Loading ...
A Correction
In my article in the latest issue of the Caerulean I made the assertion that there was not a connection between climate change and Hurricane Katrina. Having been shown convincing evidence to the contrary I retract this claim and acknowledge my error. I am not part of the increasingly unfashionable group who bury their heads in the sand and insist that climate change is not connected to man’s activities. Can anyone suggest a way in which to bury one’s head in the sand and remain fashionable? It is beyond me…
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Any chance you can publish this “convincing evidence”? Because changes are there is a large amount of evidence to the contrary.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
It is unlikely that the particularly destructive power of Katrina was created by climate change. Variations in sea surface temperature are dominated by short-term (that is, season-to-season) cyclical changes, and not to long-term (that is, decade-to-decade upward change that we observe from climate change.
To state this, however, is not to say that climate change is not a result of human activity. It is unquestonably so. Furthermore, it is also not to say that global warming will not increase the frequency of Katrina-like storms; eventually, the upward trend will overcome the cyclical movement, and will make every hurricane as destructive as that which destroyed New Orleans.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Ok I will restate the case as I, a non-scientist understand it:
1) There has been a general increase in the temperature of the oceans.
2) We are led to believe that this increase is a result of global warming caused by human activity.
3) The force of hurricanes is affected by the temperature of the oceans.
This is not to say that global warming was the cause for Katrina or that hurricanes did not exist before global warming. I merely suggest that the increased temperature of the oceans was and is a contributing factor in the strength of hurricanes. Yet I stand to be proven wrong and corrected…
February 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
You are right on all three counts (except that we’re not “led to believe” tha global warming is a result of human activity; it undoubtedly is, and we ought to believe it based on the overwhelming scientific evidence).
However, Katrina was not caused by the rising surface temperature caused by global warming. The reason Katrina was so destructive was that the Gulf of Mexico was several degrees above its average temperature, even for recent years. This was not a consequence of global warming, but of natural fluctuation. That is to say, New Orleans got unlucky, in that it was hit by a hurricane that had been supercharged by record high sea temperatures.
Nonetheless, the change effected by several decades of global warming would result in every hurricane being similarly powerful, as cycles are absorbed into a general upward trend. In fifty years time, global warming will be THE major contributing factor to the strength of hurricanes; at the moment, it doesn’t really figure (except in statistical analysis of hurricane intensity, which tends to show a slight upward trend already).
February 14th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Oliver, global warming (which itself hasn’t been conclusively proven) is not ‘undoubtedly’ a result of human activity at all.
The overwhelming majority of scientific research of which you write is not ‘overwhelming’ at all. It may certainly be a majority of work, yet there is still much conflicting evidence and research that make suggestions to the contrary.
The majority are not always right. In the 1930s, the majority of British politicians were in favour of appeasing Hitler and the rapidly rearming Germany. Only a few lone voices, including Winston Churchill spoke out against appeasement and for a much stronger armed response. I think we know who was ultimately proven correct. Ok, not quite the same thing, but you get the point. A simple numerical advantage in scientists supporting the ‘theory’ of global warming does not automatically prove its existence.
I would also be interested to know exactly how many environmental papers, journals and documents you have read to come to such a conclusion.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Your comparison to appeasement would be laughable were it not highly offensive. You should mind at whom you throw the name of Hitler. A more apt analogy is that of Flat Earthers. You’re the Flat Earther.
By nature, I am more Dagny than James Taggart, so would not base any opinion or argument of mine upon the weight of opinion, but would rather do so on the quality of it. There is only a little quality opinion on the side of the sceptics. Most sceptics don’t put forward an alternative hypothesis. Most of the rest blame God. The scientifically-inclined that form the tiny minority that remains blame it on inconsequential factors, such as solar or volcanic activity, that are not significant enough to explain recent warming in its entirety, nor are they consequential to the principle of the argument.
