should not indeed be the basis of his dismissal by his employer, any more should yours or mine if we read, weigh and interpret the evidence about climate change – its causes, consequences and its ethical demands – either similarly or differently from Nicholson. We must all be willing to disagree about climate change; and respect each other for it.

Mike Hulme, 5 November 2009

Read ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change’ (CUP, 2009) for a full length investigation of the issues raised by this judgement.

Dumbest Argument for Climate Action Ever?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:33:00 +0000

I don't know why I have the question mark in the title. Check out this embarrassing argument for action reported in the Guardian:

"The world's poorest communities can't afford to wait. The cost of any delay to a climate deal will be counted in children's lives. We estimate that 250,000 children could be killed by climate change next year," said Benedict Dempsey, Save the Children's humanitarian policy officer.

Jon Stewart Interviews Al Gore

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:22:00 +0000

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Al Gore Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart conducts the single best interview of Al Gore I have seen. Check it out.

Update on David Nutt, Formerly of the ACMD

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:07:00 +0000

It is a rough week to be an advising expert. David Nutt, chair of the UK Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), was relieved of his duties earlier this week, as I mentioned here. Simon Jenkins at The Guardian has a valuable perspective:

Researching drug use is pointless since policy on the subject has nothing to do with evidence, only emotion. It has to do with fear of the unknown, the taboo of other people's escapist narcotics (or worse, those of one's children). Politicians could not care less what experts say – witness this week's smattering of support for Johnson. They care only for the rightwing press, whose editors suffer a similar taboo.
The test was how the Tories reacted to Nutt's sacking. Faced with a home secretary gasping for air, Cameron and his home affairs spokesman, Chris Grayling, rushed forward with oxygen. Parting company with half the cabinet and the weight of scientific opinion, Cameron had a bad attack of funk. He refused to defend Nutt, and asserted his conviction that ecstasy was as harmful as heroin and crack cocaine. This was the same Cameron who, as a backbench member of the home affairs select committee in 2001, had supported Nutt in taking the opposite view. He must know what he said this week was rubbish.
All these politicians accept in private that the law is in chronic need of reform. Yet should they dare murmur so, they seem terrified of being assailed by the Mail, the Sun and the Telegraph. They could handle the House of Commons. They could even carry their constituents. But the rightwing press holds them in thrall, perhaps because they feel powerless before its lash. Might their youthful indiscretions be discovered, or the antics of their children pursued?
Politicians can stand the pressure of corpses piling up in Helmand, but one corpse at a rave would be too much for their consciences. Whenever I have tackled Home Office ministers, from Jack Straw and Charles Clarke to recent, less distinguished holders of the office, the response is the same. Don't even think about it, they cry. We would be crucified by the press. Just say no to drugs reform.

The situation here is a bit more complicated than that of Clive Spash. My view is that the ACMD needs to be constituted as -- and here I'll slip into the jargon of The Honest Broker -- either a Science Arbiter or an Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives. If the former then the task of the committee would be to answer specific, fact-based questions posed by policy makers, like, is taking ectasy more or less dangerous than riding a horse? If the latter then the ACMD would present the pluses and minuses of a wide spectrum of policy options. In both cases the notion that advisors advise and decision makers decide would be preserved. If current policies don't allow either role to exist, then policies need to change.

Martin Rees gets this:

Scientific advisers are not there to rubber-stamp policies. Advice should reach ministers before decisions are taken; and when ministers want to reject it, they should discuss it first. Where government does reject scientific evidence, it must explain why openly.

Nature gets this about half-right when they call for independence:

The government, meanwhile, badly needs to restore its credibility on this issue. One good way to do that would be to follow Nutt's suggestion to turn the advisory council into an independent body reporting to parliament as a whole, not to any individual official. An independent, scientifically run drug-regulation system would also free politicians from having to politick over who is toughest on drugs, something that would spare them and scientists much unnecessary future trouble.

Greater independence from the home secretary makes good sense, but it is not sufficient. Greater attention needs to be paid to the actual work of the committee and its role in decision making. If it is to answer narrow technical questions then this needs to be made clear, and a process needs to be put into place to elicit questions from policy makers. I much prefer an "honest broker" approach that allows the committee to lay out a wide range of policy options for policy makers to consider. Independence helps in both cases, but an options committee would fill a very different role than a committee that arbitrates technical questions.

If issues about the provision of scientific advice are raised and debated because of this situation, a good outcome will result. However, it is hard to see anything other than a negative political outcome for Gordon Brown and UK Labor.

Finally, in the FT, Robert Shirmsley explains the real lesson here:

Prof David Nutt was ditched after asserting that riding horses was more dangerous than taking ecstasy.
The sacking provoked immediate uproar and howls about the sanctity of scientific advice (as if the entire discipline was not based on one scientist disproving the theories of his forerunners).
But why is no one focusing on the real menace? Killer equestrianism is obviously the new scourge of our society. Ten families lose loved ones each year due to horse-riding accidents and dozens more people sustain serious injury. Yet this is a pastime frequently pushed on to children. Indeed horse riders speak openly about grooming.
Given the tyranny of health and safety legislation it seems remarkable that more has not already been done to tackle the new menace of "equasy" or Horse.
Many of the warning signs about the equestrian community have long been obvious. Like so many other misfits they have set themselves apart wearing their own distinct uniform, including skin-tight trousers and polished boots, and often carrying threatening weapons such as whips.

Update on Clive Spash at CSIRO

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:01:00 +0000

Earlier this week I discussed the apparent censorship of a paper by an Australian government research agency, CSIRO, because the paper was critical of emissions trading. The ABC has an update (and if you go to the ABC site you can hear Spash speak in the radio interview):

The CSIRO is grappling with claims it is trying to censor the work of an economist who has criticised the policy at the centre of the Federal Government's response to climate change.

