Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
In a recent op-ed in the Guardian that WUWT commented on, James Hansen of global warming fame, argued for closing coal fired power plants asserting that “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
So what’s happened to US life expectancy as the number of coal fired death factories have multiplied and as the climate has gotten warmer?
Figure 1: Data are plotted for every ten years from 1900-1940, 1945, and each year from 1949 onward. Data sources: life expectancy from Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009, and earlier editions; coal usage from Goklany (2007) for 1900-1945, and EIA (2008) for 1949-2007; carbon dioxide emissions for 1900-2005 from Marland et al (2008).
As the above figure shows, US life expectancy at birth increased by 30.5 years, from 47.3 years to 77.8 years, between 1900 and 2005, while coal usage more than tripled. Carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 were nearly nine times the 1900 levels. And, of course, the climate has also gotten warmer (not shown). To appreciate the magnitude of this improvement in life expectancy, consider that the approximate life expectancy in pre-industrial societies varied from 25-35 years.
While the increase in life expectancy is not directly due to greater coal use or CO2 emissions, much of it was enabled in one way or another by the prosperity fueled in large part by coal and fossil fuel consumption, as I have noted in my book, The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet. Also recalling the IPCC’s temperature trends from 1900 onward, according to my eyeball analyzer there seems to be a better correlation between life expectancy and coal use (and CO2 emissions) or their logarithms than that between temperature increase (either for the US or the world) on the one hand and, on the other hand, coal use (and CO2 emissions) or their logarithms.
It may be argued that Hansen’s comments pertain to the future, not to the past or present. But to this I would respond that the above figure is based on real data whereas Hansen’s declaration is based on some unknown projection about the future based on unknown, unvalidated and unverified models.
Giving up fossil fuel energy use and, with that, compromising the real improvements in life expectancy and other indicators of human well-being that have accompanied that energy use, would be like giving up a real bird in hand to avoid being attacked by a monster that may or may not exist in the bush, that is, a monster that may only exist in the virtual world.
This doesn’t seem like a rational trade-off.
Mary,
Hadn’t you noticed? Do we all have to spell it out in words of one syllable?
There-has-been-no-global-warming-for-at-least-the-last-six-years.
Now I happen to believe that that might be due to natural fluctuations just as I believe that the warming in the early part of the 20th century and again in the latter part of the 20th century was due to natural fluctuations.
If you prefer to believe that the late 20th century warming was anthropogenic and not natural then logically (and you love logic, as we know) you must also accept that the current stable or cooling trend is also anthropogenic.
Where the warm-mongers get it wrong is in their view that every increase in temperature is a sign of AGW; every pause or reverse in warming is either bad data or a slight pause that they were expecting anyway or lies or as Tom in Texas just said, stick your fingers in your ears and hope it’ll go away.
I’m no scientist; never have been. But I’ve learnt enough in my 60 years to know scaremongering when I hear it and to know vested interests when they try and con me. (I’ll let you into the secret; it’s when they refuse to debate with me and tell me that “the science is settled” and that if I disagree I’m a denier or a shill.)
How about you break the mould, Mary, and come up with some facts? Just the facts, ma’am.
Oh! and while you’re at it, have a look at this and be afraid.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/6320/
Great link, Sam. Now I understand my denial is a sickness, and can only be cured by proper treatment. Maybe Mary and DJ can develop a 12 point program for us to follow.
Yawn. Another attempt to define a possible correlation as a causation. The chart actually shows NO correlation between life expectancy and either coal consumption or CO2 emissions. Unless they all kind of go upwards, most of the time, sort of, except differently counts as statistically relevant.
Backpedaling a bit by saying that the life expectancy increase “was enabled in one way or another by the prosperity fueled in large part by coal and fossil fuel consumption” is rather slippery too. You could make a much stronger argument that improvements in public sanitation alone would be a better fit. Not to mention those other energy-irrelevant areas like medicine, diet, “old-fashioned” pollution, education, etc.
Indur M. Goklany’s “eyeball analyzer” needs a bias re-calibration.
Nothing to say about the rants here in the comments about taxes, killing old people, AGW believers are stupid unlike “us”, and “Obama!!”. Maybe… irrelevant and tired?
