I don’t have it that bad, but anyone who does what I do for a living must have a twinge of jealousy for the doctor who can do everything from treating a patient to creating a television series to directing a movie to writing a mega-bestseller (every year or two). By now most everybody knows that his latest of the latter… State of Fear… takes on that hoariest of liberal shibboleths – environmentalism.
I haven’t read the book yet (though I undoubtedly will since it is in the category for which I am a judge in the LAT Book Awards), but I did watch Dr. Crichton being interviewed by Aaron Brown on CNN the other night. To say that the anchorman was over-matched would be the understatement of the decade. The doctor certainly does his homework on global warming and other matters. Brown just seemed like the lightweight he is. Conventional liberalism is clearly on the defensive these days, particularly when represented by people like Brown.
On the issue of global warming, I remain, like Crichton (although not even a tenth as knowledgable), an agnostic. More serious science and less propaganda, please. Still there is one argument in favor of extreme environmentalism that appeals to me. I call it the “What if the extreme environmentalists are right?” argument. Yes, I know it’s unlikely, but what if… To have taken the maximum precautions will then have seemed a small price to pay. Of course, many environmental precautions backfire and create more problems. And so it goes.
This all leads to the question of the Kyoto Protocol, which I think must be revisited not just for the scientific reasons that Crichton demonstrates, but because of international corruption. In the light of the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal, it is clear that nations sign documents (Russia, France) with no intention of honoring them. Until there is some way of dealing with this corruption, such agreements are meaningless.
BTW, if you click on the top link, you will find an interesting Amazon interview with Crichton. The book he says had the “most significant impact” on his life was Alice Miller’s Prisoners of Childhood. I might agree with that. [Does that mean your next book will be a bestseller?-ed. It's a start.]
I don’t pretend to be any sort of expert, but I, too, have become agnostic on the subject of global warming–not the fact of it, but on the significance and possible results of it, and what (if anything) to do about it.
I recommend you read an article in Natural History magazine (4/04). It’s a review of a book called “The Discovery of Global Warming,” written by Spencer R. Weart. The book (which I haven’t read) sounds like an excellent analysis of the subject by someone who doesn’t appear to have an ax to grind.
The review (and the book) seems to be asking the same question you’re asking: why not just do what would be necessary, just in case (sort of a geopolitical version of Pascal’s wager)? As best I can understand it, the short version of the answer is: because it could have tremendously negative consequences in many arenas of human life, is extraordinarily difficult to implement, and because we know so little about what is actually happening (including the fact that the consequences of global warming are not necessarily uniformly negative). The author of the book review (Robert Ehrlich, a physics professor at George Mason U.), suggests that nations adopt what he calls “no-regrets” actions–energy conservation and the promotion of alternative sources of energy, until more is known.
“suggests that nations adopt what he calls “no-regrets” actions–energy conservation and the promotion of alternative sources of energy, until more is known.”
I will not be reading Michael Crichtonís new novel. Only nonfiction can hold my interest. Perhaps Iím lacking a soul? But this much Iím sure of: the leaders of the global warming movement are predominantly anti-capitalist and wish to destroy our economic system. This is their primary motivation. Everything else is of secondary importance.
Do you want to play it safe regarding global warming? In that case, you must abandon socialist economics. Only capitalism can usher in the new technologies required to conserve energy and promote alternative fuels.
Only capitalism can usher in the new technologies required to conserve energy and promote alternative fuels.
Well said.
The Global Warming question is framed in such a vague manner as to be confusing. Yes, the Earth is in general experiencing Global Warming, but that is a natural process as it comes out of the previous Ice Age. Nothing to be done about that.
Kyoto addresses the theory of Catastrophic Warming caused by human activities. This is theory is predicated upon mathematical models, obsession with a trace gas, and supported by the infamous Hockey Stick Graph of Michael Mann (a graph which showed a recent and radical spike in warming). I say infamous because the methodolgy behind developing the graph appears to be deeply flawed.
The “We Better Do Something Extremely Expensive Now, Quick, and Without Thinking Just In Case” argument has never impressed me. I know a bum’s rush when I see one.
You could watch Aaron Brown without feeling slimy afterward? You’re a better man that I, Roger.
David Thompson:
I agree in spirit with this – capitalism has shown itself to be far more efficient in moving the economy towards high-value configurations than has socialism. There is a “tragedy of the commons” aspect to this, though, and it is one that is not necessarily well handled by capitalism.
The problem is that the potential costs (and benefits) of global warming are diffuse, so that they can’t be allocated to the consumer without interference in the market (e.g. by government). My incentive to reduce production of greenhouse gasses only reflects the incentives produced by the reduction in cost to me – by buying a more efficient car I see all of the benefit produced by paying for less gas, but I see only one six-billionth of the benefit to the environment.
That leaves two options:
1) Rely on market pressure toward more efficient energy production and use to reduce emissions, leaving us constantly trailing the true point of maximum value.
2) Shoot for the true maximum by taxing (or crediting, if global warming is a net good) emissions.
Note that #2 requires that our estimate of the costs and benefits of that reduction be reasonably good, or we’ll only make a world that is worse than the one we would have had – so why go to the trouble?
If we must choose #2, we can try to do it efficiently by, for example, issuing fungible emissions-reduction credits (rather than trying to specify on a case-by-case basis who should reduce what by how much). The proposal to include credit for expanding carbon sinks (e.g. forests) falls in here, too.
Still, I think that until we have better information, #1 is the best option. And if all else fails, we can always hope for nuclear fusion.
By the way, I agree that the global-warming crowd is largely anti-capitalist. Oh, they’ll suck off the teat, but…
How about this? Climate is going to change. We know that the planet has been both warmer and colder in the past than it is now. Only 7,000 years ago much of North America was under ice.
We need to learn to deal with climate change, no matter what the cause. It’s going to happen, it’s just a matter of time.
Well, I have long been agnostic also, but these guys are persuasive that it exists and is (in part) caused by human pollution.
