This is a re-post from *And Then There’s Physics*.
—
It seems that the US Department of Energy has now disbanded the Climate Working Group that drafted the report I discussed in this post. However, about a week ago, Steven Koonin—one of the authors of that report—had an article in the *Wall Street Journal* titled *At Long Last, Clarity on Climate*.
**Clarity is a bit of a stretch.** Personally, I think it more muddied the waters than brought clarity.
—
A general point I didn’t really make in my previous post (which was highlighted in a comment) is that the report explicitly focuses on the US. The richest country in the world is probably more resilient than most others and could well decide that it’s better to deal with the impacts of climate change than to commit too much now to avoiding them.
I happen to disagree with this perspective, as I think it ignores several important factors:
– How the US has benefitted from something that will negatively impact others.
– That countries can’t really exist in isolation.
– The possibility of outcomes that even a wealthy country will struggle to manage.
That said, I can understand how some might reach this conclusion—although it would be better if the report were much more explicit about it.
—
What I thought I would do here is address some of the claims and conclusions made in Steven Koonin’s article. There’s an element of “truthiness” to it—some claims may be true, but they don’t necessarily support the arguments being made.
For example, Koonin says:
> “While global sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe.”
It’s true that U.S. tide gauges may not show the expected long-term acceleration, but the rate of **global** sea level rise is indeed accelerating.
—
Similarly, he states:
> “Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.”
Some of these statements—like “no long-term trends” and reference to “historical records”—may be technically true. However, numerous studies have demonstrated that climate change has indeed affected extreme weather events in North America.
You can find many examples in this [Carbon Brief article](https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/) that maps how climate change influences extreme weather globally.
—
Koonin also claims:
> “Natural climate variability, data limitations and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO₂ emissions.”
I agree that these factors complicate attribution efforts. But so what? Complexity doesn’t mean that studies haven’t been done. In fact, many robust studies have shown that human CO₂ emissions are driving climate change and influencing extreme events.
—
I’ll end this section with his comment about climate models:
> “Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.”
There is a “hot model” problem, but there are ways to correct for it, and climate models have generally been skillful. Also, climate models typically make projections—or conditional predictions—because emissions pathways are inputs to the models. The results tell us what *might* happen **if** we follow a particular emissions scenario. These pathways range from those where emissions are reduced soon to those where emissions continue increasing.
To suggest that climate models have exaggerated future warming projections when emissions pathways are inputs seems a little confused.
—
I’m not writing this to try to change the minds of those who think the DOE climate report was excellent or that its authors are some of the best scientists in the field. That would be silly and naive. I’m partly writing this because it’s a rainy Saturday afternoon and it’s a topic I find interesting.
Another reason is that I think it’s important to consider why people with relevant expertise can write something that seems intellectually weak and sloppy, yet present it as a careful piece of work that provides *clarity*.
It would be easy to conclude that it’s simply dishonesty, but I’m not convinced it’s quite that simple or convenient.
—
I wouldn’t be surprised if the authors believe they have produced a good report and that what they’ve presented provides some clarity. So, how do we have serious discussions about complex topics when even experts can’t agree on some scientific fundamentals or the implications of the evidence?
I certainly don’t know the answer, but I do think it’s something worth thinking about.
—
### Links
– [At Long Last: Clarity on Climate – Steven Koonin’s WSJ article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-long-last-clarity-on-climate-11615905529)
– [The New DOE Climate Report – my earlier post on the DOE Climate Report, with a link to the report](https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/05/25/the-new-doe-climate-report/)
– [Trump’s Energy Department disbands group that sowed doubt about climate change – NPR article about the DOE CWG being disbanded](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002225800/trumps-energy-department-disbands-group-that-sowed-doubt-about-climate-change)
– [Climate Change: Global Sea Level – NOAA webpage highlighting that the rate of global sea level rise is accelerating](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html)
– [Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world – Carbon Brief article mapping attribution studies for extreme events](https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/)
– [The ‘hot model’ problem – my post about the hot model problem](https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/01/15/the-hot-model-problem/)
– [Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections – paper by Hausfather et al.](https://www.pnas.org/content/117/29/15288)
– [Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models – Tokarska et al., with a method for weighting models based on past warming accuracy](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL094217)
—
*Thanks for reading!*
https://skepticalscience.com/koonin-providing-clarity.html
