Site icon Climate Etc.

New Climate Assessment Report from US DOE

curryja

by Judith Curry

Climate science is baaaack 

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has commissioned a new climate assessment report:

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate 

From the Secretary’s Foreword:

What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people—even well-meaning ones—walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.

To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report. Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.

Climate Working Group (CWG)

These reports were authored by the DOE Climate Working Group (CWG).  Members of the Climate Working Group are: [link to biosketches ]

The origins of the Group and rationale for selecting us are described in Secretary Wright’s Foreword:

To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it. In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments.

—— Disclaimer:  the remainder of the text in this blog post reflects JC’s personal impressions/analysis and not that of the CWG.

This Group was assembled in April.  I decided to accept Secretary Wright’s invitation for the following reasons:

I was happy to help with this but in the beginning, I confess that I was not at all sure that I would put my name on any report that came out of this.  I tend to fly solo, and had not contributed to any multiple authored assessment report in several decades, for a number of reasons.  While I had previously met each of my coauthors several times and was familiar with their work, I was not at all sure how this would go.  Further, I was concerned about the short deadline for completing the report.

Short summary:  all exceeded any hopes and expectations that I had. 

Climate assessment report

The Report is a remarkable document, particularly since this was written so quickly and by a small team.  I encourage you read the whole thing, it is relatively concise by the standards of climate assessment reports (closest in spirit and length to the IPCC First Assessment Report).   

Given the time constraints, we had to be selective about which topics to cover.  We selected topics that we judged to be of particular importance and relevance in the context of US climate and energy policy deliberations. The areas of expertise of the CWG members were also a factor in selection of topics.

While each CWG author has approved this document on a line-by-line basis, this is not a “consensus seeking” document.  Uncertainties and areas of disagreement are clearly described. 

The CWG framed the overall climate change issue somewhat differently from the IPCC and the US National Climate Assessments (NCA).  Our assessment is very much data driven and considers natural climate variability as well as human causes.  We consider a number of issues that we regard to be important, but have received short shrift (or were completely ignored) in the IPCC and NCA reports.  Some examples:

If you only have time to read a few chapters, my favorites are Chapters 6, 8 and 11.  But each chapter is pretty interesting – you will be surprised at what you learn from reading this! While a single individual took the lead on each chapter, every chapter had at least 2-3 team members providing substantial input.  I regard this effort as being a case where the whole is substantially greater than the sum of the parts.

Information quality and peer review

This report has been evaluated under DOE guidelines to meet Federal standards. This includes an internal review from eight scientists/administrators employed by the DOE.  The reviews were quite interesting and varied, and several were very useful.  The CWG made a number of fairly minor changes to the Report in response to the reviews, and added a number of references, and we are responding in detail to their comments.  As I understand it, the DOE will arrange for a more formal external peer review.

DOE welcomes public comments on this report and is setting up a website for comments. The CWG expects to expend considerable time responding to the comments. We’ve already seen a pretty broad range of comments from the DOE scientists; it will be interesting to see what the what the public comments look like

Speaking from the perspective of individuals who have commented on the IPCC and NCA reports only to see our comments ignored, we plan to take a different approach.  Rather than primarily seeking to defend our Report, we regard the open comments as an opportunity for dialogue, learning, and clarification of areas of disagreement. We expect to spend considerable time and effort in responding to the comments.

At some point, I assume that the CWG will be charged with writing a revised, more comprehensive report that responds to the external comments (we shall see).

JC reflections

The full significance of the DOE CWG Report remains to be seen.  Here is what I’m hoping for:

Hopefully the CWG Report will kick start some of this.

The looming US policy issue is the EPA Endangerment Finding (2009).  Based on my meager understanding, this is more of a legal issue than a scientific one (JC note to journalists: I have no comment on the endangerment finding).  But the bigger issue is this.  In the U.S., one major political party (~half the population) think that fossil-fueled climate change is an existential threat, while the other major political party (the other ~half of the population) wants to ignore this issue and focus on energy abundance.  The net result of this dichotomy is a political/policy windshield wiper effect, where we’ve seen: in the Paris Agreement (Obama), withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Trump I), back in the Paris Agreement (Biden), withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Trump II).  This is not good for energy policy, climate policy, or climate science.

What is needed is some sane middle ground that realistically assesses climate risk.  An honest assessment of climate change science is a starting point (the CWG Assessment Report), which acknowledges uncertainties and areas of disagreement.  It seems like Secy Wright has the right approach to energy policy (from his Foreword):

Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.

We stand at the threshold of a new era of energy leadership. If we empower innovation rather than restrain it, America can lead the world in providing cleaner, more abundant energy—lifting billions out of poverty, strengthening our economy, and improving our environment along the way

A hugely important issue falls between the cracks of energy and climate policy, and that relates to extreme weather and climate events.  Attributing extreme weather events to fossil-fueled warming has been a key propaganda tool to spur “Climate Action,” with the inference that bad weather would go away if we stop burning fossil fuels.  This kind of thinking has led us to ignore the real sources of our vulnerabilities to extreme weather, allowing us to throw up our hands and do nothing because “climate change.”  Although there is little to no link between extreme weather events and fossil-fueled warming (see the CWG Report), the U.S. currently has substantial vulnerabilities (and electric utility systems are hugely vulnerable to extreme weather events).  Assessing and managing such risks requires good weather and climate data, improved weather and seasonal climate forecasts, and better warning systems – much care is needed to avoid gutting critical information and services in the current budget cutting zeal.

And finally, I can make one prediction with confidence.  The Michael Mann wing of the climate debate will hate this Report because: the CWG authors are reputable scientists outside of their “tribe,” the Report demonstrates that Mann et al. are losing control of the climate narrative in the U.S., and because Trump Derangement Syndrome.  There is a preview from a July 8 NYT article that caught a hint of the DOE activity

Their usual strategy of ad hominem attacks won’t be effective against the CWG Report, which is evidence based, thoroughly documented, and logically argued.

JC recommendations for climate science/scientists:  Embrace the complexity of climate science and acknowledge uncertainty and disagreement. Stop with the faux “consensus” enforcement and stop playing power politics with climate science.  Constructively participate in the dialogue that DOE and the CWG Report are attempting to foster, in the interests of returning objective physical science to the climate issue.  US federal funding for climate research is being decimated by the Trump administration – good riddance to much of this, but if we are to salvage this field of scientific research, then different foci and types of behavior are needed.

Media:  Andrea Woods in DOE’s Office of Public Affairs is handling things, please contact her if you have any questions. andrea.woods@hq.doe.gov.  The ringer on my phone is turned off.  And a reminder: I have no comment on the endangerment finding.  

For my assessment/analysis of related topics, see my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk:

Exit mobile version