More Climate Change 101
Feb 10th, 2010 | 55 responses
Perhaps folks who are having trouble understanding how record-breaking snowstorms on the East Coast could be happening if global climate change is real, would find this piece at The New Republic, written by Bradford Plumer, helpful. Brad quotes meteorologist Jeff Masters (emphasis in original):
There are two requirements for a record snow storm:
1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow.
The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events–the ones most likely to cause flash flooding–will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.
Brad adds:
Now, that doesn’t mean we can definitively blame this snow monstrosity on global warming—again, it’s hard to attribute any single weather event to long-term climate shifts. (For instance, El Niño may be playing a large role in feeding these storms.) At most, we can say that a warming climate is expected to create the conditions that make fierce winter storms in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic more likely. Or at least it will for awhile: If the planet keeps heating up, then at some point freezing conditions in the Northeast will become very rare, at which point snowstorms will, too But we’re not at that point—the Earth hasn’t warmed that much yet.
There is also a Time article by Bryan Walsh which makes much the same points.
Anyone who still needs help can simply consider Rachel Maddow’s explanation on her show tonight for why climate change is not disproved because it snowed in D.C.: The Mojave Desert in California (and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona) has a very dry climate. Deserts usually do. But it does sometimes rain in the Mojave. But when it does, the Mojave is still a desert.
Weather is not climate. But global climate change does affect local weather patterns.
Thank you for attending my lecture. You can leave your donation on the way out.
55 Responses to “More Climate Change 101”
[stare]
Kathy,
You're right that weather is not climate, and the reality is that this snowstorm tells us nothing about climate change, but that doesn't stop people on both sides of the AGW debate from using this and other examples of weather to support their position on climate change theory.
There is but one thing the True Believers in the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming must at all times recall.
If it's hot, it's Global Warming. If it's not, it's Global Warming.
If it rains, it's Global Warming. A drought? Why Global Warming (of course)
And if it's a monumental blizzard, the biggest on record — just more Global Warming.
(It helps to sniff and say 'What part of 'Global' don't you understand?')
If it's a single polar bear in a picture on an ice flow? Well yeah, that's Global Warming too!
(It helps to sniff and say 'Why do you hate polar bears?')
The true believers in AGW are the Creation Scientists of the left. The main difference is that Creationists aren't demanding trillions of dollars in new taxes, global reparations, strangled economies, and transfer of power to the UN as part of their fundamentalist doctrine.
Trademark that, print it on posters, t-shirts, bumper stickers, whatever.
Or I will!
Puricanical fundamentalist zealots, preachers of apocalypse, in the relentless pursuit of (eco-socialist) salvation and the punishment of heretics and apostates.
They're the closest thing to the Taliban, or Wahhabis like those found or coming out of Saudi Arabia.
They've made every recent event a laugh at their expense, and they're more defensive than ever.
([gulp] What's next?)
Actually, what irritated me was reliance on Rachel Maddow for starters, and her silly gimmick. Of course, the members of her choir probably need not only reminding or remediation, but initial instruction about things like that, I guess. (“The Mojave Desert in California (and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona) has a very dry climate. Deserts usually do. But it does sometimes rain in the Mojave. But when it does, the Mojave is still a desert.”)
[scowl]
Some of us know that already — as well as more about climate, and deserts, and — never mind. [sigh]
because you're trying to fulfill another stereotype…?
the problem with the stupidity of comparing a scientist group with creationists is, well, you know. it's stupid. i mean, it sounds great. you've got one sycophant already. but comparing a bunch of people that believe in something ?because the bible tells me so?, and people that are convinced of something because of investigative work, regardless of whether or not you believe them…
well. that's just retarded. but a great quote. go make some money with it. retarded quotes do well in that department.
I had been pondering a thread to discuss the issue of GW/CC but this one is not encouraging.
It seems that like on most issues the hard liners dominate. Either you must believe 100% in the issue and that it is a massive crisis caused entirely by man or you must deny it entirely.