Mary Hinge, something I’ve wondered is why for trends we look at 30 years?
Why not 3 or 300 or 3000 or 30000 ?
I gather some solar theories suggest we should be looking at cycles on the order of 200 years. And I gather a colleague of Mann’s wrote a book suggesting man’s influence on climate was detectable since the dawn of agriculture on the order of 10000 years.
Somebody somewhere chose 30 years. And if we have cooling for another 15 then maybe they should be talking about 60 years. Or longer. Or less. Or whatever.
Someone chose 30. Do you know why?
How many syllables?
1)We admitted we were powerless over our denial—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2)We came to believe that Gore could restore us to sanity.
3)We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Gore as we understood Him.
4)We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5)We admitted to Gore, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6)We were entirely ready to have Gore remove all these defects of character.
7)We humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8)We made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9)We made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10)We continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11)We sought through reeducation and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Gore as we understood Him, asking only for knowledge of His Will for us and the power to carry that out.
12)Since we have had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we will try to carry this message to deniers, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Fight the damnable warmth!!!
Thank you, Mike. I feel the need to rent and watch An Inconvenient Truth, sell my SUV, and walk to the commissary to buy low watt light bulbs. I will conquer my disease.
Ben Lawson (14:33:17) :
It was James Hansen who likened coal to death camps. The chart shows that although the use of coal increased, the rate of deaths decreased. James Hansen has once again made wildly inaccurate claims. Why don’t you take correlation/causation issue up with him?
In reply to Stefan: The number 30 was picked for statistical reasons, comparing the
” t ” distribution to the “normal” distrribution. Assuming a “normally” distributed population, and a given standard deviation, an event in a one tailed distribution happening only 5% of the time by chance fluctuations would have a standard deviation from the norm of about 1.645.
Using a sample of 3, you’d need a standard deviation of a bout 2.35 before you could say the deviation was significant. That higher number goes down the more observations you rely on, until you get to 30, when the standard deviation for the “t” test for 5% significance is about 1.70, reasonably close to the 1.645 figure for an “infinite” sample.
Of course, the average temperatures in connecting years are NOT random. If this year is really cold, chances are that next year will also be cooler than average.
If the correlation between this years temperature is about 20%, , your EFFECTIVE sample size is only
(1-.2)/(1+.2) = 0.66, so instead of a 30 year sample, you need 45 years or more, otherwise your making unjustifiable statements on the probability of your distribution. You’re saying the event will happen only 5% by chance, when the REAL probability is more like 6 or 7%
That correction for autocorrelation only works for SMALL correlations. When you get big numbers like 50% correlation, that (1-.5)/(1+.5) =.33, implying you need a sample size of 90, may not work. Even with a sample size of 90 you can’t be too sure that you’r results are reliable. A more reliable technique in this case would be to get a good estimate of the time factor required- for the case of 90- implying you need to triple your sample size, you instead sample every third year.
Stefano (05:56:43) wrote a post including: “Which is in itself already a homocentric stance; we are not humans separate from the planet and separate from Nature. We ARE Nature.”
A very fine piece, Stefano, which I applaud. Thank you.
Phydeaux: What? We still have buy things?
Sorry, Moose. I’ll go down to the government commissary and put my name on the list to make my presentation to the federal bureau of low watt bulbs which bulbs I will receive “free” according to my needs.
Mary,
Your English and your link to that Monty Python sketch are worth more than any of the arguments for or against the dreaded AGW!
Regards,
Larry Kirk
Jim (06:23:00) wrote: “Why do we pick on CO2 as being ‘bad’?”
Because it can be measured, partly attributed to man, and therefore taxed, Jim.
Mary Hinge (15:02:30) :
” Sam the Skeptic (13:50:30) :
Mary,
Hadn’t you noticed? Do we all have to spell it out in words of one syllable?
There-has-been-no-global-warming-for-at-least-the-last-six-years
How many syllables?”
Mary, we’re all just digital here, just electron dreams in a recently formatted storage matrix. All of our comments are just ones-and-zeros.
Henry, who doesn’t find being a zero much of a handicap after all.
James Hansen is very wrong …… again.
Anyone surprised?
