Consider Catastrophic Climate Change

Welcome back. In the long history of warnings about climate change, June 1988 stands out.

On 23 June, James Hansen, then director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. He warned that it was 99% certain that the global warming trend was not a natural variation but the result of a buildup of CO2 and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

A week later, at the conclusion of the 27-30 June Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security, the 300 policy makers, international scientists and representatives of non-governmental, governmental and UN organizations issued a stark declaration: Humans had triggered uncontrolled changes to the atmosphere that, if left unchecked, could lead to consequences second only to a global nuclear war.

Proceedings of 1988 Toronto Conference on The Changing Atmosphere (World Meteorological Organization report OMM-No.710, 1989).

Considering the Worst
Could climate change truly result in societal collapse or even human extinction? An international team of 11 climate scientists, led by a researcher with the UK’s University of Cambridge, addressed the topic in a recently published paper.

Noting that prudent risk management requires consideration of bad-to-worst-case scenarios, they discuss the likelihood of extreme climate change, why understanding bad-to-worst cases is vital and reasons for concern about catastrophic outcomes. They then define key terms and present a research agenda to direct exploration of the worst risks associated with anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change.

The Potential for Climate Catastrophe
The researchers’ concern about climate change per se is that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing at unprecedented geological speed, putting the world on track for a temperature rise between 2.1°C and 3.9°C by 2100.

Their key reasons for concern about a global climate catastrophe are that climate change (1) has played a role in the collapse or transformation of numerous societies and in the five mass extinction events in the current geologic eon; (2) could trigger other catastrophic risks, such as international conflict, or exacerbate disease spread; (3) could aggravate vulnerabilities and cause multiple indirect stresses; and (4) could irrevocably undermine humanity’s ability to recover from another cataclysm.

A Research Agenda
Setting global warming of 3°C or more by 2100 as a marker for extreme climate change, the researchers propose a research agenda for catastrophic climate change that focuses study on:
- Understanding extreme climate change dynamics and impacts in the long term.
- Exploring climate-triggered pathways to mass morbidity and mortality.
- Investigating social fragility: vulnerabilities, risk cascades and risk responses.
- Synthesizing research findings into integrated catastrophe assessments.

Extreme Earth System States
Understanding potential long-term states of the Earth system under extreme climate change will require mapping different “Hothouse Earth” scenarios or other extreme scenarios, such as alternative circulation regimes or large, irreversible changes in ice cover and sea level.

Mass Morbidity and Mortality
There are many potential contributors to climate-induced morbidity and mortality that require further study, but the “four horsemen” are likely to be famine and undernutrition, extreme weather events, conflict, and vector-borne diseases. These will be worsened by additional risks and impacts such as air pollution and sea level rise.

Societal Fragility
A complete risk assessment needs to consider climate impacts, differential exposure, systemic vulnerabilities, responses of societies and actors, and the knock-on effects across borders and sectors, potentially resulting in systemic crises. A domino effect or spiral could continuously worsen the initial risk.

A high-level, simplified depiction of how risk cascades could unfold (from www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119).

Integrated Catastrophic Assessments
Climate change will unfold in a world of changing ecosystems, geopolitics and technology, as well as natural shocks. Such developments and scenarios need to be considered to build a full picture of climate dangers.

Wrap Up
There is ample evidence that climate change could become catastrophic. To galvanize research and inform the public, the researchers urge the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to dedicate a future report to catastrophic climate change.

They warn that facing a future of accelerating climate change while blind to worst-case scenarios is naive risk management at best and fatally foolish at worst.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
James Hansen’s warning to US Senate: www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning
Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Conference_on_the_Changing_Atmosphere
Key aspects of the Paris Agreement: unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement/key-aspects-of-the-paris-agreement
IPCC climate report 2022 summary: climate.selectra.com/en/news/ipcc-report-2022
Paper on exploring catastrophic climate change in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119
Articles on paper on EurekAlert! and Axios websites:
www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/960152
www.axios.com/2022/08/03/climate-change-risks-catastrophe-greater-study

Davos Focuses on Climate

Welcome back. You probably saw that President Trump attended the recent Davos 2020 conference. I thought you might be interested in a little background and review of the conference, especially since this was the 50th annual meeting and its focus was climate and sustainability.

