Month: June 2018

The Skilled, the Bad and the Ugly: A Spaghetti Western Climate Assessment

Guest essay by Michael Wallace, Hydrologist

Until transparency improves across the board, I’m motivated to routinely compare the skill of my multi-year hydroclimate forecasts to those of others where possible. One of my favorite study and forecast areas is centered above the Southern Rocky Mountains (SRM). The SRM hydroclimatology is also explored and forecast by the more widely known and federally funded West-Wide Climate Assessment (WWCA). The WWCA is the scientific establishment’s key reference to document past climate swings and predict ongoing climate change in the Western US (Overpeck et al., 2013). Those assessments draw upon a series of computer simulations commonly known as CMIP-VIC runs. I profile three of their sample sets in Figure 1. For each stream or region they select, the WWCA authors produce multiple runs that give the ensemble of simulated streamflow records a spaghetti-like quality.

Figure 1. Spaghetti plots from revisions of the West-Wide Climate Assessments. Top. [Overpeck et al., 2013, Cayan et al., 2013, Garfin et al., 2013]. Middle and Bottom [US Bureau of Reclamation, 2011].

Spaghetti plots can sometimes add value in exploring uncertainty. By developing ensembles of runs which abide by a common skill performance standard, and then extending those runs into the future, analysts hope to capture a better sense of the ranges of future possibilities. But one can’t just throw gooey pasta around at random. Much attention is dedicated to ensure compliance of each individual simulation with standards and data. Typically, all simulations must be transparently comparable to, and consistent with the most important observations. Krause et al., 2005 is a good place to start for further context on history matching guidance and practices in modeling for the hydrological sciences.

Given the clear mandate, and my desire to explore the performance of the WWCA runs more fully, I’ve put in some time to produce the few observational overlays included in Figure 1. I followed with Figure 2 to help categorize the clusters of modeling error associated with samples of the WWCA simulations along with some of my own. I think at this log linear scale that only two skill categories are evident; poor and not-poor.

Figure 2. Performance chart for selected SRM streamflow hindcast and forecast skill.

If the WWCA models comprise the spaghetti, then my ARMA and CRMA hindcasts and forecasts must be the breadsticks. Did I mention that my alternative-conceptual-model forecast residuals appear to hug the zero error line in this plot more significantly than the muddy and ruddy WWCA spaghetti error swarms? Unlike WWCA noodles, I don’t serve too many of them for any given meal or streamflow forecast. Besides being nominally crunchier ha ha, my simulations are more inspired by solar and moisture circulation connections and the somewhat unique positioning of the SRM as a recipient of this energy and moisture abundance. (Wallace 2018 a,b). Moreover as the following animation of Figure 3 appears to confirm, there might be no region on the planet more hydrologically sensitive to solar cycles and Pacific moisture and temperature than the SRM. Many lines of accepted evidence already confirm for example that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the precipitation across the Western US are related (Mantua, 2002). USGS authors in particular are among the first to apply statistical hydrology methods to evaluate the compelling relation of the Navajo River in Southern Colorado to the PDO for a 4 year moving average (Falk et al. 2013). One later US Fish and Wildlife Service publication (US Dept. of Interior 2016) also cites a related white paper of mine on these connections [Wallace 2014].

Figure 3. Animation “Temperature.gif” Vertically integrated Temperature across the western hemisphere over 5 year averages, 1985 to 2014. (Source UCAR ERAI data)

The open blue rectangle overlying the SRM region can be seen in each animation frame. The top left dot within that rectangle represents the Animas River. The top right dot represents the Pecos River near Pecos, and the lower dot in that box represents the Gila River. The animation sequences a 5 year trailing average (5yta) of Temperature for the full atmosphere. It is calculated for midnight of New Years Eve every 5 years starting from 1985 and approaching the current time. The animation also points to some of the reasons that these CRMA and ARMA hydrological forecasts can be so promising. As suggested earlier, the pulses of lower temperature across the SRM for the 1985 and 1995 periods of the animation seem to correspond to pulses of higher moisture there, as well as to a somewhat synchronous PDO index.

