Rise in violence 'linked to climate change'...a new tack?

[vortmax]

From BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771

 

Besides the clearly obvious assumptions in the article like:

 

"For example, we already know that hotter and drier weather causes an increase in urban violence. Likewise, during cooler and wetter weather people tend to stay indoors, and the threat diminishes."

 

Can they really 'predict' this?:

 

They estimate that a 2C (3.6F) rise in global temperature could see personal crimes increase by about 15%, and group conflicts rise by more than 50% in some regions.

 

I think these are very interesting statements at the bottom of the article:

 

"I disagree with the sweeping conclusion (the authors) draw and believe that their strong statement about a general causal link between climate and conflict is unwarranted by the empirical analysis that they provide. I was surprised to see not a single reference to a real-world conflict that plausibly would not have occurred in the absence of observed climatic extremes. If the authors wish to claim a strong causal link, providing some form of case validation is critical."

[LithiaWx]

It has been proven that hotter temperatures make people more violent in general. It is not far fetched to believe the study that a warmer world would mean more violence.

[PhillipS]

It has been proven that hotter temperatures make people more violent in general. It is not far fetched to believe the study that a warmer world would mean more violence.

 

I agree with you. The only thing I would add is that I expect it'll be violence on a local, probably urban, level rather than regional conflicts.  I just can't imagine a national leader saying "It sure is hot around here - let's invade our neighbor".

[skierinvermont]

I agree with you. The only thing I would add is that I expect it'll be violence on a local, probably urban, level rather than regional conflicts.  I just can't imagine a national leader saying "It sure is hot around here - let's invade our neighbor".

 

No but increased resource competition, economic crises, and refugee crises could lead to that. 

 

I think it is difficult for people to see the causal relationships for some of these effects of climate change where the direct cause is something other than climate change. For example, the direct and obvious cause of human starvation today is an unequal distribution of resources. An even more proximate cause could be that political crises lead to even greater economic destruction (Somalia for example). But all of these more proximate causes are likely to be made worse by climate change. It's hard to see the causation of climate change when the direct proximate cause of starvation is a ruthless dictator.

 

Of course, this does imply that there are two ways of reducing starvation (or urban conflict or refugee crises etc.) and that is you can either address the direct proximate cause, or you can address the climate change that makes these situations more likely. Climate advocates argue that since we are bad at addressing the proximate causes of starvation, urban conflict, refugee crises etc. we must address climate change. But we also bad at addressing climate change. In reality, the correct approach is to do a detailed cost benefit analysis. And when you look at the cost benefit analysis that includes not only these indirect consequences of climate change (urban conflict type things) but also the more obvious and direct like crop damage from drought, rising sea level, flash floods etc. then it is clear that preventing extreme climate change is necessary and worth it from a cost benefit analysis.

[Jonger]

Nowhere on earth has it warmed enough to even test this hypothesis yet. I guess urban heat islands might add enough warmth to bring an increase in violence, but is UHI really AGW anyhow? Most populated cities have warmed less than a degree Fahrenheit overall.

[tacoman25]

The world has already warmed a fair amount the past 100 years. Is there a provable link between violence and rising temperatures yet? Where is the evidence?

 

We can argue all we want over how climate change might affect various countries and cause more conflict, but the reality is that violent conflict has been around long before climate change, and if we haven't been able to adequately address the root causes of regional violence to this point, it doesn't really matter if a slightly hotter world makes violence a little more likely.

 

We have to remember, there is no guarantee about how climate change will affect food availability, drought, etc. There are a lot of theories, but no one really knows for sure. As the world slowly warms, some places will become drier, some wetter, some harder to grow food, some easier. In general, a colder world limits food production globally more than a warmer world - shorter growing seasons, more food can grow in warmer climates than colder climates, etc.

 

We also have to remember that the hottest climates will warm the least. So places that already have a lot of unrest/drought/famine etc like Africa are not likely to see a big change to their current climate.

[tacoman25]

Nowhere on earth has it warmed enough to even test this hypothesis yet. I guess urban heat islands might add enough warmth to bring an increase in violence, but is UHI really AGW anyhow? Most populated cities have warmed less than a degree Fahrenheit overall.

