Climate Change The Move to Action AOSS 480

Climate Change: The Move to Action (AOSS 480 // NRE 480) Richard B. Rood Cell: 301 -526 -8572 2525 Space Research Building (North Campus) rbrood@umich. edu http: //clasp. engin. umich. edu/people/rbrood Winter 2016 April 12, 2016

Class Information and News • Ctools site: CLIMATE_480_001_W 16 – Record of course • Rood’s Class Media. Wiki Site – http: //climateknowledge. org/classes/index. php/Climate_Change: _The_Move_to_Action • A tumbler site to help me remember – http: //openclimate. tumblr. com/ • Conference of the Parties (Morocco, November 2016)

Final Synthesis: Due • Final Synthesis: Due April 25, 2016 at 6: 00 pm. – Note points will be deducted if late without pre -approval.

In Class Special • If you made >=95 on first synthesis, and you want to propose, pick your own topic for final synthesis, you may. – You should choose a topic that does require use of knowledge of climate change and at least one other subject area. – You should include some role of ethics. – Should pose a question or thesis at the beginning. • Final Synthesis: Due April 25, 2016 at 6: 00 pm. – Note points will be deducted if late without preapproval.

The Current Climate (Released Monthly) • Climate Monitoring at National Climatic Data Center. – http: //www. ncdc. noaa. gov/oa/ncdc. html • State of the Climate: Global

Outline: Class 17, Winter 2016 • Examples used to disprove and discredit climate change. • Forms of Rhetoric and Argument • Argumentation • Communication

In Groups Discuss Examples in Handouts

To analyze • Look at the form of argument • Use the principles of the scientific method • Remember the scientific method does not produce facts – Knowledge – Uncertainty (Uncertainty references)

Communication of Science-based knowledge • “ … in the case of some people, not even if we had the most accurate scientific knowledge, would it be easy to persuade them …” Aristotle, A Treatise on Rhetoric Important to know when rhetoric is being used as a tactic to achieve a goal.

Rhetoric and Form of Argument • Are attacks to discredit the person or field prominent: dishonesty, fraud, conflict of interest, conspiracy – Accusation that ignoring information • Labels: alarmists, warmists, denialists, uneducated, conservative, liberal • Moral levers of trust and distrust • Extract single pieces of information in absence of others and hold as contradiction • Reaching metaphors: The world was warmer and had more carbon dioxide when there dinosaurs and no humans

Some References • What to Do? • Rhetoric and Form of Argument • Skeptical Science • Marshall Institute: Climate Change • The Heritage Foundation • Watts Up With That?

More formal notions of argumentation • From – Persuasion, Argumentation, and Common Fallacies • Kenneth Alfano (kalfano@umich. edu) • Erik Hildinger (eshild@umich. edu ) – Posted on Ctools in Readings

A Critical Consideration: Audience It is essential to analyze your audience(s) prior to any persuasive endeavor. • • How much do they know about the issue? What are their predispositions or interests? How will your request impact them? What kind of personality types are involved? This will influence your document’s (or presentation’s) organization, level, tone, appeal, etc.

APPEALS: Three main types • The Appeal to Reason • The Appeal to Emotion • The Appeal to Ethics They’re used in different situations.

In technical areas, two of these appeals predominate: • Appeal to Reason – typically for the most “direct” issue at hand; reasons why the money, action, belief, etc. would logically lead to a desirable outcome… • Appeal to Ethics – usually as a limitation on what you can do in pursuit of other goals, but sometimes even a goal in itself! • The arguments about climate change are often political, not technical, not scientific

Other distinctions in argument • Argument of Fact – This is about what is or is not. – Example: “Global warming will cause consequence X by year Y, with a statistical likelihood of Z%. ” • Argument of Policy – This is about what should or should not be. – Example: “A Z% chance of consequence X is sufficient grounds to take action A, but not necessarily action B. ”

Relationship between arguments of fact and arguments of policy • Facts often need to be established before you discuss policy. • Arguments of fact often precede arguments of policy. • You need to carefully parse the distinction between them, especially where they tend to get conflated. • Both need support, but in different ways.