They have two discussions of Crichton’s book that are worth a look.
here
and here
This does not mean that they are in favour of Kyoto, indeed they say:
“The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”
I attended a 2 hour lecture last month by Dr. David Dallmeyer, geologist and climatologist, from the University of Georgia. An extremely interesting talk on Global Warming by someone who has been studying it for the last 3 decades.
His talk started with the summary, “There is global warming, fact. We are polluting the atmosphere, fact. These are facts, but we still have no real idea whether or how much the two are related”.
The bulk of his time was spent explaining the naturally occuring cycles that are well documented and have been responsible for warming and cooling periods for at least the last half a million years [the number of years which deep ice cores have been analyzed]. Cycles are affected by things such as the earth’s varying wobble [tilt], earth’s asymmetrical orbit and sunspot activity. All these rhythms of nature result in a complete warm/cool cycle of about 140,000 years. We are near the peak point of the warm trend now.
He left us with a “jury still out” caveat however, noting that carbon dioxide levels are currently the highest ever noted in all the ice core studies..and how this will affect the natural cycle is anyone’s guess.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
Use the link above to Crichton’s views in a nutshell. I read this speech when it first came out and wondered why it didn’t make much of a stir. It has all of his objections to the politization of science that are in SOF.
I’m ‘listening’ to the book right now. If you read the speech you won’t be shocked by the thrust of SOF.
P.S. I wish I could have been there (the Commonwealth Club) when he gave the speech. I bet you could hear a pin drop as he ended.
The problem with the “What if the extreme environmentalists are right?” argument.”
This is also known as the ‘precautionary principle’ and it has serious problems. Crichton addresses on of them and it is HUGE. You’d think that the banning of DDT is justified on the basis of the precautionary principle (better safe than sorry, right?) But in fact, Malaria is a *major* killer in Africa and the domestic application of DDT has the potential to save huge numbers of lives. But environmentalists, motivated by the precautionary principle, have fought the use of DDT tooth and nail, and huge numbers of people are dying. It’s hard to get one’s head wrapped around the idea that hordes of people are dying because of ‘better safe than sorry thinking’ but that seems to be the case.
Another example — GM foods. The Europeans can afford to avoid them based on the idea that even though there are NO demonstrable threats associated with GM foods, maybe someday, some gene-transfer frankenstein accident will happen, blah, blah, blah. But in the meantime…people in the 3rd world are dying. The won’t plant high-yield GM crops because that would keep them out of the European market. In fact, they won’t even accept GM modified foods as food aid during famines.
The precautionary principle is not harmless.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
If you liked Crichton’s Commmonwealth speech here’s another in the same vein..
Quoth Roger:
The problem is that it isn’t necessarily true that “the maximum precautions will then have seemed a small price to pay.” To say whether they would or not requires us to make educated guesses as to the costs of those preparations, the costs of not making those preparations, the desirability (the technical term is “utility”) of the outcome, and the probability of the outcome. This is all the subject matter of Decision Theory, which is just the science of making decisions in the presence of uncertainty. The best introduction to the subject I’ve read is Part V of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig.
There appear to be a number of worthwhile papers on the application of Decision Theory to the question of global warming; see here, here, and here.
I just discovered what seems like a rather good introduction to Decision Theory online, here.
Of course, it would be even better if we could plug in data and let the computer figure out over time what function best fit the data. The Group Method of Data Handling is a very promising approach for finding appropriate models of complex systems such as global warming, given large, complex data sets such as meterological and climatological data from the various reporting agencies throughout the world.
MW is correct. Malaria has reached epidemic proportions in the southern Mozambique/Northern KwaZulu-Natal region, killing thousands. DDT has been reintroduced as an absolute necessity.
Likewise more than one African country has indeed adopted GM foods rather than starve.
Envirofascism is a serious threat to human and animal life, since it envisions a return to a kind of Edenic state, creating a museum of the imagined natural order of the deep past. This often involves, for example, eradicating “alien” animals to preserve an imagined species “balance” of specific parts of the world.
ìThe precautionary principle is not harmless.î
There are estimates that 50,000,000 people have died because of the prohibition of DDT. And God only knows how many more starve to death due to the scare mongering over GM foods. Letís be brutally frank: the radical liberals are responsible for the deaths of millions! These people do not deserve to be taken seriously. Their overall track record is dismal. Rachel Carsonís book ìSilent Springî was, for instance, given a free ride by the liberal establishment. She started a lot of this horror. Her critics were treated like scum. The following hagiographic article is typical of Carsonís defenders:
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/PA_Env-Her/rachel.htm
Rachel Carson will go down in history as a well meaning person who unwittingly caused millions to suffer a gruesome death. Never forget that good intentions are never by themselves sufficient. Oneís intellect has also got to be functioning properly.
Well, Roger, if it makes you feel any better, Michael Crichton can’t actually treat a patient: while he completed his MD degree, he never did a residency or internship. He had what he interpreted as a demyelinization episode and decided to do what he really wanted to do.
The fact that he’d just made a zillion dollars off The Andromeda Strain probably reduced his motivation too.
Now, as far as global warming goes, there are three strong bits of data that I think one must consider when trying to evaluate the claim that global warming is anthropogenic:
(1) If you look at the real data on which the big arguments are based, you’ll find that in fact the measured temperature variation is within the edrror bars of the historical data. The interpretation that claims there is massive and unprecedented recent warming isn’t very well supported statistically.
(2) We have, in fact, very strong historical data to suggest the climate a few hundred years ago was comparitively very much warmer than to day. Consider, eg, that in Roman times they grew red wine grapes in Britain and Newfoundland. This is called “the little climatic optimum”, and calls the data mentioned in (1) into further question.
(3) Planetary science is telling us that we’re (a) at the highest solar output ever recorded, much higher than 100 years ago, and (b) suggests that Mars is experiencing substantial global warming as well.
Put together, they strongly suggest that global warming is real but the anthropogenic hypothesis is very difficult to support.
