Climate Change Alarmism: Not Just For Hippies Anymore

Lehman Brothers has a new-ish report out titled "The Business of Climate Change II". It includes, among other things, an estimate of the true "social" cost of carbon:

Given these studies, we currently take as a central working estimate of the 'social' cost of carbon a figure of $50 per tonne today (€40), rising to perhaps $100 per tonne by 2050.

They also say that the way uncertainty plays out in this regard, "society might want to pay an insurance premium, to reduce the risk of an unforeseeable non-linearity, discontinuity, or catastrophe" since there's some chance that the impact of large-scale warming will be much worse than current science deems likely.

Comments

Uhh, was it never mentioned in US media that large re-insurance companies (Swiss Re, Munich Re for example) got worried about climate change years ago?
Since they had to pay for it.

I have a hard time believing that their managers were/are "hippies".
Just asking...

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

when everything is a link, nothing is a link.

ohhhmmmm...

Posted by cleek | September 25, 2007 4:55 PM

"there's some chance that the impact of large-scale warming will be much worse than current science deems likely."

Presumably, there's "some chance" that the impact will be much less than current deems likely as well. If all the estimates are vague, and they are, that argues for a slow response, not a quick one. Right-wingers argue that we must attack Iran because of what they might do. Liberals argue that we must mount a major campaign against global warming because it might be terrible. It's better to respond to a reality than a theory.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 25, 2007 4:59 PM

The "insurance model" is useful in this regard, especially with a renewed emphasis on "precautionary principles".

http://www.greenlearning.ca/climate-change/science/index.php?section=7&sub=5

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

Alan,

The distribution of outcomes is not symmetric because the "best-case" scenario is basically just that the impact will be minimal, in which case the loss would be capped at whatever we needlessly spent to avoid this minimal impact scenario. In contrast, there is basically no such bound on "worst-case" side, and a finite chance of true catastrophe does in fact work out in favor of being somewhat more cautious (meaning spending more to reduce the impact) than the best-guess-case would suggest. That does mean that if things work out as our best estimates indicate, we will have spent somewhat too much. But that is the "premium" we will have paid to "insure" against the possibility of a true catastrophe.

Posted by DTM | September 25, 2007 5:12 PM

"society might want to pay an insurance premium, to reduce the risk of an unforeseeable non-linearity, discontinuity, or catastrophe"

Indeed.

Really and truly. Check out the clathrate gun hypothesis on wikipedia and elsewhere if you want to really worry about the future of humankind.

-----

In addition, it's worth noting that there are very interesting theories out there that there is substantially less oil and coal left in the Earth's crust than we currently estimate. This would produce less global warming than even the low IPCC estimate, but would produce a real unforeseeable non-linearity, discontinuity, or catastrophe in energy supplies.

In either case, putting in the initial structures to regulate and tax carbon output in the near-term will spur alternative energy development in such a way that will create insurance for either eventuality.

If you aren't familiar with the work of King Hubbert and Dave Rutledge, you're missing out on the most vital questions of our era.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 5:14 PM

Alan, there are many things wrong with your comparison. First, the cost of responding to global warming is primarily financial. The likely downside of invading Iraq was a whole lot of dead Iraqis. Plus there is the economic cost, which is not just a likelihood. Secondly on the other side of things, it is pretty unlikely that the effect of global warming will be overall beneficial. It is very likely that global warming will continue to occur and it is very likely that there will be significant negative repurcussions. In comparison, invading Iraq had some chance of having a positive effect and some chance of a negative one. War opponents could argue, first, that we were playing dice with the lives of Iraqis and, secondly, that it was stastically unlikely that the benefits of invading Iraq would be so great as to outweigh the negatives.

And just as ice cream on top, cutting carbon consumption would reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil and help address many of the problems that the Iraq war was supposed to address.

So no, liberals advocating for action on global warming and Right-wingers advocating for war on Iraq (and now Iran) are not the same thing at all.

$50/tonne doesn't sound to bad (but really its hard to say). I wonder how much that would actually impact the cost of stuff. Alternatively, what is our total global emissions in tonnes?

Posted by mpowell | September 25, 2007 5:18 PM

Presumably, there's "some chance" that the impact will be much less than current deems likely as well. - Alan Vanneman

You know, I keep explaining this same thing to my health insurance company. And yet they still insist that I pay my monthly premium. They obviously just don't understand the basic principles of insurance.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 5:18 PM

"Presumably, there's "some chance" that the impact will be much less than current deems likely as well."