Sadly, the weight of public opinion is put upon the wrong side of the argument, upon the actual over the principle; instead of arguing that greater greenhouse gas accumulation must increase global temperatures (which they have been proven to do), it is argued that accumulation has caused the majority of the recent temperature change (which has not yet been proven conclusively, although the balance of evidence tilts that way). Since human mitigation (through emission of sulphates, etc) doesn’t come close to counteracting greenhouse gas effects, the net human effect must be a warming one, even if it hasn’t caused the majority of past or present warming. Hence, any skeptical position is untenable unless one denies the warming effect of greenhouse gases itself: an unthinkable position for any scientist to take.
As it happens, I have read a great quantity of documentation on the subject, and most of the most cogently argued material supports the hypothesis that humanity is responsible for climate change. It also happens that The Skeptical Environmentalist is one of my favourite books: not for its conclusions (which, in the case of climate change, are wrong), but for its intelligent use of statistics and argument to Lomborg’s advantage, making it one of the most cogent sources that I have read on the subject. I would be interested to know if you could pay even cursory attention to the arguments of others, lest you find an opinion that doesn’t suit your sensibilities and feel required to insult their proponents.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:27 am
The appeasement analogy, you are right Oliver, is irrelevant. I would distinguish between diplomacy, which is an art, and understanding the climate, which is a science. There are indeed disagreements among scientists on the subject of global warming but they are in large part over the severity of the problem rather than the question of whether it is related to human activity. I never thought my attempt to state that my own article was wrong would lead to this…
February 15th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Oliver,
Without making a point of whether I believe climate change to be a consequence of man’s activity or not, Chris is right that your use of words such as “undoubtedly” and phrases like “we ought to believe it” are most unscientific. Man’s effect on the climate is far from proven even if there is a good deal of evidence for it. Stating that it is most likely is fine. Stating that we should be responsible in our energy use as a consequence is fine. Chastising others for disagreeing is not. The beauty of science has always been the encouragement of others to attempt to disprove the accepted theory, it has never been to discourage opposition (that was religion’s job). Your Flat Earth analogy is apt; there was a point when overwhelming belief (religious, scientific and otherwise) was that the Earth was flat, with the minority who disagreed considered insane.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I did not chastise climate change critics for disagreeing. If you care to read again, you’ll note that I CREDITED Bjorn Lomborg’s work, despite him holding the diametrically-opposed opinion to me. [You’ll also see that Chris compared me to the Nazi-appeasers, which was a downright insulting, never mind chastising, thing to say. Free tip for newbie debaters: never mention the Nazis, in case your audience happens to be a Jew. Or a Slav/Roma/Homosexual/Communist/Russian/European/Human, for that matter.]
Your belief that ‘we ought to believe it’ is unscientific belies a misunderstanding of what I wrote. To state that we ought to believe in (say) the theory of evolution is not unscientific in any way. In fact, it’s downright unscientific to reject evidence that stacks up so clearly in favour of one position over all others. In the name of science, we ought to accept the conclusions of science, unless we have suitable evidence to the contrary. Since there is little (although not none, as I noted above), we ought to recognise the effect of human activity of raising the temperature of the planet. However, as I also said, there is not necessarily a need to recognise the effect to date, as that is not as thoroughly proven (and I, myself, question it to an extent).
Science never stated the Earth to be flat. Science as we might understand it was invented by Aristotle, when he described the empirical method. That’s the very same Aristotle that proved that the Earth was round by observing the movement of the stars: one of the first truly scientific discoveries in history. Hence, your reason for rejection the Flat Earth analogy is miserably false: if only, perhaps, due to an historically inconvenient coincidence.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
The comparison to Nazi-apologists was certainly wrong; we can certainly agree on that. I did not mean to excuse that with my post.
I don’t agree with your original tone or phrasing however. I actually don’t think it is right to say “we ought to believe” in evolution, or any unproven theory for that matter, and I don’t believe I have ever heard a responsible scientist use such language (you certainly wouldn’t see it in a science paper). It is an absolute in an area that is (rightly) wary of committing to the unproven. It is an authoritarian reproach in a field that is gloriously liberal. Science is best executed with cold detachment. A “belief” or “disbelief” in a theory one is investigating results in a compromised investigation and skewed results.
