Dr. P I'm writing in response to two things I read/heard today. First the presentation by pollster David Schor at the recent Breakthrough conference re voter opinion re the climate crisis and people's views on the various mitigation measures being promoted or mandated. Outcome: most voters do not consider the threat of climate change to be a top of mind subject that informs their voting choices. Following that I saw the headlines for a simple Rocky Mountain PBS article about mushrooming in the forest outside of Nederland Co that it is reportedly a bit more challenging than it should be because of a somewhat drier period in this locale, 'exacerbated by climate change.' according to the headline. (maybe it has been dryish in Nedederland until recently, but under the same 'exacerbating' climate regime it's very wet in New Mexico and Arizona these days)....Typical climate catastrophism journalism practice for Rocky Mountain PBS. Question: Given Schor's polling shows a very low ranking of the climate crisis in the minds of most voters, despite the daily news onslaught of yet another climate crisis or two (e.g., difficult mushroom hunting in today's example) what is the political currency of this climate topic?
Despite low voter interest, the climate issue must have some political use or it wouldn't be a topic. The only thing i can come up with is that climate is an issue that can be used to differentiate 'us' from those who 'aren't like us.' Seems pretty weak, particularly all the noise created.? You expert opinion?
Thank you for posting this interview Roger. I was glad to invest 51 minutes to watch your enlightening interview with Jon Caldara. Will you become a full-time staffer at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC?
My question is more basic. You talk about "risks" of climate change. If we are under no catastrophic threat, what are the risks? Can they be quantified/verified? Can they even be identified? Is warmer temperature the only threat? Can those risks be managed? How do those risks compare with the benefits of continued fossil fuel use (that is, return the decarbonization pathway to a more gradual and more economically palatable trajectory)?
In your post, "It's all about the baseline," you said that "In plain English this means that the effects of climate mitigation policies on the weather you experience in your lifetime would not be detectable, even if you are born in 2024. This explains why for most variables associated with extreme events the IPCC’s projection of the “time of emergence” of a climate change or climate mitigation signal is so far into the future."
You've also said the "world has never been a safer place for humans from weather and climate, in the entire history of mankind." I take that as direct evidence of the benefit of climate change, as measured since the end of the Little Ice Age in terms of temperature and CO2. If CO2 continues to go up, and temperatures continue to go up, there must be a point of inflection when we are no longer safer than any time in history, and conditions continue to deteriorate.
In as much as temperatures have been 10s of degrees warmer, and CO2 concentrations have been well over 1,000 ppm, at various times in history, how will that make us less safe?
Maybe a better question is, will civilization flourish throughout the Holocene Interglacial, and flag only when the next Ice Age begins?
Thanks ... For more depth have a look at TCF Chapter 1. In a nutshell, the science of climate change gets us to the starting line. We are altering the energy balance of the earth system, and all else equal, we'd prefer not to, obviously, as that carries unknowable risks. Since the global economy has been decarbonizing for a century, we might ask if there are any other reasons why we might want to accelerate that trend. Turns out, there are . . .
I'd like to know more about the political and intellectual history of climate policy in the US - how and why the mainstream scientists concluded that there exists a climate emergency, and how urgent mitigation measures came to be embedded in US policy.
Are you aware of any books, journal articles or reading lists that would serve as a good place to start?
Thank you for your link to this informative 6-page-long article. Here's the formal citation: Von Storch, Hans, and Nico Stehr. “Anthropogenic Climate Change: A Reason for Concern since the 18th Century and Earlier.” Geografiska Annaler. Series A, Physical Geography, vol. 88, no. 2, 2006, pp. 107–13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3878357.
A heads-up for others who may want to follow that link: The file downloads as a PDF, but won't open in Adobe Reader (my version, at least.) But it can be opened out of the Downloads file into Edge - and from there, if you want to save it, it copies readily into Word. You're left to do a bit of clean-up on the paragraph formatting, but IMO it's well worth the effort.
Auf Deutsch: Axel Bojanowski: "Was Sie schon immer übers Klima wissen wollten, aber bisher nicht zu fragen wagten." Das Buch des Wissenschaftsjournalisten, einem promoviertem Klimawissenschaftler, verfolgt den politischen Weg. Er legt den Einfluss der Lobbygruppen auf die Klimapolitik offen. Ich vermute, dass das Buch bald übersetzt wird.