Well, actually, no. It is much more likely that the impact has been underestimated. Without whipping out my power-point presentation, let's just say, that's how science works.

The information that actually gets published, let alone disseminated to the public, is always the best case scenario (biased to the "conservative") because very few scientists want to get caught going out on a limb and then not being able to "show results".

Sure, some ambitious prof will throw the dice and exclaim "eureka", but you won't find a consensus building around the "nifty new fangled" theory until enough data has come in to provide a reasonable level of certainty (and still, some ambitious or insane prof will shout from the sidelines, "No, it just can't be!).

Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "theory". A theory is not the phenomena; it is the explanation of the said phenomenon. It presumes the phenomenon exists. Thus, your statement that "It's better to respond to a reality than a theory." doesn't make much sense.

And please don't compare my rational understanding of atmospheric chemistry and thermodynamics to some lunatic who wants to bomb everybody (right after he finishes shooting them in the face, of course).

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 5:36 PM

"The distribution of outcomes is not symmetric because the "best-case" scenario is basically just that the impact will be minimal, in which case the loss would be capped at whatever we needlessly spent to avoid this minimal impact scenario."

No, there are "worst case" scenarios on one side, where the atmosphere goes into irreversible runaway, and we end up like Venus. However, there are "worst case" scenarios on the other side, where our efforts to stop global warming precipitate the ice age that human induced warming has been staving off, and we end up freezing instead of boiling.

Ignorance is ignorance, folks. The "precautionary principle" isn't any substitute for real knowledge. We really do need to know more before we commit to mind bogglingly costly efforts to manipulate the climate.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 25, 2007 5:39 PM

Can you please point me to the journals where "However, there are "worst case" scenarios on the other side, where our efforts to stop global warming precipitate the ice age that human induced warming has been staving off, and we end up freezing instead of boiling." is modeled. I'd love to learn more.

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 5:49 PM

"The "precautionary principle" isn't any substitute for real knowledge. We really do need to know more before we commit to mind bogglingly costly efforts to manipulate the climate."

Yup.

But what we can and should do right now is put in some lower cost measures to begin pricing carbon beyond the extraction costs in the short-term, so we'll be better prepared to take more drastic steps if the science comes in away from the best case scenarios.

This will promote crucial short and mid term Adam Smith based research in non-fossil fuel development, as well as developing a political infrastructure that come will come into play in the future if more drastic measures are needed.

And again, this will be useful whether the core problem ends up being either carbon emissions or carbon shortages due to diminishing supplies.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 6:09 PM

Brett,

That is not my understanding of what our current models show (that human-induced warming may be holding off an "ice age"), unless you were simply raising "worst case" possibilities that we could imagine happening without any scientific basis (in which case we are going beyond what is useful to rational decision-making). However, I am not an expert in this field so I am not really qualified to address those issues in detail.

Posted by DTM | September 25, 2007 6:20 PM

What Rihilism said. No one is saying that Brett Bellmore. No one is talking about the planet Venus either.

If you want to get with the program, the IPCC is predicting a 2-4.5C chance in temperature. The surface of Venus is 462C.

Some of the things people are most worried about include droughts and crop failures, increased insect population (again, affecting crops), sea level rise, and more destructive weather.

Posted by JJ | September 25, 2007 6:25 PM

Alan's problem is slightly different from Brett's. Brett seems to think that any possibility, regardless of likelihood, should have an equal weighting in our consideration. I think pointing this out is a sufficient response.

Posted by mpowell | September 25, 2007 6:46 PM

"The information that actually gets published, let alone disseminated to the public, is always the best case scenario (biased to the "conservative") because very few scientists want to get caught going out on a limb and then not being able to "show results"."

I'm sorry, but that is so not true. Back in the 70s, plenty of scientists predicted that we would have run out of resources by the year 2000. Scientists predicting catastrophic global warming in 50 or a 100 years will not be losing tenure if their predictions aren't borne out. Scientists are quite capable of generating studies that "prove" the need for funding of their pet projects and that "prove" that they should be placed in charge of public policy.

Throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into useless environmental programs will cost lives, principally among poor nations, not by blowing people up, but by retarding economic growth.

Doomsayers are using a variation of Pascal's gamble: if there is a one in a trillion chance of catastrophe, we must do whatever it takes to avoid it.