What happened to the concept of a middle ground ?
“Either you must believe 100% in the issue and that it is a massive crisis caused entirely by man or you must deny it entirely.
What happened to the concept of a middle ground ?”
Where is your middle ground, Patrick? Or is this just a convient as well as false dichotomy?
Opinions are strong, but that's because the Left has chosen to be polarizing about this (as well as intolerent of dissent and behaving at times like the Inquisition about the “infidels” in their midst).
Plenty of us distinguish between politics and corrupted science (tainting that handy “authority”), and real science, and the fascinating subjects of weather and climate that have been so tainted by the Left as a popular and handy pair of political weapons. Plenty of us make the distinction between real threats and real problems, and fake or hyped “threats” (not to mention “crises” or “disasters”) or problems. We can see through the politics and see what the real goals often are, which are independent of climate concerns or other concerns that have been and remain also handy substitutes used to rationalize achieving those same goals.
Making that distinction and viewing things as they really are, and viewing the real things that matter, is the real “middle ground,” which has never been neglected.
Well despite the fairly accusatory nature of the question….
I do think that global warming is real in the sense that global temperatures have been increasing over recent years.
However I question how much of it is due to natural cycles and how much is due to human activity.
I do think some of it is due to human activity as we are certainly putting more pollutants into the ecosystem but given it's incredible complexity (the ecosystem that is) I am not sure how much of an impact we can have either way.
I also question how much temperatures have increased because there are legitimate questions about the accuracy of older readings as well as the recent problems with possible data fixing.
Having said all of that I still am a strong supporter of the environment becuase I think clear air and clean water are good things. But I think that unless we want to return to the middle ages that we have to balance environment with industry.
The middle ground is occupied by skeptics who believe we need better science and more transparent process and methodology before we lavish literally trillions of dollars on somebody's pet theory. Especially one where no matter what the empirical data, it's claimed as “proof” of the theory.
Obviously there is Global Warming. At one time the northern North American continent and elsewhere was covered by huge glaciers. That's hard to deny.
Perhaps there has been a recent uptick in such warming. But it's simply unknown at this point whether or not that is part of a natural cycle and what the causes are. We know beyond a doubt that there were productive farms on Greenland, so things have been warmer. And by golly, there are still polar bears wandering around so a lot of the apocalyptic predictions must be wrong.
But even if we get over those hurdles somehow, perhaps through a Kierkegaardian equivalent leap of faith, it's not clear whether reducing anthropogenic carbon emissions will have much of an impact. The Alarmists have been calling wolf for ten years and calling anything that moves a wolf and their credibility is shot. How many times have we heard 'it's almost too late to act'? Now that has turned into 'well you have to consider things in decades' when the dire predictions failed to materialize.
Meanwhile, it's hard not to notice that those pushing Alarmism seem to be raking in money hand over foot selling 'expert' services on warming via consulting and legal services and peddling gimmicks like 'carbon credits' — many of which have been found to be outright fraudulent. And now we have the least productive societies on the planet lined up behind 'climate debt', basically demanding reparations beginning in the tens of billions of dollars. The gravy train is just getting started.
It's gotten so bad on the empirical data side that the Alarmists have had to use fallback positions, trying to rename it 'Climate Change' as if the climate hasn't always changed. And as if they could stop the climate from changing. Canute anyone?
The political fallback position is claiming it's a good idea to get rid of fossil fuels 'anyway', and to control pollution. This is like recommending somebody have a leg amputated because, even if it is not needed, it will cure them of that annoying ingrown toenail.
What's wrong with a middle ground that says lets study this problem for another couple decades using an open process and then if necessary look at potential adaptation and intervention? The past ten years has shown beyond question that this is not an issue that requires immediate action. That seems like a good 'middle ground' to me.
“Well despite the fairly accusatory nature of the question….”
WHAT ABOUT IT?
Sorry for the incorrect nature of the question and the “need” to ask the question at all, Patrick. I was wrong, and I'm sorry for overreacting. (This is a disgusting as well as pathological political movement.)
