When the Stern Commission came out with its famous report on global warming last year, suggesting drastic and immediate action to reduce emissions, Sir Partha Dasgupta issued one of the two most notable critiques. (The other came from William Nordhaus of Yale).
Now, however, Sir Partha is critiquing Bjorn Lomborg's new book. I regret that I cannot read the entire paper, which is behind a pay barrier, but Mark Thoma has a substantial excerpt:
Unfortunately, Lomborg's thesis is built on a deep misconception of Earth's system and of economics when applied to that system. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 380 p.p.m., a figure ... in excess of the maximum reached during the past 600,000 years. If there is one truth about Earth we all should know, it's that the system is driven by interlocking, nonlinear processes running at different speeds. The transition to Lomborg's recommended concentration of 560 p.p.m. would involve crossing an unknown number of tipping points (or separatrices) in the global climate system. We have no data on the consequences if Earth were to cross those tipping points. They could be good, or they could be disastrous. Even if we did have data, they would probably be of little value because nature's processes are irreversible. One implication of the Earth system's deep nonlinearities is that estimates of climatic parameters based on observations from the recent past are unreliable for making forecasts about the state of the world at CO2 concentrations of 560 p.p.m. or higher. ...These truths seem to escape Lomborg. His cost–benefit analysis involves only point estimates of variables..., implying that he believes we shouldn't buy insurance against potentially enormous losses resulting from climate change. ...
The integrated assessment models of Earth's system on which Lomborg builds his case are arbitrarily bounded on either side of his point estimates. It can be shown that if those bounds are removed (as they ought to be), even a small amount of uncertainty — when allied to only a moderate aversion to uncertainty — would imply that humanity should spend substantial amounts on insurance, even more than the 1– 2% of world output that has been advocated. If the uncertainties are not small, standard cost–benefit analysis as applied to the economics of climate change becomes incoherent, even if those uncertainties are judged to be thin-tailed (gaussian, for example); this is because the analysis would say that no matter how much humanity chooses to invest in protecting Earth from passing through those later tipping points, we should invest still more.
The catastrophic unknowns are, to my mind, the biggest economic challenge of global warming. As Sir Partha points out, we literally don't know what we don't know. And we have no very good economic framework for dealing with catastrophic risks when we cannot evaluate either the extent or the probability of the disaster. We may misunderestimate the probability of thousand year storms, but at least we've got a pretty good idea what a hurricane looks like.
“Misunderestimate”? Does that mean estimate correctly when you intended to underestimate? Or maybe it means "overestimate."
Worse, we can’t underestimate, or even “misunderestimate,” the “probability of a thousand year storm,” because, by definition, the probability of such a storm is once every thousand years. I suppose you mean that we may "misunderestimate" whether a particular storm is a thousand-year storm or a ten-year storm, but you're about a thousand years away from saying that coherently, unless I've misoverestimated, in which case you're about ten years away from saying that.
sorry, Clif, but you lost me after the fourth 'misunderestimate.' sorry, old chum.
I do not agree with the statement, 'nature's processes are irreversible.' When you look at the entire span of when there has been life on earth, it is nothing but cycle after cycle, that amounts to reversing what has gone before. From a philosophical viewpoint it obviously isn't exactly the same, because the changes that occurred during the process 'change,' provides a different starting point for the reversed cycle, even thought the changes are usually very, very small (notwithstanding that unfortunate event of 65 million years ago when the big reptiles were snuffed, making way for the little warm and fuzzy mammals).
There is little we can do, at this point in our development, to be able to truly effect these systems. The planet's cycles go on their own. What we are going to lose sight of, is that we CAN'T really affect this stuff, yet we're going to spend billions and trillions of dollars attempting to tilt at those windmills. What a waste.
We should put our time, money and effort into benefiting something really grand, like developing galactic travel that gets us from here to there in a reasonable timeframe, for a human.
Instead, we're going to bite the apple of 'knowledge' and find out it is just a chimera, that we didn't really influence glabal warming and we really didn't do anything good for humanity or Gaia, at all. Think of how empty you'll feel when that sinks in.
Sorry to have lost you, falkoyn. Perhaps its best that you just stick to galactic travel.
I have no idea what it is you are trying to say here other than simply stating an empty tautology and making a glib comment.
I would think that when it comes to the biosphere on which our life depends, we should be extra conservative about altering it. All the more so if we don't know what we are doing.
falkoyn, you have no clue what you are talking about. The truth is that we are indeed changing the global climate. Denialists such as yourself confidently state that we cannot have such an effect on the planet in spite of clear and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You willing to bet your life and the lives of every living thing on Earth for that?
If the lives of every living thing on Earth are at stake, then the loss is clearly infinite. With the probability unknown, to be safe, we must clearly devote the entire production of the global economy to stop global warming.
Kwyjibo, the potential loss is clearly very high as it is indeed very possible that in the worst case scenario all life could be extinguished. That is one end point. The other is that we do in fact know the climate has been affected by man. This is also a reality.
Since the risk is so high I would agree that "humanity should spend substantial amounts on insurance, even more than the 1– 2% of world output that has been advocated." Exactly how much I certainly don't know but it is no trifling matter to be glibly shrugged off. That much is without question.