I would be very happy with a carbon tax, very unhappy with billion-dollar, feel-good projects like Al Gore's magic hydrogen car, not to mention the multi-, multi-billion dollar ethanol boondoggle.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 25, 2007 7:07 PM

The distribution of outcomes is not symmetric because the "best-case" scenario is basically just that the impact will be minimal, in which case the loss would be capped at whatever we needlessly spent to avoid this minimal impact scenario. In contrast, there is basically no such bound on "worst-case" side, and a finite chance of true catastrophe does in fact work out in favor of being somewhat more cautious (meaning spending more to reduce the impact) than the best-guess-case would suggest. That does mean that if things work out as our best estimates indicate, we will have spent somewhat too much. But that is the "premium" we will have paid to "insure" against the possibility of a true catastrophe.

Of course, this applies to every other potentially catastrophic risk to our civilization too, not just global warming, so it's not terribly helpful in determining just how much we should spend or what we should spend it on, exactly. We could, after all, spend a trillion dollars developing defenses against earth-colliding asteroids, or a new global plague, or nuclear war, or some other threat. But just because a trillion dollars is less than the costs we would incur if any of those catastrophes came to pass does not mean we really should spend that much.

Posted by Mixner | September 25, 2007 7:25 PM

Not trying to be quibble or disagree, JJ, but I thought that a "Venus like" atmosphere with a run away greenhouse is unlikely but not out of the realm of possibilities (I could be wrong). I also, think a Martian atmosphere is not out of the question.

Coming back to Brett, while I am no expert, I believe that one of the scenarios has "global warming" (which was a misnomer unfortunately attached to the phenomenon, I prefer "climate change" which still doesn't quite get there...) is the ACTUAL onset of an ice age.

If this all sounds confusing, keep in mind that it all comes down to first principles. The greenhouse gases trap energy from the sun (if anyone wants to debate whether the greenhouse effect is real, they can take a hike). Whenever you add energy to a system, it becomes more chaotic and through whatever means available (i.e., weather or climate, if you like) it will "try" to dissipate that energy.

That inherent chaos makes it difficult to predict exactly what will happen but it does not mean that you can't say that "yes, something will happen". It's like boiling water and trying to predict where each water molecule is going to wind up. That does not mean you can't model what will happen if you add energy to the water (you don't need to know where every water molecule will be to know that the water will eventually boil).

A LOT of people far smarter than I have been studying this for a long, long time. THEY seem to think that the consequences will be catastrophic. Perhaps we should start listening to them.

For more on this topic, consult your local scientician.

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 7:29 PM

Why is a doubling of the "social" cost of carbon by 2050 supposed to be a big deal? The global economy would only need to grow an average of 1.63% per year between now and 2050 to completely wipe out that cost increase.

Posted by Jimbo | September 25, 2007 7:39 PM

"I'm sorry, but that is so not true. Back in the 70s, plenty of scientists predicted that we would have run out of resources by the year 2000. Scientists predicting catastrophic global warming in 50 or a 100 years will not be losing tenure if their predictions aren't borne out. Scientists are quite capable of generating studies that "prove" the need for funding of their pet projects and that "prove" that they should be placed in charge of public policy."

Ah, yes,..., if Rush Limbaugh says it, it must be true.

I ain't arguing with you that scientists have to beg and plead numbnuts to get money to prevent numbnuts from hurtin' theyselves. But the BIG problem with this, shall we say, THEORY, is that it assumes science is stagnant and that our understanding of the world does not progress. It assumes that science (unlike, say, Rush Limbaugh) doesn't "self correct" and that it actually does a far better job of culling bad ideas than, say, Wall Street.

And I dare say, that Pascal would blush if he thought his words would ever being used justify humanity's self-immolation.

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 7:42 PM

"I would be very happy with a carbon tax..."

That's the spirit!

"...not to mention the multi-, multi-billion dollar ethanol boondoggle."

Perhaps instead of listening to Hannity tear those "pointy-headed libruls" a "new one", you should pick up a textbook and study the carbon cycle...

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 7:51 PM

Re: No, there are "worst case" scenarios on one side, where the atmosphere goes into irreversible runaway, and we end up like Venus.

Since this has never happened in the last, oh, 4.6 billion years and since Venus differs significantly from the Earth (closer to the sun, different chemical composition, no moon, very slow rotation, no magnetic field) I think we can discount that. And after all, all the carbon currently being pumped into the atmosphere used to be there a few geological eras back. Yes, the world is going to warm up, and yes at the far extreme this could be very nasty for us, but we should leave the end-of-the-world scenarios for the religions.

