Climate Change

Pirate attacks are up 14%! (Explanation.)

I’ve not read Bjorn Lomborg’s new book (nor his previous one), but I have read enough of what he has written to suspect that some of those who are ridiculing one of his arguments don’t understand it. For example, Bob Park of the American Physical Society’s “What’s New” writes: Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” is out. Well, yes it is getting warmer he finds, but aside from polar bears, it just means more beach weather. We’ve got bigger problems, he says. Instead of spending all that money trying to prevent warming, let’s focus on making everyone rich so they can all buy air conditioners.P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula writes: He also has a bad argument about relative spending: he suggests that spending on climate change would reduce spending on other pressing issues, like the fight against malaria. It’s a bad choice. Malaria research is already underfunded — it’s a third-world disease, don’t you know, one that mainly affects those tropical countries, so the wealthy western nations typically don’t prioritize it very highly. We don’t take our big pots of money and allocate it into aliquots appropriate to the world’s needs already, so for an economist to sit there and pretend that climate research is a drain on tropical disease research is comical. Especially since he seems unaware of how one feeds into the other. Hey, if the world warms up, tropical diseases will creep northward into Europe and North America, and then we’ll be fighting the economic effects of both direct effects of climate change and new diseases.But as I understand it, Lomborg is making a simple point about opportunity costs–that money spent on climate change mitigation can’t be spent on other things, and that it would be better off spent on things like fighting malaria (which I’m sure he would agree with Myers is underfunded, since it’s #4 on the Copenhagen Consensus 2004 list of “very good projects” to spend money on), because the amount of benefit received for each dollar spent is so much greater. To make the same point–I have looked into putting solar cells on my house, both to reduce my carbon footprint and my long-term energy costs, but I’ve decided against it because even with the tax incentives and my power company’s willingness to subsidize half the cost, it’s still not cost-effective. (I’m hoping new solar cell technologies will improve efficiency and lower cost so that I will be able to become less dependent upon the electrical grid). Instead, I’ve spent much smaller amounts of money that have had far more bang for the buck, replacing my incandescent lights with CFLs (though LEDs and other new promising technologies are on the way as better sources of light), adding insulation, and improving the efficiency of my air conditioning units through regular maintenance. These things I’ve done not only have an impact on my energy use and climate change, they are things which provide me with direct economic benefit as well–thus these are things that rational people will be doing independently of government regulation and spending. Lomborg–or at least the Copenhagen Consensus–is not saying that climate change deserves no attention. The premise of the Copenhagen Consensus is that if the world spent an additional $50 billion over the next five years to address ten categories of global challenges (one of which is climate change), how would that money best be spent to provide the greatest net benefit. That seems to me to be an entirely worthy effort, and this kind of cost-benefit calculation should be given greater weight in public policy decisions. Instead, however, most politicians like to make arguments based on the assumption that any law, regulation, or government spending that saves even one life (or prevents one child from seeing something offensive) is worth doing, whether or not that generates enormous opportunity costs. My personal behavior–and I suspect that of those criticizing Lomborg on this point–demonstrates that I don’t consider climate change my number one priority. In my case, I live in a large house that uses a lot of electricity, I travel frequently by plane, I drive a car instead of using public transportation, I eat meat instead of being a vegetarian like my wife. Each of these things causes, directly or indirectly, an increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the alternatives. UPDATE (December 16, 2008): I just came across this description of Lomborg’s overall behavior with respect to the climate change debate, which I think is likely accurate. ...

This is from back in February of 2006, but A Few Things Ill Considered has a nice list of statements from scientific organizations endorsing anthropogenic global warming that includes NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and, perhaps most interestingly, British Petroleum, the Shell Group, and, in the comments, ExxonMobil. A number of the links are broken at this point, but I was able to find numerous statements about the reality of anthropogenic global warming on the Shell web pages with a Google search for “global warming site:shell.com”. Science isn’t a matter of popular vote, but when a scientific consensus is established it certainly puts the burden of proof on the challenger.

