maribo

Huge disparity in emissions targets within Canada

2009-12-02T19:25:00.000-05:00

If Canadians want an illustration of the disagreement on climate policy within the provinces, or foreigners want to know why Canada has become an obstacle to an international or even continental climate accord, look no further than this graph. Plotted is each the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions targets set in the individual climate policy of each promise, all translated to % change from 1990 levels. Kudos to the Globe and Mail for presenting the data this morning with the same base year.

Basically, the hydro-based and manufacturing-based provinces (the east and BC) are willing to be aggressive in reducing emissions and the more resource-intensive provinces are either reticent (Saskatchewan) or downright hostile (Alberta).

The objective of post is not to dump on Alberta or the oil industry, rather to point out just how large the disagreement is within Canada. The huge disparity between the Alberta policy and that of all the other provinces does raise the question about what it is realistic for Canada. If, say, Alberta refuses to budge on its oil expansion and emissions plan, could neighbouring BC even come close to its reduction target? Keep in mind, a substantial quantity of the planned oil extraction may end up being piped across and refined in BC in order to be shipped to Asia.

China's emissions pledge depends entirely on economic growth

2009-11-30T00:03:00.000-05:00

Last week, China announced that it will reduce carbon "intensity" by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. The emissions intensity (emissions/$GDP) approach taken by the Canada and the US in the past has been much maligned here as a dishonest dodge.

First, it looks like a reduction in actual emissions until you realize that the denominator (GDP) generally increases over time. Second, it tends to naturally decrease over time as countries switch to more efficient energy production [and overall economic production].

It is, however, a reasonably fair way to bring a reluctant developing nation like China into an international emissions control framework. The problem of course is that actual emissions target depends entirely on how much the Chinese economy grows by 2020. So 40-45% sounds impressive, but won't amount to an actual reduction in emissions.

The graph above shows a spectrum of possibilities. Unless the growth rate is less than ~4%/year - highly unlikely - Chinese carbon emissions will be higher in 2020 than 2005. If China keeps up the planned 8%/year growth, emissions in 2020 will be 74-90% higher than 2005 levels.

And, just like in the US and Canada cases, Chinese emissions intensity will naturally decrease over time without any policy intervention. It decreased 10% from 2000 to 2005, and well over 40% from 1990 to 2005.

Skeptics aren't necessarily in it for the money either

2009-11-25T15:19:00.000-05:00

A number of us like to joke about the ridiculous contention that climate scientists are in it for the money. It is worth noting that the critics of climate science are not necessarily in it for the dough either.

There appears to be this mistaken assumption that the few scientists who are skeptical of climate change science are doing so because the coal or oil industry wrote them such a big cheque (Canuck sp.) that they chose to abandon their previous understanding of climate science. It's not that simple. In most cases, the scientists who are influential climate skeptics were so well before receiving money from the fossil fuel lobby. The funding came to them because they were already making the argument for other reasons, usually political ideology and/or a horribly shortsighted faith in simple models*.

A great example is Myanna Lahsen's 2008 article on the three physicists from the George Marshall Institute that more or less founded climate change skepticism (hat tip to Eli):

By contrast to common suggestions, these scientists’ motivation is not fundamentally rooted in desires for financial gain. Being past retirement age and no longer active scientists, their fight for basic science, for instance, does not benefit them individually. And it is hard to believe that, upon retirement, these physicists would jeopardize their cherished professional images for mere financial gain.

Climate change "activists" make a huge mistake assuming that their opposition are only in it for the cash. There is real ideology at work. As I've argued before and will again, it's worth thinking about what motivates people the "other side". That may be the only way we'll ever find workable solutions to this mess.

* e.g. like arguing that since CO2 "only" changed from 0.028% to 0.038% of the lower atmosphere, it couldn't possible alter the climate, and thus ignoring all of radiative science

US to pledge emissions cut in Copenhagen

2009-11-25T11:49:00.000-05:00

It's a step. Not a great leap for mankind; there is no teeth behind a emissions promise without legislation and an action plan to back it up. But a step nonetheless.

Mr. Obama will tell the delegates to the climate conference that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, officials said. The administration has resisted until now delivering a firm pledge on emissions reductions because Congress has not yet acted on global warming legislation and because several large developing nations, including China and India, have not detailed their own plans. (NY Times)

Lots of people will undoubtedly now take credit for Obama's promise to attend the meeting.

