AMS [American Meteorological Society] Policy Statement on Inadvertent Weather Modification Illustrates Fuzzy and Flawed Thinking on Public Policy
By Indur M. Goklany
The AMS has a new policy statement on Inadvertent Weather Modification (H/T to Prof. Roger Pielke, Sr., 11/4/2010). In this post I will not address its recommendations. I will, instead, focus on fundamental flaws in its two sections on mitigation and adaptation which, in my opinion, are related since they flow from a common misconception error in its policy “analysis” of global warming.
Below, I reproduce these two sections with changes in CAP-and-strikeout format that would have finessed these flaws. [CAPS indicate INSERTS into the text, and strikeouts indicate — well — strikeouts.] Also, I have inserted commentary in bold within square brackets where the rationale for my inserts and strikeouts is not self-evident.
As you can see from my inserts, strikeout and commentary, the AMS policy statement reveals fuzzy and, sometimes, fundamentally flawed, thinking.
2. Mitigation
Mitigation or avoidance, of these unintended impacts requires:
- Application of new knowledge to curtail pollutant emissions and adverse land use changes and to mitigate their impacts.
- Advancement of scientific and engineering understanding to elucidate the causes of atmospheric changes and to lay the foundation of knowledge for countering their adverse impacts.
- A SHOWING THAT, AT A MINIMUM, THE MARGINAL GLOBAL BENEFITS OF ANY MITIGATION WILL EXCEED THE MARGINAL GLOBAL COSTS AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT MITIGATION. [COMMENT: Realistically, such benefit-cost analysis will have to be qualitative rather than quantitative. That is, not everything needs to be, or should be, reduced to a common metric such as dollars. In essence, benefit-cost analysis is shorthand for requiring a weighing of positive and negative consequences without using dollars (or anything else) as the common metric.]
- A SHOWING THAT THE SAME LEVEL OF BENEFITS CANNOT BE OBTAINED MORE SURELY, EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY VIA ADAPTATION OR ENHANCED RESILIENCE. [COMMENT: See Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age? Energy & Environment 20(3): 279-302 (2009), particularly, Table 5. This paper shows that through the foreseeable future, the benefits from adaptation exceed the benefits from mitigation, and they cost less and are more certain to be obtained.]
Achieving these objectives requires, AMONG OTHER THINGS:
- Documentation of anthropogenic weather forcings.
- Process studies (both observations and simulations) of how such forcings affect meteorological conditions.
- Simulations, USING VALIDATED MODELS, of the extent to which such local and regional forcings influence hemispheric-scale systems, such as the subtropical and polar jet streams, AND AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH SIMULATIONS.
3. Adaptation
Adaptation is necessary when impacts cannot be fully mitigated
[Comment: This reflects the conventional wisdom per most warmists that mitigation-to-the-extent-possible should be the policy response of first resort. If and only if that’s insufficient, should we turn to adaptation. But this is based on fundamentally flawed reasoning. First, consider if climate were to change but have zero impacts, then there would be no need for any climate change policies. Similarly, if the impacts of climate change were all positive, we would not be concerned about mitigation (i.e., reducing climate change) either, although we ought to try to make the most of the opportunities that climate change might provide. But the latter requires adaptation. That is, if all impacts are positive, we would be concerned with adaptation but not mitigation. What this tells us that the objective of climate change policies should be to reduce the net negative impacts (or net damages) from climate change by reducing its damages, taking advantage of its benefits, or a combination of the two. But there are two methods of reducing damages — specifically, through mitigation or through increased resilience (a form of adaptation) — and one method of taking advantage of opportunities, namely, adaptation. Thus, as a general matter we have to resort to both mitigation and adaptation, and we cannot a priori favor one over the other.]
[COMMENT CONT’D: Second, climate change impacts, in general, are heterogeneous with some impacts being positive (e.g., higher biological productivity or greater water availability or winter stress in some areas) and others being negative (lower water availability or greater summer stress in other areas). However, because adaptation can be tailored to each locality, it allows humanity to capitalize on the positive impacts while reducing its negative impacts. By contrast, mitigation reduces all impacts — good and bad — indiscriminately. Thus, once again, there is no reason to favor mitigation over adaptation. So how do we select which mix of mitigation and adaptation policies cost the least and provide the most benefit? One approach is discussed in the paper, Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development, Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-007-9098-1 (2007). See Section 5.]
[COMMENT CONT’D: Essentially, the difference between mitigation and adaptation is analogous to a free market with individuals making decisions based on individual circumstances and centralized one-size-fits-all decision-making.]
[Now back to the AMS policy statement.]
