I'll Move to Oslo

Michael Novak, theologian to the business class, has a heck of a post up arguing that we shouldn't care if carbon dioxide is making the earth warmer because, hey, when the earth was warmer hundreds of years ago Vikings established a colony in Greenland that later died off when the world got cold again.

Which is all great, I suppose, if you own waterfront property in Greenland (or, more to the point, property that will be on the waterfront once ice melts and sea levels rise) but is probably not going to be much consolation to drowning Bangladeshis or hurrican-ravaged residents of the Caribbean or Gulf coasts.

More to the point, what this sort of analysis misses is that thanks to carbon-generated warming the earth is going to warm up and then keep getting warmer. Something like a one-off increase in temperature of several degrees would be very disruptive, but it's certainly possible that it would be cheaper to simply adapt to the change rather than prevent it from happening. But that's not what's on the table. We're looking at a scenario where the earth gets warmer and then it gets . . . even warmer and where things get worse and worse and worse until maybe they get bad enough to precipitate an economic collapse bad enough to significantly reduce emissions.

Comments

More to the point, the climate change in Greenland was LOCAL (most likely due to shifting ocean currents) and should not be compared in any way to planet-wide climate change caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases.

This is perhaps the single most persistent misleading anecdote proffered by global warming skeptics. It's a zombie fallacy that roams the earth searching for fresh brains to corrupt.

See here for more.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 29, 2007 5:35 PM

Also crucial - if things get bad enough, we could expect significant warfare to break out over remaining resources. That would be very, very bad.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 29, 2007 5:35 PM

As I understand it, run away heating such as you describe is a "scenario", but it's not the scientific consensus.

Posted by Pithlord | May 29, 2007 5:36 PM

"Greenland with Eric the Red in 983-986, when the climate was much warmer and Greenland was so named because of its lush meadows and fertile fields"

Doesn't seem to have got through to Novak that Erik the Red named Greenland as a marketing scheme to get settlers.

With that level of gullibility, realtors must rejoice when he comes.

I guess no-one's told him either that the MWP was, well, somewhat localized. Coral records in the tropics show an opposite temperature trend.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | May 29, 2007 5:38 PM

Runaway heating. Well, obviously the heating is not going to continue until the earth is molten.

However there are a large number of putative effects that are expected to amplify the effects of the immediate CO2 heating including
- reduction of albedo because of less/no ice at the poles
- release of methane in tundra and the mother of them all
- possible release of at least some methan hydrates

There are, to be sure, some putative effects that might dampen the effects, but they seem to be a whole lot wimpier.

In addition, you are assuming that, maybe not tomorrow, but at some point in the near future, humans are going to just stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Everything I see, on the other hand, leads me to believe that the burning is going to continue until either the coal runs out or civilizations lies glowing in nuclear ruin. (Vide the most recent attempts by the US congress to fscking SUBSIDIZE the coal industry.)
And, of course, even without feedback mechanisms, ever growing CO2 equals ever growing temperatures.

Posted by Maynard Handley | May 29, 2007 5:45 PM

MY:

"... Something like a one-off increase in temperature of several degrees would be very disruptive, but it's certainly possible that it would be cheaper to simply adapt to the change rather than prevent it from happening. But that's not what's on the table. ..."

Actually that is what is on the table. The increase is limited by the amount of fossil fuel available which is large but not infinite and which may not produce castrophic damage. Which is fortunate since I see little likelihood that the available fossil fuel won't be burned.

Posted by James B. Shearer | May 29, 2007 5:50 PM

Everything I see, on the other hand, leads me to believe that the burning is going to continue until either the coal runs out or civilizations lies glowing in nuclear ruin.

Honestly, I think less damage is done by honest conservatives like Novak than by cynics like Maynard here. Oh, of course you're right, but we can't do anything, the world's all going to hell, etc., etc.

Remember the ozone hole? You know why you don't hear about it any more? NOT because it wasn't real, and threatening, but because people realized the problem in time and took appropriate collective action, banning the use of chloroflourocarbons. The conservatives who said it would be hugely costly were wrong -- the ban encouraged development of substitutes, just like a carbon tax would for fossil fuels. But cynics like Maynard were, if anything, even wronger.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | May 29, 2007 5:59 PM

Nothing to see here, move along, if we made it through 983 AD ok then this should be EASY.

Of course, in 983 the world's population was 310 million. We're at 6.7 billion people now, but there should be little difficulty relocating people as farmlands, shorelines, and climates shift. Right? It's only a twentyfold difference.

Posted by Beau | May 29, 2007 6:06 PM

James:

Maynard listed some ways that Earth could heat up above and beyond the burning of fossil fuel in the post before yours. That is the ultimate worry--that we (humanity) will get the Earth in a situation that cannot be corrected or limited by altering our own fuel-consumption behavior. (This is not to rule out bizarre solutions that now seem like science fiction, like building enormous mirrors in space to deflect some solar energy away from Earth.) It may already be the case now that what we've done so far has already taken us past a tipping point. That was certainly one of the points of Jared Diamond's book Collapse--that societies often limp along long after they have rendered their long-term existence untenable. (Ironically, Novak may have heard about the Greenland Vikings from Diamond's book.)

