Climate sensitivity uncertainty: when is good news bad?

Climate change is real and dangerous. Exactly how bad it will get, however, is uncertain. Uncertainty is particularly relevant for estimates of one of the key parameters: equilibrium climate sensitivity--how eventual temperatures will react as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double. Despite significant advances in climate science and increased confidence in the accuracy of the range itself, the 'likely' range has been 1.5-4.5°C for over three decades. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) narrowed it to 2-4.5°C, only to reverse its decision in 2013, reinstating the prior range. In addition, the 2013 IPCC report removed prior mention of 3°C as the 'best estimate'. We interpret the implications of the 2013 IPCC decision to lower the bottom of the range and excise a best estimate. Intuitively, it might seem that a lower bottom would be good news. Here we ask: when might apparently good news about climate sensitivity in fact be bad news in the sense that it lowers societal well-being? The lowered bottom value also implies higher uncertainty about the temperature increase, definitely bad news. Under reasonable assumptions, both the lowering of the lower bound and the removal of the 'best estimate' may well be bad news.

Better predictions, better allocations: scientific advances and adaptation to climate change.

Climate science initially aspired to improve understanding of what the future would bring, and thereby produce appropriate public policies and effective international climate agreements. If that hope is dashed, as now seems probable, effective policies for adapting to climate change become critical. Climate science assumes new responsibilities by helping to foster more appropriate adaptation measures, which might include shifting modes or locales of production. This theoretical article focuses on two broader tools: consumption smoothing in response to the risk of future losses, and physical adaptation measures to reduce potential damages. It shows that informative signals on the effects of climate change facilitate better decisions on the use of each tool, thereby increasing social welfare.

The thief process for mercury removal from flue gas.

The Thief Process is a cost-effective variation to activated carbon injection (ACI) for removal of mercury from flue gas. In this scheme, partially combusted coal from the furnace of a pulverized coal power generation plant is extracted by a lance and then re-injected into the ductwork downstream of the air preheater. Recent results on a 500-lb/h pilot-scale combustion facility show similar removals of mercury for both the Thief Process and ACI. The tests conducted to date at laboratory, bench, and pilot-scales demonstrate that the Thief sorbents exhibit capacities for mercury from flue gas streams that are comparable to those exhibited by commercially available activated carbons. A patent for the process was issued in February 2003. The Thief sorbents are cheaper than commercially-available activated carbons; exhibit excellent capacities for mercury; and the overall process holds great potential for reducing the cost of mercury removal from flue gas. The Thief Process was licensed to Mobotec USA, Inc. in May of 2005.