Making Sense of Climate Sensitivity: How The Economist And MSM Keep Getting It Wrong

Memo to media: “Climate sensitivity” is NOT the same as projected future warming!

Projected warming even with (an unlikely) low climate sensitivity of between 1.5°C and 2.0°C from Michael Schlesinger et al 2012.

The Economist has joined the ranks of the major media who continue to sow confusion on one of the key questions of our time: How much warming will we subject our children and the next 50 generations to?

I addressed this two months ago in the post “Memo To Media: Climate Sensitivity Is NOT The Same As Projected Future Warming, World Faces 10°F Rise.” And that was two months after I discussed it in debunking an error-riddled Matt Ridley piece in the Wall Street Journal. But as long as the MSM keeps getting it wrong, I’ll keep updating my correction.

The answer to the question of how much warming we face depends primarily on four factors:

The so-called “equilibrium climate sensitivity” – the sensitivity of the climate to fast feedbacks like sea ice and water vapor. The ECS is how much warming you get if we suddenly adopt a super-aggressive effort to cut carbon pollution and only double CO2 emissions to 560 ppm — and there are no major “slow” feedbacks.  We know the fast feedbacks, like water vapor, are strong by themselves (see Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius” and Skeptical Science piece here).The actual CO2 concentration level we hit, which on our current emissions path is far, far beyond 550 ppm (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories are being realised” — 1000 ppm).The real-world slower (decade-scale) feedbacks, such as tundra melt (see “Carbon Feedback From Thawing Permafrost Will Likely Add 0.4°F – 1.5°F To Total Global Warming By 2100“).Where they live — since people who live in the mid-latitudes (like most Americans) are projected to warm considerably more than the global average.

The media, perhaps aided by some scientists who aren’t great at communications, tend to focus on just #1, a number the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report pegged as “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.” While the majority of studies tend to be in the middle of the range, a couple have been near the low end, though some have been at the higher end — see for instance “Science Stunner (11/12): Observations Support Predictions Of Extreme Warming And Worse Droughts This Century.”

Dana Nuccitelli makes some good points on the Economist piece at Skeptical Science:

… the article focused heavily on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade, and a few studies which, based on that slowed surface warming, have concluded that climate sensitivity is relatively low.  However, as we have discussed on Skeptical Science, those estimates do not include the accelerated warming of the deeper oceans over the past decade, and they appear to be overly sensitive to short-term natural variability.  The Economist article touched only briefly on the accelerated deep ocean warming, and oddly seemed to dismiss this data as “obscure.”

The Economist article also referenced the circular Tung and Zhou (2013) paper we addressed here, and suggested that if equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2°C to a doubling of CO2, we might be better off adapting to rather than trying to mitigate climate change.  Unfortunately, as we discussed here, even a 2°C sensitivity would set us on a path for very dangerous climate change unless we take serious steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Ultimately it was rather strange to see such a complex technical subject as climate sensitivity tackled in a business-related publication.  While The Economist made a good effort at the topic, their lack of expertise showed.

Then Nuccitelli reposted “an article published by Zeke Hausfather at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media” so readers could get “a more expert take on climate sensitivity.” I recommend the whole piece. Here’s the key part:

There are several different ways to estimate climate sensitivity:

Examining Earth’s temperature response during the last millennium, glacial periods in the past, or periods even further back in geological time, such as the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum;Looking at recent temperature measurements and data from satellites;Examining the response of Earth’s climate to major volcanic eruptions; andUsing global climate models to test the response of a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

These methods produce generally comparable results, as shown in the figure below.

Figure from Knutti and Hegerl 2008.

… So what about climate sensitivity? We are left going back to the IPCC synthesis, that it is “likely” between 2 C and 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations, and “very likely” more than 1.5 C. While different researchers have different best estimates (James Annan, for example, says his best estimate is 2.5 C), uncertainties still mean that estimates cannot be narrowed down to a far narrower and more precise range.