The researcher, Dr Clive Spash, has been told not to publish a journal article that questions the economic underpinnings of carbon trading versus other means of cutting greenhouse emissions.

Dr Spash is an ecological economist with the sustainable ecosystems division at the organisation.

He told ABC Radio's AM that he was headhunted to join the CSIRO but wonders if he has a future there if he cannot talk about the subject of his research.

The CSIRO says it has had a long-standing policy that its scientists and researchers do not talk about policy and Dr Spash says it is a policy he was well aware of.

"The big concern here for economists has been about efficiency," he said.

"Taking an emissions trading scheme approach is known to be the most efficient approach. My paper is criticising that."

Dr Spash says at first he was told by his supervisors that he should try to have the paper published in an international journal to boost its academic credibility.

He did that and the article was accepted for publication by the UK journal New Political Economy.

"After the article had been accepted for publication and I had informed the acting chief of the division, two weeks later he informed me that the article could not be published," he said.

Dr Spash offered to publish the paper under his own name, disclaiming his CSIRO affiliation but later he was told that was not an option.

The controversy surrounding his paper seems to be in part behind efforts within the organisation to clarify its policies for scientists speaking out.

The CSIRO's chief executive, Megan Clark, explained the philosophy in an interview with ABC radio last month.

"If one of our scientists is talking about their discipline area there's no division between an individual and the organisation," she said.

But that leaves researchers and scientists like Dr Clive Spash wondering what they are supposed to do.

He was recruited to the CSIRO in 2006 from Scotland. He says he was told that the organisation wanted him based in Canberra so he would be close to policymakers.

"I'm aware of the statements of policy," he said.

"The problem is the interpretation that's being given to them right now, they're not particularly clear. There's real issue here about people working in the socio-economic area.

"There's also economists, anthropologists, you know a range of different people in the social sciences working within CSIRO.

"It's not at all clear to me how these people are supposed to work and do their job while trying to meet these general guidance principles that have been interpreted at present to say that we're not allowed to comment on any government policy at any level of government, anywhere in the world."

The organisation says Megan Clark is reviewing the question of whether Dr Spash's paper can be published.

My view, as it was in the case of Jim Hansen and the Bush Administration is simple, let Clive Spash speak. If the current policies can be read as supporting the suppresion of his research, then by all means, fix the policies.

Joe Romm's Climate McCarthyism

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:26:00 +0000

Michael Shellengerger and Ted Nordhaus have decided that the right thing to do is to stand up to a bully. Good for them. Here is an excerpt:

What are the warning signs that one is dealing with a bully? Wiki names, "Quickness to anger and use of force, addiction to aggressive behaviors, mistaking others' actions as hostile, concern with preserving self image, and engaging in obsessive or rigid actions." Bullies, Wiki notes, "will even create blogs to intimidate victims worldwide."

The character assassination, the bullying, the psychological projection -- it all adds up to Climate McCarthyism, and Joe Romm is Climate McCarthyite-in-chief. Joe Romm's "Global Warming Deniers and Delayers" play the same role as Joe McCarthy's "Communists and Communist sympathizers." While Romm built a loyal liberal and environmentalist following for attacking right-wing "global warming deniers" -- a designation meant to invoke "Holocaust denier" -- he spends much of his time attacking well-meaning journalists (e.g. here, here, and here), academics (here and here) and activists (here, here and here) who take the issue of global warming seriously, accept climate science, and support immediate action to address it. His aim is to intimidate and prevent increasing numbers of people from questioning climate policy orthodoxy, and especially Democratic efforts to pass cap and trade climate legislation.

And make no mistake, Joe Romm's political agenda is as mainstream among liberals today as Joe McCarthy's was among conservatives in 1953. Romm is held up by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, UC Berkeley's Brad DeLong,The New Republic's Brad Plumer, Grist's Dave Roberts, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman as an inspiration. He works for John Podesta, Obama's transition director and head of Center for American Progress. And he is the leading spokesperson for Waxman Markey climate legislation that passed the House, and Kerry-Boxer legislation in the Senate.

Think about it: If you're an ambitious young Democratic Hill staffer, a liberal policy analyst, or a struggling young reporter, why would you ever stand up to a guy who is famous for first trashing people to their editors, employers and funders in private emails, and then, if that doesn't work, in public blogs? Why would you challenge someone who seems to have so much of the liberal establishment on his side?

It is important to point out that this is not simply about Joe Romm the bully, but the tenor of discourse on a very important subject. Michael and Ted conclude:

There will always be bullies like Joe Romm -- they are not the problem. It is the the establishment figures who goad them on, and the bystanders who could speak up but do not, fearing the consequences of doing so. If we are to move to real solutions to global warming, and protect some level of basic human decency, Joe Romm and his enablers must be challenged. For climate McCarthyism isn't just bad for climate policy, it's anathema to liberal and democratic values.

Amen.

Even in Boulder

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:14:00 +0000

As yesterday's election outcomes are dissected, there was an interesting result here in Boulder, Colorado with respect to a request to expand its "ClimateSmart" program:

Voters also rejected county Issue 1B, which would have expanded a program that provides low-interest loans to property owners who want make energy-efficient upgrades to their homes and businesses.

According to the unofficial final counts, 50.97 percent were against the measure, which would have increased the total debt capacity of the ClimateSmart loan program by $85 million.

Apparently even in Boulder some climate policies have their limits. What this might signify probably requires some deeper investigation, but with the Boulder failing to meet its self-imposed Kyoto goals, it does suggest a rethinking of strategy.