Mr. Obama... had been under considerable pressure from other world leaders and environmental advocates to make the trip as a statement of American seriousness about the climate change negotiations.

Right, must have been all that pressure from environmental advocates. And the band had not planned on doing that encore either.

The "CRU hack" and the deplorable state of reporting and blogging

2009-11-23T12:05:00.000-05:00

This episode is a sad sad sad comment on the state of blogging and news reporting. Three reasons.

First, for legal reasons, I'd like to think that no news organization should be allowed to report on the content of that mail. This is the equivalent of someone breaking into your mailbox in front of your house, opening your mail, then publishing it. Seriously, how would you feel if the NY Times wrote about a private letter you mailed to a colleague or friend being stolen and tacked to lampposts all over town? Would you sue? Do you think it should be admissible in court? Is the lesson here that we can never consider e-mail or any communication to be private so we should go back to using the postal service?

Second, even if you ignore the legality, there's ample reason to consider the contents of the mail with caution. It is private communication so people for whom that communication were not intended are not qualified to interpret that communication. I barely am able to follow some messages that I receive without looking over past correspondence for context. So, no, I will not defend anything that the scientists wrote. Nor will I condemn any of it either. For one reason: I have no idea what exactly those words meant. Neither do you. Every single thing in those messages could be misinterpreted because we are missing the context.

Finally, even if you ignore the legality, and ignore the lack of context, this episode is full of the same "post first, ask questions later" approach that usually destroys whatever good the blogosphere might accomplish. The vast majority of the bloggers, reporters and comment-ers are reacting to snippets pulled out private conversations, and done so by people whose objective is to question climate science. Stop it.

This episode is not a window into how climate science works. It's a window into how electronic communication has altered our standards and the way we work. Nobody looks good here. We should all be embarrassed.

This is the last you'll hear of it on Maribo.

Public confusion about scientific consensus

2009-11-21T17:38:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail reports that a new poll from Hoggan & Associates found Canadians are embarrassed over the lack of Canadian action on climate change. Now it is possible that readers will dismiss that finding because the pollsters are connected with a number of environmental organization (an observation, not a judgment), but I encourage people to think about the following:

There was also strong support for the view that “most scientists agree that human activity is the primary cause of climate change,” a position held by 62 per cent of the public, compared to the 38 per cent who felt there was “still much debate” among researchers.

The key "accomplishment" of the movement to question the science of climate change is seeding doubt among the public. There is widespread agreement that human activity is causing climate change among scientists who actually study the issue. But poll the public on whether scientists agree and you get a different answer.

The results at right, which I've used to spur discussion in class, are from work in the U.S. by Jon Krosnick at Stanford University, who has done some terrific research on public perceptions of climate change.

The irony is that many of the people being polled think climate change is happening and caused by humans, yet also think scientists are not sure. This clear contradiction - people learned of climate change from scientists, after all - shows just how effective the lobbying and disinformation campaigns have been.

Narnia plans to reduce emissions by 30% by the year 2020

2009-11-20T16:40:00.001-05:00

As we head towards Copenhagen, there will be endless comparison of proposed emission targets. For example, from the NY Times:

This week, South Korea said it would cut emissions by 30 percent from “business as usual” by 2020. Russia’s president said his country would try to reduce emissions by 25 percent by then, instead of 15 percent as announced earlier. Last week, Brazil promised reductions of about 40 percent below current projections by 2020.

Ah, fractions.

The Narnians and reporters everywhere need to do a bit of math. 30% of what? The simple climate policy public relations trick is to emphasize the percent reduction and de-emphasize the year from which that percent is being calculated. Narnia's 30% could be a reduction from emissions during the Kyoto base year of 1990. It could use the present as the base year. Or it could be a reduction from the business-as-usual projection for the year 2020.

This excerpt about S Korea, Russia and Brazil tells us very little about the actual emissions policy. Russia's emissions are lower than they were in 1990, before the collapse of the Soviet Union [and its greenhouse gas emissions], so it still uses the 1990 baseline. The 25% is not as much a change from today as it sounds. For South Korea and Brazilian, we'd need to know what "current projections" and "business as usual" are to understand their targets. In both countries, the projections being used are higher than what the countries actually expect would happen. So the proposed decrease, while laudable, is not as big as it sounds.

Visit a warmer Canada?

2009-11-18T13:57:00.000-05:00

This is a joke, right?