I'm serious. If the loss is infinite, how does the probability matter?
I guess I should also ask for your theory on how global warming will cause all life to be extinguished, so we can start quantifying that.
I read the whole review. It looks like a restatement of the precautionary principle.
But,
This is not really true. In the Quaternary period, maybe, but carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than 560 ppm for much of the Phanerozoic eon, and most or all of the Mesozoic era. I recall that things were alive then. What does Dasgupta mean by "disastrous?" Venus? Not going to happen. Permian-Triassic extinction event? I would not start worrying about that until we move from ppm to ppt. War, famine, coastal flooding? Those would be bad, but have remedies within our capabilities. Why not use cost/benefit analysis within that range? I'm sure there are some bounds that Dasgupta would be willing to set. What are they?
Noen, it's your lucky day, as I just happen to have an insurance policy here whose premium is only slightly more than "1-2% of world output".
Once I distribute some fraction of the premium to the right bank accounts, I promise I'll have a consensus of prominent political, business, and science leaders agreeing that my policy will save the world.
Just sign on the dotted line, and all will be well!
I've never been able to follow the following argument: Global warming might have disastrous effects. Ergo, the Precautionary Principle demands we be willing to take dramatic and costly actions even though we don't know whether such actions will have any beneficial affect on global warming.
This argument has the precautionary principle exactly backwards. The precautionary principle does not compel action in the wild hope of some beneficial result. That's particularly true, as here, where the "required actions" would certainly have significant harmful consequences. (The argued for caps on energy use would shrink the national and world economies. Economic wealth is highly correlated with little things like life expectancy -- the more of the former tends to lead to a longer latter.) The precautionary principle asks us to wait until we know the consequences of our actions before going forward. Global warming gladiators argue we can't wait to act until we have a better understanding of things -- it'll be too late by then. You can make a cogent argument along those lines, but it's not based on the precautionary principle.
Lomborg was on the Colbert Report the other night. Colbert had this brilliant approach to make his point about the guy, in the jujitsu fashion his persona requires: "So you're saying global warming is no big deal? Because that's what I'm hearing." Lomborg: "No, no, it is, but we have to consider -- " Colbert: "I'm hearing it's no big deal. I'm hearing you saying global warming is no big deal."
This, obviously, is the message the public takes away from the media's hyping of Lomborg's "contrarian" stance on global warming, all his caveats notwithstanding. And it illustrates the confluence of interests between "contrarians" in liberal media spheres, big corporate media, and industry-backed conservatives. It's how 90s-era Kinsleyesque liberal contrarianism ultimately became a tool of the conservative movement.
Kwyjibo. Kwyjibo. I think when you hit the word "Mesozoic", you have to do a reality check. Put this question to the public: "In a few hundred years, the climate is going to look like it did during the Mesozoic era. This is for real. This is really happening. Is that okay?"
Human civilization has come into being within a narrow climatic range. The CO2 concentrations we are talking about will take us out of that range -- very fast. (Your posts don't seem to reckon with the unknown effects of a very high rate of increase in C02 concentrations, as opposed to the flat concentration itself.) Is that an acceptable risk?
"even a small amount of uncertainty — when allied to only a moderate aversion to uncertainty — would imply that humanity should spend substantial amounts on insurance, even more than the 1– 2% of world output that has been advocated."
I am wrestling with whether I agree with this statement so I have only tentatively formed comments. One possible problem I have is that there may be many risks out there that have a small chance of occurring, but which have devastating consequences if they come to pass. If we start devoting 1% to 2% of the world's output to addressing each of them, then we might find ourselves buying enormous amounts of insurance for events that are highly improbable. For example, how much should we spend to develop technology so that we can divert large meteors on a collision path towards the earth?
It does not seem sufficient to me to say regarding a risk that "we don't know what we don't know" therefore we must prepare for the worst. How do we prioritize risks in such an environment of uncertainty.
Doesn't this same line of reasoning imply that we should be spending nearly every dollar (and Euro) we have to detect and destroy asteroids? Sure the odds are small, but the devastation is essentially infinite [the total destruction of all human life] meaning that the costs are also infinite.
It seems to me it also implies that you should NEVER ride in a car. Of course the odds of dying in a crash are small but the cost to you is infinite.
When dealing with a low-probability, high-cost outcome, a simple [ODDS*COST] model doesn't seem to give reasonable results.
The argued for caps on energy use would shrink the national and world economies.
There are no "argued-for caps on energy use". There are proposed caps on carbon emissions. You are free to build as many nuclear power plants as you want, and are in fact encouraged to do so. I am completely baffled as to why people believe that a vast boost in demand for new low-carbon-emission energy and transport technology would hurt the world economy, on balance, rather than grow it. There would obviously be transition costs, but there were transition costs to the dismantling of the former Communist economies, the passage of NAFTA, and the supercession of Route 1 by I-95, too.
"Doesn't this same line of reasoning imply that we should be spending nearly every dollar (and Euro) we have to detect and destroy asteroids? Sure the odds are small, but the devastation is essentially infinite [the total destruction of all human life] meaning that the costs are also infinite.