Is Environmentalism a Religion?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:59:00 +0000

An interesting outcome from a court case in the UK which I first mentioned a while back:

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

I wonder if this will open the door to other "science-based beliefs" such as having to do with GMOs, illegal drugs and so on receiving legal protection. This will be discussed in depth I am sure.

UPDATE: The ruling strikes Ben Hale as "strange".

China's Resource Grab

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:01:00 +0000

In the Financial Times today there is an interesting article on China's efforts to lock down fossil fuel supplies around the world.

Like Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, China’s energy planners do not want “a serious crisis to go to waste”.
The country’s big three state-owned oil companies – China National Petroleum Corporation, Sinopec and China National Offshore Oil Corporation – have been strongly encouraged to make use of the global downturn in order to expand.
The crisis “is equally a challenge and an opportunity”, Zhang Guobao, head of the national energy administration, said this year. “The slowdown ... has reduced the price of international energy resources and assets and favours our search for overseas resources.”

This is even more stark when compared with a news analysis in the same edition of the FT, titled, "Beijing has played climate cards beautifully," an argument that I have recently made as well. Things are shaping up whereby the US will again be branded the outlaw in international climate policy, while China quietly gobbles up more and more fossil fuel resources.

Klotzbach et al. 2009 Published

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:46:00 +0000

This post is for discussion of the issues raised in and possible implications of Klotzbach et al. 2009, published today. Here is the citation, link and abstract:

Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke, Sr., R. A. Pielke, Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2009), An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841. Link

Abstract

This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

Warren Buffett's Big Bet

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:30:00 +0000

I wonder what Warren Buffett knows.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s $44 billion deal to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. is basically a huge bet on coal, a fuel that powers Warren Buffett's power plants at his MidAmerican Energy utility and plays a major role in the railroad business.

While regulatory delays and uncertainty over climate-change legislation has slowed the addition of new U.S. coal plants, plenty of new facilities are expected to come on line in the United States, becoming prospects for future growth for the railroads.

Nine new coal plants have been permitted in the United States and 25 are under construction for a combined generation capacity of nearly 15,000 megawatts, according to an Oct. 9 report by the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Moves by the Obama administration to curb emissions in proposed climate-change legislation are also anticipated to push the generation industry toward wider use of carbon-capture and storage technology at coal plants, which still supply nearly half of America's electricity.

With the U.S. economy poised for a rebound, both the coal-fired electricity industry and the railroads that haul the black rock are primed for growth, leading Buffett to describe his huge purchase as "an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States."

Maybe he is paying attention to the cap and trade debate, and the role of coal in it (emphasis added):

The industry estimates that the basin has 100-150 more years' worth of production, based on today's technology. Though most mines are much smaller, there are more than 1,000 of them in the US. The government estimates there are several hundred years' worth of coal to be recovered in the US - the Saudi Arabia of coal, with 27 per cent of the world's known coal reserves. It would take a massive effort to replace coal production. Peabody Energy, which owns North Antelope and is the world's largest private sector coal company, says replacing coal would be a gargantuan task. It would require 2,400 times more solar generation,40 times more wind power, 250 new nuclear plants, almost double the US production of natural gas, 500 hydro plants the size of the Hoover Dam or halving electricity consumption. Even then, the US would have to find a way to meet new demand, given growth forecasts.
Victor Der, principal deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy in the Obama administration, says: "It would be very difficult to move away from it. We believe coal will continue to be in the energy mix."

The FT is Drinking Climate Kool-Aid

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:39:00 +0000

The FT usually has cogent analyses of global issues, but its analysis of climate policy has fallen well short. Here is an example, which focuses on "myth busting" leading up to Copenhagen. I'd characterize it instead as pretty detached from reality. It looks like the FT has become a cheerleader rather than a critical observer.

On the prospects for a meaningful deal to be reached in Copenhagen:

Q. Blimey. So it looks like no deal at Copenhagen then?

A. On the contrary, the prospects for international cooperation on climate change haven’t looked brighter for more than 10 years.

Some of the differences in opinion are likely to be resolved as the talks enter their final stages. Although difficult sticking points remain, the basics for a deal are not so very hard to achieve.

It is hard to understand where this perspective is coming from. I agree that some sort of deal will be reached, the question is whether it will mean anything. The FT is silent on the substantive questions, instead suggesting rather glibly that:

If everything cannot be resolved at Copenhagen, countries may be able to continue to work on resolving some key issues into next year. And turning an agreement in Copenhagen into a fully articulated legal treaty is also a task that can be completed next year or in 2011.

How wonderful. I wonder what all the fuss is about then?

On India and China:

India and China have both begun to take many such measures, and they have pledged to increase these. In fact, if China is successful in meeting its own targets - as it has been in the past - then according to the IEA it will be the biggest single contributor to global emissions reductions by 2020.

As I've documented here on many occasions (e.g., here), both India and China claim to have now instantaneously increased their historical rate of decarbonization by as much as three times what they have achieved in the past. Maybe they have, but for the FT to report this uncritically is certainly not really telling the full story. What if China's and India's pledges are not as solid as claimed? Nothing from the FT (ever) on that question.

I am a big fan of the FT and read it daily, so it is disappointing to see its coverage of the climate issue so consistently lacking.

Be Careful With Polls

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:23:00 +0000

Mark Blumenthal of The National Journal has an insightful blog post about the perils of public opinion polls. here is an excerpt:

How do Americans feel about cap-and-trade legislation?

In recent weeks, two media pollsters reported results on the point. "Six in 10 Americans support a 'cap-and-trade' proposal to cut pollution," said the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. Despite "growing public skepticism about global warming," the Pew Research Center found "more support than opposition for a policy to set limits on carbon emissions."

How accurately do these questions measure public opinion on cap-and-trade legislation?

To answer that question, you may want to consider how Americans answered another: "Some people say the 1975 Public Affairs Act should be repealed. Do you agree or disagree with this idea?"