Adaptation ALLOWS SOCIETY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE POSITIVE EFFECTS to the unavoidable components of unintended weather modification, WHILE REDUCING ITS NEGATIVE IMPACTS. IT requires, AMONG OTHER THINGS:
- Consideration of environmental impacts of inadvertent weather modification as part of development and planning processes, e.g., crop adaptation, management practices, and water utilization.
- Implementation of strategies to enhance depleted water resources in response to reduced precipitation (e.g., through desalination).
- Evaluation and planning of public response to risks from inadvertent weather modification that can influence severe weather events.
Unfortunately, the fuzzy and flawed thinking on mitigation and adaptation noted above is the norm for climate scientists and not just for the authors of the AMS policy statement. It suggests that scientists as a group have no comparative advantage in policy analysis of climate change.
Why Mitigation Should Not Be the Climate Change Policy of Choice (Even if it’s a Real Problem):
AMS [American Meteorological Society] Policy Statement on Inadvertent Weather Modification Illustrates Fuzzy and Flawed Thinking on Public Policy
Indur M. Goklany
The AMS has a new policy statement on Inadvertent Weather Modification (H/T to Prof. Roger Pielke, Sr., 11/4/2010). In this post I will not address its recommendations. I will, instead, focus on fundamental flaws in its two sections on mitigation and adaptation which, in my opinion, are related since they flow from a common misconception error in its policy “analysis” of global warming.
Below, I reproduce these two sections with changes in CAP-and-strikeout format that would have finessed these flaws. [CAPS indicate INSERTS into the text, and strikeouts indicate — well — strikeouts.] Also, I have inserted commentary in bold within square brackets where the rationale for my inserts and strikeouts is not self-evident.
As you can see from my inserts, strikeout and commentary, the AMS policy statement reveals fuzzy and, sometimes, fundamentally flawed, thinking.
2. Mitigation
Mitigation or avoidance, of these unintended impacts requires:
-
Application of new knowledge to curtail pollutant emissions and adverse land use changes and to mitigate their impacts.
-
Advancement of scientific and engineering understanding to elucidate the causes of atmospheric changes and to lay the foundation of knowledge for countering their adverse impacts.
-
A SHOWING THAT, AT A MINIMUM, THE MARGINAL GLOBAL BENEFITS OF ANY MITIGATION WILL EXCEED THE MARGINAL GLOBAL COSTS AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT MITIGATION. [COMMENT: Realistically, such benefit-cost analysis will have to be qualitative rather than quantitative. That is, not everything needs to be, or should be, reduced to a common metric such as dollars. In essence, benefit-cost analysis is shorthand for requiring a weighing of positive and negative consequences without using dollars (or anything else) as the common metric.]
-
A SHOWING THAT THE SAME LEVEL OF BENEFITS CANNOT BE OBTAINED MORE SURELY, EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY VIA ADAPTATION OR ENHANCED RESILIENCE. [COMMENT: See Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age? Energy & Environment 20(3): 279-302 (2009), particularly, Table 5. This paper shows that through the foreseeable future, the benefits from adaptation exceed the benefits from mitigation, and they cost less and are more certain to be obtained.]
Achieving these objectives requires, AMONG OTHER THINGS:
-
Documentation of anthropogenic weather forcings.
-
Process studies (both observations and simulations) of how such forcings affect meteorological conditions.
-
Simulations, USING VALIDATED MODELS, of the extent to which such local and regional forcings influence hemispheric-scale systems, such as the subtropical and polar jet streams, AND AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH SIMULATIONS.
3. Adaptation
Adaptation is necessary when impacts cannot be fully mitigated
[Comment: This reflects the conventional wisdom per most warmists that mitigation-to-the-extent-possible should be the policy response of first resort. If and only if that’s insufficient, should we turn to adaptation. But this is based on fundamentally flawed reasoning. First, consider if climate were to change but have zero impacts, then there would be no need for any climate change policies. Similarly, if the impacts of climate change were all positive, we would not be concerned about mitigation (i.e., reducing climate change) either, although we ought to try to make the most of the opportunities that climate change might provide. But the latter requires adaptation. That is, if all impacts are positive, we would be concerned with adaptation but not mitigation. What this tells us that the objective of climate change policies should be to reduce the net negative impacts (or net damages) from climate change by reducing its damages, taking advantage of its benefits, or a combination of the two. But there are two methods of reducing damages — specifically, through mitigation or through increased resilience (a form of adaptation) — and one method of taking advantage of opportunities, namely, adaptation. Thus, as a general matter we have to resort to both mitigation and adaptation, and we cannot a priori favor one over the other.]