Re: That is not my understanding of what our current models show (that human-induced warming may be holding off an "ice age"),

I think this derives from the fact the Little Ice Age (which was a long, long way from being a real Ice Age) came to its end about the time human started using significant amounts of coal.

Re: but I thought that a "Venus like" atmosphere with a run away greenhouse is unlikely but not out of the realm of possibilities (I could be wrong). I also, think a Martian atmosphere is not out of the question.

See: the Gaia hypothesis. The Earth's climate and chemical composition (and several other aspects of the environment) are stabilized by the existence of life, which creates a number of feedback mechanisms that prevent the environment from altering in ways unfriendly to life. Given that the planet has survived quite a few calamities far worse than anything humankind could throw it at (that includes even nuclear war by the way) I would suggest that this stabilizing effect is in fact very real. I even somethimes wonder if we humans are part of it, restoring the CO2 levels of the atmosphere, which are almost critically low right now for many plant types, to its (geologic) historical norm.

Posted by Jonf | September 25, 2007 7:53 PM

Alan, there are many things wrong with your comparison. First, the cost of responding to global warming is primarily financial. The likely downside of invading Iraq was a whole lot of dead Iraqis. Plus there is the economic cost, which is not just a likelihood.

The cost of responding to global warming is also economic (not "financial.") And economic costs are ultimately human costs. One of the biggest causes of human misery is poverty. Retarding economic growth and development in the developing world translates into increased suffering for millions or billions of people. Proponents of hugely expensive schemes to fight global warming need to pay rather more attention to the human consequences of their proposals. It's not just expecting your neighbor to trade in his Hummer for a Prius, it's jeopardizing the ability of some poor factory worker in Asia or Africa to feed his family.

Posted by Mixner | September 25, 2007 7:59 PM

" The Earth's climate and chemical composition (and several other aspects of the environment) are stabilized by the existence of life, which creates a number of feedback mechanisms that prevent the environment from altering in ways unfriendly to life."

REALLY???!!!..., I can think of a few fossils that might beg to differ...

Don't forget folks, always consult your local scientician before posting on the internet...

Everybody SING, ..., If you knew Gaia, like I know Gaia, oh, oh, oh what a show....

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 8:02 PM

There's a recent Hansen paper where he writes about what's going to happen. Business As Usual just won't cut it. He desperately wants the world to keep future warming to under 1C, but that will take prompt action. Wise Use and conservation is, of course, a given, but switching to non-carbon fuels will be a necessity. And the sooner we act the better.

And why act? Why not just see what comes? The threat of Greenland melting and West Antarctic ice shelf collapse. That would be catastrophic and a warming of 1C flirts with it

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 25, 2007 8:04 PM

Here ya go, Jonf, I did yur research for ya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 8:08 PM

Every time somebody says "it is not for hippies anymore" they usually mean "it is a trillion $ industry now"?

Here some Leonardo Da Vinci alarmism. From Prophecies under "Of the cruelty of Man":

"All the animals languish, filling the air with lamentations. The woods fall in ruin. The mountains are torn open, in order to carry away the metals which are produced there. But how can I speak of anything more wicked than [the actions] of those who raise hymns of praise to heaven for those who with greater zeal have injured their country and the human race?"

" Methinks that coarse men of bad habits and little power of reason do not deserve so fine an instrument or so great a variety of mechanism as those endowed with ideas and with great reasoning power, but merely a sack wherein their food is received, and from whence it passes away.

For in truth one can only reckon them as a passage for food; since it does not seem to me that they have anything in common with the human race except speech and shape, and in all else they are far below the level of beasts."

"King of the animals–– as thou hast described him–– I should rather say king of the beasts, thou being the greatest––because thou doest only help them, in order that they give thee their children for the benefit of the gullet, of which thou hast attempted to make a sepulchre for all animals; and I would say still more, if I were allowed to speak the entire truth." ... "now does not nature produce enough simple (vegetarian food) for thee to satisfy thyself? And if thou art not content with such, canst thou not by mixture of them make infinite compounds, as Platina wrote, and other authors have written for epicures?"

"Creatures shall be seen upon the earth who will always be fighting one with another, with very great losses and frequent deaths on either side. These shall set no bounds to their malice; by their fierce limbs a great number of the trees in the immense forests of the world shall be laid level with the ground; and when they have crammed themselves with food it shall gratify their desire to deal out death, affliction, labours, terrors and banishment to every living thing. And by reason of their boundless pride they shall wish to rise towards heaven, but the excessive weight of their limbs shall hold them down.