As a well-informed reader of NationalJournal.com, you are probably inclined to wrinkle your brow and ask, "What's that?" For good reason: It never existed. But its fictitious nature didn't stop 34 percent from expressing an opinion when University of Cincinnati political scientist George Bishop and his colleagues asked a sample of Cincinnati adults that question in 1978. Bishop and other scholars have consistently replicated that finding using national samples and similarly fictitious or unknown legislation. As summarized in Bishop's book, The Illusion of Public Opinion, between 30 and 40 percent of Americans will offer opinions on legislation they have never heard of.

Blumenthal asks "what are we to make of responses to questions that use possibly unfamiliar terms like "greenhouse gases" and "carbon dioxide emissions?""

He put that question to George Bishop, author of the 1975 study referenced above, here is Professor Bishop's response:

"'Cap-and-trade' legislation is so obscure and so little-known by the vast majority of Americans," he concluded via e-mail, that questions about it generate the same sort of "pseudo-opinions" as the fictitious 1975 Public Affairs Act. "Reliable and valid measures of public opinion on such a complex policy issue," he writes, "cannot be so simply simulated by merely telling respondents what it's about and then asking them to react to it on the spot. Down that road lie misleading illusions and the manufacturing of public opinion -- a disservice to the Congress, the president and the press that covers them."

My view is that public opinion is plenty string enough for action to occur, in other words, there is nothing politically intrinsic about the issue that stands out as being a barrier to action. By contrast, legislation to make abortion illegal might face such an intrinsic political barrier. That means that the issue is about the specifics of policy, and the political implications of specific policies -- who wins and who loses in specific bills. Consequently, at this point in the debate public matters very little. What matters are the perceptions of various decision makers in Congress. Crafting policy that can be effective, be seen to be effective and provide parochial as well as national benefits is the political challenge facing the Congress. From what I read, they are not doing so well in meeting these criteria.

Open Invitation

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:07:00 +0000

UPDATE: Day 2 -- I'll plan on elevating this post to the top each Monday, to allow time for people to formulate a proper response.

Here is an open invitation to my loudest critics. I'd like to invite Joe Romm, Tim Lambert, the guys at Real Climate, William Connolley and anyone else (apologies to critics not mentioned, no slight intended;-) to engage in a substantive debate on the following 10 conclusions that I've reached about the climate issue, based on the fact that the human influence on climate is real, serious and deserving of significant policy attention:

1. There is no greenhouse gas signal in the economic or human toll record of disasters.
2. The IPCC has dramatically underestimated the scale of the stabilization challenge.
3. Geoengineering via stratospheric injection or marine cloud whitening is a bad idea.
4. Air capture research is a very good idea.
5. Adaptation is very important and not a trade off with mitigation.
6. Current mitigation policies, at national and international levels, are inevitably doomed to fail.
7. An alternative approach to mitigation from that of the FCCC has better prospects for success.
8. Current technologies are not sufficient to reach mitigation goals.
9. In their political enthusiasm, some leading scientists have behaved badly.
10. Leading scientific assessments have botched major issues (like disasters).

Here is my guarantee:

Your comments will be allowed here in full, they will not be deleted or snipped. I will delete comments that are off topic much more rigorously than I usually do to keep a clear focus. Anyone can participate, but I will require respectful, substantive discussion at all times. If there is enough interest, I will be happy to spin off unique threads for any of the 10 topics that people want to challenge or debate.

OK guys here is your chance to step up and show the world where I am wrong based on a substantive discussion of issues that really matter. What do you say? All are welcome.

Normalized Flood Losses in Europe: 1970-2006

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:19:00 +0000

J. I. Barredo of the European Commission published an interesting paper earlier this year titled, "Normalized Flood Losses in Europe: 1970-2006" (PDF) in the open access journal Natural hazards and Earth System Sciences of the EGU. The study looks at a relatively short period, 37 years, but its findings are interesting nonetheless. Here are a few excerpts (emphasis added):

Following the conceptual approach of previous studies, we normalised flood losses by considering the effects of changes in population, wealth, and inflation at the country level. Furthermore, we removed inter-country price differences by adjusting the losses for purchasing power parities (PPP). We assessed normalised flood losses in 31 European countries. These include the member states of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Results show no detectable sign of human-induced climate change in normalised flood losses in Europe. The observed increase in the original flood losses is mostly driven by societal factors.

And also:

Despite the existing evidence (see Table 1) of changes in temperature and precipitation in Europe (Alcamo et al., 2007; Rosenzweig et al., 2007; Trenberth et al., 2007) there is no conclusive evidence for a climate-related trend for hydrologic floods either on a continental or a regional scale in Europe (Glaser and Stangl, 2003; Mudelsee et al., 2003; Lindstr¨om and Bergstr¨om, 2004; Kundzewicz et al., 2005, 2007; Macklin and Rumsby, 2007). This supports the hypothesis that a positive trend in the increase of flood losses should be attributed to societal shifts in the exposed areas.

The paper concludes:

These results indicate that changes in population, inflation and per capita real wealth are the main factors contributing to the increase of the original raw losses. After filtering their influence there remains no evident signal suggesting any influence of anthropogenic climate change on the trend of flood losses in Europe during the assessed period.

Studies of disasters around the world are unambiguous and uncontested: Increasing damage over recent decades can be explained entirely by societal factors and there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that greenhouse-gas driven climate change has led to increasing disasters. The standard disclaimer applies -- this does not mean that action to address accumulating greenhouse gases does not make sense; as I've stated on many occasions, it does. What it does mean is that efforts to point to contemporary disasters as a basis for action on energy policies are misleading at best.

