Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
1. Krugman in Gradual Changes and Extreme Events forgets that there is a threshold on the left hand side, below which cold kills. In fact, in the moderate to higher latitudes more people die daily during the cold months than in the rest of the year. See Winter kills: Excess Deaths in the Winter Months.
2. How does Krugman know that the distribution does not become narrower due to warming?
3. Where is the data that shows extremes have become more intense or more frequent, after one corrects for better detection, increased population, and better communications? It certainly doesn’t hold for cyclones, as Ryan Maue’s ACE graph shows. Events more extreme than any we have witnessed over the past 30 years (or whatever) have occurred before and will, no doubt, occur again, even absent any anthropogenic climate change.
4. Empirical data show that even if extremes are more frequent and intense, lives lost have declined. As noted in the A Primer on the Global Death Toll from Extreme Weather Events — Context and Long Term (1900–2008) Trends, long term (1900–2008) data show that average annual deaths and death rates from all such events declined by 93% and 98%, respectively, since cresting in the 1920s (see Figure). These declines occurred despite a vast increase in the populations at risk and more complete coverage of extreme weather events.
Source: Goklany, IM. 2009. Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 14 (4): 102-09 (2009). Available at http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf.
5. Similarly, empirical data also do not show any significant upward trend for property losses once increases in population and assets-at-risk are accounted for. See (a) Pielke, Jr’s weblog on Normalized Disaster Losses in Australia, (b) Bouwer, L.M. (2010), “Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, doi:10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1, (c) Neumayer, E., and Barthel, F. (2010), “Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters:A global analysis, ” Global Environmental Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.10.004.
ZZZ
February 9, 2011 at 5:54 am
I read somewhere — by someone trying to explain away the many logical and mathematical fallacies found in Krugman’s columns in the New York Times — that “everyone knows” they are mostly written by his wife with Krugman then signing the result and sending it in …
#########
That’s a lie! They are written by his cat.
Oh, about shifting the distribution: Krugman moved the whole thing, bringing up the cold tail, which amounts to asserting that there would be fewer extreme cold events. That’s different from spreading the distribution to the right and leaving the bottom end in place, or flattening the curve.
IAC, doesn’t exactly synch with the new Received Gospel of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (= more extremes of all kinds, to explain the Big Freeze in UK and the Big Dump in US.)
I’m afraid Dr. K. has gone off-script, and is ad-libbing his lines. Baaad Paul!
Obviously Krugman cannot interpret his own graph correctly. If the distrubution has shifted as he suggests, the graph clearly shows there will be a decrease in the probability of an extreme cold event, and in increase in the probability of an extreme warm event.
From the Wikipedia page on Krugman’s New Trade Theory (as of Wed Feb 9 17:46:25 UTC 2011):
“The econometric evidence for NTT was mixed, and highly technical. Due to the time-scales required and the particular nature of production in each ‘monopolizable’ sector, statistical judgements were hard to make. In many ways, there is too limited a dataset to produce a reliable test of the hypothesis which doesn’t require arbitrary judgements from the researchers.”
Sounds familiar?
In the near term (say the next 30 years) I would prefer it if more emphasis (resources: $ and manpower) would be directed to addressing changes in our climate system (specifically the weather patterns in CA) vs trying to stop it. The current models are more then a bit noisy to be of much help in allocating resources so I was happy to see that the California Energy Commission has funded a study on what MIGHT happen to sea levels on our coasts (and those effects on say the SF Bay) http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-500-2010-FS/CEC-500-2010-FS-029.PDF
BTW, That igNoble Prize for economics PK got was clearly political. The conclusions he drew are demonstrably false, but they do give Marxist Economic Theory a patina of mathematical support. The existence of sub $400US Computers is all one needs to prove that PK is a moron.
So I know what a temperature scale looks like, even one without numbers; but it gets a little iffy wondering what scale is used for the probability density. So is the Y-axis linear or logarithmic or exponential or is a a “probability” scale or what.
In any case; I would almost bet that NO Physical Phenomenon, ever observed, plots as a graph with that shape.
For a start, the probability vanishes (0) right at x = 0, so presumably x relates to T in Kelvins, and then magically, there is an extreme upper Temperature beyond which nothing can ever go.
So what is the Physical explanation for a probability that collapses with constant slope to zero at some specific high Tempertaure; what prohibits ANY higher temperature from ever occurring.