“Having said all of that I still am a strong supporter of the environment because I think clear air and clean water are good things. But I think that unless we want to return to the middle ages that we have to balance environment with industry.”
Yep. You're speaking for all of us in the middle ground called normality. Nobody denies that there is such a thing as pollution (and other “externalities”) and that these are bad, and may even merit collective action and government intervention. But much of what is associated with this is nonsense or worse, and it is one of the (if not the) most militant movements seeking what are common goals that have been sought since the 1960s (environmentalism coupled with various concepts of democratic socialism), with the militance going back to the radicalism of the mid to late 1960s and its associated peversity and nihilism (anti-West, anti-development and progress, anti-industry).
Nobody denies this and what it may do to us,
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
or even this — still the best work by far (at the end of 1980), by a legendary earlier authority on climate,
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/RR-80-030.pdf
but that's no excuse for what the Left is saying or doing.
Ironically, as with other things (excesses of affirmative action, multiculturalism, protests against Western Civ on campus), the Left is their own worst enemies, tainting even legitimate victories of its past in its radical excess (civil rights and women's rights, environmentalism and pollution control and abatement, labor relations, various economic changes or “reforms,” etc.).
* * *
Incidentally, maybe one reason Al Gore may be in hiding is not only because his movement has been so badly discredited lately, but because there are other parties and other people who have been in the greater light lately, and shedding light on details of those in the movement as well as the movement itself can be embarrassing. Does anyone sane want to be known as a “global warming” PC celeb now?
Rachel Maddow, preaching to a poorly informed or behaved choir, has predictably poor company.
(Expect a lot of “eco-friendly”-fascist insider trading if these people get their way here or elsewhere.)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/0…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
Floor yielded.
Patrick — as DLS said, I think you *have* described the middle ground.
There are no climate “skeptics”.
*I* am a real climate skeptic. I've looked at the information, I have seen an economic problem, I want an economic solution. I never made a leap of faith.
DLS and Schaden have reached their positions out of prejudice against left-wingers. Contrarians, simply.
KKB,
Where is your post from 15 months ago when RFK jr was stating that global warming is causing the lack of snowfall in DC. It is only weather when it does not support Global Climate Change proponents. If DC was having a mild winter, the Global Climate Change proponents would be blaming it on AGW.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs…
Or you could look up Al Gore claiming that global warming on the severity of Hurricane Katrina. I guess global warming caused people not to prepare and levies to fail.
Instead of middle ground, how about rising above? Regardless of GC or GW or CC or whatever it's called now, we need to get rid of our dependency on foreign energy and map out a realistic long term energy plan. Can anyone disagree with that one?
Prof, you need to say something insulting or condescending about the left or the right if you want a hearing. Straightforward, sensible statements are so yesterday. Get your sarcasm on dude!
Seriously, reading these comments and recalling other threads about the subject has convinced me of the futility of separating science in some peoples minds from their politics. It reminds me of Marty Feldmans character in Young Frankenstein, who wasn't aware that he had a hump.
Ditto.
Also if China and India don't buy into the GW thing, any efforts we make will be expensive and all for naught. We will lose jobs and have to pay more individually for higher utility bills.
Good idea just need to make it affordable.
There's no way to know what's “affordable” until there's some honesty on all sides. The real costs of renewable energy, the real supplies of oil, coal and gas, how close are we to algae bio-diesel. Everyone has an agenda, and I'm finding that getting to the real truths is surprisingly difficult. Nonetheless, it's too important to ignore, and since companies and governments don't seem to be doing anything useful (ethanol was probably just a waste of resources), it's probably going to end up being something that we have to prepare for individually.
