Scientists are quick to point out that there is much unknown about climate change. But ecological economist Herman Daly, of the University of Maryland, believes that focusing on the uncertainties of climate change may cloud the need for immediate action.
Herman Daly: We’re spending a lot of time with very complex climate models trying to measure and model effects of climate exactly, and what’s going to happen when and so forth.
He’s referring to the uncertainty about the rates of polar melting, or sea level rise, for example, or unknown ecological damage – all possible effects of climate change. There are questions about how much fighting climate change will cost.
Herman Daly: This is seen as, we can’t do anything until we have all these precise measurements. No, I don’t think so. I think we know very well the basic principles – we can’t just continue to put more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. At some point that will provoke unacceptable climate changes.
Daly believes policymakers shouldn’t require conclusive models in order to start cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change. He believes the reality is that climate change will have negative consequences on humans and ecosystems.
Herman Daly: Exactly when and exactly in what sequence it seems to me, are secondary questions.
Daly is responsible for popularizing the term “steady state economy” over 30 years ago.
Herman Daly: A steady state economy is idea that goes back to classical economists. Not new. It means constant population, and constant stock of physical goods. So it’s an economy in which the path of progress is not bigger – more and more stuff – it’s an economy in which path of progress is to get better – to design better things. The reason we do that is because we’re part of a larger system which doesn’t grow. If we keep on growing, we crowd out everything else in the system, and we depend on all those other things, including the climate.
He said that the concept of an economy that limits growth, rather than pursuing it, is a model for limiting the greenhouse gases driving climate change.
Herman Daly: I hope to see the idea come out that in order to limit carbon dioxide, we’re going to need more than just improved efficiency. The current philosophy is to be more efficient, and then we’ll keep growing economically, and have more population and more consumption growth. I think that’s a losing battle. We’re going have to face up to the idea that we’re not going to grow the way we did in the past, if we are going to keep down carbon emissions. We’re going to have to limit further growth in the economy, and approximate something like a steady state economy.
He believes that if we don’t act on the climate now, it will lead to suffering.
Herman Daly: When things get worse, probably we’re going to have to suffer a little bit more – some more Katrinas and some more environmentally climate induced disasters. If things get worse and worse, then finally people will say, ‘Hey, we really do need to do something.’
Read “The Drudge Report” about climategate.
I was following Daly’s presentation without too much head scratching until the zinger on suffering more Katrinas and more environmentally climate induced disasters. At that point, I concluded this was a case of any story to sell the book.
I personally worked with the NOAA hurricane databases and GIS products in the adaptation of storm wind speed analysis, storm trajectory, and tracking models for web based applications. My company monitors all hurricane data in near real time with data links to NOAA hurricane center and provides statistics and analysis to end data users. While global warming hypothesis predicts such changes, there remains no analysis of actual storm intensity and frequency data I am aware of that collaborates any claims that natural disasters are increasing, period. If there is then please point me to the data as I would like to refer my NOAA contacts to it as I’m sure they would want to know since they are responsible for knowing these things.
If the real story here is simply championing a “steady state economy” then present the pros and cons of it on its own merits rather than convolute it with baseless and insupportable claims that are pawned as science.
Hank, thanks for your comment. You’re right, scientists are not able to link any one event – like Hurricane Katrina – to climate change, and they’re also not able to predict how many hurricanes or natural disasters will occur during a given year. However, a range of models and studies suggest that changes in sea surface temperatures will increase the intensity of storms. You can read these reports from the US Climate Change Science Program, as one example: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm
I took Herman Daly’s comment to refer to “Katrinas” in the abstract – meaning, more natural disasters that are ecologically and economically devastating. But you’re also right in saying that scientific support should have appeared in the text. Thanks for staying vigilant.
Lindsay,
I accept that the comment was meant to be abstract but there are many reading that would not realize it and assume Katrina and other hurricanes to have been caused by global warming when there is no evidence to support such a notion.
At our present 13 month globally averaged temperature of +0.28C above historic baseline, it is statistically unlikely that we could detect any changes in storm patterns. If the IPCC predictions of +4C to +6C temperature increase over the century should pan out, there is the real possibility there will be increased storms assuming model parameters are correct (I don\’t intend to suggest they aren\’t).
Since you are directing me to models and studies based on them, I would like to draw a distinction that the GCM models are great for visualizing how complex parameters interact in climate simulations, coming remarkably close to creating analogies for past climate events. In that respect, models have been an exceptional tool for understanding some of the important dynamics that affect climate. That accepted, models have no predictive skills. Even if a model fits an analogy to past climate, it does so using parameters that are more likely to be incorrect than correct. By inherent design, models can\’t forecast their analogies to the future with any reliability. A case in point that underscores that reality is the fact that one or two decades into IPCC AR4 model predictions, the GCMs are already proving to be way outside of their error bands (that is to say wrong). It is evident there is much more to understand.
