Friday, March 19, 2010
Technical Blogging
An interesting post on cultures of certainty on both sides of the global warming debate, with some thoughts on blogging, why and how.
Heat vs. Cold
Courtesy of the EU Referendum, I saw this article playing up how many more people are going to die from heat as a result of global warming. Obviously, Richard North spent very little time with it (or probably has already had his fill of this topic), but I got a little curious.
First, the article is generally vague, refers to ambiguous sources, and makes some claims that are tautological (increased drought/flood/disease will force people from homes) or not supported by current evidence (increased tornadoes/droughts/hurricanes are observed as a result of warming; an interesting set of graphics is here, and although the sentiment may be a little over the top, I think the data is sound). The interesting thing that caught my eye (maybe because it was first) was that the heatwave of 1995 killed 750 people in Chicago, and that this could become the norm by 2050 because of global warming.
Lets see...my impression is that the CDC knows as much about how people die as anyone (a bit morbid, perhaps, but if you got it, flaunt it!) so lets check with them. Going into the Compressed Mortality database and checking on the number of people who died from extreme heat in Cook County yields the following chart.
This shows only 85 deaths by heat exposure, not 750, but the 1995 heat wave is clearly represented. Just for fun, how many deaths by cold for the same period?
Hmm. Not 85 in any one year, but several times more deaths by cold each year on average.
Expanding to the entire state of Illinois doesn't change this much; at most 126 heat deaths in 1995, and still 2-3 times more death by cold over the same period. The article refers to a government entity that cites an ambiguous study that says that "cold snaps" increased death rates by 1.6% and heat waves increased deaths by 5.7%. But if more people die from cold already, then the number represented by 1.6% could be the same or greater than the number represented by the 5.7%. The only thing I think we've learned here is that humans are warm blooded and have difficulties surviving in extreme temperatures hot and cold, and that currently we have more problems with cold (at least in Illinois). Oh, and if there is a heat wave, it sucks to be in Cook County, since 2/3 of the heat deaths state-wide came from there; this probably could be applied to any large city.
So cold kills. And where did the 750 deaths in 1995 come from? Obviously, they included deaths from other factors than heat exposure, probably things like increased incidence of disease, or some tenuously related weather events. The problem is that it isn't the heat that kills then, it is some other factor, like when it froze the other night and a car skidded on the highway killing 5 people, or increases in flu season. If you expand the criteria on one end, you need to balance that on the other end or it isn't a fair comparison.
First, the article is generally vague, refers to ambiguous sources, and makes some claims that are tautological (increased drought/flood/disease will force people from homes) or not supported by current evidence (increased tornadoes/droughts/hurricanes are observed as a result of warming; an interesting set of graphics is here, and although the sentiment may be a little over the top, I think the data is sound). The interesting thing that caught my eye (maybe because it was first) was that the heatwave of 1995 killed 750 people in Chicago, and that this could become the norm by 2050 because of global warming.
Lets see...my impression is that the CDC knows as much about how people die as anyone (a bit morbid, perhaps, but if you got it, flaunt it!) so lets check with them. Going into the Compressed Mortality database and checking on the number of people who died from extreme heat in Cook County yields the following chart.
This shows only 85 deaths by heat exposure, not 750, but the 1995 heat wave is clearly represented. Just for fun, how many deaths by cold for the same period?
Hmm. Not 85 in any one year, but several times more deaths by cold each year on average.Expanding to the entire state of Illinois doesn't change this much; at most 126 heat deaths in 1995, and still 2-3 times more death by cold over the same period. The article refers to a government entity that cites an ambiguous study that says that "cold snaps" increased death rates by 1.6% and heat waves increased deaths by 5.7%. But if more people die from cold already, then the number represented by 1.6% could be the same or greater than the number represented by the 5.7%. The only thing I think we've learned here is that humans are warm blooded and have difficulties surviving in extreme temperatures hot and cold, and that currently we have more problems with cold (at least in Illinois). Oh, and if there is a heat wave, it sucks to be in Cook County, since 2/3 of the heat deaths state-wide came from there; this probably could be applied to any large city.
So cold kills. And where did the 750 deaths in 1995 come from? Obviously, they included deaths from other factors than heat exposure, probably things like increased incidence of disease, or some tenuously related weather events. The problem is that it isn't the heat that kills then, it is some other factor, like when it froze the other night and a car skidded on the highway killing 5 people, or increases in flu season. If you expand the criteria on one end, you need to balance that on the other end or it isn't a fair comparison.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Wierding Way: Repost
This is a repost from my other blog. It seemed to me that the content is a little more appropriate here.
------------------------------------------------------------
Not something out of Dune, but an op-ed by Thomas Friedman in the NYT.
Now, I'm not that big a Tom Friedman fan. I remember he had a clever turn with his meme "The World Is Flat," which was, in fact, clever as far as it went, and I thought he had some interesting points. I ultimately felt it was a bit of oversimplification, which could not support the weight with which he rode it into the ground. I also remember him as an early and vocal supporter of the Iraq war, where he made the phrase "Suck on this!" briefly relevant to international diplomacy. Here, he provides an earnest, if fact-lite (okay, it is an op-ed), defense of global warming science, which doubtless could use some defending about now.