I couldn't agree with you more JSpencer. I don't think there is a need to find any middle ground simply because the two extremes are so far apart from each other that the true middle would contain the worst of both of them. Besides, science doesn't work by compromise at all, and anyone who wants to float that idea around doesn't know what they are talking about. On one side the original post starts off by giving us a lecture because we're simply not smart enough to understand the theory. In other words, anyone who doesn't agree whole-heartedly is a dumb cretin incapable of learning. On the other hand we're told that anyone who believes in such theory belongs to a zany religious group whose only mission is to proselytize, find new believers, and get rich by hugging trees. If you can find a middle ground in there, I'm all ears.
But the problem is that BOTH sides have politicized the issue, and at the governmental level, not just the chattering classes.
The money for researchers is in supporting man-made GW (at so far). Don't tow the line, and your funding gets cut off. That is pretty political to me.
jchecm – at least for my part, my criticism and equating AGW True Believers was direct at those who make comments like “we're simply not smart enough to understand the theory”, and that refuse to accept that skeptics are that – skeptics, not disbelievers.
I know that some GW has occurred, the facts are there. But I also know the facts say the last 11 years have seen a cooling trend, one that AGW True Believers refuse to admit exists, or dismiss as irrelevant.
I also think that man has of course had an impact on the climate, but I do not agree that sufficient evidence nor sophisticated enough global climates models exist to conclusively state either what the severity of that impact is, or even to what direction.
Finally, I believe firmly that both sides are too caught up in the details of “AGW or not”.
It is just a good, general statement to make that, on the whole, it is better for us, our descendants and the world to try and limit any and all pollutants, within reasonable limits on the impact to society and the economy.
“But the problem is that BOTH sides have politicized the issue”
Here's the deal – scientists present the scope of the problem. Some left-wingers either exaggerate the implications of the scientific info (less common – they source to scientists) or come up with poor solutions and political implications of the info (more common).
Right-wingers more often than not have been complete scumbags in my experience. They are smug, pedantic, unpleasant, rude, conspiratorial, propagandistic, Gore-obsessed, rabidly anti-left to a degree that Naomi Klein isn't anti-globalization and often spend ten seconds coming up with effective lies that take ten minutes to debunk.
“The money for researchers is in supporting man-made GW (at so far).”
AND THEY SPEND THIS MONEY ON HOOKERS, NOT ON WORK-RELATED EXPENSES!
See, it's stuff like that. Do you honestly think it's that *awesome* to get a few more conference booking per year that thousands of scientists the world over (many of whom don't even work for government-funded institutions, genius) decided to screw over the poor defenseless American consumer and the poor corporations?
“Don't tow the line, and your funding gets cut off. That is pretty political to me.”
Proof? See, you just throw stuff like that out, insulting my intelligence. Come back when you can respect the people you talk to.
I have not encountered one climate skeptic that was more concerned with *being right* than successfully giving his side a propagandistic boost.
This isn't about you and your petty nightmares of more expensive gas. This is about the people of Bangladesh or the Maldives.
Oh, and if you say “Climategate” you will prove you don't have a skeptical fiber in your body.
There are no skeptical “climate skeptics”.
If this were simply a question of scientific inquiry, that would be one thing. But how do you keep politics out of a discussion that call for levying a tax on the American economy of enormous magnitude?
I'm also very close to the middle ground. I believe the Earth is warming. I believe we don't understand all the mechanics behind it. I also believe that the US acting alone or in concert with other developed nations on the issue is a losing play even if you accept the science as as accurate as its political proponents would have it be. And I further believe that there has been no good NPV analysis on the costs versus the benefits of the proposed “raise the price of carbon” solution.
To be honest, I wouldn't concern myself with the issue at all except as a matter of interest were it not for the prospect of tens of trillions of dollars being spent on a theory.
For in the end, AGW is a theory. It may be right. In fact, it probably is to some degree. But here's the rub, the burden of proof sits on those who want to spend the money and in my mind, they have not yet met it.
For Kathy and other believers, what observable data over what time period would convince you that the theory is incorrect? We've gone from progressive year on year temperature rises to arguments that are well but the 00s were hotter on average than the 90s. If the 10s were cooler than the 00s, would you be convinced?