And, again, the ECS is not the same as our projected future warming.

What follows is an updated excerpt from my February post. Regular readers don’t need to read it again.

Focusing on the fast-feedback sensitivity perhaps made sense in the distant past when we thought the world would actually listen to climate scientists and so there was some reasonable chance of stabilizing at 560 parts per million atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (double the preindustrial level) — and some hope the slow feedbacks might not matter.

As I explained in Nature online back in 2008 (here), once you factor in carbon-cycle feedbacks, even the uber-cautious Fourth Assessment report (AR4) of the IPCC makes clear we are headed toward 1000 ppm (the A1FI scenario). That conclusion has been supported by just about every major independent analysis, including a recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (see Study: We’re Headed To 11°F Warming And Even 7°F Requires “Nearly Quadrupling The Current Rate Of Decarbonisation“). That means it simply doesn’t matter terribly much whether the ECS is 3C, or, say, only 2.5C.

But The Economist concludes:

… a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified: a downwards nudge on various best estimates from 3°C to 2.5°C, perhaps; a lower ceiling (around 4.5°C), certainly.

Even if one agrees with this, it doesn’t merit any celebration, let alone a nearly 3,000-word article.

It is worth noting that while the Thawing Permafrost Could Cause 2.5 Times the Warming of Deforestation (!) and add up to 1.5°F to warming in 2100 by itself, “Participating modeling teams have completed their climate projections in support of the [IPCC's] Fifth Assessment Report, but these projections do not include the permafrost carbon feedback.” D’oh!

Given that the Arctic is already losing ice decades faster than any AR4 model had projected, we should expect that the permafrost will go faster than the models suggest. Indeed a 2008 study by leading tundra experts found “Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss.” The study’s ominous conclusion:

We find that simulated western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends. The accelerated warming signal penetrates up to 1500 km inland….

Anyone who tells you the recent literature suggests things will be better than we thought, hasn’t read the recent literature. In a 2010 AAAS presentation, the late William R. Freudenburg of UC Santa Barbara discussed his research on “the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge“: New scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC report are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected,” rather than “not as bad as previously expected.”

“Projections of global warming relative to pre-industrial for the A1FI emissions scenario” — the one we’re currently on. “Dark shading shows the mean ±1 s.d. [standard deviation] for the tunings to 19 AR4 GCMs [IPCC Fourth Assessment General Circulation Models] and the light shading shows the change in the uncertainty range when … climate-carbon-cycle feedbacks … are included.”

Again, we are headed to 11F and just keeping to 7F will take a major effort. But warming beyond 7F is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e.  4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level,” as climate expert Kevin Anderson explains here.

Everyone interested in what we face should should read the recent World Bank Climate Report, which concluded, “A 4°C [7°F] world can, and must, be avoided” to avert “devastating” impacts. Also worth reading is the Royal Society Special Issue on Global Warming, which details the “hellish vision” of 7°F (4°C) world (and is the source of the figure above). The concluding piece in the issue notes soberly:

… a 4°C world would be facing enormous adaptation challenges in the agricultural sector, with large areas of cropland becoming unsuitable for cultivation, and declining agricultural yields. This world would also rapidly be losing its ecosystem services, owing to large losses in biodiversity, forests, coastal wetlands, mangroves and saltmarshes, and terrestrial carbon stores, supported by an acidified and potentially dysfunctional marine ecosystem. Drought and desertification would be widespread….

In such a 4°C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world.”

