Pielke on Climate #2

2015-11-19-1447968585-1661590-6672156239_89c77d53d8_oWelcome to the second edition of my occasional newsletter on climate and energy issues. As a reminder, my day-to-day research or writing is focused on sports governance and science policy. But I’ve written a fair bit on the topics of climate and energy over the past 25 years, including two books and a boatload of academic papers, and I’m paying attention. So caveat lector!

A few things to say up front:

  • If you don’t like what I write or don’t like me, then don’t read it – no big deal, just a professor with a blog.
  • If you appreciate the perspective, consider the tip jar to your right. And thanks to those of you who visited it last month – much appreciated!
  • If you’d like to engage, consider a comment, a Tweet or an email. I am happy to discuss or debate.
  • If you choose to call me names or lie about me, oh so common in discussing climate, then you will be blocked or ignored.
  • With that, let’s see what I found interesting over the past month . . .

Climate and Energy Policies

  • Will he or won’t he? There has been much discussion of whether President Trump keeps the US in the Paris Agreement. If we are having this debate then Trump has already won.
  • Much of climate debate (at least in the US) is about symbols, and Trump has roundly routed his opponents on this turf (in fact, this may be the only turf that Trump cares about, but I digress).
  • Consider Adam Sieminski, President Obama’s appointee to head the US Energy Information Agency, who now says that opposing the Keystone XL was a mistake. Amy Harder at Axois writes: “symbolic climate politics won out over pragmatic energy policy.”
  • Trump made Keystone XL a feature of his campaign, upon taking office issued an Executive Order approving the project with no opposition from Congress or really anyone else (outside social media echo chambers).
  • Trump also held an event and signed some sort of symbolic document recognizing coal miners. As I wrote at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, this wasn’t about coal or energy policy, it was about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
  • So think of the Paris Agreement not as a policy framework, but rather as a potent political symbol.
  • As a symbol, here is how the politics works: Trump pulls out of Paris, Trump wins. Trump stays in, Trump wins. Fun game, huh?
  •  In a perceptive piece @jmcurtin writes: “The only White House climate debate is between those who want to use the Paris climate agreement as a branding and lobbying opportunity, and those who favour leaving it altogether.”
  • The rest of the world should preempt Trump and just kick the US out.
  • Similarly, President Trump has made a big deal of reversing Obama’s Clean Power Plan. This too is a symbolic action. According to EIA, the impact of the CPP is pretty marginal:main
  • In fact, its projected impact of the CPP is far less than market prices for fossil fuels, again according to EIA:chart4
  • Consider that the CPP would likely have been tied up in the courts during a Hilary Clinton administration and you get … symbolism.
  • Advocates for more aggressive climate action should use the opportunity afforded by the Trump presidency to fundamentally rethink climate policy in a way that would be politically robust.
  • I read and hear lots of smart people wondering, “How can we elect people who will support Paris and the CPP?”  This is backwards. The more pressing challenge is to come up with energy and climate policies that survive regardless of who is elected.
  • After all, if the world is going to decarbonize at a rate 2-3x historical averages, then it will need public support for policy action over many decades.  You don’t have to be a card-carrying political scientist to understand that political party control of government will change — a lot — over such a long time period.
  •  Bottom line: The Trump presidency reveals the utter failure of US climate policy — it crashed and burned on the first presidential transition. In fact, it may have contributed in some ways to the election of that president (again, I digress). Climate advocates have an opportunity to rethink what a “big tent” approach to climate policy might look like. But will they?