Interesting topic because I beat this one to death on polipundit last nite–I agree with the commenters above who attribute global warming to naturally occuring geologic cycles–that history to me is well documented. As to humankind’s involvement in causing the current cycle, my pet theory is that anthopogenic hypotheses has more to do with the need to elevate the importance of mankind rather than accept mankind as just another species on the planet.
I note that I am following the esteemed Charlie (c) and knowing something of his background would like to ask this: My understanding is that “complex models” and related theory are used to develop the global warming and man’s fault in the same. The proponents of these models argue, I understand, that standard statistical measures cannot account for this level of complexity. Thus these models rely on iterative computer analysis using monte carlo simulations. I assume covariance structural modelling would also be appropriate. Long prelude to this question: do not these models give us some feel for the amount of variance explained by the independent variable of “man” in the model? I know it does for Covariance Structural Modelling (LISREL and AMOS); dont monte carlo techniques permit us to determine the same measure of variance?
Well, I’ll go back to the Hockey Stick Graph and rant and rave some more. This was the graph of historical temperature data which reached back 1,000 years. It showed a huge and alarming increase in average temperature that corresponded with the Industrial Revolution.
That graph was probably the most important datum point that moved the Global Warming debate from academia to public debate. It seemed to settle any question over the validity of the theory that emissions lead to higher world-wide temperatures, and the rate at which it was rising gave imp[etous to the notion that something had to be done now. It was the parent of Kyoto so to speak.
Except for one minor problem… the data they used appears to have been juked. Reran by other researchers with stricter methodologies, the same data did not yield a temperature raise during the industrial age.
Oh, one more piece of information — perhaps relevant, perhaps not — this is the Organization that funded and sponsored the faulty study.
RogerA:
My understanding (limited as it is) is that the models used to forecast climate change treat the earth as consisting of various materials (atmosphere, land, and water, maybe others) and treat them each as consisting of a finite number of “chunks” (for reasons of computational tractability). The chunks interact with each other and solar input over time based on various rules for the interactions.
Presumably one of the parameters of these models is something like “Atmospheric CO2″, and “Atmospheric CO2″ causes more heat to be retained within the Atmosphere chunks. So I suppose they could just run the model twice – once with man and his emissions and once without – and subtract the temperatures from one another.
Jeez, that’s not very much information. I’m as ignorant as I thought. Hopefully Charlie (C) will come back and help out.
Morgan: thanks! my interest, of course, swirls around the question of model validation and the model’s ability to predict and explain. I know I can build models using covariance structure modelling that can shed light on complex phenomena and where variables can be both independent and dependent, and where it is possible to examine intervening and interacting variables–and this technique allows me to get to the real question of interest–esp from a policy standpoing; to wit: how much variance in the dependent variable, global warming, is caused by the independent variable(s) human activity. Without that, the model is worth very much as something that informs policymakers.
Fantastic thread and links. Roger and you folks never disappoint.
RogerA:
Judging the accuracy of climate prediction models is impossible until enough time has passed, and while my bias is to give them credit as being “current best guesses” based on some set of presumably reasonable assumptions and simplifications, the fact that the guesses vary so widely worries me. There is also the problem that “Man Causes Global Warming” seems to be the orthodoxy right now, so models that don’t show an impact may be tweaked until they, ahem, work correctly.
They tell me that the effects in complex systems may be nonlinear – more CO2 causes atmospheric warming causes icecaps to melt causes the gulf stream to stop flowing causes the northern latitudes to cool causes glaciation causes greater surface reflectivity causes more cooling causes The Day After Tomorrow. And all of those things change rainfall patterns and cloud cover patterns and this area gets warmer and that one colder and more moisture gets pushed over this mountain range so the salinity of bodies of water changes which impacts the rate at which they transfer heat which affects rainfall and cloud cover and currents etc.
RogerA, as far as the covariance issues go, I think I’d best just admit that I’m primarily a logician, not a real mathematician. The questions you ask is indeed a very interesting one: this Technology Review article points out some of the counter-evidence by McIntyre and McKitrick, but you might do better on the technical question with WitchitaBoy or Chuck.
Your basic point is sound: the sorts of models they’re talking about require integrating horrible nonlinear systems of differential equations, and so are generally done by Monte Carlo methods.
(Aside for the people with lives: what’s a Monte Carlo method? Basically, what we’re asking is a generalization of trying to calculate the area of some complicated curve. If you know the curve well enough, under certain conditions you can compute this directly — that’s what you learn in Calculus. Under other conditions, for various reasons there’s no good way to do this. So you apply a “Monte Carlo method”, which means you generate a bunch of random points, and find out which points are “inside” the curve, and which ones are outside. Assuming the points are “well distributed” in the right way, you can then compute the area by counting the number of inside and outside points. Since you can make up random numbers much faster than you can compute the numerical integral of a sufficiently hairy system of equations, this is a win. Honest.)
RogerA’s covariance question is essentially this: how much can we separate the influence of Man out from all the other things in the models? My feeling is that we can’t do much.
What I find interesting from the McI&McK work, and the reason for my inuitiion, is this: using the original methods of Mann et al., McI&McK used Monte Carlo methods a different way, and generated highly random data for the same methods used by Mann et al. — and found that J. Random Data comes out with a “hocky stick” as well.
Now, here I’m in my own neighborhood: I don’t know much about MC methods in climatic modeling, but I do know something about statistical information theory. If, as we see from McI&McK, we can’t distinguish between the climatic data we have and known-random data using the methods of Mann et al., then we have to presume the methods are simply not producing any information in the formal sense. If so, then we can be pretty certain that we can’t use these methods to distinguish the anthopogenic component.
To add to what Charlie said, there was a cold spell around 1300 for a couple of centuries that had catastrophic, appalling effects for the subsistence farmers of Europe (and elsewhere, I’d guess). This is called the Little Ice Age. (There’s a interesting book by that name.)
That was followed by what’s called the Medieval Warming, to which he referred. This is when it was possible for Europeans to colonize Iceland & so on. Later, the pack ice came down too far south.
Then around 1800 or so, IIRC, we had another distinct cold snap for a few years.