Figures 4 and 5 document some related monthly beaded abaci styled time series profiles. They appear to confirm a range of similar time series behavior between the PDO and two SRM streams. I chose the Green River as a proxy for the Upper Colorado River Basin and the Gila source is likely identical to that utilized by the WWCA resource. These abaci are useful but otherwise unremarkable and basically capture what any nanohydroclimatologist knows from common quantum bead-stacking of natural energy signatures.

Figure 4. a. PDO Monthly Accumulation b. Cumulative monthly flows at Green River near Green River, UT

Figure 5. a. PDO Monthly Accumulation b. Cumulative monthly flows at Gila River near Gila, NM

By accounting for additional conditions such as reservoir storage operations and by exploiting various moving averages along with the lags which are sometimes observed between the PDO and some SRM streams, I was able to hopefully complement the state of the art through application of Cross Regression Moving Average (CRMA) methods to produce modestly more accurate streamflow forecasts starting in 2014 (Wallace, 2014). I eventually diverted from the PDO in favor of ocean related drivers that seemed to offer better correlations to SRM streamflows with some longer lags, at shorter moving averages. By 2015 I was fully engaged in advancing a decadal scaled solar regression concept to extend SRM hydroclimate forecasts further in time, with more robust granularity, and with better accuracy and transparency. I continue to work to advance in accuracy through CRMA and Autoregression Moving Average (ARMA) methods [Wallace 2017 b, 2018 a,b].

In contrast to a CRMA conceptual and data based model of atmospheric moisture and temperature variation over time and across the SRM, the WWCA documents assert that rising temperatures across the Western US are now indicated through observations of an early Spring [Overpeck et al., 2013]. That can’t be reconciled with the preceding animation, but in any case the WWCA appears to indicate that this can also be identified by a relative reduction in the amplitude of stream flows in the months of May and June and a relative increase over the months of March and April. I’ve developed Figure 6 in part to explore this through a featured time series of another Upper Colorado River Basin tributary, the Animas River at Farmington, New Mexico. I feel the work could help to confirm if the flows in May and June have been following the WWCA script or whether those flows are more in tune with the alternate conceptual model that I study.

Figure 6. Streamflows of the Animas River over time.

The Animas is a signature stream which captures many features seemingly common to all of the dozens of streams of the SRM complex that I have examined [Wallace 2016b, 2017b]. Among other things, it was interesting to me that that Animas and the Sun had such similar time cycles (Wallace 2017a). Accordingly I decided to produce an ARMA forecast for a 5 year average of the Animas 11 years in advance. A mildly truncated depiction of this forecast exercise is shown at the lower panel of Figure 6. This Animas forecast exercise is also captured in Figure 2, as the white diamond series. This was purely an exercise of a lagged autocorrelation. I can’t take much credit if it turns out to be right but you also will get what you paid for if it doesn’t, ha ha.

It is helpful in that context to keep in mind that Figure 2 and its evaluations happen to lump training and actual forecasts together. Most of the results profiled in that figure are hindcasts, which are roughly synonymous with training forecasts. The CMIP-VIC model simulations of past history are informed in part by that prior knowledge. The ARMA and CRMA simulations are informed by the full regression history used. In addition there are a few actual CRMA forecasts in this chart. For the CMIP-VIC runs, these are any results after 2011 (or possibly somewhat earlier in context).

As noted, the Pecos and the Animas are identified by the two upper blue dots in the blue box signifying the SRM region. I began to prototype a solar based CRMA forecast of these specific streams in 2016 (Wallace 2016a) as detailed for the Pecos by the open green circles in Figure 2 and the open blue and open magenta circles in Figure 7. Figure 8 includes the updated green observation line segment. I think the performance verdict might be that the cyclic trend was more or less accurately anticipated, although I might be biased. In any case a lag adjustment in my adaptive system may be in order for next year.

Figure 7. CRMA based hindcasts and forecasts for the Pecos River near Pecos, New Mexico (PnP), made in 2016.

Figure 8. Update of Figure 7 after two years.

