I read this taxonomy of “narratives” about climate change at ImpactAlpha by Bob Eccles and Melita Leousi, hoping that it would produce more light than heat but having read it I’m not so sure. Here’s it’s opening passage:
ImpactAlpha, September 18 — The climate discourse by individuals and groups typically involves five narratives about the import and response to climate change. Some people are scientific, others skeptical. Some make moral arguments, others tout the opportunities. And, increasingly, many are warning of “doomsday†to spur urgency – or defeatism.
These narratives are “ideal types†that express themselves to varying degrees and in various combinations. We believe that recognizing the existence of these types can be helpful in fostering dialogue between people and groups who are addressing the challenges and opportunities of climate change (engaging with climate change deniers might naturally be harder).
with the following conclusion:
These are “ideal types†which we think can be a useful framing for fostering dialogue between people and groups who are addressing the challenges and opportunities of climate change.
To paint a stark example, take two groups that both use the Scientific Foundation as their dominant narrative, but one supplements it with the Doomsday Narrative and the other the Opportunity Narrative.
It would be natural for the Doomsayers to view the Opportunists as being overly optimistic and not having the proper sense of urgency. In contrast, adherents of the Opportunity view may find those warning of climate apocalypse to be shrill and failing to take a pragmatic view about the continued use of fossil fuels and the need for technological breakthroughs.
If well-meaning people who are concerned about climate change can’t talk to others simply because they talk about it in a different way, we will not be able to establish the social and political consensus necessary to address an issue that confronts us all, whatever our narrative.
The “narratives” are
- Scientific
- Skeptic
- Moral
- Opportunity
- Doomsday
For details on what is meant by each see the cited article. IMO framing the taxonomy in that way is itself somewhat argumentative.
My own view is that climate change models are weakly predictive, they are too susceptible to gaming, and that many of the strategies for dealing with anthropogenic climate change are questionable and/or are scams even if well-meaning, I don’t think that any strategy that does not involve nuclear energy, requiring China and India to reduce their carbon emissions, and, in all likelihood, carbon capture and sequestration are particularly serious. I think that some action is worthwhile but much of what is proposed is either ill-considered, regressive, or trying to accomplish something other than ameliorating climate change.
To understand why I say “weakly predictive”, cf. this passage by an article by Chad Small in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
Global climate models and real-world observations mostly agree on average ocean warming over the last 40 years. But this agreement breaks down when you peel back that average and look at regional snapshots of sea surface temperature.
“If you have ever looked at [sea surface temperature] linear trend over the past 40 years, since 1979, where we have the set of products with a more accurate [sea surface temperature] estimate, you can see everywhere is warming—of course not uniformly,†Yue Dong, a postdoctoral research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, and one of the primary authors of a recent paper on this topic, said.
She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
Putting it a little less kindly if the calculations to send a rocket to the moon had been as inaccurate as climate change models we’d have never reached the moon. Thousands of everyday industrial processes would be starting massive fires and explosions. Getting the directionality correct on average is not a high standard of accuracy let alone the “pretty accurate” assessment the models are frequently given.
In addition they are far too dependent on how and where measurements are taken. Moving sensors should not affect the predictions but they would. Too many are located near cities which means they’re measuring something else.
And, finally, the strategies proposed are guesstimates if not outright scams. Take carbon offsets, for example. The most recent scholarship suggests they don’t do much. Microsoft (or Google) shutting down its operations might have an impact; using carbon offsets to facilitate their emitting at will not so much.
Because there are regional differences in water temperature, which is what most people expect, it means the predictions are weak? We have regional differences in air temperature. This is truly bizarre thinking. You are probably going for effect but you do realize with a rocket you know where it is starting, where it is ending, what lies between and the necessary inputs to get there. It’s mostly engineering. With climate models you are taking millions of different inputs, future unknowns and trying to make predictions, which even Yogi Berra understood.
“Too many are located near cities”
You know more than people that do it for a living. Maybe you should offer to advise them. Maybe start by correcting this opinion.
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
Steve
Dave Schuler: Putting it a little less kindly if the calculations to send a rocket to the moon had been as inaccurate as climate change models we’d have never reached the moon.
The vaunted accuracy of rocketry is somewhat exaggerated. Even in the staid and largely empty Solar System, spacecraft are typically given multiple course corrections during journeys. Rocket science is easy. Rocket engineering is hard.
