We hit close to zero degrees Fahrenheit in Hanover the last two nights.
Southern California is due for some cold as well: "Rare 50 year Arctic Blast Sets Sights On Southern California."
And 2008 will go down as the coldest year of the decade at least.
And the US Congress has seen it wise to take money from a fund dedicated to helping Detroit produce environmentally friendly cars and use the money for keeping the Big Three out of Chapter 11 (or 7). I vote for "none of the above."
6 comments:
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the Detroit bailout AND oppose $ earmarked for "green" cars. None of those reasons have anything to do with temperature.
You seem to be a bright guy who has some overly simplistic ideas around the science of climate change.
Take it away, RealClimate:
your comparison, and others like it, are flawed since it "basically compares long term climate change to short term weather variability."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/
In short, it's 50 degrees and raining today in Hanover. From that I can either conclude that it's spring, since 50 degrees and raining is close to the average weather in Hanover; or I can recognize that there are some other things going on, like the change in seasons, and conclude that in spite of the weather, it is indeed winter.
Likewise, you can say "it's the coldest year in a decade" and conclude that global warming is not an issue.
Or, you can say that temperatures today are frighteningly higher than 30 years ago while manmade CO2 concentrations are dramatically up as well, and at the same time we've seen NONE of the things we would expect to see were this change due to natural causes. But don't take my word for it, take the WSJ's: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114738549525950630-QqwFrCpeGpvAyVu_XA79Mm9vFKo_20070511.html
Bob, Thomas Friedman's column in today's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10friedman.html?_r=1&hp) made me think of you. I've read with great interest your comments on Apple's pricing for its music. Friedman suggests we price mobility in the same way. What do you think? Bill Barker
Anonymous has taken the bait.
My point was maybe too subtle, which is that the media is tremendously biased in reporting theory, evidence, and policy on climate change. I just like to stick my finger in some eyes now and then and see if there is life.
To engage in a long debate about how the so-called "tests" of climate change models are nothing more than calibrations of models to fit the data record is just not in my bloodstream right now.
"My point was maybe too subtle, which is that the media is tremendously biased in reporting theory, evidence, and policy on climate change."
OK, fair enough. I don't disagree with you substantially. However, I would argue that the media's larger problem is not one of bias but of systematic oversimplification of problems. Righties then claim "liberal bias" when issues are oversimplified in one direction, liberals claim "conservative bias" when issues are oversimplified in the other (see: NYT in the run-up to Iraq). It's not bias, it's a combination of underpaid people oversimplifying issues and a political rorsach test.
If your argument is that the media's practice of this sort of headline: "Extreme weather event in one place at one time! Therefore, Global Warming!" is wrongheaded, then yes, i'm on board. There is plenty of evidence out there that has nothing to do with single extreme weather events. This is like attributing a single murder to a culture that glorifies violence. (However, I'm not sure why implying that "Cold Weather in one place on one day! Therefore, Not Global Warming!" makes that argument).
That said, if your point is that the media is wrongheaded in stating that global warming is a problem that most who are informed in the subject believe needs to be dealt with, well, then, not even Roger Pielke would agree with you:
"the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers".
http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf
"To engage in a long debate about how the so-called "tests" of climate change models are nothing more than calibrations of models to fit the data record is just not in my bloodstream right now."
I'm not sure what you mean. The RealClimate post referenced comparing IPCC projections to what actually happened through 2007. I didn't see anything in there about "calibrating models" - the projections had already been made. If you mean the forward-looking models are calibrated using new data as they arise, well, yeah, they are. When new data is received, i hope they take it into account.
The WSJ article does not mention models once in their discussion on attribution.
Keep up the good work on this blog on the ECONOMICS related stuff. There is a lot of good discussion to be had around the right response to global warming (and I acknowledge that there is a legitimate libertarian argument to be made that no response is the right response). However, arguing the science at this point is pretty tough to do.
Good comments by Anonymous. I agree with much of it. There is a deeper issue with the media that I think relates to the idea of information cascades in economics: when information is bad, and we see one person who we respect somewhat say something, we all pass on that story as correct. Others see the "cascade" and pretty soon we are a bunch of lemmings, all on the basis of one person's flimsy evidence. With less and less investigative reporting, I do fear this is a problem.
On the issue of climate, anyone who listens carefully to me knows that I have always recognized the impact of humans on climate, ie., that a detectable effect of human-generated CO2 is supported by the evidence.
That does not imply anything about the optimal economic response. So your comments about Roger Pielke are not clear. I agree generally with his science, and he does say that an effect exists. I am not sure he ventures into the policy arena; I believe he is too careful for that. So I think you need to be careful when you say "that global warming is a problem that most who are informed in the subject believe needs to be dealt with"
As you say later, it is entirely possible that one can acknowledge human-induced change and still argue against any response, at least against any major response. You don't even have to do that on philosophical grounds (e.g., Libertarian). It could be the optimal policy on cost/benefit grounds.
I agree with the points on long term versus short term.
I would recommend Bob Carter's lectures that are on Youtube in four parts. They discuss the flaws in the so called science of global warming rather effectively.
1. Temperatures have increased in the past century but it has happened before.
2. While I have not audited the models, given the numerous variable inputs, they are unlikely to be of much help.
3. The question is whether we should do anything about it by lowering signifcantly the standards of living and inflicting pain for a problem that may not be a problem and in fact may be auto correcting but in a time frame that is impossible in a human lifetime to observe.
4. Should we worry about global cooling not warming. The data and analysis of Dr. Carter seems to point in that direction.
We always over-estimate how much we know based on what we see and experience and of course ignore what we do not see or experience even though that may have much of an impact on the outcome.
If Green cars are worth building, someone will build them without the help of the government. However, if we have to subisidize them, then they are not ready to be built.
AK
Post a Comment