Bishop Hill The Economist goes all lukewarm and pragmatic
Apr 3, 2014 Climate: WG2 In a must-read article, the Economist has decided that climate is no longer the only problem in the world and that decarbonising the economy in a futile attempt to stop climate change is a fool's errand.
Until now, many of them have thought of the climate as a problem like no other: its severity determined by meteorological factors, such as the interaction between clouds, winds and oceans; not much influenced by “lesser” problems, like rural development; and best dealt with by trying to stop it (by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions). The new report breaks with this approach. It sees the climate as one problem among many, the severity of which is often determined by its interaction with those other problems. And the right policies frequently try to lessen the burden—to adapt to change, rather than attempting to stop it. In that respect, then, this report marks the end of climate exceptionalism and the beginning of realism.
On the policy front at least, we seem to be getting somewhere.
Reader Comments (61)
Maybe their problem is the General Public never were interested in Climate Change to begin with.
Apathy saves the day again.
Is Matt Ridley writing for the Economist again?
This outbreak of rational thought reminds me of the years when I gladly paid a subscription for this magazine as the one place I could get analysis over emotion. I might have to wait and see if it is sustained.....
Good to see that the Economist is at last nodding in the general direction of reality but they are still in thrall to the favourite alarmist shibboleths of sea-level rise and ocean "acidification".
Neither do they appear to have any inclination to look deeper at the claims for lower crop yields which are at least debatable and, as we have seen in one instance quoted today, bordering on the mendacious.
Added to which the continued persistence that a 2° increase is "all but inevitable" is starting to become boring and once again no effort is made to unpick the glib headline figures quoted to establish whether or not an average earth temperature 1.2° higher than now (0.8 having already been factored in if you read the small print) will be on balance beneficial to mankind or not. Increasingly the answer we are getting is "yes it will".
1.2°C? Equivalent to a hundred and twenty nautical miles nearer the equator for most of the inhabited world. What's not to like? Is it really such a nightmare in Bordeaux?
1.2°C? Equivalent to a hundred and twenty nautical miles nearer the equator for most of the inhabited world. What's not to like? Is it really such a nightmare in Bordeaux?
Apr 3, 2014 at 5:18 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda
To be honest, Rhoda, NO ! Today it is wetter and colder than the southern UK. We have 14°C and rain all day. Our weather tends to be the same as the UK but slightly warmer. However, I would much rather live here than in the UK.
rhoda
I don't know but my daughter is looking forward to working in Biarritz this summer so it can't be that bad.
Because the Economist is realistic about 'Other Peoples' Money'?
120 miles ?
That only takes me to Carlisle ;(
There has been such a chorus of articles saying much the same thing recently, so I've written a round-up of some of them. I have also posted up Robin Guenier's short piece "Why UK climate change policies are pointless" which is well worth reading.
It has always seemed to me that whatever you think about Global Warming, none of the proposed measures to stop the climate warming have
a) the slightest chance of making a significant difference
b) the slightest chance of being widely adopted
Even the greenies don't live without internet and products made from or by using hydrocarbons.
On the same page is a link to Why Homeopathy is Nonsense.Rather apt.
The Economist a bunch of Homeopathy Deniers.
This text is a little ambiguous as it refers to tropical yields declining if temperature (presumably here meaning global average temperature) rises by the 'inevitable' 2°C. However, perhaps others may help me here because I was led to believe that the tropics are as hot as they can get - the so-called greenhouse effect being greater the further away from the tropics and being all but non-existent in the tropics. That is why we are encouraged to get so excited about missing heat hiding in the arctic - obviously it can't find its way to the antarctic because as we all know heat rises:)
Any road up, the point is, can the tropics actually get any warmer under the putative extra forcing of CO2? Anyone know?
BoFA
Try the east coast route. Northumberland has a wonderful climate! I'm biased of course.
120 miles; I could put up with the climate of Britanny.