In support of Wallace 2018a, I’ve included charts such as Attachment A which document some exercises to classify the goodness of fit of this and other related forecasts. Those include Pearson’s, Chi2, RMSE and Kolmogorov Smirnov tests. There are many others that could be explored, including the Nash Sutcliffe technique favored by many hydrologists and featured in the Krause et al. paper. The work to date begins to map the correlations across the SRM region that may aid in improved hydrclimatologic forecasting.

Figure 9 includes a final featured ARMA forecast which focuses on a stream of the South Platte near Denver, Colorado. The Cache La Poudre river exercise is not the most accurate as demonstrated in Figure 2 by the white rectangular boxes, but it may be the most skillful. That’s because it addresses a more finely scaled average and predicts over a longer span (15 years) than any of the other ARMA or CRMA forecasts. Moreover, the economic value of water along the Front Range of Colorado is impressively high at this time. Given the punctuated nature of pluvials (relatively wet periods) for that stream system, a forecast such as this prototype might point the way to higher resolution and more skillful drought forecasting.

Figure 9. Streamflows of the Cache La Poudre River over time.

Or it may not. At least these forecasts are transparently evaluated through resources such as Figure 2 and that alone should likely aid in more informed decision making. Overall the long term work in progress is to develop better forecasts which peer further into the future. Figure 10 shows the same forecast error chart but in a new vertical log axis space. It is apparent that most forecasts do not achieve accuracies much better than 85% (a 15% error). Over time any brave forecasts can be added to chart relative progress of hopefully the state of the art, forwards or backward. One can sometimes tell that progress is backward when the results migrate further vertically away from the horizontal axis.

Figure 10. Performance chart for selected SRM streamflow hindcast and forecast skill Log-Log scale.

I’m reminded by Figure 10 of some past work on ocean pH data which I now illustrate in Figure 11. Both Figures 10 and 11 represent cases where actual observations appear to be graphically overwhelmed by diffuse and ruddy swarms of non reproducible simulations and data. I think the case of Figure 11 is exemplary of the ocean pH and acidifcation promotions pioneered by contemporary marine scientists which I have challenged in the past.

Figure 11. Total pH for SE Pacific Ocean quadrant; NOAA WOD and PACIFICA sources.

Speaking as a fledgling nanohydroclimatologist, by virtue of the Gibbs Free Energy ladder, Ocean pH is every bit as important a part of the hydrosphere as anything could ever be. For example the Nernst equation appears to be as crucial to the internal energy of the ocean as the ideal gas law is to the internal energy of the atmosphere. Given the reproducibility of the data and models associated with planetary equilibrium geochemistry, I can’t understand why marine scientists continue to disrespect the SHE (Standard Hydrogen Electrode). They have turned their heads from the beautifully natural green potentiometric ocean pH readings such as those profiled in part at Figure 11. I can hardly believe it, because to me those emerald curves appear to be consistent with everything, including carbonate chemistry of the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere as well as the PDO and the streams of the SRM. But the red PACIFICA calculations appear to graphically overwhelm them on a par with the ruddy and muddy spaghetti streamflow simulations from the WWCA.

In summary I’ve pointed to some reigning accurate and skilled hydroclimatology forecasts. I’ve also surveyed some of the vast WCCA and PACIFICA simulation and data results. It took some work that I didn’t anticipate because the WCCA and PACIFICA reports didn’t appear to follow the recommendations of Krause et al. (2005). I certainly encourage all scientists and engineers to consider Krause’s guidelines to apply a greater focus on performance transparency moving forward throughout every aspect of hydroclimatology. I think a slavish approach to that will help to filter out the poorest performing forecasts for a savings benefit to all.