“we ought to accept the conclusions of science, unless we have suitable evidence to the contrary” - I don’t know any scientist that would refer to a mere theory as a “conclusion of science”. Surely “conclusion of MANY scienTISTS” would be more appropriate? Sorry if I am being pedantic but in light of your response I thought I should clarify my problem with the way you speak of this issue. I’m sure we can agree on the use of the word “unquestionably” in your first post.
But then perhaps I am more used to mathematics which is generally more stringent about such things than other disciplines. However, moving on to the experts, the Climate Change Panel of “top researchers in the field” that produced the recent policy-advisory paper gave their level of confidence in the theory as 90%; that may be good enough for policy, that may be good enough for personal confidence, even good enough to make it into the school curriculum, but 90% as a scientific conclusion? That “ought to be believed in”? That’s enough to give any mathematician (and I would have thought, any scientist) the shivers.
Aristotle didn’t invent science. Science is not the empirical method (this is a process of science). Science is our learning and studying of everything around us and the underlying principles. A caveman noting that rubbing two sticks together creates fire is science. As is often pointed out, in the grand scheme of the universe, what we know even now isn’t that far off what we knew then, so there is no need to discredit pre-Aristotle thinkers.
Look forward to your response
February 16th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
As you cite it, let us go with the Fourth Report of the IPCC to establish exactly whether there is merit in the case from a ‘mathematical’ [sic.] point of view. It is fair that you bring it up, as it is probably the best and widest collection of scientific evidence that we have collated, but there are two flaws in your representation of that particular ‘headline’ conclusion:
1) The widely-publicised ‘90%’ statement actually refers to the effect of human activity on the change in temperature since the middle of the 20th century.
2) The preliminary report says that the term ‘Very likely’, as is used, means 95%>P(x)>90%, and not just P(x)=90%.
As I have stressed above, I have questions of this actual question myself, and would not currently accept the hypothesis that recent climate change has necessarily been caused by human activity. Since the generally-adopted threshold for acceptance of statistical results is 95%, my position on *past* climate change is pretty much where ‘mathematics’ stands: supporting it from a policy perspective, but not considering it to be shown to be true empirically as of yet.
However, as I have also stated, there is a difference between past effects and future effects. Whilst I have qualms about the past, I have none about the future. As I outlined above, one only has to assume that greenhouse gases heat up the Earth, and that such gases have a greater absolute net effect than those cooling gases (such as sulphate compounds from aerosols) to see that it is clear that, in the future, humanity WILL warm up the planet. That isn’t based on statistical analysis. That’s just scientific fact: if warming elements exceed cooling elements, there will be a net warming effect.
Of course, there is one small practical (and non-scientific) assumption in that: that the greenhouse effect exceeds the aerosol effect absolutely. One can have a valid statistical analysis of past emissions, but I am sure it would be statistically significant at the most demanding levels of confidence. If that is (in fact) the case, then one can conclude, quite rightly from your ‘mathematical’ point of view, that humanity has warmed the planet in the past: whether or not we are responsible for the great spike in global temperatures (which, as given above, is unproven as of yet).
On the last (and somewhat trivial) point (but one that I will continue regardless!), I still disagree fundamentally. Even though I also disagree with your definition of ’science’ per se, I shall use it only to illustrate the essential importance of Aristotle to the invention of modern science. You note that science is the ’studying of everything around us and the underlying principles’. Yet, before Aristotle, observation (the studying of everything around us) and abstraction (the underlying principles) were not linked; instead, proto-surgeons observed without understanding, and mathematicians hypothesised without applying (as, indeed, Aristotle himself demanded). Their connection is the essence of the empirical method, and, therefore, under your definition, of science as we understand it.
