Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Global Warming Rhetoric: Always Dark Clouds—Never Any Silver Linings
Invaluable New York Times science journalist John Tierney ponders how bad weather figures in the rhetoric about man-made global warming. To wit:
You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.
Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather....
But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).
As Tierney notes, man-made global warming occurs with almost imperceptible slowness which means that it's hard to get the public and politicians concerned about it. This is where "availability entrepreneuers" come to the rhetorical rescue.
Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.
Tierney notes that 2007 was the least warm year since 2001; while Arctic sea ice declined to the lowest extent ever recorded, Antarctic sea ice reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites; the Atlantic hurricane season was much calmer than predicted earlier and so forth. Availability entrepreneurs dramatize their concerns by always pointing to the dark clouds and ignoring any silver linings. As Tierney notes:
Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,” a term coined by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.
The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome,” minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.
“Many people concerned about climate change,” Dr. Sunstein says, “want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people’s minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there’s a danger that any ‘consensus’ on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade.”
Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there’s not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting — or why the globe’s other pole isn’t melting, too.
Whole Tierney article here.
Tierney also provocatively asks at TierneyLab, "Are There Any Good Weather Omens?" In other words what kind of weather events would count as being "inconsistent" with the man-made global warming hypothesis? I think that TierneyLab commenter Martin Richard lists some pretty good ones:
Glaciers advancing. Greenland not losing ice. A stretch of years without record numbers of high temperature records broken. Arctic sea ice returns. Tundra re-freeezes. In the Willamette Valley, pinot noir becomes as problematic as once it was.
Link to TierneyLab here.
|1.2.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Old mother earth has become so screwed up because of man-made global warming, even the experts can no longer accurately predict future weather events.
|1.2.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Oh oh I got one!
It's going down below 30 tonight here in Fort Lauderdale. Yesterday
I was at the beach and it was 83ish...
|1.2.08 @ 1:24PM|#
I remember last January, when highs were in the 60s and 70s here
in upstate NY, and the cherry blossoms were blooming in DC, and
every talking head on TV as well as Al Gore at his congressional
hearing was talking about how this was evidence for global
warming.
I don't know how things went in DC thereafter, but I know we froze
our asses off here in February and March...and yet no one used that
as evidence of global warming being nonsense, did they?
Paul|1.2.08 @ 1:27PM|#
All I can say is, this global warming thing is great, our ski areas here have had record snow as of the last couple of years.
|1.2.08 @ 1:30PM|#
crimethink, extremes becoming more extreme and more sudden swings in weather are part of the global warming models, aren't they?
|1.2.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Yeah, silver linings. For example, while China might see much of
its farmland turn to desert, areas in Siberia which are currently
useless for farming might become useful.
Whadddya think that's going to look like?
Bingo|1.2.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Global warming alarmists remind me very much of born-again evangelicals. They find causes for imminent doom everywhere and we all need to convert immediately or our souls are lost.
|1.2.08 @ 1:35PM|#
People have too short a lifetime to truly be able to understand
any long term implications of global warming.
We also have a tendency to view action as better than
understanding...so regardless whether it does us any good, we feel
better about ouselves for planting a tree than sitting at home
doing extensive research on the "right" solution.
|1.2.08 @ 1:36PM|#
When I first started paying attention to the national and world
news ('68 or so) I was amazed at all of the weather disasters that
seemed to plague this planet of ours. After 40 years of
observation, I can confidently predict that 2008 will have numerous
weather disasters somewhere on this ball of mud we call Earth.
After watching the disaster mongers report the news for those same
40 years, I can confidently predict that the news reporting
establishment will attempt to blame all natural disasters on global
warming.
Henceforth, I'm going to start blaming all weather (and other)
events on anthropogenic climate change.
Blizzard in January? - Global Warming
Rainy April? - Global Warming
Hot August? - Global Warming
Dropping temperatures in October? - Global Warming
Monsoon deaths in South Asia? - Global Warming
Hurricane in the Caribbean? - Global Warming
Tornados in Kansas? - Global Warming
Volcano in Indonesia? - Global Warming
Earthquake in Turkey? - Global Warming
Can I be a "Science Correspondent" now?
R C Dean|1.2.08 @ 1:37PM|#
The key to the "availability cascade" is that it takes otherwise
normal events and attributes them to a single overarching cause.
Its really just conspiracy theory thinking, and reminds me of how
the AGW true believers attribute all severe weather, hot or cold,
wet or dry, to global warming, just like conspiracy theorists
making all evidence, or lack of evidence, consistent with their pet
theory.
It just illustrates that, for most people, belief in AGW is
generally based on a prior commitment to some flavor or other of
environmental correctness, and not on the data. Any kind of strong
belief in catastrophic AGW requires one to disregard too much -
prior warming/cooling trends, concurrent warming trends on other
planets, the plateauing of global temperatures over the last
several years, etc.
Bingo|1.2.08 @ 1:37PM|#
joe: seriously, who cares. I'll either be dead or mounting machine guns on a souped-up post-apocalyptic hotrod.
|1.2.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Yeah, silver linings. For example, while China might see
much of its farmland turn to desert, areas in Siberia which are
currently useless for farming might become useful.
Whadddya think that's going to look like?
what about increased poverty because goods cost more to be
"green"?
|1.2.08 @ 1:40PM|#
"...otherwise normal events..."
