More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

[we_are_toast]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Death rates from severe weather is definitely a bad way to judge the intensity of weather events due to numerous ameliorating factors such as early detection and communication technology. That's like rating the US Health Care system based upon the average life span number--health care is only one of numerous factors in life span.

I'd like to see your comment on hurricane intensity. It seems as if "extreme weather" is, in fact, not increasing in occurrence or intensity.

I absolutely agree with you that death rates are not only a bad way to measure intensity or numbers of severe weather events, it's really absurd and not even the author would suggest that it should be used as a measure. The question is, why did the denialist website present it and try to imply that it indicates the number of severe weather events are decreasing? One can only conclude that it was a deliberate deception, or the result of extreme ignorance. We see this over and over again where the denialist websites take so much out of context, or keep presenting conclusions that have been repeatedly debunked.

As far as extreme weather events increasing in occurrence or intensity; I'll repost the graph created by the author quoted in the denialist website. According to his research, the extreme weather events have indeed increased dramatically.

Then of course, C1ue continues the misinformation campaign by completely misrepresenting what I posted, in order to mislead the readers even further.

How amusing - I've clearly shown that hurricanes are neither increasing in severity or frequency.

Yet somehow you're attempting to say that they are?

Then I show that weather attributed deaths are falling - a peer reviewed paper - yet you scream that somehow this is untrue?

If you go back and read my post, you will find that I not only did not question the accuracy of the data from researcher Goklany, only the deceptive, out of context presentation by the denialist website "whatsupwiththat.com". But since this website is well known for it's deliberate attempts to mislead, it was rather easy to find how they took the research out of context and misrepresented it.

If the science and data are overwhelmingly against you, you have to fool the people to believe somehow.

Here's Mr. Goklany's graph on the number of severe weather events:

Figure 2: Average Number of Extreme Weather Events per Year by Decade, 1900–2008. Source: Goklany (2009), based on EM-DAT (2009).

[Ghent12]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

I absolutely agree with you that death rates are not only a bad way to measure intensity or numbers of severe weather events, it's really absurd and not even the author would suggest that it should be used as a measure. The question is, why did the denialist website present it and try to imply that it indicates the number of severe weather events are decreasing? One can only conclude that it was a deliberate deception, or the result of extreme ignorance. We see this over and over again where the denialist websites take so much out of context, or keep presenting conclusions that have been repeatedly debunked.

As far as extreme weather events increasing in occurrence or intensity; I'll repost the graph created by the author quoted in the denialist website. According to his research, the extreme weather events have indeed increased dramatically.

Then of course, C1ue continues the misinformation campaign by completely misrepresenting what I posted, in order to mislead the readers even further.

[snip]

Here's Mr. Goklany's graph on the number of severe weather events:

Thanks for posting this. I am curious to know how the data was acquired and what exactly constitutes an "extreme" event. Are not the same factors that make death rates an improper measurement of extreme weather also the ones that make any data prior to, say, the 1970's essentially incongruent with data collected by modern means? Given that the trend remains similar prior and after the 1970's, basically doubling every decade, that may not be the case. However, surely the criteria that makes a given weather event "extreme" or not have numerous incomplete entries in decades past, especially in the absence of weather satellites and numerous weather stations.

In other words, is this graph a "real" representation of "extreme weather events" or is it an indication of better and more thorough data collection?

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Thanks for posting this. I am curious to know how the data was acquired and what exactly constitutes an "extreme" event. Are not the same factors that make death rates an improper measurement of extreme weather also the ones that make any data prior to, say, the 1970's essentially incongruent with data collected by modern means? Given that the trend remains similar prior and after the 1970's, basically doubling every decade, that may not be the case. However, surely the criteria that makes a given weather event "extreme" or not have numerous incomplete entries in decades past, especially in the absence of weather satellites and numerous weather stations.

In other words, is this graph a "real" representation of "extreme weather events" or is it an indication of better and more thorough data collection?

What the Toast'd One neglects to mention is that with the combination of increasing population, radar, satellites and national reporting systems, it would not be in any way unusual to expect to see more tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, whatever.

50 years ago, a major weather event had to kill hundreds of thousands to even be heard about on a different continent.

Today we can see tornadoes sliding across the Midwest on radar in real time on the Internet.

But of course, the rabid name caller can't stand that there isn't some higher authority to diktat what he wants.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Pretty sure if you look back you will find that I've consistently expressed skepticism towards Krugman's attribution of price-rises to global warming.

Yet you said:

I make a quick comment that the article acknowledges the food shortages, seemingly confirming Krugman's point that the prices are not due to money-printing, and that Krugman's attribution of the weather to global warming is a stretch.

The article in fact made no mention of food shortages. It actually noted that from a supply perspective, there is no operationally valid decrease in supply beyond normal year to year variability. It noted any hunger was entirely due to policy.

Unsurprisingly your understanding therefore that the article reinforced Krugman's view that this was all a supply and demand issue - and that from global warming - was wrong.

And there again is the root of our disagreement. Care to support that statement? The articles certainly didn't care to, or even bother to offer anything in the way of evidence.

Let's see: The article notes:

Poverty levels, subsidizations, tariffs, setting bread or fuel prices, devalued currencies, import and export restrictions, infrastructure standards of food storage and transport are all important factors in food prices which help determine levels of food security within individual nations.

Which of the above have changed with respect to Egypt, as well as the world in general? Only the currency portion - the rest are either static or are increasing for the better, with the possible exception of import/export.

I agree the ethanol subsidy is foolish, and likely increases the price of corn. Via the well-known effect of increasing the demand.