We shouldn\’t invest so much political or emotional currency in believing the accuracy of predictions made by models. Instead, we should be focusing on how to mitigate or solve any problems identified in observational data – actual reality. Such a concept might be seen as reactionary to some but responding to real problems seems far more rational than jumping off a cliff today because you believe it might be your only escape from a fire that is predicted to occur some time in the future. If you jump, any possibility of a fire occurring becomes immaterial. Reality is what happens at the bottom of the cliff, which is logically independent of any probability of fire.
Hank, I am trying to follow your reasoning. So you are saying that we can’t detect any changes in storm patterns now, but you agree that it is likely that storms will increase intensity in the future?
In that case, I would agree with you, and clarify that scientists rely on long-term trends in order to make any generalizations or predictions about climate. As I mentioned before, no scientist worth their salt will point to one event and confidently link it to climate change, as much as the media might conjecture about it. The many climate modelers I have interviewed will always stress that uncertainty still exists, that there needs to be more research, and that they rely on data showing long-term trends. No one can predict the future.
But I do disagree with your statement that predictive models have no worth. We need to make predictions about the future in order to prepare for the future. Would you go on a road trip without a map (or in my case, google maps)?
I\’m thinking about one interview I did with Kerry Cook, a climate modeler, who was working with a lot of uncertainty in Africa. Although Africa doesn\’t have as many long-term observing stations as the US, for example, and the interactions of climate in the region are very complex, predictions about what will happen in the future still have to be made. The people of Africa have few resources to adapt to climate changes which will affect temperature, water, and agriculture. Governments (whether or not they do anything about it) should be given whatever tools exist to mitigate human suffering.
So, getting back to Herman Daly, what he\’s saying is although this kind of uncertainty always exists in science – and we can always do more research – we do know enough to say something has to be done, action must be taken, or human suffering will undoubtedly increase. There are real consequences. Splitting hairs about specific models or graphs is not productive action, nor does it increase public understanding of the challenges we face.
Perhaps now is a good time to breathe deeply and celebrate.
President Barack Obama is in Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This is a moment for rejoicing and listening to the words of a great person. He is deserving of a Nobel Prize because he is a beacon of light and hope in an awakening world that has suffered grievously through the past 8 long, dark years with leadership known mostly for its disasterous decisonmaking, disinformation, delay, denial, duplicity and dunderheadedness.
Lindsay,
You are mostly correct about my reasoning. Better stated, my reasoning is that we haven\’t detected any statistically significant changes in storm patterns over the historic baseline and I am in agreement that significant warming of our climate would likely cause increases in storm frequency and intensity that would be detectable.
Yes, I think we are in agreement about the valuable use of trending analysis as a way to generalize the climate into the near future. Climate trends don\’t change so fast that we can\’t use them to go on road trips. I do check the weather forecasts before I push the start button (I drive a hybrid).
I didn\’t mean to imply that models have no worth. I think they have much value which I enumerated earlier. They just don\’t have any predictive skills. To underscore my point, we\’ve been spending sizable investment building and improving financial models for far longer than climate models. The financial system is far less complicated than climate. Not a single financial model predicted the current financial bust. Many financial experts lost their shirts because they believed the models to be predictive. Most who didn\’t loose their shirts were watching market trends (observational data). When market trends started to diverge from the modeled trends, the smart investors based their decisions on the the market trends, ignoring the much rosier picture the models painted.
Climate models can only produce variations of a pre-programmed output based on input, dynamic rules, non-linear equations, thresholds, reiterative, branched, and nested calls (feedbacks and couplings), etc… If the input is synthetic, then the output is virtual – a representation of the modeled system. Any modeling of the future requires synthesis of the input (because we aren\’t there yet). It stands that the models provide visualization of what we think might happen based on rules we think apply using parameters we think work, playing future data we think might be realistic. That isn\’t prediction, its virtualization.
To bring this discussion full circle, let me point out how realistic mitigation policy might work better than basing policy on model predictions. Alarmists claim millions of people are now dying due to increased storm intensity brought on by global warming. Daly attempted to leverage this belief. There are half truths there. Models predict increased storms from global warming, which I agree with. Many more people are dying in storms today, which I agree with. There seems a corollary connection but it is a false one. The real reason more people are dying is attributable to coastal urbanization, not changes in storm patterns. So if we continue to hold to the line that cutting back on CO2 will save those poor victims of global warming, the result will be even higher death tolls because CO2 has nothing to do with the problem. Blaming it on global warming is a distraction from reality. However enacting land use policy, changing building codes, and improving early warning systems based on observational data will save lives now and in the longer term. This is why I am a strong proponent of mitigation policy that recognizes a real threat as opposed to \”saving the planet\” propositions supported mostly by model predictions.
I agree with your last paragraph whole hardily but with an emphasis that what we know and how we respond should be based in understanding of real world observational data and trends.