Assuming that each instance of unusual weather cannot be caused by
global warming is as irrational as assuming that it must have been
caused by global warming.
|1.2.08 @ 1:41PM|#
LIT,
What about increased poverty because of stronger and more frequent
storm events?
Or because of expanding deserts?
Or just because the really good farmland is no longer where the
people who depend on it have been living for generations?
|1.2.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Good for availability entrepreneurs. The whole "climate alarmism" rap is largely bullshit -- scientists are temperamentally disposed to underplay the risks of climate change. We need more of this.
|1.2.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Come one guys, everyone knows that climate change is caused by fluctuations in the polarity of the BUJM.
|1.2.08 @ 1:46PM|#
What I'm going to love is all the people going apeshit in the
thread below over ID being taught in schools, showing up here to
defend the "any instance of weird weather proves global warming"
hypothesis.
The problem, in both cases, is one of falsifiability. As Bailey
notes above, if there are no possible occurences that can disprove
a theory, then it is not science.
Bingo|1.2.08 @ 1:47PM|#
joe: hurricanes, snow, hot, cold, sun, storms, clouds, rain,
droughts, and fog are all normal weather patterns and have been
recorded throughout history.
Although I suppose buying into snake oil cures for non-existent
problems is pretty normal human behavior too.
|1.2.08 @ 1:47PM|#
But there's bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we
will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit
their ship, they didn't ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern.
They quickly identified the cause (Jonah's sinfulness) and agreed
to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah
overboard).
OK. Who do we throw overboard this time?
|1.2.08 @ 1:47PM|#
The vagueness of the whole thing bothers me. In the absence of
anyone telling me what I'm actually accomplishing by devoting x
amount of resources to a problem (do I actually get fewer
hurricanes and fewer deserts, for example?), all catastrophes are
equal.
Why spend on global warming instead of asteroid collision? I'm
afraid the answer is "We caused it," instead of "We can do
something measurable about it."
R C Dean|1.2.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Assuming that each instance of unusual weather cannot be
caused by global warming is as irrational as assuming that it must
have been caused by global warming.
This rather begs the question of what constitutes "unusual
weather." A single hurricane is not unusual weather, even if it is
a Cat 4 or Cat 5.
It also ignores that much of what is now blamed on or shown as
evidence of global warming isn't weather at all - fires aren't
weather, and neither are starving animals.
VM|1.2.08 @ 1:48PM|#
"Or just because the really good farmland is no longer where the
people who depend on it have been living for generations?"
then THE LAW OF DAN T kicks in:
don't like the weather? move.
[ducks]
Jennifer|1.2.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Tierney notes that 2007 was the least warm year since
2001
Oh, come on. Last year at my house June 20 was cooler than June 1,
which apparently disproves the old "summer weather in New England
starts around May and gets steadily warmer until about mid-August"
theory.
|1.2.08 @ 1:49PM|#
joe,
what about them..you point out the downsides of underreacting to
global warming and I'm pointing out the dangers of overreacting to
global warming. Its entirely possible that each is bad enough in
its own way, but we have no idea. Human beings aren't capable yet
of understanding the long term effects of global warming.
|1.2.08 @ 1:55PM|#
I'd really like to talk more about the standard reaction of humans to "do something" about a problem, even if the action performed does nothing to help the problem (or sometimes hurts). Forcing 300 Million people (more in the case of the UN) to all behave toward a problem in the same way will most certainly have an impact on something, but whatever the unintended consequence is that is associated with the action will be terrifically magnified.
|1.2.08 @ 1:56PM|#
What bothers me about the global warming issue is that everyone
is that the discussion is always skewed towards how to stop global
warming, rather than how to mitigate the consequences
thereof.
I mean, has anyone looked into the possibility of mitigating sea
level rise by towing Greenland icebergs each year to the coast of
Morocco, then chopping them up into manageable pieces and
helicoptering them over the Atlas Mountains and dropping them into
the Sahara, where they would melt and form much needed water
reservoirs?
I know that might be a stupid and unfeasible idea, but it's no more
so than the idea that we can cut fossil fuel emissions by 90%,
going back to the days of horse-drawn carriages, candles, and
outhouses (and force China, India, and the rest of the world to
stay in those days), which would-be global warming stoppers claim
is necessary.
|1.2.08 @ 1:56PM|#
They have a hard time predicting what the weather will be like next week. I pay little attention when I hear what the weather will be like next month, year, and beyond.
Jennifer|1.2.08 @ 1:58PM|#
I know that might be a stupid and unfeasible idea, but it's
no more so than the idea that we can cut fossil fuel emissions by
90%, going back to the days of horse-drawn carriages, candles, and
outhouses (and force China, India, and the rest of the world to
stay in those days), which would-be global warming stoppers claim
is necessary.
I have no idea what to "do about" global warming, but I'm pretty
sure that putting my fingers in my ears and yelling "nyaah nyaah
I'm not listening fuck you stupid greenies" isn't it.
|1.2.08 @ 1:59PM|#
And my only demand if my iceberg hauling idea is put into place is that the resulting body of water be named "Lake Crimethink" or whatever the Berber equivalent is.
|1.2.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Jennifer,
Do you think we can cut global fossil fuel emissions by 90%? ie, do
you think that if the US and Europe do this, that China, India, and
the rest of the countries of the world will follow suit despite the
incredibly low price of oil that would result?
robc|1.2.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Um, shouldnt it be pointed out that the sailors in Jonah were correct? Also, they tried to avoid throwing him overboard, even after he asked them to.
|1.2.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Every country needs to invest into desalinazation plants. Then we can help prevent the rise in the oceans by drinking and bottling the water. lol.