(I’ll skip Mr. Trump’s contribution. His speech largely ignored the conference focus, instead repeating exaggerations and falsehoods and making it easy on fact checkers.)

What is the Davos Conference?

Davos, Switzerland, site of the World
Economic Forum’s annual meeting
(from images.app.goo.gl/w2yFFjwPVjbbYt1a9).

The conference is the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, which I described in the blog post, Emerging Technologies. It’s referred to as Davos, the municipality in Switzerland where the conference is held.

At the beginning of each year, the invitation-only conference brings together thousands of business, political, academic and cultural leaders to shape global, regional and industry agendas, with the goal of improving the state of the world.

Defining the Conference Focus
Davos 2020, held 21-24 January, was preceded by the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Perception Survey of the Forum’s network of business, government, civil society and thought leaders. The Forum received more than 1,000 survey responses to whether the risks associated with 40 issues would increase or decrease this year relative to last year; the likelihood and potential impact of 30 global risks in the next 10 years; and the 3 to 6 most interconnected global risks.

Top 10 global risks over next 10 years (from www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/top-global-risks-report-climate-change-cyberattacks-economic-political/)

The resulting Global Risks Report 2020 named failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change as the key concern, ranking it number one of the top 10 risks by impact and number two by likelihood over the next 10 years. In all, 6 of the top 10 risks in both categories related to climate and the environment.

The risk report, released ahead of Davos 2020, urged governments and organizations to address the impact of specific threats and make preparations to contain potential fallout.

Davos 2020 was planned to give concrete meaning to “stakeholder capitalism,” assist governments and international institutions in tracking progress towards the UN’s Paris Agreement on climate and the Sustainable Development Goals and facilitate discussions on technology and trade governance. The conference program prioritized several key areas, the first of which was How to Save the Planet.

Increased Emphasis on Climate
Although climate change was labeled a risk in the survey as early as 2011, fires, heatwaves, storms and the extraordinary costs of climate-related disasters, as well as the effect on business planning of not knowing how or if policymakers will respond, appear to have converged to raise the concern for Davos 2020.

Before the conference, for example, the Net-Zero-Asset Owner Alliance, an international group of institutional investors managing $4 trillion in assets, committed to transition to a zero-emissions asset portfolio by 2050.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, stated that climate change would lead to a “fundamental reshaping of finance.”

Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, announced financial support for a World Economic Forum’s global reforestation initiative, One Trillion Trees.

Wrap Up
Davos 2020’s focus on climate and business leaders’ response are encouraging, albeit decades late. There is widespread agreement, however, that governments must intervene in a major way.

Will governments take steps to reduce emissions? One decisive action reviewed in multiple conference sessions was a carbon price--a cost applied to carbon emissions to encourage greenhouse gas reductions, imposed either as a carbon tax or via carbon emission trading.

Are governments prepared to make stronger commitments to reduce emissions? We’ll find out by next November at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glascow, following up on the Paris Agreement.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Articles on Davos 2020:
www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2020
www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/climate-change-crisis-what-we-learned-at-davos-2020/
www.wsj.com/livecoverage/davos-world-economic-forum-2020
time.com/5771889/davos-climate-change/
World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2020: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf
Example fact-checker article on President Trump at Davos 2020: www.bbc.com/news/world-51192999

Renewable Energy Versus Fossil Fuels

Welcome back. Although I’ve touched on renewable energy in earlier posts, it’s time I did more to promote its use and the conversion from fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas, nuclear). A recent study provided the incentive. 

U.S. energy consumption by source, 1950-2018
(from www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39092).

Renewable Energy
Let’s review a bit. The Environmental Protection Agency lists the most common renewable energy technologies as solar, wind, biogas, geothermal, biomass, low-impact hydroelectricity and emerging technologies, such as wave and tidal power.