Climate Wars

  • Maybe I’m just an eternal optimist, but it does seem that the tide may finally be starting turning against the extremist views of leading climate scientists and their acolytes.
  • Sure, there were smart pieces by smart thinkers at CSPO and the Breakthrough Institute: @JasonGLloyd (great piece here) and @TedNordhaus (more awesomeness here).
  • But what really was encouraging was Nature magazine writing: “But name-calling and portraying the current political climate as a war between facts and ignorance simply sows division.”
  • Perhaps Nature’s editors noticed that in the US, public support for science funding, once a shared, bipartisan priority, has split on partisan lines:ft_17-04-28_sciencefunding_divides
  • Did the recent Science March help to bring people together? Early evidence says: probably not.
  • After failing to get Bret Stephens fired from the New York Times, the nation’s leading climate scientist, Michael Mann (@MichaelEMann) has focused his vitriol on cartoonist Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame (@ScottAdamsSays).
  • I can’t believe I just wrote that. (Seriously, if you are not yet blocked by Mann, go over and read his Twitter feed for a glimpse into the world view of the nation’s most important climate scientist.)
  • Pro tip: If you don’t want to be viewed as analogous to a religious fundamentalist, don’t go after cartoonists.

Some science

Lots of stuff on the cutting room floor, I’ll get to it next time. All for now!

Pielke on Climate #1

climate_street_art_1I’ve decided to publish an occasional newsletter on climate and energy issues. It is not part of my day-to-day research or writing, which is focused on sports governance and science policy.  I’ve written a fair bit on the topics of climate and energy, including two books, and I may not have anything new or interesting to say. That’s OK, it’s just a blog.

A few things to say up front:

  • If you don’t like what I write or don’t like me, then don’t read it. It’s OK, I don’t mind.
  • If you do appreciate the perspective, consider the tip jar to your right.
  • If you’d like to engage, consider a comment, a Tweet or an email. I am happy to discuss or debate.
  • If you choose to call me names or lie about me, oh so common in discussing climate, then you will be blocked or ignored.
  • We’ll see how this goes. I expect to post about monthly.

