Climate Change: Moving Towards Action

1. Climate Change: The Move to Action(AOSS 480 // NRE 480) Richard B. Rood Cell: 301-526-8572 2525 Space Research Building (North Campus) rbrood@umich.edu http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/rbrood Winter 2014 April 15, 2014

2. Class News • Ctools site: AOSS_SNRE_480_001_W14 • Something I am playing with • http://openclimate.tumblr.com/ • Project Presentations • April 22 nd … • Final Slide Package and Narrative • April 28, 2014 11:59 pm Politics of Dismissal Entry Uncertainty Description Model

3. The Current Climate (Released Monthly) • Climate Monitoring at National Climatic Data Center. • http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html • State of the Climate: Global

4. Project Details • You want to make a knowledge-based evaluation of the problem and present an approach or a set of possible approaches to address the problem. (Want you to be very aware of “advocacy” in your thinking.) • Project Description

5. Projects: Goals and Context • In school students often learn to work independently, in their field, but in jobs people are often thrown into teams • You are suddenly the “expert.” • Goals • How to define a tractable problem // reduce it to something you can do • Drawing a picture • How to separate the essence of a problem from the details • What do we know, what do we believe, what are we attached to? • What do the other participants really need – not what you think they need. • Check, How to Check • Communication • Complexity, sophistication, audience, context, naivety, dumbing down • How to explain what you are doing. • Balance, optimization

6. Projects • Bigger goals ... • How do we move this problem beyond polarized positions on details. • Move it from climate-policy, climate-business, climate-public health, climate-agriculture, climate-ecosystems, climate-...(interest advocacy groups) • to climate-business-policy-public health - ecosystems • How do we bring several communities together for the development of foundational solution paths or, at least, strategies that make sense. • Systems, systems, systems

7. Skill Set • Analysis • Distinguish between facts and inferences • Judgment • What is the quality of the knowledge? • Synthesis • How do pieces fit together?

8. Deconstructing how to think about projects. 4) What to do? Consequences? Options? 1) Describe what is in the picture. What are the facts? Make an inventory of what is known. Make an inventory of what is not known. 2) Analysis: How credible is the information? What is the integrity of the reporting? How complete is the picture? Is there derived knowledge? … 3) Does it matter? Impact. Consequences. Relations Why?

9. An interesting book for thinking about projects:(Example of process, deconstruction, …) Climate Change: Debating America’s Policy Options David Victor (2004) Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY 166 pages.

10. Project Details • I will become your customer / audience • I will reframe your vision into a question, perhaps a naïve question. • Teams and I will “meet” at least twice before the presentation at the end of the semester. • Questions likely focused and made less naïve. • Final presentation / power point / and narrative. • Plan 15 – 20 minute presentation

11. Just to be clear: Deliverables • Presentation in final class • Should plan 15-20 minutes • Plus discussion • Plus transition from one group to the next • Turn in by April 28th • Final presentation package • Narrative / paper • 10 pages adequate if well argued • There is no size limit // I have received many in 50 -100 pages. • If large, must have executive summary

13. Some Uncertainty References • Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis Assessment Report, Uncertainty Best Practices Communicating, 2009 • Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis Assessment Report, Transportation Gulf Coast, 2008 • Moss and Schneider, Uncertainty Reporting, 2000 • Pidgeon and Fischhoff, Communicating Uncertainty, 2011 • Lemos and Rood, Uncertainty Fallacy, 2010 • NRC Advancing Climate Modeling: Chapter 6 • Briley et al., Process Uncertainty, 2014 (in revision) • Tang and Dessai, Usable Science, 2012

14. Today • Examples used to disprove and discredit climate change. • Three groups each with three examples • Forms of Rhetoric and Argument • Argumentation • Communication • Attribution • Uncertainty

15. In Groups Discuss Examples in Handouts

16. To analyze • Look at the form of argument • Use the principles of the scientific method • Remember the scientific method does not produce facts • Knowledge • Uncertainty

17. Communication of Science-based knowledge • “ … in the case of some people, not even if we had the most accurate scientific knowledge, would it be easy to persuade them …” Aristotle, A Treatise on Rhetoric Important to know when rhetoric is being used as a tactic to achieve a goal.

18. Rhetoric and Form of Argument • Are attacks to discredit the person or field prominent: dishonesty, fraud, conflict of interest, conspiracy • Accusation that ignoring information • Labels: alarmists, warmists, denialists, uneducated, conservative, liberal • Moral levers of trust and distrust • Extract single pieces of information in absence of others and hold as contradiction • Reaching metaphors: The world was warmer and had more carbon dioxide when there dinosaurs and no humans

19. What to Do? What to Do? Rhetoric and Form of Argument Skeptical Science Marshall Institute: Climate Change The Heritage Foundation Watts Up With That? Some References

20. More formal notions of argumentation • From • Persuasion, Argumentation, and Common Fallacies • Kenneth Alfano (kalfano@umich.edu) • Erik Hildinger (eshild@umich.edu ) • Posted on CTools

21. It is essential to analyze your audience(s) prior to any persuasive endeavor. How much do they know about the issue? What are their predispositions or interests? How will your request impact them? What kind of personality types are involved? This will influence your document’s (or presentation’s) organization, level, tone, appeal, etc. A Critical Consideration: Audience

22. APPEALS: Three main types • The Appeal to Reason • The Appeal to Emotion • The Appeal to Ethics They’re used in different situations.