Global new investment in renewable energy sources, 2004-2018
(from www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-comes-5th-global-renewable-investment-ranking).

The benefits of renewable energy are well-documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists and others. They include no greenhouse gas with less global warming; reduced air pollution and improved public health; inexhaustible energy; jobs and other economic benefits; stable energy prices; and reliability and resilience.

But we can’t ignore the drawbacks, the major ones being higher upfront costs; intermittent availability (sun doesn’t always shine, wind doesn’t always blow, drought happens), which occasions the need for energy storage; and geographic limitations (not all areas are suitable).

Forecast of power generation capacity additions
(gigawatts) through 2030 by source
(from geoharvey.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/4-26-graph.jpg).

Energy Returned on Energy Invested
Renewable energy sources offer significant benefits over fossil fuels, yet a key factor driving the use of fossil fuels is their higher energy returned on energy invested. That refers to the ratio of the energy a resource will deliver to the energy it takes to obtain the resource.

The ratio of fossil fuels is generally calculated to be over 25:1 (e.g., the energy to obtain 1 barrel of oil will yield 25 barrels of energy or more); the ratio of renewable energy sources is typically less than 10:1.

That recent study I mentioned found those ratios should actually be much closer.

Fossil Fuel Energy Investment
The researchers, all affiliated with the UK’s University of Leeds, focused on the energy it takes to obtain fossil fuels.

They note that, as fossil fuels become more difficult to extract, the energy investment will increase and the ratio will fall. (While true, fracking has reduced the investment and interrupted a long decline.)

For a more immediate adjustment, they point out that fossil fuel ratios have been calculated based on the extracted resource. There has been no accounting for the energy required to transform the extracted resource into a finished fuel (e.g., gasoline, electricity). A more direct comparison with renewable energy sources should estimate the measurement of energy invested at the final stage, when energy enters the economy.

(In line with that adjustment, it would be better to describe the energy-return-on-investment ratio based on the energy it takes to deliver that energy than the energy it takes to obtain the resource. That, by the way, is how it’s described in Wikipedia.)

To estimate the magnitude of the difference, the researchers calculated the global time series (1995-2011) ratios for fossil fuels at both the extraction and final stages. The extraction stage ratios were on the order of 30:1; the final stage ratios were about 6:1 and trending downward.

Wrap Up
The researchers conclude that the energy-return-on-investment ratios of fossil fuels and renewables may be much closer than expected. Moreover, the ratio of fossil fuels will decline with a shrinking source.

Although more recent data on fossil fuel ratios would be desirable, the study findings coupled with the benefits of renewable energy suggest there’s no reason to wait to convert from fossil fuels wherever and whenever possible. Thanks for stopping by. 

Rooftop solar panels, Nottingham, UK (from www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/e.on_awards_solar_panel_cleaning_services_largest_ever_cleaning_contract).

P.S.
Review of renewable energy benefits and resources:
www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-renewable-energy-benefits-and-resources
www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable-power
news.energysage.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-renewable-energy/
Energy returned on energy invested:
www.investopedia.com/terms/e/energy-return-on-investment.asp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
Study of energy-returned-on-energy-invested ratio in Nature Energy journal: www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0425-z#article-info
Article on study on EurekAlert! website: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-07/uol-ffi071019.php

Are Animals Earthquake Alerts?

Welcome back. During my government career, I sometimes participated when contractors or others pitched colleagues for research funding. Among a handful of topics discussed at one such session was earthquake prediction by animals. 

Cartoon on animals predicting earthquakes by T.O. Sylvester (from UNDP. 1992. Introduction to Hazards. Disaster Management Training Programme; obtained from The New Zealand Digital Library, Univ of Walato www.nzdl.org/cgi-bin/library.cgi).

Given our mission, we couldn’t justify offering support, but others have over the years. I’ll give a bit of background and review the latest work.