US-China cooperation on climate and, er, coal

2009-11-17T16:52:00.001-05:00

The US and China have released a joint statement on a number of issues, including "Climate Change, Energy and the Environment". After the standard political jargon about the need for full co-operation in global agreements, comes some specifics:

The two sides welcomed the launch of a U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative designed to put millions of electric vehicles on the roads of both countries in the years ahead. Building on significant investments in electric vehicles in both the United States and China, the two governments announced a program of joint demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, along with work to develop common technical standards to facilitate rapid scale-up of the industry. The two sides agreed that their countries share a strong common interest in the rapid deployment of clean vehicles.

This is terrific climate change initiative if the source of electricity is substantially less carbon-intensive than oil. It is a tad worrisome coming from the two countries with the largest coal reserves on the planet. Which leads into the next item in the statement:

The two sides strongly welcomed work in both countries to promote 21st century coal technologies. They agreed to promote cooperation on large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) demonstration projects and to begin work immediately on the development, deployment, diffusion, and transfer of CCS technology. The two sides welcomed recent agreements between Chinese and U.S. companies, universities, and research institutions to cooperate on CCS and more efficient coal technologies.

This is followed by a paragraph about partnership on renewable energy ("wind, solar, advanced bio-fuels, and a modern electric power grid"). The order is not a fluke. Read through the statement, and it is appears that both countries expect coal to remain king, and that emissions reductions will depend on the development and widespread implementation of CCS technology at coal-fired power plants. No surprise, I suppose.

World Leaders Agree to Delay Climate Change Deal

2009-11-14T23:11:00.003-05:00

This news comes from the APEC summit in Singapore. NY Times:

SINGAPORE — President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.

The announcement is a simple dose of reality: there simply was not enough time left to reach a deal at Copenhagen. It'll be universally reported as "bad" news for the climate. Maybe yes. The flip side is that perhaps now that the artificial December deadline is removed, the key countries can engage in intelligent policy conversations. The "Copenhagen" or bust mentality was not helping anyone.

Himalayan glaciers and the virtue of reading beyond the headline

2009-11-10T12:33:00.002-05:00

My number one pet peeve with the blogosphere is that too many bloggers post on a new report or paper without actually looking at the new report or paper. Bloggers regularly bash mainstream media for lazy reporting then often go ahead and base entire posts solely on newspaper stories. Hypocrisy aside, it is a real shame. Blogs should be an opportunity to examine and debate science and policy issues in more depth than is available in the mainstream media

Case in point, the excitement in the blogosphere (see Roger Pielke Jr) over a new report from the Indian government claiming there is "no evidence" for climate change shrinking Himalayan glaciers. It's worth looking at the actual report.

First, the report is part of a series that "is meant to serve as a basis for informed debate and discussion on critical issues related to the environment." In other words, it is not a scientific assessment conducted by the Indian Government. The report even has a disclaimer that the views contained in the report "are not necessarily endorsed" by the government.

Second, the report is about glaciology. It contains no analysis that could determine, one way or another, if human-induced climate change is contributing to glacier decline. In order to detect a climate change signal, you'd need to combine the glaciology data with climate data and most likely models capable of simulating the evolution of the climate with and without human influence.

Third, despite all this, the report does in fact state that glaciers in the Himalayas have been retreating over the past century.

Glaciers in the Himalayas (India) have been exhibiting a continuous secular retreat since the earliest recording began around the middle of the nineteenth century. Kumdan glaciers, of the Upper Shyok valley, have been the only exception for their periodic fluctuations.

There are plenty of charts and graphs to support the fact that glaciers have been retreating. The author's quibble appears to be over the "alarmist" portrayals of glacier decline in other forums. The first line of the conclusion:

Data that has been generated from the glacier studies, in the Himalayas, over the last 100 years or so, indicates that the glaciers, in the Himalayas, have been, by and large, shrinking and retreating continuously, barring a flip here and there, but the rate of retreat can not be considered as alarming / abnormal, especially in the last decade or so.

The report presents no definition of "alarming / abnormal" (say, in terms of % change) nor does it present data or any analysis to test the notion that the retreat is or is not alarming / abnormal. All we're really left with is that glaciers are retreating and the retreat may or may not be caused by climate change.

Science lesson on the Late Show

2009-11-04T19:44:00.003-05:00

Al Gore's long interview with David Letterman last night could serve as an object lesson for scientists on how to relate a complex subject like climate change to a popular audience. Though it is a sad comment on the media that a late night comedian asks better questions about science and the planet than a network news anchor [and that a retired politician is the best spokesmen on those same issues].