23. In technical areas, two of these appeals predominate: • Appeal to Reason – typically for the most “direct” issue at hand; reasons why the money, action, belief, etc. would logically lead to a desirable outcome… • Appeal to Ethics – usually as a limitation on what you can do in pursuit of other goals, but sometimes even a goal in itself! • The arguments about climate change are often political, not technical, not scientific

24. Other distinctions in argument • Argument of Fact • This is about what is or is not. • Example: “Global warming will cause consequence X by year Y, with a statistical likelihood of Z%.” • Argument of Policy • This is about what should or should not be. • Example: “A Z% chance of consequence X is sufficient grounds to take action A, but not necessarily action B.”

25. Relationship between arguments of fact and arguments of policy • Facts often need to be established before you discuss policy. • Arguments of fact often precede arguments of policy. • You need to carefully parse the distinction between them, especially where they tend to get conflated. • Both need support, but in different ways.

26. A note on policy arguments: While policy arguments may be motivated by ethics or morality, it is more likely for such arguments to succeed if they emphasize expediency, advantage, or other self-interested motives of the audience. It’s not a perfect world, and we don’t get very far by pretending it is…

27. Common Logical Fallacies • Circular reasoning • False cause • Hasty generalization • Irrelevant appeal • Non sequitur • Undistributed middle • Equivocation

28. Circular reasoning • Also called “begging the question” • Presuming one’s conclusion, A => A • Gives the illusion of a deductive step • Ex. “John is lazy, because he doesn’t work hard.” • Often hides in the form of re-stating assertions with largely synonymous phrasing, disguised as support • Also hides behind rhetorical queries

29. False cause • Presuming that correlation implies causation • Often arises in cases where there is a temporal proximity (“post hoc”), e.g. “X follows Y a lot, so Y must cause X” • Can overlap w/ fallacies involving hasty generalization of insufficient data • Generally only a prospective study can conclusively indicate causation

30. Hasty generalization • Essentially, insufficient data • Quantitatively (n value) and/or qualitatively (e.g. not accounting for all appropriate confounding variables) • Often overlaps with false/premature causation assertions • Unlike many other fallacies, this one can be a matter of degree and thus not always as logically objective

31. Irrelevant appeal • Invoking true facts that superficially appear to bolster a point, but are actually inapt • Commonly occurs with credentials, e.g. appealing to an expert in one scientific discipline as a purported authority for a contention in a substantially different one • Can come in degrees, such as overstating the value of an authority

32. Non sequitur • Similar to irrelevant appeal, except making no effort to “simulate” relevance even superficially • Commonly involves seeking to distract from an unfounded assertion via emotion, such as humor or fear or affection • “Jane is a good and honest person, so she must be a very good employee”

33. Undistributed middle • A basic fallacy of set theory – presuming that because there is overlap, that there is no non-overlap • “All iPods are portable electronic devices, and all smartphones are portable electronic devices, therefore all iPods are smartphones.” • Related to fallacies of presumptions of mutual inclusivity/exclusivity

34. Equivocation • Using a word in 2 different senses/meanings in the same context, hoping the audience won’t notice the “mirror trick” • Of course, as with most fallacies, some are easier to spot than others  “Noisy children are a headache. Aspirin makes headaches go away. Therefore, aspirin makes noisy children go away.” (http://dict.space.4goo.net/dict?q=equivocation)

35. Some summary points of Climate Change political arguments

36. PA1: Just a Theory • A common statement is that greenhouse gas is just a theory, equating theory with conjecture. • Theory is not conjecture, it is testable. • Theory suggests some amount of cause and effect – a physical system, governed by quantitative conservation equations. • Theory is not fact, it can and will change. • Need to consider the uncertainty, and the plausibility that the theory might be wrong. • Often it is stated in this discussion that gravity is only a theory. • True, and the theory of gravity is a very useful theory, one put forth by Newton. • True, we don’t exactly understand the true nature of the force of gravity, there are “why” questions. • Formally, Newton’s theory of gravity is incorrect – that’s what Einstein did. • Still, it is a very useful and very accurate theory, that allows us, for example, to always fall down and never fall up – and go to the Moon with some confidence.