Energy & emissions policies

  • According to IEA global carbon dioxide emissions remained more or less level for the third year in a row. I have added in the red lines.  A few thoughts follow.IEA1
    • First, speculation that economic growth and CO2 emissions are “decoupling” is incorrect. They remain tightly linked.
    • When CO2 emissions do not increase from year-to-year, that means that the rate of global economic growth is the same as the rate of decarbonization of the global economy (measured as CO2/GDP). The following figure shows growth rates in global GDP and CO2 from 2000-2016, also from IEA.IEA2
    • To get a decent approximation of the rate of global decarbonization from the figure, just subtract the yellow line from the blue line. The fact that the difference between these two curves in recent years is the widest that it has been in 15+ years explains the recent slowdown in global emissions growth.
    • Keep in mind there are two moving parts here, GDP and CO2 emissions (which are a function of carbon intensity of energy and energy intensity of the economy). Looking only at emissions is bound to deceive.
    • There is emerging evidence that coal use in China (the 800 lb gorilla here) is increasing in 2017 after years of slowing down.
    • There is also evidence that global GDP is increasing, as shown below from the Brookings-FT Tiger (Tracking Indexes for the Global Economic Recovery).FT1
    • In the first IEA figure above, the first red line I included highlights a similar global emissions slowdown in the early 1990s, followed by a rapid and sustained expansion. over the next several decades. GDP, energy intensity and carbon intensity rule all here – emissions are just a consequence.
    • What rate of decarbonization is needed to hit stabilization targets of the sort envisioned by the Paris Climate treaty?  More than double what has been seen in recent years, as explained by PwC (6.5% per year, every year til 2100 or so):PwC1
    • For more on this topic follow the excellent @peters_glen (read this) and @bradplumer (read this).
    • Good recent academic stuff: Jenkins and Thernstrom (PDF), Heard et al. (PDF).
    • Bottom line: Keep your eye on the ball – its decarbonization (of the global economy) that is the metric to watch, not simply emissions.
  • The fate of the Paris Agreement
    • The Trump Administration is apparently wrangling over whether the US stays in or leaves the Paris Agreement.
    • Many businesses, including ExxonMobil, support the agreement because, at least for them, it enables the expansion of the use of fossil fuels.  Yes, you read that right.
    • That fact alone doesn’t men that Paris is good or bad, but it should tell you that its fate under President Trump the agreement won’t determine the course of future decarbonization.
    • I can just as easily spin a story where Trump pulling out is better for action than staying in – for instance if it mobilizes a search for new and better policy approaches. But it is a powerful symbol in an issue that is comprised mostly of symbolic actions these days.
    • Bottom line: In the US the climate issue is mainly a means to other political ends. This is true for both political parties. It is also true for the leading voices among the climate science community.
    • Lost in all the partisan politics is – the climate issue. I don’t see this changing much. However, if progrss is to be made in the US, it will be bipartisan, widely supported and with the anger and poison removed. Ya, good luck.
  • Disasters
    • @stevedarden posted up a link to my recent Tweet storm on the latest data on trends in disasters and climate change. Have a look at that for a comprehensive update of IPCC conclusions and most recent data.
    • It has become a common ploy in public debates to completely ignore the work of the IPCC and government observations of actual extremes.  For instance, here is (such as it is) the “debate” between me an Michael Mann at the recent House Science Committee hearing on this subject:hearing1hearing2
    • Outdated reports? Outdated data? Bring it.
    • Interestingly in all of the sound and fury following the recent Congressional hearing, I did not see one substantive response to anything I presented in my testimony – on scientific integrity or disasters. Crickets.
    • Apparently if you cite the IPCC itself you may be … a climate denier.  It’s nuts, I know, but the incantation of “97% … 97% … 97%” has apparently eliminated need for the IPCC or understanding what it actually says.
    • Bottom line: I’ll debate anyone anywhere on this topic. No one will. I guarantee that.
  • Scientific integrity in climate science
    • Most climate scientists that I know want to do good work, love their jobs and just want to stay away from the politics and the food fights. Good for them. They are decent (and smart) folks doing important work.
    • But the field has been hijacked by a few loud and powerful voices. Its not good for science or science in policy. I see this every single day, even if I try to look away.
    • Side note: (because it crossed my desk), faster than you can say “Willie Soon,” here is a new peer-reviewed paper with its core grey-literature analysis paid for, at least in part, by billionaire Tom Steyer. The paper offers a masterclass in getting around COI and funding disclosures.  No one cares, I know. Here are some details.
    • Did you hear about the latest on “the pause”? … Seriously? WTF cares? it is utterly irrelevant to policy. Believe whatever you’d like. People loveto wage war over atmospheric temperature trends. It. Doesn’t. Matter.
    • Poisoning the well. I’ve seen a lot the past few weeks, even for me. For instance, following last month’s House Science Committee a member of the US House of Representatives took to Twitter to label me (falsely) a “climate skeptic.” A Harvard professor analogized me to the Nazis.  Michael Mann continued nonstop to label me a denier and suggest ominously and repeatedly that I am funded by fossil fuel interests. And several journalists acknowledged to me that they had mischaracterized me but then refused to correct. Another told me that I shouldn’t have come back (to discuss climate). It’s OK, that’s all par for the course. I’ve got tenure.
    • More poison. Activist climate scientists and their allies, such as Joe Romm at CAP, are trying to get @BretStephensNYT fired from his new gig at the NYT, using the same playbook they used to get me booted at 538. I don’t think it’ll work as well in this case – Stephens is a much bigger fish and the editorial folks at the NYT are far better equipped to handle this sort of thing.
    • But it should trouble everyone in the scientific community that the primary response of its leading voices when they encounter a voice they don’t like is to try to get that person fired from their job. That it doesn’t trouble anyone very much says something.
    • By the way, if you haven’t read Stephens’ Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture, do that now. It’s got nothing to do with climate, but it is very good.
    • My entire testimony before House Science was about scientific integrity in climate science and how to secure it (here in PDF).  The lessons here are not unique to climate and will be familiar to anyone familiar with The Honest Broker. The testimony was ignored by members of congress (both sides), journalists who reported on the hearing and of course, scientists.
    • Finally, @oren_cass has a hard-hitting but ultimately very fair piece on the state of the climate debate at the National Review, Who’s the Denier Now?
  • Until next time!

