09 June 2010
The Prize
I should have thought of this before, but the winner of the competition who must also exceed the two naive metrics of skill that I have introduced, wins a signed copy of . . . . The Climate Fix (to be delivered when published). You can enter as many times as you'd like, I don't mind. I will sign the book with full recognition of your accomplishment as the first quadrennial winner of my Blog World Cup competition ;-) If I win, which I handicap at no better than 1/45 at present, then I will demand some sort of appropriate recognition.
The Battle for Public Opinion has Been Over
In an op-ed in the New York Times today Jon Krosnick of Stadford University writes:
In our survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National Science Foundation, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were interviewed by phone between June 1 and Monday. When respondents were asked if they thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent answered affirmatively. And 75 percent of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred.
For many issues, any such consensus about the existence of a problem quickly falls apart when the conversation turns to carrying out specific solutions that will be costly. But not so here.
Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent — but 76 percent.
Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity (78 percent) and gasoline (72 percent) to reduce consumption. But 84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more electricity from water, wind and solar power.
And huge majorities favored government requiring, or offering tax breaks to encourage, each of the following: manufacturing cars that use less gasoline (81 percent); manufacturing appliances that use less electricity (80 percent); and building homes and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool (80 percent).
Thus, there is plenty of agreement about what people do and do not want government to do.
As I have said for many years, and documented in The Climate Fix, the battle for public opinion on climate change has been won by those who argue that there is a profound human influence on climate and action is warranted. This has been the message of opinion polls for as long as 20 years.
The effort to cleanse the world of climate skeptics that occupies the attention of so many climate bloggers is simply a waste of effort, if the goal is to advance climate policies. The public support is there -- and has been for many years. The battle over climate science is so over that those wanting to continue this fight have to try to label people with whom they disagree with "climate skeptics" or "climate deniers" just to pick a fight (trust me, I've seen this happen;-).
I fully expect that the blogospheric wars over climate change science to continue ad nausem, because people enjoy it and it allows people (on various sides) to assert the authority of science in a political debate. But by now it should be clear, such debates are just entertainment or sport, they are not related to public opinion or political action.
Sorry for those who wish things were otherwise, but the science debate is over. Time to raise the white flag.
Bundesliga ist Best
Following the World Cup, I'll discuss in more depth the relationship of pay and team performance.The survey also found little correlation between pay and league position achieved outside the very top and bottom of England’s top division.
Total revenues across England’s top 92 clubs rose by £100m to more than £2.5bn, though debt levels also increased to £3.2bn.
“We accept that it’s right that revenue finds its way to talent, but we have tried to argue that there needs to be a healthy dose of restraint on the business side,” said Mr Jones.
In addition to the healthiest finances, Germany also has the most passing, dribbling and goals per game and the highest attendances at matches. The English Premier League may have the best players, but Germany has the best league.
There is No Escape
Matilda is a hurricane that formed off Brazil a few weeks ago and tore straight through Paramaribo . . . [hurricane season] is usually September and October. But these days you can never tell, because there's so much trouble with the climate and the greenhouse effect and all that.It's fiction, I know, I know. Fortunately, Larsson gets back to the escapist stuff right away and Salander is again fighting bad guys, not freaky tornadocanes.
08 June 2010
World Cup Predictions: Got Skill?
In this competition I am going to employ two naive methodologies. The first is simply to take the FIFA ranking as the basis for deciding the winner of each game. This results in Brazil as the champion, with Spain as runner up. In the ESPN bracket, the rankings are conveniently provided next to the team names. Were you to come from another planet and have no knowledge of soccer, you should do no worse than a forecast generated naively by looking at the rankings. After all, the rankings are supposed to say something meaningful about relative team strengths. This entry is called Naive.2-FIFAWorldRanking in RogersBlogGroup.
I am also using a second naive methodology, which is based on the estimated player value of each national team.
GROUP A |
| GROUP B |
| GROUP C |
| GROUP D |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
South Africa | 35 M€ | Argentina | 390 M€ | England | 440 M€ | Germany | 305 M€ |
Mexico | 95 M€ | Nigéria | 115 M€ | USA | 55 M€ | Australia | 40 M€ |
Uruguay | 145 M€ | South Korea
| 50 M€ | Algeria | 55 M€ | Serbia | 185 M€ |
France | 450 M€ | Greece | 100 M€ | Slovenia | 45 M€ | Ghana | 115 M€ |
TOTAL | 725 M€ | TOTAL | 655 M€ | TOTAL | 595 M€ | TOTAL | 645 M€ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROUP E |
| GROUP F |
| GROUP G |
| GROUP H |
|
Holland | 280 M€ | Italy | 400 M€ | Brazil | 515 M€ | Spain | 565 M€ |
Denmark | 85 M€ | Paraguay | 90 M€ | North Korea | 15 M€ | Switzerland | 115 M€ |
Japan | 70 M€ | New Zealand | 15 M€ | Ivory Coast | 180 M€ | Honduras | 45 M€ |
Cameroon | 140 M€ | Slovokia | 70 M€ | Portugal | 340 M€ | Chile | 85 M€ |
TOTAL | 575 M€ | TOTAL | 575 M€ | TOTAL | 1050 M€ | TOTAL | 810 M€ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
Values in M€ (millions of Euros) | |||||||
|
The forecast based on team worth is named Naive.1-TeamWorth, and it has Spain over Brazil in the finals. It is a bit more sophisticated than the FIFA World Ranking to be sure, but it is still a fairly naive metric for forecasting.
I have also entered into the mix forecasts generated by three big financial firms: Goldman Sachs (Brazil), JP Morgan (England) and UBS (Spain). (That previous sentence may provide you with all you need to know to remove all your investments handled by JP Morgan;-) These forecasts can be found from links here. As you can see, they spent considerable effort in making these forecasts, using fairly sophisticated methods akin to ones used to guide their investment decisions. These sophisticated methods should outperform the naive methods, if they are to any value.
Do you think you have skill? Can you beat the big investment banks? Sign up here!
