Does Donald Kennedy Read Science?
January 10th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
In an editorial in the 6 January 2006 issue of Science editor Donald Kennedy writes, “The consequences of the past century’s temperature increase are becoming dramatically apparent in the increased frequency of extreme weather events …”
In a letter published in Science 9 December 2005 written to correct another set of unsupportable claims published in Science about extreme weather events, I wrote (here in PDF),
“Over recent decades, the IPCC found no long-term global trends in extratropical cyclones (i.e., winter storms), in “droughts or wet spells,” or in “tornados, hail, and other severe weather”… A recent study by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group concluded that it was unable to detect an anthropogenic signal in global precipitation.”
And even though my brief discussion of hurricanes got lost in the page-proof process (a correction is pending), recent research indicates no increase in the global frequency of tropical cyclones (e.g., Webster et al. 2005), and no long-term increase in the number or intensity of storms striking the U.S. (e.g., Landsea 2005). In short, there is no evidence to support Prof. Kennedy’s claim of an “increased frequency of extreme weather events” that can be attributed to increasing global temperatures.
This issue is about more than simply getting the science right. In advancing an explicitly political agenda from a very influential position, Prof. Kennedy is making claims for particular policy actions that won’t work as advertised. As we have written umpteen times here, and backed with research, yes greenhouse gas reductions make sense, but not as a policy instrument for addressing the escalating societal impacts of extreme events. While I have sympathies for Prof. Kennedy’s politics, as a matter of policy, Professor Kennedy’s argument is simply wrong.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Roger, exactly why is it that we should count an otherwise identical tropical cyclone as an extreme weather event if it landfalls in the U.S. but not if it fails to make landfall or hits someplace other than the U.S.? Shouldn’t Wilma’s landfall in Cancun get at least an honorable mention as U.S. landfalling given the large numbers of American tourists and expats who frequent the Cancun area? Sarcasm aside, Kerry Emanuel was right when he implied that the effect of only looking at U.S. landfalling TCs arbitrarily reduces the sample size with a view toward a certain outcome.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Steve- Thanks, though I don’t get your point. I wrote “recent research indicates no increase in the global frequency of tropical cyclones (e.g., Webster et al. 2005)”. That is pretty unambiguous.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Well, some folk think that there is increasing information that warrants concern that AGW is increasing TC intensity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10conv.html?pagewanted=all
So, properly, Roger should – rather than saying there is no evidence – say that…well, what should an honest broker say, Roger, when some scientists feel one way and some feel another (disagreement)?
Best,
D
January 10th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Dano-
Thanks. You are correct about intensity, and while it may be a minor point, Kennedy’s statements referred to frequency as does my reaction to it.
The honest broker would of course present the diversity of perspectives. Here is what we said about the current state of science on hurricanes and global warming on our expeimental FAQ page:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/outreach/media_resources/hurricanes_globalwarming/
“1. How are hurricanes affected by global warming?
There are some different opinions among scientists who study hurricanes about the influence of historical emissions of greenhouse gases on the behavior of tropical cyclones, or as they are called in the Atlantic, hurricanes. Some think that the effect is not discernible, while others believe that they have seen a large effect.
2. What does the peer-reviewed literature say?
There is much less evidence of a debate when one looks to the peer-reviewed literature than if one actually asks different scientists their opinions on the matter. One reason for this is that much of the debate about hurricanes and global warming has to do with what different scientists expect future research to reveal. Research on hurricanes and climate is constantly underway and new studies should be expected every so often.
3. So what should we expect in coming years?
Among just about all scientists there is a strong consensus that the Atlantic basin is likely to see a decade or more of generally active seasons and that the period 1970-1994 is likely to be unrepresentative of future activity.”
January 10th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
As Mills said in his reply:
“In a narrow sense, it would be a relief to learn that the only cause of rising losses is that people are moving more into harm’s way. That conclusion would, however, be premature and scientifically indefensible given the paucity of data, limitations of available analyses, and consistency between observed impacts and those expected under climate change. Nor should we make the opposite mistake of attributing the observed growth in losses solely to climate change. Rather than “proof ” by vigorous assertion, the constructive approach is to better understand the compounding roles of increasing vulnerability and climate change, and take affordable precautionary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changes rather than waiting for unaffordable consequences.”
January 10th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
” “Rather than “proof” by vigorous assertion, the constructive approach is to better understand the compounding roles of increasing vulnerability and climate change, and take affordable precautionary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changes rather than waiting for unaffordable consequences.” ”
Sounds like policy.
I hope he’s openly associated his science with this possible course of action.
If he hasn’t, however, I hope this doesn’t taint the policy option. It may be insulated with this portion of the reply Eli mentions:
“Climate change cannot be summarily dismissed as a driver of observed growth in global weather-related damages and economic losses. The disaster attribution literature upon which such assertions are based is fraught with data
and measurement uncertainties and is decidedly
incomplete, especially concerning events outside the United States. ”
That might be honest-sounding to a layman.
Best,
D
January 13th, 2006 at 8:09 am
As an economist I have to say that I disagree that reducing CO2 emission makes sense. As you know, full compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would prevent a virtually undetectable amount of warming at a rather significant cost. Beyond Kyoto, the marginal cost of reducing CO2 emissions would increase at an increasing rate, while the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions would remain flat. Based on what we know right now, at no point does the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions rise above the costs. Only if abrupt anthropogenic climate change is a real possibility could a case be made for reducing CO2 emissions, but there’s no evidence for such an occurrence.