See the problem here is that the theory fits an equation to a historical pattern where many of the variables cannot be measured through the time sequence or can only be measured with substantial error margins.
The fact that a lot of the base data is gone and only the adjusted data remains is of additional concern.
And a special call out for Axel. You have made a leap of faith because, in order to devise an economic solution, you must have an expected benefit from your action and the models, the political calculus and the pace of technological advance is too uncertain to make such a calculation.
What many of you seem to forget is that 1) local is not global 2) Climate (& weather) happens irrespective of politics & 3) the extremists at BOTH ends tend to be wackos.
For a well mannered, substantive interplay on the issue check out http://climatedebatedaily.com/ both sides will find something to support their pet theories but I challenge you to read some of the comments on the opposing viewpoint too.
As F Scott Fitzgerald said: The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
“But how do you keep politics out of a discussion that call for levying a tax on the American economy of enormous magnitude?”
DEFINE this “enormous” magnitude, you silly goose.
“I wouldn't concern myself with the issue at all except as a matter of interest were it not for the prospect of tens of trillions of dollars being spent on a theory.”
Alarmism. Try with someone who's an idiot, unlike me.
“For in the end, AGW is a theory”
So is gravity and evolution…
“But here's the rub, the burden of proof sits on those who want to spend the money and in my mind, they have not yet met it.”
Sure they have. The warming can't be explained unless you factor in CO2. We still buy car insurance even if the chance of an accident is very small. Same principle here.
“For Kathy and other believers”
You are a believer as well. Don't even try. We all are believers *to differing degrees*.
“If the 10s were cooler than the 00s, would you be convinced?”
It doesn't work that way. Basically, we are warming, and the only explanation even with all other reasonably quantifiable factors inserted is CO2 and other pollutants.
“See the problem here is that the theory fits an equation to a historical pattern where many of the variables cannot be measured through the time sequence or can only be measured with substantial error margins. “
Actually, the models have predicted the future and retroactively “predicted” the past. Attempts to blame it on Sol, cosmic rays or vapor have all fallen flat.
“in order to devise an economic solution, you must have an expected benefit from your action and the models”
It can all be calculated to a degree, including the cost of inaction.
If the cost of an uninsured car accident times the probability of an accident is greater than the cost of the insurance, you buy insurance. Some societies force insurance purchase on people because if they go bankrupt, the damage doesn't only affect them. That is the entire principle.
Tens of trillions is easy. The projected increase in energy costs in the US alone from the House cap and trade legislation is $1000 to $3000 per household per year. I can get to tens of trillions in the US alone, never mind what the rest of the globe might spend on this.
The forward looking forecasts are off and increasingly so. And climate science does a nice job of continuing to change the model to fit the observations. By definition, you can't challenge the model because it keeps changing to reflect “better science” but also to make it a consistently backward looking model.
So show me the calculation on climate change and we can talk. That's what I'm looking for. But, to do it, you must do it from the perspective of a single state actor as in.
Benefit = impact of one state action*probability of state acting alone + impact of multistate action*probability of states acting together
Cost = increase in costs paid by consumers and governments to address the problem.
Make sure to include an appropriate discount rate for differences in the timing of the actions as in costs now, benefits much later.
Show me the math Axel and I'm happy to have the discussion.
The principle is the same as car insurance but the math isn't. And in fact, in most places there are multiple types of car insurance to reflect individual risk profiles and perceptions of future probabilities. The AGW crowd proposes a unified solution for the world ignoring all of the above. So your analogy while interesting doesn't work
I hate it when you're right. I'll have to work on a list of zinging insults for anyone debating theory while ignoring the blatantly obvious. ( <— does that count?)
We interrupt this snowball fight with a few comments:
No one has mentioned the sun, and how the recent longer-than-expected cycle with fewer solar flares or sunspots seems to be cooling the earth. Meteorologist Kik Melhuish admits that this is a complex issue, concluding:
.