Anecdotal Reports
Minor details vary with the source, but the earliest account of unusual animal behavior prior to an earthquake traces to ancient Greece. In 373 BC, a variety of animals, insects to rodents and some sources add dogs, reportedly left the city of Helike (or Helice) a day or days before a destructive earthquake.

There have been numerous reports of animals behaving strangely seconds to weeks before an earthquake. Considering the seismic energy produced by earthquakes, no one would doubt that animals might react seconds or minutes before you and I felt any effect. Still, reports of animals responding weeks or even days before our senses are aroused lack explanation and are, thus, hard to accept.

Seismic Waves
Earthquakes generate seismic energy as both body waves that travel through the earth's inner layers and surface waves that move along the earth’s surface.

Body waves are typically higher frequency and lower amplitude than surface waves, and they arrive quicker. The fastest body waves are the primary or P waves that move through solid rock as well as fluids. The slower body waves are the secondary or S waves that move only through solid rock.

Annotated earthquake seismogram (from academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/grocha/plates/platetec19.htm).

Although body waves arrive before surface waves, the higher amplitude surface waves usually cause most of the damage.

It follows that animals with keener senses would perceive a P wave before the S wave arrives and certainly before surface waves arrive. Yet that’s normally a matter of seconds or minutes, not days or weeks. To establish that animals have the ability to respond long before a significant earthquake occurs would require the discovery of some unknown signal or signals.

Analysis of Animal Behavior Reports
Researchers from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences and University of Potsdam examined 729 reports of abnormal behavior by over 130 animal species before 160 earthquakes. The reported behaviors ranged from seconds to months before the earthquakes, at distances up to hundreds of kilometers from the epicenters, with most occurring within 60 days and 100 km (62 miles).

The researchers’ guidelines for analyzing the reported occurrences included whether the associations between animal behaviors and earthquakes were based on defined rules (e.g., animal's distance from earthquakes of a certain magnitude), if the behavior had ever been observed and not followed by an earthquake, if there was a statistical testing hypothesis in place to examine the evidence and if the animals were healthy.

Study Results
The researchers found that only 14 of the 729 reports recorded a series of observations over time, the longest being one year; all other records were single observations. A long-term record is required to ensure the observations relate to an earthquake and not to some other change, for example, in environment, animal health or predators.

Another hurdle for systematic analysis was the high variability of data, generally anecdotal and retrospective.

A key finding was that abnormal animal behaviors were strongly clustered statistically with foreshocks, suggesting that at least some observed behaviors were likely due to foreshock-generated seismic waves or secondary effects. (Foreshocks and aftershocks are earthquakes that occur before and after the more powerful, main seismic event and that are related to the mainshock in time and space.)

Wrap Up
Overall, the study found the reported data were insufficient to establish that animals exhibit abnormal behaviors before known earthquake effects. To support future experiments, the researchers suggested questions to be assessed to ensure the quality of observations. For example: Is the experimental setup and monitoring procedure clearly described and reproducible? Is it proven that the animal behavior is really unusual?

It’s an interesting topic that’s not fully understood. Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Example articles on animals predicting earthquakes:  earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/animal_eqs.php
www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325911-800-when-animals-predict-earthquakes/
www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2010/07/29/a-myth-take-about-helice-the-earthquake-and-diodorus-siculus/
Background on seismic waves: www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/waves.html 
Study of reports of animal behavior before earthquakes in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America: pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/530275/
Articles on study on LiveScience and ScienceDaily websites:
www.livescience.com/32156-can-animals-predict-earthquakes.html
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180417115641.htm

A version of this blog post appeared earlier on www.warrensnotice.com.

Wake Up, World!

The 1992 World Scientists’
Warning to Humanity was
organized by the Union
of Concerned Scientists.

Welcome back. I’m going to guess that 26 years ago you missed the “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity.” I did, or at least, I don’t remember it.

The 1992 Warning was an appeal from more than 1700 of the world’s leading scientists, including most Nobel science laureates, for humans to stop inflicting harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and critical resources. If unchecked, they wrote, we may so alter the world that it will be unable to sustain life as we know it.