It seems to me it also implies that you should NEVER ride in a car. Of course the odds of dying in a crash are small but the cost to you is infinite."
I think the problem you are struggling with arises from the assumption that a human life has infinite value. Although we all like to play lipservice to the notion that human life is priceless, no one acts consistently with this belief.
Consider this offer: If you complete task A, I will give you one million dollars. You should know, however, that you have a one in one thousand chance of dying accidently if you attempt to perform task A. Would you take me up on the offer? I think this offer would have many takers and the takers are placing an implicit monetary value on their own lives as soon as the accept the offer.
The same type of reasoning can be applied to the fate of mankind. Imagine we faced a future where human beings would go extinct unless we adopted measures that would cause the standard of living across the world to revert to prehistoric levels. I don't know that I would consider the future of human life on earth to be worth such a sacrifice.
As I have thought more about the notion of "buying insurance" against catostrophic global warming, I can see at least one major problem. Insurance is valuable only to the extent we know that it will pay off.
Consider this: Let's say the chances of catastrophic global warming is 2% if we continue to do what we are doing. In that event, it would be worthwhile to avert this possibility by spending 2% global output, but only if we knew that our expenditure would be effective in eliminating catastrophic warming. What if by spending 2% of global output we only reduced the chance of catastrophic global warming by 10%. Then the insurance is overpriced.
It may be a valid criticism of Bjorn Lomborg that he doesn't adequately consider the risks of catastrophic warming. From what I have read of his works, however, he does consider the costs effectiveness of current efforts to abate global warming and argues that we must spend a great deal to reduce warming by very little. So it seems his argument might be that it is only prudent to purchase insurance against catastrophic warming if the expect payoff exceeds the costs of the policy.
I am skeptical about global warming alarmism. I believe the earth is warming and that part of the warming is almost certainly due to human activity. To attribute the warming primarily to CO2 emmissions and to project into the future, we must rely on computer models. I am deeply skeptical that we have sufficient understanding of the global climate to develop reliable models that can accurately project the future. That puts me in the same camp as Freeman Dyson, who I view as good company. From my perspective, we don't have sufficient information to determine how much we should pay for insurance against global warming.
When I did some looking, it seems that human production of CO2 contributes somewhere around .1% to the total global warming effect. It seems like reducing this to 0 would still have a minimal effect on global warming. CO2 is produced by other sources in quantities that dwarf the human producting and CO2 is one of the least effective gasses at causing global warming.
If this is true, then we need to be looking for some other mechanism to reduce global warming than reducing CO2. Maybe a giant Sun shade in orbit between the Earth and the Sun?
EI
Risk Assessment, Risk Mitigation etc are common practises by now. Of course they cannot be applied or considered if there is no real or perceived thread to the environment or to humans. As the White House has told us – because scientist are inconclusive about if the thread is man-made or not… we cannot make policy!
Hell - if we can gauge what the threat of exploding buildings is for the nation - then we should have conservative, moderate and optimistic scenarios in place for a dead eco-system? It has worked well in the past.
Population growth was more or less correctly modelled and envisioned.
In the 60s we were warned that if we continued like “that” we would double in size and forests, water and land would disappear and people would go hungry. All of this has hold true - quite amazingly. We have followed the moderate scenarios of the past - the pessimistic scenarios were used by the media (those were premature heating/cooling of the earth and even more hunger). Nobody finds it worth mentioning that the moderate risk scenarios of the past have been rather accurate and manifested themselves.
Regarding hunger - fortunately we could reverse the growth of the growth rate (as with population in general) - but in nominal terms (total sum of suffering) there are twice as many people suffering of hunger than only decades ago?
Modern ecological predictions work much better than in the 60s-80s. We have better satellite data and other monitoring systems. The annual WWF Living Planet report is like an annual report for earth.
Their Risk Assessment for the next decades sounds reasonable? - and in this case - only the optimistic scenario seems to leave us a with “pleasant” life-styles?
But one can only agree that we need even better ecological accounting in place and better corresponding economic frameworks? How much is algae worth?
But to another matter:
With all due respect – Lomborg is like a creationist among biologists. He has studied politics – not stats or ecology or anything related to global warming. The ONLY reason why he could NOT be charged with scientific dishonesty is, as it emerged during court cases, was that Lomborg is NOT a trained scientist, and does NOT claim to be.
. In other words – his books are fiction – because if they were not – they would be considered “scientifically dishonest”. Other than that: Yes – he is right to point out that we need to have cost-benefit-analysis in place – but he was heralded as the only one to say so (all environmentally concerned biologists and economist would not claim otherwise)? I really wonder what The Economist’s and the White House’s love affaire with him was? I know why the Republicans loved him – he is gay and a vegetarian…
Talk of "buying insurance" against the risk of catastrophic climate change is nonsense. An insurance company's finances and underwrting can be examined to the extent that one can have an extremely high level of confidence that a payout will occur if catastrophe strikes, thus making the payment of the insurance premium supremely rational. In regards to this possible catastrophe, the equivalent would be handing over a thousand bucks a year to some random stranger you see in the grocery store once a year, in hopes that you'll get a payout if your house ever burns down.