Episiarch|1.2.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Even if global warming is real, and even if it is caused by
human activity, the drastic things we would have to do to stop it
the way many "experts" want is not feasible. What we should do is
adapt and use the free market to develop alternative energy sources
and ways to save energy, and also to develop ways to deal with
changing temperatures (if it happens, which it probably will even
if not caused by humans).
What I always notice with this stuff is how extremely
conservative most environmentalists are. Nothing can
change! No species can go extinct (good luck)! The temperature must
remain exactly the same as when I was growing up! We must have
exactly the amount of forest that we had 30 years ago! And so
on.
|1.2.08 @ 2:03PM|#
You guys are nothing but Deniers of the Coming Apocolypse. It'll
be here real soon now. I don't know what it will look
like, but I'll know when it's here.
You must have the Ceasless Faith of Divine Speculation™, lest ye be
branded a heretic.
|1.2.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Tricky,
That wouldn't work because the water would return to the oceans
after it's urinated out.
Creating a massive reservoir of water in an area that's not
currently being used that much (like the Sahara) would in fact
prevent sea level rise.
Franklin Harris|1.2.08 @ 2:08PM|#
I've come to the conclusion that, from a sociological standpoint, global warming is not and cannot be science because nothing, even in theory, can falsify it.
|1.2.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Here's another idea: build a massive, extremely tall circular wall at the 85th parallel, then start dumping icebergs or sea water into it. All that stuff will freeze in place, and it will stay frozen, because the temperature there is colder than at lower latitudes, where the sea ice would melt.
|1.2.08 @ 2:10PM|#
What about increased poverty because of stronger and more
frequent storm events?
Or because of expanding deserts?
Or just because the really good farmland is no longer where the
people who depend on it have been living for
generations?
joe--Has any of this actually happened or was this pulled directly
from someone's ass?
|1.2.08 @ 2:11PM|#
JW
The Rapture DID OCCUR. On October 7, 2003.
If you're still here, you didn't make the cut.
Sorry about that.
Enjoy the tribulations.
|1.2.08 @ 2:12PM|#
There are several deserts that are expanding, but that's not a new thing. A few thousand years ago, there were elephants and hippopotamuses in North Africa.
Timothy|1.2.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Look, we just get all the robots to vent their exhaust in the same direction at the same time, thusly moving the Earth farther from the sun and eliminating the whole problem and saving all of robot kind!
|1.2.08 @ 2:20PM|#
And my only demand if my iceberg hauling idea is put into
place is that the resulting body of water be named "Lake
Crimethink" or whatever the Berber equivalent is.
We're already planning the Pro Liberate Mountain Range running down
central Florida, want to attach a rider?
|1.2.08 @ 2:21PM|#
crimethink | January 2, 2008, 2:09pm | #
Here's another idea: build a massive, extremely tall circular wall
at the 85th parallel, then start dumping icebergs or sea water into
it. All that stuff will freeze in place, and it will stay frozen,
because the temperature there is colder than at lower latitudes,
where the sea ice would melt
The white supremacy group, The Polar Bears, applaud your thinking,
as this would stop the migration of many brown animals into their
pristine white lands.
|1.2.08 @ 2:23PM|#
The Rapture DID OCCUR. On October 7, 2003.
If you're still here, you didn't make the cut.
Rats. Picked last again. :::sigh:::
Lucy and her football. Now, there's an allegory for AGW
doomsdayers. The doctor is In. 5 cents will buy
you a global warming solution.
Timothy|1.2.08 @ 2:24PM|#
What molarity, JW? For five cents I want to know how concentrated that solution is.
|1.2.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Let me get this straight: a bunch of idiots conflate weather and climate, so that means we're supposed to ignore the climatologists?
|1.2.08 @ 2:25PM|#
The Polar Bears should be aware that after my wall is constructed, they're going to be trapped inside with falling icebergs and torrents of sea water coming down on them. But I'm NOT returning their donation of 500 whitefish.
|1.2.08 @ 2:28PM|#
I predict "extreme" will be redefined as any number more or less
than the mean. We will have "increased extreme weather" each year
there are a few more storms. Other years will have less storms,
averaging it out over time, but these years will also be
interpreted as "extreme" because they'll have less storms than the
mean.
Meanwhile, pun intended, the average of extreme weather will be the
same as it was 100 years ago and 200 years ago, because there has
been no increase in extreme weather. But that's "old
math".
|1.2.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Curious minds want to know: how much will Americans need to cut
back on CO2?
The Bali conference proposed a 40% reduction in man-made CO2 going
into the atmosphere.
How many pounds/yr. are put there by Americans on per capita basis?
The other developed nations? What % of the world's output is this?
Let's stipulate that the UN will be able to force India, China,
Brazil, etc. to stop their CO2 production when it reaches 60% on
per capita basis of the present developed world's output.
So, if China, et al, are going to be permitted to increase from
current levels, what is the real decrease that will be demanded of
the developed world to meet Bali standards?
R C Dean|1.2.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Let me get this straight: a bunch of idiots conflate weather
and climate, so that means we're supposed to ignore the
climatologists?