Led by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the short warning didn’t waste a lot of words in identifying areas that must be addressed across the spectrum of the environment--atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, living species--and population. The scientists called, for example, for the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of air and water, halt deforestation, reverse the trend of collapsing biodiversity and stabilize population.

Well, even if you and I weren’t paying attention 26 years ago, we’ve got another wake-up call: the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice." And this time, there are a lot more people calling. Led by scientists from Oregon State University and initially signed by nearly 15,400 scientists from 184 countries, the second warning picks up where the first warning left off.

Second Warning
Authors of the second warning used all available data to evaluate changes over time in the specific areas identified in the first warning: gases that deplete stratospheric ozone, freshwater resources, marine catch, ocean dead zones, forest acreage, vertebrate species abundance, carbon dioxide emissions, temperature change and both human and ruminant livestock population.

They found that, with the exception of one area--stabilizing stratospheric ozone, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in addressing the challenges. All other areas have gotten worse.

Among areas of special concern are the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and the decline in species abundance. We have unleashed the sixth mass extinction event, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or committed to extinction by the end of this century.

Example trends from World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. Darker portion of graphs show trend after the first warning in 1992. (Graphs from academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229)

Recommended Actions
Despite the success of lobbyists in delaying environmental progress, and in the face of the Trump administration’s actions, the authors of the second warning judge that with a groundswell of organized grassroots efforts, dogged opposition can be overcome and political leaders compelled to do the right thing. They also urge that we re-examine and change our individual behaviors.

Among the many examples they offer of diverse steps humanity can take to transition to sustainability are:

- devising and promoting new green technologies and massively adopting renewable energy sources while phasing out subsidies to energy production through fossil fuels
- prioritizing…well-funded and well-managed reserves for a significant proportion of the world's terrestrial, marine, freshwater and aerial habitats
- halting the conversion of forests, grasslands and other native habitats
- restoring native plant communities at large scales, particularly forest landscapes
- developing and adopting adequate policy instruments to remedy defaunation, the poaching crisis, and the exploitation and trade of threatened species
- promoting dietary shifts toward mostly plant-based foods
- further reducing fertility rates by ensuring that women and men have access to education and voluntary family-planning services.

Wrap Up
In response to the support the second warning generated, the authors established an Alliance of World Scientists (see P.S.).

The main goal of this new assembly of scientists is to be a collective international voice of many scientists regarding global climate and environmental trends and how to turn accumulated knowledge into action.
Scientists of any discipline are invited to visit the Alliance website to read and endorse the 1000-word second warning. Also available on the website are the list of the original signatories as well as a running list of subsequent endorsers.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html#.WgsMCTeQyUk
“World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice” in BioScience journal: academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229
Example articles on second warning:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171113111127.htm
www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/13/thousands-of-scientists-issue-bleak-second-notice-to-humanity/?utm_term=.8b24d9cc989e
Alliance of World Scientists website: scientists.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

A version of this blog post appeared earlier on www.warrensnotice.com.

Climate Change Report Vol. 1

The second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment was released on 23 Nov 2018, the day after Thanksgiving. A version of this post appeared on www.warrensnotice.com shortly after the first volume was released in 2017. It stands on its own and set the stage.

Welcome back. Surprise, surprise. The White House approved release of the Climate Science Special Report, the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. Also, apparently none of the 13 Federal agencies responsible for producing the report tried to undercut or change the findings of its scientists.

So why was this all a surprise? In sharp contrast to the president’s words and his administration’s policies, the report’s executive summary states:

This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence. [Bold type is from the report.]

Surface temperature change (in °F) for 1986–2015 relative to 1901–1960 from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. (Graphic from Climate Science Special Report.)

Origin of Climate Report
It’s easy to forget that, once upon a time, Republican presidents were the environmental good guys. In 1970, for example, Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, and he did it by executive order. The consensus is that his motivation was truly environmental.