A Letter from Gwyn Prins to Chris Huhne
Standpoint also has a distillation of The Harwell Paper, and the full paper is available here in English, German, French, Japanese and Chinese.Chris Huhne, isn't it? Congratulations on your appointment to the Department of Energy and Climate Change with its dramatically daunting agenda, starting with the overriding electoral imperative to keep the lights on in a country with an incoherent energy strategy. The figures which stick in my mind are that during January 4-7, with high pressure stable over the country and the highest peak electricity demand in the coldest winter for 30 years, wind power contributed 0.6 per cent to the Grid. The Grid issued only its second-ever Gas Balancing Alert to divert gas to power stations and the coal stations were ramped up to 43 per cent. I witnessed at first hand the South African electricity supply crisis escalate between 2006-08 and you will know soon, if your officials haven't already briefed you, how swiftly and decisively Pretoria batted aside its anti-nuclear and green opponents, advanced its nuclear construction with Chinese help and increased its coal stockpiles.
I don't suppose that on the morning of May 11 you expected to be where you are sitting as you read this? Frankly, my 13 co-authors around the world and I were also taken by surprise. We had not intended either to launch our collective analysis of what to do about the other side of your portfolio on what, thanks to the creation of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, became for other stories (like ours) the worst news day in Britain in decades.
07 June 2010
Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies: $557 billion per Year
Today's FT has this mind-boggling statistic:
Even though the G20 nations agreed last year to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, real policy action in that direction has yet to occur. Consider that the Kerry-Lieberman bill in the Senate -- the climate bill -- would add hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels. Remarkably, this bill is being championed by mainstream environmental groups and the Obama Administration.The IEA estimates that in 2008 – the latest year for which data are available – 37 large developing countries spent about $557bn in energy subsidies, according to a draft seen by the Financial Times. Previous estimates put it at about $300bn. Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India and China top the ranking, according to the report.
Some of the biggest spenders, including Saudi Arabia and China, recently warned of the need to cut subsidies over the medium term. . .
The IEA estimates that energy consumption could be reduced by 850m tonnes equivalent of oil – or the combined current consumption of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand – if the subsidies are phased out between now and 2020. The consumption cut would save the equivalent of the current carbon dioxide emissions of Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain.
Critics of energy subsidies say they encourage wasteful consumption, reduce global energy security, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change.
They also claim that subsidies are a burden to national budgets, with spending on financial support to oil, natural gas and coal sometimes larger than education or health spending. The IEA says the 37 countries surveyed spent, on average, about 2.1 per cent of their GDP on energy subsidies.
World Cup Bracket
Later tonite or tomorrow I'll post up an explanation of the metrics of skill that we can use to see if our prognostications have value;-)
Where Do They Play?
Summary | # in WC | %in WC | % Domestic |
---|---|---|---|
England | 118 | 16.0% | 100% |
Germany | 85 | 11.5% | 100% |
Italy | 78 | 10.6% | 100% |
Spain | 51 | 6.9% | 87% |
France | 47 | 6.4% | 48% |
Netherlands | 33 | 4.5% | 39% |
| WORLD CUP TEAM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| England | France | Germany | Ghana | Greece | Honduras | Italy | Japan |
Belgium |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
China |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
Cyprus |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
Czech Republic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egypt |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
England | 23 | 7 |
| 4 | 1 | 3 |
|
|
France |
| 11 |
| 2 |
|
|
| 1 |
Germany |
| 1 | 23 | 3 | 2 |
|
| 1 |
Ghana |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
Greece |
| 1 |
|
| 14 |
|
|
|
Honduras |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
Italy |
|
|
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 23 | 1 |
Japan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
Netherlands |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
Norway |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
Qatar |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
Romania |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
Russia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Scotland |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
South Africa |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
Spain |
| 3 |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
Switzerland |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| WORLD CUP TEAM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Korea DPR | Korea Republic | Mexico | Netherlands | New Zealand | Nigeria | Paraguay | Portugal |
Argentina |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
Austria |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
Australia |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
Belgium |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
Brazil |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
China |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
Denmark |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
Equador |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
England |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
France |
| 1 |
|
|
| 4 |
| 1 |
Germany |
| 1 | 5 | 5 |
| 2 | 3 | 1 |
Greece |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Israel |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
Italy |
|
|
| 2 |
|
| 1 |
|
Japan | 2 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mexico |
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
New Zealand |
|
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
|
Netherlands |
|
| 3 | 9 |
| 1 |
|
|
North Korea | 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paraguay |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
Portugal |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 8 |
Russia | 1 | 1 |
|
|
| 3 |
| 1 |
Saudi Arabia |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotland |
| 1 |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
South Korea |
| 13 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 7 |
Spain |
|
|
| 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
|
Turkey |
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ukraine |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
United States |
|
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
| WORLD CUP TEAM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serbia | Slovenia | Slovokia | South Africa | Spain | Switzerland | United States | Uruguay |
Argentina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Belgium | 1 | 2 |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Chile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
Columbia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Czech Republic |
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Denmark |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
England | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 |
|
France |
| 2 |
|
|
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
Germany | 5 | 4 | 5 |
|
| 7 | 3 |
|
Greece |
| 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Israel |
| 1 |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
Italy | 3 | 4 | 2 |
|
| 4 | 1 | 4 |
Mexico |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
|
Netherlands | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 |
| 2 |
Norway |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
Poland | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Portugal | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
Romania |
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Russia | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
Scotland |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
Slovenia |
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slovokia |
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
South Africa |
|
|
| 16 |
|
|
|
|
Spain | 2 |
|
|
| 20 |
|
| 3 |
Sweden |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Switzerland |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
Turkey |
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 1 |
Ukraine |
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
Uruguay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
WORLD CUP TEAM | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algeria | Argentina | Australia | Brazil | Cameroon | Chile | Côte d'Ivoire | Denmark | |
Algeria | 3 | |||||||
Argentina | 6 | 1 | ||||||
Australia | 1 | |||||||
Belgium | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Brazil | 2 | 1 | ||||||
Bulgaria | 1 | |||||||
Cameroon | 1 | |||||||
Chile | 7 | |||||||
Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | |||||||
Denmark | 7 | |||||||
England | 3 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 4 |
France | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | |||
Germany | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | |
Greece | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||
Israel | 1 | |||||||
Italy | 2 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
Japan | 2 | |||||||
Mexico | 1 | |||||||
Netherlands | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |||
Portugal | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||
Romania | 1 | |||||||
Russia | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Scotland | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Spain | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | |
Switzerland | 1 | |||||||
Turkey | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||
UAE | 1 | 1 |
BMJ and PACE on WHO COI
Two remarkable reports were released late last week on conflicts of interest among scientists advising the World Health Organization on response to influenza (the news story above discuss them). The reports criticize the WHO for its failure to adequately disclose and manage potential conflicts of interest among its expert advisors, calling into question the legitimacy and credibility of its policy guidance on influenza.
