Archive | climate RSS for this section

War on Science: Muzzle Edition

What do you call people who disbelieve a consensus in the scientific literature on the basis of ignoring observational evidence?

In this administration, you call them the National Security Council, among other things.

While not a surprise, documentation on exactly how the administration tried to muzzle a senior State Department intelligence analyst is in stories in the New York Times and Washington Post. Best line: the National Security Council said that “a consensus of peer reviewed literature has nothing to do with the truth.” So truth is what the NSC says it is? A lot of the objections were to verifiable, measurable facts like how many of the hottest 5 years on record occurred in the past 5 years (answer: all of them). Frankly, if given the choice of choosing between a very rich literature and a political apparatchik, give GG the literature every time.

If war on science was an impeachable offense, this administration would be on the street in a split second.

War on Science, USGS edition

Well, the sad litany of undercutting the scientific community continues, most recently at the U.S. Geological Survey, where (according to the New York Times) the director has commanded that no climate models shall peek past 2040. Now a lot of climate modeling is done under the supervision of NOAA, which presently is not similarly limiting modeling, but the USGS incorporated the short-lived Biological Survey many years back and so those scientists work within the survey. Clearly changes in the range of many species is of interest in understanding the potential impacts of global warming. Most glaciological work is done by the survey, as is a considerable amount of work on flooding hazards and coastal erosion. So cutting off the survey from considering a slightly more distant future–a future many alive today will live to see–hardly seems the wisest approach to governing.

Perils of Professional Restraint

After years of bubbling along below the political surface, climate change has suddenly gained prominence thanks to the “Green New Deal” proposal put forward from some Democrats. The response has been interesting, ranging from accolades that some politicians have finally recognized the magnitude of the challenge through bemusement to strident ridicule of the idea. Some even call it out as lacking courage.

Too bad all this attention comes now, 31 years after Congress was warned that this was a big problem that needed addressing.

Here’s the sad thing.  The scientific community has by and large shared a rosier vision of the future than most felt was actually likely.  Scientists didn’t want to be painted as alarmist, though this label was in fact applied to them even as they recoiled from sharing the darker forecasts that were in the models. This nobility clearly backfired.

Read More…

Any Adults in the Room?

Many of those who find President Trump’s instincts on foreign policy misguided frequently state that they are relieved that there are “adults in the room” that prevent rash military action by the President. At times, Congress has even stepped in to override the President’s dismissal of intelligence findings from the CIA or FBI. Those relieved “there are adults in the room” point to episodes described in various books on the administration where the President demanded action and others either dissuaded him or simply ignored his wishes; the most dramatic (and hotly debated) version of this was in an anonymous New York Times op-ed earlier this year. Whether such actions are honorable or not continues to be debated, but that is not our topic today.

GG would like to know where the adults in the room are when it comes to science.  Frankly, the answer would seem to be, nowhere. This was underscored this past week by what followed President Trump’s dismissal of a major climate report that the administration tried to bury by releasing it weeks ahead of time on Black Friday.  Basically, nobody stood up and said, you misunderstand what this in.  No, instead we had the EPA misrepresent instructions given to the group assembling the report, we had claims that this was a way for climate scientists to get rich, we had claims that lots of scientists disagree with the report.  All of which is wrong.

What is closer to reality is the necessity of the Climate Scientists Legal Defense Fund, or the  Silencing Science tracker, which is a sobering list of efforts made to ignore, obfuscate, blockade, defund, demean, ridicule or prevent scientific research.  The intense harassment Michael Mann faced, the time lost by two Arizona climate researchers ordered to hand over nearly all their emails–this is the reality of many climate scientists.  There is no big money in doing this work. Most are utterly anonymous and so don’t even get some perk from being quoted in the newspaper. A life of fame and fortune it is not.

While there might be adults in the room to mitigate President Trump’s evident distrust of experts in foreign policy, they are notably absent when it comes to using information from the experts on scientific matters.  And in the long run, that might prove to be more harmful to both the nation and the world than any reckless military adventures.

