Sea Level Rises and the Precautionary Principle

Sea level rises are said to be the most serious consequence of climate change. According to the draft IPCC’s fifth assessment draft leaked recently, sea levels are likely to rise by between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century, compared to 18-59 centimeters anticipated in the 4^th Assessment report published in 2007 – the IPCC thinks things are getting worse. Satellite measurement shows that sea levels have risen (app) 6 cm since 1990. If we see a 6 cm rise every 15 years (app) we will see a rise of (app.) 34 cm by 2100.

A paper published recently in Global and Planetary Change finds global sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 to a rate equivalent to only 7 inches (17.8 cm) per century. According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr (± 0.4 mm/yr), but sea level rise "started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012."  The IPCC’s fourth assessment looks more likely to be the “best case” at this time rather than the more recent IPCC analysis.

Some suggest that these estimates are far too low. National Geographic said this in its November 2013 issue:

“Climate scientists now estimate that Greenland and Antarctica combined have lost on average about 50 cubic miles of ice each year since 1992—roughly 200 billion metric tons of ice annually. Many think sea level will be at least three feet [91 cm] higher than today by 2100. Even that figure might be too low.”

- the 91 cm figure being much higher than the IPCC anticipate.

The World Bank analysis also assumes a higher rate than the IPCC. A recent study of the likely impact of sea level rise on coastal cities suggests that the mean sea level will rise between 0.2 meters and 0.4 meters (19. 8 cm to 39.9 cm) by 2050. This both larger and faster than other estimates.

James Hansen, the doyen of climate change scientists, sees ocean level rise as even more alarming.  He has suggested that sea level rises could be between 15 and 20 feet – that is between 457 cm and 356 cm – since the IPCC models take inadequate account of ice sheet melting.

Not to be outdone, Ben Strauss from Climate Change Central in the US suggests in a recent study that by the end of this century, if global climate emissions continue to increase, the climate system may lock in 23 feet of sea-level rise." 23 feet is 701 cm – way beyond all consensus models. He basis this on a calculation of sea level rises linked to the level of CO2 emissions and the predicted temperature rises these levels of CO2 will cause.  Strauss sees the IPCC as “enormously cautious”.

Meantime, the ultimate skeptical ocean scientist is Nils-Axel Molner. He has been studying sea level rises for most of his career and he dismisses most of the concerns out of hand.  Indeed, he suggests that there is no discernable rise in sea level beyond that normally expected for the last fifty years.

So, what to do? If you are a policy maker you have an international body suggesting that sea level rise could be somewhere between 26 and 32 cm by the end of the century. Then you have respected scientists who claim “special expert knowledge” suggesting that this is by far too cautious and is more likely to be around 700 cm. Yet another suggests not to panick, since nothing is happening. What is clear is that we don’t know – the science is very unsettled.

One place has already made its decision. Kiribati – a small island in the Pacific – is seeking to buy land in Fiji so that it can relocate its population of 113,000. One member of this community is seeking asylum in Australia as a result of these developments. Other countries are seeking reparations from the developed world to pay for sea defenses – this is a major argument behind the $100 billion annual fund being demanded in Poland as part of this weeks annual climate change jamboree (COP19).

Outgoing New York Mayor Bloomberg, whose own team of scientists suggest that sea level rises in the New York area could be as much as 73 cm by 2050, has proposed an investment of just over $19 billion in strengthening  the sea walls and flood defenses of New York city. New York is just one of twenty five cities around the world to be investing in these strategies.

The precautionary principle seems to apply. If you have responsibility for a coastal city or a community in a floodplain, there is a need to plan and to take such precautionary measures as seem appropriate and affordable. While precaution can be expensive, dealing with the aftermath of flooding is even more expensive.

But the next time you hear a politician say that the science is settled, just smile. It isn’t.

Typhoon Haiyan

Typhoon Haiyan is a terrible storm – one of the worst for some time. We should do what we can through the Red Cross to help the victims of this storm. We should also do what we can to support initiatives aimed at anticipating and adapting to such storms in the future.

But Typhoon Haiyan is not a product of global warming or climate change. This is according to those who have dedicated a significant part of their career to studying such storm and their cause. Extremely intense tropical cyclones are rare, but have always been a part of nature — we don’t need to find an excuse for them. Weather officials said Haiyan had sustained winds of 235 kph (147 mph) with gusts of 275 kph (170 mph) when it made landfall. By those measurements, Haiyan is comparable to a strong Category 4 hurricane in the U.S., nearly in the top category (5). In the list of such events in the Phillipines, catalogued since 1896 (see here), it is important but not the most severe in history, as some have claimed. Over past 1,000 years, Philippines have been hit by 10-20 thousand tropical cyclones.