Nah, you're supposed to ignore the idiots. See my post above about
conspiracy theory thinking.
I understand the climatologists are having a rousing debate about
all this. Unless, of course, you have decided that the test for
whether a climatologist is legitimate or not is whether they
believe in catastrophic AGW.
|1.2.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Curious minds want to know: how much will Americans need to
cut back on CO2?
I have a diffrerent question: how do we get to the how much.
IOW, what has to change, in concrete terms, as far as the average
person goes? What will they have to give up? What will this change
cost them in dollars?
thoreau|1.2.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Why won't anybody report the good news from the new
swamps?
And Jennifer (proving that our notions about seasons are wrong) and
VM (invoking Dan T.) are tied for thread victory.
Algae-guy|1.2.08 @ 2:44PM|#
There was a proposal floated several years ago to experiment with feeindg sea algae with iron particles spread form ships. The iron would cause the algae to grow like mad, sucking up huge amounts of CO2. What ever happened to at least trying that?
|1.2.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Whether or not AGW turns out to be true, what bothers me to no
end is the endless parroting of "we're destroying the earth!"
(CNN's "Planet in Peril")
BULLSHIT.
We may or may not be killing ourselves, but the Earth will
survive.
Hence the old bumbersticker, Save the Earth: Kill Yourself.
|1.2.08 @ 2:49PM|#
I thought algae also removed oxygen from the water (hence algae bloom being such a problem for fish in lakes into which fertilizer flows).
|1.2.08 @ 3:04PM|#
thoreau | January 2, 2008, 2:43pm | #
Why won't anybody report the good news from the new swamps"
That makes me wonder, will the sea rise restore the coastal
wetlands so the big hurricanes will do less damage to man made
concerns?
|1.2.08 @ 3:43PM|#
"""That wouldn't work because the water would return to the
oceans after it's urinated out."""
The Black Sea
The Red Sea
The Yellow Sea???
If you bill the 85th parallel wall as an anti-immigration tool, it
will attract republican support.
"""We may or may not be killing ourselves, but the Earth will
survive."""
I think George Carlin said the same.
TallDave|1.2.08 @ 3:52PM|#
words what kind of weather events would count as being
"inconsistent" with the man-made global warming hypothesis? I think
that TierneyLab commenter Martin Richard lists some pretty good
ones...Glaciers advancing. Greenland not losing ice. A stretch of
years without record numbers of high temperature records broken.
Arctic sea ice returns. Tundra re-freeezes. In the Willamette
Valley, pinot noir becomes as problematic as once it
was.
No, no, those would just be examples of "the increasing climactic
unpredictability caused by global warming."
TallDave|1.2.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Yeah, silver linings. For example, while China might see
much of its farmland turn to desert, areas in Siberia which are
currently useless for farming might become useful. Whadddya think
that's going to look like?
I'm supposed to care that China will import food from
Siberia?
Anyways, deserts can be reclaimed.
http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/thal.htm
|1.2.08 @ 3:57PM|#
They have a hard time predicting what the weather will be
like next week. I pay little attention when I hear what the weather
will be like next month, year, and beyond.
Although, I retain a healthy skepticism about AGW (and if it's
true, whether we can do anything about it anyway), arguments like
the one above are fallacious and should be avoided.
Any complex system will have "noisy" unpredictable behavior on
short time-scales (a day, a week, etc.), but that does not imply
that longer-term trends are somehow even less predictable. It's the
averaged behavior that climatologists study (not the day-to-day
weather).
An analogy would be the stock market. On any given day, even the
most intelligent and educated economists can't predict it's
day-to-day behavior, but they can predict trends with reasonable
accuracy for a given set of inputs (e.g. market "freeness", tax
burden, political environment, etc.).
Zack|1.2.08 @ 3:59PM|#
If only those global warming fanatics who are addicted to
sensationalism would "do" as much as they talk.
If some people are so concerned about global warming and it's
effects on the planet, why do they continue to support the
industries that use more energy and produce the largest amounts of
greenhouse gases? The main problem is that humans have become
eaters of flesh and consumers of animal products and
byproducts.
Hybrid cars? Light bulbs? What a bunch of crap from an ignorant
crowd and hypocrite leaders, such as as Al Gore.
Do you believe that global warming is a serious threat and is
caused by human activity? Want to "save the planet"? Go vegan.
Otherwise, keep talking, and watch the planet die.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414012755.htm
Episiarch|1.2.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Do you believe that global warming is a serious threat and
is caused by human activity? Want to "save the planet"? Go vegan.
Otherwise, keep talking, and watch the planet die.
You could just off yourself. That would be even more effective.
the innominate one|1.2.08 @ 4:10PM|#
plutosdad | January 2, 2008, 2:28pm | #
I predict "extreme" will be redefined as any number more or less
than the mean. We will have "increased extreme weather" each year
there are a few more storms. Other years will have less storms,
averaging it out over time, but these years will also be
interpreted as "extreme" because they'll have less storms than the
mean.
Meanwhile, pun intended, the average of extreme weather will be the
same as it was 100 years ago and 200 years ago, because there has
been no increase in extreme weather. But that's "old
math".
I predict scientists will continue to measure increases in the
extremes by measuring the variance, and determine whether the
variance in temperatures, rainfall, etc. is changing by using some
sort of statistical test, perhaps the F-test, or Levene's test of
homogeneity of variance.