A Quick Guide to Pielke Jr. on Climate

This will be the last post on the short life of this blog. As friends and colleagues know, I have been on a glide path out of the climate field for a while now, mainly because I have had my say and as a scholar I am ready to move on to more fertile fields of study. This is a decision that I made long before the events of the past week. I had thought I’d just quietly fade away on the issue, but after the events of the past week, that obviously isn’t happening!

So to be clear: I am no longer conducting research or academic writing related to climate, I am not available for talks, and on the climate issue I have no interest in speaking with reporters or giving testimony before Congress. This is not a problem for me or the issue. The field is rich and full of smart people doing interesting work, and the topic will for a long time remain scientifically important and politically significant. I’ve been privileged as a scholar to have been able to participate in the debate, along with great colleagues with whom I’ve collaborated and learned from, and to have our views been heard at the highest levels of both science and policy. As a policy scholar I could not ask for any more.

If you wish to know my views on climate, you can easily find them here:

  • The Climate Fix (2011) – a book about climate science, policy and politics;
  • Disasters and Climate Change (2014)- A short book summarizing the state of the science;
  • The Hartwell Approach to Climate Policy (2015) –  an edited volume introducing the broader intellectual tradition to which my work has contributed;
  • Peer reviewed research, 1988-2014: dozens of papers with dozens of colleagues on many aspects of the climate issue, science, policy, politics. Google scholar has them here and most can be found for download on my University of Colorado website;
  • Commentary – I have written commentary on various aspects of the climate debate in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, USA Today and many other places. These too can be found at my University of Colorado website.
  • Blogging – I have blogged on climate since 2004, at times almost daily. You can see my views evolve, mature and change over that period at:

Going forward, if I have anything further to discuss or report about the Congressional investigation of my work, it’ll be over at Roger Pielke, Jr.’s Blog where I will of course continue to write about science, innovation and politics. I do keep getting encouraged to do a 2nd edition of The Honest Broker, so perhaps that is still in the cards. If I do feel compelled to comment on climate issues, not likely, but if so, it will be on Twitter @RogerPielkeJr.

For the past few years the bulk of my academic attention has been focused on issues related to the governance of sport (as my Twitter followers know). I will continue to be blogging on that subject at The Least Thing, which is also the title of a book that I am completing this spring. People argue a lot about sports issues too. We policy scholars tend to gravitate to such issues. Thanks for reading!

I am Under “Investigation”

As some of you will already know, I am one of 7 US academics being investigated by US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) who is the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Rep. Grijalva has sent a letter to the president of my university requesting a range of information, including my correspondence, the letter is here in PDF.

Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.

For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research.

What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:

Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.” (For background on this see here and here.) My 2013 testimony to the Senate is here and House is here in pdf (Q&A following hearing here and here). The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change.

Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).

Adam Sarvana, communications director for Natural Resources Committee’s Democratic delegation, reinforced the politically-motivated nature of the investigation in an interview:

“The way we chose the list of recipients is who has published widely, who has testified in Congress before, who seems to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community”

Let’s see – widely published, engaged with Congress, policy impact — these are supposed to be virtues of the modern academic researcher, right? (Here in PDF is my view on the importance of testifying before Congress when asked. I still think it is important.)

I am pleased that some colleagues with whom I have had professional disagreements with in the past have condemned the investigation via Twitter, among them Eric Steig (of Real Climate), Bob Ward (LSE) and Simon Donner (UBC). This shows some real class. In contrast, Michael E. Mann, who I defended when a Virginia politician came after him, used the “investigation” as a chance to lob childish insults my way via Twitter. Some things you can always count on in the climate arena!

So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore. Even so, there is simply no excuse for any reporter to repeat incorrect claims made about me, given how easy I am to find and just ask.

The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.