Global wierding? I agree that the term "global warming" should be avoided. I prefer something like "climate change." It is clear, concise, and quite descriptive and appropriate to the subject. "Global wierding" sounds (suspiciously) like a clever and catchy book title. Look for it by the end of the year.
His opening argument is essentially that weather is not climate, which is correct. The problem is that this argument works both ways: a heat wave in summer is likewise not evidence of global warming. He, of course, forgets this later talking about how recent weather events are "right in line" with climate change predictions. Such predictions are cheap and easy. I predict that sometimes weather will be severe and sometimes not: no matter what happens, it will be "right in line" with my prediction! The truth is that the climate models did not predict these events, and may be ever unlikely to do so. And while I feel for Australia and its 13 year drought, such droughts are not unique historically, such as the 300 year drought in North America 1000 years ago that led to the disruption of the Anasazi, or the one that brought down the Akkadian empire.
His diagnosis and prescriptions for the current climate science debates seem superficial. The faults are in citing non-peer-reviewed work and failing to respond to legitimate questions, but not making stuff up or conspiring to manipulate the peer-review process. And forgive my ignorance, but I thought the IPCC process was already supposed to be a convening of top world experts to put forth a summary of the science. I'm not sure a new panel convened to make better sense (or make up better stuff, perhaps?) of the old panel is such a hot idea. Besides, they would probably be the exact same experts (since there must be a "consensus").
I actually support the idea of investing in new energy technologies, but there are a host of good and valid reasons for doing so; making an unsupported statement such as "the warming that humans are doing is irreversible" shouldn't be necessary. Part of the problem, as he correctly states, is that larger numbers of people are going to try to "live like Americans," but I'm not sure there are enough resources on the planet to allow everyone to live that way; the current economic crisis indicates that we have enough trouble maintaining the American standard for those who live that way already. Sometimes it feels as though the purpose of climate alarmism is to redistribute (a la Robin Hood?) resources to a more "equitable" plan.
Tom does seem to have concerns about China. Maybe he should dust off the old standby "Suck on this!"
------------------------------------------------------------
Not something out of Dune, but an op-ed by Thomas Friedman in the NYT.
Now, I'm not that big a Tom Friedman fan. I remember he had a clever turn with his meme "The World Is Flat," which was, in fact, clever as far as it went, and I thought he had some interesting points. I ultimately felt it was a bit of oversimplification, which could not support the weight with which he rode it into the ground. I also remember him as an early and vocal supporter of the Iraq war, where he made the phrase "Suck on this!" briefly relevant to international diplomacy. Here, he provides an earnest, if fact-lite (okay, it is an op-ed), defense of global warming science, which doubtless could use some defending about now.
Global wierding? I agree that the term "global warming" should be avoided. I prefer something like "climate change." It is clear, concise, and quite descriptive and appropriate to the subject. "Global wierding" sounds (suspiciously) like a clever and catchy book title. Look for it by the end of the year.
His opening argument is essentially that weather is not climate, which is correct. The problem is that this argument works both ways: a heat wave in summer is likewise not evidence of global warming. He, of course, forgets this later talking about how recent weather events are "right in line" with climate change predictions. Such predictions are cheap and easy. I predict that sometimes weather will be severe and sometimes not: no matter what happens, it will be "right in line" with my prediction! The truth is that the climate models did not predict these events, and may be ever unlikely to do so. And while I feel for Australia and its 13 year drought, such droughts are not unique historically, such as the 300 year drought in North America 1000 years ago that led to the disruption of the Anasazi, or the one that brought down the Akkadian empire.
His diagnosis and prescriptions for the current climate science debates seem superficial. The faults are in citing non-peer-reviewed work and failing to respond to legitimate questions, but not making stuff up or conspiring to manipulate the peer-review process. And forgive my ignorance, but I thought the IPCC process was already supposed to be a convening of top world experts to put forth a summary of the science. I'm not sure a new panel convened to make better sense (or make up better stuff, perhaps?) of the old panel is such a hot idea. Besides, they would probably be the exact same experts (since there must be a "consensus").
I actually support the idea of investing in new energy technologies, but there are a host of good and valid reasons for doing so; making an unsupported statement such as "the warming that humans are doing is irreversible" shouldn't be necessary. Part of the problem, as he correctly states, is that larger numbers of people are going to try to "live like Americans," but I'm not sure there are enough resources on the planet to allow everyone to live that way; the current economic crisis indicates that we have enough trouble maintaining the American standard for those who live that way already. Sometimes it feels as though the purpose of climate alarmism is to redistribute (a la Robin Hood?) resources to a more "equitable" plan.
Tom does seem to have concerns about China. Maybe he should dust off the old standby "Suck on this!"
Friday, July 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)