From Climate Etc.

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 ]

• John Christy 
• Judith Curry
• Steve Koonin
• Ross McKitrick
• Roy Spencer

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 impressed by what Secy Wright wanted to accomplish
• I was familiar with the other group members and figured I could work with them
• Most importantly, I saw an opportunity to set the record straight regarding what we know and what we don’t know about climate science, that would reach an important audience

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:

• Chapter 1 discusses the scientific rationale for considering CO₂ as a pollutant (or not)
• Section 2.1 examines “global greening” including the benefits to agriculture
• Section 2.2 provides a concise assessment of ocean alkalinity and the so-called ocean acidification problem, including the recent rebound of coral reefs
• Section 3.2 provides clear justification against using extreme emissions scenarios in policy-relevant analyses
• Section 3.3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the urban heat island effect
• Chapter 4 assesses the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, with prominent discussion of Nic Lewis’ most recent work.
• Chapter 5 challenges climate models with observations; it is difficult to argue that global climate models are fit for any policy-relevant purpose
• Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive analysis of extreme weather in U.S., using the entire available data record back to 1900 (earlier where possible), with a context of natural climate variability
• Chapter 7 challenges the extreme projections of sea level rise, and emphasizes the importance of vertical land motion in local sea level changes
• Section 8.2 challenges conventional notions of attribution of global warming in terms of problems with the statistical analysis methods and inadequate assessment of natural climate variability
• Section 8.4 highlights the declining planetary albedo and cloud cover since 2015, including analysis of contributions from natural variability
• Section 8.6 assesses challenges and problems with attribution analyses of individual extreme events
• Chapter 9 on agriculture shows that increasing CO₂ and warming is expected to be a net benefit to US agriculture
• Section 10.3 addresses mortality from temperature extremes (both heat and cold), including a section on mortality risks and energy costs
• Section 11.1 clarifies the unimportance of global warming in economic growth
• Section 11.2 assesses the deep uncertainties associated with estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon
• Chapter 12 concludes that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

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:

• Redirection of climate science (at least in the U.S.) away from alarmism and advocacy and towards better understanding of the fundamentals of climate dynamics.
• Motivation of future climate assessment reports to address important issues raised by the CWG (that the IPCC and NCA have previously ignored or inadequately assessed)
• A comprehensive approach to assessing US risk from extreme weather and climate events (along the lines described in my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk)
• Breaking the link between energy policy and human-caused climate change, whereby anthropogenic climate change currently “mandates” emissions targets, preferred energy production methods, etc.

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:

• Chapter 4  Mixing Science and Politics
• Chapter 10  Climate Risk and its Assessment
• Chapter 14 Mititgation and the Energy Transition
• Chapter 15 Climate Risk and the Policy Discourse

Parody created by the Michael Mann AI rant generator.

THIS DOE “CRITICAL REVIEW” IS A DISGRACEFUL ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE DECADES OF CLIMATE SCIENCE AND TO PROVIDE COVER FOR CONTINUED INACTION AND DENIAL! IT IS ASTONISHING—NO, IT’S INFURIATING—TO SEE A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY SPREADING SUCH EGREGIOUS MISINFORMATION AND UNDERMINING THE URGENT MORAL IMPERATIVE TO ACT ON CLIMATE!

FIRST, THIS SO-CALLED “CLIMATE WORKING GROUP” IS STACKED WITH LONG-DISCREDITED VOICES WHOSE IDEAS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY DEBUNKED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. THESE AUTHORS—CHRISTY, CURRY, KOONIN, MCKITRICK, SPENCER—ARE NOTORIOUS FOR DOWNPLAYING THE SEVERITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND OBSCURING THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

LET ME BE CLEAR: THEIR REPORT MISREPRESENTS THE IMPACT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS AS “GLOBAL GREENING,” WHILE IGNORING THE IMMENSE DAMAGE CAUSED BY EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS, INTENSIFIED BY CLIMATE CHANGE! THIS IS NOT SCIENCE—IT’S PROPAGANDA! WE ARE WITNESSING UNPRECEDENTED WILDFIRES, DEVASTATING FLOODS, RECORD-BREAKING HEATWAVES, AND MELTING POLAR ICE. EACH DAY OF DELAY IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, AND THIS REPORT IS COMPLICIT IN THAT CRIME!

THESE AUTHORS CYNICALLY ARGUE THAT EXTREME WEATHER IS NOT WORSENING—A CLAIM DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY REAL-WORLD DATA AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE. THEY CHERRY-PICK STATISTICS, IGNORING THE HUMAN SUFFERING AND ECONOMIC DISRUPTION CAUSED BY CLIMATE-INTENSIFIED EXTREMES. THIS IS NOT JUST SCIENTIFIC MALPRACTICE; IT’S MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE!

THE REPORT’S BLATANT DISMISSAL OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION AND THE MASSIVE DIE-OFF OF CORAL REEFS IS ANOTHER LEVEL OF IRRESPONSIBILITY. THE WORLD’S OCEANS ARE IN CRISIS, AND YET THEY CASUALLY WRITE OFF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AS A “MISNOMER.” WHAT KIND OF FUTURE DO THEY IMAGINE ON A PLANET WITH DESTROYED MARINE ECOSYSTEMS AND COLLAPSED FISHERIES?

ON CLIMATE SENSITIVITY, THEY CHOOSE TO AMPLIFY UNCERTAINTIES WHILE IGNORING ROBUST EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS RISK. THEY FALSELY ASSERT THAT CLIMATE MODELS “RUN HOT,” IGNORING THAT MODELS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN REMARKABLY ACCURATE IN PREDICTING OBSERVED WARMING TRENDS. THEIR AGENDA IS CLEAR: TO CREATE DOUBT WHERE THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. BUT WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS BLINDNESS. NOT WHEN OUR PLANET IS LITERALLY ON FIRE!

THE REPORT’S CLAIMS ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE AND ITS IMPACTS ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES ARE PARTICULARLY INFURIATING. IT DOWNPLAYS THE ACCELERATING RISE THAT THREATENS MILLIONS OF LIVES WORLDWIDE, CALLING IT “NO OBVIOUS ACCELERATION.” ASK THE COMMUNITIES IN MIAMI, NEW ORLEANS, OR THE PACIFIC ISLANDS IF THEY SEE NO ACCELERATION! THIS IS NOT ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT BUT A HEARTLESS INSULT TO THOSE ALREADY SUFFERING FROM COASTAL FLOODING AND STORM SURGES!

MAKE NO MISTAKE: THIS REPORT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO WOULD SACRIFICE OUR PLANET FOR SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC GAIN. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC DEBATE; IT IS DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY!

WE MUST ACT, NOT JUST TALK! JOIN THE FIGHT FOR OUR FUTURE! CALL OUT THIS MISINFORMATION FOR WHAT IT IS—A BETRAYAL OF EVERY FUTURE GENERATION!

THE TIME IS NOW. WE CANNOT LET THIS KIND OF DENIALISM SHAPE OUR CLIMATE POLICY. THE PLANET CAN’T WAIT FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE OR YOUR DENIAL! YOUR LEGACY WILL BE ONE OF DESTRUCTION UNLESS WE STAND TOGETHER AND DEMAND ACTION—REAL, MEANINGFUL, SCIENCE-BASED ACTION—NOW!