OTOH, why do I bother?
|1.2.08 @ 4:24PM|#
"Do you believe that global warming is a serious threat and is
caused by human activity? Want to "save the planet"? Go vegan.
Otherwise, keep talking, and watch the planet die"
>throws a big fat steak on the grill and pulls up a chair.
|1.2.08 @ 4:26PM|#
I predict that this discussion will continue in the manner that it has existed for the last 20 years: Real science will be done, results which are not earth-shattering will be concluded, and any truth and/or wisdom in those results will be immediately stripped of context by the culture warriors on either side, who will get approximately 99% of the attention.
Paul|1.2.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Yeah, silver linings. For example, while China might see
much of its farmland turn to desert, areas in Siberia which are
currently useless for farming might become useful.
Whadddya think that's going to look like?
A lot of agricultural trade between China and Russia?
|1.2.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Yes, that's usually what happens when a large country loses a
good deal of its food supply and agricultural employment base: lots
of peaceful cross-border trade.
Good to see how seriously people are in thinking about this issue.
About what I've come to expect.
Sometimes, I can learn useful things by arguing with libertarians,
but their "ideas" about global warming are a dry well.
Don't worry, folks, you will no longer have to worry about me
interrupting your denialist meetings. I'm giving up global warming
threads for the new year.
There's just nothing of value here.
Paul|1.2.08 @ 4:49PM|#
about global warming are a dry well.
Ha! That's pretty good...
Oh, you were frowning when you said that.
R C Dean|1.2.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Glaciers advancing. Greenland not losing ice. A stretch of
years without record numbers of high temperature records broken.
Arctic sea ice returns. Tundra re-freeezes. In the Willamette
Valley, pinot noir becomes as problematic as once it
was.
So, a return to the Little Ice Age is good, but a return to the
Medieval Climate Optimum is bad? Do I have that about right?
|1.2.08 @ 4:59PM|#
"""An analogy would be the stock market. On any given day, even
the most intelligent and educated economists can't predict it's
day-to-day behavior, but they can predict trends with reasonable
accuracy for a given set of inputs (e.g. market "freeness", tax
burden, political environment, etc.).""""
Really? Predictablity of the stock market? I don't think so, not
even long term. They sure didn't predict the '87 crash, the tech
bubble burst, nor the current housing fiasco. In each of those
examples some people said it was coming, but they couldn't tell you
when. I can assure you, our sun will die and life in this solar
system will die too. How's that for a prediction? Pretty lame
because I can't tell you when.
Someone might have predicted success for Butto in Pakistan. Tax
Burdens, political enviroments, and such can change requiring the
prediction to be "updated" much like a weekly forcast gets updated
as the weather conditions change. The same applies to long term
market predictions.
"""Any complex system will have "noisy" unpredictable behavior on
short time-scales (a day, a week, etc.), but that does not imply
that longer-term trends are somehow even less
predictable.""""
When speaking of the future, very little is certain, stocks or
weather. When you have a set of data that changes over time, the
longer the time period, the more of a chance it will. That
increases the chance your prediction will be incorrect. The "noise"
for unpredictable behavior is greater in a long term
prediction.
When it comes to weather, it's easier to predict the short term
than the long term simply becuse there is less time for the current
varibles to change. Less "noise" affect.
|1.2.08 @ 5:01PM|#
See what you people have done? You made joe leave. I hope you're proud of yourselves.
|1.2.08 @ 5:04PM|#
TrickyVic,
You are right in saying that it's much harder to predict what the
temperature in New York City will be on January 3, 2108, than
predicting the temperature there tomorrow.
But that doesn't say anything about predictions of what the mean
global temperature will be during the span 2100-2109. You're
comparing apples and oranges.
Neu Mejican (authentico)|1.2.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Climate is not weather.
Weather is not climate.
Solutions are not problems.
They will come from changes in industrial practice and
reconfiguring of regulations.
http://www.rmi.org/
http://www.motorwavegroup.com/new/motorwind/
Neu Mejican|1.2.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Someone recently told me that libertarians have an inherent
understanding of emergent features of dynamic adaptive
systems.
c.f., comments above to confirm or refute that claim.
Jennifer|1.2.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Do you think we can cut global fossil fuel emissions by
90%?
I'm not saying we should. I'm saying that people should stop
grasping at embarrassingly bad anti-warming straws like "Well, this
past year was the least warm out of the last six."
|1.2.08 @ 5:49PM|#
You are right in saying that it's much harder to predict
what the temperature in New York City will be on January 3, 2108,
than predicting the temperature there tomorrow.
But that doesn't say anything about predictions of what the mean
global temperature will be during the span 2100-2109. You're
comparing apples and oranges.
Thank you, crimethink, nicely put!
|1.2.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Yeah, silver linings. For example, while China might see
much of its farmland turn to desert, areas in Siberia which are
currently useless for farming might become useful.
Whadddya think that's going to look like?
You mean over a hundred year period?
Well if the changes over the last hundred years in land use for
agriculture is any indication I would describe it as orderly and
minor.
|1.2.08 @ 6:02PM|#
China's farmlands will turn into desserts? Will I be able to pronounce it? Can I just order by number?
|1.2.08 @ 6:16PM|#
Assuming that each instance of unusual weather cannot be
caused by global warming is as irrational as assuming that it must
have been caused by global warming.
And there it is folks...the state of the art in climate
science.
