The Housing Bubble

Some kind of slowdown has infected the site. I wrote on this point 90 minutes ago, and it still has not posted. Hmm. Kinda reminds one of climate change–if we wait for *all* the data to be in, it will be too late.

At any rate, what I wrote was something like this:

1)Climate change is the name, *not* global warming. If you are a scientist you should respect the name of the theory. You don’t call relativity theory lightspeed theory. There’s a reason.

2)All the predictions of the climate change theory concerning California water have come true. Lotsa snow in winter. Early and warmer Spring. Thus, faster melting of the snowpack which overwhelmed capacities and led to floods. Now, expected summer drought.

If you call it “global warming” the above scenario may make no sense, because it was cold in winter, and only warmer in the spring. BUT, if you recognize climate change can produce both warmer springs and colder winters (or even colder Springtimes and warmer winters, because the climate is more complex than a simple uni-directional, uni-dimensional term suggests), then what is happening in California (and elsewhere) does not undermine the climate change theory.

Finally, I think updating one’s model in the face of evidence is science. Faith persists despite the evidence. So, from one scientist to another, why are you attacking the scientists for being scientists? And, why are you persisting in your faith that nothing is amiss?

IAT

So the climate never changed until humans started burning lots of carbon?

Do we know what caused all the prior global warming and cooling cycles before our species began influencing things?

Bill,

I have always found this to be the . . . funniest argument ever. So, think about it this way. You are a passenger in a car. The car is going faster and faster. Some of your fellow passengers believe this acceleration is explained by the driver applying more gas to the engine. However, you doubt their claim, and suggest the driver has no role whatsoever in this accelerating vehicle.

So, let’s say you are right — the driver is not the cause of the acceleration. So, this is good news? Given your theory of the acceleration, you have no idea 1)how fast the car will go, 2)whether your steering mechanisms will work, 3)whether you can even slow the car down. So, if anything, successfully persuading us that the driver is irrelevant to the acceleration only necessitates even more drastic action to stave off destruction!

So, analogically, if humans have not played a role in the current climate change, then this only increases the necessity of humans to dramatically change their behavior because, given your theory, we now need to take counter-measures sufficient to work against whatever other cause there is!

So, the task you have set humanity is a lot more difficult, and a lot more urgent (because we now have no theory to explain what’s coming next). Unless you think humans can survive in all possible climates, it appears that by successfully convincing us that humans have played no role is to force us to commit to even more drastic changes.

Thanks for that. Thanks a lot.
IAT

I’m confused by your explanation….if we as humans did nothing to cause climate change then why is it urgent that we make changes to fix it? I’m not arguing, just wanting a clarification.

IAT:

“1)Climate change is the name, *not* global warming. If you are a scientist you should respect the name of the theory. You don’t call relativity theory lightspeed theory. There’s a reason.

Ummm, according to theory, isn’t it all supposed to be based upon warming, i.e. infra-red reflective impedance as a result of the amount of carbon dioxide (and other GHG) in the troposphere?

“Climate Change” is just NewSpeak for mankind’s attempts to communicate with the weather. Those communication attempts, by the way, used to be called “Religion”.

Talk about confusing symptom and cause. The original cause is warming, but the outcome may be warming in some places, cooling in others.

When you have a temperature, is your whole body hot? Or, instead, do you sometimes find your head is hot, but your hands are chilled?

I know, I know, this is not a technical explanation, it is an analogy. I am trying to bring something no human has ever seen — runaway climate change — into the realm of the fathomable. Most people have had fevers, and many who have recognize that it is 1)a symptom (of an infection of some type), 2)a cause (of the death of the infecting organisms) and, most important here, 3)not uniform throughout the body. Analogically, climate change is a symptom of something that has changed (many believe human action in this case), it is causing other things (e.g., California water woes), and it is not uniform in its impacts.

NOTE: Just as fevers can have many causes, and that friend who sneezed on you yesterday may have caused today’s fever but your fever two months ago may have had some other cause, climate change can have many causes, and just because humans did not cause the previous ones does not mean they may not be causing this one. Of course, as I stated earlier, we’d better hope humans are causing this one, or we are in worse shape than we realize.

