Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[jacob]

In any case, since I expect governments to do largely nothing, I think scientific effort (the effort of scientists) is better spent on figuring out personal mitigation, so those individuals who wish to take action can.

If order can be preserved (at least in your local area, i.e. you're not living in Egypt where the government is unstable and where people spend 40% of the paycheck on food), first and foremost be prepared to double your food costs (relative to the rest of the budget) over the next 20-30 years from the roughly 15-20% people spend today to 30-40%. Since this is the same timescale as a mortgage, don't set yourself so hard in housing and transportation that you can't afford to pay twice as much for food. Price increases won't be a slow creep. One year it will just be very expensive. Commodity prices fly up and down. It is not more than a couple of years ago (2012) that US farmers had to slaughter cattle prematurely, because the cattle had suddenly become too expensive to feed due to the drought that hit the Midwest.

Second, harvests will fail more often. Right now the global food system functions on just-in-time delivery. There are no more reserves that what is currently in "the pipelines". It would therefore also be wise to think of storage. Learn to use stored food. Keep at least a year of it (and don't tell your neighbors about it, or at least not too many of them)---expect a few shocks with hunger and riots until public opinion forces governments to construct granaries or mandate storage. Be on the look out for rationing. Rarely do governments go as far as going from house to house stealing people's storage [as seen on TV].

Don't settle in place in a land-dependent profession if the climate is going to change under you. That is, don't buy a wheat farm in Kansas. Obviously, don't buy beach front property anywhere on the east coast either.

There will be more heatwaves and the grid will fail more often. Don't live in a place that depends on A/C. If you have to, at least build a structure that's naturally cool without electricity unlike modern housing. Taping alu-foil directly to the sun-facing windows on the inside helps a lot. Moving on, don't live in a mobile home park in Tornado Alley, for obvious reasons. Don't live in areas subject to wildfires---there'll be more of them.

[Dragline]

In any case, since I expect governments to do largely nothing, I think scientific effort (the effort of scientists) is better spent on figuring out personal mitigation, so those individuals who wish to take action can.


Don't settle in place in a land-dependent profession if the climate is going to change under you. That is, don't buy a wheat farm in Kansas. Obviously, don't buy beach front property anywhere on the east coast either.

There will be more heatwaves and the grid will fail more often. Don't live in a place that depends on A/C. If you have to, at least build a structure that's naturally cool without electricity unlike modern housing. Taping alu-foil directly to the sun-facing windows on the inside helps a lot. Moving on, don't live in a mobile home park in Tornado Alley, for obvious reasons. Don't live in areas subject to wildfires---there'll be more of them.

But I keep wondering if some places will be better off or see other opportunities like Trans-Arctic shipping. I was also envisioning nice beach resorts on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes.

More seriously, there is an excellent discussion about this topic in chapter 12 of Nate Silver's "The Signal and the Noise". The science is undeniable and is pretty old, actually, when it comes to CO2 at least. However, some of the predictive models have been reasonably good and some not really, which has tended to give ammo to the other side in the long run. Typical of politicized debates, no one wants to acknowledge the uncertainty of predicting the future for a particular locale.

My guesstimate is that this is going to be like smoking. It will take another generation before the tide turns, but the science side will prevail. But most of the current predictions will be wrong, especially anything based on linear projections. Instead, we'll face other problems that are currently deemed unlikely. I have no idea which ones. But I bet cockroaches will do really well.

[jacob]

@Dragline - It's now possible to grow wine grapes in Denmark and England, something that was impossible or at least considered the crazy exploits of a few twenty years ago. Meanwhile, French wines ... invest in the bottles, not the vineyards!

Wrt the smoking analogy, I note that any heat wave or storm flood changes public opinion temporarily with a much slower shift in the baseline opinion, meaning currently, it's 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. Once these [weather events] get frequent enough public opinion will change due to 5 steps forward and 2 steps back.

[saving-10-years]

@Dragline - yes, I can see that investment in cockroach-powered tech makes sense.

@Jacob - your predictions have stopped me in my planning tracks (easy to do). As a non-Scientist I will leave the Science side to DH and son (budding physicist) but where we end up living is largely down to me.

This latest part of the CC discussion is making me question my longer-term plans about where we live. Should we really be thinking about leaving our big old (drafty & cool) house with lots of storage and enough land to grow food for a family? The idea was to live in a local town which has good transport links and choose a more modern property which is smaller and cheaper to run/heat and clutter-unfriendly. This sounded like a great direction of travel for us after I read your book and browsed this and the MMM blog.

We are fortunate enough to like living in either kind of space (urban or rural) although frugality takes different forms (transport/energy vs. food growing/storage efficiencies). But we are also thinking that wherever we do choose this will be our last voluntary house move (we don't move easily and would like to stay in the next place for 15-20 years). The not wanting to move house may of course change if we have lots of time to organise things in the future. Hmm.