[COMMENT CONT’D: Second, climate change impacts, in general, are heterogeneous with some impacts being positive (e.g., higher biological productivity or greater water availability or winter stress in some areas) and others being negative (lower water availability or greater summer stress in other areas). However, because adaptation can be tailored to each locality, it allows humanity to capitalize on the positive impacts while reducing its negative impacts. By contrast, mitigation reduces all impacts — good and bad — indiscriminately. Thus, once again, there is no reason to favor mitigation over adaptation. So how do we select which mix of mitigation and adaptation policies cost the least and provide the most benefit? One approach is discussed in the paper, Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development, Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-007-9098-1 (2007). See Section 5.]
[COMMENT CONT’D: Essentially, the difference between mitigation and adaptation is analogous to a free market with individuals making decisions based on individual circumstances and centralized one-size-fits-all decision-making.]
[Now back to the AMS policy statement.]
Adaptation ALLOWS SOCIETY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE POSITIVE EFFECTS to the unavoidable components of unintended weather modification, WHILE REDUCING ITS NEGATIVE IMPACTS. IT requires, AMONG OTHER THINGS:
-
Consideration of environmental impacts of inadvertent weather modification as part of development and planning processes, e.g., crop adaptation, management practices, and water utilization.
-
Implementation of strategies to enhance depleted water resources in response to reduced precipitation (e.g., through desalination).
-
Evaluation and planning of public response to risks from inadvertent weather modification that can influence severe weather events.
Unfortunately, the fuzzy and flawed thinking on mitigation and adaptation noted above is the norm for climate scientists and not just for the authors of the AMS policy statement. It suggests that scientists as a group have no comparative advantage in policy analysis of climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Anthony, I agree very strongly. The benefits are KNOWN. For instance what would worldwide food, wood, cotton, wool, and even bio fuel production be today if we lived in a 280 ppm world, and everything else stayed the same? Yes, the benefits are KNOWN, continue to grow in a more linear pattern, while the warming and so far mostly THEORITICAL HARM decreases loagrithmically.
I really wish someone with reach could do such a study.
Not completely O/T ( I hope). On the subject of change of land use, the example given in the AMP paper is taken from a temperate area. Surely the drastic reduction in global tropical rainforest areas over the last 30 years or so has had a measurable effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? While the industrialised West is considered a target of opportunity by the WWF, CAGW, Fiends of the Earth, etc, has any serious scientific study been carried out on the effects of wholesale deforestisation in the tropics?
Implementation of strategies to enhance depleted water resources in response to reduced precipitation (e.g., through desalination).
Those of us who have been paying attention realize this is something to pursue regardless. Life-threatening droughts have naturally occurred long before “climate change” came along. Not only is there a great need for potable water, but also for irrigation, mundane tasks like washing and cleaning, and a host of other applications. There are also many areas with dropping water tables, requiring deeper wells, with the available well water by no means guaranteed to be usable as is. There are those who need water period, and those with inadequate reserves. Logically the course is clear, we need to develop more water resources, no matter what.
Do we need a “climate change” bogeyman to prod us to action? The light has been turned on, we’re checking under the bed and in the closet. We’re just not finding that creature, so the kiddies just aren’t that afraid of it anymore. Don’t we have enough real monsters in the world worthy of taking precautions and actions against?
What bothers me greatly is that the currently enforced mitigation – aka (un)sustainable energy generation – is essentially sabotaging our chances for adaptation – aka survival in a cooling climate when the damned lights start going out.
Not much to mitigate lately:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/washington-post-predicts-that-the-us-will-warm-more-than-one-degree-per-decade/
“scientists as a group have no comparative advantage in policy analysis of climate change”
LOL – there ya go! Politics in science, science in politics…. no comparative advantage.
This reminds me of the old joke.
An optimist is someone who believes that this is the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist is someone who fears that the optimist is probably correct.
Thus the optimist (as defined) is fearful of the future because any change is bad whilst the pessimist is confident in the future because he feels he has little to lose. I love linguistic paradoxes.
But the joke it not so funny when such a deep sense of insecurity within the “haves” in society can curtail progress. It is a fear that the MSM love to prey upon because, in the absence of real news, they can package any story to trigger the fear response. It is a fear that the rich and the powerful love even more because it justifies maintaining the status quo where they stay on top.
Global warmers would have us believe that today’s climate is optimal and should be maintained at all costs, even if natural variation tries to change it and certainly if man does. So in this respect they are optimists about our current situation but therefore pessimistic about the future.
Real scientists however know that the chances of this being the optimal climate are infitessimally small. Life on earth has been influencing climate for billions of years. Plants and sea life in general have removed CO2 from the atmosphere over time. This released the free oxygen which allowed animal life to develop and changed the global temperature. Were they “wrong” to do so. We are around to discuss this philisophical question because plants do not have governments to interfere with natural processes.
