Uncertainty, Science and the Press

I rely on RealClimate to untangle much of the confusion around reports of global warming and climate change. This confusion - as described in this classic case concerning the melting of the Greenland ice cap - is often generated by the biases and ignorance inherent in press coverage.

As my preceding article explained, there is alway uncertainty in forecasting, and there is definitely uncertainty in any attempt to predict the weather - whether it be for the next decade or this afternoon. But misinterpretation of scientific findings introduces even more uncertainty in the minds of citizens, who read or hear conflicting reports and then decide not to trust any of them.

A deep core sample of the ice in Greenland found the "oldest pure DNA ever" and the reports published in Science magazine included some mentions of historic ice cap melting some 125,000 years ago when the sea level was some 6 meters above what it is today. Some press accounts of the Science article interpreted those mentions as meaning that forecasts of the impact of current Greenland meltoff were overblown, exaggerated.

RealClimate provides a more accurate explanation of the original study, which is consistent with the IPCC findings regarding the ice cap. So we're back to considering the possibility that a Greenland meltoff, combined with similar melting of the Antarctic ice cap, the melting of many smaller mountain glaciers around the world and the expansion of the ocean itself due to warming may - MAY - still result in at least a 6 meter rise in sea level.

Forecasting and the Cone of Uncertainty

Paul Saffo, a noted Bay Area futurist, wrote a valuable piece for the Harvard Business Review titled Six Rules for Effective Forecasting. Given that the whole premise of Climate Frog is based on forecasting the impacts of climate change, Saffo's rules help put my writing into proper perspective. Forecasting is not predicting.

The role of the forecaster in the real world is quite different from that of the mythical seer. Prediction is concerned with future certainty; forecasting looks at how hidden currents in the present signal possible changes in direction for companies, societies, or the world at large. Thus, the primary goal of forecasting is to identify the full range of possibilities, not a limited set of illusory certainties. Whether a specific forecast actually turns out to be accurate is only part of the picture—even a broken clock is right twice a day. Above all, the forecaster’s task is to map uncertainty, for in a world where our actions in the present influence the future, uncertainty is opportunity.

The implications of my Climate Frog articles - that humans should be planning their futures based on forecasts of the possible effects of climate change - are certainly not predictive. If it were certain that sea levels would rise in a predictable pattern, we would be seeing a lot more preparation for that in the planning and development of coastal cities and towns. But the element of uncertainty in the forecasts regarding sea level rise makes expensive changes in policy a bit of a gamble in the present, both economically and politically. No one today could secure the legislation and funding to relocate major sea level highways. Even the most pessimistic predictor of sea level rise recognizes the fact that climate change is full of uncertainties today.

Saffo describes change as an "S curve" that begins slowly and hits an inflection point where change accelerates rapidly for a period until it flattens out and recedes.

The art of forecasting is to identify an S-curve pattern as it begins to emerge, well ahead of the inflection point. The tricky part of S curves is that they inevitably invite us to focus on the inflection point, that dramatic moment of takeoff when fortunes are made and revolutions launched. But the wise forecaster will look to the left of the curve in hopes of identifying the inflection point’s inevitable precursors.

Action to mitigate the impacts of climate change are certainly in that slow, beginning stage today. Perhaps - if events in the world become compelling enough and the link to climate change is illustrated more clearly - action will accelerate rapidly at some point in the future. Climate Frog is a risk in terms of the time I invest in it, but I'm attempting to aggregate the forecasts based in today's research and world events in order to provide the most current reports on those actions.

Saffo recommends that we "embrace the things that don't fit" in the precursor stages, as these may actually be indicators of conditions that will be present at the inflection point of the S-curve.

More often than not, indicators look like mere oddball curiosities or, worse, failures, and just as we dislike uncertainty, we shy away from failures and anomalies. But if you want to look for the thing that’s going to come whistling in out of nowhere in the next years and change your business, look for interesting failures—smart ideas that seem to have gone nowhere.

Many climate change skeptics point to conditions that look counter-intuitive to global warming scenarios. Why would it be getting colder than average in some places if it's all about "warming." And wouldn't a warmer climate make some regions more productive and attractive than before? Well, sure, there will be an upside for some people in some places. And maybe those places will serve as refuges for migrating populations. It may all be part of the actual global scenario that unfolds for us.

Saffo's fourth rule is to "hold strong opinions weakly," which means to continually update your forecasts based on changing conditions. My main premise is that we should be making tentative plans to defend ourselves from the impacts of climate change. In making those plans, we should be prepared to implement them rapidly since much of climate change forecasting includes tipping points and feedback loops that are likely to cause rapid changes in sea level and weather-related vulnerabilities. I don't know how climate change will unfold, but I'm convinced that it's unfolding.

The fifth and sixth rules are Look Back Twice as Far As You Look Forward and Know When NOT to Make a Forecast. These are easy for me to follow. Human history is full of stories of whole populations not recognizing risk or impending disaster. We are creatures of habit with short future horizons. We don't easily change our habits unless forced to by Nature. And I know better than to make a specific forecast of what is to come. This blog is more about observation of human behaviors in reaction to whatever indicators of climate change are observable, whether or not they are absolute.