I’ll end by noting once more that the paleoclimate record suggests the ultimate warming we are going to see is likely to be considerably higher than the fast-feedbacks sensitivity suggests:

Science (2009): CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higherScientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Arctic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the Middle Ages. This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system–where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels–”will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century-scale” compared to typical estimates by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study notes these results may even be “conservative” because they ignore other greenhouse gases such as methane, whose levels will likely be boosted as temperatures warm.Another study published in Geophysical Research Letters, “Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming” (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the past 400,000 years. This study found evidence for significant increases in both CO2 and methane (CH4) levels as temperatures rise. The conclusion: If our current climate models correctly accounted for such “missing feedbacks,” then “we would be predicting a significantly greater increase in global warming than is currently forecast over the next century and beyond”–as much as 1.5°C warmer this century alone.Science stunner (2011): On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter. Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models.”jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Michigan GOP Would Force Women To Undergo Invasive Ultrasounds Before Getting An Abortion

Example of a transvaginal probe

Michigan Republicans introduced a mandatory ultrasound bill this week with a carefully-worded clause that threatens to stir up controversy that first erupted during the height of last year’s “War on Women.” By stipulating that the ultrasounds must use the “most technologically advanced equipment on site,” Michigan lawmakers would require women seeking abortions to undergo an invasive transvaginal probe.

Transvaginal ultrasound bills, which require doctors to insert a wand into a woman’s vagina before proceeding with an abortion procedure, were introduced last year in Virginia and Alabama. Widespread public outcry — including considerable derision from the national media — forced GOP lawmakers to back away from the extreme legislation, but Talking Points Memo reports that Michigan lawmakers are now ready to revive the fight:

The bill requires the use of ultrasound equipment “providing the most visibly clear image of the gross anatomical development of the fetus and the most audible fetal heartbeat.” As a practical matter, that requires transvaginal ultrasounds, said Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“It does lay bare that the real motive is to make abortion providers continue to acquire more and more and more equipment before they’re even eligible to perform an abortion,” Crane told TPM. “They’re trying to make it harder for doctors to do their jobs.” [...]

Crane said NARAL and its allies are prepared to fight to sink the legislation.

“Women should be up in arms over these types of laws,” she said. “Unfortunately they’re not new. But the fact that politicians just went through an election cycle and got spanked over how they treat women and reproductive freedoms and still introduce bills like this really boggles the mind. It’s not clear that the sponsors haven’t been living under rocks since November.”

But unfortunately for the women in Michigan, this is hardly the only recent attack on their reproductive rights. Their lawmakers already capitalized on the lame duck session at the end of last year to push through extreme anti-abortion legislation that limits abortion access for women who live in rural areas, requires doctors to prove that mentally competent women haven’t been “coerced” into their decision to have the procedure, and enacts unnecessary, complicated rules for abortion clinics and providers.

Abortion opponents often use mandatory ultrasounds as a tactic to impose additional barriers to reproductive care, as well as convince women to change their minds about having an abortion. But they don’t work. Studies have shown that nearly 90 percent of women feel “very confident” about their decision to have an abortion before they approach a doctor, and forcing them to look at an ultrasound doesn’t change their mind.

View the original article here

Getting natural gas right a priority

By Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) - 02/05/13 05:29 PM ET

As the seventh chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I could not be more excited to step up to the challenge of strengthening U.S. energy policy. 

It’s been five years since Congress last passed a major energy bill. Over that time, natural-gas prices have dropped nearly in half, the amount of wind power installed here has more than doubled to 50 gigawatts and U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have actually fallen. Most significantly, the goal of U.S. energy independence has gone from being a pipe dream to something that experts are predicting will become reality in just a few years. 

But despite these positive developments, the U.S. has critical decisions to make in the next few years. How will it address the newly accessible reserves of shale gas? How can government encourage the continued growth of cleaner sources of power? What is the best way to fund research into innovative energy sources of the future while safeguarding taxpayer dollars? 

Looming over all of those decisions is the threat of climate change, which is unquestionably the most pressing environmental challenge of our time. 

Let’s start with the proposition that there are practical steps the government can take right now to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. Done right, this transition will strengthen the U.S. economy and make it more competitive with other countries that are looking to win the fight for the globe’s clean-energy future. 

I plan to work with my colleagues on the committee to start finding answers to each of those questions. I fully expect to find common ground with members on both sides of the aisle and write bills that can pass through the Senate. One colleague told me recently, “No one expects to pass bills this year, but I expect Energy and Natural Resources to pass some bills.” 