Posted by RWB | May 29, 2007 6:11 PM

RWB, sure bad things could happen but it is also "... certainly possible that it would be cheaper to simply adapt to the change rather than prevent it from happening. ...".

BTW, conservation measures that just delay burning the fossil fuel reserves so that for example they last 150 years instead of 100 years do little good from a climate change point of view. You have to leave some fuel in the ground to get a benefit and I don't see that happening.

Posted by James B. Shearer | May 29, 2007 6:32 PM

"things get worse and worse and worse until maybe they get bad enough to precipitate an economic collapse bad enough to significantly reduce emissions."

If we melt the frozen methane on the sea bed, temperatures will continue to dramatically warm even after the economic collapse.

Temperatures could well take longer a millennium to fall after we stop emitting carbon.

Posted by Petey | May 29, 2007 6:49 PM

James,

I don't think you have it quite right. Rates do matter here as carbon is recaptured through various processes. I believe plants are the biggest one there.

Plus, coal doesn't have to work the way you suggest anyhow. If carbon sequestration techniques are developed and implemented we can burn our existing coal stocks without releasing C02 into the atmosphere. And I think there is more C02 left in the remaining coal stock than in the remaining oil.

Finally, when you say we only have to deal with a few degrees... I don't think you appreciate the long term consequences there. Some of the factors in play have time constants of more than a century (including rising sea levels). And if we get hit by some of the positive feedback factors that Handley identifies, we could see temperature shifts of more than a few degrees centigrade over the very long term.

Lemuel,

It would certainly be great if the CO2 emissions problem was solved as easily as the CFCs. But there are some big reasons why reducing C02 emissions will be much more costly and (partly for that reason) much more difficult politically. What we really need is a carbon tax. Could that really happen anytime soon? I would like to hope so, but I doubt it.

Posted by mpowell | May 29, 2007 7:02 PM

Seems like a huge amount of inferring from limited data - like inferring CA is due for a large earthquake because one has happened every 200 years or so for 1000 years.

Perpetual motion machines are fictional - how is the "heat will increase forever" idea different from a perpetual motion theory?

Not opposing reducing CO2 emissions, just saying the sky may not be falling.

Posted by cfw | May 29, 2007 7:07 PM

I've heard a few variations on this argument. Basically, it goes something along the lines that global warming will cause the planet's temperature to reach levels never seen since a millennium ago, but humanity did just fine back then so what's the worry?

Well, last I checked our civilization (especially food supply) isn't based on the climate of the 10th century.

Posted by Nima | May 29, 2007 7:21 PM

What we know about global climate, from the pre-historic record, indicates that climate is usually quite stable. It is thought that negative feedback processes dampen the effects of whatever variations there may be, say, in the light reaching the earth from the sun, or changes in atmospheric chemistry, maintaining a rough equilibrium for long periods. But, sometimes, a forcing occurs, which pushes beyond what those negative feedback processes can contain. And, then, positive feedback processes take over, which magnify the effects, and carry the planet to a new, but radically different climactic equilibrium.

We are committed to something like a 2 degree warming in this half-century. But, we, and the earth's ecology, can adjust to that (probably). The purpose of a policy on global warming would be to slow the change, to lower adjustment costs, and to prevent reaching the tipping point, beyond which change becomes both uncontrollable, and beyond the capacity of the ecology to adjust and survive.
That's what Maynard is referring to -- positive feedback processes, which would tend to accelerate rather than dampen the temperature increases, and bringing on an ecological collapse. Processes that would take a 2-3 degree warming and turn it into a 10+ degree warming.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 29, 2007 7:28 PM

how is the "heat will increase forever" idea different from a perpetual motion theory?

Sort of the same way that this website is different from a sliced beet, or a Honda Civic is different from the categorical imperative.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | May 29, 2007 7:36 PM

lemuel.

Consider
- The feds won't implement CO2 standards, and they won't allow the states to do so.
- The "clean" coal plan that has bipartisan support
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011398.php
- The ongoing boondoggle of corn-ethanol
- The rants from the environmentalists whenever anyone mentions nuclear power
- The whines by all sorts of different groups whenever anyone tries to put up a wind farm
- The ongoing lack of interest by pretty much anyone but myself and Paul Ehrlich in reducing the population

You say cynical. I say realist.

While you're complaining about how awful a human being I am for being a cynic, consider that I have no kids and a vasectomy. There --- I've done the single action that will most cut resource consumption that a human can do.
Your turn lemuel. Do you have no kids and a vasectomy? And if not, then STFU because you're doing a whole lot more to make the situation worse than I am.

Posted by Maynard Handley | May 29, 2007 7:41 PM

Well, it seems pretty obvious that we're already seeing a reduction in ice-related albedo effect. Any new equilibrium will reflect (so to speak) this non-carbon-emitting factor.