[Riggerjack]

@tyler9000: yes. everything you said!

as far as the whole GW issue is involved, i needed to study up to see what changes would affect me. so my timeline of concern is <60 years. in 24 years since the 1990 IPCC report was issued, there has been no undisputed measurable change in temperatures or sea level. good enough for me. i can get back to my life plan.

yes, i know, this makes me short sighted, selfish, a "denier", and probably makes me smell bad. whatever. tech changes, ideologies change, life adapts, and people can move. green houses can be built, food can be stored, stone construction can come back into style (thermal mass). i see no emergency, and if i did, the asinine solutions i hear are blatantly political.

you want cars to emit less carbon? EPA requires pollution testing that measures pollution over time, rather than pollution/mile or pollution/gallon. this means we have catalytic converters to burn unburnt fuel, rather than better ignition systems to have less unburnt fuel.

If anyone actually gave a rats ass about the problem rather than "winning" they'd work on fixing the small things. because it really doesn't matter what changes in the states if we decide to double the freight train loads on the west coast shipping coal from Wyoming to China.

In my experience, each of the "super concerned absolute must fix this now" activists move on to have 2.3 kids and a suburban. well, we need to breed the next generation of activist, i guess.

real fixes to GW:
1. burn down your planning dept. allowing people to build where they want will increase their ability to adapt in a future more threatening than our present. (i know, it just my pet peeve, but as long as I'm throwing out solutions...)

2. remove trade barriers. environmentalism is a luxury good. until the essentials are met, nobody cares about potential problems for future generations their kids may not live to see.

3. educate and lend to women in the 3rd world. condom distribution has a negligible effect on birth rates. women given economic choices dramatically drops birth rates. if liberals really cared about people and the environment, they'd be pushing for exporting jobs. fat chance.

4. on a personal level, simply embracing the ERE principles of living efficiently. i live in a house with R-51 walls, heated by a pellet stove (reusing waste saw dust for heat), soon i'll have my geothermal heat pump set up, i just converted to LED lighting through out the house, i carpool on 95% of my trips, i treat my wastewater on site, this year we'll begin the garden. and i don't even buy into this "we have to change everything to avoid inconveniencing future generations" thing at all. efficiency just seems like a good enough goal, by itself.

5. if you really believe it, live it. that is far more convincing than a political science panel secretly setting gov policy for the good of mankind. despite what Marvel comics would have you think

[JohnnyH]

I would have to agree that there have been so many hysterical claims and ludicrous assertions I've been rolling my eyes at the movement for the better part of a generation... Not saying it isn't happening, but all the sky is falling alarmism has definitely solidified my inner contrarian.

[jacob]

As I tried to explain, the point of a having technocrats rather than public opinion in charge of things like the FOMC, Supreme Court, NSA, SEC, etc. is not to decide policy per se but make the best and most informed decisions regarding policy set by congress.

The point of having informed people in charge of implementing policy is to avoid yahoo opinions or junk science determine the actual implementation.

To be specific, I'm of the exact opposite opinion of GandK that the science needs to be sold to the public through public debate. The science is what the science is, so accept that with the foreknowledge of what consequences public policies will have. Then decide public policy. But don't decide public policy based on an obfuscated and misguided understanding---determined by whoever won the talkshow debate---of what the science says.

As for policy, I'm not heavily invested in saving a public that has little interest in being saved. We don't intend to have children, so there'll be no explanations 50 years down the road that "yes, we did know that it would end up like this, but we figured you'd figure out how to deal with it. Good luck with our legacy! #YOLO", I'll be too old to get drafted for wars or public projects; likely I'll be rich and thus able to profiteer from many a problem; and I won't be the one to pay the tax increases to fix the stuff. So, for sure, my "public spirit" is certainly for sale, cheap. Why bother trying to fix problems now when they are cheap to fix when a fortune can be made later if you got the means, hey?

In other words, it's like the housing crisis but on a more epic scale. Saw that one too. A huge number of misguided people didn't see it and refused to and suffered/suffer the consequences. The minority who saw it were able to get much richer than they otherwise would have been. It'll be the same with this. There's profit in crisis. On an emotional and empathetic level I mind. On a cynical level, not so much. It's only too bad that there's too little pleasure to be taken in saying "I told you so".

[Papers of Indenture]

Was hoping a thread on this topic would pop up. Jacob has articulated my thoughts far better than I could.

[JohnnyH]

I generally agree, which is why I am fairly apathetic on GW, among other crises... No doubt just desserts are always around the corner.
In the 'How I Found Freedom' way of thinking I can really only control my own actions. And I do not think I, or any here, are the bulk of the problem. I think I am in a good place to ... weather it... It's just one more thing on a the massive list I'm told I should be deathly afraid of... And as an individual very comfortable living a fairly 19th century life, in a cool, sparsely populated area, it's very far down on my personal list... I couldn't change it with my best of efforts, so I'm not going to worry about outside of some simple preparations, investments. And I do not think humanities best [governmental] efforts could overturn (if true).