Look, if one believes excessive carbon emmissions are dangerous, then tax them, and heck, if you offest those taxes by reductions in FICA taxes which are locked in by constitutional amendment, I'll support the effort. Don't give me any nonsense about "insurance" however. "Insurance" may be one of the most abused words in the language, it seems to me.
"Population growth was more or less correctly modelled and envisioned."
Population growth is rather easy to model. You start with existing age cohorts. You apply historical fertility and death rates by cohorts as they age. You get a reasonable projection of future population that is in the ball park out a generation or two, before unpredictable feedbacks start effecting fertility and death rates. Comparing projections of population to projection of global warming is something akin comparing the complexity of simple arithmetic to calculus.
While I'll take your word that population projections have been accurate, I question whether the effects of population growth have been accurately modeled. I am old enough to remember the doomsday predictions of mass starvation, extreme shortages of vital resources and global wars that were supposed to arrive in the 70's and 80's.
The doomsday predictions were, of course, highlighted by many books by alarmists and by the media. The policies advocated by the alarmists, if adopted, would have been much worse than what eventually came to pass. Need I say more.
PaulD
I think you missed my point.
yes - human population growth is easier to predict than the eco-system. is that an argument in favor of taking the environment even more seriously or less?
yes - the worst ecological doomsday predictions did, fortunately, not manifest - but many did! I hope that you are not disappointed - but I also hope that you are therefore not in a delirium ala "predictions and models were all wrong" and therefore we do not have to be scared?
I am all in favor of confident humans. But confidence does not equate the lack of fear and corresponding respect/responsibility when REAL danger exists?
You argue: The doomsday predictions were, of course, highlighted by many books by alarmists and by the media. The policies advocated by the alarmists, if adopted, would have been much worse than what eventually came to pass. Need I say more.
YES - you NEED to say more. Let us travel back in time... The year is 1960. You are a smoker. Research comes out that smoking may be linked to cancer. Many doubt it and claim that the Communists want to control our lives...
The alarmists say: quit smoking...
The progressives say: nah, even if smoking is linked to cancer, by the time you catch cancer - we will have medicine and science in place that can cure you...
The year is 2000. Is it fair to say that the policies advocated by the alarmists, if adopted, would have been much worse than what eventually came to pass? Do you actually know the story of the ozone whole?
Whatever your opinion - I think it is save to say that, given human nature, we can count ourselves LUCKY that oil is running out? Nothing will help humans more politically and environmentally over the coming decades?
I keep quoting this passage from E O Wilson's book chapter The Bottleneck:
Stretched to the limit of its capacity, how many people can the planet support? A rough answer is possible, but it is a sliding one contingent on three conditions: how far into the future the planetary support is expected to last, how evenly the resources are to be distributed, and the quality of life most of humanity expects to achieve. Consider food, which economists commonly use as a proxy of carrying capacity. The current world production of grains, which provide most of humanity's calories, is about two billion tons annually. That is enough, in theory, to feed 10 billion East Indians, who eat primarily grains and very little meat by Western standards. But the same amount can support only about 2.5 billion Americans, who convert a large part of their grains into livestock and poultry. There are two ways to stop short of the wall. Either the industrialized populations move down the food chain to a more vegetarian diet, or the agricultural yield of productive land worldwide is increased by more than 50 percent.
The constraints of the biosphere are fixed. The bottleneck through which we are passing is real. It should be obvious to anyone not in a euphoric delirium that whatever humanity does or does not do, Earth's capacity to support our species is approaching the limit. We already appropriate by some means or other 40 percent of the planet's organic matter produced by green plants. If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people. If humans utilized as food all of the energy captured by plant photosynthesis on land and sea, some 40 trillion watts, the planet could support about 16 billion people. But long before that ultimate limit was approached, the planet would surely have become a hellish place to exist. There may, of course, be escape hatches. Petroleum reserves might be converted into food, until they are exhausted. Fusion energy could conceivably be used to create light, whose energy would power photosynthesis, ramp up plant growth beyond that dependent on solar energy, and hence create more food. Humanity might even consider becoming someday what the astrobiologists call a type II civilization and harness all the power of the sun to support human life on Earth and on colonies on and around the other solar planets. Surely these are not frontiers we will wish to explore in order simply to continue our reproductive folly.
This online lecture by Jared Diamond, author of "Guns, Germs and Steel", is also interesting. Based on the New York Times' best selling "Collapse": How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed"
E.O Wilson's argument may some day come true--the capicity of the earth to support human beings will be exceeded by its population. I would note, however, one version or another of this argument has been forcefully argued for at least the last 150 years, and has not come to pass because the capcity of the earth to sustain human beings keeps growing in ways that could not be easily predicted. The doomsday predictions as recently as the 1960's were off the mark because they did not foresee the explosion in agricultural productivity that has occurred in the last forty years.
Moreover, we do know that fertility rates tend to decline as wealth increases. So I am not so certain as you that the population will continue to grow indefinately.
When you say that the constrains of the bioshere are fixed, I think that this must at some point be logically correct. Imagine, though, if you lived 150 years ago and attempted to determine the fixed constraint of the bioshere. Do you think your estimate would have been accurate? Why do you think our current attempts to estimate the constraints of the biosphere will be more accuate than they have been in the past?