Apparently the carbon will be in the atmosphere for quite a while. Who knows, maybe we'll see a steambath thing (no, don't even think it, those were the good old days) where ferns grow twenty feet in a day, suck all the carbon from the atmosphere, and cause a new Ice Age!

Ha ha, just kidding- for real science, go to realclimate.org where real scientists try to explain how this is being studied in ways we can understand. Usually.

Posted by serial catowner | May 29, 2007 8:12 PM

Michael Novak is a neocon wackjob who's owned by La Raza and AIPAC.

Real conservatives (e.g. those who read Chronicles, American Conservative, VDare, Middle American News, Occidental Quarterly, etc.) don't take this neoliberal very seriously.

Posted by Authentic Conservative | May 29, 2007 8:19 PM

I am always astonished that conservatives are so eager to see children born that they try to make women's bodies into prisons for that purpose, but so indifferent after they are born that their possible starvation, heat stroke, drowning or living circumstances in a devastated environment leave them indifferent. All of which makes me think modern conservatism is driven by two things: hatred of women AND hatred of children.

Posted by roger | May 29, 2007 10:17 PM

Lemuel has no imagination (except in support of his pet ideas). I give up trying to convince the true believer.

Drought Issues: The evaporation/precipitation cycle will remain in place, right? Agricultural activities can move to where conditions support agriculture, especially if we do not try to subsidize it in places like the EU and US. Capital, labor and equipment can move (peacefully) to where things can be grown and harvested. Is this wildly unrealistic over 10-20 years? Why?

Again, let's do what can be done to eliminate CO2 pollution, but keep in mind we can adapt to lots of economic challenges.

Posted by cfw | May 29, 2007 10:18 PM

to precipitate an economic collapse bad enough to significantly reduce emissions.

and then, wait for maybe a few blocks of 10,000 years for the earth to cool down again.

Patience is a virture!

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 29, 2007 10:48 PM

Is this wildly unrealistic over 10-20 years? Why?

Why don't you go and start a homestead growing wheat in Siberia then? I'm sure the Russians won't mind.

Posted by kvenlander | May 30, 2007 1:36 AM

"Why don't you go and start a homestead growing wheat in Siberia then? I'm sure the Russians won't mind."

Look at the history of oil development in Russia - starting in Baku. If oil can be developed in Russia, for world consumption, why not wheat? The laws of supply and demand (Adam Smith's invisible hand and all that) will presumably help us adapt.

Posted by cfw | May 30, 2007 8:41 AM

"Why don't you go and start a homestead growing wheat in Siberia then? I'm sure the Russians won't mind."

Look at the history of oil development in Russia - starting in Baku. If oil can be developed in Russia, for world consumption, why not wheat? The laws of supply and demand (Adam Smith's invisible hand and all that) will presumably help us adapt. The problem now is that the climatologists do not have enough actionable intelligence that tells me to buy a farm in Siberia, versus Australia, versus Canada, versus an aquaculture facility west of Africa.

It seems to me we need to encourage diversification in food production, especially from the oceans. Seeding the oceans with hundreds of millions of salmon eggs - even wild salmon is assisted in reproduction by man - seems to have proven effective. Perhaps we need to think more about what we can grow and eat from the oceans, even if they warm up. Perhaps grow plankton and the equivalent of wheat from the ocean - focus on what whales eat and see about adapting that to feed humans.

Naturally we need to focus on population control - lowering birth rates - to keep pressure off the food sources. That is true with or without global warming. We also need to keep building and improving our ability to resolve resource disputes without war - again, this is true with or without warming. The 9/11 events make clear the world does not need resource disputes as an excuse for lots of violence.

Posted by cfw | May 30, 2007 8:55 AM

I love the idea of engineering fiddles to solve systemic problems.

And by "love" I mean something quite a bit more bitter. Much mo' bitter.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 30, 2007 9:31 AM

Matt,

As a Norwegian living in America I've probably given more thought to the idea of moving (back) to Oslo than you have. But the problem is the Gulf stream. Global warming, all else equal, would probably make life in Norway more pleasant, but there is also a very real chance that it could alter the flow of hot water from the Caribbean to Western Europe in a way that would make life in Norway very miserable indeed. (Like North America and Asia at comparable latitudes.)

Some quick googling on the subject lead me to this link; there seems to be many more like it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1083419,00.html

Posted by Mads Kvalsvik | May 30, 2007 1:53 PM

"What we know about global climate, from the pre-historic record, indicates that climate is usually quite stable."

Apart from, y'know, Ice Ages and stuff.

It's true that the temperature of the Earth has been more stable than a pure energy radiation energy balance would suggest, 'cos of the role of changes in CO2 levels over geological epochs offsetting the increase in solar output. But this is over *geological* time. And considering things over geological time smooths out some rather adverse periodic swings.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | May 30, 2007 4:30 PM

Ice Ages are very stable: it takes a long time to bring them on and it takes a long time to drive them away. And they're regular as clockwork.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 30, 2007 9:25 PM