That said

Matt may be right that I haven't harangued people about climate change recently, so here goes: dude, if you're still a climate change skeptic, it's time for a rethink. When the science correspondent for Reason magazine comes over to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, it's safe to say that the skeptics have lost the debate. Not only the vast majority of the scientific community, but even most of the hard-core skeptics at conservative magazines, have abandonned the hope that we are not warming up the climate.

There's still debate about the effects of the warming, and what we should do about it. But there's not much question that it's happening. And given that our atmosphere is an extremely complicated system that we, and all of our foreseeable descendants, are utterly dependent upon for our well being, it behooves each of us to think hard about our greenhouse gas emissions, and how we might reduce them; behooves us even if no one else is doing so. Your mother was talking sense when she told you that morality doesn't get suspended because "everyone else is doing it".

No, I'm not going to tell you what you should or should not do, where you should live or what you should drive. That's not my job; it's yours. But you know how much wasteful consumption you do, particularly when compared to the poor people in other countries that global warming may flood out. I'm just saying it wouldn't kill you to think about it a little.

Comments

"When the science correspondent for Reason magazine comes over to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, it's safe to say that the skeptics have lost the debate."

This is such an august personage that s/he goes unnamed?

"Not only the vast majority of the scientific community,..."

When did 'poll results' ever become part of the Scientific Method?

Strange that elusive effects of GHGs are going to trammle us with AGW, though measurable pollution, like Mercury, require no major changes in our current operation (?)

The list of known, and knowable, pollutions that we inject into our Environment, literally, would fill bookshelves. The sad part is that we know how to control that vast majority of their sources, though we do not. I'd think that if we wanted something to reflect upon, it would be that scene.

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | September 24, 2007 6:28 PM

Thanks, I'm thinking about it now. And what if I come do a different conclusion than you?

What if I don't think it morally behoves me to drive my car less because I really don't feel the moral imperative that by driving my car now some kid in India is going to drown in 50 years?

What if I think that the forceful redistribution of wealth in order to supposedly prevent some kid from drowning 50 years from now as a result of my driving to the movie theather is really the thing that's immoral?

There are plenty of other people as disgusted as I am at the religious fervor of those who are so good at predicting when and how the world will end.

For the first few thousand years of civilization we had religious demagogues predicting the end of the world and forcing their viewpoint on society to prevent it.

It looks like for the next few thousand we'll have scientist and policy demagogues predicting the end of the world (or at least the destruction of many others) and forcing their viewpoints on the rest of us demanding we follow their perscribed course of action to prevent it.

Three decades ago the science pointed to an ice age. Now the science is suddenly settled that it's getting warmer. Did the settled science ever get updated just a few weeks/months ago when it was revealed NASA's US temperature record data was faulty and NASA updated its records accordingly?

Posted by sam | September 24, 2007 6:30 PM

I've never denied that climate change is happening. What I have denied is that it is somehow my job to do something about it.

Bluntly speaking, the efforts to do something about global climate change are simply undifferentiated in my perception from "how shall we appease the great and mighty earth-spirit that it does not destroy us?!" - and I think this is superstitious and childish. I simply don't make sacrifices and obeisance before pagan nature spirits to save my worthless life.

I do understand that you probably don't see it quite the same way, so I'm willing to look the other way when people propose the scientific equivalent of a walla-walla dance to attract rain spirits for our ailing crops. But dammit, I refuse to get involved. If you want me to wear the grass skirt and the makeup, too, we are going to have a problem. Just go do your dance and leave me out of it.

Posted by Caliban Darklock | September 24, 2007 6:41 PM

Assume that anthropogenic global warming is fact. People still gloss over these subsequent questions:

1. How much hotter are we getting? (I believe the models are very rudimentary & in their infancy).

2. Is how hot we are going to get a net bad thing? (E.g., maybe its foretstalling the more common earth climate of really, really cold.)

3. If yes, can we actually stop global warming? (i.e., Kyoto and the IPCC reccomendations have no material effect.)

4. If we can retard anthropogenic global warming, does the cost outweigh the benefit? (i.e., is it cheaper to move all the Bangladashi to Dreenland or just build levees (but let the Dutch do it, not the Army Corp of Engineers).)

A measured discussion on climate change should address each of the foregoing. The IPCC doesn't, nor do 1 paragraph blog posts.

Posted by Béziers | September 24, 2007 6:42 PM

Can you link to the article where the unnamed Reason science correspondant makes his or her case? When did a science correspondant become an authority? If you're going to argue from authority, at least pick an authority. Reporters report things... they are rarely actual experts.

It still seems silly for me to make adjustments to my lifestyle that will (even if everyone did them) have little or no effect as long as China produces pollution with no restraint and we continue to build coal and gas power plants instead of nuclear power plants.

Even when we do something supposedly to help the environment, like add ethanol to gasoline, it often ends up making things worse.

I guess I've become something of a fatalistic denier... whatever is going to happen is going to happen and there's no real chance that the "world community" is going to actually do anything. The various diplomats and alarmists who are supposedly coming up with solutions are seemingly completely incompetent.

I'm going to go buy a boat.

Though if you do put on a grass skirt, post pictures.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 24, 2007 6:54 PM

Well, since Matt says it, I guess I should reply, too.

Harangue begins:

The earth goes through cycles all the time, and just the last 100 million years the cyclists lost count at over 5,000 identifiable changes. So, to make it a little easier, let's look at just the last 20,000 years, since the last real ice age.

At that time the earth was pretty freakin' cold, suffice it to say it was so cold that there were mountain glaciers in the United States as far south as the Kings Canyon area (just north of Tehachapi, CA). The Sierra was covered in dozens of relatively small (compared to the continental glaciation of the NW and the Central Canada-Midwest) glaciers, but made those beautiful scenic areas that are exemplified in Yosemite.

Since then, it has been gradually warming up, on the average. I say average because nothing is really linear in nature. What you've got is hundreds of little period of hotter and colder that have been tending towards warmer these last 20K years. In just the last 12,000 years we've had humanity blighting the formerly pristine North American continent. Yes, those Native American forerunners changed many of the 'natural' ecosystems in the continent, and there is strong evidence (I'll put in links at a later post, if anybody really cares to look for it) that man (and woman, for you fems)changed the habitats and hunted certain species so ruthlessly that they were wiped out...perhaps with a little help from Mother Gaia (horrors!!!).

It was so cool that approximately 40% of what is now Nevada was bathed in cool, clear, blue lakes. The glacial outflow was pretty dirty, as they are today, but the lakes were so huge that only 10-20 miles away from the outflows the lakes were incredibly clear and the types of sediments built up were indicative of a clarity found only in the most isolated alpine lakes of today, and Evian water.