Even closer to the topic, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actively promoted measures to combat climate change. One major action was the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), established by presidential initiative in 1989 and mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
 

Member agencies of U.S. Global
Change Research Program.

The USGRP directed 13 Federal agencies to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.

One mandated product of the USGRP is the National Climate Assessment. Every four years, the agencies prepare a report that analyzes both the effects of global change and the human-induced and natural trends in global change for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.

Fourth National Climate Assessment
The Climate Science Special Report is an authoritative, comprehensive 470-page, 15-chapter, 5-appendices assessment of the science of climate change with a focus on the United States. It was prepared by scientists in government and academia and peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.

Selected Key Findings
Each chapter of the report includes key findings with confidence statements. I’ve taken excerpts from several findings of high or very high confidence to convey the significance of the issues.

- [A]verage temperatures in recent decades over much of the world have been much higher, and have risen faster…than at any time in the past 1,700 years or more
- It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate
- Stabilizing global mean temperature to less than 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels requires substantial reductions in net global CO2 emissions prior to 2040 relative to present-day values and likely requires net emissions to become zero or possibly negative later in the century
- The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events are projected to continue to increase over the 21st century
- Plant productivity has not increased commensurate with the increased number of frost-free days or with the longer growing season
- Arctic-wide ice loss is expected to continue through the 21st century, very likely resulting in nearly sea ice-free late summers by the 2040s
- Global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by about 7 to 8 inches since 1900, with about 3 of those inches occurring since 1993
- Relative to the year 2000, GMSL is very likely to rise by 0.3–0.6 feet by 2030, 0.5–1.2 feet by 2050, and 1.0–4.3 feet by 2100 (very high confidence in lower bounds)
- Tidal flooding will continue increasing in depth, frequency, and extent this century.
 

Muir Glacier, Alaska, photographed by
U.S. Geological Survey in 1941 and 2004.
(From Climate Science Special Report.)

Wrap Up
The concern is that we’ve passed the global climate tipping point. Whereas the Paris climate agreement aimed to limit global warming to 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels, the UN climate negotiators are now forced to consider 5.4°F (3°C). The sea-level rise alone would impact hundreds of millions of people.

Although certain US states, cities and businesses are trying to step in to fill the role abdicated by our federal government, coordinated global action is critical. Let’s hope the report’s release signals a change. Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I--Climate Science Special Report: science2017.globalchange.gov/
The U.S. Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year 2017: downloads.globalchange.gov/ocp/ocp2017/Our-Changing-Planet_FY-2017_full.pdf
Richard Nixon and the EPA: www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Richard_Nixon_Environment.htm
Reagan and Bush (41) on climate change policy: nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/
Article on the 3°C world on The Guardian website: www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Interview with Al Gore re: Trump and climate on The Guardian website: www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/10/al-gore-donald-trump-climate-change

Forecasting Addendum

After the recent weeks of blog post topics, I thought you might like a nice relaxing addendum to last Friday’s blog post, Trust in Forecasts. I’m not much for quotations that aspire to inspire, but I do appreciate those that offer insight, such as today’s quotations on forecasting the future. Although borrowing and paraphrasing should be expected, I’ve shown attributions, without doing any sourcing myself. (All photos are from multiple websites.)

Quotations on the Difficulty of Forecasting the Future
 

Statue of Lao Tzu, located
north of Quanzhou, China,
at base of Mount Qingyuan

 "Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge." Lao Tzu (aka, Laozi), Chinese poet, 6th century B.C., and reputed founder of Taoism.

 

 

Niels Bohr

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics.
 

Paul Samuelson

"Wall Street indices predicted nine out of the last five recessions." Paul A. Samuelson, economist.


 

 

Edgar R. Fiedler

"He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass." Edgar R. Fiedler, economist, U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.




"Forecasting is the art of saying what will happen, and then explaining why it didn't." Anonymous.


 Quotations on Accepting the Future

Albert Einstein

“I never think of the future. It comes soon enough.” Albert Einstein, Nobel laureate in physics.