So why do some seek to make a connection to global warming when those who research typhoons and hurricanes have repeatedly made clear that the link cannot be shown. Many such writers acknowledge that it is unscientific to attribute any particular weather event to global warming. But then, in the same breath, they’ll say that this or that typhoon or hurricane is “consistent with” the types of weather ”scientists” predict will become more frequent in a warming world. As Roger Pielke Jnr has observed:

“…climate activists have turned up the rhetorical heat on extreme weather in recent years. The reasons aren’t hard to fathom. The 15-year pause in global warming makes it harder to scare people about warming itself. The two greatest terrors featured in An Inconvenient Truth — rapid ice sheet disintegration leading to catastrophic sea-level rise and ocean circulation shutdown precipitating a new ice age – have no credibility. Nobody takes seriously the prospect of warming-induced malaria epidemics either. If you want to scare people, extreme weather is the only card left in the climate alarm deck.”

Pielke, Jr. acknowledges that considerable research “projects” various weather extremes to become more frequent or intense in the future as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change. However, even if those projections prove correct, “it will be many decades, perhaps longer, before the signal of human-caused climate change can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes (and to the extent that statistical properties are similar, in floods, tornadoes, drought).” Even the IPCC (AR5) accepts that the link between climate change and extreme weather events cannot be shown with any confidence.

So saying that there is such a connection is not a scientific act, but a political one – one aimed at securing the actions required to reduce emissions. It’s a scientific pilgrimage, not science.

3D and 4D Printing - The Next Big Things

The word “innovation” gets overused. I know, I have been writing about innovation for over thirty years and have had responsibility for drafting policies, strategies and structures all linked to making innovation happen. I have also led innovation skills workshops and leadership development workshops focused on innovation.

From time to time, true breakthrough disruptive innovation happens rarely. The internet is a breakthrough innovation which has disrupted a great many sectors of industry – publishing, movies, radio, music, travel, banking to name just a few.  Synthetic biology will also be a disruptive breakthrough innovation, especially in terms of the treatment of dirty water, foods and energy.

At a conference recently, I spent time exploring what three dimensional (3D) printing will do for the housing industry, You may be surprised to learn that two companies – one in London and one in Amsterdam – are racing to be the first to perfect a process for the printing of 3D houses.  Giant 3D printers can build a 2,500-square-foot house in as little as 20 hours. The Contour Crafting 3D printers could even do the electrical work, plumbing, tiling, finishing work and painting.  The walls are hollow to save on materials and make them lighter, but their strength clocks in at about 10,000 psi -- more than traditional housing walls. Contour Crafting will save the construction 20 percent to 25 percent in financing and 25 percent to 30 percent in materials. The biggest savings would come in labor, where Contour Crafting would save 45 percent to 55 percent by using 3D printers instead of humans. There would also be fewer CO2 emissions and less energy used. You can see a presentation about this here.

Just as I got my head around this, I met and spent time with a business man seeking to commercialize what is being referred to as 4D printing. The new technology, as he explained, involves printing 3D objects that change after they've been printed—a self assembly process whereby printed material forms itself into another shape after being subjected to an energy source, e.g. heat, electricity, light, sound, or submersion in water. The concept draws inspiration from nature which has the ability to self-replicate and repair itself in response to external environmental conditions.

For example, products will use responsive fillers embedded within a hydrogel. This will open up new routes for producing the next generation of smart sensors, coatings, textiles, and structural components – for example, furniture that responds to changing moods or conditions (warmer colours in winter, cooler in summer).

So we have two technologies – 3D and 4D printing – which could be disruptive and transformative for building, materials, technology, textiles and other sectors. Watch this space to better understand just how disruptive these technologies will be.

Play Dough Policy Making in Alberta's Advanced Education Ministry

We have in Alberta a government that cannot focus, manage or build partnerships and trust. This has never been more evident than it its handling under the current Minister of its post-secondary education portfolio.

