Environmental Economics

Apparently climate change is real (or maybe this is just FAKE NEWS)

Interesting read from the Guardian on how even the cherry-picked data against climate change is no longer against climate change (I know the Guardian is just a liberal rag written by those non-EU Brits with an agenda and unlikely to change any deniers' minds because it is probably FAKE NEWS, but still an interesting read):

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate is a stunning setback for the darling of cherry-picking for contrarian scientists and elected officials. Let’s walk though this so we appreciate the impact. 

The vast majority of scientists know that the climate is changing, humans are the main reason, and there are going to be severe consequences. We have decades of measurements that prove our understanding of this process. There is simply no debate or dispute. 

Despite this, there are a shrinking number of contrarian scientists, elected officials, and industry representatives that have spent endless time trying to downplay the impact. They have variously argued that the climate isn’t changing, that the changes won’t be very much, or that there are no viable solutions to the problem. Much of their position relies upon finding evidence that the current observations of warming are not great. That is, the Earth is not warming as fast as predictions. 

The rest of the article lays out the case and explains how even the cherry-picked University of Alabama Huntsville satellite data, that deniers love to point to as evidence that climate change is a hoax, now shows that, well, it's not a hoax.  Without going into the gritty details, here's the new graph (the red line are the new corrected satellite estimates of tropospheric temperatures):

 

 

 

The new EPA

More cuts er...non-renewals for the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt continues to clean house at a key advisory committee, signaling plans to drop several dozen current members of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), according to an email yesterday from a senior agency official.

All board members whose three-year appointments expire in August will not get renewals, Robert Kavlock, acting head of EPA's Office of Research and Development, said in the email, which was obtained by E&E News.

Because of the need to reconstitute the board, EPA is also canceling all subcommittee meetings planned for late summer and fall, Kavlock said.

"We are hopeful that an updated BOSC Executive Committee and the five subcommittees can resume their work in 2018 and continue providing ORD with thoughtful recommendations and comments," he wrote in urging departing members to reapply.

The board, whose members are chosen by Pruitt, advises EPA on technical and management issues related to its research programs. First-term board members typically receive a second three-year reappointment. Last month, however, Pruitt broke with that tradition in opting not to renew the appointments of nine BOSC members. The new round of non-renewals will bite much deeper, BOSC Executive Committee Chairwoman Deborah Swackhamer, a University of Minnesota science professor, indicated in an email today to E&E News.

Of 49 remaining subcommittee members, 38 will not be renewed at the end of August, leaving a total of 11, she said. None of the subcommittees will have a chair or vice chair, Swackhamer said, while the executive committee will have three members. While EPA is already seeking nominations to fill out the board, the deadline is the end of next week, she noted.

I don't know the names of all of those cut, but I know of one colleague from my department who has been cut (and is less than pleased).  

When the first round of non-renewals became public last month, an EPA spokesman noted that reappointments were not guaranteed and that the agency wanted to ensure fair consideration of all nominees for advisory board posts.

In a statement today, spokeswoman Amy Graham said the agency is grateful for the service of BOSC members and is encouraging those with expiring terms to reapply.

"We are taking an inclusive approach to filling future BOSC appointments and welcome all applicants from all relevant scientific and technical fields," Graham said.

But the first round sparked backlash from congressional Democrats and accusations that Pruitt is seeking to make room for industry representatives who will undercut the integrity of the board's work.

"This says to me that they do not want objective science," Peter Meyer, an economist who resigned in protest last month, said in an interview this morning.

The Washington Post version of the story has this little additional nugget:

This appears to be just the start of advisory committee changes at the EPA. The agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) also likely will be changed in the future.

One senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing conversations, said that a segment of the Scientific Advisory Board rotates off each year and the agency will issue a Federal Register notice in the next couple of weeks that will invite applicants to replace those members whose terms are expiring.

“EPA is currently deliberating next steps for the SAB and CASAC,” said one senior agency official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no final decision has been made.

And yes, I know someone on an SAB subcommittee too. Actually I know a lot of people on SAB subcommittees, but I was referring to me.

People are willing to pay a lot to prevent another BP-like oil spill

In my best Thomas Dolby voice: SCIENCE!

...According to a paper published in the journal Science on Thursday, Americans are willing to pay $17.2 billion to prevent another BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Thanks to a team of scientists who conducted a six-year study into the effects of the 134-million-gallon spill, we now have a more accurate picture of the devastating consequences—and also how desperately we want to reduce our dependency.  

