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.

Read more!

Joe Romm Tries to Shut Down Climate Bill Debate by Attacking Breakthrough Institute

Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute

Breakthrough Institute spent the past week analyzing the Waxman-Markey climate bill. We released several objective and transparent analyses for the benefit of our readers, exploring the allocation of allowances and the use of offsets in an effort to illuminate some of the weaknesses and strengths of the bill. This analysis was cited by Time Magazine, National Public Radio, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal.

Joe Romm responded to our analysis on Climate Progress yesterday attacking it as "anti-environmental," "anti-climate-action," and a "disinformation rampage," declaring that Breakthrough Institute should be considered "part of the anti-environmental movement." This follows his recent attacks on Greenpeace, Andrew Revkin, and other reputable environmental and climate advocates, as well as a two-year series of ad-hominem attacks on Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus.

For the record, Breakthrough Institute has a long history of advocating progressive climate and energy policy (see our history). In 2003, Michael and Ted co-founded the Apollo Alliance, the first-ever public campaign calling for a $300 billion federal investment in clean energy. In 2005, former Senator Obama introduced a proposal co-written by Breakthrough to raise fuel efficiency standards, "Healthcare for Hybrids." In 2007, the Obama campaign adopted a $150 billion clean energy investment platform based on Breakthrough's recommendations. And in April 2009, the Obama administration adopted Breakthrough's proposal for a National Energy Education Act. Throughout this time we have continually advocated (see our writing page) a national approach on climate change and clean energy capable of achieving the broad transformations we need.


To support his assertion that Breakthrough's analysis of Waxman-Markey is anti-environmental and anti-climate-action, Romm raises two criticisms. First, he claims we misrepresent the bill's offset provisions. He states, "[the Breakthrough Institute] analysis is devoid of any analysis -- or understanding -- of the offset market... it is clear that the offset provisions in Waxman-Markey do not vitiate the targets. Indeed, I have previously explained why the supply of domestic offsets provision does not undermine the target." This comes after Romm's long effort to "debunk" carbon offsets as a legitimate climate mitigation strategy, coining the term "rip-offsets."

Breakthrough's analysis is unrelated to the use of domestic offsets, which is clear from a brief reading of our posts. Our findings relate to the use of international offsets and their potential impact on U.S. emissions. Jesse Jenkins states, "the use of international offsets would allow U.S. emissions to continue at up to 1.5 billion tons higher than the emissions reduction path intended by the bill." This analysis can be viewed here and downloaded here, and we encourage our readers to take a look and offer feedback. In order for this scenario not to occur, several contingencies must prove true:

(1) The opportunities to reduce emissions in "capped" sectors must be more affordable than paying for international offsets; (2) Offsets must not be readily available at the scale permitted by the bill and the cost of reducing emissions in capped sectors does not trigger the release of additional emissions from the strategic reserve pool; (3) Emission reductions must be driven by factors other than the cap and trade mechanism, for example, by the complementary measures contained in the bill, by other policies, or by macroeconomic factors.

Each of these contingencies is uncertain, complex, and subject to debate. Our analysis intends to reveal an outcome in which these contingencies do not prove true. Romm may claim this exercise is anti-environmental and anti-climate-action, however, given the importance of rapidly reducing U.S. emissions, we are committed to a transparent discussion about the possibilities of the legislation.

Romm's second criticism regards a carbon pricing scenario contained in Michael and Ted's recent piece in Yale Environment 360. Michael and Ted wrote, "If the price of carbon dioxide is only $5 per ton -- a level Waxman-Markey supporters like the Center for American Progress's Joe Romm says it could reach -- there would be just $3 billion for energy technology and just $250 million for R&D." Romm doesn't deny his prediction that the bill would result in a $5-10 per ton price, however, he attacks this as a misrepresentation because the price will "rise quickly after 2020." In fact, the majority of Breakthrough's analysis assumes an average allowance price of $10 to $15 between 2012-2025, consistent with the EPA (see here and here). However, given the critical nature of large-scale federal investments in clean energy, we believe it is important to consider all scenarios under this bill. (Note: the latest version of the bill, released after Michael and Ted's article went to publication, contains a price floor of $10 for these allowances.)

We have documented Romm's histrionics and misrepresentations several times, as well as his incorrect views on energy technology. Those readers interested in reviewing this debate can do so here. In this post, Romm also lists some of his previous blogs about Breakthrough and criticizes Michael and Ted's other recent writing. For the benefit of our readers, below we correct Romm's major misrepresentations step-by-step.

Romm's attempt to shut down serious debate about critical climate legislation -- and his aggressive effort to attack and discredit those attempting to illuminate the bill's weaknesses, including reputable environmental activists and reporters -- should raise questions about his role as a credible and progressive climate advocate. And whether the Center for American Progress continues to tolerate his behavior may have a lasting impact on its credibility as one of the nation's largest progressive think tanks.