Henry Phipps (10:25:39). Thank you for that wonderful post, Henry. I am travelling on your slope of the bell-shaped curve and wholly endorse your sentiments and have gained from your having written them here.
Ben Lawson,
I think you missed the main point.Here is a quote about what James Hansen stated:
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
Indur stated a question:
“So what’s happened to US life expectancy as the number of coal fired death factories have multiplied and as the climate has gotten warmer?”
The Chart showed that DESPITE decades of increasing use of Coal.We are on average living longer than ever.
Indur goes on with this:
“As the above figure shows, US life expectancy at birth increased by 30.5 years, from 47.3 years to 77.8 years, between 1900 and 2005, while coal usage more than tripled. Carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 were nearly nine times the 1900 levels. And, of course, the climate has also gotten warmer (not shown). To appreciate the magnitude of this improvement in life expectancy, consider that the approximate life expectancy in pre-industrial societies varied from 25-35 years.”
It seems very clear that we are not hurting from the use of Coal.A primary source of electrical power.
Thus what James Hansen claims is nonsense.
I wonder how you can come up with a very different conclusion?
April E. Coggins: “Why don’t you take correlation/causation issue up with [Hansen]”. Hansen isn’t making a correlation, Goklany is, and poorly. Hansen was extrapolating, which may or may not be useful, but even nose picking habits have implications for mortality rates. Ask an actuary.
Alan D. McIntire: “The number 30 was picked for statistical reasons”. Start again. You’re trying to justify applying random sampling concepts to sequential data. You can’t. Good insight into your logic though.
sunsettommy: Goklany’s claims stand on their own as false. There’s a whole fleet of obvious, direct and powerful reasons why life expectancy is rising. If the only conclusion you can draw is that coal ain’t hurtin’ no-one, lets just say you’re starting from a conclusion and working backwards. Or do you think Dr. Hansen is suggesting that people will start choking to death on actual lumps of coal?
The analysis in the base note of this thread is a small example of what can be found in ” The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet” by Indur Goklany . His use of statistics is the fairest I have seen. Almost always he uses all the data that is available, and he explains the very few exceptions. When there is more than one source of data, he uses the source that his analysis debunks. It is a great source of accurate information about many controversial topics.
Mike Bryant (15:07:33) :
Mike, thanks. Hilarious, sobering (really), and a little terrifying.
Roger Carr (19:14:42) :
Thanks for your kind thoughts.
Mary Hinge:
I want you to know how much all of us Grampas appreciate your efforts to re-educate us. Most of us have been proven immune to liberal-speak, but we like the thrill of raw emotionalism at our stage of life. Grandma is telling me to shut up.
Henry
Mary Hinge (12:10:04) :
Amongst the theories put forward on this site to explain why the earth should be cooling are low sun spot numbers/ solar minimum; -ive PDO; ENSO, whilst not a La Nina is very close. All of these should, according to what has been said on this site, be causing the earth to cool….it isn’t, so can you explain why this is happening?
anna v (11:02:43) :
I am sure that humans controlling the weather by controlling CO2 emmissions belongs to the rain dance gene.
I am trying to remove the image from my mind of an ostrich doing a rain dance! Take your head out of the sand and you might enjoy better rhythm.
Sad. You must not realize how the caricature applies to yourself like a glove, just from your statement above that ignores natural cycles and the cooling that has started.
[snip off topic]
Ben Lawson (14:33:17) :
Yawn. Another attempt to define a possible correlation as a causation. The chart actually shows NO correlation between life expectancy and either coal consumption or CO2 emissions. Unless they all kind of go upwards, most of the time, sort of, except differently counts as statistically relevant.
Backpedaling a bit by saying that the life expectancy increase “was enabled in one way or another by the prosperity fueled in large part by coal and fossil fuel consumption” is rather slippery too. You could make a much stronger argument that improvements in public sanitation alone would be a better fit. Not to mention those other energy-irrelevant areas like medicine, diet, “old-fashioned” pollution, education, etc.”
Public sanitation could be applied because there was enough energy available to apply it. All improved solutions in human societies take extra energy to be applied. Without the cheap energy available to the western societies, we would be at the same level as the third world countries on all counts. energy=money really.
[snip off topic]