You can read the entire article here:
Sunspot cycle impacting global warming and cooling
I couldn't agree more that we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and have a 'realistic' long term energy plan. I'm not sure what that has to do with what the Alarmists are demanding.
We can reduce our dependency on foreign energy by immediately taking steps to increase development of our own energy production including oil, cleaner coal, nuclear and other sources. In addition we can grow solar and wind at a reasonable pace.
None of this requires we start taxing carbon, nor set up an elaborate bureaucracy to measure and track it. None of it requires we have a government demanding every new plant and new project undergo a complex 'carbon analysis' before creating new jobs and wealth. Nothing in your proposal requires that we turn our economy over to 'experts' at the UN to mediate multibillion dollar 'planning' projects, or massive wealth redistribution worldwide because of some fanciful notion of 'climate debt'.
Energy independence, pollution control, and a 'realistic' long term energy policy are not what is being pushed by the Alarmists. They want the world, and they want it now. Warming is just an excuse. The problem is, once the goose that lays the golden egg is opened up, there will be no more eggs.
This whole debate has become very silly, and that fact that people are using this latest snowstorm as a way to bolster their argument for or against global warming ought to be proof enough for anyone as to just how silly this debate has become.
I believe in global warming, but as DaMav pointed out above, just about any weather/climate conditions (even ones in contradiction to one another) are be used to “prove” that global warming exists.
“Heads, I win. Tails, you lose” is not a reasonable argument.
@ Axel Kaspar Edgren – Sounds like you're trying to be More-Skeptical-Than-Thou…
“AGW is a theory” … “Gravity is a theory”… Gravity is a theory that says if I drop something it falls down. AGW is a theory that says if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere it will getter warmer, or colder, or drier, or wetter, but sooner or later it will be warmer and that's bad. Making arguments like that will harm your skeptical credentials.
As far as I know, all the models have failed to some degree, but the Sol hypothesis is the only one that explains the consistency of temperature measurements across the planets. If you have another one that shows why the temperature changes on earth correlate with what's measurable of temperature change on Mars, let's hear it. Temperature on Mars is harder to measure, but they don't have heat island effects.
Axel
You do yourself a disservice, your purity of certainty belies the science.
“So is gravity and evolution..”
Simply, non-lab, experiments can be run to prove theories. AGW can not.
“It doesn't work that way. Basically, we are warming, and the only explanation even with all other reasonably quantifiable factors inserted is CO2 and other pollutants.”
And you explain the Medieval Warm Period how? Jone, Mann, et al just smoothed it away by cherry picking proxy series.
“Actually, the models have predicted the future and retroactively “predicted” the past. Attempts to blame it on Sol, cosmic rays or vapor have all fallen flat.”
Actually, that statement is at best inaccurate. Every climate model out there has required multiple changes to code to model past events.
“If the cost of an uninsured car accident times the probability of an accident is greater than the cost of the insurance, you buy insurance. Some societies force insurance purchase on people because if they go bankrupt, the damage doesn't only affect them. That is the entire principle.”
and if i sell elephant protection insurance for thousands, i take it you'll buy some because being stomped is certain death.
The earth is getting warmer, iot's been doing so since the last ice age. You wish to looik at the last ten-20 years and say you KNOW that this variation is abnormal in the ten thousand year record. An act of faith.
Google “externality” and the Easter Islands and we are all set. But, I point out, this isn't about our societies but about much much much more sensitive and innocent countries.
Still waiting on your cost benefit analysis Axel…..
Agreed. What I'm trying to do here is keep the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater. I'm trying to get people talking about the realistic solutions to problems that most of us can agree on, and divert it away from the side show.
We are both obliged to provide one. The decision is one between action and inaction, and you can not say that either is by default harmless.
The onus is split. I would like to remind you that the professional skeptics majorly agree that CO2 is an externality, which means that not dealing with its so-called marginal social cost is economically… “Economically retarded” is the most diplomatic term I can settle on.
The question is this: What kind of spending and change is justified, effective and necessary? Are you familiar with the idea of expected costs, of multiplying the probability of X with its associated cost?