Also, what is now the Sahara desert was the breadbasket of Rome, at least around northern Libya and Egypt, with some over towards the Atlas Mts. to the west. There was so much water around that we could just roll logs almost anywhere. Those of you with a historical bent, will realize this is WAY before the Industrial revolution and the increase in carbon dioxide.

So, is it anthropogenic? My deduction is that there is very little effect we have had, so far, on the warming of the earth's climates. By the way, its been a hell of a lot hotter on earth than it is right now, so warm that there are petrified tree stumps in Alaska that are of a variety found only in hot, tropical climates. Even taking continental drift into account, these were actively growing at aroun 40-45 deg north latitude, and required a temp of around 40 deg C to be happy.

Still, I think we ought to put a carbon tax on ourselves so that we don't have to be envious of Leo C., Al G., Sean P., John T. and all the rest of them, because we can make it hurt so bad, even they will stop flying around in their private jets while we squeeze into flying boxcars to fly around.

That'll teach us!!!

Posted by falkoyn | September 24, 2007 7:56 PM

Megan McArdle wrote: But you know how much wasteful consumption you do, particularly when compared to the poor people in other countries that global warming may flood out.

Right, and then in 2004 an undersea earthquake causes a massive tsunami in these same areas, and suddently 230,000 people die within minutes and a few million are displaced, emphasizing that coastal living has been a tenuous ground for human habitation from Day 1 of the human existence. So far, nobody has figured out how to link undersea earthquakes to greenhouse emissions, although I imagine that's next.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't avoid creating disasters when possible just because a natural disaster might do similar or worse, but some areas are less safe for human habitation than others, as even a cursory glance at natural disasters before the 20th century would plainly reveal. Would another twenty years of robust global economic development driven by fossil fuels be more likely to flood those people's children out of their ancestral homes while they continue the tradition of subsistence fishing...or would it have given their children opportunities for wealth that would allow them to dodge disaster more effectively?

It's not a static question, as though human existence continues without change; nor is it an arbitrary question. As history plainly shows, you cannot claim that the likely or even probable outcome of a benign consumer purchase today is a flood death tomorrow. (Well, unless a butterfly is invovled somehow.) New Orleans is below sea level and was hit by a Category 3 hurricane, yet in spite of all the odds against it (poorer than the US average, corrupt and incompetent local government, somewhat incompetent state government, problems in the Army Corps levee design, etc.), we still "only" lost 3000 people in a city with a pre-flood population of 1.4 million. Contrast that against any of the US coastal disasters in the 1800s and what does it look like?

And right about...here --

Megan McArdle wrote: I'm just saying it wouldn't kill you to think about it a little.

-- is where one concludes that the AGW proponents aren't really listening to the objections. Yeah, you've got your garden variety fruit loops denying anything exists at all, or spewing out blather about water vapor, but many of the more serious critics ARE thinking, and what they ask in response to that thinking is the sort of relevant questions that Béziers presented above. In response, they are either getting embed=crickets.wav, or a lot of hemming and hawing that devolves back to, "But...uhm...the problem is real! And think of the children! Especially the poor ones elsewhere!"

Which is not such a great platform for advocating action. If a proponent can't assemble a cohesive checklist of relevant datapoints that satisfy these kinds of questions, what policy can be formulated that doesn't equate to stuffing a shotgun full of cash, pointing it at the sky, and hoping a few tons of GHG take a direct hit?

Posted by anony-mouse | September 24, 2007 8:02 PM

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours.

Posted by Jacknut | September 24, 2007 8:10 PM

Megan, I like your blog, but you are behind the times. I trained as an archaeologist and always knew that Jim Hansen's "this is the warmest year in a thousand years" was utter bull -- the Mann et all "hockey stick" was based on cooked data and tweaking of the program to deny the Medieval Warm Period, but until recently I thought that the current data was probably correct (and I was grateful that we were finally moving out of the Little Ice Age), then various people started to go to the actual weather stations and take a look and found at least a third of them violating the basic rules of data collection. Are you really measuring natural temperature when you have the weather station on concrete? No. Are you getting accuate data when your station is in an airport next to air conditioner exhauts? No. The anthropogenic temperature increases are mostly heat island (urban buildup) effects. I recommend you check out climateaudit.org, Steve MacIntyre's site, for some interesting data and links.
And D&^M! I was hoping for palm trees in Boston in my old age.

Posted by John Costello | September 24, 2007 8:14 PM

Earnest Iconoclast:
"Can you link to the article where the unnamed Reason science correspondant makes his or her case? When did a science correspondant become an authority? If you're going to argue from authority, at least pick an authority."

I believe McArdle was referring to:

Name: Ronald Bailey

This is the column where he comes around on GW:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

And there's a little more background here:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html

The capacity to speak with authority on a subject tends to map along a number of component vectors including (in the case of GW) your level of mathematical competence, your ability to evaluate the contexual framework of the existing literature in a number of subjects, reliability (are you taking bribes from exxon mobile/greenpeace?), level of knowledge adequate to evaluate strengths/weaknesses of a data set, etc etc.

Does Bailey have these qualities in such excess so as to make him some "final word" on the subject? Of course not! But I'd rate his level of authority sufficiently high that I wouldn't discount it out of hand.

I think McArdle used him as an example because of his long history of GW skepticism and (I assume) because he's a libertarian. I'm not sure why being a libertarian would a priori bias you against GW. Perhaps due to the somewhat unfortunate "corporations are evil and raping the environment" narrative that tended to be invoked in association with GW?

Posted by Rice | September 24, 2007 8:24 PM

As long as we're discussing nature gods, could someone invoke a deity to release my post from moderation purgatory?

Posted by Ryan W. | September 24, 2007 8:43 PM

Thank you Rice!

I am impressed with Mr Ronald Bailey for really digging deep into this complex matter and coming around when science confronted his skepticism.

He seems to be one of the few who also read what the UN is actually publishing etc. (Most "skeptics" here would be surprised to find answers to their questions in many reports as well.)

I do not agree with him on all accounts, but as Megan's shout-out heralded, he thinks about it! He has left the stage of "why" behind and will now move on to "what" and "how". Good!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 24, 2007 9:03 PM

Ryan

You might enjoy this one:

Apocalypse Now
A scientist's plea for Christian environmentalism.
by Edward O. Wilson in The New Republic
Issue date: 09.04.06

The following is a letter from the eminent Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, winner of the National Medal of Science and two Pulitzer Prizes, to an imagined Southern Baptist pastor—and the larger evangelical community.
_________

Of course this has nothing to do with supernatural forces ala Nostradamus. It is as unspectacular as the discovery of cancer!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 24, 2007 9:21 PM

Megan, I'd say if you are still a climate change believer, it's time for a rethink.