One report resulted from a joint investigation by BMJ (a medical journal) and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It concluded:
Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as "conspiracy theories."The BMJ website also has a 12 minute video on the investigation.
A second report was issued by a committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (here in PDF), and is scathing in its conclusions:
The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level. It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.Fergus Walsh, medical correspondent for the BBC, summarizes some useful lessons of this experience:
I hope that the InterAcademy Council Review of the IPCC is paying close attention, as the IPCC has similar problems with a lack of disclosure and potential conflicts of interest.Be open. Be transparent. That seems to be the key learning point for the WHO from this joint investigation.
It is common practice for academic experts to work closely with the pharmaceutical industry, such as getting funding for drug trials, or to be paid for attending meetings.
On all clinical papers authors must publicly declare any competing interests.
So it is surely advisable that the WHO follows the same policy with its advisors.
And there is surely no logic in refusing to name the members of the emergency committee which advised the WHO about the pandemic.
To fail to do so presents an own goal to critics and conspiracy theorists.
Sexing Up the Spill
The Financial Times very gently upbraids the National Center for Atmospheric Research for issuing a highly misleading press release (which includes the video above), which states in alarming fashion:
A detailed computer modeling study released today indicates that oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico might soon extend along thousands of miles of the Atlantic coast and open ocean as early as this summer. . .NCAR tries to explain that the press release is not making a forecast, nor is it actually talking about oil, but a virtual dye in a computer model. NCAR sure had me fooled.“I’ve had a lot of people ask me, ‘Will the oil reach Florida?’” says NCAR scientist Synte Peacock, who worked on the study. “Actually, our best knowledge says the scope of this environmental disaster is likely to reach far beyond Florida, with impacts that have yet to be understood.”
The computer simulations indicate that, once the oil in the uppermost ocean has become entrained in the Gulf of Mexico’s fast-moving Loop Current, it is likely to reach Florida's Atlantic coast within weeks.
Ryan Meyer is not so gentle in his criticism:
Models of ocean circulation seem like a potentially useful tool for informing various parts of the response. But I don’t see how feeding the media frenzy with misleading YouTube animations and overconfident quotations is related to that role. Apparently, for UCAR being part of the solution is not enough; they need to be in the spotlight too.For a community under fire for sexing up its climate research, using a computer model to generate an over-hyped prediction (while simultaneously disclaiming that they are predictions, of course, wink wink) is probably not going to help restore trust.
04 June 2010
Please Join My World Cup Bracket Compeition
I have just now created a group, creatively titled, RogersBlogGroup which is public. I'd like to invite you to join and see how your predictions stack up against the various approaches to prediction, which I'll be discussing throughout the Cup (other topics will be relegated for a short while;-). To join the group you simply need to sign up for a login, associate it with my group and and then enter your selections.
Good luck and remember ... prediction is difficult, especially about the future!
Michael Levi on Peak Oil: What's the Problem?
EIA has been steadily reducing its projections for 2020, from 104 million barrels per day (mb/d) in its 2007 projection to 92 mb/d in its most recent projections (released last month). [SEE FIGURE ABOVE]Levi explains that changes in economic growth forecasts more than account for the reduced projections of of oil consumption:But why have the projections gone down? It’s possible to more than explain the whole difference through revised expectations for economic growth. The decreased projections for oil supply have almost nothing to do with changed beliefs about the prospects for oil supply development. They are pretty much entirely explained by external factors.
The 2010 EIA projections expect GDP in 2020 to be 97.5 trillion (2005) dollars, for a 17% reduction in expected GDP. Contrast that with a 13% reduction in expected oil production. If the GDP-elasticity of oil demand were 0.64, the reduced GDP expectations would fully explain the lower oil production estimates. As is stands, long-run income-elasticity of oil demand is almost certainly higher than that, so revised GDP estimates more than explain the lower supply projections. Indeed the interesting puzzle may be why oil supply is so high in the new estimate, rather than why it is so low.Of course supply and demand matter, but as Levi says, if this is peak oil, then what is the problem? Regardless of where one stands on the peak oil issue, it should be clear that it is at best only a minor issue (and perhaps irrelevant) as a factor that will drive an accelerated decarbonization of the global economy -- at least insofar as meeting the pace needed to achieve low stabilization targets. Achieving that goal will depend on other forces.
Another Metric of Energy Math
Understanding the scale of energy production and consumption can be daunting. Today's FT provides a useful metric to get a sense of the magnitude of the energy challenge:
Sounds cool . . . until you see how long it takes to charge a phone battery:Mobile phone manufacturers have been struggling for years to find ways for users to keep their handsets charged while on the move. On Thursday, Nokia unveiled its latest solution: a pedal-powered battery charger.
Cyclists will be able to plug their handsets into a charger mounted on their handlebars and connected to a dynamo that harnesses electricity from the wheels.
It would take two-and-a-half hours for a cyclist riding at 15km an hour to fully charge a battery, the Finnish group said.Who would want such a device?
The product could prove popular among the environmentally conscious as a carbon neutral way to charge a mobile phone, but its main appeal is likely to be in developing countries, where access to electricity is limited.Given the choice, most everyone will just plug their phone into the wall to recharge it. Of course, if you don't have a choice, any access to energy technologies may certainly be welcome. Energy access is key.
Soccer Meets Science Policy
On the controversial ball (again) being used in the World Cup, US reserve keeper Marcus Hahnemann says:
“Technology is not everything. Scientists came up with the atom bomb; it doesn’t mean we should have invented it.”