"The science is what the science is" in a perfect world, yes... But it sounds like it is a deity that can only be questioned in dark corridors. Personal biases, availability of funding, fear of ridicule, political motivations, money can and have drawn at least some of the science into question (ie: climategate)... The scientific community fights change like any other establishment. There are many important things that are flatly ignored, because to touch them ends your career in science.

[Riggerjack]

@jenneypenny, the reason for the "debate is dead" approach is not that the science is too deep for joe sixpack, it's a party line spouted by folks who've never read a single study, but KNOW.

the problem for the CC crowd is it is just too easy to make the "do nothing" argument. 6 degrees Celsius in a century sounds scary, but a quarter of a century with no clear change ain't so scary. the comparison to other disasters that failed to happen due to tech improvements, the economic arguments, etc. it's better to just denounce anyone who questions your beliefs as tainted, stupid, evil. easier too.

this plays into the group mind humans flock to. us vs them. humanity wants to divide. we want to go back to clans. even when we are all together, like in cities, we divide based on musical tastes, politics, fashions, cultural identities, etc. the only way to get people to identify with a bigger group, is to oppose a bigger group. NW natives vs. invading Californians (one of my favorites). Americans vs (pick enemy of choice). environmentalists vs. ignorant corporate sellouts...

by shutting down debate over GW/CC, parts of our society can both show the colors of their ideological purity, and squash the debate that so often results in a wait and see result. from a 'mentalist spin perspective, this prevents the dilution of the GW emergency message, and identifies a group to oppose, as well as keeps the faithful pure...

all a big win for spin--- just send a check to- and vote for-- sign the petition to--- our shepherds must keep the sheep penned in.

Just to be clear, i do "believe in global warming", and plan accordingly. i'm not criticizing the science, i'm criticizing the movement. in particular the "debate is dead" sloganeers. (where's that soapbox emoticon when i need it?)

[Riggerjack]

the "climategate" science suppression is really no big deal. it sounds bad, because this is a highly ideological subject, but all the issues are just part of the way academia functions. there are always political influence, professors suppression dissenting views, bad studies, etc. This happens in areas as mundane as civil war history, and geology. don't let anyone tell you this is a conspiracy, it is the process at work. time will tell, and the bad theories will be refined out of the body of knowledge. (and then cited again as "proof", later by crackpots, trying to convince the world they aren't crackpots.)

but it is one more reason not to let the "experts" decide for us. the "experts" are not neutral, nor are they experts in any field outside their area of expertise.

[Chad]

@jenneypenny, the reason for the "debate is dead" approach is not that the science is too deep for joe sixpack....

It is one of the main reasons for me. I can't count the number of times I have brought up data points in direct support of something and been told it didn't matter. Not on here maybe, but in "real life."

[jacob]

Contrary to popular belief, scientists do not not wander around in dark corridors wearing cloaks and quoting the Holy Astrophysical Journal as gospel. Contrary to popular belief, the language of science is not some dead arcane language as spoken by Saint Newton that's deliberately made as obscure as possible so as to impress the public. And no, no scientist is especially ordained by the Arch Scientist to practice science in front of their flock of chosen nerds.

Other institutions do that. Science does not.

The problem with science is that it requires years of studious effort to grasp. Let me rephrase that. The problem with the public is that few put in the studious effort required to understand science. Consequently most people take scientific conclusions on faith much like they take every other thing on faith. However, science DOES NOT HAVE TO be taken on faith. That's probably the defining difference between science and all other things concerning humans.

Science does not rest on authority!

Probably the worst thing about this is that people do not seem to understand that this makes science special. Because of this, the public is easily convinced that science, like with all other things, are subject to bias, politics, money, ... which kinda all boil down to personal opinions and motivations. This is pretty much what those who prefer the do-nothingpolicy of the status quo successfully plays on.

Indeed, when faced with a technical question that involves a policy decision, it takes an extremely rare person to actually pick up a textbook and study that first before googling to verify their confirmation bias and sprouting policy opinions already. I'm really impressed that Riggerjack actually went through such a process. 99% don't.

Of course those who can read and understand science can only throw up their hands in the face of the human "Don't understand anything, but have opinion anyway"-attitude.

For example, I actually read the Climategate leaks. The whole thing (it is long!). I saw nothing in there suggesting foul play. More like the informal emails of a bunch of frustrated researchers (all researchers are frustrated) trying to solve a really hard problem. I bet you can take the inbox of any scientist and it will have mails like that. Mine certainly does. So you can take that from me ... or the several investigative reports from multiple institutions that didn't find any foul play either. Yet, people keep bringing it up. Then you gotta ask why that is? Are people trying to find the truth? Or are the trying to win an argument?

