Wednesday
Feb292012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Nordhaus and the sixteen
Feb 29, 2012 Climate: Models Climate: Statistics Climate: Surface Climate: WG2 Climate: WG3 Climate: other Economist William Nordhaus takes a pop at the sixteen concerned scientists, in the latest skirmish kicked off by their Wall Street Journal editorial.
My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change.1 I have identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and I provide commentary about their substance and accuracy. They are:
- Is the planet in fact warming?
- Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
- Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
- Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
- Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
- Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?
Reader Comments (130)
@Shub
"Externalities" were formally introduced by Pigou in 1920. The concept seems to have stood the test of time.
Congestion is indeed a negative externality. Agglomeration is a positive externality, and diversity is often seen as a positive externality too.
@Others
The full range of feedbacks should, of course, be weighted by their likelihood. Dick Lindzen is one of the best climatologists on the planet, but he strikes a rather lonely figure, and equally brilliant people reach equally sound but opposite conclusions about feedback processes in the atmosphere. It would be wrong to dismiss Lindzen, but it is equally wrong to dismiss credible scientists who disagree with Lindzen.
The word "negative" in "negative externality" of course denotes "net negative" rather than "exclusively negative".
I am sure that Einstein struck rather a lonely figure, when he rewrote the fundamental laws of the universe in his head, as a lowly patent clerk. [I wonder how he would have got in if there had been peer-review then?] Implying that Linzden is wrong because his is in the minority, rather than coherently demonstrate how he is wrong, just shows that the consensus view is fundamentally weak.
It is not possible to know the full consequences of any action, we are not omniscient even in the present let alone the future ... that is why externalities are meaningless (unless we can directly (empirically) show it is causes direct physical harm to someone or their property ... clearly not the case for C02). Without objective knowledge of the full future consequences of our actions then we are simply holding up sandwich boards with our opinions on them backed by data that is by it's very nature impossible to be un-biased (as we cannot know the complete picture) ... as this is the case we should never use force to make people conform to what can only be a subjective opinion about the consequences. We have no idea what we have lost by diverting these resources by force ... the hidden consequences ... this is what most people miss ... google "the broken window fallacy", read Hazlitt or plough through the excellent articles at the ludwig von mises insitute website
But if you are running a business — and forestry is a business — serried ranks of fir trees is very efficient even if it doesn't look all that pretty. I happen to rather like them and the fact that they provide potential ground for the crested tit to expand its range and conserve the red squirrel.
One man's meat ...
What it means essentially is that you cannot divorce the externalities from those that are arguing them. It would be very simple if we could just point to CO2 (or anything else) and say "bad" or "good". The difficulty is in trying to reach an objective decision on whether an externality is positive or negative and then decide what action is necessaary and cost-effective based on its likely effect.
If I thought that this was the approach being taken by governments, the UN, the IPCC, and the environmental NGOs (especially the latter!) then I would be content.
But it isn't, is it?
Richard Tol at 8:23
Forgive me for my denseness, but in suggesting that many other climatologists just as "brilliant" as Richard Lindzen reach conclusions that are different to his is an argument from (consensual) authority.
It is not Richard Linzen's undoubted brilliance that persuades educated engineers and scientists of the soundness of his position, it is his logical exposition of that position. See the slide show of his recent excellent presentation at the House of Commons: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/RSL-HouseOfCommons-2012.pdf
Richard Lindzen's position lonely? I think not.
Kind regards
"...diversity is often seen as a positive externality too."
Yet practising "diversity" is a negative externality unless you assume that diversity is itself positive. The empirical evidence seems to be that diversity is not of itself positive. Take for example a company, let's say for example the BBC or Guardian, that has one of its guiding principles that they are going to be a diverse organisation. The net result of this is that they recruit people on the basis of their, the people's, own belief in diversity, resulting in them recruiting people of all sexes, races and physical condition with exactly the same worldview, hence they're not diverse. You'll note I didn't include religions in there because people who believe in diversity are generally speaking atheist (as I am myself) and wouldn't dream of recruiting people who are religious.
Not simple this positive/negative externality lark.