There shall be nothing remaining on earth or under the earth or in the waters that shall not be pursued and molested or destroyed, and that which is in one country taken away to another; and their own bodies shall be made a tomb and the means of transit of all the living bodies which they have slain. O Earth! what delays three to open and hurl them headlong into the deep fissures of they huge abyss and caverns, and no longer to display in the sight of heaven so savage and ruthless a monster?"

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 25, 2007 8:23 PM

Not sure if that means you're veggie or not, Hugo, but I'm assuming by the link that that's the case? Not there, myself, but I do have my days.

Gotta love that word "sepulchre", though.

"...in her sepulchre by the sounding sea..."

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 9:17 PM

The threat of Greenland melting and West Antarctic ice shelf collapse. That would be catastrophic and a warming of 1C flirts with it

Yes, yes. And a number of near-earth asteroids "flirt with" hitting our planet. And by having so many nuclear bombs and power plants we're "flirting with" a nuclear catastrophe. And the resurgence of deadly infectious disease (AIDS, Ebola, bird flu, etc.) "flirts with" a global pandemic. Uncritical fear-mongering is such fun, isn't it? Trying to understand and quantify risks, and formulating the proper response to them, is much harder.

Posted by Mixner | September 25, 2007 11:07 PM

There are extremely simple reasons why the climate change predictions are much more likely to be too cautious rather than too optimistic. It's easy to compute steady processes, such as thermal expansion of the oceans. It's much more difficult to look at sudden events that can cause rapid ice melt, and we have clear evidence that such events have occurred in the geological record.

When looking for a signal scientists want to avoid fooling themselves. So we tend to be cautious in assessing errors and conservative in evaluating things that are not very well quantified. We recognize that nature is the ultimate judge of whether we are right or wrong. This makes twisting things to fit a pre-concieved agenda foolish, as nature is unlikely to care. Properly reading the book of nature is the path of peer admiration - and, yes, even funding.

The right wing (and their libertarian fellow travellers) don't like the implications of global climate change, so they have taken a very public posture that it isn't happening. The science has congealed unambigously around the opposite conclusion: human-induced climate change is real and occuring faster than predicted. By denying reality, what folks on the right are ensuring is that they will not be taken seriously when it comes to deciding what to do. And that is an actual political issue, with competing values and cost-benefit decisions. But people who can't even acknowledge the cold, stubborn facts in the natural world just don't get a seat at the table.

Posted by Marc | September 26, 2007 12:09 AM

Well said, Marc.

"Trying to understand and quantify risks, and formulating the proper response to them, is much harder."

Yes, yes, it most certainly is.

"Uncritical fear-mongering is such fun, isn't it?"

It's a BLAST! Those wacky scientists, generating studies that "prove" the need for funding of their pet projects and that "prove" that they should be placed in charge of public policy. And might I add, with the sole purpose of scaring the shit out of everybody...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3313/01-ask.html

Why can't they just quit their uncritical fearmongering and let "market forces" deal with the problem?

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 6:45 AM

Hansen isn't an idiot. Something you can't say about everyone.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 26, 2007 8:15 AM

Rihilism,

With a few exceptions, it's not the scientists who are engaging in uncritical fear-mongering, it's people like you.

But, hey, let's just ignore all those pesky questions about probability and uncertainty and cost, and just keep yammering on about worst-case-scenario outcomes. "Yikes! The Ice Caps Are Melting! We're All Gonna Die!"

Posted by Mixner | September 26, 2007 1:32 PM

Hansen isn't an idiot.

No, he's not. He's an eminent climate scientist, and the things he says needed to given due weight. But there are also many other eminent climate scientists. The IPCC reports are the closest thing we have to a statement of the consensus position of the worldwide climate science community. And those reports suggest that the problem of climate change is rather less serious than some of the public statements made by Hansen would suggest. You pay a disproportionate amount of attention to Hansen, and not enough attention to his professional colleagues, because he's saying things that, for ideological reasons, you've already decided are true.

Posted by Mixner | September 26, 2007 1:42 PM

"With a few exceptions, it's not the scientists who are engaging in uncritical fear-mongering, it's people like you.

But, hey, let's just ignore all those pesky questions about probability and uncertainty and cost, and just keep yammering on about worst-case-scenario outcomes. "Yikes! The Ice Caps Are Melting! We're All Gonna Die!"

With a few exceptions, it's not the people that write comments that are idiots, it's the people that don't bother reading everyone's comments before responding that are idiots.

Had you done so, you would have read my discussion of the uncertainty involved in predicting the impact of "global warming" (my preference is calling "climate change").