We are intelligent beings. This gives us the power to influence our situation in a positive way. As individuals, as groups and as states this has often been done in a way that was opimtimal for the few at the expense of the many and it is this history that fuels the fear that the AGW proponents exploit. But, particularly in the last centuary, there are far more cases of science creating changes that the whole world benefits from.
This is what we should be doing now in the case of climate. The climate changes naturally and, particularly at a local level, it can change due to human activity. The challenge is to use our better understanding of the dynamics of the atmosphere to optimise at each location. Unfortunately I do not think our understanding of the science is good enough to do this yet but I am optimistic that it will be as long as the current AGWarmers do not stampede us into doing stupid things in an attempt to stablise the global average temperature: an impossible, meaningless and pointless objective.
Let’s face facts, we are at the brink of losing our prosperity and freedom to green demagogues who rather see us dead than alive.
I really think the time to put matters in a real clear perspective.
The end of the Roman Empire wasn’t caused by eating and defecating populations.
It was caused by the eruption of Krakatau in the year AC 546 and the volcanic dust that was distributed around the world after the eruption blocked the sun for a period of 18 months.
During that time temperatures dropped, all plant growth stopped, people and animals starved like flies and the Dark Ages began.
Through history, similar (Laki, Tamborra) but shorter lived events occurred and we call this period the Little Ice Age.
All signs, low solar activity, cooling oceans, increased seismic and volcanic activity point at a new period of ice age conditions.
http://www.jupitersdance.com/
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1989/JB094iB12p17371.shtml
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley1992b.pdf.
Today modern society with it’s power resources and technology would be able to survive a similar disaster that ended the Roman Empire but not if our power generation is based on wind, solar and crop based fuels.
Therefore time has come to send a real clear message to the green traitors of human civilization.
Mitigating CO2 emissions, studying cow farts and human excretion to “protect our environment” looks quite lunatic, especially now we know about the real threats that could end our civilization.
The policies of our clueless political establishment almost beg for the re-establishment of the firing squad and the quillotine.
Just to make matters clear, we are dealing with an “it’s them or us” situation here.
And if you have any doubt about this claim, please read
http://green-agenda.com
No matter what they do, their fuzzy minds WILL screw it up!
The problem with this analysis is that it’s knocking down a straw man. It’s a straw-man because the real political issue that nobody wants to talk about is energy security. An analysis of that, not related to AGW, would be welcome. It’s the Elephant in the room, isn’t it?
Anybody notice the shift:
“Documentation of anthropogenic weather forcings.”
Remember when we were told that weather is NOT climate? And “pollution” seems to be the new watchword. I thought we were supposed to fry to death.
You missed one obvious resounding success of the environmentalist movement. That being the biannual reminder of our status as slaves in order to “save energy” (at least in most of the USA). I refer to “Fall Back”, “Spring Forward”, which was justified by claiming it saves energy. Perhaps it does, perhaps not. In any case, we ignore that forced adjustment (and the 1 hour of jet lag it imposes) at our peril. Especially if you work for a living, have kids in school, or any other activity which is governed by a clock. The consequences of ignoring this reset of our lives twice a year are dire indeed.
“anthropogenic weather forcings”
What the heck is an “anthropogenic weather forcing” – cloud seeding??? I think they’ve lost it over at the AMS (or at least the cabal that writing this tripe…the rank and file members probably have no say in the content).
Robinson says:
November 7, 2010 at 5:05 am
“The problem with this analysis is that it’s knocking down a straw man. It’s a straw-man because the real political issue that nobody wants to talk about is energy security. An analysis of that, not related to AGW, would be welcome. It’s the Elephant in the room, isn’t it?”
You might be right if energy security was a problem.
Fortunately it isn’t.
Maybe in the minds of the same people who promote the AGW scare with the argument that the introduction of wind solar and crop based fuels is needed anyhow because of peak oil?
Maybe in the minds of people who think the USA depends on the Middle East for oil?
The fact is that peak oil is not on the horizon for generations to come and some scientist who came up with the now proven theory of abiotic origin of oil and gas think we will never experience a peak oil situation.
The fact is that the USA is already independent from Middle East oil as most imports come from Africa (Angola. Nigeria) and South America.
The fact is that the USA sits on the biggest natural fuel resource in the world (oil, gas and coal) and could function entirely independent from any imports at the flick of a switch.
The fact is that the US at this moment in time is an exporter of oil of oil products.
Peak oil and energy independence belong in the same cabinet as Anthrop0genic Global Warming. You can find them under the P from Propaganda and the S from Scam.