For what is supposedly a top flight news review outlet looking into subjects in depth this is decidedly second rate. Still falling for runaway temperatures, sea level rise, ocean acidification etc. Much like Stern, Garnaut etc.
It seems that The ECONOMIST and most economists are gullible. It makes one wonder how accurate their other articles are.
Once again the skeptics are proven right.
I do wonder how the nasty trash talkers in the American government and elsewhere, with their childish talk about 'flat earthers' are going to back off and pretend it was all their idea from the start.
@Phillip Bratby
Where?
hunter: I think the sarcasm of a Steyn and the disbelief of a Delingpole may come in handy there. Plus thousands of lesser but eager wordsmiths. It should be a lot of fun.
1.2 deg C base level climate sensitivity (you get it from MODTRAN) assumes there is no relative variation of the IR emission to Space from the three main emitters. This is not true which is why the atmosphere self-compensates, using CO2 as the working fluid of the Heat Engine.
In other words, there is near zero CO2-AGW. It takes an engineer to understand this.
120 miles would put me in Edinburgh.
East windy and West endy.
Not good enough, global warming!
I remember an article in the Economist many years ago about a study (maybe it was studies plural) analysing the effects of second-hand smoke. The writer pointed out that when the study as originally designed did not find second-hand smoke harmful, they simply moved the goalposts and redefined harmful effects.
Note the adjective "many." I have not subscribed in years, and every time I glance at one of the Economist covers in the small local library, I am thoroughly thankful not to be buying a product guaranteed to raise my blood pressure.
A new campaign from 350.org, mandatory BBC climate propaganda every night.
http://campaigns.350.org/petitions/bbc-news-reporting-should-feature-a-regular-climate-change-report
"Featuring a climate change report in the BBC's standard programming schedule would be immensely useful in counteracting the ongoing, and very damaging, effects of myths and misinformation."
"...a climate change report in the BBC's standard programming schedule would be immensely useful...
Some might say there already is one, Bill. It comes after the shipping forecast, but generally only details the climate for the next 24 hours and possibly a few days.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
“In reading The History of Nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”
― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds 1842
"Rising sea levels are an example of the first sort of problem. Thermal expansion of the water in the oceans means that, at current rates, the average sea level could go up half a metre (20 inches) by the end of the century. That would be pure bad news for people living in coastal cities."
I live in a coastal city. Our tides go from 0 to 16 feet almost every day. We can deal with 20 inches over 86 years.
Especially since the alarmist satellite data only shows 65mm over 20 years - 11 inches/
Headless Chicken : "can the tropics actually get any warmer under the putative extra forcing of CO2?"
Over the last half-century, tropics have warmed by about 0.6 K according to GISS. Look at the graph below the map for the temperature change by latitude.
AR5 WG1 Figure 12.12 shows the predicted change in temperature by latitude (and also altitude). The GCMs predict that the tropics will warm. Whether or not you find that convincing, it's evidence that tropical warming is not precluded on physical grounds.
Headless Chicken: The tropics will probably stay the same with the poles warming most.Mid latitudes less than the poles, so let's guess 150 miles nearer to the equator which, I'm sorry to say isn't Bordeaux but probably Boulogne, which is pretty much the same climate as we have today. Depend on where you live of course.
Sorry, my mistake, Bordeaux was the two degree relocation for Oxford which I usually use, not the 1.2. Or say Oxford has already moved 80miles south from where it was in 1850. In the channel, somewhere.
When I worked in Saudi in the early part of this century I took to the Economist because it gave me a better picture of the world than I could get from Saudi/English language papers, and from such mindless publications as Time magazine. I then spent 2 years in Thailand; and the gloss started to wear off. When I returned to Australia and could get real newspapers and more internet publications were available, the scales fell from my eyes and I could see that, while still well written, it was written by people with some peculiar ideas of the world. In fact, it ran to quite a collection of "rose fertiliser".
120 miles puts me into the Channel, some 30 miles NNW of Le Havre. Can't live there.
What happens within 120 miles of the equator? Does all the land pile up in the middle?
