Michael Griffin is a highly educated guy. He has five Masters degrees (count 'em: aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, business administration, and civil engineering) and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering (see here).
However, his interview on NPR shows that all that book learnin' doesn't mean what he says is intelligent.
For a recap of the high points of the interview, see David's post. I'm going to talk in this post about what makes our climate optimal.
(This is adapted from an old post on my previous blog.)
Everything else equal, one might be able to make an argument that a warmer or cooler world would be better.
However, everything else is not equal. We have adapted to our present climate, and made significant investments in these adaptations. We build cities in places where it makes sense to put them (with the notable exception of New Orleans), we build infrastructure where it makes sense to put infrastructure, we perform economic activity where such activity makes sense. If the climate changes significantly, it could take enormous investments to re-adapt to our new climate. Our previous investments in infrastructure could become worthless.
Consider this example: You build a sawmill next to a roaring river, using the river as power source for the mill. Now AGW causes the precipitation pattern to change and the river moves miles away. In this new world, the river might have higher flow rates. Michael Griffin might well say, "see, the river is providing more energy for a mill."
That would indeed be a good thing -- if the mill were still on the river. But the mill is no longer anywhere near the river. So you have to build a new mill on the banks of the new river. This investment in new infrastructure is potentially expensive for rich countries, and poor countries simply won't be able to afford it.
Today's climate is indeed optimal -- not because it's intrinsically perfect, but because we've built our world around it.
After listening to this interview, I think Griffin needs another Masters degree -- this one in earth science.
20 climate experts call for aggressive U.S. action
‘Sea Change’ documentary highlights threat of ocean acidification
Nature: Hurricanes ARE getting fiercer — and it’s going to get much worse
Comments View as Flat
WWAGD?! Posted 1:42 am
01 Jun 2007
But, that's what you want...Right?
Yes, but those "adaptions" are the very things that Grist decrees to be harmful each and every day! The heating systems that spew CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer climate automatically reduces the need to consume energy for heating. Also, in a warmer climate, fuels burn more efficiently. So autos get better mileage.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
birdboy Posted 3:33 am
01 Jun 2007
change is bad
What may be the most harmful aspect of climate change is the rapid change itself, not whatever the average equilibrium climate may be (assuming we do eventually reach an equilibrium, stable climate). From my understanding, the models predict not just a change in the average world temperature, but a loss of stability- they see rapid, unpredictable changes in weather patterns.
Those of us who live in the southeast witnessed the effect this spring- the three-day freeze we had after an early spring killed the new growth on almost everything (except invasive species). Many things were severely weakened, some died outright. Leaf cover eventually came back, though many trees had less than half their usual leaf density. Then came the drought- spring should be the wettest time of year, but my neck of the woods has had no significant rainfall for at least three weeks, with daytime highs 5-10 degrees above normal. The leaves are turning yellow, falling off. Young trees will not survive this spring, weeds are doing just great. And wildfires are popping up everywhere, leaving us hotter and dryer than before.
This is what really scares me, the loss of stability. It could reduce diversity to a small fraction of what is healthy. People marvel at Nature's ability to recover from disaster, but diversity is the key to Nature's strength, and stable climate is necessary to maintain diversity.
Those who sit back in their comfy chairs and say "warmer is gooder" are ignoring reality, fooling themselves, and trying to fool the rest of us into complacency. Sure, they'll be fine- they have the money and the power to sheild themselves and their loved ones from the effects of climate change. What about the rest of us? We should "eat kudzu"?
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 3:51 am
01 Jun 2007
optimal climate
Sometimes climate change skeptic, Tim Ball has correctly pointed out that significant global warming would benefit the Canadian economy. The warmer the world gets, the more comfortable Canada will be for human beings, and our economic activities. Global warmings would not make things better in the United Staes. In fact the Southwest would be dryer and hoter, making it significantly leas habitable.