Holding Back the Desert

Just as the Dutch have worked so hard to hold back the sea from the Low Country where they live, many other populations must - today and increasingly in the future - hold back the spreading deserts. Thanks to Alex Steffen at WorldChanging, I was made aware of a policy report from the United Nations University that warns that a third of the earth's population may become victims of desertification. Of course, as with most of the manifestations of climate change, the immediate danger to life and limb is only part of the story. Spreading deserts force people to move, to migrate, to relocate out of desperation. So imagine over 2 billion people in migration across the planet, most of them already living in politically unstable environments.

Desertification could bring about mass migration as people are forced to leave lands that can no longer support them, posing an "imminent threat to international stability", according to the report's authors.

The report predicts that over the next 10 years, 50 million people will be forced into this situation. Perhaps most importantly, the report points out the weak collaboration between nations and the scientific community in creating and executing policies to slow desertification. Planting trees that will hold moisture, anchor soil and sequester carbon dioxide to slow global warming seems to be the most logical and affordable step to take right now, but such programs are slow to catch on and carry through.

Jiang Gaoming, an ecology expert at the Institute of Botany, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences told the reporter that, "planting trees to fight desertification has been a priority in China, but a lack of coordination between Chinese agencies such as the State Forestry Administration and other ministries, has hindered this approach."

Of course, in the US, this problem begs the question, "Why did we choose to settle tens of millions of people in deserts and semi-arid environments?" Will we ever see Las Vegas ringed by intentionally planted forests? Will a flyover of Los Angeles show us more foliage than backyard swimming pools?

(photo credit: P.Ward/Bruce Coleman, Inc.)

The IPCC Report: Resigned to Catastrophe

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released on April 16 predicted plenty of damage as the sea level rises - the greater the rise the greater the damage, of course. In the summary material headed Hurricanes and Sea Level Rise: Key passages from the IPCC's "Climate Change 2007", we find projections and recommendations, but I sense a resignation to the historic tendency to not prepare for uncertainty.

Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina clearly illustrated the "vulnerability of North American infrastructure and urban systems that were either not designed or maintained to adequate safety margins."

"North America very likely will continue to suffer serious losses of life and property simply due to growth in property values and numbers of people at risk (very high confidence)." (Italics mine) This statement was followed by enumeration of property values vulnerable to North Atlantic storm damage. Of the total property value in some states, the majority is vulnerable. "This economic value includes 79% of the property in Florida, 63% of the property in New York, and 61% of the property in Connecticut."

But here's where I think you can feel the authors' collective pessimism. In the money terms applied to home ownership, defensive home improvements don't pay for themselves unless they actually save the home under the onslaught of a major storm.

Extensive property damage in Florida during Hurricane Andrew in 1992 led to significant revisions to the building code. If all properties in southern Florida met this updated code in 1992, then property damage from Hurricane Andrew would have been lower by nearly 45%. Florida will, however, still experience extensive damage from hurricanes through damage to the large number of older homes and businesses. Other financial barriers come from the challenge property owners face in recovering the costs of protecting themselves. Hidden adaptations tend to be undervalued, relative to obvious ones. For example, homes with storm shutters sell for more than homes without this visible adaptation, while less visible retrofits, such as tie-down straps to hold the roof in high winds, add less to the resale value of the home, relative to their cost.

And in general, projections of possible or probable sea level rise lead only to predictions of massive damage. Readiness? Barely detectable.

Coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly stressed by climate change impacts interacting with development and pollution. Population growth and the rising value of infrastructure in coastal areas increase vulnerability to climate variability and future climate change, with losses projected to increase if the intensity of tropical storms increases. Current adaptation is uneven and readiness for increased exposure is low [very high confidence].

The Southeast Drought and Mitigation

I've previously mentioned the National Drought Mitigation Center, located at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln campus. Mitigation, as they define it, is "taking actions in advance of drought to reduce its long-term risk."

In fact, Alabama has a drought mitigation plan, finalized in 2004. The abstract of the plan includes these statements:

There is no way to prevent a drought from occurring, however the effects of a drought can be reduced or even eliminated altogether. The impact of drought can be reduced by improving the overall forest health which reduces the risk of drought-caused fires, by improving and maintaining water systems which will reduce pumping failures. Also, by establishing and implementing contingency plans, such as, predetermined water conservation measures, or by designating alternative emergency water sources.

In actual practice, it's not at all clear that these mitigation actions had yet been taken, and if they had, that they were effective. Bark beetle infestations of the southern pine forests are quite the opposite of "improving overall forest health." The extended period of wildfires in Georgia and Florida through the spring and early summer point to a failure reduce that risk. Whatever water conservation measures have been taken don't seem to be "mitigating" anything.

