Uncertainty or Definitiveness in Climate Science?

Two new studies, published in Nature (subscription required), find a link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather events. At least, that's what I keep hearing. But something else is happening here, beyond the humans-are-changing-the-climate narrative. Behind the boilerplate conclusions offered by the two studies, and in the context of climate-fueled extreme weather research in general, is an interesting discussion of the value and validity of such specific scientific findings to policymakers and the general public.

As The New York Times reports:

In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

The two studies each used climate modeling to predict the likelihood of observing discrete precipitation levels that, according to their findings, were impossible without the contribution of human-influenced atmospheric moisture content. The first study (Min, Zhang, Zwiers, and Hegerl) analyzed global rainfall over a fifty-year period (1951-1999) and used climate simulations to calculate the effect of increased GHG levels in the atmosphere on precipitation. The second (Pall, Aina, Stone, Stott, Nozawa, Hilberts, Lohmann, and Allen) established causal relationship, using climate simulations, between emissions and a unique extreme weather event (specifically, a flood in England in 2000).

The context for the two respective papers is important. The conclusion offered by the Min et al. indicates that climate change is both happening and having an effect on macro-scale phenomena, specifically global precipitation preceding extreme weather events. The paper by Pall and colleagues ostensibly asserts that we can identify a climate "fingerprint" in specific extreme weather events, indicting humankind for its increasing frequency.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress used the evidence put forward by these two studies in saying that "key weather events are becoming more extreme — especially deluges, heat waves, and droughts — as climate scientists have long predicted they would if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases kept rising." He is referring here to the conventional wisdom in climate change research that, while we anticipate increasing and intensifying climatological extremes associated with anthropogenic emissions, no single weather event can be attributed to the effects of climate change. Climate Progress (which, incidentally, censored me just last week) seems to have put this conventional wisdom to rest.

Not so fast, say others. Over at his blog, Roger Pielke Jr. provides the following contribution to this discussion:

I have been asked by many people whether these papers mean that we can now attribute some fraction of the global trend in disaster losses to greenhouse gas emissions, or even recent disasters such as in Pakistan and Australia.

I hate to pour cold water on a really good media frenzy, but the answer is "no." Neither paper actually discusses global trends in disasters (one doesn't even discuss floods) or even individual events beyond a single flood event in the UK in 2000.

Pielke notes that the Min et al. paper discusses precipitation only, omitting any data on streamflow or damage. On this, he says,

Precipitation is to flood damage as wind is to windstorm damage. It is not enough to say that it has become windier to make a connection to increased windstorm damage -- you need to show a specific increase in those specific wind events that actually cause damage. There are a lot of days that could be windier with no increase in damage; the same goes for precipitation.

Further, Pielke criticizes the Pall et al. paper for drawing conclusions on extreme weather trends in a study with an overly narrow focus on a single weather event. The data, Pielke suggests, don't add up to such a compelling conclusion as has been reported.

Perhaps the most interesting dynamic at play here is what Pielke referred to as "a really good media frenzy." Andrew Revkin at DotEarth has probably the best compilation of opinion and fact surrounding this story, and he uses these two studies to discuss the interplay between scientists and journalists. Specifically, Revkin reminds us, climate science does not tend to lend itself to soundbites and easy conclusions:

As I wrote recently, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the definitiveness of an assertion and its credibility. This doesn’t mean that everything definitive is wrong (only Joe Romm could find a way to interpret it thus). It means that a reporter, or citizen, confronted with a flat statement on a tough issue would do well to dig a bit deeper.

Reporting on the issues, and making policy in response to them, becomes that much more difficult because of the simplistic diagnostics many of us seek. This is the key trouble with climate science, in my view. Science and journalism very often present us with definitive climate predictions, and when credible non-deniers like Pielke chime in with data-driven skepticism, the zeitgeist of climate change as a whole suffers in the public arena. The trouble with trying to solve the climate crisis by using climate disasters as harbingers is that we have yet to accurately predict in advance or attribute in retrospect any direct culpability to anthropogenic emissions in high-profile weather events. Thus, insofar as climate change is a technical challenge with a technical solution, it is extremely difficult to define the parameters which we seek to address.

These two studies, and the reporting on them, are examples of how messy the arena of public discourse can get without even inviting the flat-earthers who refuse to entertain the notion that climate change might just possibly be a bad thing. It is for this reason primarily that I (taking a cue from Revkin) like to frame the challenges we face as an energy quest, for which the technical challenges posed are far more simple to diagnose, even if they are just as daunting.