References:

Cayan, D., M. Tyree, K. E. Kunkel, C. Castro, A. Gershunov, J. Barsugli, A. J. Ray, J. Overpeck, M. Anderson, J. Russell, B. Rajagopalan, I. Rangwala, and P. Duffy. 2013. “Future Climate: Projected Average.” In Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 101–125. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press

Falk, S.A., S.K. Anderholm, and K.A. Hafich, 2013, Water Quality, Streamflow Conditions, and Annual Flow-Duration Curves for Streams of the San Juan–Chama Project, Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico, 1935–2010. Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5005. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, eds. 2013. Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press. https://ift.tt/2gYHK7j

Krause, P., D.P. Boyle, and F. Bäse, 2005, Comparison of difference efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment

Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, 2002, The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Journal of Oceanography, Vol. 58, pp. 35-44 2002

Overpeck, J., G. Garfin, A. Jardine, D. E. Busch, D. Cayan, M. Dettinger, E. Fleishman, A. Gershunov, G. MacDonald, K. T. Redmond, W. R. Travis, and B. Udall. 2013. “Summary for Decision Makers.” In Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 1–20. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.

US Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments: Bias-Corrected and Spatially Downscaled Surface Water Projections Technical Memorandum No. 86-68210-2011-01 Review and contributions in alphabetical order: Pamela S. Adams, Bureau of Reclamation Donald M. Anderson, Bureau of Reclamation Jeff Arnold, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Levi D. Brekke, Bureau of Reclamation Martyn P. Clark, National Center for Atmospheric Research Jennifer E. Cuhaciyan, Bureau of Reclamation Patrick J. Erger, Bureau of Reclamation Timothy R. Green, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Ethan Gutmann, National Center for Atmospheric Research Lauren E. Hay, U.S. Geological Survey Shih-Chieh Kao, Oak Ridge National Laboratories Dagmar K. Llewellyn, Bureau of Reclamation Gregory T. Pederson, U.S. Geological Survey James R. Prairie, Bureau of Reclamation Eric L. Rothwell, Bureau of Reclamation Noe I. Santos, Bureau of Reclamation Andy W. Wood, National Center for Atmospheric Research Christopher P. Weaver, U.S. Global Change Research Program

US Department of the Interior 2016 “Final Biological and Conference Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Non-Federal Water Management and Maintenance Activities on the Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico”  Fish and Wildlife Service https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/newmexico/  at file https://ift.tt/2Ew8jw3

Wallace, M.G., 2014 The Relative Impact of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Upon the Hydrology of the Upper Rio Grande and Adjacent Watersheds in the Southwestern United States  This is a white paper at www.academia.edu

Wallace, M.G., 2016a, Ocean and Solar Based Climate Forecasts, invited presentation to Thirtieth Annual Rio Grande Basin Snowmelt Runoff Forecast Meeting, interagency annual climate meeting sponsored by United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) with SNOTEL features.  Albuquerque, NM  April 12th, 2016

Wallace, M.G., 2016b, “Solar and Ocean based Hydrologic Forecasts for the Animas River Leading to the end of 2022”  ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THE ANIMAS AND SAN JUAN WATERSHEDS WITH EMPHASIS ON GOLD KING MINE AND OTHER MINE WASTE ISSUES May 17-19, 2016  San Juan College, Farmington, NM Sponsored by the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute  https://ift.tt/2sIxdEw to be integrated into a proceedings publication in 2019

Wallace, Michael 2017 a, web post: The Persistence of the Sun Upon Climatic Variations

The Persistence of the Sun Upon Climatic Variations

Wallace, M.G., 2017b, Session Moderator and Presenter “New Solar Based Moisture and Temperature Forecasts in the Western US”, Annual Symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, Flagstaff Arizona (September 8)

Wallace, M.  2018a Application of Newly Identified Solar-Atmospheric Connections  Towards Improved Forecasts Of Streamflows In The Western US.  currently under peer review at the Hydrological Sciences Journal.

