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.
“Why would climate refugees be more numerous? The number of climate “events” will be the same. Why are you so slow to grasp this concept?”
Personally, I think the worry is due to the sheer terror of uncertainty. The weather models going 20+ years out are still a shot in the dark. If all people can predict is “well, things will change, but we don’t know exactly what changes will occur where” that makes leaders and corporate tycoons very, very nervous.
And yes, I said “weather models”, not “climate models”. Because the amount of food that gets from the soil to your mouth (or the mouth of the cow that you’re going to kill and eat) depends on this year’s weather, not this year’s climate.
Industrial civilization doesn’t turn on a dime. Decades upon decades of capital investment have built the infrastructure that houses consumers in one location and farming in another. If arable land area simply expands in response to climate change, great! But if arable land area shifts due to climate change… who knows who will get screwed?
It would be amazing for the badlands of Arizona and New Mexico to become arable again, but what if the central United States becomes simultaneously less arable? Even if the total arable land area increases (meaning more food production SOME DAY) there would be losses to food production in the short term while the infrastructure is built. Worse, if there is a sizable percentage shift between arable land areas of entire countries – well if that goes on too long, it usually means war.
All of which is speculative. There is a model or study out there for everyone’s nightmare. When a large number of wealthy, intelligent people find themselves in a situation where their intelligence and resources don’t guarantee protection of their wealth, they panic. And that rolls down hill.
Brian, thank you for your comments (on February 9, 2011 at 9:55 pm).
First, with respect to your last para, you should note that I did not say “inconsequential” or “not consequential”, rather I said “less consequential” (which is not quite the same thing).
In any case, let’s consider how rapidly the pot may be shrinking.
With respect to deaths, which I would say is of paramount importance, the figure above showed that in the 80-year period from the 1920s to the 2000s, death rates declined by 98% — almost two orders of magnitude. It would, therefore, not be unusual to see a similar decline worldwide by 2100, particularly if everyone is a lot wealthier than today (which is the basic assumption in the IPCC emissions scenarios which determine the magnitude of projected global warming) provided we continue to do what worked in the past (and not persist doing what didn’t). These include continuing to amass wealth, developing and/or maintaining transportation and communication networks, satellite monitoring systems and tools to improve weather forecasts (etc.), and enhancing peoples’ ability to respond on their own. So both absolute number of deaths and death rates from extreme weather events (EWE) should be much smaller in 2100 than they are today, perhaps by an order of magnitude.
[Population growth between now and 2100 could increase the death toll by 40-50%, but would not make up for the decline in death rates.]
Note that globally deaths from EWE are currently of the order of 0.06% of all deaths annually, and declining. As noted in the paper at http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf:
So on both counts, deaths from EWE would be “less consequential” than they are today.
What about property losses?
These seem to be growing along with wealth, although there are a couple of new papers by Mendelsohn and co-workers done for the World Bank (that Pielke Jr’s site provides links to) which suggest that they may grow less rapidly. Regardless, I would be pleasantly surprised if they didn’t continue to grow in absolute terms. How so?
First, when people feel physically safe and less at risk of losing their lives, they become, in my opinion, more prone to take risks with their property. This risky behavior is further compounded by the expectation that the government and/or insurance companies will compensate them substantially, if not fully. But a lot of this risk is taken on at one’s option (especially in the wealthy countries). My solution to this would be to not subsidize these folks.
Compared to the hundreds of billions per year that it would cost to significantly reduce global warming, I would say the losses from more frequent and intense EWEs from global warming, assuming it even occurs, are “less consequential.”
For the reasons outlined above, I certainly would not spend these hundreds of billions of dollars annually on reducing global warming. Instead I would spend my resources doing the things suggested above and in eliminating perverse incentives that encourage risky behavior. I would do this because we know for a fact that there will be more EWEs even if global warming does not increase their frequencies and intensities. On the other hand, we have no confidence that if the globe does warm that it will necessarily increase the frequencies and intensities for all types of events.
Given the uncertainties, it would be foolish to spend hundreds of billions on emission reductions, particularly if we can do just as well if not better at a fraction of the cost by increasing our adaptive capacity (via “focused adaptation” and by becoming wealthier). [For more on the rationale, see the paper, “Is Climate Change the ‘Defining Challenge of Our Age’”? Energy & Environment 20(3): 279-302 (2009). This can be accessed via http://goklany.org.]