Alas, the highlighted video on the Late Show website is not the section where Gore and Letterman discussed Copenhagen, or ocean acidification, or the plight of the world's coral. It is the final minute of the interview, in which Letterman asked about the "carbon billionaire" accusation in that dreadful New York Times train wreck I mentioned yesterday.

Controversy, even artificial and debunked controversy, wins over content, which is why the editors at the NY Times should be hanging their heads over the decision to publish that article.

New York Times drops the ball reporting on Gore

2009-11-04T01:31:00.003-05:00

The New York Times printed this absolute train wreck about Al Gore. Apparently some commentators are claiming Gore is arguing for action on climate change in order to make himself rich. So the NY Times printed a pointless story about those claims. It is ridiculous on a number of levels.

Level one: This is news because some people say it is news.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in. Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

The claimants are politically motivated. They are also quite likely to be wrong. The story even goes on to suggest that possibility. If they are wrong, and the argument is politically motivated, why give the story any attention at all? It simply provides a mouthpiece.

Level two: Complete lack of context

Mr. Gore is not a lobbyist, and he has never asked Congress or the administration for an earmark or policy decision that would directly benefit one of his investments. But he has been a tireless advocate for policies that would move the country away from the use of coal and oil, and he has begun a $300 million campaign to end the use of fossil fuels in electricity production in 10 years.

Interesting, you say. Unless, of course, you contrasted the single investment data point in this article (Gore) with data on other investors in the energy sector. The article does not make one mention of the fact that the CEOs and investors in the fossil fuel industry do actively lobby in Washington, do ask Congress for earmarks and policy, and do financially benefit from those activities.

Level three: Politics anyone?

But Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who until recently was a top aide to Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore’s alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal financial interests.

Shouldn't the second clause in that sentence make the editors think that Morano might not be worth quoting on this subject? This is a classic case of the knee-jerk reaction of quoting "the other side", even though the other side is not the least bit objective. In this case, it adds nothing, other than a chance to further polarize the readers.

Listen, I'm not defending Gore. I'm criticizing the Times for an abominable editorial decision.
It's perfectly legitimate to report on Gore's growing wealth from his investing activities. That's not this story. This is reporting on a made-up controversy. And even though the story debunks many of the claims about Gore being "in it for the gold" as MT would say, the harm is done by shining a light on it.

There's no reason to run articles like this. Just because someone makes a stupid claim does not mean you have to report about it.

The climate science filibuster

2009-10-28T13:45:00.005-04:00

Over the past couple months, there have been another online kerfuffle about the famous "hockey stick" millennial temperature reconstruction. Namely, Steve McIntrye attempted to show that one the tree ring reconstructions may have been biased, such that selecting a different set of trees from a nearby site would imply no 20th century warming Tim Lambert had a fine summary of the dust-up. And James Hrynyshyn is one of a few who made the obvious but overlooked point that you don't need dendrochronology to tell us temperatures warmed in the 20th century - we have actual measurements.

Out of the dust came many complaints in the blogosphere about climate scientists not being responsive to online criticism like that of McIntrye. The implication is that scientists are obliged to respond quickly to any and all criticisms of my research as well as to any requests for data.

Now, it is quite unrealistic given the pressures on our time. But leaving that aside, is it even wise? Is responding to every online criticism and data request the best use of scientists' time? Think of it this way: wouldn't you rather that doctors spend their time actually developing treatments for autism, rather than refuting the crazy theory that MMR vaccinations cause autism?

There are only 24 hours in a day. It's a zero sum game. There may be some value in individual aspects of McIntrye's statistical criticisms of the hockey stick work over the year. A lot of it has been off the mark too. Either way, dealing with the constant hockey stick criticisms slows important research by paleo-climatologists work.

Add it all up and you have a filibuster. Keep talking and it will stop the rest of the participants from getting anything done.

That's why I sense peer review is even more important in the age of blogs. Research gets some vetting, the poor quality work is filtered out, and the community knows what to take seriously. The system may not be perfect, but I think even its greatest critics would agree that peer review works better than the US Senate.

Reactions to the International Day of Climate Action

2009-10-24T23:19:00.004-04:00

I'd love to get people's reactions to the International Day of Climate Action. Whether you participated or not, take a minute to write a quick first reaction in the comments. A paragraph, a sentence, a word. Anonymity is fine.