Thomas Lukaszuk is the Deputy Premier. He was put into Advanced Education to replace a Minister who objected to cuts to post-secondary education and was not seen to be “playing the team game” – ironic for a government which, as a team, is dysfunctional. Even though institutions had been promised a 2% increase in base budgets, Lukaszuk cut funding by 7.3% and also indicated that the post-secondary institutions could expect two years of zero – a total cut against known cost rises of 20% over three years. Thus a plan for +2 became a plan to cut 9.3% from the plans the colleges and universities had developed for 2013-14. At the same time tuition fees were frozen. Play dough time.

Lukaszuk also indicated through draft mandate letters that the role of post-secondary educational institutions would be much more directly tied to commercialization of research, skills education for the labour force and a neoliberal agenda for learning. The term “mandate” (implying enforcement) was later changed to “letters of expectation” (non enforceable). He also required a greater degree of collaboration and integration between them as part of Campus Alberta. At one point he talked about these requirements being a red line. He later backed off, permitting the institutions to offer their own letters for his subsequent finalization and approval. However, the Minister was clear that he expected a reduction in duplication and a sharing of “back office functions”. Play dough time.

Indeed, he allocated $10 million to the University of Alberta to be the “hub” for the sharing of back office functions. Rather than being compulsory, as originally intended, it is now voluntary.  Play dough time.

He also announced that a new Institute would be established – something that had been recommended by the Premiers Council on Economic Development.  This would focus on commercialization of research and channeling in a focused way the innovation agenda of the Province, to be pursued in partnership with the Universities. The University of Alberta had pushed for such an Institute.  With an initial budget of $160 million, the Institute will focus R&D on commercial challenges and commercialization. It also looks like it will be a way of rationalizing Alberta’s innovation system (yet again). Play dough time.

Today the Minister announced an additional one time allocation of $50 million to universities and colleges across Alberta to help them cope with pressure of growth in enrollments.  First we cut base funds and then we allocate one time funds. Play dough time.

It is not surprising that University Presidents and academics, not to mention their Boards, are confused by the play dough strategy of the Government. They don’t sense a plan, any coherence or consistency. Its “wham-bang, thank you man!”. I have been using the term play dough policy making, since you never know what shape the policy will be next. As one colleague I mentioned this too said – at least play dough doesn’t stick to your hands”, which is what Thomas Lukaszuk hopes for, I suspect.

What is at stake here, apart from the fact that there is no trust between institutions and government or within institutions, is the future of the Province’s links between research and innovation and our economic future. The more Lukaszuk the less confidence we have in this relationship.

A play dough way of making policy – now you see it, now you don’t – is no way to run a government. Its no way to treat students. It is no way to treat some of the brightest minds in the Province. The Premier needs to act - but she wont.

Rabbit Tracks and the Big Game of Education - Jeff Johnson's Understanding of What Makes a Great School for All in Alberta...

“You don’t follow rabbit tracks when you are hunting big game” said Jeff Johnson, Minister of Education in the Government of Alberta at a conference run by the Canadian Education Association. No one knows what the big game is in education in Alberta anymore, but we do know that Jeff Johnson is not the right man to lead the hunt for excellence and school transformation.

In response to a simple question asked by Naresh Bhardwaj (a former teacher) about class size this last week in the legislature he said this:

“when we’re looking at quality of education and the success of the student, the size of the class is not the most important thing to track or to try to affect. Obviously, the engagement of the parent is the most important, but second to that is the quality of teaching.”(my emphasis)

Where to start?

There is a mountain of data dating from the early 1970’s and Michael Rutter’s study of school effectiveness and the work of David Reynolds (both of which I was involved in) looking at the factors which impact school achievement. What we know is that there are a range of factors which impact school performance. While parental engagement is a “nice to have” it is not amongst the most critical in shaping school outcomes.

In terms of what we know after this forty years of very rigorous work is that the five key factors which shape outcomes are: (a) prior educational performance of the student – a student who has done well before is likely to continue to do so; (b) social class and economic status – students from impoverished backgrounds do less well than the students from high income families; (c) school size and culture, both overall size of the school and class size matter for a range of complex reasons; (d) whether the school is urban or rural – which is basically a matter of curriculum choice and ability to attract and retain quality teachers; and (e) whether the school is public, private or Catholic and the level of support it receives for its work from its funding source. This list comes from a comprehensive study of this question undertaken by the Government of Australia (2004).