As explained in the above citation, these hundreds of billions annually would be better spent solving today’s real problems (such as reducing the loss of life and property from extreme weather events, infectious diseases, hunger, and access to safer water and sanitation) rather than some hypothetical problems that may or may not occur sometime in the future.
“People are angry about this, so they are expressing it. If you want to see ad homs in a science blog, visit RealClimate or Climate Progress. – Anthony”
Justify bad behavour because the other guy does it is just wrong. One should behave well because it is the right thing to do independent of what others do.
“If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also,
look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb? in your own conscience, now?”
Steve;
If the warming is being driven from the atmosphere down, the temperature difference between the ocean depths and the troposphere is initially going to grow and remain larger for a long time (from the perspective of a human life). The heat capacity of the atmosphere is nothing compared to the oceans. You can’t expect a 1 C temp increase in the troposphere to translate into a 1 C temp increase to the ocean depths for decades.>>>
Exactly. The heat capacity of the atmosphere being small, and wind being the primary mechanism by which energy in the atmosphere is evened out, that is where the bulk of extreme weather events are generated. Daily heating and cooling in any given area is at least 10 degrees and often 20 or even 30 degrees, and that is in a single day! The average temperature at the poles is more than 60 degrees below the tropics. And in temperate zones the seasonal swing from winter to summer might be over 80 degrees. And them’s degrees C not those wimpy Fahrenhiet degrees!
So as those numbers get smaller because cold things rise in temperature more than warm things, the energy potentials get smaller and the weather events associated with them decline in intensity. Pointing out that over a period of decades the ocean will increase by one degree and that is a lot more energy than a one degree temperature change in the atmosphere is meaningless. Weather is driven by daily and seasonal events, and by temperature differential. If a century from now the entire atmosphere on average, and the entire ocean on average, are one degree warmer, what would that mean to the various temperature differentials?
Answer 1-1=0.
Except that there is no such thing as “average” so you have to go back to the primary weather drivers, daily, seasonal and latitude temperature differentials, which as I already pointed out, are smaller.
Hmmm, I could be wrong though, let’s look at data. Get out your globe and start marking all the countries noted for their mild, stable, climates. Gee, look how many are close to the ocean….
davidmhoffer says:
February 11, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“Pointing out that over a period of decades the ocean will increase by one degree and that is a lot more energy than a one degree temperature change in the atmosphere is meaningless. Weather is driven by daily and seasonal events, and by temperature differential. If a century from now the entire atmosphere on average, and the entire ocean on average, are one degree warmer, what would that mean to the various temperature differentials? Answer 1-1=0.”
Did you comprehend my post at all? It wasn’t that long. Key phrase is “…the temperature difference between the ocean depths and the troposphere is initially going to grow and remain larger for a long time…”
Weather patterns generated by deep ocean upwelling will have a larger temperature differential (between the deep ocean and the troposphere) to drive them. Until thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved, which will take decades.
Maybe you need to see it in pictures…
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/tropics/enso_patterns.htm
“Get out your globe and start marking all the countries noted for their mild, stable, climates. Gee, look how many are close to the ocean….”
Hmmm, Australia goes from suicide-inducing droughts to devastating floods over a course of 3 years… stable?
Steve, Steve, Steve,
I’m sorry I don’t comprehend.
There’s some things I don’t understand.
Like for starters, by “troposphere down” I assume you mean from Long Wave radiation? Might I ask how it gets into the ocean in the first place? LW only penetrates a few microns before being absorbed and the energy is almost instantly transmitted back to the atmosphere via evaporation.
Or by “troposphere down” did you mean Short Wave? Well SW comes straight from the Sun, and while it does in fact penetrate a few hundred meters of ocean, any ocean temperature variance that results would be due to variations in Solar radiance. Aside from being perfectly natural, if you know of a way to mitigate variations in solar radiance I’d be interested to hear about it.
Not to mention that the ocean is ultimately subject to Stefan-Boltzman as well. The warm water will warm the least and the cold water will warm the most, reducing the temperature differentials in the ocean. Further, recall what I said about temperature distribution by latitude. The temperature record agrees with Stefan-Boltzman. One degree of warming over the last century shows up as 4 to 6 degrees at the poles and a massive, collosal, 0.1 degrees in the tropics. The temperature differential to the oceans depths is a miniscule in the very area that generates extreme weather due to the processes you say I don’t understand.
As for Australia, good one. You got me. How could I have missed that? Aside from the evidence that Australia has experienced that type of cycle many times in the past, it must only be this last one that is because of global warming.
