Part 3 at SeekerBlog, perhaps “part 27″ depending on what you read. Anyhow, Roger Pielke, Jr. has more useful followup on his challenge
What observations of the global climate system (over what time scale, with what certainty, etc.) would be inconsistent with predictions of the IPCC AR4?
re: Falsifiability of Climate Predictions — here and here.
In his latest essay on my stupidity, climate modeler James Annan made the helpful suggestion that I consult a “a numerate undergraduate to explain it to [me].” So I looked outside my office, where things are quiet out on the quad this time of year, but as luck would have it, I did find a young lady named Megan, who just happened to be majoring in mathematics who agreed to help me overcome my considerable ignorance.
In today’s “The Politicization of Climate Science” Roger seeks more robust political strategies.
So what is the alternative for those of us who seek action on climate change? I see two options, both predicated on rejecting the linkage between IPCC predictions and current political actions.
1) Recognize that any successful climate policies must be politically robust. This means that they have to make sense to many constituencies for many reasons. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have effects, and these effects are largely judged to be negative over the long term. Whether or not scientists can exactly predict these effects over decades is an open question. But the failure to offer accurate decadal predictions would say nothing about the judgment that continued increasing carbon dioxide is not a good idea. Further, for any climate policies to succeed they must make sense for a lot of reasons — the economy, trade, development, pork, image, etc. etc. — science is pretty much lost in the noise. So step one is to reject the premise of claims like that made by Pat Michaels. The tendency among activist climate scientists is instead to accept those claims.
2) The climate community should openly engage the issue of falsification of its predictions. By giving the perception that fallibility is not only acceptable, but expected as part of learning,it would go a long way toward backing off of the overselling of climate science that seems to have taken place. If the IPCC does not have things exactly correct, and the world has been led to believe that they do, then an inevitable loss of credibility might ensue. Those who believe that the IPCC is infallible will of course reject this idea.
Who knows? Maybe warming will resume in May, 2008 at a rapid rate, and continue for years or decades. Then this discussion will be moot. But what if it doesn’t?
If the test of “consistent with” is defined as any overlap between models and observations, then any rate of cooling or warming between -10 deg C/decade and +13.0 dec C/decade could be said to be “consistent with” the model predictions of the IPCC. This is clearly so absurd as to be meaningless.
Excellent auditing work by Roger Pielke, Jr. The point isn’t a “climate skeptic” issue, it’s just ordinary scientific method — can we agree on how to falsify the selected group of models upon which the serial IPCC reports are based?
See what you think…
Roger Pielke is writing a series on the misuse of the phrase “consistent with” predictions from climate models. Today he published an email from a West Tennessee rancher that is just brilliant — don’t miss it. I can’t describe it better than did commenter Mike:
This letter was an absolute pleasure to read. I get tired of trying to decrypt posts on blogs such as realclimate, and it is nice to read comments that ring with such clarity and sound logic. Thanks to the West Tennessee rancher for taking the time to put this in writing!
Tracking corn from seed to ethanol, it creates greenhouse gas emissions on par with diesel and only slightly less than gasoline. But harvesting native prairie grasses for ethanol leads to a net reduction in the planet-warming pollutants.
Click on the chart at left for the full size view. This is an excellent graphic from the new study published in the February Conservation Biology, by Groom, Gray & Townsend from the University of Washington and The Nature Conservancy. It appears the authors have attempted a full life-cycle inputs/outputs study of most of the biofuels sources currently in production or under development.
Of the biofuel sources they evaluated, the only ones that make sense are those that don’t work today: switch grass, wood waste and algae. The “wood residue” crop would presumably include processes such as the Range Fuels thermochemical process. I’m keeping an eye on Range Fuels because their syngas process is close to conventional chemical plant methods and doesn’t require any bio-engineering breakthroughs [as does the switch grass channel].
There is a summary of this report in the Seattle PI.
Technorati Tags: Biodiesel, Biofools, Biofuel
Global warming is an issue for the elites, he said, not for the average voter.
Evan Thomas talks to some politicians
In the summer of 2006 I went to see Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who was running the Democrats’ successful effort to regain control of the House of Representatives… So I asked Emanuel, how are the environment and global warming playing out there in the heartland? Is it stirring voters? No, he replied. In the 2006 congressional elections global warming was virtually a nonissue, he said, a low-priority item way behind the war and the economy and old staples like education and health care. Global warming is an issue for the elites, he said, not for the average voter.
…National polls show that the environment ranks fairly low as an issue that moves voters… But most voters worry more about jobs and keeping fuel cheap.
I don’t follow the polling, but will assume that Mr. Thomas accurately reports voter sentiment. Then the shocker that dropped my jaw — Thomas wants a command and control solution!
… the politicians will have to get involved and put the thumb of government on the scale-and then lean hard. That means calling for sacrifice-serious wartime sacrifice.
or in other words “let’s wreck the global economy”. Sigh — good policy can probably stabilize emissions at a 2050 GDP cost of less than 2%. See my last post Energy policy: good policy can stabilize emissions and create wealth.
Good energy policy can probably stabilize emissions at a 2050 GDP cost of less than 2% Studies project more like 1 to 1.5% but forecasting how it is all going to work out in 50 years is impossible. So 2% is just my speculation, based on my optimism about markets and innovation, and a recognition that humans can adapt and adjust policy as innovations and effects emerge.
What do I mean by good policy? Simple summary: a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Establish a predictable rising price on carbon from a low level of around $15/ton CO2, increasing to around $60/ton by 2050. If innovation is running ahead of plan, then that offers the possibility of reducing planned future increases. Inversely, if emissions are running ahead, increase the future carbon price. Something like Al Gore’s proposal could result in a GDP gain by 2050, not a loss [e.g., because energy not consumed is cost not spent]. Gore proposes rebates of the first dollars of payroll taxes — dollar for dollar with revenues from the carbon taxes.