Well this is a fun cluster of a comments thread I've stumbled into.
The scientific evidence for climate change with some or mostly man-made sources is pretty overwhelming, at least that which I've seen and heard and discussed with people conducting that science.
I guess when it comes down to it, if all the scientific community fears actually comes true, it will be a simple case of haves and have nots. As when the proverbial poo hits the fan in every other situation, if this goes down, there will be a period of great instability, but it will shake out like this: the haves will be fine, and the have-nots will suffer the greatest blow. I guess when it comes down to it, whether the science is correct or not, it certainly makes sense that the haves need not worry about their own skins.
Anyway, I truly hope the scientists are wrong, because unfortunately, it looks like human race is unwilling to change their habits to reduce the probability of massive upheaval if the science is right. Basically, that's the wager we're making. Kind of like the bet I'm making that my smoking habit will magically go away before it kills me, or that having babies in a few years will cure me, or that maybe my grandpa's genes that allowed him to smoke his whole life without any consequences live on in me. Sure, it's risky, but I just like it too much to make quitting a priority.
Of course, we frame most environmental causes under the umbrella of climate change, but our century-long obsession with removing the huge carbon sinks called oil from the ground and putting all that lovely carbon back in the air from whence it came is having other effects, even if there is no such thing as global climate change. Gorgeous sunsets in the LA area are the only one of those effects that I would consider positive.
Marginal social cost is a normative matter not an economic one. The literature on CBA as it relates to climate change is generally mixed but allow me to characterize it as follows.
On one side are a group of economists using relatively standard methods and accepting as given the projections (probability weighted) from the IPCC and also accepting the costs of mitigation that the IPCC uses. These folks, using standard approaches to discounting conclude that the NPV of mitigation is negative.
On the other side, you have the Stern report and some other economists making the argument that a standard approach to discounting is inappropriate and/or the possibility of catastrophic outcomes justifies not using a CBA at all. For example, the Stern report after a long an interesting discussion uses a discount rate of between 2 and 3 percent and further argues that costs and benefits need to be weighted in favor of redistribution. You can find the discount discussion here.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_2_Techn…
By the way, both analyses take a global view of the issue. On a North American only view, the impact of warming in net neutral until sometime in the next century, even assuming the IPCC's forecast midpoint.
So, the way I read the data, a standard way of doing the analysis argues against mitigation (without considering alternative uses to which the resources might be put although there has been some work done on this). The way of getting the numbers to argue in favor of mitigation requires making adjustments to the standard approach based on the authors' normative arguments.
In all cases, the authors admit that the substantial uncertainty around all factors makes the analysis difficult, which was my point from above.
To restate your last sentence, it actually should read, “What changes from the current policy baseline produce net outcomes (probability weighted) that are superior to the current outcome?” Until such a change is demonstrated and justified, there's no reason to make a change in the policy baseline.
The difference in your analogy roro is that quitting smoking saves you money and abatement through raising the price of carbon costs quite a bit of money.
Yes, yes, because there is a possibility of even a probability of things getting worse, we should be willing to bear any price to reduce the probability (but not eliminate it). Rational human beings don't work that way. Perhaps you would favor a 5mph speed limit to reduce traffic fatalities which, are far more certain than the science around global warming.
Well there's a money/pleasure/displeasure tradeoff argument that could be made; they are different sorts of currency in this situation. Sure, I'd be saving money, but I have lots of money compared to the cost of the next pack of cigarettes; in fact, I have lots of money compared to the next 1000 packs of cigarettes. I get immense pleasure out of smoking, and if I quit, not only will I be denied this pleasure, but I will have heaps of displeasure for a long time due to withdrawal, with occasional twinges of displeasure probably for the rest of my life. In terms of this analogy, things like pleasure and displeasure can be taken as currency; there is no pleasure/displeasure factor in receiving electricity that was generated from coal instead of solar before it came out of the wall socket, only money, so it does work out.