To relate the true damages of an oil spill of this magnitude, researchers set out to equate the damage in monetary terms, as so often we view natural resources as permanent and limitless. In order to arrive at the $17.2 billion figure, scientists surveyed households across the country to see how much they’d be willing to pay to avoid similar spills in the future. Along with asking participants these questions, the study authors included detailed accounts of the damage already done to beaches, animals, marine life, and marshland. As one of the paper’s authors, Kevin Boyle, explained to Virginia Tech News, “This is proof that our natural resources have an immense monetary value to citizens of the United States who visit the Gulf and to those who simply care that this valuable resource is not damaged.”

Commissioned by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration one month after the 2010 spill, the long-awaited study can now give us some insight into the actual dollar value of devastating the environment. What they also found was an overwhelming public willingness to put hard-earned cash into prevention funds. According to the survey, the majority of households said they’d willingly pay $153 each for prevention measures. Adding up all the reported figures led researchers to the $17.2 billion total.

Here's a link to the Science article.

Quote of my lifetime: We need a "That was some weird sh*t" category

I'm not sure why we haven't thought of this before, but we need a category for just plain odd statements from politicians/policy makers.  Thankfully, George W. Bush** has given us the perfect title for the category:

Former President George W. Bush reportedly thought President Trump's inauguration speech "was some weird shit."

Bush attended Trump's inauguration, sitting near former President Clinton and Hillary Clinton as well as former President Obama and Michelle Obama.

According to a new report by New York magazine, three people present at the event say they heard Bush say "That was some weird shit" after the swearing in ceremony concluded.

An example:

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is facing criticism over his decision not to ban a controversial farm pesticide. Pruitt insists his move is based on “sound science,” but it overrides his own agency’s research showing chlorpyrifos pose a health risk to children and farm workers, possibly inhibiting brain development.

That was some weird shit.

Another?

In case you needed reminding, it’s a bad time to be a scientist in the US. If you work for a federal research group, you’ve been muzzled, had your funding cut to historically low levels, and been told by a committee of anti-intellectual parrots that you’re constantly lying.

Earlier this month, the word “science” was removed from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) mission statement under the auspices of a man who doesn’t think carbon dioxide warms the planet. Now, it seems that the Department of Energy’s (DoE) climate change research office has banned the use of the phrase “climate change”.

As reported by Politico, a supervisor at the DoE’s Office of International Climate and Clean Energy told the staff in no uncertain terms that the phrases “climate change”, “emissions reduction”, and “Paris agreement” are not to be used in written memos, briefings, or any form of communication.

That was some weird shit.

I have a feeling this could quickly become our most populated category of post.

*Does anyone else find it funny when legitimate journalists have to write titles with words like 'shit' in them, and thy choose to just use an asterisk 'sh*t'?  I know that they are supposed to write at a 3rd grade level, but I'm pretty sure even a 3rd grader can figure out what the word is supposed to be.

**I love the irony in the same man who once said ""And so the fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there's jobs at the machine-making place." and "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country," and so many others, says Donald Trump's inauguration was weird shit.  I guess weird shit knows weird shit.

See, science is messy

Yesterday I posted about Lamar Smith and his attempts to dismiss science because it can be, well, less than certain. Here's another good example (from FIveThirtyEight's SigDig today):

A study published in Nature found that about 50 percent of the platelets in the bloodstream are made in the lungs, not in the bone marrow as previously believed.

Mr. Smith, should we now dismiss all medical studies because we have learned something new?

Just wondering.

 

Climate Science is SCIENCE whether we call it that or not

Lamar Smith is scary (to me at least):

Emboldened by the election of President Donald Trump, Smith appears increasingly comfortable dismissing those who disagree with his stance on any number of issues under the purview of his science committee, from climate research to the use of peer review in assessing research results and grant proposals. And one key element in his strategy appears to be relabeling common terms in hopes of shaping public dialogue.

“I applaud you for saying you’ll be using the term climate studies, not climate science,” said one audience member. His reference was to Smith’s embrace of a distinction made by a previous speaker, climatologist Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., who argues that most climate scientists don’t deserve to be called “scientists” because they have manipulated their data and ignored contrary results. “But I also urge you to use the term politically correct science.”

“Good point,” Smith replied. “And I’ll start using those words if you’ll start using two words for me. The first is never, ever use the word progressive. Instead, use the word liberal. The second is never use the word 'mainstream' media, because they aren’t. Use 'liberal' media. Is that a deal?”

Let me try to lay this out succinctly:  'Science' and 'Certainty' are not synonymous--and they shouldn't be.  Science represents the evolution of thought based on observation, hypothesization (is that word)?, experimentation/data collection, analysization (I'm trying to keep my parallel construction here), and communication.  