I am skeptical because I have participated in this discussion for the last 35 years with various people who were convinced that the limits of growth were just around the corner. Someday they might be right. But they haven't been correct so far.
PaulD said:
I am deeply skeptical that we have sufficient understanding of the global climate to develop reliable models that can accurately project the future. That puts me in the same camp as Freeman Dyson, who I view as good company.
Dyson's article at "Edge" has been refuted and points out the danger of a physicist leaving his field of expertise and pontificating on a field where he knows no more than any other lay person. Dyson's criticisms are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.
The models used are in fact very good and model the environment from physical principles. Unless you are skeptical of physics as well. Climatology as it turns out is a very difficult subject and I am extremely skeptical of your ability to correctly access the science. Let me guess, are you an engineer?
Earnest Iconoclast said:
When I did some looking, it seems that human production of CO2 contributes somewhere around .1% to the total global warming effect.
This is incorrect. You might want to look at reputable sources instead of those that have been shown to be in error time after time. I can think of several right off the bat.
"Dyson's article at "Edge" has been refuted and points out the danger of a physicist leaving his field of expertise and pontificating on a field where he knows no more than any other lay person. Dyson's criticisms are wrong and have been shown to be wrong."
I wasn't referring to a particular article by Dyson, but to numerous comments he has made. As to the assertion that Dyson has been refuted, I wonder whether Dyson has been refuted to his satisfaction.
The fact that Dyson is not a climatologist, ironically, actually enhances his credibibilty in my mind because he doesn't have a vested interest in topic. His reputation, his life's work and his research dollars are not at stake in this debate. It seems to me that if the climatologist have such an air tight case they should be explain it in a manner that is convincing to a disintested outsider who has the technical background to understand the science in question. I think Dyson fits this bill and I think this is a reasonable expectation if climatogists want the world to base trillion dollar investments on their predictions. If Dyson changes his mind after being confronted with the evidence, you will have my attention. And who knows, maybe that will happen. I am waiting with great curiousity.
Kwyjibo - Re: "I'm serious. If the loss is infinite, how does the probability matter?"
Depending on what you mean by infinite it could be said that no loss is infinite. But you probably just mean something like a loss that wipes out the human species, or perhaps all life on earth. Even with such a loss the probability matters quite a lot. There are any number of possible total losses like that. Obviously we can't spend half the gross product of the world in order to combat each one.
Would you spend $20tril to avert a 1 in 10^100^100 chance of human extinction? I wouldn't.
I'm not specifically asserting that stopping global warming would cost $20 tril(although it could cost that much or even much more if you consider the compounding, and consider the cost world wide over a long time - see http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/10/60981 ) or that the odds of human extinction from global warming are as small as 1 in 10^100^100. But the odds are really really small. We should be more concerned about the more realistic possible disasters from global warming than the almost non-existent chance that it will wipe out mankind.
brooksfoe - re: "There would obviously be transition costs, but there were transition costs to the dismantling of the former Communist economies, the passage of NAFTA, and the supercession of Route 1 by I-95, too."
The "transition costs" involved in moving the world away from primary reliance on energy sources that emit CO2, would be much higher (except perhaps if we do it very slowly). Also the other changes you made had direct pay backs that where larger than their transition costs. Reducing CO2 emissions relatively quickly (which in this context means anything short of over several generations) would cost an enormous amount of money, that mostly wouldn't be new productive investment but rather replacing existing working investment. The possible results of not reducing CO2 emissions might make it worthwhile to pay that cost.
Also note that greatly reducing fossil feul usage isn't the only way to deal with global warming.
See
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
http://cdiac2.esd.ornl.gov/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shade
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/7/41932/19363
"The models used are in fact very good and model the environment from physical principles. Unless you are skeptical of physics as well. Climatology as it turns out is a very difficult subject and I am extremely skeptical of your ability to correctly access the science. Let me guess, are you an engineer?"
No, I am not an engineer. I am worse. I am a lawyer, who was once an economist. I acknowledge that I have a difficult time following the technical debate on global warming and that is why I describe myself as "skeptical" rather than what some would call a "denier". It is also why I am so interested in hearing from disinterested outsiders with a scientific expertise such as Dyson.
Lawyers frequently face the challenge of presenting scientific information in a way that is understandable to layman. That doesn't always work so well with jurors. But I think it is reasonable to expect climatologist should be convincing to scientists outside the field of climatology. I even think they should be able to explain their science convincingly to reasonably intelligent layman. I haven't heard a scientist of the stature of Dyson express skeptism about evolution. So when he is skeptical about global warming alarmism, that does raise a red flag in my mind.
My skepticism is furthered by my background in economics. I can recall when the latest rage in economics was the development of complex macroeconomic models. The economists who developed the models thought that there work was cutting edge and the models actually fit historical data quite well. Overtime, I think that most economists have come to recognize that macroeconomic models at today's stage of development are pretty much worthless. Economists, of course, have had the luxury of actually seeing how poorly they predict the future.
noen...
Like..?