To put the drought into graphic presentation, NDMC provides an array of maps including this one that shows drought severity according to the "Palmer Index." Note that the severe drought in the Southeast is a relatively small area compared to what is happening in the West, where the tendency toward drought is more natural.

Evidence or Oddity?

The question is and will remain, "Is what we're seeing today an indication of the way it will continue to be?" Climate change skeptics may continue, for years, to insist that nothing has been proven by dramatic shifts in the weather. Thus - based on that conviction - no behavioral changes are warranted. Normalcy will return eventually.

Climate Frog doesn't argue that question, but waits to see if, first, individuals and, then, populations begin to change behaviors out of frustration or necessity.

Take, for example, the state of Alabama, which was just (July 2) declared a national disaster area by the Department of Agriculture. Rainfall across the state is 20 inches below the annual normal of 32. Farmers are taking it on the chin, suffering tremendous losses.

The New York Times reports that, "Northern Alabama has become acre after acre of shriveled cornstalks, cracked red dirt for miles and days of unrelenting white heat." It's the most severe drought in over a century. Across the Southeast, ranchers are selling off their cattle and river levels are so low that power companies are worried and barges are unable to navigate the sandbars. Farmers are burning through their cash reserves and facing bankruptcy. Huge stands of southern pine are infested with bark beatles.

Whether or not this year's extreme drought is simply a short-term anomaly or an indication of long-term climate change, it's clear that it stands to change the behaviors, professions and lifestyles of many of the region's residents. A farmer who suffers through a year like this one may leave the vocation behind, especially if the prospect for similar weather is increasingly likely. If large expanses of timber are lost, so will be many jobs in the lumber and paper industries. If power generation is affected by low water for hydro, we may even see power rationing and blackouts.

So the question becomes, What are the thresholds of climate impact that motivates people to change dramatically? Not simply to cut back on driving or lawn watering, but to change jobs or to move to different areas.

Out at Mr. Bragg’s 7,000-acre, third-generation spread just north of Huntsville, immediate worries are pressing: he is facing the classic farmer’s debt squeeze, with heavy investment — $1 million in giant new silos, a down payment on an ethanol-based future — and little revenue to pay for it. Mr. Bragg is contemplating a $500,000 loss.

Mr. Sanderson’s grain bins cost $400,000. “Not only have we lost our revenue, I’m also $400,000 in debt,” he said.

Mr. Bragg said, “My salary is tied to how much it rains.” He is luckier than most because some of his crop is irrigated by giant sprayers. He still has “the potential to work for this whole year and not get paid.”

In his cotton fields, the stalks are not high enough to be reached by the mechanical picker. Every stalk should have 10 bolls, but these barely have four or five.

The drought takes a psychological toll. Mr. Bragg spoke of a tight feeling in the pit of his stomach when drought sets in. “Mentally, we expect it,” he said, “but genetically, we can’t handle it.”

The Advancing Beachfront

As sea levels rise - perhaps slowly, perhaps precipitously - and as storms become more powerful and more frequent, the idea of owning beachfront property would seem to be imbued with some kind of time limit.

The comfortable cottage sitting across the strand of sand from the Gulf of Mexico looms like a tasty morsel dangled in front of an increasingly hungry scavenger. Having driven Highway 90 from the Louisiana border to Gulfport 18 months after Katrina, we saw the coastline scoured clean, with the occasional cement stairs leading nowhere and the live oaks barren of leaves and branches. Yet every few miles we'd pass and active construction site where a defiant owner was insisting on rebuilding exactly where his previous abode had been annihilated. Stubborn? Proud? Or is this plain old stupidity?

An article the New York Times on June 21 included the estimate that at least one quarter of U.S. beachfront homes would be destroyed by rising seas and storms by 2060. I'd put strong emphasis on "at least" since I witnessed the total elimination of beachfront homes by a single storm landfall, and most global warming projections see major storms reaching not only the usual Florida and Gulf coasts, but farther up the East and even West coasts where residents of seaside communities and developments have always felt safe from Nature's wrath.

More from the NYT article:

Though most of the country's ocean beaches are eroding, few coastal jurisdictions consider sea level rise in their coastal planning, and still fewer incorporate the fact that the rise is accelerating.
- - -
Few coastal residents want to see their towns walled off and surrounded by water. And few want to elevate their houses by 20 feet or more, as flooding experts are beginning to recommend in some coastal areas. The approach favored by many scientists, a gradual retreat from the coast, is a perennial nonstarter among real estate interests and their political allies.

As Alex Steffen points out at WorldChanging,

The first-order problems brought on by global warming -- beach houses washing away, sure, but also crop failures, water shortages, floods, catastrophic wildfires, much more severe hurricanes, the spread of new diseases -- should freak us out and give us pause. But they are not necessarily the worst impacts we'll see.

Indeed, there are impacts that go far beyond the specific catastrophes and point to the loss of species, cultures and whole populations, not to mention what we here in America think of as our way of life. As Steffen say, "...climate foresight is no longer a luxury and, one way or another, we all live in New Orleans now."