Lather, rinse and repeat.

Occasionally the scientific method results in a scientifically certain discovery:  Penicillin works. 

Occasionally the scientific method results in a scientifically certain rejection of consensus: The earth is NOT flat.

But most of the time science is messy...or at least uncertain.  It is rare that an hypothesis is either fully confirmed or fully rejected.  Those hypotheses that are fully confirmed or unequivocally rejected are typically so narrow as to render the conclusion trivial.  Interesting hypotheses are complicated and complex and it takes many scientists and multiple iterations of test/partial confirmation/partial rejection/adjustment/retest/partial confirmation/partial rejection .  

And even when conclusions start to come together, the certainty-levels with which those conclusions can be stated are varying degrees of confidence, and not 100% certainty.

 

 

 

My advice to the EPA Administrator? Use science.

I am an appointed member of the EPA Science Advisory Board Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. As a committee, our charge is to provide "independent advice to the EPA Administrator, through the chartered SAB, regarding the science and research to assess public benefits and costs of EPA’s environmental programs."

My independent advice to the EPA Administrator?

Use science.

That's all.

 

An alternative strategy to climate research denial is to cover your ears and scream "LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

At least the vetting isn't 'extreme':

Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who want to publish or present their scientific findings likely will need to have their work reviewed on a "case by case basis" before it can be disseminated, according to a spokesman for the agency's transition team.

In an interview Tuesday evening with NPR, Doug Ericksen, the head of communications for the Trump administration's EPA transition team, said that during the transition period, he expects scientists will undergo an unspecified internal vetting process before sharing their work outside the agency.

"We'll take a look at what's happening so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration," Ericksen told NPR.

Ericksen did not say whether such a review process would become a permanent feature of Trump's EPA. "We're on Day 2 here. ... You've got to give us a few days to get our feet underneath us."

Any review would directly contradict the agency's current scientific integrity policy, which was published in 2012. It prohibits "all EPA employees, including scientists, managers and other Agency leadership from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions."

We need a better word than 'anomaly' to describe rising temperatures: WTF?

At times scientists can be their own worst enemy.  In an attempt to be accurate, scientists sometimes forget the most basic rule of communicating: know your audience.  In the case of explaining climate change, and in particular, explaining rising global temperatures, scientists have chosen to use the phrase 'global average surface temperature anomaly.'

Here's an exchange between 'FiveThirtyEight.com science editor Blythe Terrell and Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the Earth Institute at Columbia University and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.'

blythe: So 2016 was officially the hottest year on record on Earth. Gavin, can you tell us what that means?

gavin: We have a dense enough network of weather stations and ocean records since about the mid-19th century to be able to estimate the global average surface temperature anomaly, and 2016 is the warmest we’ve seen in that entire period.

That comes on top of records in 2015, and before that, 2014.

Scientists who already know what a 'global average surface temperature anomaly' is will nod in agreement at Schmidt's explanation.  But, the general readership of FiveThirtyEight will do one of two things: 1) Wonder what the hell a 'global average surface temperature anomaly' is, or 2) Stop reading because scientists use fancy language to try to cover up a bunch of magic and handwaving leading to the inevitable conclusion that scientists are making shit up to fool 'the deplorables.'  

Fortunately, FiveThirtyEight knows their audience so they ask: 

blythe: And when we say “global average surface temperature anomaly,” what do we mean?

gavin: Good question. What we do is we take each of the weather stations and other records and calculate the difference from what you expect at each month and year — that’s the anomaly. It turns out that the anomalies from one station to another are highly correlated — much more so than the absolute temperature. There’s a good explainer of this at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies “Surface Temperature Analysis” website.

Which raises my main point: why call it an anomaly?  Scientists know that when they use the word 'anomaly' they are referring to 'the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.' (definition 6 on Dictionary.com). But, I have a hunch that most people, when they think of an anomaly, think of definition 1, 2 or 3: something, odd, or peculiar, a one-off event that can be thrown away, an outlier,...  

So if the goal is to try to communicate the science behind and reality of the global temperature trend, calling it an anomaly seems counterproductive: we don't expect anomalies to happen year after year.  

I propose that we call it the 'Worldwide Temperature Figure,' and abbreviate it WTF.  

Then we can write headlines like "NOAA says WTF Temperature Readings are at an All Time High."      

Graphic of the Day (er, millenium?): Those Liars at NOAA are at it Again*

Source: The Fake News Experts at the Washington Post*

*Facetiousness alert