Mike (Jackson) - have to disagree with you about the red squirrels - in this part of Scotland at least the reds have held their ground due to there being a diversity of tree species - native pines and deciduous being an essential. Research in the FC Craigvinean forest (by Dunkeld) confirmed this. I don't think reds have any colonised any areas which are exclusively fir and or spruce, on monoculture scots pine for that matter. Can't agree with you about monoculture firs/spruce being attractive either, give me a scots pine forest, any day, natural, semi-natural or plantation - the individual trees gain character with age unlike spruce anyway. Have you not visited Rothiemurchus, Glen Affric, or the Black Wood of Rannoch? Even the mid 20th century pine plantations around the Loch Affric reserve have a open and semi-natural feel to them now. Better quality wood than spruce also. The main reason much of upland Scotland has been covered with sitka spruce is because deer won't browse it, so foresters don't have so spend so much time fencing and stalking. There are too many deer for the carrying capacity of the land, but don't get me started on the reasons for this...
Sorry for digression.
@Lapogus, Mike
You did not get my point.
As a decision analyst, I need a probability density function of the climate sensitivity. I am not a recognized expert in atmospheric physics, so I rely on the considered opinion of others.
There is a handful of scientists, some with a high pedigree, who argue that the climate sensitivity is low and who have published those arguments in reputable journals. There is a larger number of scientists, some with a high pedigree, who argue that the climate sensitivity is high and who have published those arguments in reputable journals.
It would be unethical of me, as a decision analyst, to ignore any reputable opinion. It would be irresponsible to attach anything but a low probability to a low climate sensitivity.
Since when was science done on the basis of majority opinion? And if you factor in the admitted attempts in certain quarters to prevent publication of research papers that challenge the paradigm and take any cognisance at all of the anecdotal evidence that pressure is applied to junior researchers not to rock the boat if they value their careers then the evidence that a majority of climate scientists take the high sensitivity view is somewhat diluted.
And then there are the engineers, physicists (atmospheric and otherwise) and statisticians who do not claim to be climate scientists who argue that the methodology which underpins the high sensitivity claim is flawed.
I fully understand your argument about relying on the opinion of experts but what if your experts have skewed the field (not necessarily delberately or maliciously)?
I am not any sort of expert in atmospheric physics but that hasn't stopped me looking critically at the arguments and coming to the conclusion that the pudding is being well and truly over-egged. And I'm not sure about the "physical" provenance of some of the climate scientists either. And we know that their use of statistics is in some cases ... er ... unusual.
lapogus
My posting was of necessity a bit hasty and the example not a very good one.Yes, I have been to Rothiemurchus on several occasions; it is a wonderful part of the world. I simply selected two potential benefits to demonstrate that diversity cannot be taken all of a piece.
With you in the field I should have known to be more careful what examples I chose!
Richard - I see where you are coming, as a decision analyst. However, I like many other sceptics do not trust the scientists who maintain that climate sensitivity is high. I prefer to look at the science and data myself. For example, if the climate sensitivity is high, you surely would be able to identify the CO2 signal in this graph:
wood for trees
Can you identify it? I can't, all I see is a long slow thaw out of the little ice age.
I am afraid you have fallen for the CRU~IPCC cabal's activist and political agenda. If it is any consolation you are not the only one. But it is high time that you and others realised (as Judith Curry did sometime ago) that it is unwise to maintain your faith in your IPCC colleagues, and instead take a look at the science yourself.
@Mike
With a problem like this, you cannot wait for the science to be settled (if it ever will) before decisions need to made.
@Lapogus
There is an upward trend, with competing explanations. It would be rather silly to exclude any credible explanation, would it? Particularly an explanation with experimental evidence and a physical mechanism.
Richard Tol
Thank you for engaging.
During my career as an airline pilot, I was a risk manager. My decisions, which had all sorts of significant economic and life-theatening/enhancing consequences, were based on a sound understanding of the real circumstances and facts available. Climate change alarmism seems to come from rent (grant) seeking people in ivory towers who produce pal-reviewed papers which use censored data and who seem to have a shaky understanding of statistics and ethics.
Kind regards
@Mike
Waiting for the scientists to sort out the problem is the best strategy before take off. If the plane is in the air, you work with the best information available rather than with the information you would like to have.
Richard, but you yourself have commented on the tendency of the IPCC to exaggerate and make unsupported claims, with a bias towards alarmism.