My, wasn't that helpful?

More usefully, let's note that there are a whole bunch of questions involved here:

(1) has there been observable warming in the last 100 years? Yes, almost certainly so.

(2) Has there been a major increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in the last hundred years? Yes, pretty good evidence.

(3) Is CO2 a known "greenhouse" gas? Yup, absolutely.

BUT ...

(4) Can the quantitative statements about the actual amount of warming be relied on to great accuracy? This is less obvious: there are a number of confounding effect, from heat islands to changes in measurement standards, that cause the error bars to grow.

(5) Can long-term temperature curves be relied upon to great accuracy? No. In fact, many of the modeling methods turn out to have little information content --- for example, Mann et al's methods would show a dramatic increase in termperature and an inflection around 100 years ago if presented with random numbers. Reproducibility of some of these inferred temperatures is another big issue.

(6) Can we infer that CO2 content is actually the dominant reason for temperature changes? No. We know that there are several other sources that are at least as well supported, including for example changes in solar output on long-term cycles.

Thus,

(7) the notion that climate change is real, primarily anthropogenic, and dominated by human CO2 output depends on all these points being true. Each one has a probability of being true of significantly less than 1. It follows, therefore, that the probability of the conjunction of them all being true is also signficiantly less than 1.

Note, by the way, that this argument is completely consistent with the Natinoal Academy of Sciences study, which said the conclusion was "likely" but not "very likely."

Then, we have to ask

(8) IF WE ASSUME for sake of argument that all these things are true, what are the actual predicted consequences? Primarily, that the average temperature will rise another couple of degrees, and that sea levels will rise in the neighborhood of 20 cm. Which is to say, about 8 inches. In a century.

Would that be unpleasant? In some places: the Maldives, some of the Ganges Delta. New Orleans will go from being 12 feet below sea level to being twelve and a half feet below sea level

On the other hand, many of the predictions are simply alarmist. Polar bears aren't drowning and the Antarctic ice cap is growing, not shrinking.

So we finally get to (9): if everything turned out to be true about climate change, how much money and effort would it be worth to try to solve the problems? It really ends up looking to me that there are lots of things that would, net, improve people's livbes a lot more, for less money.

... but then, this kind of argument isn't near as effective as calling people "denialists" and the like.

Shame, really.

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) | September 24, 2007 9:31 PM

I think McArdle used him as an example because of his long history of GW skepticism and (I assume) because he's a libertarian. I'm not sure why being a libertarian would a priori bias you against GW.

The skeptic changing their mind is always an interesting example. As for the libertarian piece, it's not so much that they are biased against AGW, but that most of the common ways to address increase the power of the state. That's bound to make those of libertarian leanings pause for thought.

DJHK

Posted by DJHK | September 24, 2007 9:36 PM

A very impressive series of comments here. A number of these points were made in the appendixes to Michael Crichton's State of Fear, btw. That's worth reading, even for those uninterested in reading the didactic novel that precedes it. Crichton includes an exhaustive annotated bibliography covering all sides in the debate, for those who want to review primary sources.

Posted by Fred | September 24, 2007 9:43 PM

Science reality is not decided by consensus, and certainly not by consensus of those not trained in climatology.

From what I've seen, there is far from consensus among climatologists regarding AGW, although it appears as if simple GW is occurring.

Solar radiation accounts for the increases observed in temperatures, both recent temperatures and temperatures in the past, which AGW simply doesn't account for.

Frankly, I'd rather see more research money go into determining whether or not GW is really occurring, and to what extent, than to see it go towards furthering the Church of AGW.

Posted by Rex | September 24, 2007 9:50 PM

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't avoid creating disasters when possible just because a natural disaster might do similar or worse, but some areas are less safe for human habitation than others, as even a cursory glance at natural disasters before the 20th century would plainly reveal.

Something like two thirds of the world's population live on the coast. They can't all move.

Would another twenty years of robust global economic development driven by fossil fuels be more likely to flood those people's children out of their ancestral homes while they continue the tradition of subsistence fishing...or would it have given their children opportunities for wealth that would allow them to dodge disaster more effectively?

This is a good argument for balancing the benefits of fossil-fuel driven development against its costs, and mitigating the costs as much as possible. It is not a good argument for ignoring the costs and taking no action.

I'm just saying it wouldn't kill you to think about it a little.

But yeah, this is pretty grating.

jenny

Posted by jenny | September 24, 2007 10:01 PM

Glad your position on this has evolved, Megan.

Now, "abandonned"? I knew that you had adopted some anglicisms over at The Economist, but where are the gallicisms coming from?

Posted by Joe Tangredi | September 24, 2007 10:18 PM

sea levels will rise in the neighborhood of 20 cm. Which is to say, about 8 inches. In a century.

Would that be unpleasant?

It would be a very bloody and expensive catastrophy. And as you've been saying it's not zero-percent likely.

if everything turned out to be true about climate change, how much money and effort would it be worth to try to solve the problems?

This is a good question. Do you really think "no money or effort" is the right answer? If so I'd like to hear why.

jenny

Posted by jenny | September 24, 2007 10:22 PM

DJHK:
the common ways to address increase the power of the state. That's bound to make those of libertarian leanings pause for thought.

Absolutely, and I share many of the reservations a typical libertarian would have with respect towards even the comparatively modest unilateralist policy prescriptions that McArdle proposes in her other posts today.

However, I would point out to everyone that the post to which this thread is a response makes a separate claim: given AGW (which I recognize that most here would deem a poor premise), one has the capacity to manage one's own exposure to moral hazard individually and independently (to first order, more or less) of the policies of this or future administrations/congresses.

While the material benefits of one person decreasing their carbon-footprint can be washed out by the actions of everyone else + gov'ts + companies + etc... the psychic benefits may be non-trivial in terms of a personal, rather than collective, moral calculus (i.e. McArdle may feel that she was less complicit in any avoidable deaths/disasters as a consequence of AGW).

McArdle's appeal to individual action (which will not necessarily be anathema to libertarians) should be evaluated independently of any proposals for collective action.