03 June 2010
European League Comparisons
Is there room for culture in football? Maybe, but less so at the top, if you believe Kuper and Syzmanski. Here is some data on various statistics from the top European leagues, suggesting that there are at least a few differences:
Category England France Germany Italy Spain C League Shots per game 21.1 20.0 20.4 20.6 20.7 21.7 Goals per game 2.77 2.41 2.83 2.61 2.71 2.56 Shooting accuracy 43.7% 42.6% 46.0% 43.9% 45.3% 42.9% Chance conversion 13.1% 12.1% 13.8% 12.7% 13.1% 11.8% % shots from inside the box 59.3% 56.1% 59.3% 53.9% 59.3% 52.8% % goals from inside the box 86.6% 84.4% 83.0% 86.2% 85.0% 78.9% Saves to shots % 69.5% 71.4% 69.5% 71.0% 70.7% 72.3% * CL data is up to date as of 17/05/2010
Perhaps surprisingly, Italy does not have the fewest goals per game. Here is a bit more data:
Category England France Germany Italy Spain C League % goals from set pieces 36.7% 34.8% 33.5% 32.0% 31.3% 30.5% % headed goals 18.3% 18.8% 18.5% 18.6% 18.6% 17.0% % goals in last 15 minutes 23.5% 24.9% 22.1% 20.0% 22.9% 25.2% % goals scored by native players 36.3% 46.8% 35.7% 53.8% 52.9% N/A
Category England France Germany Italy Spain C League Passes per game 772 751 816 780 760 838 Passing Accuracy 73.8% 75.1% 77.1% 78.1% 75.4% 79.4% Crossing Accuracy 20.8% 19.9% 22.3% 20.2% 21.0% 20.4% Dribbles per game 28.4 29.2 34.6 28.7 30.7 34.5 Dribble success 73.8% 75.1% 77.1% 78.1% 75.4% 79.4%
What happens when Europe confronts the world? Any guesses as to whether World Cup goals-per-game will be higher or lower than the Champions League? Put me down for the over.
Next up: World Cup predictions.
Wired on Kaya Identity
Most of the ways we produce energy end up giving off carbon dioxide—which, in large quantities, screws up Earth's climate. But to reduce atmospheric CO2 we have to understand it. That's where Yoichi Kaya comes in. An engineer at Tokyo University, Kaya and a team of carbon experts put together this formula for computing the total CO2 emissions caused by humans—and where it comes from.If you want to see the Kaya Identity in action, pre-order your copy of The Climate Fix right now. (Thanks JJ)Think about the equation for a while and you realize that if we want to reduce emissions to zero, then either population (P), consumption (g), energy used in production (e), or carbon used to produce that energy (f) must go to zero. Of course, we don't want to depopulate Earth or stop eating and commuting. Energy use might be cut dramatically, but it can't be zeroed out. So reducing any of those factors will just buy us some time to come up with a zero-carbon energy source. Get cracking, scientists!
02 June 2010
EDF to Win World Cup for Chutzpah?
When GDP growth comes into conflict with emissions reduction goals, it is not going to be growth that is scaled back. Further, when rich countries wanting emissions reductions run into poorer countries wanting energy, it is not going to be rich countries who get their way. When energy access depends upon cheap energy, arguments to increase energy costs or deny energy access are not going to be very compelling. The South African coal plant decision well illustrates many of the political boundary conditions that shape climate policy. Policy design will have to accommodate these conditions, rather than ignore them or think that they will somehow go away.In a story today in ClimateWire, the story of the Eskom coal plant went from an illustration of the political realities of energy access to an illustration of the farcical nature of international climate policy:
A South African utility company that recently won a $3.75 billion World Bank loan to build the world's fourth-largest coal-fired power plant now is seeking international carbon credits for making the plant more efficient.If successful in qualifying for carbon credits -- and there is little reason to expect otherwise -- then Eskom is going to be paid for reducing emissions by building the world's fourth largest coal plant. This is of course a sort of magical solution that I have written about before. Of course a new coal plant, even if built with the best available technology is going to dramatically increase emissions, regardless of the accounting tricks of offsets and emissions trading. This alone is farcical, but it gets even better.
The Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental lobbying group, appears to understand the basic problem:
But it is not just Eskom that is high up on the leagues tables for chutzpah; EDF is right up there as well. EDF is one of the main advocacy groups calling for passage of the American Power Act, the so-called Kerry-Lieberman bill in the Senate, which along with Waxman-Markey which passed the House, would create the ability for US companies to get emissions offset credits for doing things exactly like investing in the Eskom plant.If Eskom ultimately wins CDM approval -- and potentially millions of dollars -- for avoiding greenhouse gas emissions by using more efficient technology, it won't be the first company to do so. But the move is provoking fury from environmentalists who have fought the plant. They insist Eskom should not be allowed to receive both World Bank aid and carbon credits to build a plant that will emit 25 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
"If there were a World Cup for chutzpah, Eskom would be the bettors' choice to win," said Jennifer Haverkamp, managing director for international climate policy at the Environmental Defense Fund. "First they go after scarce international public funds, now CDM credits. The Medupi Plant is becoming a poster child for how far we are from the road to a sustainable, climate-stable path for development."
So EDF vigorously supports the use of international offsets as a mechanism of "emissions reductions," but at the same time doesn't want those mechanisms applied exactly as they are designed. The World Cup for chutzpah has some fierce competition.
Galley Proofs of The Climate Fix
The galley proof is an advance, pre-publication version of the book, and it will be available by next week (I am told). It contains the uncorrected proofs, so it is not final. I turned in my final page proof edits yesterday and there were many dozens of small changes, various minor errors and typos corrected, and one figure was replaced. However, the galleys are pretty close to final.
So if you think that you should receive a galley proof copy in the coming week or so, drop me a note with your contact information and why you should get an advance copy. Thanks!
01 June 2010
More on National Teams and Domestic Leagues
Team - Local based - Total players - Percentage
England 30 30 100 Italy 29 30 96.67 Germany 26 27 96.3 Korea DPR 20 23 86.96 Japan 26 30 86.67 Spain 26 30 86.67 Greece 21 30 70 Honduras 20 30 66.67 South Africa 19 30 63.33 Mexico 16 26 61.54 Korea Republic 18 30 60 France 17 30 56.67 Netherlands 16 30 53.33 New Zealand 13 30 43.33 Portugal 12 30 40 Chile 11 30 36.67 Denmark 11 30 36.67 Switzerland 11 30 36.67 Argentina 10 30 33.33 USA 9 30 30 Algeria 8 30 26.67 Paraguay 6 30 20 Brazil 5 30 16.67 Serbia 5 30 16.67 Uruguay 4 26 15.38 Ghana 4 30 13.33 Slovenia 4 30 13.33 Slovakia 3 29 10.34 Cameroon 3 30 10 Cote d'Ivoire 2 30 6.67 Nigeria 2 30 6.67 Australia 1 30 3.33
Percentage of Foreign Players | ||||||
Netherlands | 177/505 | 35% | ||||
Spain | 189/520 | 36% | ||||
France | 205/543 | 38% | ||||
Italy | 227/570 | 40% | ||||
Germany | 266/510 | 52% | ||||
England | 351/575 | 61% |
Why do Environmental Groups Fail?