English translation: Axel Bojanowski: "What you always wanted to know about the climate but were afraid to ask until now." The book by the science journalist, a climate scientist with a doctorate, follows the political path. It reveals the influence of lobby groups on climate policy. I suspect the book will be translated soon.
In the climate space I'd focus on developing plausible and equitable scenarios to guide climate science and policy. This area is captured by a very small group of experts (no doubt well meaning, but small and with narrow views), and fails to consider most of humanity or the latest science. More than a bit of Malthus here also.
Outside climate science, I'd focus on reforming higher education. Both normal college and graduate education. Both are a disaster right now.
Excellent interview. Jon Caldera has a healthy level of skepticism and a well tuned BS detector.
You asked for questions in the comments, so here goes:
Roger when you talk about most likely temperature increases at the end of the present century going from 4.5-5 deg C to 2-2.5 deg C as a result of adopting more rational scenarios for coal use it would be helpful to provide the perspective that these temperature increases are relative to the end of the 19th century. From present day that means we are looking at a future temperature increase of 1-1.5 deg. C. I can imagine Jon Caldara's reaction to this clarification. I have written this as an observation, but the question is why do you choose to use the formulation that you do?
One of the other commenters here seems to be concerned that your work will be "misused" to support doing less instead of doing differently. I assume that he would be further concerned about misuse if you presented the likely century end temperature increase as 1-1.5 deg. C. IMHO if more people understood this, the case for doing less and doing it differently would be starkly apparent. Again, I have written this as an observation but the question is are you concerned about providing more ammunition for people to conclude that climate change is not the catastrophic problem it is often made out to be?
I don't know much about policy or policy scholars. Frankly I think focusing on climate policy misses the boat. I can conceive of energy policy and write a clear set of principles and goals to drive the formulation of energy policy. I would struggle to do the same for climate policy. You might find even greater success and recognition if you focused on bringing a climate and weather perspective to forums on energy policy. Surely AEI provides an opportunity to do this.
Would you send your kids to the University of Colorado Boulder or any other UC school?
How is your current Substack focused funding model working out? I would guess that you need additional income sources for you to maintain a comfortable life style and fund impactful research.
How have your relationships with former colleagues, students and associates been impacted by your change in career path?
Would you consider putting together an online seminar or series of seminars (paid) for subscribers?
That is already out of date, and errs on the high side these days.
2. Of course no one likes to see their work misused. My work gets a lot of attention and is indeed sometimes misused -- but far more often it is properly used (that is, not misrepresented). That said, I have a big platform and my own perspectives are widely known, for those who want to know them. I refuse however to slant or misrepresent my own work in hopes that it will shape how people use it. I call things like I see them and try very hard to place that work into proper context. Of course, I am personally misrepresented more than my work, and that goes with the territory.
3. 2 of my 3 kids went/attend U of Colorado. Both in professional degrees. I would not approve of my kids getting a degree from the department I was affiliated with (Environmental Studies) unless they wanted to take classes in subjects like "climate change and comedy."
4. Substack has been absolutely great -- you are correct that it is not a full income, but so far, enough to leave academia. The benefits go far beyond funding (though obviously that matters), as the reach is incredible. That said, I welcome all suggestions on how to build the (paid) subscriber base including more "founding" members. It is a lot of work, but I absolutely love it.
5. Relationships are great ... no change I can detect since announcing I'm leaving academia (and lots of private "I'm jealous";-)
6. Absolutely. I've been thinking about this and how I might structure. One option would be to host such a seminar only for founding members (highest tier) another model if to make completely free. Not sure of the economics but the substance is straightforward. Ideas welcomed. Watch this space.
Contacting Doomberg is an excellent idea! I also suggest discussions with Robert Bryce and Emmet Penny to learn what has worked - and what hasn't worked.
“how I became a target of the Obama administration, a member of Congress, and a billionaire — and more” this sounds like a pretty good outcome if you group the objects of the sentence as target, member of Congress and billionaire, instead of the objects of the phrase modifying target.
