I just finished reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I really enjoyed it...but what's not to like about a book where some of the bad guys are members of ELF?
Posted by marybeth at December 11, 2004 05:59 PM Other StuffSteve Antler of Econopundit has been blogging up a storm about State of Fear. I think you'll like what he has to say.
Posted by Dave Schuler at December 12, 2004 02:46 PMThanks for the link. I like it but want to see more. Maps and charts are interesting but still don't provide enough information.
First, the U.S. isn't the world. I don't think you can make a judgement about global climate change based on only one country. Although the book does say that temperature reports from the U.S. are likely to be more accurate than some from other areas (I can't remember exactly what the book said but think of places with social/political unrest or funding shortages).
State of Fear brings up the urban heat island effect - cities tend to be warmer than rural areas. Weather stations that were in rural areas that have now been urbanized will show an increase in average temperature. It would be interesting to see population growth maps overlaid with the weather station map.
Does 100 years provide enough data? What else has happened during that time besides industrialization? - I've mentioned urbanization and someone on the messageboard mentioned increases in temperature coinciding with wars. There are too many variables...too bad we don't have access to an alternate universe where there was an Earth with no industrialization, no wars, and no urban development.
Do people change the environment? Yes. Is it for the worse? Maybe, but worse for whom? Could it also be better for some? Maybe. Is there a reason to panic? No, we should be aware of the impact our actions have on the environment but that doesn't mean making hasty decisions based on incomplete data.
Posted by marybeth at December 12, 2004 04:14 PMMy own half-baked theory is that the urban heat island effect you mention is more significant in tropical cities i.e. the real global problem is less big cities than big cities in the tropics. Look at it this way: at 210°F water is hot but it doesn't do much. If I heat water that's already at 120°F 2 more degrees, it just gets a little hotter. Heat water that's at 210°F another 2 degrees and there's a change of state. Or said another way the result depends on how much energy is already in the system.
So the growth of Rio de Janeiro, Calcutta, Mexico City, and Bombay may be more problematic than the growth of Tokyo, London, and Chicago. But of course we're too politically correct to do anything about it—so we exempt India from environmental agreements.
BTW, I've checked the high and low temp figures (casually) for correlations with atmospheric nuclear tests, sunspots, and economic growth stats. There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation with any of those things.
Posted by Dave Schuler at December 12, 2004 07:06 PMAre exemptions politically correct or just a chance for areas to catch up economically and technologically?
Your city theory sounds logical but I'm not a scientist so it's hard for me to really tell. The problem I have isn't with your theory. It's that I haven't seen advocates of global warming separate the data that way. A few degrees of change in a cooler city, when combined with all the other area data, can appear more significant than it actually may be.
You've ruled out some possible causes of high and low temperatures, but how many other possiblities are there that neither of us has thought of? Or is it possible that all the fluctuations are within the norm and we can't tell because we really don't know enough about climate?
Posted by marybeth at December 12, 2004 09:08 PM