I agree. I want this committee to get things done. 

The committee’s first order of business will be natural gas: how it’s produced, how it’s used and how much of it the U.S. should use it here or send abroad. Whether you are for more renewables or for traditional fuels, there’s no escaping the fact that the shale gas revolution is dominating today’s energy discussion. 

First, it’s important that companies extract this resource safely. Common-sense rules can safeguard communities that could be affected by gas development, without harming natural-gas producers.

Next, decisions about exporting natural gas could have enormous consequences for how shale gas affects the economy. I want to ensure misguided government policy doesn’t shut down the manufacturing resurgence this country has seen as a result of reliable, low-cost natural-gas supplies. But I don’t oppose all exports. My aim is to find a sweet spot that allows some exports and keeps wells in production, while ensuring U.S. manufacturing and national security are not harmed by allowing unfettered liquefied natural-gas exports. 

Getting natural gas right is the first step, but it’s not enough. The low-carbon economy also needs more renewable energy and more efficient use of the energy the U.S. already has. 

Clean-energy developers have told me they’ve been hurt by inconsistent federal policies, which make it hard to plan and find financing for projects. I hope to work with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to replace the roller coaster of short-term incentives with more stable, technology-neutral policies that reward renewable and domestic energy sources. 

At the same time, the Energy Department should continue to support research into innovative energy technologies, to make sure the U.S. is home to the next game-changing energy breakthrough. 

That’s just a start. There’s also nuclear waste, revenue sharing and a host of natural-resources issues that need action in this Congress. 

To accomplish anything, though, the committee will have to get back to doing business the way it did not too long ago. I say that with great respect for former Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), whose accomplishments rival that of any Energy Committee chairman and who had to cope with events outside his control. 

The numbers tell the story: In the 106th Congress, the committee passed 226 bills, most of them public lands bills with no opposition. In the 112th Congress, Energy and Natural Resources passed just 75 bills.

I’ve spent my career finding bipartisan solutions to tough issues. And I’ve learned that pragmatism and principles don’t have to conflict. My colleagues and I are aiming to get things done over the next two years, because the challenges the U.S. faces on energy are too pressing to pass on to the next Congress.

Wyden is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

View Comments

View the original article here

China Is Getting Into The Patent Game For Alternative-Energy Cars

China is trying to get a leg up on the market for clean transportation by bulking up the rate it’s been filing patents. According to a recent report in Europe’s China Daily, China filed over 2,000 patents for alternative-energy cars in 2012, placing it just behind Japan and the United States, and dead even with Germany and South Korea:

With a worldwide push for sustainable, clean transportation, patents are vital to survival in the global new-energy vehicle industry, China Intellectual Property News reported.

China had filed more than 2,000 patent applications – 8 percent of the world total – for new-energy cars by the end of last year to share the third place with Germany and South Korea, according to the statistics from Thomson Reuters.

Japan ranks the first with nearly 9,000 patents, followed by the United States with 4,000, accounting for a respective 60 percent and 22 percent of the world total.

China has actually been in the patent game for sometime. In 2011, the country’s patent office received more applications — for all forms of invention, not just green technology — than any other nation. At the same time, very few Chinese investors seek to patent their ideas abroad — less than 5 percent between 2005 and 2009. Generally speaking, if an inventor has an idea of genuine merit, they’ll seek to patent it as many places as possible. Concentrating merely on China’s office could be an indication that other incentives are driving the patent, such as the chance to snatch up a government subsidy.

The race between various countries to accrue patents in alternative-energy also raises the possibility of “patent wars,” such as those that have riled the world of software. Companies and interests attempt to round up and hoard patents in order to corner sources of revenue. That is, of course, very profitable for them, but it also tends to dampen innovation in the relevant industry. The spread of patents forces companies and inventors to spend ever more time and money making sure every conceptual aspect of the technology they’re working on is in the legal clear, or is properly licensed. That drives up costs for the companies, for consumers, and slows down the creation of new products and technologies that can raise everyone’s well-being — like cars and other forms of transport powered by sustainable energy. It arguably even drives up inequality.

