Ezra Klein is Badly Wrong on Climate Policy

At the Washington Post, Ezra Klein thinks he is advocating for a strong climate policy when he says:

One of the conceptual difficulties with trying to evaluate various energy bills is that the problem of climate change is qualitatively different than other problems. Usually, whether a bill makes a problem better is the primary question underlying whether senators should vote to pass it. But with climate change, if we don't stabilize carbon emissions, it's game over. So it's hard to know what to say about a bill that would move us forward on clean energy while still not doing nearly enough.

But he is wrong. Stabilizing carbon emissions is just a small beginning, and indeed there is some indication that it has already happened in America. What is required by the physics of the situation is stable concentrations, which in turn means near-zero net emissions.

The confusion endemic in the policy sector and the press about this is awfully tedious. Efforts from people who have some understanding of the science to make exactly this point have been ongoing for a long time, to very little effect.

As Dr. Ken Caldeira says:

I compare CO2 emissions to mugging little old ladies…. It is wrong to mug little old ladies and wrong to emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The right target for both mugging little old ladies and carbon dioxide emissions is zero.

NSF: Letter "Fraudulent"

Regarding the Beeville hoax story:

Dear Michael,

Linda Slakey forwarded your message to me. We became aware of this
yesterday through an article in the Beeville, TX newspaper, and have
referred this matter to our Office of Inspector General.

The letter is not authentic, Linda had no knowledge of it, and it
amounts to fraudulent use of our name and logo.

We appreciate your concern about it.

Regards, Maria


Maria Zacharias
Acting Head of Media and Public Information
Office of Legislative and Public Affairs
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230
703-292-8454
Fax: 703-292-9087
http://www.nsf.gov

A New Low

Readers may be aware of a recent controversy originating in Beeville, Texas, in which a fourth grader allegedly was awarded national honors for "Disproving Global Warming" in a science fair project.

Since, by Texas standards, this is local, my wife Irene and I drove to Beeville to investigate whether the implausible story holds any truth.

It turns out that the 4th grader, Julisa Castillo, received a package containing the trophy, medal and plaque, along with a letter of which I have obtained a copy. A scan is available here.

Here is the text:

May 3, 2010

Congratulations Julisa!

On behalf of the National Science Foundation, we are proud to declare you the Jr. Grand Champion in our 2010 National Science Fair for your project titled "Disproving Global Warming". Out of over 50,000 projects entered from all 50 States, including the U.S. territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, you and your project were declared our overall winner in the 9 to 11 year-old Jr. Division.

You, your family, your school and your community should be very proud of this accomplishment! We are proud to say that this year's panel of judges included fourteen recipients of the President's National Medal of Science, four are former astronauts for NASA and we were honored to have our former Vice-President of the United States Al Gore serve on the panel, as well.

To commemorate your accomplishment as our 2010 National Science Fair Jr. Grand Champion, we are presenting you with a plaque, a trophy and a medal. Also, you have earned an all expenses paid trip and a wonderful opportunity to train like an astronaut at Space CampTM at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. There you will have the experience of a lifetime as you choose from the Space Track, the Aviation Track or the Robotics Track and have a hands-on space training experience like no other. Our partners at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center will be contacting you and your family in the next few weeks with more details or you can call 1-800-63-SPACE for more information.

Once again, congratulations! We wish you continued success and encourage you to keep expanding your horizons in the world of science. We are the National Science Foundation: Where Discoveries Begin!

L.L. Slakey

Directorate for Education

Although the name of an actual officer of the National Science Foundation is appended to the above, you will see from the scan no signature, contact information, or other identifying information appears.

The principal of the school, Mrs. Martina Villareal was contacted by the Castillo family, and she appears in the trophy photo along with Julisa's father, J.R. Castillo. Mrs. Villareal invited the Beeville Bee-Picayune to the school to cover the story.

Ms. Sarah Taylor, a young reporter at the Beeville Picayune, was assigned to the story. Principal Villareal made a copy of the letter and gave it to Ms. Taylor, who treated it more or less as a press release, with the results you may have seen. Ms Taylor also claims to have taken a high resolution photograph wherein the text of the plaque is legible. So far I have only seen the low resolution version on the website and in the newspaper.

When Irene and I arrived in Beeville, we made (ahem) a beeline for the Bee-Picayune head office, an anachronistic sprawl of a low slung building where three local papers (for Bee and two adjacent counties) are written, printed, and sold. When we arrived and announced our interests, we were guided through the print shop, where machines were busily being tended, and back to editorial, where we met Ms. Taylor.

We also visited Principal Villareal at the elementary school at the edge of town. She phoned the Castillos, who seemed reluctant to talk to us, and relayed to us that Mr. Castillo insisted that yes, the letter was from the National Science Foundation.

I have no reason at this time to believe that anyone in Beeville is acting in bad faith in this matter. It's clear that the principal and the reporter, having had no prior communication from NSF, were not in a position to form doubts on its authenticity and had no reason to do so.