Except that it isn't 'free market' demand, it is subsidies to the tune of $7.7 billion a year.

Hence it is a policy failure, not a supply and demand failure, doubly so since even the Toast'd One would not argue that corn-based ethanol is a net CO2 producer that is even worse than burning the gasoline directly in the 1970s Cadillac.

[we_are_toast]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Thanks for posting this. I am curious to know how the data was acquired and what exactly constitutes an "extreme" event. Are not the same factors that make death rates an improper measurement of extreme weather also the ones that make any data prior to, say, the 1970's essentially incongruent with data collected by modern means? Given that the trend remains similar prior and after the 1970's, basically doubling every decade, that may not be the case. However, surely the criteria that makes a given weather event "extreme" or not have numerous incomplete entries in decades past, especially in the absence of weather satellites and numerous weather stations.

In other words, is this graph a "real" representation of "extreme weather events" or is it an indication of better and more thorough data collection?

I can't comment on the collection methods since I don't know how they were collected.

My initial reaction was the same as yours. Might the increase be do to technological advances in detection? Every once in awhile there is a technological development in a field of science that dramatically advances the science. The telescope in astronomy, the microscope in biology, and the satellite in Meteorology would be good examples. The satellite was an absolutely huge advance in Meteorology. To be able to see 1/2 the planet (from a geosynchronous orbit) in one picture was an amazing leap forward. You would expect to see a big jump in detection with the introduction of these systems.

The 1st polar orbiting weather satellites were launched in the 60's, and then geostationary sats in the 70's. There seems to be some bump in the data during these decades. The puzzling part is from the 80's to the present. Although meteorology continues to advance, there really has been nothing comparable to the technological leap of the satellite, and yet the events increased at a fairly steady rate. Although I would certainly attribute some of the increase to improved detection, if the % was high, I would expect to see a much more stepped appearance in the data.

I see that while I was posting C1ue has posted. As I explain above, there has been nothing on the scale of the satellite to improve detection in the last few decades. To simply dismiss the increase to radar in the midwest, would be rather simplistic. It's good to be skeptical, but skepticism without a logical reason or supporting data, can quickly turn to denialism.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

I see that while I was posting C1ue has posted. As I explain above, there has been nothing on the scale of the satellite to improve detection in the last few decades. To simply dismiss the increase to radar in the midwest, would be rather simplistic. It's good to be skeptical, but skepticism without a logical reason or supporting data, can quickly turn to denialism.

Uh, I beg to differ. How many local weather stations had Doppler radar in the '60s? '70s? '80s? '90s?

How about internet based recording and reporting systems?

Just because a satellite with a monkey in it went up in the '60s, doesn't mean meaningful data on a global scale came back from that satellite at that time.

[Munger]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Yet you said:

The article in fact made no mention of food shortages. It actually noted that from a supply perspective, there is no operationally valid decrease in supply beyond normal year to year variability. It noted any hunger was entirely due to policy.

One question: Did the article state that production was up or down for the crops listed?

Let's see: The article notes: "Poverty levels, subsidizations, tariffs, setting bread or fuel prices, devalued currencies, import and export restrictions, infrastructure standards of food storage and transport are all important factors in food prices which help determine levels of food security within individual nations."

Sigh. And around and around we go. Yea, that's my point. The entirety of article in regards to money printing as a causal factor is that one sentence saying "money printing is a causal factor." Well, like I said before, given that the article admitted that supply has in fact decreased due to weather, it's going to take a little more than that one-off sentence to convince me.

Except that it isn't 'free market' demand, it is subsidies to the tune of $7.7 billion a year.

Hence it is a policy failure, not a supply and demand failure, doubly so since even the Toast'd One would not argue that corn-based ethanol is a net CO2 producer that is even worse than burning the gasoline directly in the 1970s Cadillac.

My god. You may be interested to know that the laws of supply and demand exist alongside and amongst government policies. I'm beginning to think you just like making an argument out of nothing. I am therefore pretty much done arguing with you.

[mooncliff]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

I was in Beijing for the Olympics, and even though they had shut down as much as possible, I was gagging for hours... I'm not joking... I had great difficulty breathing.

When I opened the glass door of the hotel, you could just smell the sulfur, and I think you could only see about a kilometer or so.

The sky over Japan is often milky white this winter, which seems to me to be worse than 20 years ago. It is almost always clear and sunny from December to March in Tokyo, but the haze really cuts down on the sunlight. I don't know if the source of the haze is China, though.
Every spring, there is one day when it is tremendously windy, and when that happens, a LOT of dust blown from the deserts of China gives the sky here a milky greenish tinge.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

I was in Beijing for the Olympics, and even though they had shut down as much as possible, I was gagging for hours... I'm not joking... I had great difficulty breathing.

When I opened the glass door of the hotel, you could just smell the sulfur, and I think you could only see about a kilometer or so.

The sky over Japan is often milky white this winter, which seems to me to be worse than 20 years ago. It is almost always clear and sunny from December to March in Tokyo, but the haze really cuts down on the sunlight. I don't know if the source of the haze is China, though.
Every spring, there is one day when it is tremendously windy, and when that happens, a LOT of dust blown from the deserts of China gives the sky here a milky greenish tinge.

It is debatable how much is due to China industrializing vs. China just having lots of people.

I first visited China in 1994 - well before the outsourcing got to full force. Even then Beijing was blanketed by a Mexico City style smog - because most people used coal for their everyday cooking/heating needs.

Certainly there is lots of pollution there, but the reality is that energy use closely corresponds with national wealth.

When you're poor, you use what you can.

This is why carbon taxes are a terrible idea, though attractive to the 'efficient markets' crowd.