The plural of anecdote is not data. And that's what this article presented: don't be afraid of global warming because I could tell you stories about how it's not so bad.
There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.
No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world.
The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outright.
As far as I can tell this article, in a very HN way, is just trying to lead people who have bought the hysteria back into a rational mindset by showing the reader another side exists.
The problem is that he's really not saying anything of substance. He makes an appeal to rationality and then proceeds on a disorganized discussion that doesn't come to any useful conclusion.
Botkin says "We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster." Then he seems to be trying to refute this passage by saying that a warmer climate worked out great for the vikings. He doesn't attempt any sort of analysis of what the real-world effects of change in sea-level would be.
Botkin may have something worth saying, but he needs an editor to help him focus in on clearly stating and backing up the points that he wants to make.
All I can get from this is that he wants people to stop the panic because, hey, there might be some benefits from a warmer climate.
We have been given the "other side of the story" repeatedly over the last decade. First the "other side of the story" was that many people did not think global warming was happening. Then, that many people did not think it was man-made: the possible influence of sunspots was repeatedly pointed to. Now that these two "sides" are completely ruled out by the scientific evidence, we are given a new story: maybe man-made climate change won't be that bad!
There are two sides to this debate, but the two sides are not similar. One is the scientific consensus of the world's climate scientists, represented in the IPCC reports. The other side is a loose collection of crackpots, dissidents, and astroturfing energy companies. One side has been correct about every major point of contention for the last decade; the other side has been wrong about every major point over the same period.
Rationality and alarm are not mutually exclusive; and the suggestion that those thinkers who are alarmed at the probable consequences of global warming are in the grip of "hysteria" is just name-calling. A more documentable ad-hominem is that the climate change deniers are in the employ of the energy companies:
Science is not done by consensus. What the hell is "climate scientist" anyway. Perhaps you'd like to post some of the solved problems in "climate science". Computer models of the climate are a joke. They don't even take into account clouds.You can't make a model of a problem with thousands of free variables. The evidence at this point is on the side of the sun causing any warming and CO2 rising AFTER warming occurs.
Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada.
The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by framing the problem on a geological scale.
I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though.
As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted.
I would submit to you that any extra wheat production you may see in the central US is due to topographical (it's flat), nutritional (good soil), and cultural (daddy was a wheat farmer) influences, more than any propensity of wheat for that exact temperature, as evidenced by the successful wheat farming americans and canadians from Texas to central Alberta)
Different varieties of wheat are adapted to different conditions and some are more productive than others. Ultimately, wheat is still a plant and it still needs water and sun to grow. The climate models suggest that as temperature goes up, midwest droughts will get worse. Natural systems are not orthogonal. A rise in temperature will cause more rainfall in some areas and less rainfall in others.
While we're at it... as you said, wheat is not too finicky. Corn? More finicky. Wonder what will happen to corn. It needs hot, humid summers with just the right amount of rain and sun. When you look at the map from the link, it is pretty apparent there is a big hole in the middle of the "wheat" belt. Hmm I wonder what we grow there? ;)
I wonder where, if at all, that hole is going to move if we have a drier midwest as the admittedly crude climate models predict. And I wonder how a change in climate will impact the current wheat growing regions in terms of rainfall.
Your comment makes great intuitive sense, but I don't think it is quite so clear cut.
Remember, it is a 2.5 degree global temperature shift being discussed, not a 2.5 degree shift in Canada's temperatures. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is, so the effect of more CO2 is much less pronounced in the lower latitudes. From what I have heard, a 2.5 degree shift in global temperature average caused by increased CO2 would translate into a much larger shift in e.g. Canada's temperatures.
I really was trying to stay out of the GW argument specifically. My intent in the response above was just to point out that the WSJ author seems to be assuming people already know the negative side. So it wasn't that he was painting a rosy picture it's just that he was trying to provide supplemental information to what people have already heard.
That said, if you're curious, my problem with GW has always been the focus on the cause and not the effect. I don't have a problem with us trying to do everything we can not to change Earth's enviornment. In general I think it's a good idea for humans to make as little an impact on nature as we can in going about our day.
But at the same time it's a proven fact that our planet makes dramatic shifts in it's climate even without our influence (Ice Age for example). So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not.
Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place.
So basically my opinion on GW has always been that, since we know climate change is coming no matter what, humanity should work on preparing itself for climate change's effects regardless of who or what causes it.
So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not.
And it might come quite suddenly whether we cause it or not. And it might do the opposite of what we expect.
Looking back through the geologic record, the climate has done all sorts of interesting things -- all without our help.
As a general observation not connected to the parent, the use of cellular automata techniques in modeling is really very much in its infancy. I'm really surprised that posters to a hacker board wouldn't already know that.
Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place.
You don't believe in the concept of insurance, do you?
I want to point out the the left-right colouring of GW is largely a US (Also Australia, where I live) development. I think the reason for this political situation is quite silly.
If GW is true, this probably requires regulation, complex interventionist policies etc. The things that the left wants. So the left believes & the right doesn't. Or it thinks that it is natural or inevitable or not so bad.
I think this is an example of how ideology can become a belief in policies rather then principles.
Oh, I'm sure it's billions of people! I mean, why not, right? If you're going to pull numbers out of the air, it seems reasonable that they be large ones! I bet you're right and 1/3rd of the population of the earth will be displaced. (Or were there more billions than just 2 in your scenario?)
You should know that even the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly. It would happen over a period of many, many, many, many years. The city would simply vacate what it had to, as it had to, and add levies where it made economic sense to do so. It won't be a tidal wave that just appears on the horizon.
The number 'billions' depends on how high the water rises. Bangladesh and Indonesia alone are 400 million whose population are at risk.
>the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly
The most crazy/aggressive models from the 1970's said we would lose half the Arctic sea ice by 2050. We hit that point two years ago. If multiple sea shelves collapse, it will indeed come as a tidal wave. We don't know what will happen but we don't have the luxury to be confident that nothing will surprise us.
One time I weighed myself at 7am and I was literally 5 lbs lighter than the personal measurement I have ingrained in my head. I was on the verge of wasting away.
I paid careful attention and put together personal regulations: I must eat breakfast, I must eat lunch, I must eat dinner.
By that evening I was 1 pound lighter than my target weight. I was still a bit worried, but felt comforted to know I had averted a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
So, to put it in context, you woke up one time and lost half your weight but showed no concern because later that night you made it up again completely in carbohydrates.
"I was still a bit worried, but felt comforted to know I had averted a disaster of catastrophic proportions."
Um, in your own metaphor you would most likely be dead.
Come on guys. You're using Google to find your points instead of reading.
The fourth quarter report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clarified we have indeed hit the 50% in a third of the time of the most aggressive estimates. The sea ice that has come back is not the same as what was there before: it's the very thin product of a single season.
"The main reason why sea level rises is because the equilibrium between glacial ice and temperature is out of balance, and has been for the last 20,000 years."
"Note that from 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, sea level rose about 14mm/year - which is more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year"
There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.