From Princeton University (with help from Berkeley)
Cool heads likely won’t prevail in a hotter, wetter world
Should climate change trigger the upsurge in heat and rainfall that scientists predict, people may face a threat just as perilous and volatile as extreme weather — each other.
Researchers from Princeton University and the University of California-Berkeley report in the journal Science that even slight spikes in temperature and precipitation have greatly increased the risk of personal violence and social upheaval throughout human history. Projected onto an Earth that is expected to warm by 2 degrees Celsius by 2050, the authors suggest that more human conflict is a likely outcome of climate change.
The researchers analyzed 60 studies from a number of disciplines — including archaeology, criminology, economics and psychology — that have explored the connection between weather and violence in various parts of the world from about 10,000 BCE to the present day. During an 18-month period, the Princeton-Berkeley researchers reviewed those studies’ data — and often re-crunched raw numbers — to calculate the risk that violence would rise under hotter and wetter conditions.
They found that while climate is not the sole or primary cause of violence, it undeniably exacerbates existing social and interpersonal tension in all societies, regardless of wealth or stability. They found that 1 standard-deviation shift — the amount of change from the local norm — in heat or rainfall boosts the risk of a riot, civil war or ethnic conflict by an average of 14 percent. There is a 4 percent chance of a similarly sized upward creep in heat or rain sparking person-on-person violence such as rape, murder and assault. The researchers report that climate-change models predict an average of 2 to 4 standard-deviation shifts in global climate conditions by 2050.
Establishing a correlation between violence and climate change now allows policymakers and researchers to examine what causes it and how to intervene, said lead author Solomon Hsiang, who conducted the work as a postdoctoral research associate in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: The researchers analyzed 60 studies from a number of disciplines that have explored the connection between weather and violence in various parts of the world, and throughout human history. A…
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
“We think that by collecting all the research together now, we’re pretty clearly establishing that there is a causal relationship between the climate and human conflict,” Hsiang said. “People have been skeptical up to now of an individual study here or there. But considering the body of work together, we can now show that these patterns are extremely general. It’s more of the rule than the exception.
“Whether there is a relationship between climate and conflict is not the question anymore. We now want to understand what’s causing it,” Hsiang said. “Once we understand what causes this correlation we can think about designing effective policies or institutions to manage or interrupt the link between climate and conflict.”
The existing research had essentially shown an overall link between climate conditions and these conflicts, but that link needed to be extracted from reams of figures from various disciplines in order for the research to reach general conclusions, Hsiang said. Hsiang, who is now an assistant professor at Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, worked with co-first author Marshall Burke, a doctoral candidate in Berkeley’s Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Edward Miguel, the Oxfam Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics at Berkeley.
“We attained a huge amount of the data that was available and we used the same method on all of the data so that we could directly compare studies,” Hsiang said. “Once we did that, we saw that all of the results were actually highly consistent — previously they just weren’t being analyzed in a consistent way.”
The researchers examined three categories of conflict: “personal violence and crime,” which includes murder, assault, rape and domestic violence; “intergroup violence and political instability,” such as civil wars, riots, ethnic violence and land invasions; and “institutional breakdowns,” which are abrupt and major changes in governing institutions or, in extreme cases, the collapse of entire civilizations.
Extreme climatic conditions amplified violence in all three categories, regardless of geography, societal wealth or the time in history. An aberrant climate coincided with incidents including spikes in domestic violence in India and Australia; increased assaults and murders in the United States and Tanzania; ethnic violence in Europe and South Asia; land invasions in Brazil; police using force in the Netherlands; civil conflicts throughout the tropics; the collapse of ancient empires; and wars and displacement in Middle-Ages Europe.
“We find the same pattern over and over again, regardless of whether we look at data from Brazil, Somalia, China or the United States,” Miguel said. “We often think of modern society as largely independent of the environment, due to technological advances, but our findings challenge that notion. The climate appears to be a critical factor sustaining peace and wellbeing across human societies.”
And the climate does not have to deviate much to upset that peace and wellbeing, Burke said. The 1 standard-deviation shift he and his co-authors uncovered equates to a seemingly paltry change in weather: it’s roughly equal to warming an African country by 0.35°C, or by 0.63°F, for an entire year, or warming a county in the United States by 2.9°C, or by 5.2°F, for a given month.
“These are pretty moderate changes, but they have a sizable impact on those societies,” Burke said. Many global climate models project global temperature increases of at least 2 degrees Celsius over the next several decades, which, when combined with the Princeton-Berkeley findings, suggest that warming at that level could increase the risk of civil war in many countries by more than 50 percent, the researchers said.