IAT

Well, in that case, as a self-proclaimed scientist, kindly provide a link to any empirical evidence which conclusively proves that “warming” causes “cooling”.

You have stated that the “outcome of {global warming} may be warming in some places, cooling in others.”

I believe this to be farcical. Please enlighten me, without references to psuedo-science alarmist sites that say the “jet stream will change latitude”, or “the Gulf Stream will stop flowing”, or similar nonsense.

You have accused me of confusing symptom and cause - OK, here is your opportunity to prove to me that global warming has caused cooling, in a scientifically meaningful manner, capable of empirical measurement and statistical validation.

I’m all ears - who knows, you may even convert me!

I think before I get rolling with a bunch of links, we need to agree that the theory concerns CLIMATE CHANGE, *not* GLOBAL WARMING. The MSM focuses on global warming, but scientists discuss climate change, not global warming. If we can’t agree to discuss the science using scientific as opposed to brain-dead MSM terms, then there’s no point in continuing.

Why? Because you seem to be all ears as to whether warming causes cooling, which is a silly question. If you want a serious answer, you’ll ask a serious question. And, one serious question is:

If the climate is de-stabilized by a shock to the system, what are the complex outcomes that would ensue. Would any such shock always produce uni-directional change on the globe, or might a more complex set of climatic responses follow?

That’s a serious question. If that’s what you mean to ask, let me know. However, if you mean to play the game of “when does making it hot make it cold,” there’s no need to continue.

Let me know.

IAT

IAT: Your comment:

“Talk about confusing symptom and cause. The original cause is warming, but the outcome may be warming in some places, cooling in others.”

You accused me of confusing symptom and cause. I asked you for emprical evidence.

Your response is sadly typical of climate change alarmists.

Prove to me that “… The original cause is warming, but the outcome may be warming in some places, cooling in others.”

That’s all I ask.

Don’t shift the goal-posts.

IAT:

To be perfectly frank, I don’t care whether the preferred nomenclature is “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”.

It doesn’t make one jot of difference, and in fact is merely deceitful semantics.

See, it MUST be “warming” upon which you and your ilk rely, because it is the effect of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses) upon the Sun’s infra-red reflection from the planet’s surface which seems to have got your knickers in a knot.

Warming. From the Sun. Warming. Contributed to by carbon dioxide. Warming. Causing climate change.

You say:

“Talk about confusing symptom and cause. The original cause is warming, but the outcome may be warming in some places, cooling in others.”

I refute your allegation that I have “confused” symptom and cause.

I have asked for proof.

Semantics is not at issue.

In my first post I noted I was talking about climate change. But, the use of the erroneous term persisted. I pointed out the goal post hours ago — I can’t help it if you’re looking in the wrong direction.

Although I doubt you’ll accept my evidence (of the claim that climate change theory is not about universal warming), here’s some:

1)
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch11.pdf
See page 850, column two, which reads, in part:

Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase.

2)
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf
See page 391-392 which reads, in part:

A major feature of Figure 5.1 is the relatively large increase
in global ocean heat content during 1969 to 1980 and a sharp decrease during 1980 to 1983. The 0 to 700 m layer cooled at
a rate of 1.2 W m–2 during this period. Most of this cooling
occurred in the Pacifi c Ocean and may have been associated
with the reversal in polarity of the PDO (Stephens et al., 2001; Levitus et al., 2005c, see also Section 3.6.3). Examination of the geographical distribution of the differences in 0 to 700 m heat content between the 1977–1981 and 1965–1969 pentads and the 1986–1990 and 1977–1981 pentads shows that the pattern of heat content change has spatial scales of entire ocean basins and is also found in similar analyses by Ishii et al. (2006). The Pacifi c Ocean dominates the decadal variations of global heat
content during these two periods. The origin of this variability
is not well understood.

In other words, even as land mass temperatures are rising, the oceans are heating, but some cooling has been observed. More heating in the Pacific, which means other oceans may be cooling.

