Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
At various times of my youth (let’s say 15 to 25 years ago) I came across various dire predictions about seismological activity, earthquakes, and the “big one”. This article about how the earthquakes in southeast Asia might trigger earthquakes in California, triggered my memory of the “disaster predictions”. The one I remember most came from maps that used to hang on the walls of the Great Lakes Weather Service office (back when Fred Wagner ran the company). There was a series of descriptive maps showing what California and the west coast would look like after the big earthquake happened. Most of California would end up under water. At the time, the maps piqued my interest. They were created by some geologists and hung on Fred’s wall. I know people have differing opinions about Fred, but one thing for sure is that he was a knowledgeable meteorologist and a decent businessman. Even though the disaster maps contained a prediction that at first glance seemed outlandish, I succumbed to the “expert bias“. I gave the more credence to the maps based on who created them and who displayed them. I suppose this bias explains why so many people believe the “huge disaster” scenario year-after-year. Even after Malthus and another 100 years of repeated Armageddon-type disaster predictions, Paul Ehrlich had to take his turn with “The Population Bomb”. It was a myopic look at a handful of trends in human society and it led to the typical prediction of societal collapse and the death of most humans. He was (and still is) a professor, so the “expert bias” probably came into effect. Some other biases that come into play are the “Bandwagon bias” and “Confirmation bias“.
These biases also seem to be operating on the AGW disaster predictions. I like to think that modern scientists are more able to avoid these traps, but we are all human. How many times have you heard a consensus of climatologists says “global warming” (AGW to be specific) is “real” and it is going to have “extreme negative impacts”. This is an example of people exploiting the bandwagon bias. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans how many climatologists say AGW is “true”. All that matters is the data and how well it can be verified. I am pretty sure I see confirmation bias happening all the time as well. It seems no matter how the climate or weather changes, most AGW researchers always find something bad or always portray future changes as bad, Bad, BAD. This is in spite of the fact that the human condition as measured by most metrics has improved dramatically during the last century or more of “global warming”. As a percentage of the population poverty and hunger are down. Violence is down. Lifespans have increased. Population is up.
It doesn’t matter when it comes to AGW research. Changes in El Nino = bad. More heavy rainstorms = bad. More atmospheric methane = bad. Warmer ocean waters mean more food for fish, but it will still be bad. It seems researchers or at least the way the research is reported, is suffering from confirmation bias. People are seeking out and “finding” results that confirm their original premise, AGW=bad. Now, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about these changes in the environment, and I have never argued that people should ignore potential problems, however I can’t help but notice the increasing hyperbole in AGW discussions. This article about the world of 2050 and 2100 is particularly egregious, in that it predicts devastating droughts and fires as well as the near complete destruction of the Amazon rain forest. In this article about the human-influenced geological era(the Anthropocene), for the first time, a mainstream news outlet contains the speculation that the earth could be similar to Venus with all the ocean’s boiling off and the entire planet becoming sterile (the Venus Syndrome). Really? REALLY!? I can’t help but imagine what might come next. Maybe the entire earth – rocks, water, and air – will vaporize because of global warming caused by too many people driving cars. I am mostly agnostic on most topics, so I will never rule anything out 100%, however, I put the chances of earth suffering a Venus syndrome at about the same chance that the moon will crash into the earth next year.
Despite the perceptions of AGW theorists, humans are already taking steps to curb negative influences on the climate and this will continue in the future. I suppose in that regard, the hyperbolic environmental Armageddon predictions do serve a purpose. They cause some changes in behavior. However, the biased predictions can lead to irrational and detrimental reactions as well.
The real story about the future and one of the more significant threats to our collective future comes from technological progress. Our finer manipulation of matter and energy will lead to great new things that will benefit us all (like technology to take carbon dioxide out of the air) but also create the potential to destroy on a wider scale. This is happening now and should be cause for greater concern than what the climate will be like in 2050 or 2100. At least some people are talking about it.
Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.