Go back to the globe. Pick a local surrounded by ocean. Pick a local surrounded by land at the same latitude. Try for example Britain and Saskatchewan. Compare the daily and seasonal and annual average temperatures. Why does Britain, at the same latitude, have warmer average temps annualy and far less variation seasonaly and also daily? We’re arguing temperature fluctuation and how the ocean mitigates that and your response is “oh yeah, well what about floods in Australia?”
My mistake, I thought we were talking about temperature differentials. Or does flooding cause temperature changes? Or are you arguing that the flooding is indicative of a temperature change? Because if you are, why bother measuring the flooding and arguing that it is symptomatic of temperature change when you can just measure the temperature instead? Perhaps because direct measurement of the data doesn’t support your argument?
Not to mention that Australia is a continent, so you started by arguing that increased temperature differential between ocean depths and troposphere would increase extreme weather events propped up by an example of flooding on a continent. I would think you would have chosen as an example to support your argument the increase of extreme weather events over ocean areas subject to the increased temperature differential from the troposphere warming. You know, like hurricanes. Oops I forgot, total cyclone energy has been dropping for the last few decades, probably shouldn’t have picked that one. I know! You could use increased snowfall and record low temps at increasingly southern latitudes, counter intuitive obviously but at least the numbers would be on your side if not the logic.
Perhaps you could clarify with some better examples because I have to admit your very short explanation is very hard to follow?
Just remember everything in life conforms precisely to a simplified model of reality, just like US house prices.
Everyone recognizes that the award of Noble prizes is politically motivated to advance the leftard agenda. Fine. But let’s not pretend that these phony certificates are evidence of any unusual knowledge, expertise, or moral authority. On the contrary. They are tickets to Clown Circus, where buffoons like Obama, Clinton, and Gore caper in fright wigs and baggy pants. Both are wholly disconnected from reality.
I wonder if Krugman has any connections to the World Bank (who were chosen at Cancun to oversee the 100 billion “climate change” fund, AFAIK) ..
No, you are giving Eadler too much credit.
Eadler’s argument was not conditional. Eadler stated:
His statement is not conditional. His statement is absolute. There is no written or implied IF in his statements.
My reply was quite “on point.”
Btw, Eadler’s absolute assertion was an attempt to move the goal post after his prior comments were logically debunked.
davidmhoffer says:
February 11, 2011 at 10:48 pm
“Like for starters, by “troposphere down” I assume you mean from Long Wave radiation?”
Nope, just meant it exactly as it read. The heat increase in the atmosphere, by whatever method it is heated, must diffuse down into the ocean depths. That diffusion of heat is going to take decades.
“Might I ask how it gets into the ocean in the first place?”
The same way the water gets into the ocean – the hydrological cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
Which includes the ocean currents:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif
“Not to mention that the ocean is ultimately subject to Stefan-Boltzman as well.The warm water will warm the least and the cold water will warm the most, reducing the temperature differentials in the ocean.”
You keep talking as if these systems were giant block objects subject to simple black body physics. If I light my oven, will the temperature in my freezer rise faster than in my oven? If it doesn’t, has the Stefan–Boltzmann law been violated somehow? Well, no, and that’s why the atmosphere can experience a temperature increase greater than the ocean depths.
Now, if the heat were being generated somewhere deep in the ocean and radiated out, we’d have a different system…
“The temperature differential to the oceans depths is a miniscule in the very area that generates extreme weather due to the processes you say I don’t understand.”
Whatever the amount, it is greater, correct? And as you pointed out, it is an increase in the temperature differential that drives the process we call weather. So whatever weather was being driven by that temperature differential before will now have more energy available, correct?
“As for Australia, good one. You got me. How could I have missed that? Aside from the evidence that Australia has experienced that type of cycle many times in the past, it must only be this last one that is because of global warming…My mistake, I thought we were talking about temperature differentials. Or does flooding cause temperature changes? Or are you arguing that the flooding is indicative of a temperature change?”
My statements are meant as a counterpoint to one and only one hypothesis of yours:
“The total amount of energy in the system may be larger as a result of warming, but with lower temperature differentials at every level of the equation, the science is clear. A warmer earth means a more stable earth. A warmer earth means less extremes in temperature differentials, and hence less extremes in all the weather processes derived from them. Which is all of them.”
I called it a simplified view because that’s what it is. There are not lower temperature differentials at every level of the equation – there is an increased temperature differential between the ocean depths and the troposphere. This is key to ENSO, which drives a variety of weather events.