Paul|1.2.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Someone recently told me that libertarians have an inherent
understanding of emergent features of dynamic adaptive
systems.
We do, which is why we're opposed to large, lumbering top-down
government solutions to Global Warming(tm).
Neu Mejican|1.2.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Paul,
Please elaborate.
Demonstrate that understanding, that depth of insight, that nuance
regarding the relationship between top-down and bottom-up solutions
in complex adaptive systems...and when, how, and why they
emerge.
|1.2.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Example of a top-down solution: U.S.
Constitution.
Well, duh. It was intended for the top; how it operates, what the
powers of one branch are in relation to another, etc.
Now, if you meant the Bill of Rights, it could be easily argued
that since most of the original amendments are prohibitions against
the top jackbooting the bottom, negative rights, it is a bottom-up
solution.
huh|1.2.08 @ 8:27PM|#
I would venture that no one inherently understands much of
anything that they lack a direct experience of, i.e., hunger, heat,
etc.
I do have an inherent suspicion of claims to inherent
understanding.
Neu Mejican|1.2.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Now, if you meant the Bill of Rights, it could be easily
argued that since most of the original amendments are prohibitions
against the top jackbooting the bottom, negative rights, it is a
bottom-up solution.
And by thus arguing you would demonstrate that you do not
understand the terms "top-down" or "bottom-up."
|1.2.08 @ 10:26PM|#
"We do, which is why we're opposed to large, lumbering top-down
government solutions to Global Warming(tm)."
you don't seem to be much interested in bottom up solutions
either.
Paul|1.2.08 @ 11:29PM|#
Example of a top-down solution: U.S.
Constitution.
Boy, NM, you just took the award for the biggest straw man of the
year.
The Constitution having been created at the top "works", therefore
all bureaucratic efforts to curb Global Warming must therefore
"work".
Sam-hec:
What? Have we met? Oh, wait, now tell me how many kids I
have.
A quick example of a bottom-up solution: Gas prices rise, and
without any government interference, car companies start putting
out more fuel efficient cars. Large established car companies
(ford-- government bailout probably assured if they continue to
fail) start failing because they only produce large, gas guzzling
cars. Some time later, the government mandates more fuel efficient
cars.
How's this for top-down thinking:
At the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. government is lobbying for "geoengineering" activities such as deliberately polluting the stratosphere to deflect sunlight and lower temperatures. At least nine national governments and the European Union (EU) have supported experiments to spread iron filings on the ocean surface to nurture plankton and sequester carbon dioxide. At least a dozen additional countries are involved in the modification of stratospheric weather. Commercial carbon traders are engaging in ocean fertilization as well. This experimentation by governments and corporations is taking place in the absence of public discussion.
I can play this game, too NM and Sam-Hec:
Why do you guys support these schemes?
I seem to remember suggestions that we cover the north pole in soot
during the global cooling scare of the seventies.
Phew, aren't we glad the top didn't act quickly on that.
Mike Laursen|1.3.08 @ 12:20AM|#
Jargon-loving academics, this is the word, "hysteria". I don't believe you have met.
|1.3.08 @ 12:49AM|#
"Why do you guys support these schemes?"
I don't. Nothing I have said supports the notion that I do.
|1.3.08 @ 12:53AM|#
"This experimentation by governments and corporations is
taking place in the absence of public discussion."
heh a pretty bizarre claim
|1.3.08 @ 1:01AM|#
p.s.
when was the last time Ron Bailey actually posted a review of
actual science? ...as opposed to regurgitating op/ed wonks.
|1.3.08 @ 3:29AM|#
Here is some actual science that supports the theses that (a)
climate scientists make mistakes and (b) results that decrease the
apparent threat of global warming get no attention whatsoever from
the media.
From the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres,
"Quantifying
the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and
inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data"..
Local land surface modification and variations in data quality affect temperature trends in surface-measured data. Such effects are considered extraneous for the purpose of measuring climate change, and providers of climate data must develop adjustments to filter them out. If done correctly, temperature trends in climate data should be uncorrelated with socioeconomic variables that determine these extraneous factors. This hypothesis can be tested, which is the main aim of this paper. Using a new database for all available land-based grid cells around the world we test the null hypothesis that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in a widely used gridded climate data set is independent of socioeconomic determinants of surface processes and data inhomogeneities. The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P = 7.1 × 10−14), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.
|1.3.08 @ 10:55AM|#
a) Scientists make mistakes, it's how they learn things. It's
the wannabes who need to learn from their mistakes, ie the paper
you just linked to is just a rehash of a problematic 2004
paper.
b) Fox News.
re: Michaels and McKitrik paper
RealClimate details problems with this here:
http://tinyurl.com/ytyr3w
"- They do not properly account for dependencies.
- They over-fit the regression.
- Their results look unreasonable.
- They "cherry pick" the MSU data that gives the lowest trend"
|1.3.08 @ 11:37AM|#
And by thus arguing you would demonstrate that you do not
understand the terms "top-down" or "bottom-up."
That depends on whether you are looking at the implmentation or the
execution.
Human rights/civil liberties flow upwards from me to the state, not
the other way around. The state then enacts protections of these
said rights. The BoR is merely an expression of many of these
rights. (And you are proving Madison correct in his fear that the
BoR would be construed as a limitation, not an expression, of
rights.)
Others, such as the due process and right to a speedy trial, are
top down, since these are rights generated by state actions.