The Precipitous Decline in US Flood Damage as a Percentage of GDP

USFloods.GDPThe graph above is an update from a version I first showed in Congressional testimony in 2013 (PDF). It shows US flood damage (as recorded by the NWS in 2013 $) as a proportion of US GDP (as recorded by the OMB, also in 2013 $, Table 10.1 here).  The graph starts in 1940 because this is the start of the OMB GDP dataset.

The US is prone to very large flood events, resulting in tens of billions of dollars in losses. However, the trend since 1940 is striking. As the nation has seen its economic activity expand by a factor of almost 13, flood losses as a proportion of that activity have dropped by about 75%.

Please don’t use this data to say anything about the incidence of flooding in the US or changes in climate. For that, I urge you to look at data and research, discussed here. You’ll find very little evidence of increasing flood frequency or magnitude either in the US or globally. Regardless, the diminishing economic impact of floods in the US is undeniable.

Future Trends in Carbon-Free Energy Consumption in the US, Europe and China

At The Breakthrough Institute (where FYI I am a Senior Fellow) last December, Arthur Yip has produced a very nice analysis. The graph above shows the implications of various policy commitments for future trends in the proportion of energy consumption from carbon-free sources for the US, Europe and China. Such an analysis requires making a range of assumptions, which obviously could be made differently (e.g., Europe will be 11% nuclear in 2030).

The graph above shows that the US, Europe and China have expressed an intention to put into place policies that will support a continuation of a long-term trend in the decarbonization of energy consumption. However, even if these policies are 100% successfully implemented, they will only decrease the world’s reliance on fossil fuels by a small amount in 2030 (FYI, today’s proportion is about 87%, where it has been for about the past 20 years).

“Success” at the upcoming Paris negotiations has come to mean locking in this general approach. While people will no doubt continue to enjoy debating about and witnessing to climate policies, the fact is, at the meta-level, that debate is pretty much over. Climate policy has entered its middle aged years.

Yip’s full analysis, including a focus on China, goes into a lot more detail. Have a look here.

What Does the Peer-Reviewed Literature Say About Trends in East Coast Winter Storms?


The image above comes from a 2001 paper by Hirsch et al. (here in PDF) titled, An East Coast Winter Storm Climatology. The top curve shows all East Coast winter storms, and the bottom shows the most intense storms. for the period 1948 to 1997.

As the figure implies, they concluded in that analysis:

the frequency of ECWS show a downward tendency over the study period but at insignificant levels. One test found a decreasing trend in strong ECWS significant for an alpha = 0.10.

So there was no trend 1948 to 1997, or a slightly downward trend. This is interesting because over the latter half of that period one analysis (Willett et al. 2010) found an increase in the water content of the lower atmosphere over the US East Coast. So those who argue for a simple relationship between increasing water content of the atmosphere and storm strength, data do not support such a claim over this multi-decadal period, in this region.

In 2010 Frankoski and DeGaetano published an update to Hirsh et al. 2001, extending data through 2006. They concluded:

No significant time-dependent trends were identified for precipitation or snowfall from East Coast Winter Storms or for the percentage of precipitation or snowfall from East Coast Winter Storms.

Such research is likely why the IPCC AR5 concluded in 2013:

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.

What that means in climate-speak is that the detection of trends in winter storms has not been achieved. It also means that the IPCC has not attributed any trends to human influences. Detection and attribution are explained in some detail in my recent book.

You can of course find fringe views on both detection and attribution out there on the internet (carefully cherry picked).  There are also plenty of smart folks trying to do their own analyses without referencing the IPCC or the peer reviewed literature on the subject. Minority views and amateurs are legitimate and worth hearing, as they can add valuable new perspectives. But if these folks really wanted to contribute to scientific understandings they should seek to publish their alternative theories in the peer reviewed literature.

No one – least of all those who consider themselves professional journalists – should confuse these alternative perspectives for what is found in the peer-reviewed literature and the assessments of the IPCC.

For further reading, see Vose et al. 2014 and Wang et al. 2008.