Climate & Climate Change

From Benny Pieser’s CCNet:

Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change

Abstract

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change has focused debate on the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action on climate change. This refocusing has helped to move debate away from science of the climate system and on to issues of policy. However, a careful examination of the Stern Review’s treatment of the economics of extreme events in developed countries, such as floods and tropical cyclones, shows that the report is selective in its presentation of relevant impact studies and repeats a common error in impacts studies by confusing sensitivity analyses with projections of future impacts. The Stern Review’s treatment of extreme events is misleading because it overestimates the future costs of extreme weather events in developed countries by an order of magnitude. Because the Stern Report extends these findings globally, the overestimate propagates through the report’s estimate of future global losses. When extreme events are viewed more comprehensively the resulting perspective can be used to expand the scope of choice available to decision makers seeking to grapple with future disasters in the context of climate change. In particular, a more comprehensive analysis underscores the importance of adaptation in any comprehensive portfolio of responses to climate change.

Roger Pielke Jr

Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, 1333 Grandview Ave, Campus Box 488 boulder, Co 80309-0488, USA
Received 5 March 2007; revised 21 May 2007; accepted 22 May 2007. Available online 15 August 2007.

Global Environmental Change

“In its Chapter 5 the Stern Review concludes, “The costs of climate change for developed countries could reach several percent of GDP as higher temperatures lead to a sharp increase in extreme weather events and large-scale changes.” (Stern, 2007, p. 137). This conclusion cannot be supported by the Review’s own analysis and references to literature. One error is a serious misrepresentation of the scientific literature, and the second is more subtle, but no less significant. The serious misrepresentation takes the form of inaccurately presenting the conclusions of an unpublished paper on trends in disaster losses. The second error is more complex and involves conflating an analysis of the sensitivity of society to future changes in extreme events, assuming that society does not change, with a projection of how extreme event impacts will increase in the future under the integrated conditions of climatic and societal change. The result of the errors in the Stern Review is a significant overstatement of the future costs of extreme climate events not simply in the developed world, but globally-by an order of magnitude.

In light of these errors if the Stern Review is to be viewed as a means of supporting a particular political agenda, then it undercuts its own credibility and this risks its effectiveness. If instead the Stern Review is to be viewed as a policy analysis of the costs and benefits of alternative courses of actions on climate change, then at least in the case of extreme events it has missed an opportunity to clarify the scope of such actions and their possible consequences, and arguably misdirects attention away from those actions most likely to be effective with respect to future catastrophe losses. In either case, on the issue of extreme events and climate change, the Stern Review must be judged a failure. This short paper documents these errors and suggests how an alternative approach might have been structured.”

Yes, not a recent newspaper article, but the page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post, discovered by John Lockwood at the Library of Congress in Washington DC – a reminder that the 1920’s and 1930’s were warm. In fact, 1934 has overtaken 1998 as the warmest US year following a recent data correction, with 1921 coming third.

The global cooling of the 1940’s to 1970’s prompted The Cooling World article in Newsweek on 28th April 1975. This all goes to illustrate how lightweight some sections of the media are. The post 1970’s warming is now well established and the media are much more climate aware, so similar scary headlines are now a weekly occurrance, with the Arctic sea ice featuring prominently. However, the Arctic situation represents regional change, rather than global – there is no equivalent loss of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dust, black carbon, aerosols and Ozone are being implicated in Arctic warming, in addition to greenhouse gases.

Parliamentary legislatures around the world, diverse though they are, generally all share a committee system of review. The review process usually consists of either ad hoc or standing committees that are convened to discuss particular issues or draft pieces of legislation.

Thus in the United States, until recently, members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works under the chairmanship of Senator Inhofe – ignoring political blandishments and distorted science alike – have trail-blazed a path of sensible and moderate commentary on the vexed issue of dangerous human-caused climate change.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, in 2005 the powerful Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords conducted an investigation into the economics of climate change, concluding that “the scientific context (of climate change) is one of uncertainty” and that IPCC procedure “strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process

Now a third parliament has chimed in, this time in the Australian lower house. There, a committee under the leadership of government MP Petro Georgiou was asked to advise the Howard government regarding the feasibility and costs of sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In a politically bizarre development, Mr Georgiou – whose view is that “there is now compelling evidence that human activity is changing the global climate”, and who insisted on making clear reference to this view in his sequestration report – needed the support of the Labor party opposition members of the committee in order to produce a majority report. And four of Mr Georgiou’s government colleagues, led by Dr Dennis Jensen, issued a separate minority report which provides a restrained, rational and sensible discussion of the climate change issue.