And while I have advanced degrees in engineering and have actually dealt with probability, uncertainty, and cost estimation, I also suggested that you might want to check out what the learned folks who are doing the work are talking about before you decide that this week's issue of Reader's Digest has provided you sufficient clarity on the subject.

And, had you read what I wrote earlier, rather that trying to find evidence to match your already formed opinion, you may have noted my statement that:

A LOT of people far smarter than I have been studying this for a long, long time. THEY seem to think that the consequences will be catastrophic. Perhaps we should start listening to them.

In which I noted that the scientists (other than a few loons that have their heads in the sand) have agreed that things won't look pretty if we don't do something right quick. Given the actual evidence (rather than ignorant wishful thinking) they are basing their conclusions on, it doesn't seem to me "fear mongering", so much as sound advice.

If you really want some fear mongering, I can tell you about the estrogen and Prozac in your drinking water... but that's for another day, kids, daddy's tired....

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 2:17 PM

Rihilism,

Had you done so, ...

I have done so, and I think your comments mainly amount to irresponsible, irrational fear-mongering. You seem entirely uninterested in any kind of serious analysis of probabilities, or any kind of serious cost-benefit analysis of large-scale mitigation.

A LOT of people far smarter than I have been studying this for a long, long time. THEY seem to think that the consequences will be catastrophic. Perhaps we should start listening to them.

A typical example of your irresponsible hyperbole. Do please identify these many smart people who think the consequences "will be" (not "may be" or "could be," but "will be") "catastrophic" (not "serious or "expensive" or "bad," but "catastrophic"), and quote their statements to that effect.

Posted by Mixner | September 26, 2007 2:31 PM

You pay a disproportionate amount of attention to Hansen, and not enough attention to his professional colleagues, because he's saying things that, for ideological reasons, you've already decided are true.

Nonsense. You've extrapolated far too much from one comment. Hansen has often said about his more extreme concerns that he has no model that supports his fears. Except the geological record. His recent paper seems to me to be an attempt to put a time scale on the change from teeny, incremental, largely thermal-expansion rises in ocean levels to a catastrophic one. The very swift changes in Arctic ice this summer point up the fact that models don't have an adequate grasp on ice transitions. The IPCC has been criticized for being overly cautious, and the recent report noted its own limits in that regard.

Hansen carefully differentiates between his scientific work and what some might call his Cassandra stuff. In the midst of uncertainties with grave consequences, there's room for a Cassandra. Who was always right, btw. Damn her.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 26, 2007 2:39 PM

Jeffrey Davis,

Hansen has often said about his more extreme concerns that he has no model that supports his fears. Except the geological record.

Even the geological record does not support Hansen's fears, if by that you mean the fear of a significant probability of catastrophic warming on a time-scale of decades.

The IPCC has been criticized for being overly cautious, and the recent report noted its own limits in that regard.

The IPCC "has been criticized" from all sides. Its reports are nevertheless our best representation of the consensus opinion of the worldwide community of professional climate scientists, and that opinion is considerably less pessimistic than the opinions of a handful of individual scientists who are given to making alarmist public statements that are not supported by their professional colleagues.

Posted by Mixner | September 26, 2007 3:06 PM

Even the geological record does not support Hansen's fears, if by that you mean the fear of a significant probability of catastrophic warming on a time-scale of decades.

Which is where I came in -- the paper which I referred to being an attempt to get a bead on the time scale involved in the transition. We're stranded in a science of 1 instance since the millenia required in prior breakups of polar ice involved far milder prodding from climatic forcings.

And, as his paper notes, he's not predicting catastrophe: he's urging the powers that be to act.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 26, 2007 3:15 PM

My apologies, Mr or Ms. Mixner, for the use of "will" instead of "may". You are, of course, correct, that my choice of the word "will" was ill advised but perhaps you can understand why I assumed that I was commenting on a blog and not a making a thesis defense. Perhaps next time I'll use the word "may" instead of "can" "I go to the bathroom" so you won't be attempted to accuse me of some physiological oddity.

One might also suggest that your observation of my "typical" behavior is rather hyperbolic, considering that fact that I don't recall ever sharing an office with you.