----
Corrections to Romm's May 22, 2009 post, "Memo to media: Don't be suckered by bad analyses from the Breakthrough Institute the way Time, WSJ, NPR, and The New Republic have been"

(#1) Romm: "They attacked President Obama's cap-and-trade climate plan as political suicide and doomed to fail, 18 months after endorsing the plan -- heck, they said it was their plan all along."

Fact: Breakthrough never suggested that Obama's cap and trade plan was political suicide. We said his threat to mandate significant emissions reductions through Clean Air regulations that would drive up energy prices was political suicide. The threat has in fact proven empty, with Obama, Congressional leaders, and regulated industries all agreeing to pass cap and trade legislation that mandates no substantial reductions in carbon emissions for two decades and places severe limits on how much energy prices may rise.

What Breakthrough said:

"Still, most greens were heartened after the White House announced plans to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. But the threat to regulate CO2 will ultimately run into the same political constraints that have hamstrung efforts to cap carbon emissions in the U.S. Congress. The Obama administration is unlikely to propose regulations that will significantly increase energy prices in key political battleground states, at least not in his first term. And subsequent administrations are no more likely to propose or stand behind unpopular regulations that will raise energy prices than will the Obama administration. As such, the threat to regulate CO2 will likely prove empty -- a gesture to environmental supporters and the international community that Obama is serious about climate change, but unlikely to result in substantial reductions in U.S. carbon emissions or break the current gridlock in Congress."

(#2) Romm: "So it is perhaps not surprising that 18 months after I got them to strongly and publicly endorse Obama's cap-and-trade plan, they have launched a series of attacks on it -- attacks based on misrepresentation and misanalysis."

Fact: Breakthrough endorsed Obama's energy plan, which called for $15 billion annual investments in clean technology, far reaching renewable portfolio and efficiency standards, and a 100% auction with no price caps, not a cap and trade system that gives away the mass majority of allowances for free, allows emissions from regulated sectors of the economy to rise for two decades, guts renewable energy requirements, and includes little public funding for clean energy research and development or deployment.

What Breakthrough said in 2007:

"Romm asks if we embrace Obama's plan. Not only do we embrace it, we've been advocating such a plan since 2002. In the run up to the 2004 presidential elections we aggressively lobbied the Kerry campaign for such investments and were repeatedly rebuffed by his environmental policy and political advisers who claimed, similar to Romm, that major public investments weren't a priority.

Obama's energy plan, like the plan that we outline below, recognizes the need for regulatory standards and a cap on emissions. But these are positions he has long held -- last January he co-sponsored a cap and trade bill in the Senate. What was new about Obama's plan announced Monday was the large public investment. Obama's proposed clean energy investment is not only larger than anything proposed by the other Democratic Presidential candidates, it is much larger than anything lobbied for by the national environmental lobby in Washington. It goes half way toward the at least $300 billion we need to achieve the emissions reductions and clean energy price reductions we need."

(#3) Romm: "They utterly... missrepresent the findings of the International Energy Agency, McKinsey, and the Stern Review"

Fact: Breakthrough has repeatedly documented how Romm's views on energy technology stand in opposition to the majority of energy and climate experts. As we wrote last month:

"Romm has recycled his assertions that no new technological development (beyond very minor improvements to existing technologies) is necessary to tackle the massive global energy and climate challenge. He repeats his efforts to label those who call attention to the scale and urgency of our energy innovation challenge and advocate major investments in energy technology as "climate delayer-equivalents." And Romm does so at the exact same time as he plainly ignores -- one might say, denies -- the wide body of evidence and expert consensus that dramatic innovation to spur both incremental and transformative developments in a whole suite of clean energy technologies is critical if we hope to overcome the climate and energy challenge and preserve a prosperous global society."

(#4) Romm: "[The Breakthrough Institute] has recently written two attacks on Waxman-Markey, "The Flawed Logic of The Cap-and-Trade Debate," which attacks any effort to significantly raise the price of carbon pollution through a tax or a cap."

Fact: We endorsed low and sustainable carbon prices in the Yale article, as we have since 2007. We criticized the policy advocacy framework -- such as that which led to Waxman-Markey -- which continues to rely upon the implementation of high carbon prices in the face of overwhelming evidence that no political economy in the world has been willing or able to maintain high carbon prices.

What Breakthrough said:

"The problem is that no government in the world so far has been willing to establish and sustain a high price on carbon, whether through taxes or caps... Rather than attempting to establish high carbon prices globally in order to create sufficient incentives for private interests to invest in energy technology innovation, this new framework focuses on establishing very modest and politically sustainable carbon prices in developed economies to fund very large public investments in technology innovation and to help bring competitive technologies to market...

Far better to accept that the price for carbon won't be high and implement a simple and transparent program to establish a stable and low price. Such an approach is compatible with either a carbon tax or cap-and-auction with hard price caps and floors... It is time that we get serious about how to achieve deep reductions in emissions with the low carbon price we will get rather than the high carbon price we may wish for... the alternative is another decade of attempting to implement policy predicated on high carbon prices without the necessary price signal for those policies to have any chance of succeeding."

See here for more information about Joe Romm and our ongoing debate.

Read more!