Wallace, M. 2018b SOLAR CYCLES AND THE HYDROSPHERE: APPLICATIONS TOWARDS IMPROVED CLIMATE FORECASTING Formal Dissertation Proposal Spring Semester, Department of Nanoscience and Microsystems, University of New Mexico

Data Sources

PDO Source: https://ift.tt/1Cqbyx7

ENSO Source: https://ift.tt/WsyDxY

Pecos River near Pecos (PnP) Source: USGS 2014a 08313000, Rio Grande At Otowi Bridge, NM accessed online at https://ift.tt/1lkGxYF

Animas River streamflow record source: USGS 09364500 Animas River at Farmington, NM accessed online at https://ift.tt/1lkGxYF

Gila River streamflow record source: USGS 09430500 Gila River near Gila, NM accessed online at https://ift.tt/1lkGxYF

UCAR Source: https://ift.tt/2xDe7B7 files ‘ERAI.LEDIV.1979-2014.nc

PACIFICA ocean pH source: https://ift.tt/2kSraJY

Attachment A. Excerpt from Wallace 2018a goodness of fit analyses for selected SRM streams and projections

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2Jlwcta

June 6, 2018 at 02:25AM

IF A THEORY DOES NOT FIT THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS THEN IT MUST BE MODIFIED

The following true story is a cautionary tale for scientists against making quick judgements about what seems impossible. Or indeed for any "experts" believing that they know best and ignoring any evidence contrary to what they believe. Does this ring any bells relating to the global warming hypothesis?

In 1963, aTanzanian schoolboy called Mpemba was making ice cream at school, which he did by mixing boiling milk with sugar.  He was supposed to wait for the milk to cool before placing it the refrigerator, but in a rush to get scarce refrigerator space, put his milk in without cooling it.  To his surprise, he found that his hot milk froze into ice cream before that of other pupils.  He asked his physics teacher for an explanation, but was told that he must have been confused, since his observation was impossible.

Mpemba believed his teacher at the time.  But later that year he met a friend of his who made and sold ice cream in Tanga town.  His friend told Mpemba that when making ice cream, he put the hot liquids in the refrigerator to make them freeze faster.  Mpemba found that other ice cream sellers in Tanga had the same practice.

Later, when in high school, Mpemba learned Newton’s law of cooling, that describes how hot bodies are supposed to cool (under certain simplifying assumptions).  Mpemba asked his teacher why hot milk froze before cold milk when he put them in the freezer.  The teacher answered that Mpemba must have been confused.  When Mpemba kept arguing, the teacher said "All I can say is that is Mpemba’s physics and not the universal physics" and from then on, the teacher and the class would criticize Mpemba’s mistakes in mathematics and physics by saying "That is Mpemba’s mathematics" or "That is Mpemba’s physics." But when Mpemba later tried the experiment with hot and cold water in the biology laboratory of his school, he again found that the hot water froze sooner.

Earlier, Dr Osborne, a professor of physics, had visited Mpemba’s high school.  Mpemba had asked him to explain why hot water would freeze before cold water.  Dr Osborne said that he could not think of any explanation, but would try the experiment later.  When back in his laboratory, he asked a young technician to test Mpemba’s claim.  The technician later reported that the hot water froze first, and said "But we’ll keep on repeating the experiment until we get the right result." However, repeated tests gave the same result, and in 1969 Mpemba and Osborne wrote up their results [5].

In the same year, in one of the coincidences so common in science, Dr Kell independently wrote a paper on hot water freezing sooner than cold water.  Kell showed that if one assumed that the water cooled primarily by evaporation, and maintained a uniform temperature, the hot water would lose enough mass to freeze first [11].  Kell thus argued that the phenomenon (then a common urban legend in Canada) was real and could be explained by evaporation.  However, he was unaware of Osborne’s experiments, which had measured the mass lost to evaporation and found it insufficient to explain the effect.  Subsequent experiments were done with water in a closed container, eliminating the effects of evaporation, and still found that the hot water froze first [14].

Subsequent discussion of the effect has been inconclusive.  While quite a few experiments have replicated the effect [4,6–13], there has been no consensus on what causes the effect.  The different possible explanations are discussed above.  The effect has repeatedly a topic of heated discussion in the "New Scientist", a popular science magazine.  The letters have revealed that the effect was known by laypeople around the world long before 1969.  Today, there is still no well-agreed explanation of the Mpemba effect.

via climate science

https://ift.tt/2LqBILF

June 6, 2018 at 01:30AM

Alarmist Holdren on Trump’s Paris Withdrawal (no, the sky isn’t falling)

“United States withdrawal [from the Paris accord] could become a specific excuse for countries that were hesitant to join in the first place…. The second thing is withdrawal of our financial support and technical support for other countries, particularly developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.”