***
On top of all that, if you see ice core data that shows historic temperatures, you see two things:
1) Wild local fluctations of many many degrees, possibly just an error effect
2) Huge drifts up and down, of even larger size.
Put one of those plots next to the scare graphs produced by Our Friends the Greens, and the scare graph looks like nothing at all.
I’ve never understood why this myth got any traction at all.
Morgan, what I can tell you from experience with ugly, stiff nonlinear models in grad school (computational biology, anyone?) is that with enough statistical treatment, you can get something publishable out of a book of random numbers. Just condition the data, throw out some outliers, and suddenly your hypothesis pops right out.
Since the “hockey stick” is currently the received wisdom, your model is necessarily going to be considered strong only if it generates something that looks like the hockey stick. This is intrinsically sort of interesting, BUT if you look at the error bounds on the hockey stick, for most of the history used the error bounds are as big as the variation in temperature they propose to measure.
So what you may have is a good model of a bad data set.
Chricton makes me feel like a slob, his interests and talents are so diverse.
Oh well.. some of us do, some of us envy.
I think that environmentalism is like a secular religion for many. And when it joins forces with socialism, it does not matter if its proponents are right. All that matters is that they believe.
That is why European countries can sign Kyoto and ignore it and it is ok. They at least tried, unlike the heretic Americans. Meanwhile the Indians and Chinese are showing no signs of allowing the Kyoto Protocal to inconvenience them.
In truth I think the world changes with or without us. I am not adverse to cleaning up the air and water and I think I can actually see improvement in that regard in recent years. But global warming reminds me of things like continental drift and the changing coastline of India and Africa. Nothing remains the same, including the earth and we will pass from this place like species before us.
Terrye–I think you really reduce this whole debate to its most germane terms–this is about the role of our species, homo sapiens, on the earth. And yes, if geologic history is an indication, we are but temporary travellers.
Bostonian: I agree with your comments entirely; in fact, my favorite modern historian, Barbara Tuchman, in her wonderful book “A Distant Mirror” describes the 1300s through the lens of the chronicalers–the Baltic apparently froze over! all of this suggests to me that the modern proponents lack that more sweeping perspective of this tapestry that is human history–a small blip on the bigger tapestry of our globe.
Charlie(C) and Morgan both: thanks for helping me thru the modern morass of nonlinear model building. I go back to the point I suggested earlier, that a model that cannot specify or even intimate the variance (or role) of humankind in changing our environment really isnt worth very much as a policy instrument.
All: having engaged in a rather protacted debate on polipundit on this very subject I was fascinated about the faith the “left of center” proponents of global warming put into the notion of peer review and consensus. I was in academe for 20 years and I recognize just how puerile “peer review” is: to wit: reviewers more worried about attacks on their sacred cows than the published article. As to consensus, it is amazing to me the same group who can criticize the “consensus” of the intelligence community in the run up to the war, can accept blindly the “consensus” of the “scientific community” in accepting global warming. when I criticized this phenomenon, I was attacked as being anti-science! Consensus is a poor substitute for truth; were that not the case we would still be a geocentric universe and worship the theory of phlogiston to explain fire. Consensus is actually the millstone around the neck of knowledge: just ask Galileo and Bjorn Lomborg!
Morgan and Charlie(C): thank you both for your lucid explanations.
Just as a humorous aside, there is a graph on Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance which conclusively shows that all life on earth ended in the year 2000.
Which makes the turnout in this year’s election all the more impressive, I guess…
Bostonian, to quibble one lille quibble, the Little Climatic optimum was ended by the “cold snap” of the Little Ice Age. Then we came back to a warmer period, which is where we seem to be now.
Chuck, your point about “consensus science” is an excellent one. (I just went looking for that and found that Crichton used exactly that phrase in his speech.) Kuhn has been (somewhat unjustly) villified as claiming with the postmodernists that “scientific truth” is purely a social convention, a notion that Galileo neatly skewered in his trial. But Kuhn’s notion of “paradigm shift” doesn’t mean that the different models before and after the change are equally good — just that the social processes of science are inherently somewhat conservative, and it takes a while for a new idea to overwhelm the conservative bent.
I think, however, that the political aspects of science, encouraged by the way government funding is depended on by most scientists since the Cold War, is making that “conservative” bent into a “reactionary” one. I can’t find the citation, but I read in the last week or two that of all the hundreds of papers published in Science on the topic of global climate change, 75 percent accept the notion of “anthropogenic” causes explicitly, and the other 25 percent are silent.
Not one paper has argued against the anthropogenic model. People like McIntyre and McKittrick don’t get pubished in the big journals. Steve Squyer’s folks at Cornell publish the information about global warming on Mars, but carefully avoid the implications; and I’ve noticed that the papers on the increase in solar flux almost invariably include a few lines affirming the author’s belief in the True Faith of anthropogenicity.
I’m suspicious, given the numbers above about Science, that those are either being added in refereeing, or are more or less automatically added by the authors who want to get published.
Richard, it’s worth looking at the famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich. (Hint: Ehrlich lost.)
Or the “Club of Rome” predictions of complete economic collapse due to resource exhaustion. (Which is why we’re all typing in our ragged Mad Max caves right now.)
Or, for that matter, Ehrlich’s own prediction of massive famine and die offs in the 80′s. (Who could forget American friends and whole families dying of starvation? — of course, the real health problem now is obesity.)
Barbara Tuchman wrote a great book about the 14th Century. Early in A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century she writes:
A physical chill settled on the 14th Century at its very start, initiating the miseries to come. The Baltic Sea froze over twice, in 1303 and in 1306-07; years followed of unseasonable cold, storms and rain, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. Contemporaries could not know it was the onset of what has since been recognized as the Little Ice Age, caused by an advance of polar and alpine glaciers and lasting until about 1700…. But they could feel the colder weather, and mark with fear its result: a shorter growing season.
You’ll find this book listed in the bibliography at the end of Michael Crichton’s last faux science novel, Timeline. They even share a character. Otherwise the two books have only in common that they are books.