EI
I wonder whether Dyson has been refuted to his satisfaction.
Who cares? But by all means fetishize Dyson's criticisms all you like since they deliver the the predetermined result you're looking for in the first place.
The fact that Dyson is not a climatologist, ironically, actually enhances his credibibilty in my mind because he doesn't have a vested interest in topic. His reputation, his life's work and his research dollars are not at stake in this debate.
Oh please, that old canard? And climatologists don't have their reputations at stake if they are wrong? So therefore you prefer someone who doesn't know the science over those who do?
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
Have at it, I'm looking forward to your refutation.
It seems to me that if the climatologist have such an air tight case they should be explain it in a manner that is convincing to a disintested outsider who has the technical background to understand the science in question.
Frankly, I doubt that you do. Has it ever occurred to you that the problem may lie with you? I also doubt that you have given a fair review of the science in question. What journals do you subscribe to then? Nature? What was the last journal you read? (The IEEE doesn't count.) Have you been keeping up with all the published articles and data or do you just read JunkScience dot com?
Oh, you're not an actual scientist? That's fine, what science websites do you regularly read. Do you actively seek out the views and opinions of real working climatologists? They are pretty easy to find you know.
I don't think you do any of these things. I think all you do is troll your uninformed opinion because it gets you some attention.
Earnest Iconoclast
Like..?
That you don't even know any tells me all I need to know. Here is a hint, JunkScience dot com is not one of them.
PaulD said:
No, I am not an engineer. I am worse. I am a lawyer, who was once an economist.
So you are a failed economist and an unemployed lawyer. Do you also troll feminist websites? Oh! I think you do! Haven't I seen your name on Padagon and Feminste? If true your reputation there is deservedly poor.
I think it is reasonable to expect climatologist should be convincing to scientists outside the field of climatology. I even think they should be able to explain their science convincingly to reasonably intelligent layman.
I agree, and they have.
I haven't heard a scientist of the stature of Dyson express skeptism about evolution. So when he is skeptical about global warming alarmism, that does raise a red flag in my mind.
As it did in my mind also. I then took the trouble to look for and find a dissenting opinion. But I don't think you are interested in that. I think all you are interested in is trolling.
wait wait wait...
Dyson express skeptism about evolution
wtf? He did no such thing. He expressed skepticism about global warming not evolution. Your posts contain a large amount to grammatical and spelling errors and I've been over looking them. Try to focus hun. I think I have an idea why neither of your career options have worked out so well.
"I haven't heard a scientist of the stature of Dyson express skeptism about evolution. So when he is skeptical about global warming alarmism, that does raise a red flag in my mind."
Climate change is much more complicated and much less studied than evolution. It is perfectly reasonable that it be the subject of more skepticism. If the critics of evolution prevail, and are wrong, we have a poorly educated generation or two. The results are more dire concerning global warming. It is reasonable to provisionally accept the less ironclad case for global warming as a basis for action. The question then becomes what is reasonable to do while we are reducing our uncertainty. The notion of waiting until we are certain is ridiculous. Science precludes certainty.
I've read a little bit of Dyson's essay, and I am very surprised that someone of his stature would spout off from such ignorance. His bit about intentionally cultivating biomass to offset CO2 emissions is remarkably ignorant. While it might be a tiny tool in the effort, it can't be anything close to what he claims would be an easy, complete remedy. A simple calculation involving world population and average food consumption would show that CO2 emissions are already well over 10 times as massive as what we consume in food. He's talking about creating more in biomass in the topsoil than we consume, when, in at present, we are doing the opposite - depleting topsoil biomass. He is even restricting his topsoil sequestration scenario to the US alone. He is speaking from ignorance. I bet if Feynman were still alive Dyson wouldn't be so sloppy.
Dyson is right about one thing. It is never a good idea to accept without skepticism the prevailing wisdom - even when it comes from nobel laureate physicists.
Noen,
That link led to a report that is apparently based at least in part on the erroneous NASA climate data. Just so you know.
Digging through it, I read a lot of language about variations and different results of different models, etc...
Looks like the Ocean stores 38,000 Pg of Carbon. The atmosphere stores 720 Pg. Soil and plants store another 2,000 Pg. Humans are producing 6.6 Pg from burning fossil fuels (and making cement(?)). So we're producing .016% of what's already there.
Land plants produce about 60 Pg/year. Ocean phytoplankton produce about 100 Pg/year. Some of all of this is absorbed into the ocean and/or soil. Land use changes also cause changes in CO2 productin, but those vary and are apparently difficult to measure.
Looking more, I find that the models don't reproduce historical data very well, according to the report.
That report is a mess. I'll have to read more of it later. As far as I can tell, they have lots of conclusions, all of which are somewhat speculative and based on assumptions which in many cases are speculative themselves. Even assuming their methodology is sound and their models are good, they have a lot of inputs that are assumed (as stated in the report).
Honestly, even if the worst case scenario is what's going to happen, I'm not sure what we could do about it without dismantling our economy. Short of a massive program to build nuclear power plants and decomission coal/gas plants along with a rapid switch to electric cars (including some method of forcing India and China to do the same) most of the ways I've seen discussed to reduce CO2 output wont make much difference in the long run and will cost a lot in the short run.