3)
Oh, and here’s a paper you might find interesting:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g618316500q56235/

“Impact of carbonaceous aerosol emissions on regional climate change” by E. Roeckner, P. Stier, J. Feichter, S. Kloster, M. Esch and I. Fischer-Bruns

The abstract says:

Abstract The past and future evolution of atmospheric composition and climate has been simulated with a version of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM). The system consists of the atmosphere, including a detailed representation of tropospheric aerosols, the land surface, and the ocean, including a model of the marine biogeochemistry which interacts with the atmosphere via the dust and sulfur cycles. In addition to the prescribed concentrations of carbon dioxide, ozone and other greenhouse gases, the model is driven by natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic aerosol), and by emissions of mineral dust, sea salt, sulfur, black carbon (BC) and particulate organic matter (POM). Transient climate simulations were performed for the twentieth century and extended into the twenty-first century, according to SRES scenario A1B, with two different assumptions on future emissions of carbonaceous aerosols (BC, POM). In the first experiment, BC and POM emissions decrease over Europe and China but increase at lower latitudes (central and South America, Africa, Middle East, India, Southeast Asia). In the second experiment, the BC and POM emissions are frozen at their levels of year 2000. According to these experiments the impact of projected changes in carbonaceaous aerosols on the global mean temperature is negligible, but significant changes are found at low latitudes. This includes a cooling of the surface, enhanced precipitation and runoff, and a wetter surface. These regional changes in surface climate are caused primarily by the atmospheric absorption of sunlight by increasing BC levels and, subsequently, by thermally driven circulations which favour the transport of moisture from the adjacent oceans. The vertical redistribution of solar energy is particularly large during the dry season in central Africa when the anomalous atmospheric heating of up to 60 W m−2 and a corresponding decrease in surface solar radiation leads to a marked surface cooling, reduced evaporation and a higher level of soil moisture, which persists throughout the year and contributes to the enhancement of precipitation during the wet season.

I.e., cooling in Africa. Of course, this is one model. There are several different models. The field is very active, and things are unclear. But, if you disagree that climate change can lead to both cooling and warming at the same time in different places, I suggest you contact those authors and ask them to clarify their claims. I’ve pretty much done all I can do here.

Respectfully yours,
IAT

IAT:

Thanks for another scalp to hang upon my AGW trophy wall.

A serious question: Can you confirm that you are in fact a scientist, and specify your field and honoraria, in which case your scalp will be exhibited in the special display area of my trophy wall, along with several others.

Thank you for playing.

I can’t tell you who will be murdered in New York City next year, nor can I tell you how many murders will occur on each day. But, I can tell you that the murder rate for the year will be around 7 per 100,000 +/- .6. It is often easier to predict a long-run trend than an exact event and its timing.

I assumed all my fellow bloggers here already knew that. Most of us accurately predicted every event now unfolding in the national housing market. Yet, for months, or years, we endured the smug attitudes, condescending idiocy, and outright hostility of those we tried to warn of the impending comeuppance. Why? Because we were not accurate enough on the timing, even though we were extremely accurate on the ultimate outcome.

So, comparing the weather forecaster to the climate forecaster is . . . unhelpful. Predicting the weather for June 9, 2008 in location X is much more difficult than predicting the climate for YEAR 2058 should A, B, and C happen, especially when you consider the tightness of the bounds needed for Monday’s forecast to be useful (e.g., if its supposed to rain during rush hour, I carry an umbrella, but if it will rain in late morning, say 10am-noon, no need to have an umbrella, and so on).

Why do I call it a red herring? Would those arguing we should do nothing because the doubt that humans caused climate change make the same argument in analogous situations:

1)A comet that will wipe out the species is speeding toward earth. We have the chance to deflect it’s path if we act quickly, but it will cost us trillions of dollars. But, wait! A vocal group of people say “It does not appear that humans caused the impending collision with the comet, so we shouldn’t do anything about it until we can prove a human role.”

2)An earthquake strikes a region of the world, thousands die, and tens of thousands are injured. We could relieve the suffering of thousands with a small outlay of pennies from every resident not affected. But wait! A vocal group of people rises up and says, “It does not appear that humans caused the earthquake, so we shouldn’t do anything about it until we can prove a human role.”

And so on.