Dr Dennis Jensen is that rare animal, a politician who is both a PhD-trained scientist and an experienced researcher. Dr Jensen, who represents a West Australian seat in the Canberra Senate, has worked for two of Australia’s premier research organizations, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation (CSIRO) and the Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO).

His minority report points out that the widely promulgated and alarmist British Stern Report has been “thoroughly debunked”, and that “most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance – by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of lack of scientific training and lack of an ability to differentiate between sound science and computer-based scare mongering”.

With delicious irony, such a diagnosis encapsulates exactly the astonishing and fierce reaction that release of the minority report provoked from the majority members of the committee, other politicians and the press. Chairman Georgiou averred that Jensen was wrong because 43 out of the 46 submissions that the committee had received said so, apparently being unaware that matters of science are not decided by unrepresentative and unqualified consensus. Deputy Chairman Harry Quick badged Jensen’s report as “philosophical waffle”. Labor’s environment spokesman, former rock musician Peter Garrett, wondered out loud in parliament “What planet are these government MPs on?”, and Greens senator Christine Milne called Dr Jensen “a dinosaur”. Finally, The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper referred to the group of four dissentient MPs as the “Flat Earth Four”, and their reporter described one of them, Danna Vale, as simply “daffy”.

What’s remarkable about that, I hear you thinking? Politics is politics. Well, yes it is, and so is science. Dennis Jensen’s minority report contains a careful and accurate assessment of the science relevant to the global warming issue, and advances logical argument and facts in support of the view that human-caused warming is not proven, nor likely, to be dangerous. Yet not one other Australian politician, scientist or media reporter is prepared to discuss any of the science issues, let alone to try to show where Dr Jensen might have erred. Instead, en masse, the commentariat have scorned and abused him for daring to challenge the mighty shibboleth of human-caused global warming.

Of course, Prime Minister Howard – whose government is well behind in the opinion polls and who faces an election in the next few months – is in a politically exposed position regarding climate policy. Recent informal polls suggest that as many as 75% of Australian voters remain unconvinced of the danger of human-caused warming. Nonetheless, with strong bias the media continue to promulgate the shrill climate alarmism of extreme groups like the IPCC, NGOs such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Australian Conservation Foundation, and the Labor and Green political parties, and this has forced the Liberal government to make an in principle commitment to the future introduction of a carbon trading system.

It surprised no-one, therefore, that Mr Howard’s comment on the Jensen minority report was “No, I don’t agree with their views”. Pragmatism, after all, is what wins most elections.

The reality is, however, that over the last few years, the legislatures of the U.S., U.K. and now Australia – all, incidentally, nations with strong scientific credentials – have given independent assessments of the in-vogue claims of climate change disaster, and each has found them wanting.

The Jensen group’s third review, launched in Australia this week, closely follows several other sensational revelations that undermine even further the already very weak case for dangerous human-caused global warming.

First, that bastion of warming alarmism the British Hadley Centre has finally faced reality by publishing a computer model which acknowledges that warming has not occurred since 1998 (and conveniently threatens “but just you wait until 2014”!). Having ignored natural climate variability for 15 years, the modelers now take it into account and discover – guess what – that climate varies.

Second, earlier British research which suggested that the late 20th century warming of the ground temperature record was not due to urban heat island effects was found to be unrepeatable, and therefore must be discarded. This calls into question the accuracy and usefulness of all thermometer-based surface temperature data.

Third, NASA acknowledged that since 2000 its much-reproduced US temperature record has been inaccurate because of a computer programming error. After appropriate corrections, it turns out that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year of the century in the US, and that only four of the hottest ten years on record occurred around the turn of the 21st century.

Finally, and fourth, an in-progess audit of the quality of the Global Climate Network of weather stations maintained by NOAA is showing that many stations are sited in unsatisfactory locations. This revelation shows, once again, that the ground-based thermometer stations provide unreliable data. Perhaps even more serious, it shows that major government and international climate agencies have been, at best, asleep on the job

The wise men and women of our three houses of parliament may mostly be professional politicians, but nonetheless they have discerned correctly the non-alarmist nature of contemporary climate change. The world has many more pressing problems to deal with than quixotically reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere in order to feel good. The global warming scare campaign needs to be recognized as such, badged as such, and then disregarded as such – and in short order.

Bob Carter

Thanks to Luke for alerting us to this new research.

