« Climate Change »

"However, to suggest that science demands certain (stated or unstated) policies is a recipe for the continued politicization of climate science, and an approach that plays right into the hands of those advocating business as usual."

How did you arrive at the conclusion that "business as usual" is not the best course?

Mark- Thanks for your comment and question. I am going to act like a professor and point you a couple of articles that should comprehensively answer your question. If you have more questions after having a look, then I'd be happy to get into details. Have a look at:

Sarewitz, D., R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2000: Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly, 286(1), 55-64.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-69-2000.18.pdf

Pielke, Jr., R. A. and D. Sarewitz, 2003. Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, pp. 27-30.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2003.01.pdf

Sarewitz, D., and R.A. Pielke, Jr., 2005. Rising Tide, The New Republic, January 6.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-1694-2005.01.pdf

Hi Roger,

Thanks for pointing me to the articles. I've skimmed them, but my question still remains.

For example, in the "Rising Tide" article, you wrote:

"Global climate change is real,...and reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential."

But later in that same article you wrote, "What can be done to better prepare the world--especially the developing world--for future disasters? It is absurd to suggest that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important part of the answer."

Why did you write, "...reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential"? You obviously don't think it's an essential part of mitigating future weather disasters. So to what IS it essential?

In other words, what informed, objective, and credible literature have you read that leads you to conclude that, "...reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential"?

As an analogy, in Canada and Europe (but not so much the United States) there is a CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) substitute that is basically a propane/isobutane mixture. One manufacturer uses the trade name of "Duracool":

http://www.duracool.com/

http://www.autoserviceworld.com/issues_JOB/ISarticle.asp?id=163952&story_id=70133103907&issue=&PC=JOB

As this mixture increasingly replaces CFCs, worldwide emissions of Duracool (from leaks in refrigerant systems) have unquestionably been increasing. But would you say, "...reducing global Duracool emissions is essential"? If not, why not?

Or to pick another example, carbon dioxide injection systems are increasingly being used for greenhouses (because CO2 injection increases plant growth). Would you say, "...reducing use of CO2 injection in greenhouses is essential"?

Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)

Mark-

Thanks for the follow up, though I am not sure I follow. Let me offer a few other pieces -- Have a look at these posts on the subject of "Cart or Horse":

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/energy_policy/000436cart_or_horse.html

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000437more_cart_and_horse.html

The Atlantic Monthly essay tried to make the point that debates over CO2 should not be at the center of our climate policies, so you are going to have a hard time drawing me into a debate framed around CO2 (as fun as it may be). This does not mean that implementing policies with the effect of reducing CO2 do not make sense. Also have a look at my 2002 Senate testimony which has a Venn Diagram distinguishing 3 areas of climate and energy policy, that may get closer to answering your question:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/rp_senate/13_2002/testimony.pdf

It seems to me that you are missing the elephant in the trees here. Assuming that one can neatly divide the science from the policy, the science is about as clear as it will ever be, and the answer is that increasing greenhouse gas on a business as ususal policy will lead to significant climate change. The various academies start from that point. If Mark Bahner disagrees, well there are still folk who don't believe in quantum mechanics/relativity.

The policy question is closed (in the sense that something should be done) everywhere EXCEPT the US. Of course there is still a lot of to and fro about what should be done.

So why should the various academies NOT issue such a statement?

Eli- Thaks for your comment. I agree with you that the scientific community has done an excellent job bringing to policy makers solid evidence of a need for action. But this is where the "policy question" starts not ends. The critical quetsion is indeed "what is to be done?" The academies' statement endorses a particular answer to this question. This is problematic because the approach being advocated simply has not and cannot work according to its own goals. Rather than taking sides in a political debate over bad options, the academies efforts would be better spent helping to motivate new and innovative answers to the question "what is to be done?"

Eli Rabett writes, "...and the answer is that increasing greenhouse gas on a business as ususal policy will lead to significant climate change."

Is an increase of 0 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, with a 50 percent probability value of 1.2 degrees Celsius, "significant?"

By the way, that 0 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, with a 50 percent probability value of 1.2 degrees Celsius, is from 1990 to 2100.

We're already 15 years into that 110 year period, so the increase from 2005 to 2100 will be approximately 10 percent less.

Again, is that "significant?"

Roger Pielke writes, "I agree with you that the scientific community has done an excellent job bringing to policy makers solid evidence of a need for action."