Posted by Rice | September 24, 2007 10:24 PM

...poor people in other countries that global warming may flood out

And when exactly is that supposed to happen? Last I heard, the scientific consensus was that oceans are probably rising about 20 inches per century. So when the family hut falls apart in 50 years, I guess you build the new one a few yards back. GW-induced "flooding" in the third world is about as worrisome as the fact that Cape Cod will gradually erode into the Atlantic over the next five millenium.

Posted by Rob Leder | September 24, 2007 10:33 PM

So when the family hut falls apart in 50 years, I guess you build the new one a few yards back.

There's already a hut there. When the family hut falls apart, you'll be a refugee if you're alive. If the oceans rise a few inches there will be a lot of refugees.

jenny

Posted by jenny | September 24, 2007 10:54 PM

When you convince Lubos, then you will convince me. He may be crass but man is he fun to read.

Posted by Dan in Euroland | September 24, 2007 11:23 PM

I don't see why this is a political controversy. If anthropogenic global warming is not some of crisis, we ignore the environmentalists and if it is some kind of crisis, we tar and feather the anti-nuclear activists. Either way, we wingnuts win.

The real reason to go slow on accepting the claim that anthropogenic global warming is a crisis is that if it isn't, every creationist on Earth (and most other crackpots) won't let us forget it.

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger | September 24, 2007 11:53 PM

So, Megan, how many miles did you fly this year? How many cab rides do you take? Own an air conditioner? Do you really need that car? Are you less gaseous than the average DC dweller with your income?

Posted by Kwyjibo | September 25, 2007 12:01 AM

There's already a hut there. When the family hut falls apart, you'll be a refugee if you're alive.

- Jenny

Fine, a mile back then. The point is, if high tide starts lapping a little closer to your front door than it did in your grandparents' day, you'll go somewhere else.

And why on earth would anyone not be alive?? We are talking less than two feet per century. Is that all going to come in one big wave?

It's ludicrous to use words like "death", "refugee", or even "flooding" when discussing rising oceans from global warming. It's like asking what we're going to do with all of the corpses and refugees as Cape Cod inevitably sinks into the Atlantic over the next 200 generations.

Last I heard, we had about 40 years of oil left. Then I guess we're more-or-less "green", whether we want to be or not. Can anyone explain to me what is going to stop the population of this planet from using up all of it? Is any policy that restricts annual output going to do anything more than stretch our ~40 years of remaining fossil fuel a little bit longer? If we burn it up over 50 or 60 years, is that really much of a boon to the environment?

Posted by Rob Leder | September 25, 2007 1:32 AM

jenny wrote: This is a good question. Do you really think "no money or effort" is the right answer? If so I'd like to hear why.

Actually, I don't feel that "nothing" is the best response. However, I also don't feel that "something" is the best response simply because it's not "nothing". In any bad situation, the most destructive actor is the one who feels compelled to "do something" but doesn't have a clear grasp of the situation and facts -- and hence does something wrong.

Look at it this way: Supposing you have a valuable possession in need of insurance, and you're completely sold on the idea that the greatest risk is fire. Also, you've only got three hundred bucks. So you invest your limited resources in the best fire insurance policy that $300 can buy. That night, your possession is stolen.

Whoops! Not only do you not have your possession, but all the insurance money is gone, just as surely as if you had burned it. Obviously the likely reaction is "Oh no! We should have structured our insurance priorities differently", but in point of fact, since your knowledge of the risks and your available mitigation resources were both highly limited, you would have been better off not buying the insurance at all.

This isn't quite where the AWG debate stands, and no doubt most of us can find some simple and reasonable ways to improve the energy efficiency of our lifestyles. But the willingness of a certain type of proponent to risk stunningly large amounts of money (mostly that of Others) on one-shot solution scenarios that attempt to change the entire course of the global climate is both arrogant, a bit frightening, when it comes from persons who can't even control the first thing about tomorrow morning's weather.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 25, 2007 1:48 AM

Rob Ledder wrote: And why on earth would anyone not be alive?? We are talking less than two feet per century. Is that all going to come in one big wave? It's ludicrous to use words like "death", "refugee", or even "flooding" when discussing rising oceans from global warming. It's like asking what we're going to do with all of the corpses and refugees as Cape Cod inevitably sinks into the Atlantic over the next 200 generations.

Well, in fairness, Rob, the argument is rather something like that it DOES come in one big wave -- or a bigger wave, anyway. A relatively rapid change in overall temperatures is argued to increase the size and frequency of violent storms; combine that with a higher sea level, and suddenly an unpleasant but survivable typhoon is a much bigger typhoon with a massive storm surge.

Also, a flood in a warm, poor area pretty much always leads to a corresponding increase in waterborn diseases until the floodwaters finally subside, so if the scope of flooding increases, so does the number of deaths after the fact -- let alone whatever the storm itself accomplishes during the duration.

Whether the science really points toa likelihood of that coming to pass, is a different argument from whether or not a higher ocean level and storm size/incidence are capable of substanially greater scope of devestation and after-effects.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 25, 2007 2:02 AM

behooves us even if no one else is doing so.

This is exactly wrong, of course. The rational course for every individual is to ignore his or her greenhouse gas output, because unless a critical mass of society starts doing the right thing, individual action won't help - and if a critical mass of people does do the right thing, individual backsliders won't matter.

Absent some collective agreement with teeth, it always behooves the individual to sabotage society in such circumstances - after all, there are a lot of obvious benefits to conduct that increases greenhouse gasses, and no measurable benefit - on the individual scale - to doing otherwise. To the extent that one assumes that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, then the libertarian answer is to bake and/or drown.

Posted by politicalfootball | September 25, 2007 2:02 AM

I'm not sure why being a libertarian would a priori bias you against GW. Perhaps due to the somewhat unfortunate "corporations are evil and raping the environment" narrative that tended to be invoked in association with GW?

A hatred of collective action. If you detest collective action, you tend to be more interested in pretending that the phenomena which might compel collective action don't exist.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 4:28 AM

So, Megan, how many miles did you fly this year? How many cab rides do you take? - Kwyjibo

The argument from hypocrisy is really tedious. First of all, you'd have to take a lot of cab rides for it to be as bad as owning a car, and people just never do take that many cabs. Anyone who's lived in NYC can tell you that because the price of cab rides shows up incrementally while the price of a car is front-loaded, you just wind up in cars far, far less often when you don't own one.

Second, the whole point of environmental action is that no one person can do much about it; it requires collective decision-making, and that's what drives the libertarian crowd so completely up the wall. It's like national defense: I can't say, okay, you want an army -- you go buy an M-1 tank. Hypocrite! You don't even own an automatic rifle, and how many times did you go on maneuvers this year? Megan would no doubt be able to fly much less often if the US had a decent high-speed train network, but establishing that requires collective action.