 

Urban environments tend to breed more violence anyway, especially if poverty is high.

[skierinvermont]

Nowhere on earth has it warmed enough to even test this hypothesis yet. I guess urban heat islands might add enough warmth to bring an increase in violence, but is UHI really AGW anyhow? Most populated cities have warmed less than a degree Fahrenheit overall.

 

The hypothesis of the causation between heat and violence is easily tested and demonstrated by the fact that there is more violence on hot days, more violence in summer, and more violence in hotter cities. Logical possible reasons include the fact that people are outside and interacting more, more likely and able to live on the streets, and heat stress on the body possibly even altering brain chemistry.

[Jonger]

A better title would be: Climate Change could increase violence in Cities.

 

The current headline reads like the current 0.8C increase in temps has led to increased crime. First of all, the arctic represents most of that 0.8C warming, where nobody lives. Also, the relatively small warming at mid latitudes isn't enough to make a dent anyhow. I think Detroit's warmed by maybe 0.25C in 100 years. No chance that would matter.

 

Rise in violence 'linked to climate change'

 

That's a misleading title.

[tacoman25]

The hypothesis of the causation between heat and violence is easily tested and demonstrated by the fact that there is more violence on hot days, more violence in summer, and more violence in hotter cities. Logical possible reasons include the fact that people are outside and interacting more, more likely and able to live on the streets, and heat stress on the body possibly even altering brain chemistry.

 

Is Phoenix more violent than Chicago? It's a lot hotter...I think there are much larger factors than temperature that determine how violent a population is.

 

I also am not sure about more people being outside and interacting on hot days...during heat waves, many people are more likely to stay inside where there is A/C. Of course, this could lead to increased domestic violence. But again, the larger factors that determine violent crime far outweigh any influence from climate change.

 

I guess if there was a correlation between a warming climate and more violence, where are the stats showing this is happening? As I pointed out, we've been warming for a while now.

[tacoman25]

A better title would be: Climate Change could increase violence in Cities.

 

The current headline reads like the current 0.8C increase in temps has led to increased crime. First of all, the arctic represents most of that 0.8C warming, where nobody lives. Also, the relatively small warming at mid latitudes isn't enough to make a dent anyhow. I think Detroit's warmed by maybe 0.25C in 100 years. No chance that would matter.

 

Rise in violence 'linked to climate change'

 

That's a misleading title.

 

I wouldn't say that the Arctic is responsible for most of the .8C warming, but it's true that the higher latitudes of the NH have seen the majority of the warming. So, if this hypothesis is correct, these are the areas that should be looked at to see if there is a real correlation between increased temperatures and increased violence.

 

That aside, I think you have to look at all of the other things that influence crime: population density (this has obviously increased across most of the globe since we've been warming), access to violent weapons, poverty, changes in neighborhood demographics....so many other factors.

[skierinvermont]

The world has already warmed a fair amount the past 100 years. Is there a provable link between violence and rising temperatures yet? Where is the evidence?

 

We can argue all we want over how climate change might affect various countries and cause more conflict, but the reality is that violent conflict has been around long before climate change, and if we haven't been able to adequately address the root causes of regional violence to this point, it doesn't really matter if a slightly hotter world makes violence a little more likely.

 

We have to remember, there is no guarantee about how climate change will affect food availability, drought, etc. There are a lot of theories, but no one really knows for sure. As the world slowly warms, some places will become drier, some wetter, some harder to grow food, some easier. In general, a colder world limits food production globally more than a warmer world - shorter growing seasons, more food can grow in warmer climates than colder climates, etc.

 

We also have to remember that the hottest climates will warm the least. So places that already have a lot of unrest/drought/famine etc like Africa are not likely to see a big change to their current climate.

 

You ignore there are 100s of trillions of dollars of global infrastructure that are designed around the earth's current climate and distributing resources. Also the assumption that global crop yields, even with free infrastructure, are higher in a warm world are not necessarily correct. That would definitely be cool for a temperate climate like Europe or the northern half of the U.S. But crop yields from 35N to 35S would go down with increased desert and tropical zones with flash flooding. 