Dave Schuler: She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
The slower warming in the eastern Pacific is thought to be due to aerosols and an ocean thermostat effect (a temperature gradient across the Pacific). See Heede & Fedorov, Eastern equatorial Pacific warming delayed by aerosols and thermostat response to CO2 increase, Nature Climate Change 2021.
Dave Schuler: In addition they are far too dependent on how and where measurements are taken. Moving sensors should not affect the predictions but they would.
Discontinuities in the temperature record can occur because of the relocation of stations or from changes in instrumentation. Traditionally, this has been handled through a process of homogenization whereby the records before and after the discontinuities are “spliced” together to recreate a continuous record. Skeptics have rejected this with a wave of their hands.
In response to the skepticism, new statistical techniques were brought to bear on the raw data which didn’t require homogenization. Basically, they looked at the trend in each section of data without trying to splice them together. This confirmed the trend determined from homogenization. See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013. The study also showed that including solar forcing did not improve the statistical fit, and that the warming trend could be explained entirely by volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy.
In addition, multiple independent measures support the warming trend, including satellite observations.
Dave Schuler: Too many are located near cities which means they’re measuring something else.
Steve addressed the urban heat island effect.
Dave Schuler: Getting the directionality correct on average is not a high standard of accuracy
Global warming models don’t just get the directionality correct but the degree of warming. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s oceans would be largely frozen. Increasing the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases will inevitably cause the Earth’s surface to warm. While the basic greenhouse effect is strongly supported, how the additional heat will be distributed through the climate system is highly complex and subject to considerable uncertainty. However, as Earth’s history shows, a few degrees change in surface temperature will inevitably have broad effects on climate.
Regardless, current warming isn’t the problem. The mechanisms of anthropogenic greenhouse warming–which are strongly supported by many different areas of study–indicate that the Earth will continue to warm.
The fundamental problem is that while science generally agrees that warming is happening and expected to continue, but most everything else is subject to various degrees of uncertainty.
Even the effect of increased carbon is uncertain. The ECS (“Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) the measure of the long-term impact of carbon on temperature) is an estimated range. For example, in the latest IPCC report, the “very likely” range is 2 to 5 degrees Celsius increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The problem, of course, is that in practical terms there is a huge difference in terms of policy response and timelines and probable effects depending on whether it’s at 2 degrees or 5 degrees. And note the probability statement there – the IPCC states that “very likely” is an estimate of greater than 90% probability. Assuming that estimate is accurate, that means there’s a 10% chance the ECS could be lower than 2 degrees or higher than 5.
And the reason this is so uncertain is because of forcings, not the direct effects of CO2 by itself, which we can calculate much more accurately.
People naturally don’t like this kind of uncertainty, which is where the narratives come in. Not surprisingly, these narratives discount the uncertainty and are highly influenced by various cognitive biases, especially confirmation bias.
Hence why the Green movement generally and simultaneously calls climate change an existential crisis and takes a more “worst-case” view of the uncertainty, but is only willing to entertain solutions that are politically acceptable to their worldview.
Other groups and advocates are similarly biased toward the ideas they already support. There is even disagreement among scientists, with some insisting the IPCC ECS range is too low and others believing the range is too high. The IPCC is a consensus set of judgments subject to all the human defects in consensus formation.
I try to be very cognizant of all this uncertainty. I would also say that the uncertainty works both ways. Hence the reason why I’m skeptical of confident claims about climate change generally. I’ve read the IPCC reports and they are written in the same probabilistic language the intelligence community often uses, which I am very familiar with. It’s also why I think everything ought to be on the table when considering action. If this really is an existential crisis that some claim (and there is room in the uncertainty that can’t rule it out), then everything needs to be on the table.
Andy: in the latest IPCC report, the “very likely†range is 2 to 5 degrees Celsius increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Which means there is a 95% chance the equilibrium climate sensitivity will be at least 2°C. And that’s a significant problem.
Any reasonable policy discussion has to start with this finding, including areas of uncertainty. But it often begins and ends with “Is not!” or a rehash of already refuted claims by so-called skeptics.
This is helpful. When someone has an X-ray that suggests there is a 90% chance it is cancer we can just ignore it. This will save lots of money and time.
Steve
Also, I still dont understand this claim that if someone wont solve the problem they way I prefer, that means its not really a problem. The US debt level is pretty high. I think we should solve it with some combo of decreased spending and increased taxes. If someone claims we should only do it by cutting spending should I conclude debt is not a problem?
Steve