A note on policy arguments: While policy arguments may be motivated by ethics or morality, it is more likely for such arguments to succeed if they emphasize expediency, advantage, or other self-interested motives of the audience. It’s not a perfect world, and we don’t get very far by pretending it is…

Common Logical Fallacies • • Circular reasoning False cause Hasty generalization Irrelevant appeal Non sequitur Undistributed middle Equivocation

Circular reasoning • • Also called “begging the question” Presuming one’s conclusion, A => A Gives the illusion of a deductive step Ex. “John is lazy, because he doesn’t work hard. ” • Often hides in the form of re-stating assertions with largely synonymous phrasing, disguised as support • Also hides behind rhetorical queries

False cause • Presuming that correlation implies causation • Often arises in cases where there is a temporal proximity (“post hoc”), e. g. “X follows Y a lot, so Y must cause X” • Can overlap w/ fallacies involving hasty generalization of insufficient data • Generally only a prospective study can conclusively indicate causation

Hasty generalization • Essentially, insufficient data – Quantitatively (n value) and/or qualitatively (e. g. not accounting for all appropriate confounding variables) • Often overlaps with false/premature causation assertions • Unlike many other fallacies, this one can be a matter of degree and thus not always as logically objective

Irrelevant appeal • Invoking true facts that superficially appear to bolster a point, but are actually inapt • Commonly occurs with credentials, e. g. appealing to an expert in one scientific discipline as a purported authority for a contention in a substantially different one • Can come in degrees, such as overstating the value of an authority

Non sequitur • Similar to irrelevant appeal, except making no effort to “simulate” relevance even superficially • Commonly involves seeking to distract from an unfounded assertion via emotion, such as humor or fear or affection • “Jane is a good and honest person, so she must be a very good employee”

Undistributed middle • A basic fallacy of set theory – presuming that because there is overlap, that there is no non-overlap • “All i. Pods are portable electronic devices, and all smartphones are portable electronic devices, therefore all i. Pods are smartphones. ” • Related to fallacies of presumptions of mutual inclusivity/exclusivity

Equivocation • Using a word in 2 different senses/meanings in the same context, hoping the audience won’t notice the “mirror trick” • Of course, as with most fallacies, some are easier to spot than others • “Noisy children are a headache. Aspirin makes headaches go away. Therefore, aspirin makes noisy children go away. ” (http: //dict. space. 4 goo. net/dict? q=equivocation)

Some summary points of Climate Change political arguments

PA 1: Just a Theory • A common statement is that greenhouse gas is just a theory, equating theory with conjecture. – Theory is not conjecture, it is testable. • Theory suggests some amount of cause and effect – a physical system, governed by quantitative conservation equations. – Theory is not fact, it can and will change. – Need to consider the uncertainty, and the plausibility that theory might be wrong. • Often it is stated in this discussion that gravity is only a theory. – True, and theory of gravity is a very useful theory, one put forth by Newton. – True, we don’t exactly understand the true nature of the force of gravity, there are “why” questions. – Formally, Newton’s theory of gravity is incorrect – that’s what Einstein did. • Still, it is a very useful and very accurate theory, that allows us, for example, to always fall down and never fall up – and go to the Moon with some confidence.

PA 2: Greenhouse Effect • This is generally not a strongly argued point. Warming of the surface due to greenhouse gases make the planet habitable. – Habitable? Water exists in all three phases? • Water and carbon dioxide and methane are most important natural greenhouse gases. • Often a point of argument that water is the “dominant” gas, so traces of CO 2 cannot be important. – Water is dominant … often said 2/3 rds of warming. Because there is so much water in the ocean, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is largely determined by temperature. (The relative humidity. ) – This is where it is important to remember the idea of balance, the climate is in balance, and it is differences from this balance which we have co-evolved with that are important. • Burning fossil fuels is taking us away from this balance. It is like opening or closing a crack in the window … it makes a big difference.