I on the other hand take note, in addition to suspicions others have raised, of

• the informal structure of the letter, without an addressee
  
• the peculiar layout of the letter, including the amateurish placement of the text "2010 National Science Fair" and the duplicate logos
  
• the breathless and commercial tone of the prose, especially "Jr. Grand Champion"
  
• the peculiar description of the panel of judges
• the lack of a claimed credential by Dr. Slakey
• the lack of a signature by Dr. Slakey
  

We also confirmed that there is no sign on the internet of prior contests, of this contest prior to the article in the Beeville Bee-Picayune, or of any "Sr." division to complement the "Jr. Grand Champion".

Principal Villareal also informed us that she had spoken to a couple of people from out of town by phone earlier in the day; one from Oregon and one from "Climate Depot". It appears that she confirmed all the details to Morano, before Irene and I raised any suspicions in her eyes.

I do not know what Mrs. Villareal now believes. She actually expressed relief in one respect: she had been astonished that the national winner did not even place in the top five in her school's science fair. This had called into question for her the quality of the local judges! From that comment of hers I gather it is likely she would not quite so confidently confirm Mr. Morano's inquiries if he had called after my arrival.

There being no Kinko's in town, we went back to the Bee County Library, and with the considerable help of a very kind librarian scanned the letter and mailed it to the NSF officer, or at least tried. At this point I put on my academic hat, mailing via the utexas system and signing with my credentials, in the hope of getting the officer's attention quickly. The first response was

"Dear Dr. Tobis,
I can't open the attachment, for some reason. Pdf files usually open
smoothly, but this one didn't. Can you try sending it again, please?

"I am grateful for your inquiry - I just got a call from a reporter about
this, and did not know what she was talking about. Perhaps this will
help me see the picture."

Likely the reporter was Ms. Taylor, as nobody but she and Irene and myself and Principal Villareal and the Castillos and the perpetrator knew Dr. Slakey's connection to these events prior to the publication of this article.

I so far have no clear disavowal of the letter from her, but I do have "did not know what she was talking about" which is pretty close to clinching the matter for me. (Update: NSF has officially disavowed the letter.)

I will have more to say about this amazing and disconcerting experience later. It has been quite a day. One thing that was especially remarkable was how difficult it was to convey our suspicions to the locals. But why would anyone unfamiliar with NSF, seeing the medal and the trophy and the plaque and the letter, have any basis for suspicion? They were just thrilled for her and proud of her accomplishment.

The clearest lesson to be learned from this is how amazingly base this behavior is. What sort of person would manipulate the emotions and expectations of a ten-year-old girl in this vile and crass way for a small political point?

---

Update: Sarah Taylor of the Beeville Bee-Picayune informs me via email that

I did speak with a representative from NSF who confirmed that they do not have a National Science Fair, no one there had ever seen the letter, and I also called space camp, who told me that they did not receive anything from NSF either.

By the way, I'd like to emphasize that, much as I often fault the press for many things, I don't fault Ms. Taylor for initially taking this all at face value. Not everyone out in the world is obsessed with the politics of climate change (much though we may think they ought to be), and she had no initial reason for suspicion.

Indeed, everyone we met yesterday in Beeville without exception has been kind, open and thoughtful.

---

Update: Seen on Reddit: "What kind of vile and crass person investigates the legitimacy of a small child's science fair award?" It crossed my mind.

---

Update: Sarah Taylor's Bee-Picayune account of the story is interesting.

---

NOTE: I'd like to be left out of further speculations or investigations on whodunit and why, thanks. Much appreciated.

There's more to this story than the initial hoax. Stay tuned.

---

Update 6/19: A set of links to related stories, by myself and others, here

---

Photo: A picture of myself in Beeville, (C) (CC ND 3.0) by Irene Tobis.

Climatology as Pure Science vs as Applied Science

"Pure" sounds so much higher, but in many ways applied science has higher standards. I've been saying this for years.

Judith Curry makes the point effectively here.

---

Yet another hat tip to Neverending Audit.

N D-G Tyson On Scientific Literacy

H/T @BoraZ

Homage a "Neverending Audit"

"The sound of a resounding tu quoque with the morning coffee is always priceless."

- Willard, waking up entertained.

---

It's from an amazing and largely terrifying thread at CA, by the way. Consider also Mosher's charming and erudite

Rest assurred [sic], other inquiries from our side are moving forward and bearing fruits if what I’m hearing is correct. Kudo’s [sic] to ford.

Masters on the Oilicane Problem

Much of what Jeff Masters said about the possibilities for an intense hurricane coming through the oil spill area is consistent with what I said. Some of it I hadn't thought of.

(I have my doubts that storm surge would advect much oil or dispersant. That's a possibility that could be investigated experimentally.)