January 14th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
PJ appears to answer his own question and then ignores his own answer. The costs of NOT reducing CO2 emissions increases strongly as the mixing ratio increases + there are boojums out there.
January 14th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Rabett,
PJ did not ask a question so he could not possibly ignore his own answer. He does state clearly that the benefits of Kyoto never rise above the cost in any reasonable scenario. The costs of not reducing CO2 are, so far, all hypothetical and meaningless if not viewed in conjunction with the hypothetical benefits of increasing CO2, which may far outweight the former.
Finally, what are boojums and what do they have to do with anything?
January 16th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
I fear that Mr. Clarke is being a bit more than literal, which given his lack of literary knowledge is not surprising.
In the first place, Kyoto was set up to implement a political structure in which framework significant reductions in greenhouse gas concentrations could be made at a later date if needed. This was exactly the pattern set by the Montreal Protocols, which were implemented in the same way, first a relatively ineffective period during which the idea was to do no further harm, and then as the dimensions of the problem became clearer, serious action. For an economist to object on the grounds that the first Kyoto protocols have no significant effect is to ignore their political dimension.
Second, the so called benefits of increased greenhouse gas concentrations are a lot less then many think because in most situations CO2 is not the limit to plant growth, moving agriculture northwards is problematical from many other points of view, etc. The costs, even if simply limited to loss of land from increased sea level are huge.
To be literal about it the costs are not hypothetical with or without accounting for the benefits even in economic terms. Costs are costs. If capturing the benefits requires huge investment and dislocation, what happens if no investments are made?
If you want a balance between reducing and not reducing greenhouse gas mixing ratio’s I recommend http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/054.htm as a somewhat out of date, but reasonably complete place to start.
As to your last question, you obviously did not have a mispent youth.
“For, although common Snarks do no manner of harm,
Yet, I feel it my duty to say,
Some are Boojums — ” The Bellman broke off in alarm,
For the Baker had fainted away. …..
“`But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your Snark be a Boojum! For then
You will softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again!’
January 17th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Finally, I have been put in my place by a Kyoto/AGW supporter. How I managed to get this far in life with no knowledge of Lewis Carroll’s ‘The Hunting of the Snark’, is beyond me, but I promise to familiarize myself soon.
As far as your other comments:
If you agree that there is no reasonably anticipated situation where the benefit of implementing Kyoto will outweigh the cost, than how can you assert that the benefit of implementing Kyoto X 10 will be cost effective, even if it does have a ‘measurable effect’ on climate, which is something we may never be able to detect? Comparing it to the Montreal Protocol is hardly reasonable, as the economic impact of ’switching refrigerants’ is several orders of magnitude below ’severely restricting energy production world wide’! Also, the benefits of the Montreal Protocol are ‘theoretically’ straight forward, while the benefits of reducing CO2 are very complex and uncertain! (Actually, evidence is leaning towards the ozone layer being much more complex than we thought and future research may reveal that the Montreal Protocol was also a waste of time and money! But that is another issue.)
As far as the ‘political dimensions’ of Kyoto are concerned, I believe it is the supporters who have their collective head in the sand on that one.
Secondly, it is interesting that you limit the ‘benefits’ of a warmer world to a ‘limited’ CO2 fertilization of plants, yet have no problem constructing a litany of hypothetical disasters that could result from such warming. I can think of hundreds of benefits from the predicted warming. Of course, they are all hypothetical.
Claiming that the costs of warming are “not hypothetical” does not make them reality. Any vision of the future is hypothetical by definition, and when we are speaking of the future of climate, we are dealing with tremendous uncertainties! All of the doom and gloom is dependant on various positive feedback loops in the GCMs. These positve feedback loops do not appear to exist with such fecundity anywhere else in the universe.
We do, however, get some glimpse of what is possible in a warmer future by looking at the past. In the past, temperatures have warmed and cooled many, many times as we have gone in and out of ice ages and the myriad, smaller scale fluctuations in between. What we generally see, as far as the biosphere is concerned, is that warmer is better!
Finally, you asked:
“If capturing the benefits requires huge investment and dislocation, what happens if no investments are made?”
That is the wonderful thing about free markets; they always find the most efficient use for limited resources. They react almost instantly to changes in the chaotic and unpredictable system of the world economy and gravitate to the best possible solution. They do this because they are a product of millions of decisions made continuously. Free markets are fluid and adaptable. If there are problems with warming, the free market will find the most cost effective (efficient use of resources) solution. If there are benefits from warming, the free market will immediately seize upon those benefits, to the benefit of all participating. This is not a ‘magic wand’, but a system that mirrors the way the entire biosphere works. Look around. All living things move towards what is beneficial and away from what is harmful. Will we humans be stripped of this ability in the future? On the contrary, we continually get better at it, at an exponential rate! (See Ray Kurzweil)
Kyoto, on the other hand, tries to prevent a myriad of potential, non-specific problems with a strict, relatively unresponsive, costly regulatory regime, with little guarantee of success. Having seen strict, relatively unresponsive, costly regulatory regimes in action, I prefer to put my faith in the adaptability of the Earth’s biosphere, which has a remarkable history of success over the last 600 million years!
January 22nd, 2006 at 10:04 pm
“The costs of NOT reducing CO2 emissions increases strongly as the mixing ratio increases + there are boojums out there.”
Which part of this isn’t nonsense? I know that there are indeed boojums out there…