Really good interview, Roger. Hope a lot of people listen to it. I did not know many of the details with CU. Very disappointing. I believe you dealt with it in a very professional, level-headed manner. Ron
Climate science is not fake, but the community has allowed a lot of dreck which hurts trust and people then toss out the baby with the bathwater, understandably. This is a problem. It has created demand for places like THB were we try to distinguish baby from bathwater.
The IPCC uses ensembles of models - they average the output of a number of models to get a better answer supposedly. There is no scientific justification for this and it leads to the absurd conclusion that if the government funded more modeling laboratories we could converge on the exact answer. If we look at the models as rather complex curve fitting devices with random errors from matching the past climate, then we understand why an ensemble fits the past climate better- the random errors are averaged out. It also makes sense that if they picked the best model and used that there would be great arguments from those who are left out. Ensembles keep peace among the climate investigators. Then the various models don't use the same past climate inputs, each group is free to use what ever inputs they like. That leads to using poorly measured inputs like aerosols as fix up variables. If that is not fake enough great pains are taken to ensure that crooked, corrupt countries have representation even if they have no expertise. Sort of democracy on the international stage.
Not a specific question, just my continual plea to keep what policy ought to be in your sights. I don't want your work misused to support "doing less" instead of "doing differently." [And even if you "spoke with the tongues of angels" you can't always prevent misuse. :)]
Actually, though, how about engaging directly with the Nordhaus model? Do your views imply any changes in the way climate policy ought to be modeled?
I am not a fan of the Nordhaus model, or really any sort of macro modeling of the global economy and impacts far into the future. Its not that it can't be done, they are fun toys. But they don't mean very much. Climate policy (such as it is) is the aggregation of 1000s and more of policies that make sense for other reasons that happen to contribute to accelerated decarbonization. We know how to do this, and how to accelerate the process.
Roger, you had mentioned that others had filed objections to the NOAA Billion Dollar Baby. Did any of those file a lawsuit? Since I still argue NOAA will delay, hand wave, and ultimately do nothing on the ethics front, legal action is the only way to force change for this product. If so, who are the others?
I am supposed to hear back by 15 Aug. I am not sure what is the state of the other complaints (I'm not aware of any lawsuit), but I would assume that they will deal with them all at the same time.
I did notice that in NOAA's hidden directory with the now 19 versions of the tabulation that the most recent version has changed the information included, which I would guess is one of the responses that they have made.
NOAA's big promotion of the dataset yesterday as the leading indicator of the "state of the climate" provides a pretty clear indication that nothing is likely to change.
Thanks Roger. That is a 'drop box' where Adam puts the files and then he emails personnel from the Archive Branch (Archive Branch reported to me as Division Chief at NCEI for 5 years in the late aughts). Archive Branch then likely takes those files to a more formal and hopefully documented archive location. Do you have the formal archive location? There should be one, as this doesn't count as archiving. Dean Carter works in AVL, Paul in DC. This was set up to drop ocean research data sets and it's bullocks to use this for the Billion Dollar Baby.
I take tipping points seriously but I wonder how one can assign probabilities to events that haven’t taken place and that aren’t subject to an actual model. What do you think?
I did. From studies like this, I take a qualitative conclusion. The more that human contribute to altering the energy balance of the global Earth system, the greater the risks. That is it. I do not put much weight into decimal point certainties or probabilities, those are not particularly meaningful outside of model land.
Dr. P I'm writing in response to two things I read/heard today. First the presentation by pollster David Schor at the recent Breakthrough conference re voter opinion re the climate crisis and people's views on the various mitigation measures being promoted or mandated. Outcome: most voters do not consider the threat of climate change to be a top of mind subject that informs their voting choices. Following that I saw the headlines for a simple Rocky Mountain PBS article about mushrooming in the forest outside of Nederland Co that it is reportedly a bit more challenging than it should be because of a somewhat drier period in this locale, 'exacerbated by climate change.' according to the headline. (maybe it has been dryish in Nedederland until recently, but under the same 'exacerbating' climate regime it's very wet in New Mexico and Arizona these days)....Typical climate catastrophism journalism practice for Rocky Mountain PBS. Question: Given Schor's polling shows a very low ranking of the climate crisis in the minds of most voters, despite the daily news onslaught of yet another climate crisis or two (e.g., difficult mushroom hunting in today's example) what is the political currency of this climate topic?