The factors that interact with climate to produce chaos and discord are varied. A popular theory is that drought and flooding cripple an economy, especially one based on agriculture or that is already weak. When people look for someone to blame, governmental leaders have a target on their backs, as do any people with whom there is existing tension, such as an ethnic minority or a migrant group from stricken hinterlands.
But sometimes heat just makes people more aggressive. The researchers found that personal violence was far more influenced by a leap in temperature. Hsiang and his colleagues cite studies that equate excessive heat with spikes of violence in the United States and other stable, wealthy countries. For example, a 1994 study found that two groups of police officers undergoing the exact same simulation training were more likely to draw their weapons if the room was uncomfortably warm.
“There’s a large amount of evidence that environmental conditions actually change a person’s perception of their own condition, or they also can change the likelihood of people using violence or aggressive action to accomplish some goal,” Hsiang said.
“Our study is not saying that climate is the only cause of conflict, and there’s no conflict that we think should be wholly attributed to some specific climatic event,” he said. “Every conflict has roots in interpersonal and intergroup relations. What we’re trying to point out is that climate is one of the critical factors the affect how things escalate, and if they escalate to the point of violence.”
The paper, “Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict,” was published in Science Aug. 1. The study was funded by a Princeton University postdoctoral fellowship in science, technology and environmental policy, a Graduate Research Fellowship from the National Science Foundation, and the Oxfam Faculty Chair in Environmental and Resource Economics at Berkeley.
Dear Gary Pearce,
Millions of us TRIED. Sigh. CO2 poisoning swayed the rest.
BTW — tried to catch you on another thread and missed — I DO understand why nuclear power, which is an EXCELLENT power source (where properly constructed/maintained) with a nearly prefect safety record, is, for now, often not cost effective: fantasy science and anti-truth forces. You sounded pretty annoyed with me, so, I wanted to be sure you realize that I actually AGREE WITH YOU. (I just didn’t want to return to that disgusting (as it became) thread to tell you). I sure hope you read this second attempt at this message. Janice
‘Establishing a correlation between violence and climate change … allows policymakers … to examine … it and how to intervene, said lead author Solomon Hsiang, who conducted the work as a postdoctoral research associate in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.’
Wow, how appropriate. You mean, referring to research (a much too distinguished word) establishing a link between climate change and violence you ask? Nope. I mean conducting this kind of research (again, too dignified a description) at an institute appropriately titled for this kind of research (again, too dig… ok, I’ll stop): the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Our dear Woodrow is, unarguably, the lodestar for the Progressive movement, yet he remains its blushing wallflower. Why is that? Could it be the federal income tax amendment? Now, I know that’s unfair. The income tax amendment was in the works before Woody tap danced into the White House. Nonetheless, it was Woodrow Wilson who signed that legislation that proved to be the goose that laid the golden egg for, what is now, the insatiable appetite of a virtually monolithic federal government. Oh, and by the way, that tax was only going to apply to the rich (Obama supporters, you listening?).
Or, could it be the more humble XVII Amendment, also passed in 1913. That amendment changed the selection of Senators from being Statehouse decisions to being decided at the ballot boxes in public elections. Ahh, but that was done for democracy, eh? Sure, that’s why Hillary, who spent her political life in Arkansas decided the people of New York needed her ambition…er, services. Let’s not even discuss Barack other than to say that if it wasn’t for the XVII Amendment he wouldn’t be president today. Argue with that.
Speaking of democracy, well Woody Wilson tainted alla that too. Didn’t he coin the term, ‘keeping the world save for democracy?’ Forever after people believed the US was a great democracy. Sorry, the founders never wanted a democracy. A democracy’s nothing other than mob rule. But it infuses the elected official with power. Obama anyone? And let us not forget our dear Woody’s famous line following the end of a war that was elective for the US, but in which he engaged us; World War 1; where he called it, “The war to end all wars.” Well, maybe all wars for maybe 20 years. And let us not forget, that with one exception, all the major wars the US fought during the 20th Century were initiated by Progressive Democrats. Also let us remember that Woodrow Wilson initiated the League of Nations, the forerunner to the UN that we all enjoy so much today. And the UN got the ball rolling on climate change.
Did I say Woodrow had little use for the Constitution? All good progressives do. Unlike our POTUS, however, who expresses a false fealty to it, Woody came right out and called it outdated. But one thing that wasn’t outdated in Wilson’s book was racism. When he was in that White House he intended to keep it as white as white could be. Blacks in government employ were segregated in his administration. And Woodrow Willy expressed a fondness for the KKK.