My thoughts on the Groupon ads

Okay, this is only loosely germane to this blog, but I encountered this controversy on Climate Progress, Joe Romm's prolific climate/energy blog, so I say it's fair game.

There've been lots of complaints about the Groupon Super Bowl ads over the past few days. If you're not familiar, check out the following ad:

You can see why this might be considered controversial. Deforestation, which is a leading cause of global climate change and plenty of other environmental problems, is a serious problem that should be taken seriously. I wandered across Joe Romm's complaints about this ad on his blog, Climate Progress, and found his (and many of his commenters') criticisms to be only slightly misguided. The criticisms basically accused Groupon of trivializing global problems like deforestation and that any intended satire was a misfire. I left the following comment on the post:

It remains hard for me to believe that Romm (and many commenters) can't recognize satire. "30 seconds is simply not enough time to do a satirical ad"? Really? I got it. So did lots of people:

http://www.thesmokingjacket.com/lifestyle/groupon-super-bowl-controversy

The criticism leveled against Groupon following their admittedly controversial ads seems to accuse them of not doing more to bring attention to the problems of deforestation, commercial whaling and Tibetan social/political disputes. These critiques hold Groupon to a different standard than, say, Frito Lay, whose numerous Doritos/Pepsi ads have not been accused of ignoring/trivializing global problems, even though they do less to foster debate and awareness than Groupon.

Please, allow me to indicate the ridiculousness I personally perceive in these arguments:

@All : do you own more than one pair of shoes? How dare you not spend that money on slowing deforestation?

This absurd question is the exact same mistake that I believe you all are making, albeit with a lower profile. Groupon is targeting its ads at consumers it knows will spend disposable income on luxury goods (i.e., almost everything) instead of altruistic motivations. Within the confines of the capitalist system that Groupon necessarily operates in, Groupon is doing exactly what we all do.

I agree with @Mike (comment #13). At the end of the day, Groupon is a business marketing itself. If you don't like that, then complain about consumerism at large, but don't single out Groupon. At least Groupon is willing to make interesting advertisements that just might raise awareness about these terrible problems, AND give people consumer discounts for donating to the causes. If only we could get more attractive celebrities to say the word "deforestation" on TV without it seeming patronizing or obsolete.

We'll see if that comment survives moderation. For the record, @Mike said the following:

It is OK to laugh a little. I only watched the Hurley one. Look, she got thousands [sic] of beer drinking guys to think about rain forest destruction for 15 seconds. Maybe we can get her to do a climate change ad. “Extreme weather is not good on your hair! …” Joe, you have a certain audience in mind. That’s fine. But her audience will have to be reached using different methods. Let’s be open minded and creative. The Party that can’t laugh at itself [sic] loses.

Amen to that. Problems like deforestation (which is basically a proxy for climate change) are both complex and immediately irrelevant to Groupon's bottom line. We shouldn't admonish for-profit companies that dare to mention controversial issues in tones that we aren't used to, especially when they're raising money to help combat these global problems.

[UPDATE: In the approximately 72 hours since I submitted my dissenting, non-inflammatory post on Climate Progress, the comment moderators over there appear to have censored my opinion. Cool.]

[UPDATE: Roughly one week after I originally submitted my comment, new comments on the post have now been disabled. I'll have to keep my eye on Climate Progress from now on, to see if my experience is an outlier or part of their MO.]

The New Supply and Demand of Energy Innovation

Originally posted on the Americans for Energy Leadership Blog.

Most of us are familiar with the basic economic principle of supply-and-demand. Economists tend to envision the intersection of the supply and demand of goods and services as the “equilibrium point,” where consumer need for a product meets the ability of producers to provide it. That point is what governs fundamental economic indicators and attributes, especially price and market quantity.

Recently, however, a new supply-versus-demand debate has begun to take shape in the minds of activists and policy-makers alike. Put simply, this new paradigm concerns the supply and demand of clean energy technology.

Conventional wisdom, as it has evolved among global warming activists, tells us that society already has the requisite technology supply to decarbonize the economy. Al Gore has said that “we have all the tools we need to solve three or four climate crises,” and influential climate blogger Joe Romm maintains that “we have all the technologies we need and just lack the political will.” This would suggest that the current supply of clean energy technological is sufficient, and that “political will” should come in the form of demand-side, deployment policies.