Johann Hari recently wrote two articles arguing that US environmental groups are ineffective due to their reliance on corporate donations (“Polluted by Profit” in The Independent; “The Wrong Kind of Green” in The Nation). The premise of his argument:
US environmental groups used to be funded largely by their members and wealthy individual supporters. They had only one goal: to prevent environmental destruction. Their funds were small, but they played a crucial role in saving vast tracts of wilderness and in pushing into law strict rules forbidding air and water pollution…. After decades of slowly creeping corporate entanglement, some of the biggest environmental groups have remade themselves in the image of their corporate backers: they are putting profit before planet. They are supporting a system that will lead to ecocide, yet where more revenue will run through their accounts, for a while, as the collapse occurs.His argument essentially rehashes Christine MacDonald’s 2008 book Green, Inc. An environmental insider reveals how a good cause has gone bad. Unfortunately for Hari (and MacDonald), the argument is flawed from the outset.
Before we can begin to answer the question “why are many environmental NGOs ineffective?” we must first ask “what are environmental NGOs trying to achieve?” Hari believes environmental NGOs historically "had only one goal: to prevent environmental destruction." This is a patently false expectation. It has never been the case – and never will be the case – that environmental groups only care about preventing environmental destruction. MacDonald’s entire book is her coming to the realization that there are multiple goals and interests at play in environmental NGOs. Rather than rethink that the problem is a romanticized assumption that the environmental movement seeks a uniform goal, Hari and MacDonald place the blame big corporations for corrupting environmental groups.
Yes, preventing environmental destruction is one goal of environmental NGOs. However, many environmental NGOs have other equally legitimate pursuits (e.g. social justice, public health, and dare I even suggest economic development for impoverished nations). Valid environmental goals are not constrained to tangible policy outcomes. Symbolic political victories are justifiable pursuits of environmental NGOs, as well as focusing on procedural goals (e.g. democratic principles versus authoritarian rule).
It takes little imagination to understand how different legitimate goals might come into conflict with one another, forcing environmental groups to make difficult tradeoffs that may make us unhappy. Even if we were to operate under the false assumption that preventing environmental destruction was the only valid goal, we are still not free from conflict. Last year, the NYT ran an excellent article highlighting the battle between wildlife and climate changes advocates over competing priorities in environmental protection. What happens when a solar farm threatens an endangered species? Whose version of ‘environmental protection’ is more important?
It is incredibly naive to think that simply altering the revenue sources will rectify the fact most (dare I say all) environmental groups are interested outcomes beyond preventing environmental destruction. Clearly, environmental NGOs taking money from a big corporation gives the 'true-environmental-believers' an excuse to rant why many groups are ineffective. There are instances where such critiques hold water. However, the reality is there are a multitude of reasons why environmental groups behave in ways we may not expect. Understanding that there are a number of legitimate goals just scratches the surface. The challenge is much more complex that simply following corporate money.
A Call for Violence Against Me
What matters is that Roger Pielke Jr. is the most heinous climate villain academia can muster. He’s a Green Herring, a liar. He doesn’t deserve to be eaten by hyenas from the future. He deserves to be kicked in the nuts in the present.My crime? I have cited Ravetz and Functowitz. Seriously, that is it.
The image above depicts the theme of post-normal science from Ravetz and Functowitz, and comes from the website of Steve Schneider, who says:
The climate problem, like the ozone problem (see, e.g., the EPA ozone website or the NOAA ozone website) and, in fact, almost all interesting socio-technical problems, is filled with “deep uncertainties,” uncertainties in both probabilities and consequences that are not resolved today and may not be resolved to a high degree of confidence before we have to make decisions regarding how to deal with their implications. They often involve very strong and opposite stakeholder interests and high stakes. In fact, sociologists Funtowicz and Ravetz (see, for example: Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993) have called such problems examples of “post-normal science.” In Kuhn’s “normal science” (Kuhn, 1962), we scientists go to our labs and we do our usual measurements, calculate our usual statistics, build our usual models, and we proceed on a particular well-established paradigm. Post-normal science, on the other hand, acknowledges that while we’re doing our normal science, some groups want or need to know the answers well before normal science has resolved the deep inherent uncertainties surrounding the problem at hand. Such groups have a stake in the outcome and want some way of dealing with the vast array of uncertainties, which, by the way, are not all equal in the degree of confidence they carry. Compared to applied science and professional consultancy, post-normal science carries both higher decision stakes and higher systems uncertainty, ...I wonder if he also is going to be threatened with violence.
The climate change debate — particularly its policy components — falls clearly into the post-normal science characterization and will likely remain there for decades, which is the minimum amount of time it will take to resolve some of the larger remaining uncertainties surrounding it, like climate sensitivity levels and the likelihood of abrupt nonlinear events, including a possible shutoff of the Gulf Stream in the high North Atlantic.
Here is my full email exchange with Ian Murphy (now formatted in chronological order ... if you want to jump right to my replies to his questions scroll down to my email of Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:31 PM):
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Ian MurphyOn Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Roger Pielke, Jr.wrote:
Dear Mr. Pielke,
Hi! I'm the guy that wrote about you being eaten by hyenas. Don't take it personally.
I've spent the last week reading your literature and trying to decide whether or not to print a correction. I've come to realize that while 98% of things you write and say are green and brilliant, the remaining 2% seems to be firmly against reducing carbon emissions – which is a position I find odd considering what you know about the atmosphere. And Joe Romm characterizes your policy positions as ones that will result in a 5-7 degree Celsius rise in global temp.
I realize that perhaps you didn't deserve to be on the same list as Don Blankenship or Steve Milloy. I know you're not a denier. I never wrote that. And I certainly never meant to imply that you're Holocaust denier. Only assholes evoke Holocaust denial to paint their enemies a ignorant scoundrels. But unless I have misread your position on refusing to cap, trade,regulate or sufficiently tax carbon emissions, they read as corporate cover for our suicidal status quo.