I can admire Michael Crichton in the same way that I can admire that other Michael who is so reviled by the regulars here and who also creates and promotes books and movies—as a salesman.
But as an authority on things scientific? I’ll use my other line and make Charlie’s day: What a smile.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Crichton is an authority — but you don’t get an MD at Harvard without having a pretty good grasp of science. After all, Harvard Med School is the Duke of the north. But then Crichton isn’t claiming to have done the research, he’s pointing out the research that doesn’t get widely published … yet.
He’s also pointing out that the whole argument of the form “the consensus of scientific opinion on X is Y, therefore X is Y” is bad logic and bad science.
From this link above:
At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author’s message. In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don’t know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.
Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn’t actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.
In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn’t do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would’ve all worked out differently?
Global Warming, Clash of Civilizations, Electing Bush, Electing Kerry…
It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
I dunno — that RealClimate site seems, well, just a little polemical. Consider this from RealClimate:
My emphasis — but to quote one of the anonymous reviewers of the McI&McK paper, “I would rather avoid as much as possible disqualifying formulations…. I think that science and scientist benefit if it [sic] the same thing is said in a neutral way.” Ad hominems and “disqualifying formulations” aren’t a very strong argument. What’s more, the sections I’ve italicized are links in the RealClimate site; I’d encourage everyone to look at where the links lead. More ….
Again, let’s quote from the actual letter rejecting the short paper:
Again, my emphasis, but considering that this is noted in a callout on the McI&McK site, it’s a … well, let’s call it a rhetorical trick. As opposed to “deliberate false characterization”, which is what I really think.
The point is, I don’t think RealClimate is a reliable source on its own any more than CBS News would be.
Roger,
I call it the “What if the extreme environmentalists are right?” argument.
And what if the Aztecs who hacked the beating hearts out of their human sacrifices were right?
More to the point, if they are right, then the world could be spared an ice age that would be far more devastating than the bogeyman the environmentalists are trotting out. And what if they are WRONG? Then we will have crippled our economy out of mass hysteria.
The environmentalist movement lost its relevance about the time that rivers stopped spontaneously combusting in this country. The global warming fear is mostly a vehicle that keeps the gravy train of donations rolling into the environmental industrial complex.
If environmentalists wanted to become relevant again, they would focus on the issues of brownfield development, failing public schools, epidemic crime and corrupt municipal governments that are driving residents out of cities and into suburbs and exurbs. Of course these issues aren’t nearly as sexy – or lucrative – as global warming. And they don’t interesting plots for typically lame Hollywood blockbusters or spittle-laden speeches by Al Gore.
http://www.iosphere.net/~tharris/nationalpost.htm
I thought I read recently somewhere that Mars is showing a warming trend, too. With all the information we’ve been getting from there, it seems to me that if Martian warming can be verified, the pollution/warming linkage would be forever busted. There will still be plenty of other good reasons for reducing pollution, but pretending to fix the earth’s climate to a particular point in time isn’t one of them.
The point is, I don’t think RealClimate is a reliable source on its own any more than CBS News would be.
Charlie,
There you can leave a comment/question/observation (like RogerA) to which you might even get a response from the author of Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion.
Let me know if you decide to call them out on that “deliberate false characterization.”
Meanwhile, I’ll continue to view Michael Crichton as the author of light and sometimes fun reads which are almost always turned into dreadful movies. Next thing you know he’ll be explaining the intricacies of, say, Intelligent Design and there’ll be a novel in which God intervenes to, say, make it possible for men to, say, jaunte.
Rastajenk ó Get with the program! The warming on Mars is OBVIOUSLY the result of the emissions from the Evil Bush’s Mars Rovers!
Patrick Tyson: I did leave the question but as yest have not received a reply–quite possibly it has to do with concern about covariance structure modelling–that is a pretty obscure statistical method. I will be glad to advise the board here about the response. I remain agnostic about the whole issue and especially human involvement but that could all change if could learn more about the model (and its limitations).
Patrick Tyson:
Before being quite so blithely dismissive of “Intelligent Design,” you should read The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and The Physics of Immortality : Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead and be prepared to discuss the Weak Anthropic Principle, Strong Anthropic Principle, Participatory Anthropic Principle, Final Anthropic Principle, Omega Point Theory, and why the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles and Omega Point Theory are wrong. Extra credit for refuting the assertion by David Deutsch, father of quantum computing, that barring new evidence, the Omega Point Theory should be accepted as the best current cosmological theory.
Patrick, just what question do you propose I ask? “Hi, are you aware that you have used the ad hominem circumstantial twice, that you’re disingenuously questioning why the M&M authors ascribe the limitations to space when in fact the rejection letter specifically cites space limitations, and that the M&M correspondence led to at least one major correction to Mann et al. being published?”
If so, let’s start with “Gee, Patrick, why do you immediately jump from Crichton’s criticism of global warming to associate him with Intelligent Design? Do you really think questioning anthropogenic global warming is comparable to espousing creationism?”
Paul, “intelligent design” is pretty radically different from either the weak or strong anthropic principle, although apparently some ID folks have adopted WAP and SAP.
In any case, though, the anthropic principle in either version depends essentially on the notion that there’s only one “universe.”[1] The combination of Guth inflation, string and brane theory, and Hawking’s recent work on the wave function of the universe all combine to suggest that in fact there is an arbitrarily large number of separate “universes”, so the anthropic principle reduces to a Panglossian “isn’t it convenient that we happen to have evolved in a universe in which all the physical constants work out so that we could evolve here?”
Tipler’s immortality has lots of problems, but the most important one is actual physical observation: it looks increasingly like this universe is expanding at an increasing rate due to “quintessence” a/k/a “the cosmological constant”. If the universe isn’t going to collapse back to a point, then the thermodynamic conditions necessary for Tipler’s immortality and resurrection never obtain.