Despite low voter interest, the climate issue must have some political use or it wouldn't be a topic. The only thing i can come up with is that climate is an issue that can be used to differentiate 'us' from those who 'aren't like us.' Seems pretty weak, particularly all the noise created.? You expert opinion?
Steve W
Denver
Thank you for posting this interview Roger. I was glad to invest 51 minutes to watch your enlightening interview with Jon Caldara. Will you become a full-time staffer at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC?
Great interview, thank you for sharing.
My question is more basic. You talk about "risks" of climate change. If we are under no catastrophic threat, what are the risks? Can they be quantified/verified? Can they even be identified? Is warmer temperature the only threat? Can those risks be managed? How do those risks compare with the benefits of continued fossil fuel use (that is, return the decarbonization pathway to a more gradual and more economically palatable trajectory)?
In your post, "It's all about the baseline," you said that "In plain English this means that the effects of climate mitigation policies on the weather you experience in your lifetime would not be detectable, even if you are born in 2024. This explains why for most variables associated with extreme events the IPCC’s projection of the “time of emergence” of a climate change or climate mitigation signal is so far into the future."
You've also said the "world has never been a safer place for humans from weather and climate, in the entire history of mankind." I take that as direct evidence of the benefit of climate change, as measured since the end of the Little Ice Age in terms of temperature and CO2. If CO2 continues to go up, and temperatures continue to go up, there must be a point of inflection when we are no longer safer than any time in history, and conditions continue to deteriorate.
In as much as temperatures have been 10s of degrees warmer, and CO2 concentrations have been well over 1,000 ppm, at various times in history, how will that make us less safe?
Maybe a better question is, will civilization flourish throughout the Holocene Interglacial, and flag only when the next Ice Age begins?
Thanks ... For more depth have a look at TCF Chapter 1. In a nutshell, the science of climate change gets us to the starting line. We are altering the energy balance of the earth system, and all else equal, we'd prefer not to, obviously, as that carries unknowable risks. Since the global economy has been decarbonizing for a century, we might ask if there are any other reasons why we might want to accelerate that trend. Turns out, there are . . .
But all else is not equal.
I propose that this be dubbed "The Pielke Jr. Dilemma".
Fine discussion with Jon Caldera - thanks.
Question:
I'd like to know more about the political and intellectual history of climate policy in the US - how and why the mainstream scientists concluded that there exists a climate emergency, and how urgent mitigation measures came to be embedded in US policy.
Are you aware of any books, journal articles or reading lists that would serve as a good place to start?
Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr have done some nice work on this.
This is short and accessible:
https://cetesb.sp.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2014/04/anthropogenicclimatechange.pdf
Thank you for your link to this informative 6-page-long article. Here's the formal citation: Von Storch, Hans, and Nico Stehr. “Anthropogenic Climate Change: A Reason for Concern since the 18th Century and Earlier.” Geografiska Annaler. Series A, Physical Geography, vol. 88, no. 2, 2006, pp. 107–13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3878357.
Thanks - a fascinating read.
A heads-up for others who may want to follow that link: The file downloads as a PDF, but won't open in Adobe Reader (my version, at least.) But it can be opened out of the Downloads file into Edge - and from there, if you want to save it, it copies readily into Word. You're left to do a bit of clean-up on the paragraph formatting, but IMO it's well worth the effort.
Auf Deutsch: Axel Bojanowski: "Was Sie schon immer übers Klima wissen wollten, aber bisher nicht zu fragen wagten." Das Buch des Wissenschaftsjournalisten, einem promoviertem Klimawissenschaftler, verfolgt den politischen Weg. Er legt den Einfluss der Lobbygruppen auf die Klimapolitik offen. Ich vermute, dass das Buch bald übersetzt wird.