What "solid evidence" are you referring to? Is it the temperature projections in the IPCC TAR (1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100)?

Do you know what methane atmospheric concentrations and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations those temperature increases are based on?

If you knew the projections for methane atmospheric concentrations and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations were fraudulently high, such that there is virtually no chance of temperature even increasing 2.5 degrees Celsius without "action," would you change your mind?

Or is the validity of the IPCC TAR temperature projections irrelevant to the need for "action"?

Mark- Thanks for your additional comments. Debating various predictions about the future is probably not a useful exercise from a policy perspective - why not? See this book (and in particular Rayner's chapter on climate change and Chapter 18):

Sarewitz, D., R.A. Pielke, Jr., and R. Byerly, Jr., (eds.) 2000: Prediction: Science, decision making and the future of nature, Island Press, Washington, DC.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/prediction_book/

However, it seems fairly obvious that if you force a system there will be consequences. As you correctly point out whether or not those consequences are "significant" is another matter altogether. The human effect on the climate system is well documented as goes far beyond just CO2 and characterizining its impacts using the simplistic measure of "average global temperature." No person and no ecosystem experiences average global temperature. The NRC has a recent report out with a more comprehensive pespective on the notion of radiative forcing:

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11175.html

Given the complexities and uncertainties I agree with Steve Schneider when he writes, "I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems."

Under such circumstances people can, for example, easily decide to align themselves with a mild expectation of the future and support of business as usual, or a catastrophic expectation and support of radical change. Such folks will spend a lot of time arguing that their view of the future is the correct one. You'll find me focused on decision making under uncertainty, which is focused less on developing accurate and precise windows into the future and, instead, on the adoption of policies that are robust under a full range of uncetainties. See this paper:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2001: Room for doubt. Nature, 410:151.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-43-2001.02.pdf

Hi Roger,

You write, "However, it seems fairly obvious that if you force a system there will be consequences. As you correctly point out whether or not those consequences are "significant" is another matter altogether."

An even more important and fundamental question is whether or not the consequences will be net positive or negative. I will certainly concede that if the warming over the 21st century is 5.8 degrees Celsius (the laughable high value in the IPCC TAR), the net result would be negative. But do you really think the result would be a net negative if the warming was 1 degree Celsius or less?

The world temperature has increased since the coldest portion of the Little Ice Age. Do you think that was a net positive, or a net negative?

"The human effect on the climate system is well documented as goes far beyond just CO2..."

Yes, but remember that you wrote that, "reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential". You still haven't explained why. And bringing up non-CO2 impacts doesn't add any weight to your argument as far as I can see. In fact, I think it *detracts* from your argument. We should be much more concerned with human impacts that are unquestionably highly negative. For example, human wastes in water supplies kill millions of people around the world every year.

"Under such circumstances people can, for example, easily decide to align themselves with a mild expectation of the future and support of business as usual, or a catastrophic expectation and support of radical change."

Future atmospheric methane concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations are questions of **science,** Roger. It's got nothing to do with "aligning with mild expectations" or "catastrophic expectation." You write as those such things are dependent on chance. They aren't.

The question, "What will the methane atmospheric concentration be in 2030?" is a question of **science.** There are scientifically defensible answers to that question, and there are answers to that question that are completely indefensible as a matter of **science.**

The atmospheric methane concentration in 1990 was approximately 1700 ppb. It is presently, 15 years later, about 1780 ppb:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/atm_meth/csiro/csiro-mloch4.jpg

According to the IPCC TAR, there is a 50/50 chance that the methane atmospheric concentration will be approximately 2060 ppb in 2030.

In other words, the IPCC is saying that although in the last 15 years the concentration increased by only 80 ppb (about 5.3 ppb per year), in the next 25 there is a 50/50 chance that the methane atmospheric concentration will increase by 280 ppb (11.2 ppb per year)!

Roger, that's just insane. No true scientist would ever propose such a thing. I defy you to find even one member of the IPCC who will bet me that the methane atmospheric concentration will increase by an average of 11.2 ppb for the next 25 years.

In fact, I have offered James Annan ***50 to 1** odds against the methane atmospheric concentration being 2060 ppb in 2030. (Again, that's when the IPCC says there is a ***50 percent*** chance.)