David Friedman has put up a few thoughtful posts about global warming on his own blog, as well as engaged in some discussions in the comments at another blog. He summarizes his own position as: global warming is probably real, is probably but not certainly anthropogenic, is probably not going to have large effects on size and frequency of hurricanes and is probably not going to have large effects on sea level. It is a real problem but not, on current evidence, an impending catastrophe.The posts at his own blog are: “Global Warming, Nanotech, and Who to Believe”“Global Warming, Carbon Taxes, and Public Choice”“Physics, Economics, Hurricanes, and Mistakes” and the two discussions in comments on the Backseat Driving blog are: “Responding to the ’no big deal’ denialists”“The Duke lacrosse controversy and attitudes to global warming”Brian at Backseat Driving says on the first post that “Friedman responds in the comments to this post. The people replying to him in the follow-up comments do a far better job of it than I would.” In my opinion, Friedman completely wipes the floor with those who replied to him. On a related subject, Chris Mooney gives his take on William Broad’s article in the New York Times about criticism of Al Gore’s movie: Let me be clear: I have seen An Inconvenient Truth, and I found it almost entirely accurate. Gore has done a tremendous job of drawing attention to this issue and he gets the science right by and large. But my question as a point of strategy has always been: Why include the 1 to 5 percent of more questionable stuff, and so leave onself open to this kind of attack? Given how incredibly smart and talented Al Gore is, didn’t he see this coming?He points out some specific areas where Gore got it wrong (which Chris also pointed out to me in conversation at last summer’s Skeptics Society conference–this is no change of position for him). John Horgan picks up on the same Broad story, and notes that: What fascinates me about Broad’s stories is that they seemed to at least implicitly contradict the view of global warming purveyed by his Times colleague Andrew Revkin, who spoke about global warming at Stevens in December 2005. Blogging on Broad’s article last fall, I wondered, “Is there dissension at the New York Times on the issue of global warming”? I’m still wondering. Maybe I should try to get Broad and Revkin to visit Stevens again and hash this out. Brian would love that.And goes on in a subsequent post to quote from and refer to Chris Mooney’s blog post. ...

Glen Whitman has assembled “a taxonomy of all the questions that ought to affect our choices about dealing with global warming.” His list so far includes: 1. The existence of global warming. (He assigns a 95%+ confidence level to this.) 2. Human contribution to global warming. (He assigns 90% confidence to this, but is uncertain about how much of the effect is due to human activity, though he references David Friedman’s point that this doesn’t make much difference to whether or not we should do anything about it.) 3. Magnitude of the warming effect. 4. Net harms or benefits due to warming. (He observes that the latter is often ignored.) 5. Extent of decentralized response. (How much will be done in the form of individual activity, changes in land prices, etc. to reduce negative impacts?) 6. Marginal impact of collective abatement efforts. (If all nations cooperated, how much of the negative effects could be abated or mitigated?) 7. Marginal impact of unilateral abatement efforts. (What can the United States do on its own, or at least without the assistance of emerging economies not likely to cooperate, and how much effect could that have?) To which he adds that there are many more questions about specific proposed responses, their marginal efficacy, and costs. If you have further suggestions for his list, post comments at Agoraphilia.

Last week in class David Paszkiewicz was discussing Adolf Hitler and the “Big Lie” propaganda technique. His example of a “Big Lie” being spread today: global warming. In Paszkiewicz’s backwards world, it’s not global warming denial that’s a big lie, it’s the scientific evidence supporting it. Kearny High School has taken action regarding Paszkiewicz’s continuing embarrassment of the school–by banning classroom taping without permission of the instructor. (They have also planned mandatory training for teachers on “how to interpret the Constitution’s separation of church and state and how it should apply to classroom discussions,” as I reported last month.) The New York Times has the story. ...

Arizona State Representative Pamela Gorman (R-District 6, Anthem) was one of several legislators who accepted gifts from the Church of Scientology and helped promote bills for Scientology’s Citizens Commission on Human Rights. She is also on the Legislative Advisory Board to the Heartland Institute, publisher of Environmental & Climate News, a publication that is still, as of its February 2007 issue, arguing that global warming is mythical. This issue contains articles such as “Greenland Coldest in 60 Years” and “Little Ice Age May Return Soon,” and contains a set of graphs of global satellite temperatures on p. 7 that attributes 1998’s high temperatures to El Nino. The Heartland Institute’s past articles have included titles like “Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ is a Scam” (2003), “National Geographic Promotes Global Warming Myths” (2004), and “Michael Crichton is Right!" (2005) (Rep. Gorman’s Blogger profile lists “Anthem Shrugged” as one of her favorite books. Ayn Rand wrote books called Anthem and Atlas Shrugged, but it appears Rep. Gorman has combined them. She has apparently been too busy to blog much; she posted twice in January 2006 and has only posted again this month.) ...

Pharyngula summarizes and augments a list of characteristics from the Give Up Blog common to those who deny the existence of various things, whether that be the Holocaust, global warming, HIV causing AIDS, the actions of Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001, or other well-established phenomena. Key features: 1. Conspiracy 2. Selectivity 3. The fake expert 4. Impossible expectations 5. The metaphor 6. The quote mine 7. Appeal to consequences I recommend reading both the Give Up Blog’s original list and descriptions and Pharyngula’s extended list. ...