Tell me if I've made a mistake. And if you don't mind, maybe you could tell me what this is supposed to mean:
“Policies to reduce global warming must be pursued independently of policies to reduce climate impacts.”
What?
Thanks for your time,
Ian Murphy
Dear Ian-
I've long argued that adaptation and mitigation necessarily must be pursued on twin tracks. They are not trade-offs with one another and mitigation, no matter how successful, does not reduce the need to improve adaptive policies. This seems rather obvious and straightforward. If unclear, please ask again.
As far as: "corporate cover for our suicidal status quo" -- what complete nonsense. If you have questions about my views, please ask them. I'll be happy to answer. I'll also be happy to have my policy analyses produced over the past several decades compared head-to-head with Joe Romm's -- he talks louder, I'll grant him that.
And yes, printing a correction would be absolutely the right thing to do.
All best from Boulder,
Roger
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Ian MurphyOn Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Roger Pielke, Jr.wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for writing back! It's expansive of you, considering what I wrote. I now realize that I am profoundly guilty of lazy editing and the piece has been corrected. I am sincerely sorry for the undeserving ad hom attack. Please forgive me.
Mike Roddy, who came up with that list, is convinced you're some kind of tyrant and the cursory information he provided me with had me under the impression that you're against capping, trading, regulating or sufficiently taxing carbon emissions. I think it was this quote that rankled him so:
"Indeed, the whole idea of mandated national emissions reductions reflects an insensitivity to the highly decentralized, historically contingent, uneven manner in which new technologies emerge and diffuse."
Just to be completely clear: does your idea of mitigation include capping, trading, regulating or sufficiently taxing carbon emissions?
Of course, we need to mitigate and adapt, but what kind of mitigation doesn't include emissions reductions? Have I read you wrong? How can we mitigate greenhouse effect warming without reducing CO2? Will the pollution cool us as a global parasol? Please, enlighten me.
Humbly in Buffalo,
Ian
Dear Ian-
Thanks for the follow up. I have a book in press this fall which will provide more than you want to know on my views about how to decarbonize the global economy. Meantime, I suggest starting here to better understand why setting targets and timetables for emissions reductions is unlikely to be a way forward (and if that is of interest I have similar analyses of Japan and Australia):
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024010/erl9_2_024010.html
I discuss the consequences of such "magical thinking" here:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2175
So what then instead? Along with a large group of scholars, last summer we outlined an alternative approach to addressing accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and putting a price on carbon is an important component:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2731-2009.17.pdf
Given the progress made over the past 20 years focused on mandating emissions reductions along a Kyoto-style approach (that is to say, not much)
I continue to be surprised that those of us offering alternative approaches as a way to get past policy gridlock are so routinely castigated as "tyrants" as you suggest. Climate change is incredibly complex, and it is safe to say that no one has all the answers. Given this circumstance I would think that a bit more ecumenicism in the discussion would serve climate policy well.
I do appreciate your reaching out and willingness to correct the record. And again, if you have any questions about the materials I linked to above, just ask, I am happy to respond.
Best regards from Boulder,
Roger
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ian MurphyOn Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Roger Pielke, Jr.wrote:
Dear Roger,
Correcting the record was literally the least I could do. I intend to write a piece fully detailing my crimes (with a suitably awful punishment), and this odd obsession Joe Romm and his henchmen have with you in the near future. You guys crushed Roddy in the BTI comments. Easy work. That's the first and only time he's going to write for us. We're definitely jerks, but we also try to be accurate. I'm the only working editor here and sometimes I screw up. It's no excuse, but again, I am truly sorry for the error.
I'm going to try to interview Joe Romm about his bizarre war against you, and I'll get back to you. Thank you for your civility and grace in this matter. You're a nice guy.
Sincerely,
Ian
Wow Ian, I am floored. Apology accepted, no worries. We all make mistakes, and I very much appreciate your willingness to set the record straight. If you have any questions, please just ask. All best, Roger
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Ian MurphyOn Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Roger Pielke, Jr.wrote:
Roger,
I've had a tumultuous few months, computer crashes, lost data, moving, etc., but I'm still working on my followup to "the 14 Most heinous Climate Villains," which I'm calling "Misadventures in journalism." I've been talking to both Michael and Ted at BTI, and they've been nothing but kind in answering my questions. I have one more round of questions to send Ted, and then I was hoping to ask you a few.
Is that offer still on the table?
Ian
Absolutely, send any questions along ... all best, Roger
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Ian MurphyOn Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Roger Pielke, Jr.wrote:
Roger,
Awesome. Thanks, again, for being so kind. And I hope that the following questions will clear up some of the hyper-partisan confusion, which surrounds your work. I might have some followups, but here you go:
I came across the concept of post-normal science on your blog post, which links to Jerome Ravetz's essay on wattsupwiththat.com. What the heck is post-normal science and why is it important in terms of climate change?
What role does the blogosphere play in conducting post-normal science?
What lessons can we learn from Climategate?
Now that the IPCC has been so thoroughly discredited, for their “stealth advocacy,” where can people turn to for objective climate science?
You routinely take climate scientists, and fear mongers like Al Gore, to task for conflating single weather events with AGW. Weather is not climate, as you say. You astutely observe that one “Snowpocalypse” is not “consistent with” AGW, and that that's not the best way for CAP to talk about climate change. In that post, you highlight a debate between Daniel Weiss of CAP and Marc Morano of climatedepot.com, which aired on MSNBC. You are likely right to criticize the efficacy of Weiss's argument, but you don't level one criticism against Morano, who is not a friend of things like truth and science. Also, you never explicitly mention that one weather event is not inconsistent with AGW, as has been repeatedly claimed by the denier crowd. Do you understand why some people may see those omissions as irresponsible?
Between whom are you an Honest Broker?
Why won't cap and trade work and what should we do instead?
If carbon reduction strategies fail, for reasons political or scientific, what are our viable geoengineering options?
Thanks again!
Ian
Great questions ... I'll try to get these back to you by Monday, is
that OK? Thanks ...
Ian Murphy Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:25 PMRoger Pielke, Jr. Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:31 PM
To: "Roger Pielke, Jr."
Thank you. I tried. Of course, whenever you have the time to respond is OK with me. I'm honored that you're even talking to me. I think the irrational distrust built up between BTI and more traditional environmentalists is very counterproductive and I hope we can cut through some of the confusion.