So this is like the “Laffer curve” of tax revenues versus tax rates. Every person, who can spell taxes, knows that at Zero Tax rate, the Government tax receipts are exactly zero. It requires proof of sanity, to know that at 100% tax rate, the Government tax receipts are also zero. Who is going to do anything that is 100% taxable.
So all sane people know the two end points, 0,0, and 100,0 of the Laffer curve.
No person; even Laffer himself, knows ANY third point on the Laffer curve; it is believed that all such points have positive y-values; but nobody has any idea of the shape of the curve or where the maximum is.
So Klugman doesn’t have any idea of the shape of his curve; maybe we should call that the “Laugher curve.”
6. Krugman assumes that the reference period (1950-1980s temperatures or so) are the climate optimum.
In reality and history, this optimum (if it exists) should have been at higher temperatures we haven’t reached recently (and hardly will in the future) with green Sahara, oversupply of global food production, etc. Then we would have been moving from more extreme weather to “normal” and not otherwise.
I have read many of Paul Krugman’s theoretical papers and books. Paul Krugman is a brilliant mathematical economist who has made important contributions to the areas of trade theory, urban economics and the geography of regions. His Nobel prize in economics is richly deserved.
That said, I cannot for the life of me understand why such a brilliant, logical thinker debases himself and his accomplishments by writing thinly thought out pieces such as this one here and his recent tripe about food prices and global warming. Notoriety and money, I suppose. For one who has long admired Krugman for the clarity of his economic thought, the muddled garbage he is now pouring forth is distressing.
Krugman vs. Hansen… erhmm. Is there deFacto any difference? 😉
Brgds/TJ
The Nobel Prize is worth only what the paper it is written on is worth which in the US happens to be green.
Notice how Krugman’s blog post is titled, ‘Conscience of a Liberal’. Conscience? Does anybody see anything here? He could’ve titled it, ‘Thoughts of a Liberal’ or, ‘Viewpoint of a Liberal’. But nooo, he arrogantly uses the word ‘Conscience’ in a self descriptive manner as if he is morally superior due to his liberal viewpoints.
As for the silly graphs they mean nothing. Where is the explanation for ‘why’ extreme weather events should become more common other than the use simplistic graphs with no plotted numbers? But then maybe he doesn’t need to cause, heh, he’s got a conscience.
February 9, 2011 at 10:53 am
Notice how Krugman’s blog post is titled, ‘Conscience of a Liberal’. Conscience? Does anybody see anything here? He could’ve titled it, ‘Thoughts of a Liberal’ or, ‘Viewpoint of a Liberal’. But nooo, he arrogantly uses the word ‘Conscience’ in a self descriptive manner as if he is morally superior due to his liberal viewpoints.
———–
It is the most honest part of his post! Just Think about it: conscience. Con-science. Science from a conman. I applaus this honesty.
The claim that the climate is becoming more extreme may be due to looking for harsher weather at the present time. What we do not look for is weather harsher climate was more common in the past. Two items from opposite sides of the planet that may be worth exploring.
1. In England, before the advent of refigeration, many of the big country houses had ice houses. Crucially you need a sustained period of cold to obtain sufficient ice, yet the CET does not seem to on average to have temperatures cold enough. Could it be that there were more variability in winter temperatures, as well at it being on average fractionally colder?
Examples at Calke Abbey, Derbyshire and Dunham Massey, Cheshire.
2. In Australia, Yasi was not that unusual. There is evidence of super-cyclones hitting every 200 or 300 years.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/yasi-is-a-monster-but-not-an-unusual-one/
If we detect more extreme weather (that is a big if), there is still the counter-argument that we may be exciting a quiet climatic period, like the 20th century warming was most likely largely the recovery from the Little Ice Age.
2.
*applaus was a typo bc of the friggin autocorrect on my iPhone.
No no, you guys don’t understand, Krugman is attempting to spur economic growth by first reversing it. If we can knock off 2-4% of the world’s GDP in various carbon scams, sending us into an economic Dark Ages, then our potential for growth will be much higher.
I think I see another Nobel in his future.
Thanks to the people who pointed to Krugman’s New Trade Theory. Didn’t know about it before. Sounds bogus to me; for instance, many of the projects Japan’s MITI sponsored failed; the 5th gen computers (AI project in the 80ies, Lisp-based) come to mind. If he’s right, China will become the industrial centre for everything; but i wouldn’t hold my breath. So maybe he always had that level of bogosity he is notorious for in his NYT column.
Bravo!