Carbon consequences of the biofuels land use cascade

2009-10-23T13:44:00.003-04:00

I've written here before about the land use cascade, the sequence of land transformations and land use changes that follow a change in one region.

A new Policy Forum in Science argues that ignoring the cascading carbon consequences of converting lands for biofuels will undercut global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The logic is not new. If croplands and pasture lands are converted to biofuel production, then some other forest or grassland must be cleared to produce the crops or providing the grazing area taken away by the biofuel production. It might happen in the neighbouring county. It might happen on another part of the planet. Either way, it will release soil carbon and plant carbon to the atmosphere (more immediately via burning or later via respiration and decomposition).

The authors argue that we need a new accounting system:

The accounting now used for assessing compliance with carbonlimits in the Kyoto Protocol and in climate legislation containsa far-reaching but fixable flaw that will severely underminegreenhouse gas reduction goals (1). It does not count CO₂ emittedfrom tailpipes and smokestacks when bioenergy is being used,but it also does not count changes in emissions from land usewhen biomass for energy is harvested or grown. This accountingerroneously treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral regardlessof the source of the biomass, which may cause large differencesin net emissions. For example, the clearing of long-establishedforests to burn wood or to grow energy crops is counted as a100% reduction in energy emissions despite causing large releasesof carbon.

If it is not fixed, this "accounting problem" has and will continue to cause poor national and international policy decisions.

The Kyoto Protocol caps the energy emissions of developedcountries. But the protocol applies no limits to land use orany other emissions from developing countries, and special creditingrules for "forest management" allow developed countries to cancelout their own land-use emissions as well. Thus, maintainingthe exemption for CO₂wrongly treats bioenergy from all biomass sources as carbonneutral, even if the source involves clearing forests for electricityin Europe or converting them to biodiesel crops in Asia.

This accounting error has carried over into the European Union'scap-and-trade law and the climate bill passed by the U.S. Houseof Representatives. Both regulate emissions fromenergy but not land use and then erroneously exempt CO₂ emittedfrom bioenergy use.

How could it be fixed? The authors argue for a more full and fair accounting of emissions caused by biofuels or bioenergy.

The straightforward solution is to fix the accounting of bioenergy.That means tracing the actual flows of carbon and counting emissionsfrom tailpipes and smokestacks whether from fossil energy orbioenergy. Instead of an assumption that all biomass offsetsenergy emissions, biomass should receive credit to the extentthat its use results in additional carbon from enhanced plantgrowth or from the use of residues or biowastes. Under any creditingsystem, credits must reflect net changes in carbon stocks, emissionsof non-CO₂ greenhouse gases, and leakage emissions resultingfrom changes in land-use activities to replace crops or timberdiverted to bioenergy.

This full accounting is necessary but will be difficult to implement given the uncertainty in soil carbon budgets and the complexity of the land use cascade.

Letter from 18 US scientific organizations supporting the US climate bill

2009-10-21T16:19:00.003-04:00

Released today (hat tip). It's signed by the leaders of American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union,American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy,American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association,Association of Ecosystem,Research Centers,Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of

America

, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of

America

, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

I suppose Canadian scientific societies may want to consider a similar letter of support for the US bill, given that there's no Canadian legislation to support!

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view. Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.(1) If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves. We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

1. The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.

On Geoengineering

2009-10-21T15:48:00.002-04:00

Ken Caldeira, at Yale E360, in response to a question about reducing CO2 via mitigation vs. reducing warming via engineering:

But I think if we had some magic thing that would reverse all effects of CO2 perfectly, then you could say, “Well the problem is not CO2.” But nobody really expects that we are going to have some magic, perfect CO2 nullifier. And it’s clear to me that if we continue allowing greenhouse gas concentration to grow in the atmosphere, and try to engineer our climate to counteract those effects, that as the greenhouse gases accumulate, and our counteracting system grows ever larger and larger, that the risk of some kind of catastrophic failure of this offsetting — or the imperfections in this offsetting — would grow in time and the net result would be pretty negative, I would imagine.

So, I do see CO2 as the problem. I think to present it as if, “Well, it not’s really CO2, but the effects of CO2,” it’s like if you got shot by a bullet and you said, “Well, it wasn’t really the bullet that was the problem, it was just that I happened to have this hole through my body...”

A good answer, and a good example of translating science into everyday English.