Masters' big concern makes sense to me:

Shores that are already fouled by oil will probably benefit from a hurricane, but the oil cleaned off of those shores then becomes someone else's problem. The strong winds and powerful ocean currents that a hurricane's winds drive will bring oil to large stretches of coast that otherwise would not have gotten oil. This is my chief concern regarding a hurricane moving through the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Consider the case of the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. The ill-fated tanker split open in Prince William Sound on March 24, and oil spill response crews were initially able to contain the spill behind booms and make good progress removing it. However, two days later, a powerful Gulf of Alaska storm with 70 mph winds roared through, overwhelming the containment booms and distributing the oil along a 90-mile stretch of coast. The oil went on to foul over 400 miles of Alaska coast, a far larger disaster than would have occurred than if the storm had not passed by. Similarly, a hurricane moving through the Gulf of Mexico spill will very likely make the disaster much worse, spreading out the oil over a larger region, and bringing the oil to shores that otherwise might not have seen oil. It is true that the oil will be diluted some by being spread out over a larger area, so some shores will not see a substantial oiling. But overall, a hurricane passing through the oil spill is likely to result in much higher damage to the coast.

But his very next paragraph strikes me as inconsistent.

Thus we might have a 250-mile wide spinning oil slick in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico for days or weeks after a hurricane. This could potentially have a significant warming effect on the Gulf waters, since the oil is dark and will absorb sunlight, and the oil will prevent evaporation from cooling the waters underneath it. Since Loop Current eddies contain a large amount of very warm water that extend to great depth, they often act as high-octane fuel for hurricanes that pass over. The rapid intensification of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were both aided by the passage of those storms over Loop Current eddies. Thus the warming of the Loop Current Eddy by oil pulled into it by a passing hurricane or tropical storm could lead to explosive intensification of the next hurricane that passes over the eddy.

Emphasis added. But the reason warm waters support hurricanes is because of enhanced evaporation. It's not the ordinary heat capacity but the latent heat of very moist air that is the fuel for the hurricane's engine. The hurricane is a breed of thunderstorm. Without lots of tropical moisture to lift and condense, it will fizzle.

Nor is it obvious to me that the albedo of an oil slick is lower than that of the clear sea.

I'm not sure either of these phenomena (albedo feedback, suppressed evaporation) is important on the current scale; I think matters would have to be even worse before either of them had a major effect on a hurricane. But it seems to me that Masters has it backwards, and both of these would ameliorate the hurricane, not exacerbate it.

The Oilicane

Lots of speculation about what happens to the oil in a hurricane.

I think the good news is the hurricane disperses and breaks up the oil, hastening its disintegration. The bad news is, sans top kill, the current setup (presuming it more or less works) requires a container ship on site, and that in the event of a reasonable hurricane strike probability, the ship will have to high-tail it on out of there.

The completely imaginary news is that the oil will substantially pollute the hurricane.

Consider a typical (not extraordinary) landfalling hurricane. How much water does it drop on land? Well, let's give it a 500 km square area on which it drops an average of 10 cm of rain. (I think this is really low.) OK, so we have 5e5*5e5*1e-1 m^3 of water or 2.5e13 liters or 6.6e12 gallons. Now the worst case leakage seems to be about 1e5 1e6 gallons/day. Let's imagine this goes on for 100 days, NONE of it evaporates and EVERY DROP of it somehow gets sucked up into the (smallish) hurricane and ALL of that is dropped on land. (All very implausible assumptions, aimed at the worst case.) Then the oil content in the rain would be a hair over one part ten parts per million.

I think people are imagining their houses being covered in that orange goop. Numbers cut both ways, and in this case they are on your side.

xkcd gets it right.

Reality vs Model

Many readers will have seen the scary movie showing the Gulf oil spreading into the Atlantic.



I ask you to compare the movie against this widget at the New York Times which shows actual historical behavior of the spill.

What you will see is that the loop current is continually pulling a filament of thin oil out to sea (comparable with the UCAR simulation movie) but that the filament is continually dissipating. In the simulation, that phenomenon is not visible at all.

My understanding of what is going on is that they initialized the standard NCAR ocean model http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/pop/ with observations, continually injected passive tracer at the surface, and drove it with climatological winds.

I'm only slightly less sure that the biggest problem with the simulation is that they neglected the oxidization of the hydrocarbons by various processes.

If you actually watch the oil slick pattern, it's clear that the parts that grabbed by the loop current get thinned out enough to pretty much vanish a day or two later.

I think it would have been better (and just as easy, though anything with these models is not easy, running these codes is like going back in time thirty years as far as software ease of use goes) to have a simple half-life on the tracer. That would also be wrong, I would guess, but not as wrong. I don't think treating the oil as a passive tracer yields a good picture.

My wife would not like it if I made a substantial bet, but I'd happily bet that there will be no impact of any consequence anywhere in the Atlantic, say, north of Key Largo.

This is not to say that I am happy with the situation in the Gulf. But I'm starting to see the problem that many people have with others' eagerness toward predictions of catastrophe. So far there is no sign in the real world of anything like the model's scenario happening.

Still Going

Wondering what the May temperature anomaly maps will look like. Isn't El Nino supposed to have wound down?

Anyway the UAH near-surface channel continues to be a rather disconcerting outlier. (Click the image for focus.)