Your argument would have been even stronger had you showed us the graphs of deaths-by-month that were presented at the 4th Int’l Climate Change Conference in Chicago last year. Many more deaths in the winter than the summer.
This post underscores the real danger we have from AGW hysteria–warming is better and more CO2 is good, so if the alarmists get anybody to change things, it will kill people.
We can use that to get FUNDING. The alarmests get at least 100x the m-o-n-e-y that real scientists do, because if something is dangerous, you better study it to prevent it from hurting you.
I contend that believing AGW will cause IMMENSE ecological harm and extinctions of species. We need to balance our studies to be safe!
Distinguished scholar, Dr Thomas Sowell distinguishes between intelligence and intellect on page 2 of his treatise, “Intellectuals and Society” (Basic Books, 2009) as follows:
“The capacity to grasp and manipulate complex ideas is enough to define intellect but not enough to encompass intelligence, which involves combining intellect with judgment and care in selecting relevant explanatory factors and in establishing empirical tests of any theory that emerges. Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all — the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce coherent understanding. Wisdom is the fulfillment of the ancient admonition, “With all your getting, get understanding.” Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one’s own experience and of reason itself. The opposite of intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.”
“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals is especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people are free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all had admirers, defenders, and
apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that each of these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them.”
Applying the foregoing to Krugman, and Obama also, we have persons who are have considerable intellect, but lack the experience and judgment to qualify them as intellectuals except within scope of their specific expertise, economist and community organizer respectively. They do have the qualifications for fools.
In real life, is the curve really symmetrical? Sure, it’s a hypothetical curve, but suppose the curve is skewed to the right or left (it would certainly be left in Krugman’s case). If the peak were to the left of center, there would be less change in probability in response to a given temp change.
The problem with hypotheticals is that they are just that–hypothetical.
Krugman is there to prop up the offical warming message. Much like the White House Press Secretary (a truly thankless job the past decade) delivers the message with a straight face and takes the questions, irregardless of whether anyone buys it or not, Press Secretary included. Somebody has to do it.
Sam the Skeptic;
You say: The whole thrust of Krugman’s piece is “more warm=bad”.
Of course, this is also what I think he is believing. But I really don’t think that is the point of this article. If you ask me the only thing he is saying is that with warm weather it is expected to see a higher frequency of warm weather, and the heat waves will get hotter (compared with today). You might disagree with him if you want, but if you ask me it is completely sensible to assume that warmer climate will create a warmer weather.
If he wanted to talk about how bad warmer weather is, why didn’t he simply just put in some alarmist example of dying African children, or whatever?
He never says anything in this article about why warm weather is bad, or why cold weather isn’t, he is simply talking about the frequency and strength of extreme weather events.
As far as I can see most comments here are actually putting things in the article that isn’t really written. Don’t you think that is a bit dangerous?
For example, he didn’t mention a word about the number of lives lost, or the value of property damage caused by extreme weather events, but Goklany assumes a lot about Krugmans opinion on this matter. And people are wondering how he knows where to put the threshold value, when he actually never have said that he knows this.
Goklany is criticising Krugman, by saying that lives lost of extreme weather has decreased. Krugman never stated that the number of lives lost has increased!
When he didn’t even bring that up, how can you be so sure about what he thinks about this matter?
Oh, and sorry about my poor English.
Who the hell listens to ANYTHING Krugman has to say? This guys has proven over and over again to be the biggest, dumbest, blowhard of them all. Sheeesh…
I am confused as to how this is a rebuttal to Krugman’s NYT article (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/gradual-trends-and-extreme-events).
In the article Krugman uses the graph to demonstrate that as global temperatures warm we will see a higher proportion of “record highs” to “record lows”. He then states “which is exactly what we do see” and references this article: http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/11/science-meehl-ncar-record-high-temperatures-record-lows. The only other “extreme weather” he mentions is a higher ratio of “100-year heat waves and similar events” (which he doesn’t bother to provide backup for).
In this particular NYT article Krugman makes no claim about increased deaths, property losses or cyclones.
Krugman’s logic in this particular article doesn’t appear faulty to me. But I don’t agree with his backup. I know of two critiques at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/ncar-number-of-record-highs-beat-record-lows-if-you-believe-the-quality-of-data-from-the-weather-stations
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/pielke-sr-on-the-record-highs-vs-record-lows-story
I don’t think that small temperature differences makes any difference to the probability of extreme weather,mild weather or extreme weather it is just a toss of a coin,over a period of time these extreme variations both hot and cold balance.