37. PA2: Greenhouse Effect • This is generally not a strongly argued point. Warming of the surface due to greenhouse gases make the planet habitable. • Habitable? Water exists in all three phases? • Water and carbon dioxide and methane are most important natural greenhouse gases. • Often a point of argument that water is the “dominant” gas, so traces of CO2 cannot be important. • Water is dominant … often said 2/3 rds of warming. Because there is so much water in the ocean, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is largely determined by temperature. (The relative humidity.) • This is where it is important to remember the idea of balance, the climate is in balance, and it is differences from this balance which we have co-evolved with that are important. • Burning fossil fuels is taking us away from this balance. It is like opening or closing a crack in the window … it makes a big difference.

38. PA3: What happens to this CO2 • A “new” political argument: CO2 from fossil fuels is small compared to what comes from trees and ocean. True. But a lot goes into trees and oceans as well. So it is the excess CO2, the CO2 on the margin that comes from fossil fuel burning. Not all of this goes into the trees and oceans, and it accumulates in the atmosphere. • There are 8.6 Petagrams C per year emitted • 3.5 Pg C stay in atmosphere • 2.3 Pg C go into the ocean • 3.0 Pg C go into the terrestrial ecosystems • Terrestrial ecosystems sink needs far better quantification • Lal, Carbon Sequestration, PhilTransRoySoc 2008 • It’s a counting problem! One of our easier ones.

39. PA4: Cycles • Some say that there are cycles, they are natural, they are inevitable, they show that human have no influence. • Cycles? yes  natural? Yes • Inevitable  There are forces beyond our control • We can determine what causes cycle; they are not supernatural • Greenhouse gases change • “Life” is involved  ocean and land biology • Humans are life  This is the time humans release CO2

40. PA4: Cycles  CO2 and T • At the turn around of the ice ages, temperature starts to go up before CO2; hence, T increase is unrelated to CO2 • Need to think about time and balance here … • There are sources of T and CO2 variability other than the radiative greenhouse gas effect. • If CO2 increases in the atmosphere, there will be enhanced surface warming, but is the increase large enough to change temperature beyond other sources of variability? • If T increases, there could be CO2 increases associated with, for instance, release from solution in the ocean • CO2 increases could come from burning fossil fuels, massive die off of trees, volcanoes  have to count, know the balance. See Shakun, Nature, 2012

41. PA4: Cycles: Ice Ages • In 1975 scientists were predicting an ice age. Now warming. You have no credibility, why should we believe you now. • In 1975, small number of papers got a lot of press attention. • 2010  Think scientific method • Observations, observations, observations • Improved theory, predictions, cause and effect • Results reproduced my many investigators, using many independent sources of observations • Consistency of theory, prediction, and observations • Probability of alternative description is very small.

42. Medieval warm period • “Little ice age” • Temperature starts to follow CO2 as CO2 increases beyond approximately 300 ppm, the value seen in the previous graph as the upper range of variability in the past 350,000 years. PA5: The last 1000 years: The hockey stick Surface temperature and CO2 data from the past 1000 years. Temperature is a northern hemisphere average. Temperature from several types of measurements are consistent in temporal behavior.

43. PA5: Hockey Stick • This is the “hockey stick” figure and it is very controversial. Quality of data, presentation, manipulation, messaging. • Rood blog • Nature on Hockey Stick Controversy • There are some issues with data, messaging, emotions of scientists here, but the data are, fundamentally, correct.

44. PA5: Hockey Stick: Science • But place the surface temperature record of the hockey stick in context using the scientific method. • Reproduction of results by independent researchers, through independent analyses • Verification of results in other types of observations  sea level rise, ocean heat content, earlier start of spring • Consistency of signals with theory  upper tropospheric cooling • Evaluation of alternative hypotheses

45. PA5: Hockey Stick: Temperature source • There has developed a discussion between those who believe in surface temperature data and those who believe in satellite data. • Scientifically, it should not be a matter of belief, but validation. Each system has strengths and weaknesses. Differences should be reconciled, not held as proof of one over the other. • Surface: Issues of how sited, representative, urban heat island • If ignored (wrong), then data flawed • If taken into account (right), then data are manipulted • Satellite data objective and accurate? • Read the literature! Took years to get useful temperature. Every satellite is different, calibrated with non-satellite data • And ultimately: Scientific method • Reproduction of results by independent researchers, through independent analyses • Verification of results in other types of observations • Consistency of signals with theory • Evaluation of alternative hypotheses

46. Use of Extreme Events as Communication Opportunity and Case Studies • The trap or the nuance • Was this event caused by climate change? • Relative role of weather, climate, climate change and other things that we do  like build mansions on the seashore.

47. Extreme Weather Events

48. Climate Change Case Studies? • Pakistan floods 2010 and 2011 • Russian heat wave and drought 2010 • Texas drought and heat 2011 • The 2011 Japanese earthquake • The Arab Spring • Markets • Relation to energy

49. Trends • 2011 was a record-breaking year for Climate Extremes

50. Example: Heat Waves • Barriopedro et al., Russian Heat Wave, Science, 2011 • Dole et al., Russian Heat Wave, GRL, 2011 • Rahmstorf, Increase of Extreme Events, PNAS, 2011 • Shearer and Rood, Earthzine, 2011