[skierinvermont]

Is Phoenix more violent than Chicago? It's a lot hotter...I think there are much larger factors than temperature that determine how violent a population is.

 

I also am not sure about more people being outside and interacting on hot days...during heat waves, many people are more likely to stay inside where there is A/C. Of course, this could lead to increased domestic violence. But again, the larger factors that determine violent crime far outweigh any influence from climate change.

 

I guess if there was a correlation between a warming climate and more violence, where are the stats showing this is happening? As I pointed out, we've been warming for a while now.

 

As I said before, there are obviously much more proximate causes of violence than heat. But that doesn't negate the fact that there is an obvious correlation between heat and violence and reasonable logical reasons that that correlation exists. If the weak causal relationship between heat and violence were the only effect of climate change, then obviously it would be more effective to try to reduce violence by dealing with the more proximate causes first (culture, poverty, etc.). However, an association between heat and violence is only one (a somewhat trivial one) of many consequences of climate change.

 

Honestly, I think we are pretty much agreeing.

 

In response to your last statement, however, I think it's pretty obvious that it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate a correlation globally over the 20th century due to the many other stronger more proximate causes of violence that would obscure any relationship between heat and violence. This is why we can only demonstrate the link on more local and shorter temporal scales. Violence is generally stronger on hot days, in summer and in generally warmer climates.

[tacoman25]

You ignore there are 100s of trillions of dollars of global infrastructure that are designed around the earth's current climate and distributing resources. Also the assumption that global crop yields, even with free infrastructure, are higher in a warm world are not necessarily correct. That would definitely be cool for a temperate climate like Europe or the northern half of the U.S. But crop yields from 35N to 35S would go down with increased desert and tropical zones with flash flooding. 

 

1. Global infrastructure is constantly changing and can adapt to climate change, provided it doesn't happen too rapidly.

 

2. Again, look at where most of the warming has and will likely occur: the further north you go, more warming; closer to the equator, less warming. Therefore, no reason to think that the net result would be more crop yields overall. I think that is a more solid assumption than saying crop yields in the tropical/sub-tropical zone will drop significantly due to increased deserts and flooding. 

[HurricaneFrances04]

Looks like an inverse correlation to me. 

 

[Snow_Miser]

How good is the alleged correlation between violence and warmer weather? Has it been observed and detected beyond other potential factors, or is it more speculative alarmism?

[Snow_Miser]

For those of you considering the claim to be legitimate, please show where the global warming signal is in this dataset:

[blizzard1024]

Ugh. Climate change "research" continues to sink to new lows. This whole ship is sinking fast...just wait

10-20 more years....  

[Jonger]

How good is the alleged correlation between violence and warmer weather? Has it been observed and detected beyond other potential factors, or is it more speculative alarmism?

 

This is about as bad as the Daily-mail link I posted about a year ago and I thoroughly apologized for it.

[skierinvermont]

1. Global infrastructure is constantly changing and can adapt to climate change, provided it doesn't happen too rapidly.

 

2. Again, look at where most of the warming has and will likely occur: the further north you go, more warming; closer to the equator, less warming. Therefore, no reason to think that the net result would be more crop yields overall. I think that is a more solid assumption than saying crop yields in the tropical/sub-tropical zone will drop significantly due to increased deserts and flooding. 

 

1. Indeed, however, numerous scientific cost benefit analyses done by collaborative groups of economists have shown the cost benefit analysis is clearly in favor of mitigation by a large margin.

 

2. Possibly but again this assumes free infrastructure. And you are probably underestimating the amount of desertification and increase in flash flooding that is likely to occur. By the end of the century it will probably be very difficult to grow anywhere close to the amount of food that is currently grown in California or central plains. The highest yields in the U.S. are now in CA and the states surrounding Iowa (MN, NE, KS, MO, IL, IN). That whole grain belt will shift into Canada and NE and KS will be far too hot and dry for good yields (climate like west TX). Some agriculture could hold on in Iowa and Minnesota but it would be more like the yields found in Oklahoma today.