IPCC TAR nonsense

Regarding your paper on uncertainty, I'm afraid I don't have time to address it now. But my first comments would be:

1) Do you really think that who killed Lee Harvey Oswald is a matter of **scientific** uncertainty?, and

2) If I said, "The number of whales in the ocean is probably approximately equal to the number of humans on land"...would you consider that to be a statement of science?

Oops. Here is the link for my proposed bets with James Annan:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/06/proposed_bets_f.html

Mark- Thanks again for these further comments. There is a lot here, but I'll try to respond concisely.

1) You emphasize "net positives" and "net negatives". I am not so concerned with such aggregate measures. Most anytime there is a change to a system there will be winners and losers. If changes in the climate in the future convey benefits, then great, lets take advantage of them. If there are negatives, than lets try to ameliorate them.

2) On focusing on areas with proven high negative impacts, we are in agreement, see, e.g.,

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000368adaptation_and_clima.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000430immigration_and_clim.html

3) I'm not sure how to respond to your questions that invoke a particular definition of "science". As far as future concentrations of methane are concerned, this is a great example of an irrelevant debate as there appear to be good "no regrets" options on the table, see:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000350methane_policy.html

What will methane concentrations be in 2030 under business as usual? We'll never know because given the no regrets option business won't be as usual.

4) The betting thing your guys are into is a good idea, not so much for the drama, but because there is knowledge to be gained from prediction markets, see an essay of mine on this here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/zine/archives/31/editorial.html

I'll probably write something on this sometime this week.

5) If you do not like my use of the term "science" when discussing uncertainty, then just substitute "knowledge" or "intelligence". I'm not too interesting in going too deep into that discussion, philosphers have spent much time discussing it.

Hi Roger,

You write, "1) You emphasize "net positives" and "net negatives". I am not so concerned with such aggregate measures. Most anytime there is a change to a system there will be winners and losers. If changes in the climate in the future convey benefits, then great, lets take advantage of them."

But Roger, in "Rising Tide," you wrote, "...reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential." Suppose--this is hypothetical, though it may actually be the case--that both the total number and dollar value of the winners from current emissions of CO2 was greater than for the losers. Would you *still* say "...reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential"?

Wouldn't you instead say, "Compensating the losers from the gains of the winners is essential?"

This is something that really, really bugs me. I went to an international conference on Cleaner Production in Santiago, Chile about 8 years ago. At this conference, people from Canada (!) were talking almost exlusively about CO2 emissions. Well, Santiago, Chile at the time had some of the highest particulate and tropospheric ozone levels in the world. They could not have cared less about CO2 emissions!

So these people from Canada (!), a phenomenally cold country, are going to go to a bunch of trouble reducing their emissions of CO2, and it's going to make virtually ZERO difference in the lives of anyone in Santiago, Chile. The environmental people in Chile could not care less about global warming; they have REAL environmental problems! (At the time I was there, Santiago Chile had absolutely zero wastewater treatment--not even primary treatment--for a city of 5 million people. That's in addition to the incredibly high particulate and ozone concentrations.)

You also write, "As far as future concentrations of methane are concerned, this is a great example of an irrelevant debate..."

No, Roger, it's not irrelevant at all! *Why* did you write, ""...reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential"?

I assume it's because you THINK that, without policy changes, warming from 1990 to 2100 is going to be 1.4 degrees Celsius to 5.8 degrees Celsius. But those numbers are completely bogus! They are based on completely indefensible values for methane atmospheric concentrations, and CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations. (And they even completely ignore things like black carbon emissions, which may be very significant.)

Again, if I told you that there was a 95% chance that the warming from 1990 to 2100 was going to be less than 2.5 degrees Celsius, and a 50% chance that the warming would be less than 1.2 degrees Celsius, even without any policy changes, would that change your opinion about whether it's "essential" to reduce CO2 emissions?

"4) The betting thing your guys are into is a good idea, not so much for the drama, but because there is knowledge to be gained from prediction markets,..."

The reason *I'm* betting is to show the IPCC TAR projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases for the fraud that they are. And also to show that all talk about "consensus" is complete nonsense.

But having done a first draft of proposed bets, and seen James Annan's responses, I think there may be a better way to prove my point. I'll be about and working on that for the next few days.

"5) If you do not like my use of the term "science" when discussing uncertainty, then just substitute "knowledge" or "intelligence"."

No, that was not my point at all. I'm completely happy with using the term "science" associated with uncertainty!