[JohnnyH]

@Riggerjack/jacob: yeah I'll be first to admit I don't know (or care about) all the facts relating to that... My biggest pet peeve is when [usually] politicians/GW experts/laypeople [but occasionally] scientists extrapolate the observed measurements to make fantastical claims... Then try to foist the crackpot 'denier' label on someone who doesn't think we'll see a Sea of California anytime soon.

"Other institutions do that. Science does not." Again, I don't think scientific community is above anything... It doesn't welcome new ideas with open arms, it is as petty and f'd up as any other institution. I know several career PhDs that often fill my ears with the horrible state science is in.

[jacob]

Is the science too deep for Joe Sixpack?

Yes and no. You gotta figure that most people can't find north on a map, can't locate their country on an atlas, think the world was created 6000 years ago and that humans roamed the Earth with the dinosaurs, etc. Essentially, Joe Sixpack's base knowledge is practically non-existent.

People tend to be extremely ignorant.

However, people are not unintelligent.

Something like the special theory of relativity (in its geometric form) could be taught to 6th grades in a couple of weeks. At least the smart ones would be able to understand time dilation and space contraction and be able to explain the barn yard paradox; maybe even the twin paradox.

A high school graduate can teach themselves undergraduate level understanding of any technical field in the span of 6-12 months.

However, practically nobody does that. They concentrate on their professional work and ignore everything else.

This is why few people are smarter than a 5th grader. Joe Sixpack certainly ain't.

[Riggerjack]

I think there are very good reasons to "do nothing". I'm also sure anything i say will be viewed by jacob as sounding like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM

and i admit that he may be completely right. yet i believe history is on my side.

[workathome]

I don't like how trying to debate climate change distracts from whether or not turning our natural resources into garbage dumps at exponentially higher rates is a good idea or not. As if by announcing a fuzzy doubt "well, humans might not be making the planet warmer" makes it magically okay to keep turning nature into toxic waste excrement.

[jennypenny]

You gotta figure that most people ... think the world was created 6000 years ago and that humans roamed the Earth with the dinosaurs, etc. Essentially, Joe Sixpack's base knowledge is practically non-existent.

Most modern churches do not deny evolution or the age of the earth (Baptists are the main exception) and most have never intimated that humans roamed the earth with the dinosaurs. To pronounce that Joe Sixpack feels this way is a thinly-veiled slap at christians that simply isn't warranted or true.

Aside from trying to set the record straight, I think it's important to recognize where the resistance to the science comes from and what actually needs to be overcome in this debate. Assuming Joe Sixpack is a right-wing religious denier isn't always true and possibly part of the reason we are still 'debating' when we shouldn't be. Maybe Joe Sixpack is part of the less-educated segment in our society that is more susceptible to corporate and media influences. That would change who and what you were fighting against, yes? What if the denial doesn't come from religious interests but from corporate ones?

it takes an extremely rare person to actually pick up a textbook and study that first before googling to verify their confirmation bias and sprouting policy opinions already.

Some links if someone would like to research what christians actually believe and not fall victim to confirmation bias...

The Catholic position ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution
"Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values, wrote in a letter sent to all U.S. bishops in December 2004: "... Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. "

The Presbyterian position ... http://www.presbyterianmission.org/mini ... evolution/
"We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church."

The Methodist position ... http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/cont ... 21&notoc=1
"We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology. The Church also opposes introducing theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into public school curriculum."

Lutheran position ... http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/09/18/how ... -question/
"The Lutheran Church...does not teach that the earth is 6,500 years old. He had assumed, incorrectly, that The Lutheran Church...has a doctrinal position on how old the earth is. The fact is, we do not. I wonder how many other Lutherans, or, people who are not Lutherans, think that somehow our church body has fallen into the trap of Biblical “fundamentalists” who have made a 6,000 year old earth as much an essential doctrine of the faith as the Virgin Birth or the bodily resurrection of Christ. "

Pentacostal position ... http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ ... rigins.cfm
"Pentecostal Christians today do not share a single viewpoint on evolution. ... today many people who are technologically savvy and immersed in the popular media’s representation of science are members of our congregations. Many of them are uncomfortable rejecting out-of-hand the findings of science that seem to conflict with traditional interpretations of the Genesis creation account. "

[Ego]

The positions the leaders hold vs. what people actually believe.



Edit: Okay, I'll give a little bit.... My wife wrote a paper on non-guided evolution when she was in Catholic high-school back in the late 1970s and the nun not only gave her an A+ but also praised her in front of the class.

[jennypenny]

Your chart confirms what I'm saying, that to say 'most' don't believe in evolution or the scientific explaination of the age of the earth is untrue.