This is a red herring. The presence of a red herring doesn’t mean the climate change thesis is right, but, I gotta say, *this* seems the funniest argument against the thesis that one could make. One wonders about the motivation behind the promulgation of such sophistry.

IAT

IAT,

Your circuitous argument above appears to be attempting to express the “Precautionary Principle” (a.k.a. the “Prevention Principle”), in vague and ambiguous terms.

Are you sure that you are a scientist?

The Precautionary Principle has been a mainstay of the loony left/environmentalist “watermelons” (green on the outside….red on the inside) for years.

In simple terms, the Precautionary Principle says that if there is any risk, no matter how remote the possibility, of harm to any group of people or the environment, then no matter the cost that risk of harm must be mitigated.

Seeing that you like analogies, unscientific as they tend to be, here is the perfect analogy for the Precautionary Principle, taken from your example (1) above, and mildly altered:

1)A comet that will wipe out the species is speeding toward earth.

Should we spend trillions of dollars, (whilst causing utter chaos to the world econmy) building an enormous nuclear bomb, which we cannot test, and a huge rocket to deploy it, which we also cannot test?

As to your earthquake analogy, I do not understand this at all - are you suggesting that catastrophic earthquakes are anthropogenically driven?

Oh, JT, while I had disagreed with you, I had respected you. But, then you had to go and reveal your . . . inability to fairly dialogue. There was nothing in my analogy about a 1% chance of the comet hitting the planet. In my analogy we knew the comet was going to hit the planet.

And the earthquake one, yes, again, you reveal an inability to dialogue fairly, a commitment to “winning” (another example, the “trophy” wall). All very . . . unscientific.

But, because you insist on the clarification of the obvious, here goes:

1)The earthquake example is meant to convey the irrelevance of a human causal role for the question of whether we should heal human pain.

2)The comet example is meant to convey the irrelevance of a human causal role for the question of whether we should work to prevent human pain.

Now, as for the “Precautionary Principle,” I don’t think you aptly convey my view. There are a few parameters that go in to making decisions in situations of risk, some of which are (to simplify):

a)The probability of the dangerous event
b)The loss associated with the dangerous event
c)The cost of avoiding the dangerous event
d)The cost of waiting for better information on a-c.

Probabilities scale from 0 to 1; all other quantities can be variously scaled.

So, if the probability of an event is .000001, but the loss (b) is every single human on the planet, and the cost of avoiding the event (c) is within the realm of the spendable, and the cost (d) of waiting is in the best case scenario that nothing need be spent, but in the worst case scenario is the loss of every single human on the planet, well, most people would say those two losses (b and worst-case d) trump the low probability of the event.

I say “most people would say” because that really is a question of values. If you value human life low enough, then you wouldn’t conclude that we need act immediately. As a person who is a scientist I think it appropriate to identify where values enter the equation. Because values do enter the equation reasonable people can disagree on whether to do anything and even if the agree that something should be done, they can still disagree on what to do.

I suspect, JT, that if you could get your head around the idea that we are all trying to figure this out and disagreement is actually productive for that process, and could stop trying to “win,” maybe you’d see that the real problem here is not the science — every technological decision ever made has some degree of uncertainty, because scientists cannot eradicate uncertainty. If you can’t handle uncertainty, then you shouldn’t be making decisions. No, the problem is that people have different values — I value fireplaces, someone else values eating cow, someone else values flying to Asia, and so on. All those acts impact the prospects of climate change.

Because people have different values, rather than calmly discuss those differences and come to some agreements, they often seize on the ineradicable uncertainty of science to justify their refusal to negotiate change. But as any true scientist will tell you, we can’t wait for the science to confirm everything, because if that’s the plan, we can stop waiting, because science won’t completely confirm “everything” until we run the experiment (and, ideally, run it multiple times). However, as humans may be extinguished by said experiment, I would say my values call for us to spend the money to reduce the risk, not wait for conclusive proof we won’t get until it is either too late, or vastly more expensive and destructive.

Sadly, if looking at the housing market has taught me anything, it is people prefer to wait for all the data — even if waiting destroys them, and even if a cold-calculation shorn of emotion would have revealed their impending doom.

No trophy case for me — I prefer dialogue, not decapitations.

IAT