The standing of the teleological argument gets even worse, though: Steven Brams’ Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would We Know? : Game-Theoretic Implications on Omniscience, Omnipotence, Immortality and Comprehensibility makes a strong argument that the whole question “do superior being exist?” is a Gödel sentence — it’s not evaluable as either true or false, just like Turing equivalence or Hilbert’s Tenth Problem. If so, then the question simply isn’t one amenable to logical attack: it doesn’t pertain to the world of scientific knowledge.
[1] Quotation marks because the notion of more than one Universe is inherently self-contradictory: by definition, the Universe is everything there is; if we can identify something else, it’s part of the whole Universe too. In this context, we mean something like “a separate space-time formed by an inflation event.”
After reading the book yesterday, I’ve come to the conclusion that they must cast Martin Sheen to play the character Ted Bradley in the movie adoptation. You’ll understand it when you’ve read the book.
Charlie:
Right. To correlate “intelligent design” and the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, I think it’s safe to say that you really have to be thinking of either the Participatory Anthropic Principle or the Final Anthropic Principle.
This is only true of the Weak Anthropic Cosmological Principle and perhaps some interpretations of the Strong Anthropic Cosmological Principle. The Participatory and Final Anthropic Cosmological Principles both rely entirely on the Many Histories Interpretation of the Quantum Mechanics, as is extensively documented both in the latter part of “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” and dramatically more so in “The Physics of Immortality.” In fact, this particular point is so selective with respect to the arguments presented in the books that I feel compelled to ask if you’ve actually read them.
This leads me to reiterate the question: did you read the books? Tipler is at great pains to point out that the universe is expanding, and that a collapse to a singularity in which an infinite number of signals can be sent between all locations is infinitely improbable and therefore violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He then goes on to explain that in order for such a collapse to occur, our future ancestors will have to guide the universe’s collapse. Actually, you don’t even have to read the books to see this much; you can find it at this page. Tipler never suggests that the universe will collapse to the necessary kind of singularity on its own. Far from it.
This is entirely dependent upon how you define “superior” and “beings.” Tipler once again goes to great lengths to support his argument that the Omega Point is a Person that is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient, all while defining those terms via physics. He may, of course, be in error. But my original post was meant only to point out that, as with the global warming debate, those who casually dismiss the notion of “intelligent design” or, as you point out, more accurately, “teleology” need to be aware that there are quite powerful arguments in its support—that is, strictly speaking, the jury is still out.
I’m going to respectfully disagree with most of those who have posted on this topic. Global warming, and environmentalism generally is one of two or three major issues where I disagree with most Republicans–which isn’t to say that I necessarily agree with the Democrats.
To begin with, I find the general scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming fairly compelling. Human activity has been pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Ice cores and so forth show that the proportion oc CO2, etc., in the atmosphere has increased consistently and significantly over that time, and the mechanism by which which those gases trap heat is pretty well understood. All in all, the claim of global warming doesn’t sound like that much of a reach, and I think there are significant data supporting the claim. If there are also data that undercut the claim, then I think it’s worth remembering the same could have been said about the controversy over whether tobacco caused cancer–and I think there are significant parallels between the two cases.
One important parallel: For decades, researchers argued in good faith over whether the data supported establishing a causal link between smoking and cancer. Arguing one side or the other of the case didn’t have much to do one way or the other with a researcher’s competence or honesty. All the same, a judgment had to be made on the basis of conflicting evidence, and I don’t think many people would argue the “cancer is hooey” side today.
Another parallel is that neither side in the Great Tobacco Debate had completely altruistic motives. Tobacco companies sponsored research that absolved their product, and plenty of people on the other side saw this as one more example of Evil Capitalism run amok. I feel the same way about environmental issues. Plenty of “green” lefties don’t really understand the issue all that well,but it’s a convenient club to bash Capitalist Amerika with. (The Kyoto Protocols are a great example of this.) Likewise, I get the impression that a lot of people are reluctant event to acknowledge that there might be a problem if that would entail changing the ways they do business.
Basically, I’m very unhappy that environmentalists seem to think the solution to every single environmental problem is the business-hating nanny-state, and I wish more thought were given to alternatives. At the same time, much of the right might stop pooh-poohing the basic validity of environmental concerns. Cleaning up your own messes, and not creating problems for your grandchildren, strike me as pretty traditional Republican values.
Paul, I read both books when they came out. I’ll admit I haven’t looked back at them in some years, but I don’t think I’m far off on my understanding of them. In particular, I’ll note that once you admit to the “many worlds” interpretation, you’ve implicitly contradicted the “one universe” interpretation. Once you do that, you make the weak and strong anthropic principles into that Panglossian or Leibnitzian “best of all possible worlds” — this world is perfectly optimized to be the one in which we’re typing a discussion of the variations of the anthropic principles because that’s the only world in which we are typing this discussion. All the other many worlds (a finite number — very large, but finite) have overall state vectors that differ in some particular from this one.
As to Tipler, well, I’m reasonably confident that the original book as first published said that the Omega Point must necessarily occur; Tipler’s web page you cite appears to instead say the Omega Point can happen if some active Agent sweeps everything back together in order to provide a high enough density of matter.
The modal step there is a big one, and I’m not at all clear that I buy the notion that because it’s possible it must eventually happen.
Beyond that, while I’m not prepared to write a proof, it appears this “sweeping together” must necessarily take place against a monotonically increasing background of quintessence force. If so, then the whole notion once again reduces to finding a way to reverse entropy globally (or equivalently, to finding an infinite source of mass-energy.)
So we’re left with the idea that if an omniscient, omnipotent entity capable of reversing entropy exists or will exist, it will be capable of fully simulating the universe by reversing entropy and reconsitutiing an arbitrarily hot, arbitrarily small monobloc in which to do it.
At which point I start having flashbacks to Asimov’s “The Last Question”.
Re: Brams, it’s been a long time since I read that book too, so I don’t recall the details of the argument, but Brams spends a good part of the book putting bounds on what “superior being” could mean; his result holds for any SB that is within those bounds.