And perhaps, while you ponder my hysterics you may wish to consider why I might consider "
Yes, yes. And a number of near-earth asteroids "flirt with" hitting our planet. And by having so many nuclear bombs and power plants we're "flirting with" a nuclear catastrophe. And the resurgence of deadly infectious disease (AIDS, Ebola, bird flu, etc.) "flirts with" a global pandemic. Uncritical fear-mongering is such fun, isn't it? Trying to understand and quantify risks, and formulating the proper response to them, is much harder." a bit dismissive since you failed to point to any "proper responses" or what price you ARE willing to pay. And that those who have examined the risks of global warming have also examined the risks of near earth asteroids, pandemics and loose nukes and formed a rational opinion of the risks of each of those "threats" without lumping them all together and dismissing them all.

Finally, may I suggest that when you state "You pay a disproportionate amount of attention to Hansen, and not enough attention to his professional colleagues, because he's saying things that, for ideological reasons, you've already decided are true." it may just be a tad bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 3:25 PM

from "Climate change and trace gases" by James Hansen et al

It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem, but we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in palaeoclimate data. An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway.

As Buckaroo Banzai asked "You wanna roll those dice, Casper?" Obviously, lots of people do.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 26, 2007 3:46 PM

Also, Mixner, just so we're clear, I too am concerned about and have contemplated the potential economic and human costs of "action" on the developing world and have no interest in putting ill-thought "plans" into place just to feel better about myself.

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 4:23 PM

Hey, Mixner, you haven't been watching too much John Stossel by any chance?

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 5:54 PM

You are, of course, correct, that my choice of the word "will" was ill advised but perhaps you can understand why I assumed that I was commenting on a blog and not a making a thesis defense.

There is a huge difference in meaning between the claim that a catastrophic outcome "may" happen and that it "will" happen regardless of where the claim is made.

a bit dismissive since you failed to point to any "proper responses" or what price you ARE willing to pay. And that those who have examined the risks of global warming have also examined the risks of near earth asteroids, pandemics and loose nukes and formed a rational opinion of the risks of each of those "threats" without lumping them all together and dismissing them all.

I'm not dismissing any of them. What I'm saying, for about the third time, is that merely pointing out that some catastrophic event is a possibility is not terribly helpful to any serious discussion of what we should do about it, if anything. Global warming alarmists dwell on the possibilities of climate change catastrophe, and ignore or obfuscate the crucial question of probability (and other crucial questions), in an attempt to scare people into supporting drastic policy responses. I'm sure that many of the alarmists know full well that they're being dishonest and manipulative, but justify it to themselves on the basis of some pocketbook psychologizing ("We HAVE to exaggerate the problem, you see, because if we didn't exaggerate it Joe Sixpack wouldn't get sufficiently motivated to do anything about it.")

Posted by Mixner | September 26, 2007 6:31 PM

"What I'm saying, for about the third time, is that merely pointing out that some catastrophic event is a possibility is not terribly helpful to any serious discussion of what we should do about it, if anything."

And ignoring such possibilities is the basis of a serious discussion?

Yes, we tend to focus on the catastrophic effects of climate change. Whether or not the more mundane effects of climate change (e.g. alteration in precipitation and temperature patterns affecting crop growth and water supply) are less headline-grabbing.

"I'm sure that many of the alarmists know full well that they're being dishonest and manipulative, but justify it to themselves on the basis of some pocketbook psychologizing"

I guess your psychologizing is much better, seeing as your able to read their minds and all.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | September 26, 2007 7:05 PM

"There is a huge difference in meaning between the claim that a catastrophic outcome "may" happen and that it "will" happen regardless of where the claim is made.

Yes, in a universe of quantum mechanics, anyone who claims anything "will" happen is asking for trouble, hence my apologies for word choice. But you're the statistician, astrophysicist, and nuclear armaments expert. Perhaps you can enlighten us all of what the probabilities are for said "threats".

"and ignore or obfuscate the crucial question of probability (and other crucial questions), in an attempt to scare people into supporting drastic policy responses."

Sure, sure, just ask Michael Crichton, he knows.

Quid pro quo, Mixner, perhaps rather than focusing on "Global warming alarmists" (my, what a nice red herring you have) you could direct me where actual scientists are ignoring or obfuscating.

"I'm sure that many of the alarmists know full well that they're being dishonest and manipulative, but justify it to themselves on the basis of some pocketbook psychologizing"

Yes, the alarmists haven't had the benefit of watching last nights 20/20 of "Give me a break" in order to practice their "pocketbook psychologizing".

Perhaps those reading should consider that though your arguments are more sophisticated than say, Alan Vanneman, you are pulling them out of your ass... For a second there I thought I might be insulting someone who knew what they were talking about.