To: Ian Murphy
Ian- Please find some replies below .. if anything is unclear of if you'd like to follow up, just ask, I'm happy to answer ...
>> >
>> > I came across the concept of post-normal science on your blog post,
>> > which
>> > links to Jerome Ravetz's essay on wattsupwiththat.com. What the heck is
>> > post-normal science and why is it important in terms of climate change?
>> >
Post-normal science refers to situations in which knowledge is uncertain, values are contested and stakes are high. Climate change is perhaps a canonical example of such a situation. The concept, proposed by Functowitz and Ravetz, leads to a different set of strategies for decision making than one might find in normal science. The highlight the need for an "extended peer community" to participate in evaluating knowledge claims and their implications, which can be interpreted in the context of climate change as opening up scientific discussions to a broader community, including (yes) skeptics and non-professionals. Such opening up is important to build trust in and legitimacy of expert advice.
My book, The Honest Broker, adopts a framework consistent with that proposed by Functowitz and Ravetz, and I argue that where knowledge is uncertain (or contested) and values are in conflict, experts face a choice between open advocacy and honest brokering, where the foprmer is an effort to reduce the scope of political choice (usually to a single preferred option) and the latter seeks to expand choice. Often, experts serve as "stealth advocates" where they claim to be focused only on science, but are really pushing for a particular
course of action. I have argued that such stealth advocacy can lead to a pathological politicization of science.
Climate science is full of stealth advocacy and pathological politicization. Paying more attention to the messy world of post-normal science (and I'd argue, the framework in my book) might offer some guidance on how to navigate the reality of science and politics being deeply and irrevocably intertwined.
>> > What role does the blogosphere play in conducting post-normal science?
>> >
The blogosphere is part of the "extended peer community" that - for better or worse, is part of how knowledge claims are presented, debated and evaluated. Understanding that these many and diverse voices are a part of the broad relationship of science and society, rather than something to be excised or defeated through asserting authority or credentials.
At the same time, the blogosphere is also a place where scientists engage in advocacy and stealth advocacy.
So we see the non-professional scientific world impinging upon traditional science via the blogosphere and at the same time we see traditional science engaging politics. From both directions the blogosphere blurs boundaries and really fosters conditions of post-normal science. Post-normal science is not something to be upset about or to deny, it is simply an effort to describe this messy world. for the purpose of better undertsanding that world.
>> > What lessons can we learn from Climategate?
>> >
The release or stealing of the emails showed a surprising picture of climate science for many people. It showed scientists who appear to have lost some perspective and focused unhealthily on their political and scientific opponents. The emails showed a willingness to cut corners and even suggest breaking the law. While there are many tactical lessons (like don't write things in your professional emails that you'd regret if released) the larger lesson should be that efforts to defeat the "skeptics" in political battle is just as likely
to backfire. And make no mistake, these scientists were engaged in political battle.
>> > Now that the IPCC has been so thoroughly discredited, for their “stealth
>> > advocacy,” where can people turn to for objective climate science?
>> >
I have written (last week at Yale e360) that the IPCC is important and should be reformed. It operates in much too ad hoc a manner and lacks anything resembling mechanisms of accountability. Trust in institutions is just as important as the quality of its products.
>> > You routinely take climate scientists, and fear mongers like Al Gore, to
>> > task for conflating single weather events with AGW. Weather is not
>> > climate,
>> > as you say. You astutely observe that one “Snowpocalypse” is not
>> > “consistent
>> > with” AGW, and that that's not the best way for CAP to talk about
>> > climate
>> > change. In that post, you highlight a debate between Daniel Weiss of CAP
>> > and
>> > Marc Morano of climatedepot.com, which aired on MSNBC. You are likely
>> > right
>> > to criticize the efficacy of Weiss's argument, but you don't level one
>> > criticism against Morano, who is not a friend of things like truth and
>> > science.
In that particular debate Morano wins on criteria science as well as efficacy. He says that he knows that weather is not climate and that he was just having some fun with Al Gore when raising the issue of the blizzards. Whether he believes this or not, he takes the high ground and Weiss concedes it.
But I've frequently clashed with Morano, even challenging him to a debate, which looks like it may take place fall, 2010. But it won't be a debate about science, rather about policy. I have long argued that climate policy suffers when political debates are waged in terms of science, so why in the world would I take that approach myself?
>> Also, you never explicitly mention that one weather event is
>> > not
>> > inconsistent with AGW, as has been repeatedly claimed by the denier
>> > crowd.
>> > Do you understand why some people may see those omissions as
>> > irresponsible?
I apologize, but I have to disagree with this cliam 100%. On Feb 11 I wrote the following, which speaks directly and explicitly to claims made by the "denier crowd":
"Let's see if I can make this simple.
What happens in the weather this week or next tells us absolutely nothing about the role of humans in influencing the climate system. It is unjustifiable to claim that a cold snap or heavy snow disproves or even casts doubts predictions of long-term climate change. It is equally unjustifiable to say that a cold snap or heavy snow in any way offers empirical support for predictions of long-term climate change. This goes for all weather events.
Further, it is professionally irresponsible for scientists to claim that some observed weather is "consistent with" long-term predictions of climate change. Any and all weather fits this criteria. Similarly, any and all weather is also "consistent with" failing predictions of long-term climate change. The "consistent with" canard is purposely misleading.
Knowledge of climate requires long-term records -- on the time scale of a decade and longer. Don't look to the weather to learn about climate, unless you have a long time to watch. Using the weather to score cheap political points in the climate debate appears to be a tactical area of agreement among those who otherwise disagree about climate change. "
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/weather-is-not-climate.html
I'm not sure how much more clearly I can make the point that you suggest is omitted. I have been making this point for years.
>> >
>> > Between whom are you an Honest Broker?
I am not an honest broker. In my book I argue that individuals are ill-suited to such a role, and what we really want in this capacity are pluralistic committees of experts expressing diverse views. The function of the honest broker is to lay our a range of policy options, and the role of the decision maker is to select among those options.
On climate change I am a passionate advocate for the actions that I think make sense. I have never labeled myself an "honest broker" and have consistently explained that such a role is a group exercise.
>> >
>> > Why won't cap and trade work and what should we do instead?