For the details of how carbon tax revenues can be fully rebated and distributionally neutral, see e.g., “A Proposal for a U.S. Carbon Tax Swap - An Equitable Tax Reform to Address Global Climate Change” [Brookings Institution Hamilton Project Oct 2007] by Gilbert E. Metcalf, Professor of Economics, Tufts University.
The Royal Dutch Shell blueprint scenarios are now available.
To help think about the future of energy, we have developed two scenarios that describe alternative ways it may develop. In the first scenario – called Scramble – policymakers pay little attention to more efficient energy use until supplies are tight. Likewise, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until there are major climate shocks. In the second scenario – Blueprints – growing local actions begin to address the challenges of economic development, energy security and environmental pollution. A price is applied to a critical mass of emissions giving a huge stimulus to the development of clean energy technologies, such as carbon dioxide capture and storage, and energy efficiency measures. The result is far lower carbon dioxide emissions.
We are determined to provide energy in responsible ways and serve our customers and investors as effectively as we can. Both these scenarios help us do that by testing our strategy against a range of possible developments over the long-term. However, in our view, the Blueprints’ outcomes offer the best hope for a sustainable future, whether or not they arise exactly in the way we describe. I am convinced they are possible with the right combination of policy, technology and commitment from gov- ernments, industry and society globally. But achieving them will not be easy, and time is short. We urgently need clear thinking, huge investment, and effective leadership. Whatever your role in this, I hope these scenarios will help you understand better the choices you face.
Jeroen van der Veer. Chief Executive Royal Dutch Shell plc
More to follow…
One of my ongoing puzzles is this how to fund the investment capital required for improving energy productivity.
° C = amount of capital investment/annum required to achieve a compounding 2% decrease in energy intensity
° Assuming there will be some sort of carbon pricing scheme [like a revenue-neutral carbon tax] then how much of C will meet investor ROI hurdles as a function of a range of carbon prices? I.e., given a scheme, we have C = Cpass + Cfail.
° How big is Cfail? $50B per year? or $200B per year?
° How do we cover Cfail?
Much of the discussion around the failure of Kyoto centers on the idea that the developed countries must fund the developing countries carbon abatement investments.
The biggest abatement challenge is China, then India, then Brazil. Is there a way to motivate the SWF’s [sovereign wealth funds] like the China Investment Corporation to make these investments? I think CIC is projected to have on the order of two to three trillion dollars to invest over the next ten years.
So, is it really true that agreeing to a carbon pricing scheme is impossible because it is too costly?
Another useful McKinsey Quarterly article — this one is also available as a podcast download [article read by very boring newsreader guy].
What’s interesting about our findings is the scope of the low-cost opportunities available to reduce emissions. If the United States makes no greater effort over the next 22 years than it does today, for instance, its emissions will increase from roughly 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases to almost 9 billion in 2030. This is the “business as usual” scenario.2 But the United States could instead eliminate 3.0 billion to 4.5 billion tons of its annual emissions by 2030 if it consistently and systematically adopted abatement options costing less than $50 a ton. These include raising the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks, promoting second-generation biofuels, improving the management of methane gas emissions in coal mines, deploying cover crops on farmland in the winter more consistently, planting new forests, and building wind power systems in windy regions.
Note especially the section on investment and ROI. The $170 billion/year opportunity analysis was based on $50 oil.
How much capital is required for energy- and carbon-abatement investments?
Even profitable steps to reduce carbon emissions often require an initial capital outlay. Consider, for example, efforts to boost energy productivity—the level of output achieved from the energy consumed. Approaches ranging from more efficient industrial processes to better insulation of residential buildings are among the most attractive carbon-abatement opportunities because they pay for themselves in saved future energy costs.
The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) and McKinsey’s global energy and materials practice estimate that $170 billion a year could be invested from now until 2020 in energy productivity opportunities that would yield an internal rate of return (IRR) of at least 10 percent. These investments could cut the projected growth of energy demand by at least half to less than 1 percent a year, from a projected 2.2 percent—and help save the equivalent of 64 million barrels of oil a day, almost 150 percent of today’s entire annual US energy consumption.2 Capturing these energy productivity opportunities could deliver up to half of the emission abatement required in 2020 to cap the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million. This, experts suggest, is the level that will be needed to prevent the global mean temperature from increasing by more than two degrees centigrade.
Now, $170 billion equals some 1.6 percent of current global fixed-capital investment, or 0.4 percent of current global GDP. While this figure seems manageable, developing regions represent two-thirds of the incremental capital needed; China alone accounts for $28 billion annually. A broad effort by local companies and governments in emerging markets, multinational companies, international financial institutions, development agencies, and nongovernmental organizations will therefore be necessary.
McKinsey is doing an ongoing global study on low-carbon strategies — e.g., see the study I posted back in March focused upon Australia.
All that money in Singapore seems to be producing some stunning architecture. There is a boom in innovative architecture in that part of the world — this is just one example:
This is a 5-storey School of Art, Design & Media at Nanyang Technological University campus, Singapore. This stunning piece of award-winning architecture is situated in a wooded valley. Before you read on, answer this : is this a landscape or a building?
The embracing arms of this unique building have a most spectacular verdant turfed roof which blends with ground contour as if emerges from it. It has glass curtain wall and raw concrete minus the painting.
Apart from its visual impact, the turfed roofscape helps to lower the roof temperature and surrounding areas. It works as a functional space, as a scenic outdoor community space via easily accessible sidesteps along the roof edge.
Thanks to Bradford Plumber for the link.
Latest Comments
RSS