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 7:21 PM

rihilism,

Perhaps you can enlighten us all of what the probabilities are for said "threats".

I'm not sure why you think I need to do that. I'm not the one who keeps yelling "We need to act! Now! Before it's too late!" It is the responsibility of those who cite these catastrophic possibilities to show that the risk of them actually happening is great enough to justify whatever action they are proposing to counter that risk, whether it's spending a trillion dollars to build an asteroid defense system or a trillion dollars to reduce GHG emissions.

Mixner, perhaps rather than focusing on "Global warming alarmists" (my, what a nice red herring you have) you could direct me where actual scientists are ignoring or obfuscating.

As I said, with a few exceptions, it's not scientists who are doing that, it's people like you. But since you've now said you agree that we shouldn't just throw money at the problem in order to feel good about doing something, no matter how unjustified or ineffective it might be, but instead need to carefully consider questions of risk, cost, feasibility, etc., your prior comments seem misplaced.

Posted by Mixner | September 26, 2007 7:54 PM

j'accuse, Mixner...

I think you're getting your enlightened "analysis" from John Stossel (informed by the brilliance of Michael Crichton,... something about the phrasology sounds familiar) and noted that you chose not to reply to my query on your last post.

And keep in mind that I will be asking for a source for your "statistics" should you care to share them.

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 7:55 PM

"As I said, with a few exceptions, it's not scientists who are doing that, it's people like you."

Well, since I work in a research lab at a state university, occasionally I like to wear both hats.

What were your credentials, btw?

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 8:01 PM

"spending a trillion dollars to build an asteroid defense system..."

I believe I gave you link earlier to assuage your fears that the "alarmists" were not considering such a proposal at the present moment.

Posted by Rihilism | September 26, 2007 8:09 PM

I'm sure that many of the alarmists know full well that they're being dishonest and manipulative

Your "many" is just the usual "some" tricked up in Sunday clothes. Name the people who know full well they are being dishonest and manipulative.

And beware when you point a finger -- there are 3 pointed back at yourself.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 26, 2007 10:22 PM

Name the people who know full well they are being dishonest and manipulative.

Jeffrey Davis, for example.

And beware when you point a finger -- there are 3 pointed back at yourself.

Well, given the lack of clear public support for drastic policies to reduce GHG emissions, either in this country or any other, I'd say that more fingers are pointed in your direction than mine.

You might find this recent New York Times piece by Tom Friedman instructive. I basically share Friedman's view. I am persuaded that global warming is happening, and that human activity is a primary cause of it, but I am deeply skeptical that there are any politically- or economically-realistic ways to substantially mitigate it in the foreseeable future.

Posted by Mixner | September 26, 2007 10:35 PM

Weeeeelllll, that settles things,..., and perhaps Maureen Dowd informs you of all that it takes to be manly (or womanly, whichever might be the case).

Myself, I prefer to reach for the Arts section first to read about the latest resurgence of renaissance kabuki theater.

And while he has the most handsome of mustaches, perhaps you may wish to consider that though Friedman's arguments are more sophisticated than say, Alan Vanneman, he is pulling them out of his ass...

Posted by Rihilism | September 27, 2007 4:59 AM

Name the people who know full well they are being dishonest and manipulative.

Jeffrey Davis, for example.

The Jeffrey Davis who gives his own name and who isn't a public person and who receives the full protection of libel laws? That Jeffrey Davis? The Jeffrey Davis of this thread? Me?

Well, given the lack of clear public support for drastic policies to reduce GHG emissions, either in this country or any other, I'd say that more fingers are pointed in your direction than mine.

Well, chum, you noticed that the two things --accusations and public support -- don't have anything in common with each other, so there's no need to really go further.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 27, 2007 7:52 AM

BTW, while I don't read Friedman anymore (I usually rely on the good folks at Atrios to provide me with a brief synopsis of Tommyboy's latest clap trap so as not to cut into my nose pickin' time) I do have this recurring fantasy about one late night at the Grey Lady....

Friedman:(typing)"...and that, dear reader, is why outsourcing will eventually cure cancer. The End". Now I just need a title for my masterpiece. . I know! "The World is Flat"! That'll blow their minds! Oh shit, it's 3 a.m., I gotta write an Op-Ed to meet my contractual obligations. I know, I'll throw together a quick uninformed screed claiming the global warming "alarmists" are intentionally trying to scare the crap outa everybody. That should distract them from my latest irrational and irresponsible statements about Iran/Iraq.

Posted by Rihilism | September 27, 2007 8:26 AM