>> >
Cap and trade won;t work for the simple reason that it is politically impossible to set a price on carbon high enough to induce a technological revolution. A carbon tax suffers the same problem. Cap and trade makes it easier to pretend that something is being done when it is not. If the goal of cap and trade is to stimulate innovation, then there are many other approaches that can be used to that end. I am in favor of a carbon tax, at whatever level is politically acceptable, but the goal is not to try to change behaviors but rather
to raise revenue.
>> > If carbon reduction strategies fail, for reasons political or
>> > scientific,
>> > what are our viable geoengineering options?
>> >
I my book I argue that efforts to tinker with the earth system, such as through stratospheric aerosols, don;t meet basic criteria for a technological fix. They are unlikely to work as advertised and the track record of tinkering with earth systems (such as introducing foreign species) is pretty dismal and full of unintended consequences.
One approach that might make sense, though not everyone classifies it as geoengineering, is the air capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide directly from the ambient air. This can be done via chemical, biological or geological means. The technologies are, lie much else on this issue, not well developed and certainly not ready for deployment at scale. but I'd argue that they should be looked at ... who knows, 20-40 years from now we may wish we had a backup plan if conventional mitigation doesn't work and other forms of geoengineering are infeasible,.
OK, that is a lot of ground, so if anything needs further explication, just ask.
All best from snowy Boulder,
Roger
Ian Murphy Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:27 AMRoger Pielke, Jr. Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:05 AM
To: "Roger Pielke, Jr."
Roger, thank you! Great work. Too bad about the FP piece, you're clearly not a "skeptic." The "telling quote" didn't really prove their point either. I'm going to contact them, too, but I'm hoping you could clarify this for me.
If I read your work accurately, the increased costs associated the extreme weather phenomena can be blamed on human development -- more buildings, more damage = higher costs. You cite a lull in hurricane activity in the seventies, during which time damage costs continued to rise, as proof of this common sense correlation. Correct?
And to completely debunk your FP "skeptic" status:
Do greenhouse gases cause global warming?
Does a hotter atmosphere mean more extreme weather?
And, if not kept in check, will AGW be a source of increased "costs of damage associated with hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather phenomena" in the future?
Sorry to take up yet more of your time, but the scope of this piece keeps growing. Now I have to sort out Foreign Policy, too!
Ian
To: Ian Murphy
Ian-
Some additional replies below . . .
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Ian Murphy
> Roger, thank you! Great work. Too bad about the FP piece, you're clearly not
> a "skeptic." The "telling quote" didn't really prove their point either. I'm
> going to contact them, too, but I'm hoping you could clarify this for me.
>
Here is the address of the FP editor:
"Blake Hounshell"
> If I read your work accurately, the increased costs associated the extreme
> weather phenomena can be blamed on human development -- more buildings, more
> damage = higher costs. You cite a lull in hurricane activity in the
> seventies, during which time damage costs continued to rise, as proof of
> this common sense correlation. Correct?
>
This is just about right. The example I often use is the fact that 1991-1994 was to that point the quietest 4-year period in terms of activity since 1900, yet it was also by far the most costly (to that date).
There has been no increase in storm landfall intensity or frequency since 1900, so why would we expect storm's themselves to account for increasing damage?
> And to completely debunk your FP "skeptic" status:
>
> Do greenhouse gases cause global warming?
>
Yes.
>
> Does a hotter atmosphere mean more extreme weather?
>
>
To be more technically precise, the consensus position of the scientific community, which I accept, is that rising greenhouse gases will led to more extreme events.
> And, if not kept in check, will AGW be a source of increased "costs of
> damage associated with hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather phenomena" in
> the future?
>
Yes. I have discussed this in the peer reviewed literature and quantified the magnitude of projected increase in the context of continued accumulation of societal wealth:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2007. Future Economic Damage from Tropical Cyclones: Sensitivities to Societal and Climate Changes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol. 365, No. 1860, pp. 1-13.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2517-2007.14.pdf
If you have further questions, or if any of the above needs additional clarification, please send them along.
Finally, I note that your friend Mike Roddy foreshadows this piece at Climate Progress::
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/28/foreign-policys-guide-to-climate-skeptics-includes-roger-pielke-jr-meanwhile-andy-revkin-campaigns-for-him-to-be-an-ipcc-author/#comment-264678
Ian Murphy Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:49 AMRoger Pielke, Jr. Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:18 AM
To: "Roger Pielke, Jr."
Roger, I do have one more question:
You wrote: "Post-normal science refers to situations in which knowledge is uncertain, values are contested and stakes are high. Climate change is perhaps a canonical example of such a situation."
Are you saying that the science of climate change is uncertain, or do you mean that the best methods for mitigating and adapting to climate change are uncertain?
Roddy's a well-meaning chap, though he can be a tad excitable. He's not privy to the details of my forthcoming article, but he's right about one thing: I hope to be the best Piekologist possible. That's, apparently, a thing. I'm not going to be completely uncritical of you, but I'm also going to be very critical of myself and others who have misread your work. Objectivity is the goal. Though it may be hard, because I'm sort of a fan of yours now : )
Ian
To: Ian Murphy
Ian-
I write in my forthcoming book that there are many aspects of the climate issue that are uncertain. At the same time, there are some core issues for which there is much less uncertainty.
What I argue is generally accepted by all sides is that (a) human activities are dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) into the atmosphere, (b) CO2 is accumulating, (c) scientists expect that accumulation to have a net warming effect, and have shown that to be the case in the past, (d) but there are other effects as well such as rising seas and more intense extremes, (e) the consequences in (c and d) could be significant for people and ecosystems.
That leaves plenty of areas of uncertainty, such as how much change? how fast? What about specific phenomena, like hurricanes? Or in specific places, like the US southwest? And there are uncertainties on the policy side, how much would it cost to stabilizae? Is it political will or technology at the core?
There are countless uncertainties, even in the presence of a well established core of knowledge. So note that my view is very much that of the IPCC. I am not a climate scientist, so I defer to the IPCC assessment on these matters, which for all of its flaws, remains the best and most authoritative summary of the science. Note that of course the IPCC could be wrong (on either side of the issue), and this simply adds another layer of uncertainties. So the IPCC view sets the stage for post-normal science.
In the debate there are those who like to exaggerate uncertainties and exaggerate certainties, and often they debate these issues, rather than policies than are robust to uncertainties. In other words, we can make progress without everyone agreeing on all of the science issues.
I hope this makes sense. If not, ask again!
All best,
Roger