And, indeed, the evisceration of the environmental movement from the '70s to the '90s had a lot to do with this "Think globally, act locally" attitude. People felt that environmentalism constantly required you to do all kinds of strenuous and uncomfortable, humorless things -- no clothes dryers, no car, no meat, and so on -- for which you never saw any kind of results. People eventually tune out to such demands. The new environmentalism is being driven by two changes. First, on the food side, you can now simply pay more to enjoy an environmentally friendly item as a luxury object. Second, on global warming, the changes necessary are so far beyond the scale of what individuals can accomplish -- and the threat is so gargantuan, on the disaster-porn level -- that they simply must be accomplished as massive, collective projects. We're not talking about "should I own a dryer"? We're talking about "should we build a mag-lev from Atlanta to Boston? Should we build 100 new nuclear plants and shut down coal?" So please, drop the ad hominem crap; it's incredibly irritating. And btw, if you do own a car and fly a lot, you don't get to claim a moral free pass just because you don't "claim" to be environmentalist. Your sincerity is worth zilch; it's just as immoral for you as it is for Megan.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 4:46 AM

The problem for libertarians is, that the proposition of Human Global Warming as defined by Al Gore, ALWAYS needs a collective world wide empire to tackle it (empire as in all powers to the UN). On the other side, we all know by now that the Soviet Union was one hell-hole of environmental disasters, so why would a global anti-warming alliance work better?

We already see that global efforts (e.g. Kyoto) are falling apart and can't be met without strangling the economy to a point where living in darkness is a real opportunity.

I don't see this warming as a threat, because

a) we still talk years or decades and not days (a daily increase of 0.5 °C warming and 20 inch in sea level couldn't be coped with)

b) almost all alarmist claims regardless of media or scientific, are most likely false and have a good track record of being over-stated (Club of Rome anyone)

c) I believe that "co2-neutral" technologies will make their way just like "bio"-food has, because rich people who want to calm their conscience are ready to pay a premium for "green"-energy and food.

And last, I think we will witness something about the lower end of the IPCC estimates, who are no better or worse than weather forecasts or financial forecast models.
As others have said on the web, CO2 sensitivity is usually all scientific sceptics are talking about and how those estimates are coming around.
I mean, I know how I determine the coefficients influencing the sensitivity in machine processes, because we can hold most variables constant, but I can't see how they determine it in earth climate (they just have no experimental basis!). So, what they do is ultimately making a more or less educated guess, which may or may not be right, but is (for safety reasons?!) much larger than it actually might be.

So, a lot of smoke but nothing to fear here, and certainly no issue that qualifies for harassing front pages and op-eds without end...

Posted by Max | September 25, 2007 6:30 AM

The argument from hypocrisy is really tedious.

Yes, and it would not be particularly relevant if not for Megan's regular mentions of her wonderfully low-carb lifestyle and her periphrastic haranguings on the subject.

Posted by Kwyjibo | September 25, 2007 6:44 AM

From my perspective, I have thought that the best evidence we have shows that the earth is warmer than it was about 150 years ago.
Climate scientists must rely upon computer models identify the historical contribution of CO2 on observed warming and to make predictions about its future impact. I don't think that the models in their current state are sufficiently reliable to base investments of hundreds of billions of dollars. The IPCC report acknowledges many of the current limitations of the models and I think it significantly understates them.
I don't have any problem with individual modifying their lifestyles to respond to global warming. I just don't think it will make any difference. If the primary cause of global warming is CO2 emissions, the only way to measurably slow global warming is to impose draconian regulations that will sacrifice hundreds of billions of economic growth.

Posted by PaulD | September 25, 2007 6:47 AM

How about this thought experiment: What if it were proven that global warming is occurring and will continue as predicted, but that the anthropogenic component of the temperature increase is very small, perhaps 10% or less? Would you change your policy prescriptions?

Posted by Kwyjibo | September 25, 2007 7:35 AM

Kwyjibo, I don't own a car, have flown exactly one short-haul flight this year, and have probably taken five cabs by myself since I moved to DC. You wouldn't exactly compare me with a Yoruba tribesman, but for an American I have a very, very small carbon footprint.

Posted by Megan McArdle | September 25, 2007 7:50 AM

Is Global Warming happening? Yes.
Is this a reason to panic? No.

Some things to keep in mind.

There are things happening around the globe:
China is bringing mulitple Nuclear power plants online within the next decade. Which should significantly help reduce CO2 and soot,(probably a worse troublemaker).

New technologies are being developed:

EESTOR and MIT have both claimed to have created technologies that can allow forthe creation of a capacitor that can go hundreds of miles on a single charge and can charge in under an hour.
Making the electric car a possibility.

Changes in behavior do not have to be an inconvenience:

I am still amazed that there aren't greater incentives offered to get businesses to move to compressed work weeks and/or telecommuting. It seems to me that a great deal of people could work at least a day from home or put in a 3 or 4 day work week. Not only would you get happier workers but the air would get cleaner, the demand for oil would decrease, and the maintenance costs on the infrastructure would go down.

Posted by Mike Garfein | September 25, 2007 8:11 AM

Paul D,

The global investment necessary to achieve the draconian reductions required to halt the increase in ambient CO2 concentrations would be on the order of $100 trillion.

The investment necessary to reduce the ambient CO2 concentrations to their prior idyllic levels is unknowable, because the technology to accomplish it is not available.

"A goal without a plan is just a wish." Antoine de St. Exupery

Posted by Ed Reid | September 25, 2007 10:11 AM

"When did 'poll results' ever become part of the Scientific Method?"

Not poll results, peer review. Eventually, the deniers abandon the peer review process and resort to publishing editorials rather than journal articles.

The preponderance of scientific opinion becomes scientific fact. There are still people with pertinent degrees who deny quantum mechanics, relativity, and the germ theory of disease. We call them crackpots.

Posted by Njorl | September 25, 2007 10:37 AM

I think about GW a lot, but mostly just to engage in some hand-wringing. Ultimately, it seems irrelevant to me whether GW is caused by human activity. Even if it is, the MSM articles I've read make it clear that, even if we were to adopt Kyoto wholesale, we're still f*cked. That's the best argument for not doinig anything at all.

Regarding GW critics, there seems to be some reliance on minimizing the consequences. 8 in in 50 years? Who cares? My understanding is that it isn't so much the new beachfront property that we have to fear, but the loss of fresh water and food stocks, as the environment becomes overall less hopsitable to our needs. We've already confirmed that rising temperatures has contributed to the loss of key links in the food chain. If you don't care about what happends to humans after those living today are dead, and I guess that could be a common sentiment, then you're probably more likely to mock the possible consequences. If you have kids, like I do, you can't help but think about what sort of world you'll be leaving behind.