The New Not-So-Normal

Gov. Jerry Brown surveyed the devastation Saturday in Ventura — the area hardest hit by firestorms that have displaced nearly 90,000 people in Southern California — calling it “the new normal.”-Los Angeles Times, Dec. 10 2017

OK, so GG is late to the parade of folks deriding the term “the new normal”. But it is a source of some grumpiness, and so while struggling to catch up to the existing bandwagon (and being pursued by the revisionist anti-bandwagon), here’s the gripe: when put in sentences like that above, the “new normal” sounds like we are there.  Climate change has happened, this is what it looks like, get used to it.

Now the defense of the term is that the new normal is change, and not for the better. If this is how people are reacting to this term, then fine.   But that isn’t the way it sounds. Articles on heavy rainfall, rapidly intensifying hurricanes, “bomb” lows, and flash droughts often put it as “this is that future you’ve heard about.  It is here.  Too bad.” The problem is that that future isn’t here yet–there is more to come, from the spread of tropical diseases to water shortages so intense that depopulation of some areas will be the only response to the creation of a refugee crisis that makes that from Syria look like tourist travel. So any terminology that seems to imply that we are over the hump is making it seem like that awful future we heard about is not so terrible after all. Annoying, maybe, and deadly for a few, sure, but then when haven’t there been weather-related deaths?

Basically, these are now the good old days. It isn’t hard to imagine folks 50 or 100 years from now saying “I remember when there were still forests left to burn–now it is just all the brush that burns.”

Great Plains Astonishment!

A favorite shortcut employed by many in trying to decide between hypotheses is to enlist Occam’s Razor–that the simplest explanation for something is most probably right. Now this has strength because humans are pretty good at rationalizing notions they put forward, adding in new ingredients to keep a favored explanation from collapse. But a theory that has probably passed its must-use-by date will have enough extra bells and whistles to discourage Rube Goldberg from trying to get it to work.

However, there is nothing that says Mother Nature had to be supremely parsimonious. In a complex system like Earth, there can be odd coincidences that are meaningless (like the Moon and Sun sharing the same apparent diameter from Earth’s surface) and outcomes that might be highly improbable (taking over 500 million years to get intelligence after making complex animals with hard parts seems like dawdling, especially when burning most of that time on dinosaurs). Even so, Occam can be a help if used with care.

But lots of times you can face competing hypotheses that lack Occam-style clues. For instance, which is simpler: that post-5 Ma erosion of the High Plains of the U.S. was caused by an eastward tilt, or that this was the product of a changing climate? Both are pretty easy to describe; both have issues.  Yet many earth scientists feel pretty comfortable arguing that one is correct; what is the basis of such assurance?

Arguably the most common discriminator used by earth scientists is the principle of least astonishment.  What surprises you least feels, in an Occam kind of way, like the interpretation that is most likely.  The problem is, we all are astonished differently.

If you are a sedimentologist, you might look at the problem of the High Plains as one of depositing the Ogallala Group in the Miocene as crucial. Could you possibly deposit something like that on a slope like that we have today? This seems so astonishing that if can’t be right; the original slope had to be lower.

But maybe you are a geophysicist looking at the ways to create a tilt about 5 million years ago over something like 1000 km. That looks really hard to do, especially if dynamic topography from flow under the lithosphere is ruled out. It would be astonishing if that happened; it must be that the grade was already there much longer ago.

Skepticism from both geoscientists is warranted; either of these seems really hard to do. Data is gathered by both sets of experts. Margaret McMillan and colleagues measure paleogradients in the Ogallala using a widely applied approach and find there must have been a lot of tilting.  Will Levandowski and colleagues (including GG) look at geophysical measurements and find support for the elevations comes from within the crust, where changes over the past 5 million years seem exceptionally implausible.