– John Holdren, May 31, 2017

John Holdren is the proverbial gift-that-keeps-on-giving. He has toned down–but not repudiated–his past of exaggerated alarms. (Remember his worry about one billion climate-related deaths by 2020?)

In the wake of President’s Trump decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Kiley Korth of the Center for American Progress interviewed Obama’s former science advisor. The entire interview is reprinted below in light of the new story line from ThinkProgress that Trump’s decision was really not that important! So Holdren then versus ThinkProgress now.

Trump’s bold, correct decision was a major blow to a global effort that was destined to fail anyway. James Hansen rejected Obama’s signature action  before Trump did, stating:

It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: “We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.” It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.

Here is the Korth/Holdren interview.

——————-

Q. So we finally have an answer from Trump on the Paris agreement. What are the implications of the U.S. withdrawing?

Holdren: It’s a blow to the prospects for limiting the damage from global climate change and a blow to U.S. leadership on the world stage. The harm from climate change can no longer be avoided; it’s already happening. We’re already experiencing more torrential downpours and associated flooding, more extreme heatwaves, larger annual area burned by wildfires, and increasing damages from sea level rise.

In addition to the direct effects on U.S. emissions and investments in preparedness, resilience, and adaptation, there is the effect on other countries…. United States withdrawal could become a specific excuse for countries that were hesitant to join in the first place, and were persuaded to do so by the unity of the U.S. and China leading the charge, to now withdraw from the agreement. The second thing is withdrawal of our financial support and technical support for other countries, particularly developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.

And the last way in which U.S. withdrawal will have major adverse impacts is our standing in the world diplomatically and politically. We’re going to lose tremendous global clout and influence if we prove ourselves to be such an unreliable partner in global agreements — who’s going to take lectures from the United States going forward about what we all need to do together?

Q. Almost everything we’ve learned is from leaks and anonymous sources, but Ivanka Trump reportedly wanted to be sure her dad heard from both sides and was getting the best advice. But there is no reliable scientific expert giving him advice. What do you think about that decision making process?

Holdren: I think it’s a terrible gap that President Trump has not yet appointed an OSTP director [White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which Holdren directed]. In addition, the other major science and technology appointments in the government are mostly vacant: there is no NOAA administrator, there is no NASA administrator, there is no USGS director, there is no director of the office of science in the Department of Energy.

There is no indication anybody is able to whisper in President Trump’s ear about what science is telling us about climate change and what is needed to deal with it, never mind about a host of other issues in which science and technology affect or should affect policy choices — about the economy, biomedicine and public health, space, national and homeland security, and more.

Q. This is a terrible choice to be presented with but what concerns you more, leaving all of these science-related jobs empty or filling them with people who very clearly have no background in science? The one that sticks out the most to me is Sam Clovis, the right wing radio host who’s rumored to be picked for lead scientist at USDA.

Holdren: I actually do think it’s worse to fill those positions with unqualified people. It’s basically a fraud when you do that, and I don’t support fraud in government. If they’re not interested in having science and technology advice, they might as well admit it by leaving those positions vacant. 

Q. As far as federal spending goes, the Trump budget blueprint looks like they took anything related to science and just hacked it out. Obviously some of that will be restored by Congress, but I assume there will be cuts. What impact does it have when you diminish anything related to science and technology?

Holdren: The first thing I would say about that is that the problem in the end is the overall caps on discretionary spending. If Trump adds $54 billion to defense and Congress goes along with that, then there is no alternative under the caps but to reduce spending elsewhere in the discretionary space. And there is no way in that circumstance to avoid cuts to R&D [research and development], because R&D is a substantial part of discretionary spending after you get done with defense. If you don’t lift the caps, there are going to be cuts for sure. For that reason I think it’s probably a mistake for the science and technology community to go after individual cuts… because I don’t think we’re going to win an argument about not increasing defense.