Class size is a complex question, as Harvey Goldstein and Peter Blatchford  pointed out in the 1990’s (here) – it is not just size, it is what happens in class, who is in class and the degree of student engagement that impacts performance. There is not a simple cause-effect relationship. However, a US analysis and synthesis of almost 200 empirical research studies have shown that, for specific targeted purposes, reducing class size improves academic performance. The targeted purposes are: (a) for primary education; (b) for schools with a high intake of students from poor economic backgrounds; (c) where there is a high level of students in class with special needs; and (d) where the subject being studied is known to be challenging for many students. A key condition of success for small class size is that teachers have been trained to teach small groups.

A meta-analysis of 77 studies published by Smith and Glass in 1978 found that small classes were associated with higher achievement at all grade levels. The major benefits of reduction occurred where the number of students in the class was fewer than 20. They concluded that small classes were superior in terms of students’ reactions, teacher morale, and the quality of the instructional environment.

The key findings to review are those from the detailed analysis of PISA. These show that school climate and culture are far more significant that specific organizational measures. While they are related, culture and context speak more to the engaged environment of all aspects of schooling than any specific organizational measure, such as class size (see here, especially at page 37).

The question of teacher quality, which has preoccupied Jeff Johnson for some time (he favours merit pay for teachers – he made this clear when he worked with Dave Hancock on Inspiring Education) is an important question.  A variety of studies indicate that measures of teacher preparation and certification are by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics, both before and after controlling for student socio-economic status and that teacher quality and qualifications count (see here). In particular, subject matter knowledge (those who have a degree in mathematics or science are much better at teaching math or science than those who do not), knowledge of teaching for student engagement and skills in the effective use of learning technologies are all seen as key ingredients for student achievement. Surprisingly for some, the key here is knowledge of teaching and learning processes – it is far more important than knowledge of the subject (Ferguson and Womack, 1993).

Not all teachers are great teachers all of the time. The biggest critics of bad teaching are good teachers. As part of any review there is a need to look at sensible professional practice, including peer-to-peer performance measures and continual performance assessment of teaching, including clear metrics for raising performance year after year. There is also a strong case to introduce a requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers as a requirement for continuing certification. The important thing is to have a clear, effective system that school Principals can use flexibly but is also fair to staff.

Merit pay for teachers is not a smart idea. A 2004 study in Tennessee showed that it had mixed success in rewarding teachers who increased student achievement. Assignment to career-ladder teachers increased mathematics scores by roughly 3 percentile points but generally had smaller and statistically insignificant effects on reading scores (here). Several meta analysis show that merit pay has little or no impact on student achievement, but does start to change adult behaviour in inappropriate ways. Schools have many educational goals – not only easily tested basic skills in math and reading, but the sciences, history, good citizenship, appreciation of literature, the arts and music, physical fitness, good health habits, and character. In any institution with complex or multiple goals, incentive systems that reward achieving only some of those goals (usually those most easily measured) will inevitably distort that system’s output. Rational agents, responding to incentives, will ensure that resources, time, and attention are redirected to goals being rewarded, and away from those (perhaps equally important but more difficult to measure) not being rewarded.  Thirty years ago, the methodologist Donald T. Campbell framed what he called a ‘law’ of performance measurement:

“The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.”

Since then, social scientists have documented how simple accountability or incentive systems based on quantitative output indicators have actually harmed the institutions they were designed to improve – not only in education but in business, health care, welfare policy, human capital development, criminal justice, and public administration. Merit pay is a rabbit track.

As for parental involvement or engagement, it is the prior education of parents and their economic status which has an impact on student achievement, not their engagement with the school. Parents who read a lot are more likely to provide an environment in which their children read and parents with a post-secondary education are more likely to be able to provide learner supports to their children than parents who did not complete their high school education. But this is more about socio-economic status and income levels than about engagement. According to the PISA data – consistent over time - about

50 per cent or more of differences between schools are jointly explained by the school climate and student characteristics and the school context. Parental engagement does not appear to be a significant factor.

So, I suggest to Naresh Bhardwaj MLA that he pay attention to the evidence and not much attention to Jeff Johnson, especially if Naresh Bhardwaj is seeking to make informed decisions on the basis of evidence. As for Jeff Johnson, well he should go out and shoot some rabbits – he seems to be tracking them.

References

Ferguson, P., & Womack, S .T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education

coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (1), 55-63.

Government of Australia (2004) School performance in Australia: results from analyses of school effectiveness.