My point was that some expressions of uncertainty lie beyond the bounds of science, and cross over into fiction. For example, the question of who shot JFK? I think it's been well-established by forensic science and simple logic that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK with a shotgun blast to the head, fired from the Texas School Depository.

Similary, the population of whales is indeed unknown...but NOT so unknown that the statement, "There are probably as many whales in the sea as humans on land" can be considered a statement of science.

Finally, the statement, "Absent treaties to limit greenhouse gas emissions, global warming from 1990 to 2100 will be in the range of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius" is not a statement of science...though it's far closer to being a statement of science than the one about the population of whales. The upper value of 5.8 degrees Celsius is simply not credible. I have a better chance of running a 4 minute mile than the world has of warming 5.8 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100. (Not that we're ALREADY 14 percent of the way into that period.)

Oops. That should have been, "(Note that we're ALREADY 14 percent of the way into that period.)"

Prof. Pielke, I re-read the statement of the scientific academies and found no specific endorsement of a "particular course of action". They advised to:
----------------------------------------
Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.

Launch an international study to explore scientifically informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.

Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.

Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.

Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.

Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

---------------------------------
A bit wordy, what do you expect from a committee, but nothing I would characterize as "a particular answer"? What are you pointing at?

Thanks Eli for your comment. Adoption of the FCCC definition of climate change is in effect endorsing a "particular option." Please see this paper for a detailed argument on this point:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2005 (in press). Misdefining Climate Change: Consequences for Science and Action, Environmental Science and Policy.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-479-2004.10.pdf

The problem with Mark Bahner's comments is that the risks are not symmetrical. At the high end of the range (5 C) the negative risks are catastropic and the possible ameliorations ruinously expensive. At the low end the benefits are mild.

The best (IMHO) policy was to adopt no cost options ten years ago. They would have involved some investment, but would have paid off no matter what the climate track.

"The problem with Mark Bahner's comments is that the risks are not symmetrical. At the high end of the range (5 C) the negative risks are catastropic..."

But the chances of various degrees of warming are also not symetrical. Wigley and Raper published a paper in Science in 2001 that's very useful in this matter. In fact, it's what the IPCC should have done in the TAR...and what the IPCC definitely should do in the Fourth Assessment Report.

Wigley and Raper took all the scenarios from the IPCC TAR, which the IPCC wrote have "equal probability of occurence," and they developed a probability distribution function, assuming a log-normal distribution for the degrees of warming.

The Wigley and Raper paper provides the following probabilities for degrees of warming (again, based on the IPCC TAR scenarios all being equally probable):

Warming (deg C) Probability of occurrence (%)

>1.34 99

>1.71 95

>3.07 50

>4.87 5

>5.61 1

So from the Wigley and Raper paper, the calculated odds of being above 5 degrees Celsius are less than 5% (1 in 20).

But the TRUE value far, far, FAR less.

Wigley and Raper calculate, based on the IPCC TAR, >99 percent chance that the warming will be >1.34 degrees Celsius. But the true chance (given an honest analysis) is close to 50/50.

"Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2005 (in press). Misdefining Climate Change: Consequences for Science and Action, Environmental Science and Policy."

Roger, I'm very confused. Based on the article you recommended to Eli, I don't understand how you ever could have written in another article ("Rising Tide"), "...reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential."

In this article you recommended to Eli, you wrote: "First, over the long term, reducing the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate system will require decarbonization of our energy
system."

These seem, to me, to be different positions. The first sentence makes it seem (to me) like we need to do something ***now***. The second position simply acknowledges that eventually human energy consumption will need to be decarbonized. (Which, if one agrees with Jesse Ausubel's analysis of decarbonization trends, will certainly happen by the end of this century.)

Thanks Mark for following this up. I (obviously) don't see that the two statements are contradictory.

WRT the definition of climate change, definitions are definitions and you usually adopt one that there is wide agreement on. I would argue that the FCCC definition is as good as any and you are tilting at windmills here. If you are going to require that everything be redefined to your liking else you would call it political, then, excuse me, I have several meetings from hell I would rather sit in on.

WRT Bahner's reading of Wrigley and Raper is a hoot and I eagerly await Prof. Pielke's deconstruction. The probabilities from Wigley and Raper are pretty symmetric around the median value of 3 C for the various scenerios. The risks are asymmetric. For example, just consider the cost of sea level rise ONLY considering thermal expansion of the oceans. The value of real estate destroyed in the US would be astronomical, and the cost of diking would be even higher.