And worse, I assume a black hole will appear at both poles as they move 120 miles in every direction!.
I thought it was warmer here (Highland Perthshire) today, but just been outside to check and it is 4C. And it is raining. So yet another single figure day this week. (I think it got to double figures on Tuesday, but that was the highpoint for the week). Of course the Met Office says it is currently 6C here, but that's computer models for you, and at least they got the rain bit right. So if it is 4C down here it will be falling as snow on the mountains, at least the skiers will be happy.
http://www.snow-forecast.com/maps/static/scotland/next3to6days/snow
I have never had a high regard for the Economist. In the 1970s they published an op-ed suggesting that as the Highland economy was partly seasonal (thanks to tourism) it would make best economic sense for the land and remote villages to be cleared of the people, and bus them back in to run the hotels in the summers. (And they still wonder why a significant number of Scots are serious about independence).
jamspid on Apr 3, 2014 at 6:25 PM
"On the same page is a link to Why Homeopathy is Nonsense.Rather apt."
Very O/T! The article quotes the Lancet:
"The most comprehensive review of homeopathy was published in 2005 in the Lancet, a medical journal."
Lancet is a medical journal that has an agenda, a lack of understanding of homeopathy and a love of income from Big Phama and government 'subsidies', in the same way that the IPCC has an agenda, a lack of understanding of the Scientific method and a love of income and votes from BigGreen and government 'subsidies'.
No matter what the evidence is, they both fight in the theoretical arena where, if they don't understand it and won't accept the surprises that the scientific process springs, they instead, create pretend science experiments to 'prove' their point and refuse to participate in any 'external' investigations because they have to be in control to wreck any chance of advancing understanding in the subject.
And the comments under the article have a similar style that BH has to the UEA CRU.
They are still a very long way from getting my subscription back.
Boiled down, they are saying that all the gloomy predictions have been and are correct, but hey, we realise that it is impossible to prevent CO2 emissions from rising. Hardly a breakthrough in their thinking.
Instead of drinking straight vodka, they are now mixing it with orange juice to make it look more benign. That's all.
Thanks to Harold and geronimo for their feedback
HaroldW - do you give that GISS map and graph any credence? I don't - I prefer to look at individual stations e.g. Hong Kong which shows bugger all warming (when GISS says 1-2C): http://clivebest.com/world/Map-data.html - (uses Hadley/CRU).
Sri Lanka shows a steady rise from 1850s, (no late 20th century CO2 signal) - http://clivebest.com/world/imgs/434660.gif
Darjeeling is up and down and all over the place recently - http://clivebest.com/world/imgs/422950.gif
I wouldn't be surprised if GISS based their grid extrapolations on this unpronounceable station in India - http://clivebest.com/world/imgs/433710.gif - which sticks to the AGW script.
I think GISS and the HadCRU datasets have been adjusted and homogenised to death, and it is best to use individual station data. The results are usually much less alarming than the global datasets. The source page for the graphs is:
http://clivebest.com/world/Map-data.html
That the report now favours adaptation is little comfort because nobody in charge of policy ever seems to read it anyway. If they did then they would have known that the previous report said a small amount of warming was beneficial. The only reason that part has changed this time is because a small amount of warming is now exactly what they expect (whether they admit it or not). The inevitable consequence of the politically charged conclusion that every miniscule amount of warming is bad is that cooling must then be regarded as always beneficial which flies in the face of everything we know from history as well as science. Notwithstanding the idea that 2 degrees of warming is inevitable on the back of 0.6K warming/century and zero warming in the last 15+ years is just a pessimistic mantra with no science or logic behind it - just obviously flawed modeling.
lapogus - Don't GISS use 1200km grids?
Stop feeding the troll.
CO2 is a GHG and skeptics have been right along: Catastrophic clap trap promoted (most profitably) by our AGW fanatic friends has been a huge waste of time and money.