On a final note, please, let’s not be all humble and pathetic about the achievements of humanity. Give me a Large Hadron Collider over a couple of sticks any day of the week!
February 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Oliver, perhaps you would explain why my comparison was in any way offensive? Or are you just easily offended? You seem to be a little confused I think. I did not compare you to Nazi-appeasers (though I still could if you would like?) I compared the manner in which Churchill and like-minded people were a minority voice to the majority of an alternative viewpoint. What’s more, you go on to actually advocate self-censorship against the principle of free-speech – which is what the opponents of the Jyllands-Posten Islamic cartoons were proposing only a year ago.
Oliver, flat-earth believers used to be in the majority by far and away – so your comparison is flawed I’m afraid – though it would have been apt had the situation been the reverse. As it happens, the original comparison was the first thing that came into my head – so I am sure we could find a better one if we tried.
The only one who wrote in an insulting manner towards another with differing opinions was you Oliver, not me – I merely stated opinion and asked questions. However, most proponents of global warming and human causes always tend to react violently to being told that their views are being questioned. Go back and read your original and subsequent posts; the tone is at times both nasty and rude.
Within the scientific community itself, there is no complete consensus. I point out in a post that this is a fact. You react angrily. I think this says much about you. My opinion? I am not a scientist, so in all honesty I do not know whether climate change, global warming is actually happening. However, what I do know is that, rather strangely (well, not really) the left and liberals are great supporters of the theory that climate change is caused by human activity. Thus, we are told continuously that we must completely change our lifestyles, our consumer habits and pay even more taxes to stave off an apocalyptic future which is impressed upon us at every opportunity. It all seems rather convenient don’t you think? Therefore I am extremely sceptical of climate change, and the religious fervour of those who support it.
With environmental science, climate change and global warming etc, the scientists will eventually come to a conclusion (and if they don’t – then that is not a problem.) Until that point, I will remain sceptical – since if we look back, thinkers and scientists forty years foretold of great disasters that never came to pass.
I would also agree with Abioye, that your terms are misplaced. A person ‘ought’ not be compelled to believe anything other than what they want to believe.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Your comparison is offensive because it suggests that climate change scientists are evil, in the same manner that the Nazis were, and that all those that criticise climate change scepticism are just as self-evidently wrong as Nazi-appeasers. [Incidentally, it also confuses the position of Winston Churchill to deliberate flatter yourself; Churchill promoted the revolutionary, new idea, whereas you promote the head-in-the-sand approach akin to the one that the government took. If anything, you’re Chamberlain, willing to walk into disaster in the name of a technicality: waving your piece of paper, stating that 90% probability isn’t good enough to warrant immediate action.]
Furthermore, as I have already stated with the discourse with Abioye, there has never been a time at which science has supported the Flat Earth theory.
As compared to my position of basing my opinion on science, you seem to base your opposition to the theory of human-effected climate change on irrelevances. So what it lefties use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes? The two do not have to be bundled together.
The Pigouvian response is to *divert* taxes: remove the social market inefficiencies by the disincentivisation of negative externalities, whilst simultaneously cutting taxes elsewhere. If the government chooses to maintain its revenue constant, and removes distorting taxes (such as income tax), not only does the tax take remain constant, but market efficiency increases, hence leading to net positive economic gains, not to mention the environmental gains. This is the so-called ‘Green tax shift’, and is relatively well-documented. Instead, by denying climate change, not only do you make yourself a political irrelevance, but you miss an opportunity to help the economy by removing inefficiencies.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Ok Oliver, sure. I’ll just have to be content with being what you consider “a political irrelevance” then.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“You are right on all three counts (except that we’re not “led to believe” tha global warming is a result of human activity; it undoubtedly is, and we ought to believe it based on the overwhelming scientific evidence).” - Oliver Cooper
Did you watch ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ on Channel Four last night Oliver? If not, I think you should find a copy and watch it - because it completely disproves your assumptions.