Q. I’ve been watching over the past several months, starting with the Trump cabinet members’ confirmation hearings when a lot of them were asked, do you think climate change is a hoax? And there’s a new tack where you don’t outright deny climate change but you cast doubt on it.

Holdren: Most of them did — they said climate is clearly changing but it’s not clear what the human role is — and that was pretty clearly a coordinated response that they agreed on and had been supplied with. Obviously if you don’t know what the human role is then you take a lot of the steam out of the argument for action, except as sort of an insurance argument. It’s a crock, scientifically. We do know.

Q. And it’s spread beyond the Trump officials — the New York Times hiring Bret Stephens, for instance — this injection of a fake sense of uncertainty into the debate around climate science and what’s causing it and what needs to be done.

Holdren: I thought the Bret Stephens column was terrible. Here’s Stephens, a former hysterical denier, saying, now I’m a reasonable person and the reasonable view is that this is still highly uncertain. What a crock. Stephens is trying to claim the mantle of respectability in part by criticizing Trump, but on climate change… his position is unreasonable and inconsistent with the science.

When I was asked after Paris, oh aren’t you so happy we finally got this agreement? And I said, yes, I am very happy, a lot of us worked really hard for that. But I would’ve been a lot happier if we had done this in 1990, 25 years ago, when we already knew enough to justify everything that has finally been agreed in 2015. We lost that 25 years in part because of the propagation of false doubt.

Q. Finally, when we last talked in December, you weren’t able to speculate on specific Trump policies, and you still had some optimism about the world continuing to move forward on climate action in the age of Trump. How do you feel about that now?

Holdren: We now know a lot more than we did then about what his policies are going to be, and essentially all of the news is bad. We know about the anti-science, anti-evidence, climate change denying people he’s put in many key positions. We know about his failure to put scientists in many key positions. His executive orders have been terrible in the climate space.

Nonetheless, there is still some basis for optimism. Number one, states and cities are going to continue to lead in the U.S., and a number of major emitting countries around the world are going to continue to lead. And the other thing is there are these two fundamental forces that are driving us toward reducing emissions: one is the growing and increasingly obvious harm from climate change, which increases the incentive to act, and the other is the falling costs of acting — renewables continue to get cheaper, energy efficiency continues to get cheaper. These costs will continue to fall even in the absence of federal policies, because it’s in the interest of the private sector to continue to advance wind and renewables and energy efficiency; they’re making money at it.

I think we’ll continue to make progress on a number of fronts in reducing emissions, but we won’t make as much progress as we need without the federal government contributing.

The post Alarmist Holdren on Trump’s Paris Withdrawal (no, the sky isn’t falling) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/2M1FgoT

June 6, 2018 at 01:23AM

China: solar stocks plummet as solar subsidies cut to “make electricity cheaper”

Back from travels finally. So much to catch up on.

Last week, the world leading nation in solar panel manufacturing announced big cuts to subsidies in order to make their electricity cheaper. Can you believe? The cuts are big enough for The Motley Fool to headline this “Why the Lights Went Out on Solar Today”. (h.t GWPF)

Put this in perspective — in late 2016, Scientific American declared that China Is Dominating the Solar Industry. Apparently, the Chinese forced the prices down, drove US leaders out of business, and the US could only hope to be second.  Without a hint of impending doom, Scientific American titled one sub-part: AN INDUSTRY PROPELLED BY TAX CREDITS. The Chinese grabbed the industry from all over the world, brought it to China, and ran with it. Now apparently rising electricity prices hurt too much.

“According to some veterans in the U.S. solar industry, China bought solar companies and invited others to move to China, where they found cheap, skilled labor. Instead of paying taxes, they received tax credits.”

Last week the Chinese government announced solar subsidy cuts:

[Capital Watch] Chinese regulators said Friday they were unexpectedly suspending construction of new solar […]

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/2sJAEuO

June 6, 2018 at 12:44AM