Posted by Amitava Mazumdar | September 25, 2007 11:46 AM

Duh.  The vision of the skeptic community denying that the world is warming at all is a straw man created by the climate catastrophists to avoid arguing about the much more important point in her second paragraph.  What I can't understand is McArdle's, and many intelligent people I meet, seeming unintrest in the degree of man-made impact.

The chief debate really boils down to those of us who think that climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to 1C (ie the degrees the world will warm with a doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels) and those who think that the sensitivity is 3-5C or more.  The lower sensitivity implies a warming over the next century of about a half degree C, or about what we saw in the last century.  The higher numbers represesent an order of magnitude more warming in the next century.  The lower numbers imply a sea level rise measured in inches.  The higher numbers imply a rise of 1-2 feet  (No one really know where Al Gore gets his 20 foot prediction in his movie).  The lower numbers we might not even notice.  The higher numbers will certainly cause problems.

The other debate is whether the cost of CO2 abatement should even be considered.  I have talked to many people who say the costs are irrelevent - Gaia must come first.  But steps to make any kind of dent in CO2 production with current technologies will have a staggering impact on the world economy.  For example, there are a billion Asians poised to finally to enter the middle class who we will likely consign back to poverty with an aggresive CO2 reduction program.  With such staggering abatement costs, it matters how bad the effects of man-made global warming will be. 

There are many reasons a 1.0 climate sensivity is far more defensible than the higher sensitivities used by catastrophists.  My argument a lower climate sensitivity and therefore a less aggresive posture on CO2 is here. 

Sure, we skeptics debate the degree of past warming, but it really can't be denied the earth is warmer than 100 years ago.  The problem catastrophists have with defending their higher climate sensitivities is that these sensitivities imply that we should have seen much more warming over the past 100 years, as much as 1.5C or more instead of about 0.6C.  These scientists have a tendency to try to restate historical numbers to back their future forecast accuracy.  We skeptics fight them on this, but it does not mean we are trying to deny warming at all, just make sure the science is good as to the magnitude.

One other thought - everyone should keep two words in mind vis a vis CO2 and its effect on temperature:  Diminishing Return.  Each new molecule of CO2 has less impact on temperature than the last one.  Only by positing a lot of weird, unlikely, and unstable positive feedbacks in the climate can scientists reach these higher sensitivity numbers (more here).  A good economist would laugh if they understood the assumptions that were being made in the catastrophic forecasts that are being used to influence government action.

Posted by coyote | September 25, 2007 12:18 PM

I just created a global warming prediction market here:

http://globalwarming.inklingmarkets.com/

Please sign up and trade ($5,000 of play money). Let's hope we can get a real market up and running, and better inform our policy on global warming.

Posted by caveat bettor | September 25, 2007 12:24 PM

"When did 'poll results' ever become part of the Scientific Method?"

Not poll results, peer review. Eventually, the deniers abandon the peer review process and resort to publishing editorials rather than journal articles.

..."Only by positing a lot of weird, unlikely, and unstable positive feedbacks in the climate can scientists reach these higher sensitivity numbers (more here). A good economist(Scientist) would laugh if they understood the assumptions that were being made in the catastrophic forecasts that are being used to influence government action."-- coyote w/ addition

That about gets it..

Posted by MEH | September 25, 2007 12:39 PM

Last I heard, we had about 40 years of oil left.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but there's only about 10 years-worth of proven oil reserves. Does this mean we'll run out in 10 years? Well no, because exploration and production proceed apace of consumption. In 10 years we'll still have 10 years-worth of proven reserves*. But that hasn't stopped various alarmists from trying to use that "10 years of oil" stat to scare crap out of people for at least 40 years now.

I guess that's what I find most objectionable about AGW, the fact that the alarmists feel the need to scare crap out of people, often while jetting around the world to do it. When AlGore stops flying in a private jet I will start worrying about global warming. When he tears down his mansions and moves into a house the size of mine I'll be terrified. But the insufferable elitism of his owning three huge homes and jetting about the country to demand that the rest of us live like Chinese peasants? Well, Just Bite Me Al.

In the mean time we absolutely should reduce polution of all kinds wherever we can, if only as a quality of life issue. We should do that whether the globe is warming, cooling, or staying the same. We should do that simply because we know we should, not because someone with a gigantic carbon buttprint has wagged his finger at us.

*Just in the last year a huge pool of oil has been found in the gulf that we didn't even know about five years ago. Also, don't forget about oil shale & tar sands, oil from coal, etc. We have hundreds of years-worth of petroleum products. Does that mean we should burn it up? Absolutely not. Petroleum is hugely valuable as a manufacturing comodity, we shouldn't be burning it at all if we care about future generations.

Posted by Swen Swenson | September 25, 2007 12:59 PM

"First, on the food side, you can now simply pay more to enjoy an environmentally friendly item as a luxury object."

There we go. Evironmentalists think objects are too cheap, and that only those rich enough should be able to enjoy them because they've "paid" to offset the negative consequence. What a great segway into more socialist policies where we talk about the vast inequalities between the rich and the poor.

Here we are narrowing the game between the poor of today in the US and the rich of yesterday (the poor today are usually better off than the poor/middle class of years gone by) and you want to widen the gap by making it so that only a guy making 200k a year can afford to buy a hamburger while everyone else has to eat rice. Wait no rice that causes greenhouse emissions...

Posted by sam | September 25, 2007 1:02 PM

Something else to consider: Just what is the optimum global temperature? My ancestors grew grapes in Newfoundland, can't do that now. Some of the greatest advances in civilization came when global temperatures were higher than now.

If we're truly concerned about all those poor people drowning (remember, daily tides raise and lower sea level a lot more than 8-20 inches) we might consider spending some of those gazillion anti-global warming dollars to make them, ya know, less poor. Then they can all afford to buy nice coats when, 30 years from now, AlGore is jetting about warning us of the coming ice age.

Posted by Swen Swenson | September 25, 2007 1:19 PM

sam, I'm not advocating this as a strategy. I am observing this as fact. Eating in an environmentally friendly fashion used to be something one did as penance. In the past 10 years, it has become something one does as recreation. Environmentalists don't "want" everyone to "have to" pay more for, say, locally grown heirloom tomatoes. The market determines that the public wants to pay more for locally grown heirloom tomatoes. In fact, environmentalists want people to have to pay less for locally grown produce, which is what will eventually start to happen as fuel prices rise.