How does a decision analyst take these factors into account?
@Paul
In my work, I rarely rely on the IPCC -- much to the chagrin of some of my clients.
climate scientists cannot conduct experiments in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis that "x amount of anthropogenic C02 causes x amount of warming" due to a lack of multiple earths to conduct proper experiments on. Thus this "science" is not comparable to other sciences where variables can be controlled and experiments can be performed to test hypotheses in a reproducible manner. This difference is not communicated to the public who may think that the results of climate scientists are equally as valid as other areas of science, where hypotheses are tested with rigour. Due to this issue none of the claims of climate scientists should be treated as incontrovertible. Even if the models turn out to be correct in their predictions it could be for reasons other than C02 as no experiments can be performed to test the effect of increasing C02 ALONE in the environment (i.e all other variables controlled for) on global temperatures. That is one reason why climate science should not have the influence on policy that it does ... it doesn't even require trust in one group of scientists over another. Given this it seems to me to be unethical to divert resources by force to something that cannot be determined with rigor. When calculating externalities it is impossible to measure them with any accuracy because you don't know what progress has been lost because the money had been spent elsewhere ... thus meaningless … again the broken window fallacy…
Richard Tol at 12:38
"Waiting for the scientists to sort out the problem is the best strategy before take off. If the plane is in the air, you work with the best information available rather than with the information you would like to have."
Wrong! A pilot has to use the best information available to him/her at all times. It is the pilot, who is accountable, who takes the decisions both before and after take-off. For example, a thunderstorm passes over an airport - not an infrequent event in the US East Coast summer and thunderstorms have caused many accidents at airports. You don't ask a scientist if it is safe to take off. You make your own judgment based on the facts available. And how amusing it would be when a consensus-seeking colleague would press the radio transmit button and ask in an indecisive voice if anyone else had taken off yet!
Kind regards
Richard
We're reaching the "agree to disagree" stage, I think.
Your phrase "with a problem like this" makes massive assumptions with which the majority of sceptics would disagree. As lapogus says, a perfectly legitimate interpretation of temperature graphs shows a steady rise out of the LIA with increases of ~30 years interspered with declines or stasis also of ~30 years.
We are due one of those latter "interregna" any time now and the graph would seem to suggest that we are just about to go into it. Let's consult Occam. There is no need at the present to take any action since temperatures are well within the natural fluctuations over any period we are able to draw any reasonable conclusions about and there is no reason — other than those produced by computer models — to show that there is any cause for alarm at this time.
If the climate changes in such a way as to require urgent action then it is almost certainly already too late to take any action that would be effective. If it does not then it is not the function of this generation to take unnecessary steps the likely outcome of which will be to close down the options for future generations.
The argument that "we must do something" is one politicians love to hear.
Unfortunately, the next line is usually "this is something, therefore we must do it."
Nine times out of ten — big mistake!
@Mike
So, sometimes you would decide not to fly even if the probability of a crash is less than 100%?
Richard
"So, sometimes you would decide not to fly even if the probability of a crash is less than 100%?"
Many times! And the decisions would be based on facts. E.g. more than a tiny amount of slush on the runway or ice on the wings or tiredness. None of these risks would be certain to cause an accident, but all have them have caused accidents in the past and will cause accidents in the future.
But I would not decide not to fly because one of the cabin crew had discovered that we were planning to fly through the Bermuda Triangle!
Practical people trying to run a safe, profitable economy, address real risks, not imagined or speculative ones.
Mind you, on the Polar route once I almost collided with a sleigh pulled by a red-nosed reindeer one 24 December night. So maybe my philosophy is not perfect.
Kind regards
Richard - Yes there is an upward trend. But even the IPCC position is that the warming prior to 1950 could not be due to CO2.
What experimental evidence? As for the physical mechanism, I don't want to get into the back radiation debate, except to say that CO2's role if it has one is looking increasingly tenuous:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/02/true-energy-balance-of-earthatmosphere.html
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/stephen-wilde-the-myth-of-backradiation
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
I am sure mydogsgotnonose will have an input here also.
@Mike
How very precautionary of you.
@Lapogus
JBJ Fourier did some experiments, didn't he?