The whole statement by the AMS can be summed up succinctly as follows:
Achieving these objectives requires…large amounts of Climate Ca$h to fund our costly and largely redundant research efforts. Please give us LOTS of Climate Ca$h. That is all.
The Elite of the Earth believe that they are called upon by Nature (and Nature’s God?) to devise a solution to every problem encountered by the horde of humanity; the great unwashed, under-educated multitude; that it is only fitting and proper that their solutions be “Top-Down” remedies so that they can be properly implemented and managed. This belief is shared by “The Elite” of every people and nation on the planet, regardless of political system in place.
(Sarc On)Mitigation is the natural, obvious remedy; no matter the problem. Little wonder it is being pushed by The Elite of every country on The Planet. Simply nothing else will do! Nada! Zilch! Nichts! (SarcOff)
Once again we seem unperturbed as a population (not individuals) when poli-sci demagogues put stuff like this together. This is not a job for policy wonks at this level of consideration; I’m sorry but it is not even a job for scientists – these guys should stick to trying to figure out the science. This is a job for engineers and economists (certainly real world economists like Indur) engineers to report on what the possibilities and their costs are and economists to balance the cost benefit equation. Then call in the policy wonks and advise them on the most sensible and effective course. The lobbyist-activist types have only a destructive role to play.
Greenwashing America
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/11/greenwashing-america.html
Robinson says:
November 7, 2010 at 5:05 am
The problem with this analysis is that it’s knocking down a straw man. It’s a straw-man because the real political issue that nobody wants to talk about is energy security. An analysis of that, not related to AGW, would be welcome. It’s the Elephant in the room, isn’t it?
No there is no elephant – only a Green Agenda wearing a polar bear outfit.
The entire world could be powered by nuclear power based on abundant thorium. Thorium based reactors are much safer than the existing nuclear power. However, even the existing nuclear power is far safer than claimed by the green agenda in the polar bear suit. The fallout from Chernobyl has not resulted in the huge problems that were claimed. That doesn’t stop ‘greens’ from chaining themselves to railway lines to try to prevent French recycling of nuclear fuel. They are convinced by their own iterative propaganda that nuclear power is unsafe.
So there is a two pronged assault one prong is to prevent nuclear power plants by claiming they are unsafe; the other is to prevent fossil fuel plants under the claim of global warming and energy independence. Intentional or not the effect is to remove the fundamental supply of energy that makes current civilization possible. But energy supplies are only being removed from those countries who allow such protests and react letting them have an effect. It is notable that some countries are building power generation at a startling rate. What do they know, what do they expect and will they be more prepared for any eventuality?
Are the greens and climate ‘science’ being used as ‘useful idiots’?
One thing I do wish someone could explain to me:
We’re told by the AGW crowd that worldwide precipitation will decrease and drought will be the order of the day.
But we’re also told that warmer temperatures will lead to greater evaporation.
Now, here’s the thing – I’ve always understood that what goes up must come down.
So what gives here? Are we going to end up with the oceans above our heads?
R. de Haan says:
November 7, 2010 at 6:44 am
You might be right if energy security was a problem.
Fortunately it isn’t.
========================================================
lol, you beat me too it again! One of the positive aspects of this CAGW/climate change/disruption debacle is to expose the lunatic energy policies of the west, specifically the U.S. For over a decade we were told to embrace great Quixotic ventures such as windmills and solar panels. One of the selling points was this would help us be less reliant upon other nations. REE anyone? The fact is, like oil, the U.S. is blessed with massive quantities of REE. The fact is, we are “dependent” on energy sources from other nations because we lack the fortitude to shout down the alarmists and insist on our energy sources come from our land. We can mine as much REE necessary, right here in the U.S. We can drill as much oil needed right here and off shore. We can build coal plants, nuclear plants, hydro-plants, oil refineries to the point of an overabundance of energy. We simply lack the fortitude to shout down the naysayers.
Well, I should say lacked. If you thought this election cycle was tumultuous, wait until the next one! Mitigate that!
How do you mitigate something that has been claimed with fraud and not proven to be true. Is mitigation not reserved for what is known? If climate change were a disorder it would be hypochondria.
Should we mitigate flawed and fuzzy thinking on public policy. Wait, that is the purpose of elections.
——————–
Indur M. Goklany,
Thank you for the valuable insight.
Can you expand on the “resilience (a form of adaptation)” that you identify? Is this a reference to a wealthy, technically advanced and productive society being the most adaptive in the sense of being the most resilient?
John
Great post!
Ian W. Hear! Hear! Bravo!
“Split Atoms, not Birds.”