But I’ve saved the best for last. Perhaps it was the reason (although I think I’ve shown quite a few) that Progressives co-opted the term Liberal with which to describe themselves. Since liberal meant someone who favored liberty it was, how does one say this, jf&@zydxu inaccurate. But, for a time it was a sufficient bamboozler. With memories short, it’s back to the name they dared not use for almost 70 years. You see, during the Progressive administration of Woodrow Wilson the XVIII Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1919. Just like this bogus climate research that shows policy makers how to deal with violence by stopping global warming by shutting down electrical generating capacity (since dark streets and hot apartments are conducive to civility) that XVIII Amendment promised to diminish something else besides 2 degree warmer temperatures that induced violence as well. And how did the XVIII Amendment claim to reduce violence? By prohibiting alcohol. Yep, the XVIII Amendment was otherwise known as Prohibition.
Maybe I’ve been babbling, and maybe it’s just me, but I think all the foregoing illustrates why an institution named, Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, seems so very appropriate for being engaged in this global warming progressive experimental nonsense.
Who knew? I am apparently a road rage risk for driving around in an un-airconditioned car.
For whoever was talking about the cold being a higher risk of self-harm and pushing people over the edge, it has a name – Seasonal Affective Disorder.
As for the quality of the “science” being done here, I just recently watched Idiocracy again, and all I can say about their reasoning is “Brawndo. It’s got what plants crave.”
This is rubbish, they are talking about a deviation in conditions causing violence, if the earth was 2C hotter it would be the norm and people would be adapted to it.
What are the trends in conflict, warfare, murder rates since the end of the Little Ice Age? Are the people of Death Valley a murderous bunch? Were the Minoans a happy people? Did they sweat? So many questions, I don’t know how to keep a cool head. Grrrrrrr. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I hate you ALLLLLL.
PS, as I do actually live in the tropics I have noticed that I have been particularly mild mannered in nature. I was a very angry chap when I stood at freezing bus stops waiting to go to work in London. I was totally stressed being cramped up in the subway. Today, I can choose to sit on the beach sipping cocktails and watch the golden sunsets. This is stressing me out badly. I think I am going to go out and commit a bad crime. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
The rutabagas who came up with this argument obviously haven’t read their history. Historically, before the twentieth century, the worst strife and violence has mostly occurred during colder periods, especially the Dark Ages (5th-9th centuries) and the Little Ice Age (1400-1850). The difference in the twentieth century is due primarily to the rise of socialism, the most murderous and destructive force in history – not climate change. And of course the mass murder portended by CAGW is consistent with an otherwise socialist-kleptocrat mindset.
Angry is the wrong word…….
Everything you ever wanted to know about Genghis Khan (first of a 5 part audio history).
http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-43—Wrath-of-the-Khans-I/Mongols-Genghis-Chingis
—————
I’d go with ……ravenous.
(not sure if it would pass the pc police).
Always need to put the best face on human nature, then storm the beaches of Normandy.
“Aberrant climate”? Pfft. I noticed they said nothing about how cold affects crop yields, leaving people hungry and leading to intergroup violence and political instability, as well as institutional breakdowns, including the collapse of entire civilizations. French Revolution, anyone?
It’s the phlogiston. Breathing in all that phlogiston (combined with extra CO2, forsooth!) makes people uncontrollably hot-headed. Tempers flare constantly.
I can prove it, too. Just give me a grant.
What about suicides? Surely, angry people should come from hot countries? Or is that depressed? Does poverty make you depressed? Greece has the lowest suicide rate of the OECD countries while South Korea has the highest. According to Wiki Greenland, Lithuania and South Korea have the highest suicide rates, while the Maldives, Jamaica, Syria, Egypt, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Haiti and Nepal have the lowest. Could it turn around? Might we see Antiquan’s turning to tropical island savagery? Kenya is doomed. Australia is angry. It’s all over.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Thought being stuck indoors in blustery -15C winter storm conditions, especially with rambunctious kids was called getting “cabin fever”?
Napoleonic wars = cool world
World War 1 = cool world
World War 2 = warmer world
Modern day relative peace = we came out of the ‘hottest decade on the record’ and it’s still hot.
Europe is in general peace. Russia and the USA have reduced their proxy wars. The world has NEVER had it so good. These changes took place during the modern warm period – as hot as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (according to jai mitchell). I sometimes wonder why I am sceptical. Good night.