The message or the messenger

2009-10-20T11:47:00.003-04:00

The online uproar over the new Superfreakonomics book is a welcome sign. The climate change section of the book is based on lousy and lazy research. Thanks to the thorough debunking in the blogosphere, the problems with the book are receiving public attention. The authors will certainly be asked about this during their promotional radio and television interviews in the next week.

All well and good. A case where science blogging serves an important function.

Unfortunately, as happens all too often in online debates, the argument quickly shifts from the message to the messenger. For a tale of the tape, take a quick glance at the recent posts by Roger Pielke and Joe Romm. This is not to specifically impugn them, the argument like many spills over into a number of blogs.

The anti-Romm posts now seem to be about how Joe Romm got a quote from Ken Caldeira, whose research on carbon dioxide is misrepresented in Superfreakonomics [encapsulated in the mis-quote "carbon dioxide is the wrong villain"]. Important? Yes. But is it also Beside the point? Definitely.

Caldeira's written important papers on ocean acidification, a problem that would not be addressed through geo-engineering by sulphate aerosols. Pay any attention to the literature and it's abundantly obvious that the "wrong villain" quote goes against the results of his group's research. When I first learned of that Caldeira was a major reference for the chapter in Superfreakonomics, my only thought was "what?".

Is anyone else concerned that worthy online discussions on science are descending into this schoolyard stuff? Are science blogs turning into Cable TV? You don't have an argument, you attack the person.

To some degree, it is the nature of the medium. Bloggers tend to insert themselves into discussions out of some mix of genuine interest, outrage and the push for more hits. Plus, it's easy to get self-righteous and bash someone when all you see is a name in 12 pt font on a laptop screen.

Superfreakonomics and the glory of contrarianism

2009-10-17T15:57:00.005-04:00

The Union of Concerned Scientists, Joe Romm at Climate Progress, William Connolley and Tim Lambert have done a fine job rebutting the cynical and lazy "global cooling" section of the upcoming book Superfreakonomics*.

Of the criticisms that climate scientists receive from those skeptical of climate change, the most ridiculous by far is that we are in it for the money. Just ask Michael Tobis, who mocks this claim with the very name of his blog.

My first public talk on climate change was about ten years ago. I was the token graduate student panel with a local religious leader and a very well-known emeritus professor whom I have always held in high regard. A question came from the audience about scientific certainty. The professor said "Scientists are essentially paid to disagree. That's what makes the consensus on climate change so remarkable".

You won't advance far in science by repeating other people's work. If you want to get a grant funded, your proposal needs to pose a new question or challenge existing findings [note: people sometimes claim climate "skeptical" research cannot obtain funding; that's not because there's some cabal, it is because research must have a sound scientific basis and methods in order to get funded]. If you want to get a paper in a top journal like Nature or Science, your results have to be new, different, and important. And if you want to get popular coverage or your results, you need a splashy headline.

Levitt and Dubner made a splash with the first book Freakonomics, by expounding a variety of alternate explanations for societal phenomena. You could say the sales and the recognition was deserved too. It was new, it was smart, and it was based on thorough research. This book, at least the section challenging the science of climate change and the logic of mitigation, is not. The arguments are old, they have been used and refuted countless times before, and the research was clearly lazy (read Romm on this).

This time, the authors are simply getting paid for disagreeing with others.

* feel free to link to more rebuttals in the comments

Can the world meet the high cost of adaptation?

2009-10-16T14:36:00.003-04:00

A few weeks ago, I posted what are more or less the three themes of Maribo. The third theme:

Adapting to climate change is far more difficult and far more expensive than most people and most supposed experts assume. This comes from spending too much time and effort estimating the costs of mitigation here in the developed world, and too little looking the efficacy of local development and especially international development projects.

The only thing more challenging than agreeing on emissions policy and acceptable limits of warming will be agreeing on how and how much to fund adaptation. The financial support for adaptation in the developing world may be as big an obstacle block to a deal in Copenhagen as the emissions targets. From the NY Times:

Many developing countries have made it clear that they will not sign a treaty unless they get money to help them adapt to a warmer planet. Acknowledging that a new treaty needs unanimity for success, industrialized nations like the United States and those in Europe have agreed in principle to make such payments; they have already been written into the agreed-upon structure of the treaty, to be signed in Copenhagen in December.