Now, don’t get the impression that I’m saying therefore that there necessarily can exist no Omega Point/God/SB. What I’m saying is that the question is outside the bounds of what is knowable within a “scientific” epistemology.
Utron, I don’t think anyone is claiming there is clearly no anthropogenic warming. There are real questions as to the amount of warming that will eventually happen due to increases in CO2 content, since there are a number of factors (from increasing plant populations to changes in albedo) that can confound the additional heat capture. Of course, if (as looks very plausible right now) we’re at a Maunder maximum and the Sun’s output will start dropping soon, we may be glad that we have that CO2; if we’re going to work from a basis of what are the possible consequences, you have to consider the consequences of cutting CO2 and thereby bringing about unexpectedly fast cooling, too.
The problem is that it’s not just a question of “is there global warming?” instead, there are a bunch of conditional propositions here:
(1) there is significant sustained global warming, and we’re not just seeing an artifact of poor data and subtle statistcal flaws;
(2) that this global warming will lead to undesirable effects;
(3) that this global warming is anthropogenic;
(4) that this anthropogenic warming is due to the increasing CO2 concentration, and not, say, deforestation, more expanses of blacktop, or some other non-CO2 reason;
(5) that this anthropogenic warming can be modified; and, most important,
(6) that assuming all these things, the best use of our effort is to reduce CO2 emissions.
To accept a Kyoto-style approach, you have to accept all six of those propositions, and my degree of belief in all of them is significantly less than 1.0.
(problem: assign p1, p2, p3 … p6 probability or plausibility values for propositions (1) through (6), where 0.0 < pi ≤ 1.0, and evaluate prob(p6|p5|p4|p3|p2|p1) Discuss the implications of your computation.)
It’s that last one that’s the real kicker. There are all sorts of things that could be done to handle CO2 emissions, from Kyoto-style limits (which don’t appear to be very useful) to releasing a superbug that exterminates humanity whole. If you accept, as some people (not here) have argued, that the “global warming crisis” is the very most important issue of all, then that last is the logical answer.
If not, then you’re making tradeoffs, and there’s good reason to think that global warming isn’t our best allocation of resources.
My layman’s review of the popular literature several years ago (ca 2002) left me highly skeptical that we had anything like a scientific consensus about “man made” global warming, let alone a good enough understanding of the alleged problem upon which to base sound policy. However, I was sufficiently curious that I took the question to a very serious scientist and close friend.
Although his field was analytical chemistry, I knew that he had an excellent background in statistics and computer modeling. I also knew that he was incredibly srupulous in his own work. His conclusion was that there was not yet good data upon which to base a comprehensive analysis, let alone a conclusion.
His conclusion was that there was not yet good data upon which to base a comprehensive analysis, let alone a conclusion.
I think if you look at the error bars on the data in the famous hockey stick, you more or less have to come to that conmclusion. The total variation in the last 100 years is still very close to the same magnitude as the error bars on the data over all.
Charlie:
This is clearly true of the Weak variant, but far less clear of the strong variant, and not at all true of the variants that actually take the MHI into account.
There are two points here: the first is that Tipler did say that the Omega Point Theory would necessarily be true if certain testable hypotheses were true. The follow-up point, as you correctly allude to later, is that so far those results are a mixed bag: Tipler believed the universe to be closed ca. 1995, and results from 1998 do indeed indicate that the cosmological constant is positive, and farther away from zero than was expected. So Tipler has had to modify his observation from “it will be necessary for our future descendants to ensure that the universe collapses the right way” to “it will be necessary for our future descendants to ensure that the universe collapses, and collapses the right way.” On the other hand, his prediction of the mass of the top quark has been confirmed, as has his prediction that Delta T/T in the cosmic background radiation is
The modal step there is a big one, and I’m not at all clear that I buy the notion that because it’s possible it must eventually happen.
Right. The argument there is essentially from the survival instinct.
Correct; this is the point at which Tipler observes that the Einstein field equations are maximally chaotic and therefore our far-future descendants, once they have engulfed the universe, will be able to affect the evolution of the universe in such a way as to accumulate an infinite amount of energy in subjective time via gravitational shear. Again, as you rightly note later, things get very hot and, from a classical subatomic perspective, hard to hold together.
It isn’t necessary for the Omega Point to do so itself; that will be within the power of our far-future descendants before the Omega Point. Other than that, I think that’s basically correct. Certainly the “arbitrarily hot, arbitrarily small monobloc” is consistent with my understanding of the material.
Fair enough. Do you recall whether they had specific responses to Tipler? If not, all I can do is counter with the observation that Tipler’s definitions of “Person,” “Omnipresent,” “Omniscient,” and “Omnipotent” are all given rigorous meaning within the context of the Quantum Mechanics, and look forward to reading Brams.
I understand, and appreciate your patient exposition. My reaction is that Tipler has gone so far as to offer testable hypotheses as well as the equations supporting his theses. While they are naturally controversial, to say the least, they have so far stood up to counterclaims remarkably well. And while I don’t wish to make an argument from authority, the fact that David Deutsch feels the Omega Point Theory deserves to be considered the best extant cosmological theory strikes me as quite significant. But like you, I am not placing my faith in the theory’s veracity, and again, only wished to point out that dismissing teleolgy/”intelligent design” as trivially falsifiable is quite ill-advised.
Charlie–
You raise some valid points, well worth considering. (Mostly valid, anyway; you pretty much acknowledged that there’s some degree of anthropogenic warming in your opening comments.) Just a couple of comments to clarify my own position–
1) I agree that a whole series of factors might contribute to global warming to some degree (sorry!), and I suspect that albedo changes (from built-up areas and so forth) and changes in vegetation are probably relevant. The biggie, of course, is the transfer of “fossil” carbon from coal and petroleum into CO2, coupled with the decline in biological sinks like rain forests and estuaries. It’s hard for me to see how this wouldn’t have an effect.
2) The Kyoto approach would be insanely costly, and I doubt that it would do any good at all. Even if the question were far more clearcut, I’d still oppose an approach that implied that Chinese pollution is somehow more acceptable than American pollution.