IOW, The Constitution is a bad example.
|1.3.08 @ 12:14PM|#
a) Scientists make mistakes, it's how they learn things.
It's the wannabes who need to learn from their mistakes, ie the
paper you just linked to is just a rehash of a problematic 2004
paper.
b) Fox News.
a) As this retread appears to be so well known, then peer review
would either fix the problems or reject it, no?
b) Fox News. Wow. I notice you don't provide a link. Must be
impressive.
Meanwhile, screeching from the top
of section B of the morning newspaper is the headline "CO2 levels,
deaths linked". The study -- to appear today in Geophysical
Review Letters, the same publisher as the McKitrick/Michaels
paper -- models the effect of warmer climate on urban ozone and the
subsequent deaths. They find 1000 extra deaths in the US per year
per degree C of warming.
While such results are probably correct, there is no conception
anywhere in the article that the actual correlation between CO2 and
deaths is hugely negative. In particular, graphing CO2 emission
versus life expectancy by country would show that emitting CO2
saves countless lives per year. And that would be right. And it
would not get any attention in the media.
But 2000 extra deaths from CO2-augmented ozone per year by 2100?
"CO2 levels, deaths linked!!!"
|1.3.08 @ 1:08PM|#
a) Not all peer reviews are equal and even the best can make
mistakes. But thats how we learn.
b) google search for: fox news global warming
first link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177380,00.html
From the linked article:
"For the study, Jacobson used the computer model to
determine the amounts of ozone and airborne particles that result
from temperature increases, caused by increases in carbon dioxide
emissions. Ozone causes and worsens respiratory and cardiovascular
illnesses including emphysema and asthma, and has been linked to
higher human mortality.
He found that higher temperatures caused by carbon dioxide
increased the chemical rate of ozone production in urban areas. He
also found that increased water vapor caused by carbon
dioxide-induced higher temperatures boosted chemical ozone
production even more in urban areas.
so that extra 1,000 lives in the U.S. per degree of temp C is from
Ozone damage, and does not include: the rest of the world,
floods, drought, famine, plague etc. This is just one more wrinkle
of detail.
|1.3.08 @ 1:38PM|#
so that extra 1,000 lives in the U.S. per degree of temp C
is from Ozone damage, and does not include: the rest of the world,
floods, drought, famine, plague etc. This is just one more wrinkle
of detail.
Nor does it include: reduced deaths from cold, reduced deaths from
snow and ice, reduced cold-induced respiratory deaths, etc. Nor
does it include the elephant that no one sees: that the wealth,
opportunities, and choices derived from burning carbon so far
greatly outweigh the "floods, drought, famine, plague etc." It will
take either truly disastrous sequelae of global warming or an
authentically cheap fix to overturn that inequality.
By the way, the predicted number of deaths from warming-induced
ozone worldwide is 21,600 -- pretty close to proportional.
And by the by the way, your Fox News link does not seem to cover
the McKitrick/Michaels paper. Was it supposed to? Or do you really
think that pointing to a commentary on Fox News falsifies the
statement "results that decrease the apparent threat of global
warming get no attention whatsoever from the media"? Okay, I guess
it does. Woo hoo.
|1.3.08 @ 2:15PM|#
"Nor does it include the elephant that no one sees: that the
wealth, opportunities, and choices derived from burning carbon so
far greatly outweigh the "floods, drought, famine, plague etc." It
will take either truly disastrous sequelae of global warming or an
authentically cheap fix to overturn that inequality."
Tricky subject indeed; one worth replying to. However, greenies
have claimed that around a third of our (U.S.) emissions can be
reduced at a cost neutral basis, more or less right now. I think
this does have some truth.
some further amount of emmissions reduction (call it the Second
Third) will have some negative costs but not necessarily
economically devastating, especially for the U.S.
The Last Third of emmisions reduction would be highly costly...if
attempted more or less right now. Not recommended.
The Plan™ I am hearing from the mainstream greenies (Treehugger,
Gristmill, etc) is the 2% Solution™. Wherein, individuals aim to
reduce their own actual CO2 output by at least 2% per year over the
next 40 years. This ultimately leaves 20% of emissions reductions
(the costliest) to be figured out later. If individuals are feeling
aggressive they can offset the rest. Offseting is actually pretty
cheap, though minimizing additionality is a must (at 20% in 2006).
2% per year isn't much, especially since a chunk of this is cost
neutral. It wont stop climate change, but will likely minimize the
worst effects.
Note the lack Big Government™ being mentioned till now. Much of our
(U.S.) society's CO2 is produced via government activity. It is
important to get the government on board with the 2% thing....and
it can fairly go further by eliminating market
protections/subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
|1.3.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Here's an interesting idea on what to do, Cap and
Dividend:
http://onthecommons.org/node/1239
It does involve the government, but doesn't seem to adversely
affect most people's wealth or liberty. ...just passing along
ideas.
Neu Mejican|1.3.08 @ 2:51PM|#
JW,
Regarding you continued misunderstanding of the terms "top-down"
and "bottom-up" and their relation to each other and to the system
in which they work.
That depends on whether you are looking at the implmentation or
the execution.
Please elaborate on how implementation and execution, which are
essentially synonyms, change the validity of your argument.
The rest of your post is so orthogonal to the issue, I won't
comment.