Charles Barton
Permalink
pcarbo Posted 4:19 am
01 Jun 2007
But what about pond hockey?
I've heard this brought up a lot in Canadian newspapers: in our resource-based economy, warmer weather = better economy. This is certainly a selfish viewpoint (who cares about the rest of the world, or the lifestyle of Inuit for that matter?). But even so. Have people thought about this carefully?
Consider:
- Salmon are extremely sensitive to water temperature, and stocks are already severely affected.
- Mountain pine beetle ravaging BC forests... dare I say more!
- Alberta (and its oil-based economy) depends on water, especially the water that comes from snow melt in the summer.
- Fruits are coming earlier and more abundantly. Good for the fruit people!
But even more important than any one of those single points is the fact that Canada's economy is intricately tied to the global economy. Making a general statement like "Canada's econonmy will improve with global warming" is not prudent, nor helpful.Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 4:41 am
01 Jun 2007
winners and losers
I heard an argument framed on NPR yesterday as "But won't there be loser AND winners? Won't some benefit from global warming?" I suppose the subtext is that optimal means different things to different people. While the people & animals closer to the equator (and poles) are hammered into extinction by a wildly slewing climate, those in more temperate zones will be drinking Mai Tai's by their new beach estates. I'm willing to be there's always been some misanthropic bastard to make this argument; even the worst war, the most vicious massacre, the most devastating drought must have tipped the balances of power and put someone in a position of more wealth and power.
Of course, the fact that some smug bastard talks of 'optimal' as millions are threatened by inundation, drought and pestilence is hard to bear. But given a historic perspective, there has always been the monsters who chuckle over their rising fortunes as babies are bayoneted outside.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 4:50 am
01 Jun 2007
The Old Climate Stunk
Well, are you saying that we would have been better off in the Little Ice Age, like Dickens 19th Century Englishmen were? Freezing and starving kids? Poxes, viruses and poverty?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 5:47 am
01 Jun 2007
see also...
The sceptic guide article here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469
Similar argument, different wording. The take home message:
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 7:03 am
01 Jun 2007
From Mahattan to the Maldives
No we're not!
Humans live in a range of lands where temperatures range from extreme bitter cold to burning heat. We live on mountains and near the ocean at sea level.
There is no "world climate" -- unless you consider Alaska and Fiji one in the same!
The basis of evolution is diversity. We have already proven we can deal with anything mother nature throws at us.
Quite frankly, Mother is throwing us a break -- we can finally turn the thermostat to off and relax in Minnesota and Calgary!
Past me an iced tea.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
DogsCatsAndStrays Posted 7:07 am
01 Jun 2007
What is rapid change?
By NOAA the rate of change is 0.11 degF/decade 1895 to 2006, is this rapid?
See:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html ...
Put in (First year to display) to (Last year to display), pick [annual] for the period, and look at the temp trend.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 7:13 am
01 Jun 2007
that mill example is rather odd
You do realize that rivers change position quite naturally don't you? Also, precipitation patterns are likely to have a greater effect on the amount of water in a channel rather than the location of that channel.
If you have some studies that indicate otherwise, please let me know. Otherwise, I'd suggest that climatologists should leave the geomorphology to geomorphologists.
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 7:26 am
01 Jun 2007
Crash and Burn
>>> He has five Masters degrees (count 'em: aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, business administration, and civil engineering) and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering.
However, his interview on NPR shows that all that book learnin' doesn't mean what he says is intelligent. >>>
well read all about it
A scientist trashing another scientist, without even knowing what Dr Griffin was really talking about.
Hows that for consensus on global climate change.
And laypeople are so impressed, they go off and giggle.
Where is the unity, where is the direction, where is the hope ! Aren't the facts plain to see ?
Oh I see, agree with me and everything is OK > > >
But the problem is, not one of these scientist has all the facts, and so neither knows what they are talking about.
Typical in these days of toxic pollution.
Permalink