Richard
"How very precautionary of you." Yes. Applying appropriate caution to address proven risks is what has given civil aviation its good safety record.
The point is, with which I am sure you will agree, that it is the quality of the information that is crucial to good decision-making. Relying on "97%" of peer-reviewed papers, or whatever, in what appears to be a hopelessly soft/corrupt, statistically incompetent, rent-seeking area such as climate science is asking for trouble.
I shall now shut up.
Cheers!
Richard Tol @ Mar 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Richard, the current warming does not have a known physical mechanism, and there is no experimental (observational, really) evidence that anything unusual is happening with climate.
Climate models do not make valid predictions and do not supply any demonstrably valid physical mechanism for the recent warming.
The climate includes many coupled oscillators that can exchange energy at constant energy flux. That being true, and it is, the atmosphere can warm (or cool) without any change whatever in forcing. The atmosphere could have warmed with no external cause at all. Richard Lindzen has made this point any number of times, and he has been roundly ignored by everyone attached to AGW; including AGW-supporting physicists who should quantitatively know better. I suspect they do know better, and just don't care. It doesn't suit their "cause."
As "a decision analyst" you certainly know that when the information content is zero, the best decision is to do nothing. Any active decision made is equally likely to be wrong. In that case, you're left only with ameliorating those short term consequences that can be foreseen, and with general preparations for meeting exigencies. Those preparations include building wealth and stockpiling resources, not wasting wealth to subsidize inefficiencies and hamstringing manufactory for ideological ends.
@lapogus
What a great graph! It captures the sceptical position perfectly.
Oh! I failed to see that Richard was commenting on this thread.
Just a quick note, Richard. Earlier, I did not question the very concept of negative externality. Only its applicability in the specific situation at hand.
The concept of an 'externality' is useful in modes of interaction between higher entities - like currency, productivity, health and populations, and in restricted situations where these entities interact in such a way that meaningful emergent properties, and questions, are calculable by such analyses. It breaks down as we cut closer and closer to basic human existence. This is simply because such analyses are utilitarian in nature.
Utilitarian analyses cannot respond to fundamental questions. The question of whether CO2 is 'harmful' is a fundamental one.
Moreover your analysis, if I understand correctly, is with the assumption: 'If we believe that CO2 will cause a 2C temperature rise, what are the benefits and losses to be had?' It primarily addresses the issue of temperature rise and its effects. Nordhaus has annexed your assumption to state: 'CO2 is a pollutant because Richard Tol's analysis says so'. His argument is entirely circular.
Consider the point of the environmentalist: For the environmentalist, a rise in CO2 causing melting of Arctic ice (presumably) causes a loss of habitat for polar bears and leads to its death. That's it - he/she draws the line there. Death or harm of polar bears is considered an undesirable end-point. In economic terms, death of polar bears probably has no meaning. However, in calculating negative externalities from CO2, you won't stop or draw the line even at a point where direct harm to human beings is seen?
Why the asymmetry?
Mike @ Mar 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM, I wish! :-)
However, I did manage to make a similar point in Skeptic 14(1) A Climate of Belief: "The proper response to adamant certainty in the face of complete ignorance is rational skepticism. And aren’t we much better off accumulating resources to meet urgent needs than expending resources to service ignorant fears?", with some public exposure.
As an aside, I've now been trying for a year to publish a follow-up article critical of the entire corpus of AGW climate so-called science (GCMs, proxy-T, and surface-air T) but both Michael Shermer (Skeptic) and Kendrick Frazier (Skeptical Inquirer) have become AGW-partisan gate-keepers in lieu of their principled duty to foster open honest debate.
What a great graph! It captures the sceptical position perfectly.
Mar 3, 2012 at 1:35 AM | Unregistered Commenter Will Nitschke
Indeed it is. It is not my making - someone linked to it on a BH thread last year, but I can't remember who. I also like NikfromNYC's composite graph - which suggests that CO2 has feck all to do with the post LIA thaw.
lapogus asked Richard Tol:
I have posted some images for Dublin Airport at GISTEMP and GHCN v3 – two stations illustrated, and would be interested to hear from you whether these are similar to your gifs, which I would be interested to see, and which I would welcome in a comment on my post. "Truly shocking" is too tantalising to leave hanging!