But this notion has been increasingly challenged. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate, has called for a “second industrial revolution” in clean energy technology, contradicting the perception that political will is the only missing factor on the path to a clean energy future. Chu’s message has become a siren call for many clean energy advocates, but it has not completely dulled the chorus of climate activists who still believe that the technology will materialize once we have fostered adequate demand.

Many of these climate activists have promoted a cap on carbon emissions as their policy-of-choice, ostensibly a mandate that energy companies considerably scale down the burning of carbon sources for energy in favor of cleaner alternatives like solar or nuclear power. However, most governments lack the political will to impose a serious, or “hard”, cap, ending up with a “soft” cap at best, one that allows energy companies to pass on the modestly higher cost of producing carbon energy onto consumers. The theoretical effect of this cap would be to shift consumer energy demand towards cleaner alternatives.

Climate activists point to a similar cap program on chlorofluorocarbons in the early 1990s. But the technological innovations that were required to fix the CFC problem were child’s play next to the mind-boggling challenges of redesigning and deploying entirely new systems for generating, converting, transporting, storing and using energy. In addition, a politically palatable carbon price, like one that would be established by a U.S. cap-and-trade program, would have the approximate effect of increasing the per-gallon price of gas by approximately 10-30 cents—hardly the economic impetus to create a new world.

Subsequently, advocates are now beginning to question the political feasibility of even a soft cap on carbon emissions, following the failure of such a policy to pass the U.S. Senate earlier this summer (the fourth such failure in a decade). A European carbon cap, now in its fifth year of operation, has yet to abate emissions to any considerable degree. Carbon trading schemes are also in the works regionally in the U.S, with the Western Climate Initiative and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but these are a far cry from the once yearned-after global cap on carbon emissions. Effort after effort has revealed that nations are unwilling to increase the price of dirty energy, despite IEA projections of a 40% increase in global emissions by 2030. Thus, we see that the chief demand-side effort to reform consumer behavior has met with little success. What, then, is the best path to a clean energy future?

For a more effective and comprehensive solution to our energy problems, we must turn to “supply-side” policies with technological innovation at the forefront. Perhaps the primary obstacle between the status quo and a global clean energy economy is the price gap between clean and dirty energy technology, and a politically palatable price on carbon emissions will do little to bridge that divide. The workable solutions stem from making clean energy cheap, in unsubsidized terms, and available to consumers worldwide.

We can achieve these goals through various supply-side “technology push” policies, such as major public financing of energy RD&D; making the R&D tax credit permanent; and the creation of new public-private partnerships and institutions whose explicit goals are to develop clean technology. These measures must be significant and sustained, and they must complement demand-side industrial policy of which cap-and-trade may be only a small part.

Supply-side innovation policy can be traced to the origins of the Internet, the jet engine, biotechnology, the Manhattan and Apollo projects, and the personal computer. In these and other game-changing technologies, governments played a central role in the initial RD&D processes, to the point where the private sector was able to take full advantage of a technologically transformed economy. We cannot trust the creation of a brand new global energy infrastructure to demand-side policies alone, nor to the assumption that we have all the technologies we need. Partial solutions like cap-and-trade will keep failing until we effectively combine supply and demand approaches towards an innovative mission to build a clean, safe, and sustainable energy future.

A cover story on energy? Yes please.

I'm no avid reader of US News & World Report, but I was pleasantly surprised to see its latest cover story. While sitting here in the San Diego airport, waiting for my delayed flight, I noticed a fellow traveller reading the magazine with the cover caption "The Future of Energy." After this weekend's slow trickle of energy-related news coverage, I quickly headed over to the terminal convenience store to take a look.

The verdict? Mixed. The editors of the climate debate section picked the two most sensationalist commentators on either side of the spectrum, Sen. James Inhofe and climate-blogger Joe Romm. As I have said before, I think it is wise to avoid climate science squabbling of any kind. I think it is wiser still to avoid anything these two have to say on the subject.

But any expanded coverage on the energy race is always welcome. From their cover story:

Now there is an energy race. China is the main competitor, spending $9 billion monthly in clean energy projects. There are other competitors: India, Europe, Japan, Brazil. Everyone is angling for the industry that could bring supremacy, jobs, and wealth [emphasis mine].

So nothing new, either factually or analytically. But it is certainly encouraging to find new references to the energy race, the acknowledgement of which is headed toward the arena of conventional wisdom. Let's hope it picks up the pace.