Row Over UK Science Advice After Advisor Sacked

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:19:00 +0000

UPDATE: More details on this episode here at the Times.

The UK Government has fired the chairman of a scientific advisory committee for advancing views that it finds uncomfortable with respect to current policy. According to the BBC:

Colleagues of the government drugs adviser sacked by [Home Secretary] Alan Johnson say they have "serious concerns" about his decision and whether they can continue.
Two drugs advisory panel members quit in protest when Prof David Nutt was fired for comments on cannabis policy.
The home secretary faces MPs' questions about Prof Nutt, who, he says, crossed a line between advice and campaigning.
Other members have asked to meet Mr Johnson and some question whether they can continue in "good conscience".
Prof Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was sacked on Friday after using a lecture to say that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco

Mark Easton of the BBC has a nice overview:

Far from using independent experts to "lend credibility to public pronouncements about risk" (in the ACMD's case, the risk from illegal drugs), the home secretary wants them to stay silent because "it is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them". The two resignations today suggest Professor Nutt's sacking may prove to be an important moment in the relationship between government and the experts who advise it.

He provides an image of the letter to Prof. Nutt announcing his termination, reproduced below.

The Narrow Defintion of Climate Change

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:48:00 +0000

Today's FT has an editorial on climate change. The editorial states:

A common mistake is to try to draw a clear distinction between “man-made” and “natural” change.

Apparently the FT does not recognize that this distinction is not a product of the nefarious "skeptics" as they allege, but instead is build into the fabric of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). In 2005 I wrote about the consequences of having inconsistent political (FCCC) and scientific (IPCC) definitions of "climate change":

The restricted definition of ‘‘climate change’’ used by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) has profoundly affected the science, politics, and policy processes associated with the international response to the climate issue. Specifically, the FCCC definition has contributed to the gridlock and ineffectiveness of the global response to the challenge of climate change.

Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2005. Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 548-561.

and a shorter essay is here:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2004. What is Climate Change?, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer, 1-4.

The FT editorial says that we must "follow the science on climate change" -- whatever that phrase means in practice, it probably does not mean inventing political expedient definitions of climate change that are at odds with that used by the scientific community.

Australian Government Allegedly Interferes in Peer Review Process

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:37:00 +0000

According to an Australian economist, Clive Spash, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has been attempting to prevent him from publishing a paper critical of carbon trading which had already been accepted for publication. Here is a news report:

THE nation's peak science agency has tried to gag the publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists attacking the Rudd government's climate change policies.

The paper, by the CSIRO's Clive Spash, argues the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is an ineffective way to cut emissions, and instead direct legislation or a tax on carbon is needed.

The paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed.

But Dr Spash told the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics conference that the CSIRO had since June tried to block its publication.

In the paper, Dr Spash argues the economic theory underpinning emissions trading schemes is "far removed" from the reality of permit markets. "While carbon trading and offset schemes seem set to spread, they so far appear ineffective in terms of actually reducing GHGs (greenhouse gases)," he says. "Despite this apparent failure, ETS remain politically popular amongst the industrialised polluters.

"The public appearance is that action is being undertaken. The reality is that GHGs are increasing and society is avoiding the need for substantive proposals to address the problem of behavioural and structural change."

Dr Spash said trading schemes did not efficiently allocate emission cuts because their design was manipulated by vested interests. For example, in Australia, large polluters would be compensated with free permits while smaller, more competitive firms would have to buy theirs at auction. The schemes were also flawed because: global warming was caused by gases other than carbon; emissions were difficult to measure; carbon offsets bought from other countries were of dubious value; and the schemes "crowded out" voluntary action by individuals. He concludes that more direct measures, such as a carbon tax, regulations or new infrastructure would be simpler, more effective and less open to manipulation.

Apparently, Spash went public with his allegations at a conference of the Australia New Zealand Society of Ecological Economists last week:

. . . his presentation to the ANZSEE conference in Darwin last Wednesday stated: "The CSIRO is currently maintaining they have the right to ban the written version of this paper from publication by myself as a representative of the organisation and by myself as a private citizen."

Dr Spash said CSIRO managers had written to the journal's editor demanding the paper not be published.

A look at the ANZSEE website shows the following abstract for Spash's talk, which has the title "The Brave New World of Carbon Trading":

As human induced climate change has become a prominent political issue at the international level so the idea that emission trading can offer the solution has become more popular in government circles. Carbon permits are then fast becoming a serious financial instrument in markets turning over billons of dollars a year. In this paper, I show how the reality of market operation is far removed from the assumptions of economic theory and the promise of saving resources by efficiently allocating emission reductions. The pervasiveness of Greenhouse Gas emissions, strong uncertainty and complexity prevent economists from substantiating their theoretical claims. Corporate power is shown to be a major force affecting emissions market operation and design. The potential for manipulation to achieve financial gain, while showing little regard for environmental or social consequences, is evident as markets have extended internationally and via trading offsets. At the individual level, I explore the potential of emissions trading to have undesirable ethical and psychological impacts and to crowd out voluntary actions. I conclude that the focus on such markets is creating a distraction from the need for changing human behaviour, institutions and infrastructure.

For its part, CSIRO is quoted as defending its action as follows:

CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said the publication of Dr Spash's paper was an internal matter and was being reviewed by the chief executive's office.

However, he said that under the agency's charter scientists were forbidden from commenting on matters of government or opposition policy.

The CSIRO charter, introduced last year, was trumpeted by Science Minister Kim Carr as a way to guarantee freedom of expression for scientists.

Senator Carr said he was seeking a briefing from the CSIRO.

The CSIRO charter referred to by Huw Morgan can be found here in PDF. The charter states that:

. . . it is essential that those who have expertise in the areas under debate are able to communicate new ideas and to infuse public debate with the best reserch and new knowledge. . .