The US could probably afford it, with difficulty. What about other countries? How many more will starve while we spend vast resources on converting to nuclear(and wind/solar to some extent) power? What will we do if India and/or China refuse? Europe will have trouble, too... they are already suffering from high energy costs (compared to the US). Talk about SUVs and clothelines and stuff just seems trivial and silly compared to the big picture.
If you want to convince me you're serious about climate change, don't tell me to buy a hybrid instead of a gas burning car. Tell me how we're going to really make a useful difference.
EI
That report is a mess. I'll have to read more of it later.
I am sure that the thousands of real practicing scientists around the world are waiting to hear from an internet troll.
Even assuming their methodology is sound and their models are good, they have a lot of inputs that are assumed (as stated in the report).
ROFLOL!!!
You know nothing about the methodology used and nothing about the models employed or the inputs. You are completely ignorant of even where to look on the internet for the info. All you want to do is get into a protracted debate. If you were truly and honestly interested you would have already found the answers you claim to be seeking. They are out there and are not hard to find.
If you want to convince me you're serious about climate change, don't tell me to buy a hybrid instead of a gas burning car.
I don't own a car. I take the bus or I walk.
First, I was responding to the unsupportable assertion that global warming threatens "every living thing on Earth". Second, I doubt 99% of the population knows what the Mesozoic era is. Third, assuming that the climate will look like it did during the Mesozoic, put this question to the public: "We can substantially delay this at a cost of x% of economic growth over the next 200 years. What value of x do you prefer?"
Is Nordhaus wrong? If so, what analysis do you propose that we use? Would it be more or less risky than doing nothing to take drastic measures that reduce long-term economic growth by a percentage point? Would we miss those other six economies at 200 years in the future?
Again, what are the bounds? If you're not going to give us any, and still go on about how unknown and dangerous everything is, we might as well just talk how global warming makes us feel on the inside.
Neither does Dasgupta, not being a scientist.
"If you were truly and honestly interested you would have already found the answers you claim to be seeking."
How true that is.
Doesn't this same line of reasoning imply that we should be spending nearly every dollar (and Euro) we have to detect and destroy asteroids?
What Dasgupta says is that cost-benefit analysis with large degrees of uncertainty becomes incoherent. This is exactly the point you are making. The kind of cost-benefit analysis Lomborg is doing, if he were to properly factor in the uncertainties, would lead him to conclude that no amount of money one could spend preventing global warming would be too much. Equally clearly, the inadequacies of the analytical tool should not be used as a rationale for doing nothing.
For the same reason, we are, in fact, spending money on detecting asteroids. But obviously the threats are not similar: there is no reason to believe the threat of being hit by asteroids is any worse now than it has been throughout the history of the planet, and asteroid strikes are very simple phenomena -- no feedback loops. So we can make a pretty good forecast with low degrees of uncertainty. With global warming, on the other hand, we know the situation is getting worse, the phenomenon is not discrete and is full of feedback loops that may make things better or worse unpredictably. We can only make difficult estimates of the increased risk of various terrible things happening; and that keeps arguing for more action, not less.
I have read through Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htmand would make the following observations. First, Dyson’s criticism of the climate models can be summarized in his own words:
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
As I read through the Climate Change 2001 report I was struck by the extent to which the shortcomings identified by Dyson are acknowledged. Here is just one an example regarding clouds:
"
Probably the greatest uncertainty in future projections of climate arises from clouds and their interactions with radiation. Cloud feedbacks depend upon changes in cloud height, amount, and radiative properties, including short-wave absorption. The radiative properties depend upon cloud thickness, particle size, shape, and distribution and on aerosol effects. The evolution of clouds depends upon a host of processes, mainly those governing the distribution of water vapour. The physical basis of the cloud parametrizations included into the models has also been greatly improved. However, this increased physical veracity has not reduced the uncertainty attached to cloud feedbacks: even the sign of this feedback remains unknown. . ." http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/261.htm
Regarding the biology of fields and farms and forests, the report states:
“On time-scales of decades the impact of land cover change could significantly influence the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase (Chapter 3), the nature and extent of the physical climate system response, and ultimately, the response of the biosphere to global change (Chapter 8). Models currently under development that can represent changes in land cover resulting from changes in climate and CO2 should enable the simulations of these processes in the future.”
I honestly do not believe I am cherry picking quotes. I think that the report is forthright in in acknowledging the shortcomings of current models and this is admirable. The disagreement between Dyson and the ICCP appears to me not so much in the identification of the model shortcomings, but in Dyson’s conclusion, “They [the models]do not begin to describe the real world we live in.” The ICCP report seems to conclude that while the models are real shortcomings, they are good enough to be relied upon.
The report argues in part that the models can be relied upon because they fit the historical data well. Here is a very current critique of this reasoning published in Nature http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/schwartz07nat.pdf. Here is a comment in response by some of the authors of the ICCP published in Nature. http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/forster07nat.pdf. Here is an interesting blog rejoinder by physicist Lubos Motl. Here is a discussion of the article. http://www.realclimate.org/. All of this causes me to remain skeptical (i.e. unconvinced)as a layman that the climate models provide reliable forecasts of the future.