The impacts of changing levels of CO2 are, if evidence counts. The hypothesis that CO2 changes would drive an ever higher amount of dangerous feedbacks has not held up.
So can we now unwind from the hype mongering and get on with life?
Thank you.
I do have too much time on my hands currently and to be honest I enjoy the interchange even if it leads to a blind alley as I still find I can learn from the mindset either way.
But I do get you I assure.
I'm sort of a people-person I guess............
A
"Do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something we've known about since the 19th century, and can be demonstrated in any laboratory?"
Do you accept that liquid water is a 'greenhouse liquid' about 20,000 times more intense in its greenhouse effect than atmospheric CO2, something we've also known about since the 19th century, and can be demonstrated in any laboratory?
Could you therefore calculate the magnitude of the GHE in a pool of water? Are you capable?
[Delete away, Bish. This is off-topic, anyway.]
Could not believe (well, I suppose I should have, really) that Nick Clegg managed to insert 'climate change' about four times into the debate ABOUT EUROPE the other evening..
Nigel Farage, on the other hand, took the bull by the horns, and summarised the subject extremely well, I thought..
Just to repeat the results of the YouGov poll, Mr Clegg, in case you felt that you did ok..
Farage 68% Clegg 27% Don't Knows 5%
The Guardian (The GUARDIAN..!) had Mr Farage on 69%...
"I shall cogitate and try to respond if permitted."
Don't bother. Arctic ice decline is a consequence of changes in winds and currents pushing ice southwards. The reduction in ice causes warming, not the other way round. It's got nothing to do with global warming.
The glaciers have been declining since the mid 1800s, long before significant AGW, and are more likely due to precipitation changes.
Sea level rise is partially due to warming, but again has been going on steadily since the 1800s.
None of these are evidence of the 'A' in 'AGW', which is the point at issue, or have anything to do with it. The argument is therefore a complete non-sequitur. It's just a distraction, intended to derail the conversation.
An argument to demonstrate AGW would need to provide a validated model of natural background variation, and of variation with ACO2 added, show that the two distributions are statistically distinguishable when accounting for all the uncertainties, and then show that the observations fitted one and not the other. (Even the IPCC admitted that this could not currently be done, and they therefore had to substitute 'expert judgement' (i.e. their own opinions) and paper counting.)
Thus to answer your original question - to falsify AGW would require a validated model of weather variation with ACO2, such that it could be shown that observations fell outside the bounds of uncertainty. That's possible in principle, so the hypothesis is falsifiable; but since none of the current climate models is validated, their failure to match observation doesn't falsify AGW, only the models. It doesn't confirm it, either. We don't know.
Unfortunately every prediction, meteorological, sociological, agricultural, biological or economic, is the result of unverified computer modelling.
"AGW theory predicts all the things I stated happening."
Actually, it doesn't. The IPCC models show Arctic ice doesn't decline this far until the 2080s, and as many people have pointed out recently, it doesn't give any definite bounds on how long pauses can last. 30 years is an arbitrary and informal convention, not something calculated from models or data.
AGW also predicts the tropical upper-troposphere hotspot. Does the same logic apply?
Well done, all of you who have fed the troll. Thread is totally derailed again.
Why is feeding your egos (by engaging with a known offender) more important than keeping the discussion on track?
NiV
To paraphrase Malcolm The Maiden
She came in peace not to answer difficult questions.
"Why is feeding your egos (by engaging with a known offender) more important than keeping the discussion on track?"
Because it can be equally entertaining.
Why is keeping the discussion on track important? If the ongoing discussion is more interesting, then having it derailed is annoying. Getting derailed down the same well-worn tracks time and time again on every single thread is annoying. But the occasional brief digression for a game of whack-a-troll can relieve the tedium when things are otherwise quiet - and it'll all get deleted later anyway. Like many things, everything is good in moderation.
As predicted, troll comments and follow-ups have been removed.
Ah, OK Andrew.
Sorry, hadn't read your moderation comment before posting on discussion board.
Ah well. Soon to happen, bounder or later.