The Government and the public look to researchers to provide expert advice in their fields. Validation, particularly peer review, is essential to assuring the quality of research and should be the foundation for any public comment.

The Government and CSIRO recognise that there may be divergent views on both issues of public interest and the expert advice that is provided in relation to them. The parties agree that vigorous open debate of these views is important; as is the right of researchers to change their opinion in light of such debate or new findings from research.

The Charter does have the following somewhat ambiguous statement at the very end:

As CSIRO employees, they should not advocate, defend or publicly debate the merits of government or opposition policies (including policies of previous Commonwealth governments, or state or local or foreign governments).

This presumably is the clause referred to by Huw Morgan in the news story excerpted above. It could mean that CSIRO researchers should not refer to their policy views as theirs in an official capacity (i.e., this is the stance that NASA has taken with Jim Hansen). A stronger version would be to interpret this statement to mean that CSIRO researchers cannot discuss anything related to government policy. This latter interpretation seems absurd as economists such as Spash conduct reserch on matters related to policy.

I took a look at the CSIRO website and searched for "emissions trading" and came up with 69 results. (But you'd better check my numbers, as such searches can be difficult for me;-) I searched for "carbon pollution reduction scheme" (the Government's name for the Australian ETS) and came up with 31 hits. "Kyoto Protocol" resulted in 56 hits, including this bit of advocacy for the Kyoto Protocol in the form of a CSIRO press release:

The Kyoto Protocol should be considered just the first lap in a long race to reduce the environmental and economic risks associated with climate change, according to a climate risk analyst with CSIRO’s Energy Transformed Flagship, Dr Roger Jones.

7 May 2008
In a keynote address in Sydney today to the Kyoto Policy in Practice conference, Dr Jones says the Kyoto Protocol represents the starting line for a critical assessment of climate change from which the finishing line cannot be seen.

So the idea that CSIRO researchers do not comment on real-world policies is simply false. CSIRO even has a paper a paper on the CSIRO website by one of Spash's collaborators on carbon markets and their problematic implications for natural resource management.

Carbon trading is at the center of domestic debate about climate cahnge in Australia. It is understandable that the government would be sensitive to criticism at this time. How it responds to these allegations will likely shape the short-term debate about Australian climate policy, but as importantly, the longer-term issues of the ability of government researchers to freely express their views and their research. If CSIRO has indeed attempted to meddle in an international peer review process, then there could be significant fallout.

Tom Fuller is Doing a Survey

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:32:00 +0000

Tom Fuller has set up a survey on various aspects of the climate issue. Please take a moment to participate. Here are his ground rules:

First, let's start with the ground rules. Your participation is completely anonymous, and no attempt will be made to contact you for any reason as a result of your participation or anything you write in this survey.

Second, this survey is not intended to be used as an opinion poll or a census, and will not be used as such. We are not trying to find out how many people 'believe' or 'disbelieve' in global warming. Our purpose is to try and find out if there are areas of agreement on possible policy initiatives going forward

Here is where you can find the survey.

Important New Paper on North Atlantic Hurricanes

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:18:00 +0000

A very important paper was published today by Chen et al. in the open-access journal Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Science (of the EGU) titled, "Quantifying changes of wind speed distributions in the historical record of Atlantic tropical cyclones" (PDF). The paper should go some way toward resolving disputes about the behavior of hurricanes in the North Atlantic, as it provides compelling evidence of a bias in the historical record due to observational practices. For instance, the paper finds that no Category 5 hurricane was observed in the North Atlantic until 1924, observing that "if the average frequency of Category 5 TCs during 1924–2008 were to be representative of the entire record, there should have been about 28 Category 5 TCs during the period 1851– 1923." The paper also provides (once again) strong confirming evidence supporting our work on the relative role of societal changes in the economic record of U.S. hurricane losses.

Here is an excerpt as related to that last point:

Focusing on the past six decades, we observe no sustained upward trends in wind speed distributions (Figs. 1 and 3), the mean wind speed at landfall or the annual frequency of occurrence of landfalling segments (Fig. 8). (Note that this annual frequency is specific to landfalling segments and different from the annual frequency of landfalling events since some events have multiple landfalling segments, e.g. in 2005 Hurricane Katrina made landfall in both South Florida and Louisiana.) This being the case, the dramatic increases in total economic and insured losses from TCs, which have been manifest over the past six decades, indicates that the increasing losses must be attributed to the factors other than wind speed alone. This is in accord with recent studies (Pielke, 2005; Pielke et al., 2008; Crompton and McAneney, 2008), which demonstrate the importance of demographic changes in driving the increasing economic cost of hurricane losses.

The paper concludes as follows:

The quality of observational data is central to the ongoing debate between a warming climate and consequences for TC frequency and intensities. Our analyses show clear, anomalous differences in the wind speed distributions between the early historical period and the very recent six decades. While these differences cannot unequivocally exclude a possible Global Climate Change cause, we suggest that data quality issues are more plausible.

An enormous challenge lies ahead for recovering reliable wind estimates in the early historical record, especially for highly dynamic and short-lived extreme TCs. The counting of events by Saffir-Simpson Hurricane categories is determined by threshold wind speeds, and if the wind estimates are themselves unreliable, how can derivative statistics be trusted sufficiently for long-term trend analysis? It is timely to recognise that using the early historical record will inevitably involve some irreducible uncertainties and “fixing” these may not be possible and that more physically-based models are needed to help resolve the data impasse. Conclusions drawn from scientific and insurance applications using the inherently lower-quality components of the record should be treated with caution.

Find the paper here in PDF.

Roger Pielke Sr. is Sure Going to Like This

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:09:00 +0000

UPDATE: My father does indeed like this, he comments here.