AGW Reality Check
If global warming is occurring; and, if anthropogenic carbon emissions are the sole/principal cause; and, if AGW is an impending catastrophe of monumental proportions; and, if continued anthropogenic carbon emissions are propelling us toward a "tipping point"; then, anthropogenic carbon emissions (excluding human exhalation) must be totally eliminated globally immediately.
However, if the above is true, but the "tipping point" is not expected to occur until atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach/exceed 500 ppm; then, anthropogenic carbon emissions (excluding human exhalation) must be totally eliminated globally by ~2050.
If ~280 ppm is the "ideal" atmospheric CO2 concentration; and, if we are successful in limiting the atmospheric CO2 concentration to ~380-500 ppm; then, we must begin removing CO2 from the atmosphere as soon as the technology becomes available, until we have returned the atmospheric CO2 concentration to its previous "idyllic" state.
The estimated investment to reduce US CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 (and achieve US energy independence in the process) is $10-40 trillion over the period; that is, about 2-5% of US GDP each year over the period. That would suggest a global investment requirement on the order of $100 trillion through 2050. (This estimate, as suggested above by Earnest Iconoclast, is based on massive nuclear power expansion combined with total conversion to an all-electric economy.)
The investment required to develop and install the technology to remove the excess CO2 is currently unknowable, as is the operating cost to actually achieve the reduction. Presumably, some of this technology would be required to continue to operate beyond that point to offset continuing human exhalation.
The human and economic cost of eliminating anthropogenic CO2 emissions immediately is unthinkable; and, the task, if not impossible, is at least implausible.
If global warming is occurring; and, if anthropogenic carbon emissions are the sole/principal cause; and, if AGW is an impending catastrophe of monumental proportions; and, if continued anthropogenic carbon emissions are propelling us toward a "tipping point"; then, anthropogenic carbon emissions (excluding human exhalation) must be totally eliminated globally immediately.
FALSE
Simply constructing a syllogism as you have attempted to do here does not "prove" said syllogism. Your stated conclusion does not follow from your premises.
IF (If global warming is occurring) it does not follow that (anthropogenic carbon emissions must be totally eliminated globally immediately).
I see no proof. Prove it.
Noen,
I did not intend to, nor even attempt to, PROVE anything. Your response ignores several of the "and, if" statements in my sequence of conditional statements. The sequence, taken together, is a truism which is largely ignored in the AGW discussion.
My point is that Kyoto, or Kyoto Lite, is a sick joke. Reducing CO2 emissions to some small percentage below 1990 levels would not and could not "solve the problem". Kyoto was an attempt to get the industrialized world "a little bit pregnant", in the hope that the pregnancy would be politically difficult to terminate, once begun.
The "testimony" of A. A. Gore, Jr. to the Congress in April was the first time I have seen anyone of Gore's "massive stature" in the movement reveal the ultimate end point of the process.
In the words of my favorite American philosopher, Yogi Berra: "You've got to be careful, if you don't know where you're going, because you might end up someplace else."
Noen, so I'm not allowed to read the report and interpret it? They wrote it in English and I was able to understand what I read of it. Their analysis has a lot of uncertainties, as they said.
Even if we eliminate CO2 production, C02 is not the only greenhouse gas out there. We'd have to look at eliminating all of the other greenhouse gasses, too.
Basically, from my reading, if the AGW alarmists are correct, there isn't anything we can do to stop whatever is going to happen. We need to invest in radical technology R&D to figure out how to protect humanity from the coming apocalypse.
EI
Partha erroneously states:
Irreversible? Suppose we melt the ice on Greenland. Is that irreversible? Nope. For a few hundred million dollars a year we could put the whole Earth into an Ice Age. Freeze it up but good.
We even have multiple ways to freeze the Earth. Gregory Benford says we could make the Earth much colder with silicon dioxide. Oliver Wingenter says salt the Southern Ocean with iron to boost dimethyl sulfide production.
If people really want to cut our use of fossil fuels then we should do 2 things:
1) Ban the construction of coal-fired electric power plants. Nuclear only costs about 2 cents per kwh more at most.
2) Fund the development of better batteries for electric cars.
Then we could switch to electric cars for transportation. We could do this without sorting out complex ethical arguments about insurance, intergenerational equity, or what we know about the climate.
I'm thinking Peak Oil is going to force our migration to electric cars anyway. So I'm not too worried about CO2 emissions. But I hate coal plant air pollution and want nukes instead.
Kwyjibo, global GDP is $66,228,669,000,000. So the cost isn't infinite. Though, the growth rate is 5%, so given infinite time, it could approach infinity.
However, over time the probability of catasrophic failure is 1.
Now, if we can reduce the probablility of catastrophe from 1 to 1, then clearly we should spend as much as possible do so because not only do we reduce our chances of catastrophy happening sooner, but we will also greatly reduce the cost of catastrophe.
hypochromia leady plastodynamia mutterer rekindle meteorize viragoish unhealthsome
http://www.telestream.net >Telestream Inc.
http://www.gemusic.com/