We're not terrible good at funding or implementing adaptation in the developed world, beyond measures that protect society from near-term threats. And thus far we've been reluctant to fund adaptation in the developing world, where the impacts of climate change are expected to be greater and the ecological and societal resilience is generally lower. Again from the NY Times:

Perhaps even more troublesome, the United Nations Adaptation Fund, which officially began operating in 2008 to help poor countries finance projects to blunt the effects of global warming, remains an empty shell, largely because rich nations have failed to come through with the donations they promised. The fund now holds about $18 million, a tiny fraction of what it was supposed to have, according to fund officials.

Funding, of course, is only one first step. Using the money wisely, and avoiding the top-down style that often limits the effectiveness of international aid, is another story entirely. More on that in the coming months.

Living in "the age of stupid"

2009-10-15T11:28:00.004-04:00

The climate change film The Age of Stupid has being doing the film fest rounds, including a recent premiere here at the Vancouver International Film Festival. This pseudo-documentary tells the story of "a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, looking at old footage from 2008 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?". In other words, you and I are living in the age of stupid because we are not heeding the warnings from scientists about climate change.

After watching the film, I'd add this: We are the age of stupid because we are not heeding the warnings from psychologists and social scientists about communicating climate change.

The film presents a truly catastrophic vision of the impacts of climate change by 2055, supposedly based on mainstream scientific projections. It made me wonder if I'm subscribing to the wrong journals. In the film, the world is devastated by battles, Sydney's burning, London is flooded by what appear to be meters of water and the Arctic is a wave pool. The planet is in such peril that all of humanity's great works, the contents of all national museums and galleries, are stored in one Arctic facility for safe keeping. This vision of the future, where humanity is threatened by extinction from climate change, does not come from science.

The goals of the film and the associated promotional campaign are to raise awareness about climate change and motivate action. The catastrophe framing might, in political speak, stir up "the base"; motivate people already lobbying for climate change action. It will probably alienate the rest of the audience. When presenting with an argument entirely based on fear of catastrophe, most of the audience will either conclude that climate change is impossible to solve or dismiss the film and the science on which it is based (cognitive dissonance anyone?). The film is particularly vulnerable on the second count, as its vision of the future diverges quite wildly from actual scientific projections.

There's no need to exaggerate the impacts of climate change. In this case, it really is a shame. The interviews with six real present-day people, including a British wind turbine developer, an Indian airline owner, an New Orleanian petroleum geologist, which make up the bulk of the film are fascinating.

More on the coral reef crisis

2009-10-05T13:01:00.002-04:00

A new viewpoint article by Charlie Veron and a number of top coral reef scientists summarizing the near-term threats of rising CO2 on the world's coral reefs appears in the latest issue of Marine Pollution Bulletin. The take-home message of the article is right there in the title: "Coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2"

The article is the outcome of a meeting held by the British Royal Society in July, where Veron delivered the presentation I mentioned in a recent post. It is an interesting read. The language, and the actual pdf of the article, should be accessible to most readers.

The abstract:

Temperature-induced mass coral bleaching causing mortality on a wide geographic scale started when atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded ~320 ppm. When CO2 levels reached ~340 ppm, sporadic but highly destructive mass bleaching occurred in most reefs world-wide, often associated with El Niño events. Recovery was dependent on the vulnerability of individual reef areas and on the reef’s previous history and resilience. At today’s level of ~387 ppm, allowing a lag-time of 10 years for sea temperatures to respond, most reefs world-wide are committed to an irreversible decline. Mass bleaching will in future become annual, departing from the 4 to 7 years return-time of El Niño events. Bleaching will be exacerbated by the effects of degraded water-quality and increased severe weather events. In addition, the progressive onset of ocean acidification will cause reduction of coral growth and retardation of the growth of high magnesium calcite-secreting coralline algae. If CO2 levels are allowed to reach 450 ppm (due to occur by 2030–2040 at the current rates), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from multiple synergies arising from mass bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts. Damage to shallow reef communities will become extensive with consequent reduction of biodiversity followed by extinctions. Reefs will cease to be large-scale nursery grounds for fish and will cease to have most of their current value to humanity. There will be knock-on effects to ecosystems associated with reefs, and to other pelagic and benthic ecosystems. Should CO2 levels reach 600 ppm reefs will be eroding geological structures with populations of surviving biota restricted to refuges. Domino effects will follow, affecting many other marine ecosystems. This is likely to have been the path of great mass extinctions of the past, adding to the case that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could trigger the Earth’s sixth mass extinction.