Janice Moore says:
August 1, 2013 at 4:34 pm
“Dear Gary Pearce,”
Hello Janice, I want you to know that I was not in the least angry about your remarks on the cost of Nuke Energy. My occasional gruff is only for emphasis and decoration. Like my Fulani warrior above, he’s probably a very sweet guy under that menacing outfit. I have been greatly annoyed and thrown my shoes in the fireplace on other subjects such as drowning islands, flooding deltas and 2C causing WWIII (or World War one hundred and eleven if my old friend Charlie Farquarson was still around – he always referred to WWII as WW eleven). He would have had a ball with ‘Yer Castratistrophic Artherosclermorphic Globular Warmongering’ or some such. He screwed up words something awful.
tonyb says:
August 1, 2013 at 1:03 pm
So, would someone emigrating from Temperate Britain to much hotter Australia suddenly become a much more violent and criminal person?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
Or someone moving from chilly New Hampshire/Taxachusetts to North Carolina?
Avg. Temperature Annual Raleigh NC 59.3F (15.2C) link
Avg. Temperature Annual Worcester MA 46.7F (8.2C) link
WOW! A WHOLE 8 degrees C, I must be REALLY REALLY angry…. or happy I don’t have to shovel snow anymore…
Based on this logic, environmentalists should agree that on super hot days, lowering the AC temperature is better for everyone. ;-))
Bob Diaz,
They don’t mind a low thermostat, if the building has 10,000 residents crammed into a half acre high rise. Cause that’s “sustainable” doncha know. You see the thermal mass of the building will insulate and allow more efficient use of electricity. (do I need /sarc?)
Their dream to me is a dystopian future not worth living. To them “Logan’s Run” was a road map to the future.
Seems its aggregate, correlate and conflate day? Nobody told me.
Using exactly the same logic we can see that hot temperatures cause Islam. Is there a hint of a mechanism here perhaps?
Dr. R.J. Rummel has spent his career assembling data on collective violence and war. He has found another cause. The real killer is GOVERNMENT – especially totalitarian government.
Some how I found Dr Rummel much more believable.
Tom J says:
August 1, 2013 at 4:37 pm
What a fine essay on Woodrow Wilson – perhaps that’s where WWI came from and of course WWII. So this progressive stuff and all its fruits can be traced back to old DubbiaDubbia? Prohibition was a boon to Canada – probably launched our little economy and apparently launched the Kennedys as well.
Churchill said, when he chose Dwight Eisenhower to command the joint forces to invade the continent instead of Field Marshal Montgomery, that he didn’t trust a man who didn’t take a drink. I think Monty sealed the deal when he expressed distaste over Churchill’s cigar smoke.
So are you all going to keep voting in progressives until progress finally stops?
Cynical Scientst says:
August 1, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Using exactly the same logic we can see that hot temperatures cause Islam. Is there a hint of a mechanism here perhaps?
—————–
You lost me when you said “logic”, not to mention “mechanism”, then your handle includes “Scientst “.
The bait remains hanging, maybe another website ?
During the Little Ice Age, the Belgians started a little revolution at the end of August, 1830. Belgium was formed as a result and the revolution ended early in July, 1831. The new king was installed … an emission from the house of Saxe-Coburg … the original European Union. 😉
I don’t believe you warm earth not warm it sun cycle coming global cool. I’m sick globalwarming not true.
these are just some of the English MSM headlines:
Christian Science Monitor: Global warming, more wars? Climate could spark more conflict, study says.
National Geographic: Wars, Murders to Rise Due to Global Warming?
Bloomberg: Global Warming Sparks Fistfights and War, Researchers Say
UK Register: Study: As climate change surges, more people will TRY TO KILL YOU
UK Independent: Climate change linked to conflict among people and societies
The Weather Channel: Heat, Drought Linked to Violence Worldwide
Thanks so much for responding, Gary Pearse. Much appreciated. LOL, in real life, I LOVE to be, (cough) “dramatic.” My German Shepherd HATES it. You enjoy putting that flair for drama into your WRITING. I’ll try to remember that. #[:)]
****************
Well, well, Mr. I-do-not-talk-to-strange-women Jimbo — so glad to see your power (or battery, at least) is on enough to allow posting. Glad to know all those power outages you have told us of before didn’t put you in danger of hypothermia.
*********************
Ms. Combs — I sure hope you DID get that pick-up unstuck from the mud (use literal horse power?). We seem to be always contre temps re: my asking after your well-being. Par for the course for me.