Site icon Climate Etc.

U.S. Republicans: critical thinking on climate change

curryja

by Judith Curry

The U.S. Senate Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee have issued a Minority Report entitled Critical Thinking on Climate Change.

In case the Democrats are wondering why they are not making headway with climate/energy policy, this report pretty much lays it all out.

This report was issued in response to the recent Senate EPW hearing Climate Change: Its Happening Now,  see this link for the report’s press release issued on Jul 25 (somehow I missed this when it first came out).  From the press release:

The EPW Minority report analyzes significant predictions and claims made by climate change scientists and activists over the last several decades regarding global warming, and then compares those predictions and claims to the most recent science. This report provides an opportunity to think critically and asks important questions about the impacts, policies and motivations related to climate change. The key sections examine the 15-year break in global warming not predicted by the models, the rate of sea level rise, extreme weather events, and the impact that unilateral regulatory action will have on the economy.

The report itself is 21 pages, and includes the following sections

Here I focus on sections I, II, III, which address the scientific issues.  Each of these sections is laid out with the following organization:

Below are the questions for critical thinking from these three sections.

I.1. If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, why is our federal government relying on these models to take unilateral action? 

I.2. If global warming has been “worse than predicted,” why won’t the federal government provide the data supporting this claim? 

I.3. As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for the past 15 years, will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change?” 

 I.4. Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions? 

II.1. If the present rate of sea level rise would put the world on pace to see an increase of less than 7 inches by the end of the century, then where are the data sets the IPCC and other advocates use to come up with estimates that are in feet and/or meters? 

II.2. What science did Al Gore use to come to the conclusion that the oceans would rise 20 feet or more? 

II.3. What exactly is meant by the statement in the scientific literature “is consistent with previous analyses of tide gauge records which suggested a general deceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century?”

II.4. If empirical evidence indicates that the rate of sea level rise is decreasing, how does the IPCC claim that there definitively is a strong correlation between sea level rise and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Doesn’t the science tend to indicate that there is a lack of correlation? 

III.1. When we are unable to predict extreme weather events, and empirical evidence does not show that extreme weather events are increasing, why would some scientists/activists claim that extreme weather events are the product of human activity? 

III.2. Did extreme weather events begin with the advent of the internal combustion engine, or does historical and geological evidence exist indicating extreme weather events have been occurring for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years? 

III.3. What is the level of confidence that extreme weather events won’t decrease in a warming climate? Is there evidence that colder climates can be harsher? 

Some of these questions are easily addressed with objective information.  Others seem motivated by political gamesmanship.  And some are genuinely uncomfortable for the climate change establishment: in this category, I would include I.1, I.4, III.3.  A rational strategy for the Democrats and climate change scientists supporting ‘action’ would seem to be to address each of these questions in an effort to take them off the Republican’s table.

So . . . how to do this?  The testimony presented in the hearing by the Democrat’s witnesses didn’t seem to do the trick here.  Let me take a stab at II.2

II.2. What science did Al Gore use to come to the conclusion that the oceans would rise 20 feet or more? 

The first reaction of a climate scientist might be that it makes no sense to obsess about Al Gore’s statement in a 2006 movie; rather, the policy makers should be paying attention the IPCC consensus.  A consensus-based response would  look something like this:

The IPCC AR4 (2007) projected sea level rise by the end of the 21st century to be in the range 0.18 to 0.38 m under the SRES B1 scenario.   There was concern at the time of publication that contributions from the melting of glaciers was highly uncertain, and hence was not included in the AR4 estimate.  Since that time, publication of over n papers on this topic have provided new insights and data, which have been assessed in the AR5 report (2013).  The conclusion of the new assessment is that the most likely sea level rise by the end of the 21st century is (21 inches or whatever).  Al Gore’s statement in an Inconvenient Truth (2006) was based upon the assumption that either the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) or Greenland would melt in the near future – complete melting of Greenland ice sheet would raise sea level by 20 ft, and collapse of the WAIS would contribute about 10 feet to sea level rise.  Complete melting of Greenland is not expected on time scales shorter than millennia.  The WAIS is potentially more unstable, but current understanding is that  the ice sheet will survive beyond this century in projected greenhouse warming scenarios.

Well ok, but this doesn’t really address the underlying concern in II.2, which is Al Gore’s role in the climate debate.  To really take this one off the Republican’s table might require a response something like this (JC’s attempt at injecting some humor into this; you may need to be American to appreciate):

We understand that Republicans loathe Al Gore, for reasons that go beyond the climate change issue.  But please understand our perspective on this.  A decade ago, we were a bunch of geeky scientists trying to warn the world about a serious risk.  We had no idea how to communicate this effectively and deal with the politics of effecting public policy.  After the success in 2006 of Al Gore’s movie (Oscar and all), we happily ceded our PR and political strategy to Al Gore.  At first this seemed to work well (the Nobel Peace Prize and all that).  But looking back from the perspective of 2013, this might not have been such a good idea. We realize that Al Gore is a highly polarizing figure in U.S. politics.  We also deeply regret that his ‘truth to power’ approach has resulted in the politicization of climate science.  At this point, Al Gore’s incredible shrinking climate change footprint suggests that we can afford to throw him under the bus in the interests of getting past some of the unnecessary politicization of the science, so that we could take issues such as II.2 off your table.

Not likely.  So . . .  even dealing with a seemingly straightforward issue such as II.2 isn’t straightforward politically, and this issue is exemplary of some of the political baggage surrounding the climate science debate in context of the policy arena.

So, I think their report Critical Thinking on Climate Change is quite useful in laying out the issues of contention.  If we could somehow get past the political baggage surrounding climate change science, we would be left with the following issues that seriously need addressing:

I.1. If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, why is our federal government relying on these models to take unilateral action? 

I.4. Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions? 

III.3. What is the level of confidence that extreme weather events won’t decrease in a warming climate? Is there evidence that colder climates can be harsher? 

Note, I didn’t find any of their sea level rise questions to be particularly hard hitting, here is the question I would ask:

II.5.  For which American coastal cities does the projected sea level rise by the end of the 21st century exceed the sea level change (up or down) from local geologic processes and land use?

Then, maybe we could sensibly start to address the broader policy and political issues in IV, V and VI.

Your thoughts?

Exit mobile version