Following hot on the heels of recent climate revelations, such as the warming aerosols of Asian Brown Clouds, Climate Shifts, 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest recorded year in the USA, and the new evidence for a large negative feedback due to the thinning of heat trapping clouds, Australian scientists at CSIRO have discovered a previously unrecognised deep ocean pathway linking the 3 southern hemisphere ocean basins, which is part of the global conveyer belt, or thermohaline circulation. Very important to global climate.

This is where I came in to the climate debate by initilally believing scare stories that the Gulf Stream was about to shut down and give europe a climate similar to Alaska. It turned out that the slowing down was a mis-calculation, plus ‘mean wind advection’ and the earth’s rotation are important factors in driving ocean circulations, according to Carl Wunsch.

The CSIRO news release is here:

Ocean ‘supergyre’ link to climate regulator

Also on CNN who unfortunately saw fit to introduce the now customary alarmism:

“The best known of the global ocean currents is the North Atlantic loop of the Great Ocean Conveyer, which brings warm water from the Equator to waters off northern Europe, ensuring relatively mild weather there. Scientists say if the conveyor collapsed, northern Europe would be plunged into an ice age.”

Of course, this new ocean ‘supergyre’ will have to be incorporated into those diagnostic tools known as ‘climate models,’ along with the results of other recent research.

On Monday Benny Peiser quoted from the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

Benny Peiser publishes CCNet, an e-newsletter with links to various opinion pieces, reports and new technical papers .

Yesterday there was more food for thought:

What is the optimal climate change policy – the one that sets future emissions reductions to maximize the economic welfare of humans? Yale University economist William Nordhaus, perhaps the world’s leading expert on the economics of climate change, has just released a new study, The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy, which estimates the costs of various proposed trajectories for limiting carbon dioxide over the next couple of centuries. So what did Nordhaus find? First, the Stern proposal for rapid deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the future damage from global warming by $13 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion dollars. That’s not a good deal. For an even worse deal, the DICE-2007 model estimates that the Gore proposal would reduce climate change damages by $12 trillion, but at a cost of nearly $34 trillion.
–Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 14 August 2007

Today, the peer reviewed process of funding and validation of scientific research in climatology is equally controlled by the modern equivalent of the Collegium Romanum (the Vatican’s Institute of Research), the Inter-government Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). They in turn answer to the equivalent of the Inquisition, the Green ideologists, who, mercifully, can only torment through derision or denying the heretics research funding, and not the frightening instruments of torture.
–Deepak Lal, Business Standard, 15 August 2007

Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today
they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
–Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, 2006

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy — as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced. The issue of global warming isn’t a closed book. Smearing those who buck the “scientific consensus” as traitors, toadies, or enemies of humankind may be emotionally satisfying and even professionally lucrative. It is also indefensible, hyperbolic bullying.
–Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, 15 August 2007

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: We simply don’t have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale — as Newsweek did — in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.
–Robert J. Samuelson, The Washington Post, 15 August 2007

To subscribe to CCNet send an e-mail to listserver@livjm.ac.uk (“subscribe cambridge-conference”).

There’s an interesting article in The New York Times entitled ‘At Australia’s Bunny Fence, Variable Cloudiness Prompts Climate Study.’

“A fence built to prevent rabbits from entering the Australian outback has unintentionally allowed scientists to study the effects of land use on regional climates.

The rabbit-proof fence in Western Australia was completed in 1907 and stretches about 2,000 miles. It acts as a boundary separating native vegetation from farmland. Within the fence area, scientists have observed a strange phenomenon: above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. But the sky on the farmland side is clear.

Researchers led by Tom Lyons of Murdoch University in Australia and Udaysankar S. Nair of the University of Alabama in Huntsville have come up with three possible explanations for this difference in cloudiness.

One theory is that the dark native vegetation absorbs and releases more heat into the atmosphere than the light-colored crops. These native plants release heat that combines with water vapor from the lower atmosphere, resulting in cloud formation.

Another hypothesis is that the warmer air on the native scrubland rises, creating a vacuum in the lower atmosphere that is then filled by cooler air from cropland across the fence. As a result, clouds form on the scrubland side.

A third idea is that a high concentration of aerosols — particles suspended in the atmosphere — on the agricultural side results in small water droplets and a decrease in the probability of rainfall. On the native landscape, the concentration of aerosols is lower, translating into larger droplets and more rainfall.

Within the last few decades, about 32 million acres of native vegetation have been converted to croplands west of the bunny fence. On the agricultural side of the fence, rainfall has been reduced by 20 percent since the 1970s.”