For years my father has been arguing that:

. . . attempts to “control” the climate system, and to prevent a “dangerous intervention” into the climate system by humans that focuses just on CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases will necessarily be significantly incomplete, unless all of the other first order climate forcings are considered.

His views are now being robustly vindicated as a quiet revolution is occurring in climate science. Here is how PhysOrg reports on a study out today in Science by NASA's Drew Shindell and others:

According to Shindell, the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide. “Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide."

In particular, the study reinforces the idea that proposals to reduce methane may be an easier place for policy makers to start climate change agreements. “Since we already know how to capture methane from animals, landfills, and sewage treatment plants at fairly low cost, targeting methane makes sense,” said Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C.

This research also provides regulators insight into how certain pollution mitigation strategies might simultaneously affect climate and air quality. Reductions of carbon monoxide, for example, would have positive effects for both climate and the public’s health, while reducing nitrogen oxide could have a positive impact on health but a negative impact on the climate.

“The bottom line is that the chemistry of the atmosphere can get hideously complicated,” said Schmidt. “Sorting out what affects climate and what affects air quality isn’t simple, but we’re making progress.”

Of note, Shindell et al. cautiously suggest that the entire framework of international climate policy may be based on an overly-simplistic view of the human effect on climate, by focusing on carbon dioxide equivalencies in radiative forcing (i.e.,g "global warming potential" or GWP), from their Science paper out today (emphasis added):

There are many limitations to the GWP concept (25). It includes only physical properties, and its definition is equivalent to an unrealistic economic scenario of no discounting through the selected time horizon followed by discounting to zero value thereafter. The 100-year time horizon conventionally chosen strongly reduces the influence of species that are short-lived relative to CO2. Additionally, GWPs assume that integrated global mean RF is a useful indicator of climate change. Although this is generally reasonable at the global scale, GWP does not take into account the rate of change, and it neglects that the surface temperature response to regionally distributed forcings depends on the location of the RF (26) and that precipitation and circulation responses may be even more sensitive to RF location (27). Along with their dependence on emission timing and location, this makes GWPs particularly ill-suited to very short-lived species such as NOx, SO2, or ammonia, although they are more reasonable for longer-lived CO. Inclusion of short-lived species in agreements alongside long-lived greenhouse gases is thus problematic (28, 29).

The Shindell et al. paper comes fast on the heels of a paper published a few weeks ago in PNAS by Molina et al. which argued similarly that a broader perspective is needed on the human role in altering climate. They write (emphasis added):

Efforts to limit CO2 emissions alone may not be sufficient to avoid or reduce the risk of DAI on a decadal time scale, including the risk of abrupt climate change from committed warming (8, 9). . . there is growing demand among governments and commentators for fast-action mitigation to complement cuts in CO2 emissions, including cuts in non-CO2 climate forcing agents, which together are estimated to be as much as 40–50% of positive anthropogenic radiative forcing (17, 18). . .

The 2008 Major Economies Forum Declaration calls for ‘‘urgent action’’ to strengthen the Montreal Protocol for climate protection (22). The 2009 G8 Leaders Declaration calls for ‘‘rapid action’’ on BC [black carbon] and pledges to ensure HFC reductions (23). The 2009 North American Leaders Declaration commits to phasing down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol (24). The 2009 Arctic Council Tromsø Declaration urges ‘‘early actions’’ on short-lived climate forcers (25) including tropospheric ozone. A Nature editorial in July 2009, Time for early action, calls for ‘‘early action’’ on BC and methane, and on HFCs under the Montreal Protocol (26), and another in April 2009, Time to act, notes ‘‘short-term opportunities’’ to cut BC and methane (27). Wallack and Ramanathan call for action on BC and tropospheric ozone in their 2009 policy paper in Foreign Affairs to produce ‘‘rapid results’’ (28).

This recent research suggests that we must now be open to the possibility that there will not and cannot be a single policy approach to addressing the full spectrum of human influences on the climate system. The recognition of complexity may present an opportunity to move climate policy forward, by providing a justification for reconsidering the flawed (and some would say doomed) approach. My father has argued that (PDF),

. . . humans have an even greater effect on climate that is suggested by the IPCC. The human influence on climate is significant and multi-faceted.

As the community begins to realize these significant, multi-faceted and hideous complexities, it would not be a surprise to learn that a policy framework design 20 years ago is now somewhat out of step with current scientific understandings. The upshot is that as presently designed, international climate policy is both too complex and too simplistic. It is too simplistic because it is built upon a set of scientific perspectives on climate change that are increasingly seen as outdated and appropriate only for dealing with a narrow set of very important human influences -- long-lived greenhouse gases. It is too complex because in trying to deal with added complexity it has become unwieldy and clearly impractical from the standpoint of not just implementation but the politics of even reaching an agreement about implementation.

Climate policy can be improved by reconstructing climate policy from the bottom up. This process should begin by recognizing that no single policy instrument will ever deal with "climate change" (human caused or otherwise). An approach to climate policy that is decentralized and more focused in its elements will be better able to adjust as science evolves (and it will continue to evolve, to be sure) and allows for progress to be made incrementally along a set of parallel paths. The all-or-nothing approach to climate policy that dominates the present agenda is incapable of keeping pace with evolving scientific understandings as they relate to policy implementation, and from a pragmatic perspective, pretty much guarantees the "nothing" outcome.

As Molina et al. accurately point out in PNAS, there are already a large number of policies in place that might be considered as part of a multi-pronged approach to minimizing the human influence on climate. And it is certain that new policy vehicles will need to be developed. The most important short-term step that can be taken is, as my colleague Steve Rayner has persuasively argued to me, to reconceptualize the Framework Convention on Climate Change as a Framework Convention on Long-Lived Greenhouse Gases, which would signify a more focused approach. Dealing with long-lived greenhouse gases presents a daunting enough challenge by itself, and is impossible if burdened with other aspects of climate change. Once reconceptualized, climate policy can proceed upon multiple, parallel tracks, and thus have a greater chance to keep in step with evolving science and actually have a chance to make progress with respect to policy goals.