The Goldwater Institute sent out an email today titled “Some Like It Hot” by Robert C. Balling, Jr., a global warming skeptic who is a climatology professor at Arizona State University (and a Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow). It’s short, so I’ll quote it in full: This summer treated us to the films “Too Hot Not To Handle” and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” as well as news that the Supreme Court will decide whether carbon dioxide (CO2) should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Reinforcing the idea that CO2 is a pollutant, Gore and others often speak of “CO2 pollution.” Before you train yourself to add the “p” word to your vocabulary, consider that CO2 comes from the Earth itself and its levels have fluctuated greatly throughout history. At one point, atmospheric CO2 levels dropped drastically and came perilously close to suffocating the global ecosystem. If someone is concerned about dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2, too low is far more dangerous than too high. Experiments show that when CO2 levels increase, plants grow faster and bigger. In order to make CO2 more sinister, claims are made that ragweed and poison ivy will grow more vigorously in the future, and indeed they will. But so will every tree in the forest. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that when elevated will act to warm the Earth. However, its levels have fluctuated enormously over the history of the Earth, and the ecosystems of the planet have adjusted to cope with these variations. The Supreme Court ruling will be interesting, but Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant. Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow and is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect. A longer version of this article originally appeared on TCSDaily.com.The big problem with this piece is a very critical omission. The last paragraph admits that CO2 elevation causes global warming, but says that its levels have “fluctuated enormously” over the history of the earth. But it fails to tell us what the record of CO2 fluctuation shows and where we stand today in comparison to the existing past record, leaving the reader with the false impression that the current levels are within normal historical fluctuations. CO2 levels today are much higher than they have been in the last 400,000 years (which I believe has now been extended to 600,000 years), as documented by CO2 levels in Antarctic ice cores. To quote Steve Albers at NOAA: The reason I would be most concerned is not what has happened so far, but what can very possibly happen if we stay on the present course. Carbon dioxide (CO2) mainly from fossil fuel burning is being released into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it, thus increasing atmospheric concentrations. The rate of rise in CO2 concentration has been increasing as well, from about 1.3 parts per million per year several decades ago to about 2.2 ppm/yr in 2005. The natural background is about 280ppm and current CO2 concentrations are about 380ppm. A linear extrapolation of the 2005 trend would yield a doubling of CO2 over natural values by around 2080. It is often suggested that short of that, values of just 450ppm would represent a threshold of unacceptable changes in the environment. These values are potentially just a few decades away. If we wait until things get obviously worse before we take action it could be too late for reasonably quick action to restore our familiar climate. One reason is because the ocean reservior of CO2 might be filling up and it would then take hundreds of years or more to reverse the CO2 back to its “natural” level to undo the warming effect. Another aspect of the carbon cycle is that even if the global emission rate is held constant, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would continue to rise for quite some time (e.g. one or more centuries) and reach levels several times what it is at present. Alternatively, to hold the CO2 concentration at current levels, the emission rate would have to be cut by roughly one-half (without considering the effect of the ocean reservoirs filling up). To hold the currently elevated temperature constant the emission rate would need about a two-thirds cut. Even if we magically turned off all emissions at once, it would probably take 100-300 years for CO2 levels to come down close to the natural background levels. The corresponding “half-life” would be something on the order of 50 years, subject to changes in the various CO2 sinks. ...

I’ve returned from the Skeptics Society conference on “The Environmental Wars," and there wasn’t much warring between speakers, though there were some debates among audience members between sessions. The most controversial speaker was John Stossel, who was the only person to proclaim himself a global warming skeptic (and did so without having witnessed any of the day’s presentations, which made it abundantly clear that (a) there is global warming and (b) it is caused by human activity). Michael Crichton managed to avoid the global warming subject in his talk, though in the Q&A he agreed that (a) there is no debate that the globe is warming (contrary to the position in State of Fear that it’s an artifact of city “heat islands”), (b) there is no debate that CO2 has increased as a result of human activity, and (c) there’s no debate about the greenhouse effect. I’ll comment more later on at least some of the talks, but for now I’ll refer you to conference presenter Jonathan Adler’s live-blogged descriptions of the talks and Chris Mooney’s summary of his initial debate presentation. UPDATE June 7, 2006: Also check out desmogblog’s coverage of the conference. UPDATE (July 18, 2009): Looks like my only further comment was on Jonathan Adler’s talk on federal environmental regulation, though I did post this on the JREF Forums on June 30, 2008: I very much enjoyed the Skeptics Society “Environmental Wars” conference. I thought it was a good mix of long-term history on climate change (Prothero), current scientific evidence on climate change (Schneider), what to do about it from an economic perspective (Arnold), what doesn’t work from a regulatory perspective (Adler), what wild and crazy mitigation techniques might be available and what they’ll cost (Benford), and a little debate on politicization of science (Mooney vs. Bailey), and a couple of climate change skeptics who didn’t really address any of the science presented during the conference (Crichton and Stossel). It was also a chance to see one of Paul MacCready’s last public appearances before he died. Michael Crichton and John Stossel were no Mike Reiss (Simpsons writer who gave a hilarious talk in 2005), but I still thought they provided entertainment.