PA 3: What happens to this CO 2 • A “new” political argument: CO 2 from fossil fuels is small compared to what comes from trees and ocean. True. But a lot goes into trees and oceans as well. So it is the excess CO 2, the CO 2 on the margin that comes from fossil fuel burning. Not all of this goes into the trees and oceans, and it accumulates in the atmosphere. • There are 8. 6 Petagrams C per year emitted – 3. 5 Pg C stay in atmosphere – 2. 3 Pg C go into the ocean – 3. 0 Pg C go into the terrestrial ecosystems • Terrestrial ecosystems sink needs far better quantification – Lal, Carbon Sequestration, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc 2008 • It’s a counting problem! One of our easier ones.

PA 4: Cycles • Some say that there are cycles, they are natural, they are inevitable, they show that human have no influence. – Cycles? yes natural? Yes • Inevitable There are forces beyond our control – We can determine what causes cycle; they are not supernatural • Greenhouse gases change • “Life” is involved ocean and land biology • Humans are life This is the time humans release CO 2

PA 4: Cycles CO 2 and T • At the turn around of the ice ages, temperature starts to go up before CO 2; hence, T increase is unrelated to CO 2 – Need to think about time and balance here … • There are sources of T and CO 2 variability other than the radiative greenhouse gas effect. – If CO 2 increases in the atmosphere, there will be enhanced surface warming, but is the increase large enough to change temperature beyond other sources of variability? – If T increases, there could be CO 2 increases associated with, for instance, release from solution in the ocean – CO 2 increases could come from burning fossil fuels, massive die off of trees, volcanoes have to count, know the balance. See Shakun, Nature, 2012

PA 4: Cycles: Ice Ages • In 1975 scientists were predicting an ice age. Now warming. You have no credibility, why should we believe you now. – In 1975, small number of papers got a lot of press attention. – 2010 Think scientific method • Observations, observations • Improved theory, predictions, cause and effect • Results reproduced my many investigators, using many independent sources of observations • Consistency of theory, prediction, and observations • Probability of alternative description is very small.

PA 5: The last 1000 years: The hockey stick Surface temperature and CO 2 data from the past 1000 years. Temperature is a northern hemisphere average. Temperature from several types of measurements are consistent in temporal behavior. q Medieval warm period q “Little ice age” q Temperature starts to follow CO 2 as CO 2 increases beyond approximately 300 ppm, the value seen in the previous graph as the upper range of variability in the past 350, 000 years.

PA 5: Hockey Stick • This is the “hockey stick” figure and it is very controversial. Quality of data, presentation, manipulation, messaging. – Rood blog – Nature on Hockey Stick Controversy • There are some issues with data, messaging, emotions of scientists here, but the data are, fundamentally, correct.

PA 5: Hockey Stick: Science • But place the surface temperature record of the hockey stick in context using the scientific method. – Reproduction of results by independent researchers, through independent analyses – Verification of results in other types of observations sea level rise, ocean heat content, earlier start of spring – Consistency of signals with theory upper tropospheric cooling – Evaluation of alternative hypotheses

PA 5: Hockey Stick: Temperature source • There has developed a discussion between those who believe in surface temperature data and those who believe in satellite data. – Scientifically, it should not be a matter of belief, but validation. Each system has strengths and weaknesses. Differences should be reconciled, not held as proof of one over the other. • Surface: Issues of how sited, representative, urban heat island – If ignored (wrong), then data flawed – If taken into account (right), then data are manipulted • Satellite data objective and accurate? – Read the literature! Took years to get useful temperature. Every satellite is different, calibrated with non-satellite data • And ultimately: Scientific method – Reproduction of results by independent researchers, through independent analyses – Verification of results in other types of observations – Consistency of signals with theory – Evaluation of alternative hypotheses

Use of Extreme Events as Communication Opportunity and Case Studies • The trap or the nuance – Was this event caused by climate change? – Relative role of weather, climate change and other things that we do like build mansions on the seashore.

Outline: Class 17, Winter 2016 • Examples used to disprove and discredit climate change. – Three groups each with three examples • Forms of Rhetoric and Argument • Argumentation • Communication