4 ms·

No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments

No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world. The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outright. As far as I can tell this article, in a very HN way, is just trying to lead people who have bought the hysteria back into a rational mindset by showing the reader another side exists.

baguasquirrel 18y ago
Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by framing the problem on a geological scale.
- robotrout 18y ago
  I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though. As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted. I would submit to you that any extra wheat production you may see in the central US is due to topographical (it's flat), nutritional (good soil), and cultural (daddy was a wheat farmer) influences, more than any propensity of wheat for that exact temperature, as evidenced by the successful wheat farming americans and canadians from Texas to central Alberta)
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - cma 18y ago
    Your comment makes great intuitive sense, but I don't think it is quite so clear cut. Remember, it is a 2.5 degree global temperature shift being discussed, not a 2.5 degree shift in Canada's temperatures. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is, so the effect of more CO2 is much less pronounced in the lower latitudes. From what I have heard, a 2.5 degree shift in global temperature average caused by increased CO2 would translate into a much larger shift in e.g. Canada's temperatures.
  - baguasquirrel 18y ago
    It is a little more complicated than that. http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/4632/major-wheat-growing-regions-us-reference-maps http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/4632/major-wheat-growing-re... Different varieties of wheat are adapted to different conditions and some are more productive than others. Ultimately, wheat is still a plant and it still needs water and sun to grow. The climate models suggest that as temperature goes up, midwest droughts will get worse. Natural systems are not orthogonal. A rise in temperature will cause more rainfall in some areas and less rainfall in others. While we're at it... as you said, wheat is not too finicky. Corn? More finicky. Wonder what will happen to corn. It needs hot, humid summers with just the right amount of rain and sun. When you look at the map from the link, it is pretty apparent there is a big hole in the middle of the "wheat" belt. Hmm I wonder what we grow there? ;) I wonder where, if at all, that hole is going to move if we have a drier midwest as the admittedly crude climate models predict. And I wonder how a change in climate will impact the current wheat growing regions in terms of rainfall.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  I really was trying to stay out of the GW argument specifically. My intent in the response above was just to point out that the WSJ author seems to be assuming people already know the negative side. So it wasn't that he was painting a rosy picture it's just that he was trying to provide supplemental information to what people have already heard. That said, if you're curious, my problem with GW has always been the focus on the cause and not the effect. I don't have a problem with us trying to do everything we can not to change Earth's enviornment. In general I think it's a good idea for humans to make as little an impact on nature as we can in going about our day. But at the same time it's a proven fact that our planet makes dramatic shifts in it's climate even without our influence (Ice Age for example). So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not. Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place. So basically my opinion on GW has always been that, since we know climate change is coming no matter what, humanity should work on preparing itself for climate change's effects regardless of who or what causes it.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not. And it might come quite suddenly whether we cause it or not. And it might do the opposite of what we expect. Looking back through the geologic record, the climate has done all sorts of interesting things -- all without our help. As a general observation not connected to the parent, the use of cellular automata techniques in modeling is really very much in its infancy. I'm really surprised that posters to a hacker board wouldn't already know that.
  - lutorm 18y ago
    Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place. You don't believe in the concept of insurance, do you?
GavinB 18y ago
The problem is that he's really not saying anything of substance. He makes an appeal to rationality and then proceeds on a disorganized discussion that doesn't come to any useful conclusion. Botkin says "We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster." Then he seems to be trying to refute this passage by saying that a warmer climate worked out great for the vikings. He doesn't attempt any sort of analysis of what the real-world effects of change in sea-level would be. Botkin may have something worth saying, but he needs an editor to help him focus in on clearly stating and backing up the points that he wants to make. All I can get from this is that he wants people to stop the panic because, hey, there might be some benefits from a warmer climate.
cia_plant 18y ago
We have been given the "other side of the story" repeatedly over the last decade. First the "other side of the story" was that many people did not think global warming was happening. Then, that many people did not think it was man-made: the possible influence of sunspots was repeatedly pointed to. Now that these two "sides" are completely ruled out by the scientific evidence, we are given a new story: maybe man-made climate change won't be that bad! There are two sides to this debate, but the two sides are not similar. One is the scientific consensus of the world's climate scientists, represented in the IPCC reports. The other side is a loose collection of crackpots, dissidents, and astroturfing energy companies. One side has been correct about every major point of contention for the last decade; the other side has been wrong about every major point over the same period. Rationality and alarm are not mutually exclusive; and the suggestion that those thinkers who are alarmed at the probable consequences of global warming are in the grip of "hysteria" is just name-calling. A more documentable ad-hominem is that the climate change deniers are in the employ of the energy companies: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWa...
- chorny 18y ago
  Wikipedia article says that after report was published, ExxonMobil stated that they would stop, but they still continued.
- azgolfer 18y ago
  Science is not done by consensus. What the hell is "climate scientist" anyway. Perhaps you'd like to post some of the solved problems in "climate science". Computer models of the climate are a joke. They don't even take into account clouds.You can't make a model of a problem with thousands of free variables. The evidence at this point is on the side of the sun causing any warming and CO2 rising AFTER warming occurs.
netsp 18y ago
I want to point out the the left-right colouring of GW is largely a US (Also Australia, where I live) development. I think the reason for this political situation is quite silly. If GW is true, this probably requires regulation, complex interventionist policies etc. The things that the left wants. So the left believes & the right doesn't. Or it thinks that it is natural or inevitable or not so bad. I think this is an example of how ideology can become a belief in policies rather then principles.