The problem is especially acute in the software world, where it’s especially difficult to organize who has the rights to what into a public and easily-searchable database. But in principle the inefficiencies and transaction costs that come with over-zealous competition for patents can afflict any industry, including green tech and green transportation.

In February of 2011, for example, Butamax Advanced Biofuels, a joint venture between BP and DuPont, sued another advanced biofuels company, Gevo, for infringing their patent on a process to produce microbial-based biofuel.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Obamacare Tax Hikes May Just Be Getting Started

New taxes are coming Jan. 1 to help finance President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Most people may not notice.

But they will pay attention if Congress decides to start taxing employer-sponsored health insurance, one option in play if lawmakers can ever agree on a budget deal to reduce federal deficits.

The tax hikes already on the books, taking effect in 2013, fall mainly on people who make lots of money and on the health care industry. But about half of Americans benefit from the tax-free status of employer health insurance.

Workers pay no income or payroll taxes on what their employer contributes for health insurance, and in most cases on their own share of premiums as well.

It's the single biggest tax break the government allows, outstripping the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for charitable giving and other better-known benefits.

If the value of job-based health insurance were taxed like regular income, it would raise nearly $150 billion in 2013, according to congressional estimates. By comparison, wiping away the mortgage interest deduction would bring in only about $90 billion.

"If you are looking to raise revenue to pay for tax reform, that is the biggest pot of money of all," said Martin Sullivan, chief economist with Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan publisher of tax information.

It's hard to see how lawmakers can avoid touching health insurance if they want to eliminate loopholes and curtail deductions so as to raise revenue and lower tax rates.

Congress probably wouldn't do away with the health care tax break, but limit it in some form. Such limits could be keyed to the cost of a particular health insurance plan, the income level of taxpayers or a combination.

Many economists think some kind of limit would be a good thing because it would force consumers to watch costs, and that could help keep health care spending in check.

Obama's health law took a tentative step toward limits by imposing a tax on high-value health insurance plans. But that doesn't start until 2018.

Next spring will be three years since Congress passed the health care overhaul but, because of a long phase-in, many of the taxes to finance the plan are only now coming into effect.

Medicare spending cuts that help pay for covering the uninsured have started to take effect, but they also are staggered.

The law's main benefit, coverage for 30 million uninsured people, will take a little longer. It doesn't start until Jan. 1, 2014.

The biggest tax hike from the health care law has a bit of mystery to it. The legislation calls it a "Medicare contribution," but none of the revenue will go to the Medicare trust fund.

Instead, it's funneled into the government's general fund, which does pay the lion's share of Medicare outpatient and prescription costs, but also covers most other things the government does.

The new tax is a 3.8 percent levy on investment income that applies to individuals making more than $200,000 or married couples above $250,000. Projected to raise $123 billion from 2013-2019, it comes on top of other taxes on investment income.

While it does apply to profits from home sales, the vast majority of sellers will not have to worry since another law allows individuals to shield up to $250,000 in gains on their home from taxation. (Married couples can exclude up to $500,000 in home sale gains.)

Investors have already been taking steps to avoid the tax, selling assets this year before it takes effect.

The impact of the investment tax will be compounded if Obama and Republicans can't stave off the automatic tax increases coming next year if there's no budget agreement.

High earners will face another new tax under the health care law Jan. 1. It's an additional Medicare payroll tax of 0.9 percent on wage income above $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for couples. This one does go to the Medicare trust fund.

Donald Marron, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, says the health care law's tax increases are medium-sized by historical standards. The center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, provides in-depth analyses on tax issues.

They also foreshadow the current debate about raising taxes on people with high incomes.