Neu Mejican|1.3.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Paul,
The Constitution having been created at the top "works",
therefore all bureaucratic efforts to curb Global Warming must
therefore "work".
Dude, you deserve the award since you built the strawman...when did
I make this claim?
TallDave|1.3.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Yes, that's usually what happens when a large country loses
a good deal of its food supply and agricultural employment base:
lots of peaceful cross-border trade.
Yes, joe, cross-border trade is quite common in the modern age. I
guess the trillions of dollars in ag trade we regularly engage in
has somehow escaped your notice.
News flash: this isn't 1000 B.C., when a crop failure meant you had
to invade your neighbors to get their food or starve to
death.
Good to see how seriously people are in thinking about this
issue. About what I've come to expect.
Good to see GW alarmists are talking apocalyptic nonsense. About
what I've come to expect.
Sometimes, I can learn useful things by arguing with
libertarians, but their "ideas" about global warming are a dry
well.
It takes balls to simultaneously ignore the existence of global
trade and crow about everyone else's intellectual inferiority. I
salute your gumption, sir.
TallDave|1.3.08 @ 3:35PM|#
In fact, it's worth noting that in the modern age, virtually all
famines have been caused by war or other government action -- not
the other way around.
Hey, anyone remember what happened to the Soviet Union in the 1980s
when their collectivist farming ouput was collapsing due to 70
years of "bad weather" (possibly caused by global warming!) needed
grain?
(Hint: we didn't have World War III)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919164,00.html
|1.3.08 @ 5:06PM|#
"""But that doesn't say anything about predictions of what the
mean global temperature will be during the span 2100-2109. You're
comparing apples and oranges."""
I'm comparing weather predictions to weather predictions.
Reggie Rasmussen|1.4.08 @ 1:49AM|#
No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have
never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this - all I
can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural
are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem
then why not do all we can. One thing not in dispute is that we
cannot continue to use non-renewable sources on energy
forever.
Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to
the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market
solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular
telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a
complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a
service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent
agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients
home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill
from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from
the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company
intends to charge. The company currently has no product available
but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently
taking reservations and have over 26,000 takers so far. I have
written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a
couple of videos that I have recorded at www.solarjoules.com. Feel
free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up
business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground
and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case - the potential
client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost
of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative. This
solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less
pollution and would be a great step "just in case". And hey, the
fact that you will save money on your electricity bill over time is
a pretty good reason to look into it as well.
If anyone would like company information you can go to
www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz.
TallDave|1.4.08 @ 12:18PM|#
But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why
not do all we can.
Because it might be an enormous misallocation of resources that
will cause a great deal of misery and pain for mankind for no
benefit. There are lots of other very real problems out there to
deal with: tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, floods, disease, the
possibility of asteroid impacts. Our resources are finite; spending
money on one means we can't spend that money on the others.
|1.4.08 @ 12:42PM|#
actually Reggie sounds like a salesman to me. anyway...
"Because it might be an enormous misallocation of resources that
will cause a great deal of misery and pain for mankind for no
benefit."
A vast number things we do without a second though 'might be' an
enormous miscalculation. But the 1% of GDP estimated needed to
prevent the worst effects is much less than the growth of the
global economy. There will be no misery from that minimal
commitment
"There are lots of other very real problems out there to deal with:
tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, floods, disease, the possibility of
asteroid impacts."
Global warming promises to make the first five of those more common
or harder to cope with, and potentially distract us from the
latter.
"Our resources are finite; spending money on one means we can't
spend that money on the others."
Minimizing global warming is not as costly as it is made out to
be.
|1.4.08 @ 1:28PM|#
But the 1% of GDP estimated needed to prevent the worst
effects is much less than the growth of the global economy. There
will be no misery from that minimal commitment
A 4% growth in annual GDP over a century yields a cumulative
expansion of GDP of 50 times.
A 3% growth in annual GDP over a century yields a cumulative
expansion of GDP of 20 times.
The difference in long-run resultant wealth from losing 1% of GDP
per year is truly phenomenal. Effectively you are choosing for
great-great-grandchildren you have never met that they will prefer
a modestly cooler world to having 150% more wealth to do with as
they wish -- be that global warming mitigation or something else
that turns out to be more important a century hence.
|1.4.08 @ 2:19PM|#
MikeP,
The Stern report, which recommended the 1% thing, does not include
accounting the economic effects of truly catastrophic catastrophes
which would potentially occur from out of control global climate
change. The most likely of which would be a major war among the
major powers...generally a VERY bad thing for economies and
liberty.
|1.4.08 @ 2:47PM|#
The Stern Review also does not include accounting the economic
effects of trade wars between economic blocs willing to tax
themselves to reduce global warming and those not willing to. This
is more likely to cause a major war among the major powers than the
effects of global warming itself.
If you want to imagine causes for catastrophic worldwide war, you
might start with causes that actually have in the past brought
about catastrophic worldwide war...
|1.4.08 @ 3:01PM|#
That's a fair point. Though I would prefer to not see 'taxes' to do this. I would prefer to see instead my (-2%CO2/yr) behavior as an investment in a genuine Level 1 Civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) which necessitates controlling the planetary climate. I see fossil energy as cheating to otherwise meet the Lvl 1 Civ numbers, it doesn't actually control the planets energies, and continuing to rely on such technology as ludditism. Yes Fossil fuel supporters are luddites! =P
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245