The Problem with Exaggerated and Inaccurate Claims

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:20:00 +0000

An interesting article in The Times (UK) today is notable because it quotes a number of prominent scientists critcizing the oft-used strategy of overhyping climate change in an effort to motivate action. The end result, as I have often argued inevitably follows such strategies, is a backlash. Here is an extended excerpt:

Exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the threat from global warming risk undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and contain climate change, senior scientists have told The Times.

Environmental lobbyists, politicians, researchers and journalists who distort climate science to support an agenda erode public understanding and play into the hands of sceptics, according to experts including a former government chief scientist.

Excessive statements about the decline of Arctic sea ice, severe weather events and the probability of extreme warming in the next century detract from the credibility of robust findings about climate change, they said. Such claims can easily be rebutted by critics of global warming science to cast doubt on the whole field. They also confuse the public about what has been established as fact, and what is conjecture.

The experts all believe that global warming is a real phenomenon with serious consequences, and that action to curb emissions is urgently needed. They fear, however, that the contribution of natural climate variations towards events such as storms, melting ice and heatwaves is too often overlooked, and that possible scenarios about future warming are misleadingly presented as fact.

“I worry a lot that NGOs [non=governmental organisations] are very much in the habit of doing exactly that,” said Professor Sir David King, director of the Smith School for Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford, and a former government chief scientific adviser.

“When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.”

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “It isn’t helpful to anybody to exaggerate the situation. It’s scary enough as it is.”

She was particularly critical of claims made by scientists and environmental groups two years ago, when observations showed that Arctic sea ice had declined to the lowest extent on record, 39 per cent below the average between 1979 and 2001.

This led Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, to say that Arctic ice was “in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return”. Dr Pope said that while climate change was a factor, normal variations also played a part, and it was always likely that ice would recover a little in subsequent years, as had happened. It was the long-term downward trend that mattered, rather than the figures for any one year, she added. “The problem with saying that we’ve reached a tipping point is that when the extent starts to increase again — as it has — the sceptics will come along and say, ‘Well, it’s stopped’,” she said.

“This is why it’s important we’re as objective as we can be, and use all the available evidence to make clear what’s actually happening, because neither of those claims is right.” Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, said: “Some claims that were made about the ice anomaly were misleading. A lot of people said this is the beginning of the end of Arctic ice, and of course it recovered the following year and everybody looked a bit silly.”

Dr Allen said that predictions of how the world was likely to warm also needed to be framed carefully. While there was little doubt that the Earth would get hotter, there were still many uncertainties about the precise extent and regional impact.

“I think we need to be very careful about purporting to be able to supply very detailed and apparently accurate information about how the climate will be in 50 or 100 years’ time, when what we’re really giving is a possible future climate,” he added. “We’re not in a position to say how likely it is and what the chances are of it being different. There’s an understandable tendency to want to make climate change real for people and tell them what’s going to happen in their postcode, and that’s very dangerous because it gets beyond the level on which current models can operate.”

Should Bulgaria Pay Brazil?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:06:00 +0000

The BBC has an interesting article (thx DB!) on an east-west split within the EU on financing adaptation under a potential international climate agreement.

On climate change, the EU is keen to reach a united position ahead of December's United Nations Copenhagen summit, which aims to hammer out a new global climate treaty to replace the UN Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Reinfeldt called on EU leaders to agree a "fixed sum" that would open the way for other rich donors like the US and Japan to make similar aid pledges to help developing nations cope with the effects of climate change.

But just hours before the talks, Hungarian Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai said sharing the aid costs equally between all 27 EU nations was out of the question. "The burden-sharing proposal is not acceptable in its current form," Mr Bajnai said.

The Polish finance minister, Jacek Rostowski, told the BBC that nine Eastern European nations were ready to block a deal unless they were allowed to contribute according to their means, not to how much they pollute.

"There are countries there like Bulgaria and Latvia, which are considerably poorer than Brazil, and which would be expected to help Brazil in its adjustments to climate change," he said.

This is not the first time that eastern Europe has proven problematic in EU climate policy. But just wait until it comes time for the US to discuss how much money it is going to send overseas as a part of a climate deal. I can't imagine a situation in which this does not become a political lightning rod in the US -- regardless of the policy merits of doing so. (And to be perfectly clear about my views, I wrote in 1998 that the climate "winners" of the world have an obligation to help the climate "losers" - PDF - this post is about the politics of the issue.). Yvo de Boer, head of the UN FCCC helpfully explains that:

“Money, in fact, is the oil that encourages commitment and drives action”

Money also get the attention of voters, especially when you are reaching into their pockets to take it and then sending it to someone else. And in the United States, sending money overseas has never been politically popular, and I don't expect that it will be in the context either. I'll award a prize to the first person who can provide a quote from a U.S. elected official (POTUS, VP or anyone in Congress) advocating sending money overseas as part of a climate deal.

Blogs vs. MSM

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:37:00 +0000

The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism provides some interesting data on the focus of attention on blogs and the mainstream media. The graph to the right shows the top issues for the week October 19 to 23. "global warming" is a top topic on the blogs, along with the "balloon boy" and a "cross dressing ban." Meanwhile the traditional media is focused on the economy, Afghanistan and health care.

There are of course plenty of ways to interpret this information, and my first reaction is that if your topic is sandwiched between the balloon boy and cross dressing, and nowhere to be seen in the MSM, then you've probably got a PR problem on your hands.