English translation: Axel Bojanowski: "What you always wanted to know about the climate but were afraid to ask until now." The book by the science journalist, a climate scientist with a doctorate, follows the political path. It reveals the influence of lobby groups on climate policy. I suspect the book will be translated soon.
Roger, regarding Ask you Anything, what research would you address next if a lottery win freed you from financial restraints?
In the climate space I'd focus on developing plausible and equitable scenarios to guide climate science and policy. This area is captured by a very small group of experts (no doubt well meaning, but small and with narrow views), and fails to consider most of humanity or the latest science. More than a bit of Malthus here also.
Outside climate science, I'd focus on reforming higher education. Both normal college and graduate education. Both are a disaster right now.
That said, I don't play the lottery ;-)
Great response. How many THB subscriptions would it require to achieve the first objective?
Excellent interview. Jon Caldera has a healthy level of skepticism and a well tuned BS detector.
You asked for questions in the comments, so here goes:
Roger when you talk about most likely temperature increases at the end of the present century going from 4.5-5 deg C to 2-2.5 deg C as a result of adopting more rational scenarios for coal use it would be helpful to provide the perspective that these temperature increases are relative to the end of the 19th century. From present day that means we are looking at a future temperature increase of 1-1.5 deg. C. I can imagine Jon Caldara's reaction to this clarification. I have written this as an observation, but the question is why do you choose to use the formulation that you do?
One of the other commenters here seems to be concerned that your work will be "misused" to support doing less instead of doing differently. I assume that he would be further concerned about misuse if you presented the likely century end temperature increase as 1-1.5 deg. C. IMHO if more people understood this, the case for doing less and doing it differently would be starkly apparent. Again, I have written this as an observation but the question is are you concerned about providing more ammunition for people to conclude that climate change is not the catastrophic problem it is often made out to be?
I don't know much about policy or policy scholars. Frankly I think focusing on climate policy misses the boat. I can conceive of energy policy and write a clear set of principles and goals to drive the formulation of energy policy. I would struggle to do the same for climate policy. You might find even greater success and recognition if you focused on bringing a climate and weather perspective to forums on energy policy. Surely AEI provides an opportunity to do this.
Would you send your kids to the University of Colorado Boulder or any other UC school?
How is your current Substack focused funding model working out? I would guess that you need additional income sources for you to maintain a comfortable life style and fund impactful research.
How have your relationships with former colleagues, students and associates been impacted by your change in career path?
Would you consider putting together an online seminar or series of seminars (paid) for subscribers?
Thanks ... a few replies:
1. Future projections:
See https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf
That is already out of date, and errs on the high side these days.
2. Of course no one likes to see their work misused. My work gets a lot of attention and is indeed sometimes misused -- but far more often it is properly used (that is, not misrepresented). That said, I have a big platform and my own perspectives are widely known, for those who want to know them. I refuse however to slant or misrepresent my own work in hopes that it will shape how people use it. I call things like I see them and try very hard to place that work into proper context. Of course, I am personally misrepresented more than my work, and that goes with the territory.
3. 2 of my 3 kids went/attend U of Colorado. Both in professional degrees. I would not approve of my kids getting a degree from the department I was affiliated with (Environmental Studies) unless they wanted to take classes in subjects like "climate change and comedy."
4. Substack has been absolutely great -- you are correct that it is not a full income, but so far, enough to leave academia. The benefits go far beyond funding (though obviously that matters), as the reach is incredible. That said, I welcome all suggestions on how to build the (paid) subscriber base including more "founding" members. It is a lot of work, but I absolutely love it.
5. Relationships are great ... no change I can detect since announcing I'm leaving academia (and lots of private "I'm jealous";-)
6. Absolutely. I've been thinking about this and how I might structure. One option would be to host such a seminar only for founding members (highest tier) another model if to make completely free. Not sure of the economics but the substance is straightforward. Ideas welcomed. Watch this space.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
Doomberg offers perks for their highest tier of members. Have you considered contacting them to get an idea of what works for them?
Contacting Doomberg is an excellent idea! I also suggest discussions with Robert Bryce and Emmet Penny to learn what has worked - and what hasn't worked.