Could these be resolved? Well, you could posit that prior to 5 Ma there was dynamic subsidence holding the western end down and once that was released, the crustal buoyancy expressed itself.  But now Occam detectors are flashing red–this feels ad hoc. Of course, there could be mistakes in the measurements of paleogradient, or in relating seismic wavespeeds to densities–each side has poison darts to shoot at the other side.

What makes this frustrating is what makes this interesting.  After all, in the end somebody will be astonished–the earth did something they didn’t expect.

And a funny thing, shoes flip feet in the Sierra, where those studying the sediments argue for no tilting despite deposition at an even steeper grade than modern-day Ogallala, while geophysicists feel they have good evidence for a very recent change in the buoyancy structure of the region.

Are you astonished yet?

War on Science: House Edition

Imagine, if you will, that a Congressional committee on transportation decides to have a hearing focusing on improving our transportation infrastructure.  The session opens with the committee’s chair noting that there is considerable controversy in the engineering community on the use of steel beams in building overpasses, and so we should refrain from building overpasses until the community agrees on the need for steel beams. A highway engineer then testifies that no, there is no such controversy; at most, there are some disagreements on some details about anchoring beams and such not, and regardless of the choices made, new overpasses with steel beams are far better than the overpasses we continue to use today. A committee member then pipes up suggesting that overpasses are collapsing because of the weight of birds’ nests in the nooks and crannies on the overpasses. Nothing is done and roads continue to crumble.

You’d wonder just when Congressmen became such experts in engineering and marvel at their ability to keep anything from being done. And yet hardly anybody bats an eyelash these days when this scenario plays out with the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s hearing on “Using technology to address climate change” , where committee chair Lamar Smith added to his already considerable collection of misrepresentations of the science by claiming that humanity’s role in climate change is unknown and that there is “legitimate concern” that climate scientists are cooking their studies to get desired results (as opposed to, say, certain politicians misstating the science to get desired outcomes). Perhaps best of all was the suggestion from Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks, who offered that rocks falling into the ocean could be driving rising sea level.

Well, to be fair, Brooks actually asked about all the material being dumped into the oceans from rivers and such not, which at least isn’t unscientific. But these questions are often posed as though nobody had thought of that (the answer is that of the >3 mm/yr rise we see today, perhaps 0.02 mm/yr is from sedimentation). No doubt we’ll soon get pop quizzes from Congressmen about plate tectonics, glacial rebound (which is a player, but actually dropping sea level at about 0.3 mm/yr), the rise in sea level from more and more boats, etc. Yes, the people whose careers are spent worrying about this stuff have indeed thought about this stuff. We’re still waiting for the day when a Congressman’s question reveals a truth about science previously overlooked by scientists.

What was more disingenuous was Smith’s display of plots of fossil fuel use and sea level rise over time and saying that obviously the rates were so different that a connection was unlikely. (Phillip Duffy’s response kind of missed the point). Um, OK, time for a science experiment at home.  Take a pot of water, put it on a gas burner.  Turn on the burner–what is the rate of use of fuel?  Pretty high right away, no?  How about the temperature of the water? Um, still pretty cold, no? If you plotted them up, you’d probably find that while the rate of gas usage might be constant, the temperature of the water in the pot gradually increased.  Obviously these are unrelated since they look different. (And the real world version involves 2 more levels of integration–first as CO2 levels increase, which is an integral of the fossil fuel use rate, then the change in heat in the atmosphere and oceans, which has both some integration and lag time, and finally the connection of that to sea level rise similarly has a lag and integration of sorts as thermal expansion is aided by melting ice. Yes, the curves will look different).

There are precisely two explanations for the kinds of misrepresentation engaged in by several members of Congress.  Either they are stupid or they are crooked. GG actually doubts stupid; getting elected and managing a staff and doing all the fund raising and everything else requires some basic level of competence. This leaves crooked, and by that GG means that they need a certain result for reasons not being shared with the public and so seek to obfuscate. No doubt all or nearly all politicians make public pronouncements they know to be false as a means of appealing to their constituents, but one has to wonder at this point who this charade is for when significant majorities of Americans think the government is doing too little to deal with climate change.