 

Abraham Lincoln

“The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time.” Abraham Lincoln, US president.

 

Charles F. Kettering

“I look to the future because that's where I'm going to spend the rest of my life.” Charles F. Kettering, inventor, engineer, businessman (also George Burns, comedian).
 



Quotations on Influencing the Future
 

Deepak Chopra

“When you make a choice, you change the future.” Deepak Chopra, author and public speaker.


 

Haruki Murakami

“You throw a stone into a deep pond. Splash. The sound is big, and it reverberates throughout the surrounding area. What comes out of the pond after that? All we can do is stare at the pond, holding our breath.” Haruki Murakami, author.

Yogi Berra’s Quotations about the Future
(In memory of the Hall of Fame baseball player, whose New York Yankees beat my Brooklyn Dodgers too many times.)

Yogi Berra

“The future ain’t what it used to be.”

“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” (Do you think Yogi borrowed this from Niels Bohr, above?)

“You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there.”

“It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” 
 
P.S.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/future
www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/79014.Yogi_Berra
thinkexist.com/quotations/future/
www1.secam.ex.ac.uk/famous-forecasting-quotes.dhtml or www.met.reading.ac.uk/Research/cag-old/forecasting/quotes.html

Trust in Forecasts

Welcome back. Play along with me. Pick a sport. Tomorrow is opening day. Joe and Frank, two sports gurus are on TV, forecasting the winners. You’re not up on the teams or on Joe and Frank.

Joe says there’s a 70% chance that Team A will beat Team B. Frank says there’s a 30% chance that Team A will win.

Questions: Which forecast is more accurate? Which guru would you trust more? Hint: All else being equal, based on the higher and lower predictions, more people would lean toward Team A winning. At least that’s what a recent study by researchers from Virginia Tech and the University of South Carolina demonstrated.

You can always trust Magic 8 Ball
forecasts. (multiple websites)

Prediction Levels Affect Inferences

The researchers conducted eight experiments, each testing the reactions of large groups of participants to forecasted occurrences of 70% versus 30%.

The experiments included a basketball team winning or losing; the success of stock market investments (an initial public offering, a stock’s price); predictions of a book being published, when the predictions are presented numerically, pictorially (pie chart) and verbally (“very” or “less likely”/”unlikely” to be published); other formats (frequencies and point spreads); and a case when benchmarks exist.

In nearly every case, the researchers found that, when forecasts are higher (70% rather than 30%), test participants inferred that the forecaster had conducted more in-depth analyses, was more confident about the prediction and was more trustworthy. They also judged the prediction to be more accurate.

In essence, participants evaluated the forecasts based only on the event occurring, e.g., team A winning, not its complement, team A losing. A lower forecast was thus interpreted erroneously as the 30% forecaster being less confident in the prediction of team A winning, instead of being more confident in team A losing.

For the experiment that tested reactions when benchmarks exist, the benchmark used was a high expectation that the likelihood of an event occurring should be 25%. Participants judged a slightly higher prediction (30%) to be more accurate than a slightly lower prediction (20%); however, a much higher prediction (70%) reduced their evaluation of accuracy.  

Well, you can usually trust Magic 8
Ball forecasts. (multiple websites)

 Wrap Up

The experiments ruled out certain alternative explanations and demonstrated both the independence of prediction format and the robustness of the effects. Nevertheless, I would be curious to learn more about the test participants than their age and gender.

Perhaps I’m just reflecting my own reaction to the test forecasts, but I would expect anyone who has taken courses in, or dealt with, statistics or probability to treat such forecasts more objectively. I believe this supports areas the researchers suggested for further study.

So. Have you changed your thoughts about Joe and Frank and whether team A or B will win tomorrow? It should be a good game. Thanks for stopping by today.

P.S.

Paper on forecasting study in Journal of Marketing Research and article on Science Daily website:
journals.ama.org/doi/10.1509/jmr.12.0526
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150812131916.htm