Food prices, in the US as anywhere else in the world, are highly dependent on how food markets are structured, which is heavily affected by government policy and by the actions of big market-making purchasers like supermarket chains. As powerful supermarkets go into the local and organic produce businesses, the price of local produce is dropping radically because of tremendous economies of scale. The more this happens, the more you're going to see dairy, potato, and fruit farming returning to the Eastern US. I can't really see how that's a bad thing. It will be particularly beneficial for poor people, who currently suffer not from food that is too expensive, but from food that is too unhealthy.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 1:23 PM

"First, on the food side, you can now simply pay more to enjoy an environmentally friendly item as a luxury object."

Ah, glad you brought that up again, although I wasn't really advocating socialist policies to make people less poor. Rather, the anti-AGW policies being propounded will tend to make us all more poor and I don't see how that will really help matters.

But back to those "environmentally friendly" luxury foods. I assume we're talking about organic foods. But consider: It takes much more land and more water to produce organic food. Nor does using cow poop reduce the amount of effluent that finds its way into the water system -- quite the opposite actually. Same problem with biofuels. More land under the plow and more water to irrigate it means less habitat and less water for wildlife. Organic food may help some folks who are extraordinarily sensitive to some chemicals, but make no mistake, organic food is a luxury but it is absolutely not environmentally friendly. (It's not animal-friendly either. Livestock die when they get sick and don't get the antibiotics they need to get well. That's just plain cruel.)

Posted by Swen Swenson | September 25, 2007 1:34 PM

In fact, environmentalists want people to have to pay less for locally grown produce, which is what will eventually start to happen as fuel prices rise.

Righto! And the folks in NYC will be growin' their 'matoes in window boxes and raisin' chickens in the alley, right? Meanwhile, anyone who lives much north of Florida and Texas can forget about fresh fruit. Oh, and that hard red spring wheat it takes to make pasta? Well, you'd better move to North Dakota if you like spagetti. Seems like a very realistic scenario to me.

Posted by Swen Swenson | September 25, 2007 1:43 PM

I'm far from an AGW skeptic: AGW is almost certainly real, it's probably a problem, and we certainly ought to be thinking about whether there's something we can do to fix it. But there's a well-known cycle in technology:

1) Phenomena get identified through measurement.

2) Theories get advanced to explain a phenomenon.

3) The theories get so good that they can actually be used to predict how the phenomenon will change when the system is modified.

4) Engineers swoop in and develop technology that can actually manage the phenonmenon.

If you're really charitable, we're on step #2. We can't do anything about the problem until we're on step #4. Furthermore, even nice intuitive measures like conservation induce unpredictable non-linear behavior in the system. (Example: If you reduce the number of coal-fired power plants, you reduce the amount of aerosols and particulates in the atmosphere, reducing global albedo and increasing the amount of heat absorbed by the earth. Does this effect outweigh the CO2 reduction? Beats me. But we probably ought to know before we attempt to formulate policy, don't you think?)

Finally, let's remember that urban planners of the late nineteenth century worried a lot about the Great Horse Manure Crisis, where increased vehicular traffic would drown cities in poop. Hmmm, I wonder what happened to stave off that calamity?

Conservation seems to be an utterly silly way of solving the global warming problem, given that the only alternative to explosive growth is economic collapse. (Sorry, folks, we simply lack the technology to manage global economics any better than that.) Most alternative energy systems won't scale. The ones that do scale are either unpalatable (nuclear fission) or not yet feasible (solar, nuclear fusion).

In other words, we simply don't have a solution right now. But I can almost guarantee that historians of 2100 will enjoy many good laughs at our quaint responses to the problem, in light of how it actually got solved. Because it will get solved. Some technology will come out of left field and render the problem irrelevant. Mind you, worrying about the problem is how left field will get fertilized. By all means, let's keep working on the problem. But let's not do anything stupid.

Now if we could only convert Yucca Mountain over to storing all that horse manure...

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | September 25, 2007 1:55 PM

So you are advocating that we begin subsidizing fuel in order to keep Oregon apples competitive with New York apples in New York City, as fuel prices rise? I don't see your point here. The shift to organic and local produce that has been taking place so far is entirely market-driven. It also happens to have a lot of climate benefits, and it would be a good idea for the government to encourage it. You're off on some weird tangent about growing chickens in NYC, which has nothing to do with anything. Apparently the idea of global warming has become so repugnant to you that you actually denigrate normal people's preference for local foods, because it's somehow linked up in your mind with the dread environmentalism.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 2:03 PM

Megan I will pay more attention to the GW hysterics when someone finally creates a computer model of the environment that can successfully predict last Wednesday's weather from the data of the preceding century.
We know what the weather conditions were last Wednesday, but there is no way to reverse the preocess. I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims to know the average temperature and CO2 levels for 10,000 years ago and then makes predictions for the future.

While being "greener" certainly does not hurt, it is no cause for more government interference.

Posted by Stephen | September 25, 2007 2:47 PM

brooksfoe wrote: So you are advocating that we begin subsidizing fuel in order to keep Oregon apples competitive with New York apples in New York City, as fuel prices rise? I don't see your point here.

New York grows apples in Feburary now, do they? News to me.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 25, 2007 2:50 PM

It's never been satisfactorily explained to me how we can distinguish our observed climate trends from statistical noise, given the tiny sample we have (i.e. roughly 50-100 years of accurate observations vs. geologic time) AND conclude this is due to human activity AND conclude that we must do this, this, and this to correct it AND that this is worth enduring a permanent global recession.

Thus I remain a skeptic.

BTW if anyone has links to any material that can conclusively show current observed trends are not statistical noise, I would genuinely like to see them.

Posted by Noah Yetter | September 25, 2007 2:53 PM

jenny:

[sea levels will rise in the neighborhood of 20 cm. Which is to say, about 8 inches. In a century. which] would be a very bloody and expensive catastrophy.

There's already a hut there. When the family hut falls apart, you'll be a refugee if you're alive. If the oceans rise a few inches there will be a lot of refugees.

These arguments are silly. The ordinary phenomenon of the tides causes local sea levels to change by several feet in the course of a few hours. And you are saying that humans can't adapt to a mean level change of 8 inches that occurs over a century?