[skierinvermont]

Anybody that thinks either of the above two graphs proves there is no correlation or causation is an idiot. There are 1000s of factors effecting violence, of which climate change is only one. There is a well documented correlation that has been known about long before it became a climate change issue. 

[Snow_Miser]

Anybody that thinks either of the above two graphs proves there is no correlation or causation is an idiot. There are 1000s of factors effecting violence, of which climate change is only one. There is a well documented correlation that has been known about long before it became a climate change issue. 

 

Right. So if the Climate Change signal in the violence dataset is so small, that the signal is not even detectable, then what's the concern?

[Jonger]

Anybody that thinks either of the above two graphs proves there is no correlation or causation is an idiot. There are 1000s of factors effecting violence, of which climate change is only one. There is a well documented correlation that has been known about long before it became a climate change issue. 

 

Right. So if the Climate Change signal in the violence dataset is so small, then what's the concern?

The premise of the article is most likely correct, its the headline that is misleading.

[LithiaWx]

Anybody that thinks either of the above two graphs proves there is no correlation or causation is an idiot. There are 1000s of factors effecting violence, of which climate change is only one. There is a well documented correlation that has been known about long before it became a climate change issue.

This.

[Casualbrain]

Violence can and will happen under stessful condtions.  Just think about what happened during Katrina - and we're probably in for more of that kind of incident based on reports I've read. 

I'm not rich or powerful enough to go to Davos for the World Economic Forum meetings, but I do know some people that have attended.

One of my friends (who prefers not to be named or quoted) is the risk management executive for a Fortune 50 company and has been there - the My friend has told me that the political elite (think heads of state) and CEOs of large multinationals have been planning for major sociatal upheaval and infrastructure disruption.  They won't mention this to the larger general populace however, as they are really impotent to do much to save the bacon of large swathes of population.  Much of the elite's thinking is synthesized by the Global Risks Conference proceedings - which can be eye openers for sure.  Needless to say, my rich connected friend has begun to stockpile certain useful items (think Gold, Diesel, Solar and Wind farm, Seeds, etc.) on his land in order to be more self sufficient - just in case.  Below is a nice introduction to what my friend is concerned about.

 

http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/section-seven-online-only-content/data-explorer/

[Snow_Miser]

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36822/title/Climate-Change-and-Violence/

 

 

furthermore, the linkages between climate and culture and civilizations is a rapidly growing area of climate change and is a legit topic.  it's more productive for folks who don't know anything about this to go and educate themselves on the topic instead of dismissing it out of hand, which adds nothing useful to the discussion.  for example, there have been studies on the role of the environment in the collapse of the Mayan empire,

 

 

I wouldn't accept this study's conclusions at face value. This study is in disagreement with other studies, and has met criticism from other Science based websites.

 

Skier said that there are 1000s of factors that influence Violence. There is no discernible Global Warming influence in the number of homicides, at least in the U.S.. Sure Climate Change is one of the factors that has an influence, but to date, even with warming over the 20th Century, there doesn't appear to be a clear Global Warming signal from the rest of the noise. I don't deny a link. I "deny" the robustness and magnitude of such a link.

[Sundog]

Right. So if the Climate Change signal in the violence dataset is so small, that the signal is not even detectable, then what's the concern?

It has been shown that crime increases during warmer weather conditions.

[Snow_Miser]

It has been shown that crime increases during warmer weather conditions.

 

Yes, but that is weather not climate. The question is how much will crime increase with a future Global Warming scenario of 1 Degree C or so? A lot? A little? Will there be any detectable increase whatsoever?

[tacoman25]

It has been shown that crime increases during warmer weather conditions.

 

This is a very simplistic look at it. What is the relationship? Is there a noticable uptick at 85 degrees? 95? Does it depend on the climate? If global temperatures rise another 1C and heatwaves that would have peaked at 95 degrees peak at 97 instead, will that cause significantly more crime?

 

There are a number of points and questions brought up in this thread that advocates of this theory haven't addressed.

[TerryM]

Are there studies that show countries closer to the equator are more violent?

My guess would be that southern states have higher murder rates than northern states - but that is only a guess.

Terry