(Just to be explicit: I realize I need to quit smoking, and it needs to happen soon. In fact, that's part of the point of the analogy…)
One problem with using straight NPV, is that it doesn't account for future cost changes. That is, the cost of extraction is constantly increasing because we always use the easiest to extract resource first, and the more expensive ones later. In the meantime, a push toward renewables (and maybe nuclear), would bring scale and research to bear on the problem, which will drive the costs down, albeit not in a predictable way.
“Perhaps you would favor a 5mph speed limit to reduce traffic fatalities which, are far more certain than the science around global warming.”
I agree, in principle, with what you're saying. I understand the logic of a cost/benefit analysis (I do them all the time in my job). However, using your own analogy, while we do not require a 5mph speed limit, at least in my state we do require every passenger to wear a seat belt, which greatly reduces the risk of dying should an accident occur. There are all sorts of laws and restrictions surrounding the use of vehicles such that there is a balance between public safety and the ability to effectively get where we're going. Safety features in cars, speed limits, traffic signals, effective enforcement of the rules of the road — all of these things contribute to the safety of driving, and have, individually and collectively, greatly reduced the death toll. However, I think you would agree that this success would be impossible if half of the country denied that car accidents even existed, and used that denial to block every piece of legislation related to car/traffic/driving regulations.
Actually, safety is a mixed bag, particularly when you are dealing with individual choice and not externalities, but that's an entirely separate subject. My point as it relates to climate change is that in order to get a positive NPV case for abatement you have to posit an “abnormally” low discount rate and/or apply factors to costs and benefits that change them from the actual economic benefits observed.
Simply put, it's not a compelling case for action, even if you accept CO2 as the primary driver of climate change and the modeling as accurate.
Prof Elwood,
I think the issue is more with the inputs than the NPV approach. The analyses in question that I've seen are pretty rudimentary in terms of their costs and benefits and clearly more work could be done in the area.
Having said this, I still think the burden of proof is on those calling for trillions in investment and the proof only seems forthcoming with some pretty interests twists of analyis
If we can't find someone doing a proper analysis, maybe we can put one together here. Or maybe if you have one handy, we can start improving it.
I guess that depends on how much we care about what the consequences would be if the modeling is accurate, versus how likely those predicted consequences are to occur. For example: what would be the consequences to me, personally, if half the population of the the continent of Africa were to die of starvation? If the climate warms to the level some think it might, Africa will be likely be the hardest hit, with up to an 8 degree average warming to an already extremely hot continent, which would make it nearly impossible to grow food there. Even if we consider only the direct effects on the death rate of those people half a world away (ignoring, for example, the obvious resultant increase in the price of my food, etc), how likely must the possibility of that outcome be in order for me (or collectively, the US and other nations) to deside that it is worth the cost to prevent? If something only has a 1% chance of happening, and the consequences are negative but minimally invasive, I'm probably not going to be willing to spend much on preventing the occurance of that thing. But if that 1% possibility is connected to consequences that are extremely dire — say, the painful death of me and my family — I'm probably going to be much more willing to put some major money down to prevent it. This why I pay for life insurance, even though I'm quite young and healthy.
My point is not to conclude that the science is entirely settled, but that there's a great deal of evidence pointing to a real possibility of extremely dire consequences, many of which aren't even known at this time.
Roro,
Is there the possibility of substantially negative consequences, for sure. Do we know how large that possibility is, not really. And even assuming some possibility of really bad outcomes, does that mean we should spend whatever it takes. In the end, that's the question we face. All I'm asking for is a credible analysis, taking account of the outcomes and their respective probabilities as well as the far more certain costs that says this is worth doing.
The only analyses I have been able to find that say that abatement is worth doing, considering the outcomes and their possibilities are those that either lower the discount rate based on a conceptual argument about generational equity or those that “normalize” costs and benefits based on a concept of equity that is entirely normative and therefore easily manipulated.
If there's other analysis, I'd love to see it. In other words, your point is fine in concept but until you quantify it, you can't analyze it.