|
December 02, 2005
Insidious laws of nature
Global Warming ain't my thing, folks. But I'm a skeptic, and when more and more people repeat a theory that they can't prove, and not enough skepticism is expressed on the other side, I feel obligated to say something. I'm no scientist, but I can still read words. The latest Global Warming scare story -- that the Gulf Stream is slowing and this could trigger an "Ice Age" -- is apparently based on some inconclusive readings taken by a research student working for professors Harry Bryden and Stuart Cunningham. The following is from Professor Bryden's press release: The Atlantic Ocean overturning that maintains Europe's moderate climate has slowed by 30 per cent according to scientists from the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton in research published today in Nature (Thursday, 1 December 2005). Paul at Wizbang (after demonstrating that the assertions are bad science and worse logic) concludes that Bryden's claims are so shallow that they're not worth debunking. The problem is that these claims are repeated over and over, like a religious litany. And I am sick and tired of seeing them spun as scientific facts. While the Guardian recites the Bryden claims almost as holy writ, the BBC at least acknowledges that the research is unconfirmed and inconclusive, and that even if it is confirmed, it wouldn't prove the process was human-induced: The NOC researchers admit that the case is not yet proven.The Economist, while taking this seriously, nonetheless questions the timing of the inconclusive research's release: It is probably no coincidence that the editors of Nature, who are no slouches when it comes to publicity, have published Dr Bryden's paper in the week that a meeting in Montreal is reviewing the implementation of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. But even if Kyoto were implemented in full, it would not save the conveyor belt if it really is slowing down.If and if. That's a bit too iffy for me. As is the Global Warming theory -- which seems to be transformed into fact by a process of repetition more than anything else. What worries me about the spread of this latest idea (Global Warming can usher in an Ice Age) is that any temperature fluctuations at all -- up or down -- will tend to be seen as "proof." If it's too warm next year in London, why, obviously the cause will be Bush's Global Warming. If it's too cool, that's Bush's Global Warming Ice Age. This echoes Mickey Kaus' economic model, which might as well be called the Law of Insidious Despair: "It's indeed deeply disturbing to learn that higher gas prices have held down demand, causing those prices to fall back to a level at which demand begins to rise again! It's almost as if some insidious law was at work--as prices rise, demand declines! As supply increases, prices fall! You can't win!"Via Glenn Reynolds, who has more [from the WSJ Opinion Journal]: No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.Considering that the inverted yields of rising and falling of temperatures are at least as insidious as the inverted rising and falling of gas prices and bond yields, why not consolidate the entire analysis with a new unifying theory of insidious despair? Why not put economists in charge of Global Warming? Um, maybe because some economists might come along and apply an economic model to show that Global Warming is bogus: After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for "economic" signals in the temperature record. McKitrick, an economist, was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: statistically speaking, the greater the GDP of a nation, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records. This worldwide study added fuel to a fire started a year earlier by the University of Maryland's Eugenia Kalnay, who calculated a similar 50 percent bias due to economic factors in the U.S. records.Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a unified economic theory of gloom to me. So much for the Law of Insidious Despair. Sigh. I still remember the good old days in California, when droughts were accompanied by heavy rains which caused flooding, and we were told that we were still in a drought -- despite the flood! Lucky for the people who wrote the Bible that Noah didn't live in California, or he'd have had to build his Ark to escape the Great Drought (now known to be caused by Global Warming). Hey wait a minute! They have Global Warming on Mars, don't they? That means that there's no room left for escapist dreaming, not even if Noah built his Ark this way: MORE: At the risk of sounding like a relativist, in terms of geologic time, the discussion of recent climate patterns is an exercise in frivolity: All of this discussion of extremely short term weather patterns is ridiculous, as our longest human recorded temperature measurements are comparable to a pixel sized dot on a large movie theatre-sized screen. Geologists routinely think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years when we look at weather patterns, like the ice ages.There's more there, including a 1970s prediction of an Ice Age.... I will never forget my freshman Paleontology class at U.C. Berkeley in 1972. A professor who'd devoted a great deal of time to studying climate patterns said it was a mistake to predict an Ice Age, or to refer to it in the past tense, because in his view we were still in it, and that what we call the "Recent" period happens to be one of the warmer blips. (Not that people who are interested in the past few decades would be particularly concerned about Geologic Time.) MORE: Here's a link to similar Geologic relativism. I know that many sorts of collectivists seek to blame man for a whole host of climates, but the more they try and the louder they yell, the more I suspect that they're motivated by ambition and power. (Even science has been known to be influenced by such things....) posted by Eric on 12.02.05 at 11:41 AM
Comments
Well, at least now I know what a "Sverdrup" is. It may come in handy when I calculate the cost of watering my lawn. George · December 3, 2005 11:11 AM Decrease in Atlantic Circulation Global warming denial and the assertion of real difficulties with nuclear energy seem to me both to be ... well obviously they both are ... pleasing to this this big, big sack of cash. Government cash, mind you. You don't have to be on the take from big oil companies, to be on the take from big oil. So please, be skeptical of claims to skepticism. Sometimes the emperor really is well-dressed and the child is actually a midget child-impersonator.
G. R. L. Cowan · December 3, 2005 01:37 PM Look, no sane person could deny that there is such a thing as Global Warming. At various times, for various reasons, the earth warms and the earth cools. Whether the warming that is alleged to be occurring right now is attributable to human activities (particularly those of the five year old Bush Administration) is, IMHO, a subject appropriate for skepticism. Eric Scheie · December 3, 2005 02:00 PM Hmm, my links don't work. This is evidence either of a vast left-wing conspiracy or a vast right-wing conspiracy, depending on which wing it is I'm not in. It was predicted, in advance. But the Bush administration is doing what it can for nuclear energy, so it may talk a bad game, maybe to please the oil-loving hired help -- all civil servants love their oil money -- but is really on the side of the angels. G. R. L. Cowan · December 3, 2005 03:50 PM I'm concerned that amidst all the debunking and counterdebunking, serious research into climate variation might fall into disrepute. Allan Beatty · December 4, 2005 03:17 PM GRLC's links work now. (Thanks for resending them.) Allan I see your point, but science has become as politicized as everything else. Ideally, science should not be afraid of skepticism. Eric Scheie · December 4, 2005 04:15 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think there are three main questions: (1) Is there global warming?, (2) Did we do anything to cause it, and (3) Can we do anything to stop it?
To (1), maybe.
To (2), probably not.
To (3), almost certainly not.
Ice ages came and went long before we were here, and will come and go long after we're gone.