Even if the sea levels rise, as they have risen and fallen for millenia, there are many things that can be done to mitigate the effect, especially when there are decades to study and plan for them. The Dutch are very accomplished at building dykes and keeping the sea out. Restoring wetlands re-establishes buffer zones between the sea and human habitation. And ultimately, though it may seem cold to say this, a (slowly) rising sea level may force humans to relocate, in an orderly fashion from coastal zones where they shouldn't have established large scale habitation to begin with. I would think that environmentalists would be happy with this.

Posted by Kevin P. | September 25, 2007 2:57 PM

The evidence that we have warmed in recent years is pretty overwhelming. Some of the data is questionable, but not all of it, and there is so much of it, that added together its pretty solid despite the occasional flaw.

OTOH why we are warming, how much we will warm, what the results of the warming will be, and what we should do about it, and what the costs and effects of these counter actions will be, are all very uncertain questions. That adds up to a very large reason to be skeptical about any quick and expensive response to global warming.

Posted by Tim Fowler | September 25, 2007 3:06 PM

And yet CNBC, a major cable network, had a debate on this morning pitting a global climate change skeptic against a more mainstream scientist. And the "hosts," mostly Joe Kernan, were on the skeptic's side. It is very disappointing to see people who appear to have intelligence and probably have a good deal of influence, taking such a naive view.

Posted by Marc Resnick | September 25, 2007 3:19 PM

Megan,

I'll second John Costello's comment-

http://www.climateaudit.com

is a fun read on the truly poor state of some of the science that is getting done. McIntyre is a classic "the empereor has no clothes" gadfly.

And, on the truly poor state of the data being used for the above science -

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php

Only about 13% of the weather stations in the HCN meet NOAA/NASA's own basic site criteria. Anthony Watt's powerpoint slideshow about this to CIRES/UCAR is hysterical.

Best of all, you can submit your own surveys and pics of the many unsurveyed stations in the Virginia and Maryland area. Or New York.

All the excitement of geocaching and blogging, combined!

Posted by Ed | September 25, 2007 4:47 PM

I'll sidestep the semantics, but I do want to point out that the Reason Foundation receives their primary funding from American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, ExxonMobil, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motors, General Motors and Shell.

Read into it what you will.

Posted by atlas | September 25, 2007 4:59 PM

Persuing the Board of Trustees for Reason, and you'll find many men with a substantial financial stake in this argument. (The Koch bros, in particular)

Posted by atlas | September 25, 2007 5:09 PM

I just created a global warming prediction market here:

http://globalwarming.inklingmarkets.com/

Please sign up and trade ($5,000 of play money). Let's hope we can get a real market up and running, and better inform our policy on global warming.

Posted by caveat bettor | September 25, 2007 5:13 PM

To correct misimpressions:

sea levels will rise in the neighborhood of 20 cm - jenny and kevin p.

Actually, the 4th IPCC report has the most recent international consensus on likely sea level rise in the 21st century at 18 to 38 cm (low scenario) or 26 to 59 cm (high scenario). So 8 inches is at the very low end of the possible; the high end would be 2 feet. And that's excluding any catastrophic scenarios, like a much more rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Scientists note that with each new round of review, the IPCC's estimates keep getting higher, which is not a promising sign.

And you are saying that humans can't adapt to a mean level change of 8 inches that occurs over a century?

Again, it's between 8 inches and 2 feet at least, but of course people will adapt. Miami Beach will disappear, but that's not the worst thing that's ever happened. The Everglades will probably be mostly gone. The most difficulty will be faced by places like the Mississippi, Ganges, Thames and Rhine deltas, where the rivers will cease to flow and will turn into estuaries and bays. It may be necessary to put a substantial part of Holland back under water. Venice will probably be beyond salvaging. The Mekong Delta in Vietnam, basically the entire southernmost part of the country, will largely disappear, damaging the country's ability to feed itself. But people will adapt.

But, at the upper edge of that range, we've never in recorded history seen any landscape change as big as a 2-foot rise in sea levels over 100 years would be. So don't kid yourself that this is no big deal.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 6:43 PM

atlas,

way to do your own homework. Th worm has long since turned @ Reason Magazine.

Personally, I think they're still living off the afterglow from the bright light that was V. Postrel. (note: she left) It's really too bad that she didn't/couldn't take the Title with her.

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | September 25, 2007 10:53 PM

'til warmanistas deal with traffic (dispell the myth that slow acceleration is more efficient than smooth, fast acceleration; fund traffic light timing and make it available to drivers through gps; build more and better roads; install electronically controlled and coordinated traffic lights and speedlimit postings; etc.), I can't take anything they say the least bit serious.

Posted by aaron | September 26, 2007 8:59 AM

But, at the upper edge of that range, we've never in recorded history seen any landscape change as big as a 2-foot rise in sea levels over 100 years would be. So don't kid yourself that this is no big deal.

Except the 1-foot in the past 100 years.

Posted by aaron | September 26, 2007 9:09 AM

brooksfoe:

Again, it's between 8 inches and 2 feet at least, but of course people will adapt. Miami Beach will disappear, but that's not the worst thing that's ever happened. The Everglades will probably be mostly gone. The most difficulty will be faced by places like the Mississippi, Ganges, Thames and Rhine deltas, where the rivers will cease to flow and will turn into estuaries and bays. It may be necessary to put a substantial part of Holland back under water. Venice will probably be beyond salvaging. The Mekong Delta in Vietnam, basically the entire southernmost part of the country, will largely disappear, damaging the country's ability to feed itself. But people will adapt.

Shouldn't some portion of these things happen at every spring tide? You are presuming that we can't adapt to prevent these things from happening - that we will just sit there and watch the waters rise helplessly.

Posted by Kevin P. | September 26, 2007 10:11 AM

While I'm not an AGW alarmist, I have to object to the comparison between a rise in sea level and the tides. Tides are an increase and decrease within a given range. If sea level rises due to global warming (or anything else), then the range of the tides moves up, too. So low tide would be higher and high tide would be even higher, reaching areas that previously were not affected by the tides.

If sea level rises 2 feet in 100 years, slowly, people will adapt. If sea level does rise quickly due to a massive catastrophic even in Greenland or Antarctica, then we would have a serious problem.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 26, 2007 10:35 AM

So low tide would be higher and high tide would be even higher, reaching areas that previously were not affected by the tides.

Certainly this is the case. But today, tides cause differences in local sea level of several feet in many parts of the world. A change in mean sea level of 8 inches to 2 feet is still a fraction of the change in levels due to tides over time spans of several hours. And mayhem does not ensue in those few hours. If even the high tide level goes up by 8 inches to 2 feet, I doubt that mayhem would ensue or that mass environmental catastrophe would occur.

Posted by Kevin P. | September 26, 2007 10:45 AM