Let's try understanding, not denigrating, those who cite religion as a reason to doubt climate change

2009-09-29T00:18:00.011-04:00

In a recent post on Climate Progress, the prolific Joe Romm highlighted a video of famed climate change skeptic and US Senator James Inhofe explaining that "God's still up there".

Thank God the Senator from Oklahoma is here to promise us that that the Almighty will override at a planetary level the laws of physics He created and simply stop human-emissions of heat-trapping gases from ravaging his Creation. Now if we can only get Inhofe to tell God to stop all cancers and traffic accidents, too.

The post goes on to say that "this fundamentalist, anti-scientific tripe, far from disqualifying Inhofe, puts him in very good company with other leading conservative politicians". This includes a representative (John Shimkus, R-IL) who challenges the possibility of sea level rise because of God's covenant with Noah, that the Earth will not flood again.

Like Romm, I'm obviously no fan of Senator Inhofe's attacks on climate science not his efforts to obstruct climate policy. For all we know, Inhofe's comments are a calculated ploy to bring in religious viewers. Regardless, Romm's religious line of attack, all too common in scientific and activist discourse, is self-defeating and unproductive. It is also a lost opportunity to discuss the role religion plays in the average person's understanding of climate change.

First, from a purely practical perspective, denigrating Conservative climate skeptics as religious wingnuts is certain to alienate many other religious Christians who may actually be more open to accepting the scientific evidence for the effect of human activity on the climate. Matt Nisbet has argued this point, with respect to climate and other issues, many times on his blog Framing Science.

Second, the comments of Inhofe and the other Christian conservatives quoted in the post provide a window for us scientists and communicator into why so many people in the US and other parts of the world often have difficulty accepting, at a gut level, that human activity is changing the climate. As I've argued in Climatic Change and on the web, the notion that humans can change the climate goes against thousands of years of belief that the weather and climate is controlled by the gods, or the Judeo-Christian God. However much one might dislike and distrust Inhofe, his comments provide an opportunity for education and discussion of the public perception of climate change, an opportunity that is lost when the fangs come out.

To use just one example, Rep Shimkus' assertion that sea level rise won't happen because God promised Noah never to flood the Earth again is not some fringe claim by one crazy, fundamentalist congressman. Ask an elder in almost any Pacific Island nation about sea level rise and you'll get the same answer. And why not? The Bible and the flood narrative are a core part of their belief system - as it is for millions of people in North America. You're unlikely to alter your audience's belief in God's covenant not to flood the earth again with a 45 minute lecture or a 400 word blog post that is dismissive of the audience's belief system.

Community leaders in the Pacific figured this out and took action. The churches gathered together to develop literature and sermons that reconcile their people's strong religious beliefs with the seemingly heretical notion that the climate is changing and the seas are rising because of human activity. Their ideas are crystallized in the 2004 Otin-taii declaration, named after the Kiribati hotel where it was signed. The approach has been effective.

If you really want to effect change, you need to understand how different people, who have had different experiences, interpret the world. You need to work together to find common ground, as the churches have done in the Pacific. Attacking is easier than understanding. It also does more harm than good.

Ketsana and crying wolf about climate change

2009-09-28T23:40:00.007-04:00

Ketsana is a deadly reminder that a tropical storm does not need to be powerful, by the conventional measure of wind speed, to do immense damage. Unfortunately for the people of the Philippines, another tropical storm may be on its way.

The image at right (thanks to Jeff Masters) shows the rainfall rate from NASA's TRMM satellite just before Ketsana passed Manila. Note the area in white is off the scale of the chart. The storm dumped one third of a meter of rain on Manila in less than six hours, flooding out much of the city, killing at least 140 people, and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless.

The combination of intense rainfall and a dense population living on deforested slopes has led to a tragedy reminiscent of Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Although Mitch was a far more powerful storm, it was the flooding not wind damage that led to thousands of deaths in Honduras.

The climate policy talks in "nearby" Thailand have led to a number of sloppy media reports and climate activist statements about the role of climate change in Ketsana. For once, I actually agree with Roger Pielke Jr, that people need to stop crying wolf about climate change and extreme events. Asking about climate change after a prolonged summer heat wave that could have come right out of a doubled CO2 regional climate model simulation is reasonable. The effort to draw a link between climate change and tropical storms during a rather middling storm year (in terms of power) is scientifically questionable. When the storm in question has had such a terrible human tool, it is also a bit tasteless.

For those wanting to help in the recovery, donations are being accepted through the Philippine Red Cross.