"These were an example of the president winning, and raising taxes on upper-income people," said Marron. "They are going to happen."

Other health care law tax increases taking effect Jan. 1:

A 2.3 percent sales tax on medical devices used by hospitals and doctors. Industry is trying to delay or repeal the tax, saying it will lead to a loss of jobs. Several economists say manufacturers should be able to pass on most of the cost.
A limit on the amount employees can contribute to tax-free flexible spending accounts for medical expenses. It's set at $2,500 for 2013, and indexed thereafter for inflation.

View the original article here

Next Challenge for the Health Law: Getting the Public to Buy In

But this focus group, along with nine others held around the country in November, was an important tool for advocates coming up with a campaign to educate Americans about the new health care law. The participants were among millions of uninsured people who stand to benefit from the law. With incomes below 400 percent of the poverty level, or $92,200 for a family of four this year, the focus group members will qualify for federal subsidies to help cover the cost of private insurance starting in 2014.

The sessions confirmed a daunting reality: Many of those the law is supposed to help have no idea what it could do for them. In the Miami focus group, a few participants knew only that they could face a fine if they did not buy coverage.

“It’s another forced bill,” said Christopher Pena, 24, who works in customer service.

There lies the challenge for Enroll America, a nonprofit group formed last year to get the word out to the uninsured and encourage them get coverage, providing help along the way. With the election over and the law almost certain to survive, the group is honing its fund-raising and testing strategies for persuading people to sign up for health insurance — a process that will begin in less than a year.

Starting next October, people will be able to shop for coverage, or find out if they are eligible for Medicaid, through online markets known as insurance exchanges.

“Our job is to convey to them that there is help coming that they didn’t know about,” said Rachel Klein, Enroll America’s executive director.

The group has raised only about $6 million so far — but financial backers include some major players in the medical industry: insurers like Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield, associations representing both brand name and generic drug manufacturers, hospitals and the Catholic Health Association. Insurance companies generally opposed the law before its passage in 2010 but now have a stake in its success.

Over the next two years, the group hopes to raise as much as $100 million for advertising, social media and other outreach efforts. “There are so many different groups that can play some role in this: hospitals, community health centers, pharmacies, tax preparers,” said Ron Pollack, chairman of Enroll America’s board. “Our job has got to be to try to galvanize each of those sectors, so there is a wide variety of ways people potentially can hear about this.”

Although the campaign will be national, the group will devote more resources to some states than to others. About half of the nation’s uninsured population lives in six states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York and Texas. Of those, states whose leaders remain opposed to the health care law, like Texas, will probably get the most attention, Mr. Pollack said.

At the same time, Enroll America will coordinate with states, many of which are planning their own outreach and enrollment efforts, and with the Obama administration.

The Department of Health and Human Services has already awarded a $3.1 million contract to Weber Shandwick, a public relations firm, to plan a national education campaign for next year. It plans to seek proposals soon for a larger contract with a public relations firm that would help with the actual campaign, officials there said. Although the campaign has yet to take shape, an administration official confirmed that President Obama will play a role as it moves forward.

Republicans in Congress have already criticized the administration for spending taxpayer money to promote the law. Last month, Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, who leads the Ways and Means Committee, subpoenaed Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, seeking information on “public relations campaigns, advertisements, polling, message testing, and similar services.”

In addition to holding focus groups in Miami, Philadelphia, San Antonio and Columbus, Ohio, Enroll America commissioned a nationwide survey to help hone its message. The survey, conducted in September and October by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic polling group, found that the vast majority of uninsured people are unaware of the new coverage options provided by the law.

They are also skeptical. Many who participated in the focus groups or survey reported bad experiences trying to get health insurance, and doubted that the law would provide coverage that was both affordable and comprehensive.

“It’s two major mountains that need to be climbed,” Mr. Pollack said. “People are unaware of the benefits that could be provided to them, and they have to overcome skepticism, based on their past experiences with trying to obtain insurance.”

View the original article here