3) I’m a lot better at carping than at being constructive, but here are a few things I’d like to see:
The Energy Department could clear away the regulatory deadwood that makes it effectively impossible to build a nuclear power plant in this country. This is an area where I totally agree that the public dialogue is being shaped by junk science.
Also, the feds could get serious about funding fusion research. Our highly scientific Congress slashed funding here right at the point when pilot projects were finally reaching the break-even point in energy production.
Wretchard over at the Belmont Club put up an excellent piece on how weak private property laws in the Philippines contributed to soil erosion and deforestation (“the tragedy of the commons,” which someone else in this thread mentioned). One way the U.S. could encourage this would be through trade policy that lowered tariffs for trade in forest products–and this would involve some intelligent amendment of the Endangered Species Act.
Not a comprehensive answer, I know. Mostly I was just saying that we could do with some serious discussion of the issue, and less blanket dismissal of the people on the other side (regardless of which side you’re on) as feckless weenies.
Utron, there’s not a one of your policy recommendations I dislike. Nor do I see one that doesn’t look like it’s been included in some proposed Republican energy policy, although I’m not ambitious enough to get citations.
Paul: MHI? I’m sorry, I looked back and I’m not spotting what you’re talking about. I’ve got a horrible cold, so I may just be coming down with stupid.
Paul—
I’m a deist.
Charlie—
Crichton jumps from subject to subject. Why not Intelligent Design? The evolution v. creation debate is heating up again—or haven’t you noticed?
RogerA—
I’m not an agnostic, but I’m also not much of a worrier. These things tend to take care of themselves and if we do wipe ourselves out I, for one, won’t complain.
Charlie: MHI = Many Histories Interpretation. I agree with those who prefer that terminology to MWI, or Many Worlds Interpretation. Again, I don’t know how much of it I believe. I would only point out that the fact that we’re having the discussion supports my only point; it’s not easy to dismiss modern teleological arguments.
Patrick –
Crichton jumps from subject to subject. Why not Intelligent Design?
because you’re using it rhetorically to associate Crichton’s rational questioning of anthropogenic global warming with creationism in one of its guises.
Charlie: MHI = Many Histories Interpretation. I agree with those who prefer that terminology to MWI, or Many Worlds Interpretation.
Whatever. Illegal motion in the terminological backfield, five yards penalty, replay down.
Again, I don’t know how much of it I believe. I would only point out that the fact that we’re having the discussion supports my only point; it’s not easy to dismiss modern teleological arguments.
Sure it is. “It’s not testable. I’m not interested.” See? Easy.
It’s no harder than dismissing the argument that the universe actually WAS created in six days in 1 A. L. (4004 BC) including all the history of the universe up to that point, fossils, Hubble constant and all. If you believe in an omnipotent omniscient God, that should be more or less trivial.
Of course, once you accept that, you can accept that the OOG created the universe a microsecond before you read this, including all the history of the packets that had been transmitted and my memories of having typed it.
Nor can I prove logically that it’s not what really happened.
What I can say is that any such argument is part of an epistemic realm that isn’t contained in “scientific” knowledge, so that any attempt to make teleological arguments of this sort into scientific arguments is a category error and therefore a violation of the “rules of the game” for scientific enquiry.
And I do.
All I can say is, you don’t get this kind of stuff on very many other blogs.
All I can say is, you don’t get this kind of stuff on very many other blogs.
Let that be a lesson to you.
Charlie:
You can indeed say that all you like; that doesn’t make it correct. You’ve named one book that claims to show that the existence of “superior beings” can’t be demonstrated scientifically. Teleological principles don’t require a “superior being” in any sense of the term. It happens that the Omega Point Theory can be seen to describe such a being. Tipler supports his argumentation in terms of his field of specialty, mathematical physics, and has the support of David Deutsch, who is in a good position to criticize Tipler’s physics, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is in a good position to criticize Tipler’s theology.
The simple fact of the matter is that the issue is not cut-and-dried; people who are much more intimately familiar with the science in question than either you or I continue to have reasoned debate in the appropriate fora. That’s the point. You, personally, can and do dismiss that, but there’s nothing you can marshall by way of argument that has the status of scientific law. Hence, strictly speaking, the jury is still out, and your dismissal has the effect of proving Crichton’s point about the nature of modern “scientific” inquiry: you take it as an article of faith that Bram is correct with respect to teleology. Some of us recognize that the question is actually still open.
You can indeed say that all you like; that doesn’t make it correct. You’ve named one book that claims to show that the existence of “superior beings” can’t be demonstrated scientifically. Teleological principles don’t require a “superior being” in any sense of the term. It happens that the Omega Point Theory can be seen to describe such a being. Tipler supports his argumentation in terms of his field of specialty, mathematical physics, and has the support of David Deutsch, who is in a good position to criticize Tipler’s physics, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is in a good position to criticize Tipler’s theology.
Um, well, no.
Let’s see.
(1) Brams’ book doesn’t show that the existence of SB’s “can’t be demonstrated scientifically” any more than Gödel’s Theorem shows that the completeness the Principia Mathematica system (Whitehead&Russell, now Newton) can’t be shown experimentally. It proposes a proof that the notion of experimental verification of a Superior Being is self-contradictory. To the extent that I find the proof convincing (which, obviously, I do) , you may say this is “taken on faith”, but it’s the same kind of faith that causes me to believe that the integral of the derivative of a continuous function equals that function itself.
(2) I’m not questioning the quality of the reasoning, the physics, or the theology (although, as a fairly devoted Buddhist, I’ve got to admit this kind of theology strikes me as an amusing game I don’t have much time for, like squash.) I’m pointing out that there is no experiment that can falsify the theory — nor, it appears to me, is there any experiment that can falsify its contrary. As such, claiming to apply a scientific epistemology is a category error, just like trying to evaluate the square root of minus one in the field of the real numbers would be.
That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with thinking about it, any more than it’s wrong to extend the reals with i — it’s just wrong to claim it’s the same, just like it’s wrong to claim i is a real number.