“how I became a target of the Obama administration, a member of Congress, and a billionaire — and more” this sounds like a pretty good outcome if you group the objects of the sentence as target, member of Congress and billionaire, instead of the objects of the phrase modifying target.
Really good interview, Roger. Hope a lot of people listen to it. I did not know many of the details with CU. Very disappointing. I believe you dealt with it in a very professional, level-headed manner. Ron
Thanks!
Climatology is an interdisciplinary field. Anyone who digs in that sandbox as you do earns the moniker.
Where you are cancelled is on Facebook where they won’t allow links to this substack.
Including a photo does get around their ban.
True, and strange!
We know climate science is fake because the practice cancellation like a cult.
https://www.windsolarcon.com
Climate science is not fake, but the community has allowed a lot of dreck which hurts trust and people then toss out the baby with the bathwater, understandably. This is a problem. It has created demand for places like THB were we try to distinguish baby from bathwater.
The IPCC uses ensembles of models - they average the output of a number of models to get a better answer supposedly. There is no scientific justification for this and it leads to the absurd conclusion that if the government funded more modeling laboratories we could converge on the exact answer. If we look at the models as rather complex curve fitting devices with random errors from matching the past climate, then we understand why an ensemble fits the past climate better- the random errors are averaged out. It also makes sense that if they picked the best model and used that there would be great arguments from those who are left out. Ensembles keep peace among the climate investigators. Then the various models don't use the same past climate inputs, each group is free to use what ever inputs they like. That leads to using poorly measured inputs like aerosols as fix up variables. If that is not fake enough great pains are taken to ensure that crooked, corrupt countries have representation even if they have no expertise. Sort of democracy on the international stage.
Not a specific question, just my continual plea to keep what policy ought to be in your sights. I don't want your work misused to support "doing less" instead of "doing differently." [And even if you "spoke with the tongues of angels" you can't always prevent misuse. :)]
Actually, though, how about engaging directly with the Nordhaus model? Do your views imply any changes in the way climate policy ought to be modeled?
Thanks, and will do ;-)
I am not a fan of the Nordhaus model, or really any sort of macro modeling of the global economy and impacts far into the future. Its not that it can't be done, they are fun toys. But they don't mean very much. Climate policy (such as it is) is the aggregation of 1000s and more of policies that make sense for other reasons that happen to contribute to accelerated decarbonization. We know how to do this, and how to accelerate the process.
Roger, you had mentioned that others had filed objections to the NOAA Billion Dollar Baby. Did any of those file a lawsuit? Since I still argue NOAA will delay, hand wave, and ultimately do nothing on the ethics front, legal action is the only way to force change for this product. If so, who are the others?
I am supposed to hear back by 15 Aug. I am not sure what is the state of the other complaints (I'm not aware of any lawsuit), but I would assume that they will deal with them all at the same time.
I did notice that in NOAA's hidden directory with the now 19 versions of the tabulation that the most recent version has changed the information included, which I would guess is one of the responses that they have made.
See https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/archive/archive-management-system/OAS/bin/prd/jquery/accession/download/209268
NOAA's big promotion of the dataset yesterday as the leading indicator of the "state of the climate" provides a pretty clear indication that nothing is likely to change.
Thanks Roger. That is a 'drop box' where Adam puts the files and then he emails personnel from the Archive Branch (Archive Branch reported to me as Division Chief at NCEI for 5 years in the late aughts). Archive Branch then likely takes those files to a more formal and hopefully documented archive location. Do you have the formal archive location? There should be one, as this doesn't count as archiving. Dean Carter works in AVL, Paul in DC. This was set up to drop ocean research data sets and it's bullocks to use this for the Billion Dollar Baby.
Roger, did you get a chance to read this paper/piece on tipping points?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/every-0-1c-of-overshoot-above-1-5c-increases-risk-of-crossing-tipping-points/
I take tipping points seriously but I wonder how one can assign probabilities to events that haven’t taken place and that aren’t subject to an actual model. What do you think?
I did. From studies like this, I take a qualitative conclusion. The more that human contribute to altering the energy balance of the global Earth system, the greater the risks. That is it. I do not put much weight into decimal point certainties or probabilities, those are not particularly meaningful outside of model land.