baguasquirrel 18y ago

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by framing the problem on a geological scale.

robotrout 18y ago
I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though. As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted. I would submit to you that any extra wheat production you may see in the central US is due to topographical (it's flat), nutritional (good soil), and cultural (daddy was a wheat farmer) influences, more than any propensity of wheat for that exact temperature, as evidenced by the successful wheat farming americans and canadians from Texas to central Alberta)
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- cma 18y ago
  Your comment makes great intuitive sense, but I don't think it is quite so clear cut. Remember, it is a 2.5 degree global temperature shift being discussed, not a 2.5 degree shift in Canada's temperatures. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is, so the effect of more CO2 is much less pronounced in the lower latitudes. From what I have heard, a 2.5 degree shift in global temperature average caused by increased CO2 would translate into a much larger shift in e.g. Canada's temperatures.
- baguasquirrel 18y ago
  It is a little more complicated than that. http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/4632/major-wheat-growing-regions-us-reference-maps http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/4632/major-wheat-growing-re... Different varieties of wheat are adapted to different conditions and some are more productive than others. Ultimately, wheat is still a plant and it still needs water and sun to grow. The climate models suggest that as temperature goes up, midwest droughts will get worse. Natural systems are not orthogonal. A rise in temperature will cause more rainfall in some areas and less rainfall in others. While we're at it... as you said, wheat is not too finicky. Corn? More finicky. Wonder what will happen to corn. It needs hot, humid summers with just the right amount of rain and sun. When you look at the map from the link, it is pretty apparent there is a big hole in the middle of the "wheat" belt. Hmm I wonder what we grow there? ;) I wonder where, if at all, that hole is going to move if we have a drier midwest as the admittedly crude climate models predict. And I wonder how a change in climate will impact the current wheat growing regions in terms of rainfall.
TomOfTTB 18y ago
I really was trying to stay out of the GW argument specifically. My intent in the response above was just to point out that the WSJ author seems to be assuming people already know the negative side. So it wasn't that he was painting a rosy picture it's just that he was trying to provide supplemental information to what people have already heard. That said, if you're curious, my problem with GW has always been the focus on the cause and not the effect. I don't have a problem with us trying to do everything we can not to change Earth's enviornment. In general I think it's a good idea for humans to make as little an impact on nature as we can in going about our day. But at the same time it's a proven fact that our planet makes dramatic shifts in it's climate even without our influence (Ice Age for example). So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not. Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place. So basically my opinion on GW has always been that, since we know climate change is coming no matter what, humanity should work on preparing itself for climate change's effects regardless of who or what causes it.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not. And it might come quite suddenly whether we cause it or not. And it might do the opposite of what we expect. Looking back through the geologic record, the climate has done all sorts of interesting things -- all without our help. As a general observation not connected to the parent, the use of cellular automata techniques in modeling is really very much in its infancy. I'm really surprised that posters to a hacker board wouldn't already know that.
- lutorm 18y ago
  Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place. You don't believe in the concept of insurance, do you?

GavinB 18y ago

The problem is that he's really not saying anything of substance. He makes an appeal to rationality and then proceeds on a disorganized discussion that doesn't come to any useful conclusion. Botkin says "We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster." Then he seems to be trying to refute this passage by saying that a warmer climate worked out great for the vikings. He doesn't attempt any sort of analysis of what the real-world effects of change in sea-level would be. Botkin may have something worth saying, but he needs an editor to help him focus in on clearly stating and backing up the points that he wants to make. All I can get from this is that he wants people to stop the panic because, hey, there might be some benefits from a warmer climate.

cia_plant 18y ago

We have been given the "other side of the story" repeatedly over the last decade. First the "other side of the story" was that many people did not think global warming was happening. Then, that many people did not think it was man-made: the possible influence of sunspots was repeatedly pointed to. Now that these two "sides" are completely ruled out by the scientific evidence, we are given a new story: maybe man-made climate change won't be that bad! There are two sides to this debate, but the two sides are not similar. One is the scientific consensus of the world's climate scientists, represented in the IPCC reports. The other side is a loose collection of crackpots, dissidents, and astroturfing energy companies. One side has been correct about every major point of contention for the last decade; the other side has been wrong about every major point over the same period. Rationality and alarm are not mutually exclusive; and the suggestion that those thinkers who are alarmed at the probable consequences of global warming are in the grip of "hysteria" is just name-calling. A more documentable ad-hominem is that the climate change deniers are in the employ of the energy companies: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWa...

chorny 18y ago
Wikipedia article says that after report was published, ExxonMobil stated that they would stop, but they still continued.
azgolfer 18y ago
Science is not done by consensus. What the hell is "climate scientist" anyway. Perhaps you'd like to post some of the solved problems in "climate science". Computer models of the climate are a joke. They don't even take into account clouds.You can't make a model of a problem with thousands of free variables. The evidence at this point is on the side of the sun causing any warming and CO2 rising AFTER warming occurs.

netsp 18y ago

I want to point out the the left-right colouring of GW is largely a US (Also Australia, where I live) development. I think the reason for this political situation is quite silly. If GW is true, this probably requires regulation, complex interventionist policies etc. The things that the left wants. So the left believes & the right doesn't. Or it thinks that it is natural or inevitable or not so bad. I think this is an example of how ideology can become a belief in policies rather then principles.