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

[Snow_Miser]

De Speigel is a German newspaper. it is not "a science based website", nor does the story you linked to cite any peer-reviwed literature which refutes the points in the paper under discussion.

furthermore, one of the links embedded in the story, that the article claims refutes this paper, is actually a book which is a literature review of all of the literature on the topic and itself draws no conclusions, apart from the need for further research:

Taken together, extant studies provide mostly inconclusive insights, with contradictory or weak demonstrated effects of climate variability and change on armed conflict. This article reviews the empirical literature on short-term climate/environmental change and intrastate conflict, with special attention to possible insecurity consequences of precipitation and temperature anomalies and weather-related natural disasters. Based on this assessment, it outlines priorities for future research in this area.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0649-4

 

well of course--you're the loudest denier in this forum.

 

This doesn't address any of the points that I brought up, and even throws in an ad-hominem.

 

It's been shown in many papers that conflicts are highest when there are cold temperatures, and decrease during warmer temperatures. This is because with colder conditions there are more disputes over fewer resources.

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02897517

 

"In line with this knowledge gap, this study adopted a scientific approach to compare the paleoclimatic records with the historical data of wars, social unrests, and dynastic transitions in China spanned from the late Tang to Qing Dynasties. Results showed that war frequency in cold phases was much higher than that in mild phases. Besides, 70%–80% of war peaks and most of the dynastic transitions and nationwide social unrests in China took place in cold phases. This phenomenon could be attributed to the diminishing thermal energy input in cold phases resulting in the fall of land-productivity and hence, the deficiency of livelihood resources across society. Accompanied with certain social circumstances, this kind of ecological stress was transformed into wars and social unrests, followed by dynastic transitions in most of the cases. By closer examination, it was even found that war frequency was negatively correlated with temperature anomaly series."

 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1701/3745.short

 

"Temperature cooling shows direct positive association with the frequency of external aggression war to the Chinese dynasties mostly from the northern pastoral nomadic societies, and indirect positive association with the frequency of internal war within the Chinese dynasties through drought and locust plagues. The collapses of the agricultural dynasties of the Han, Tang, Song and Ming are more closely associated with low temperature. Our study suggests that food production during the last two millennia has been more unstable during cooler periods, resulting in more social conflicts owing to rebellions within the dynasties or/and southward aggressions from northern pastoral nomadic societies in ancient China."

[Snow_Miser]

I'm sure wxtrix is also aware that Burke et al. has been refuted in the peer reviewed literature, but chose to not disclose that information.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/51/E186.full

[Snow_Miser]

 this does nothing to refute the paper in the original post--can you figure out where your fallacious reasoning went wrong?

 

The paper claimed that milder Global temperatures would mean more conflicts. The papers I posted said those conflicts were far more frequent during cooler periods, rather than warmer ones.

[tamarack]

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.

 

Without wishing to dispute any of the above points (or the position that AGW may be increasing violence), and also without reading the link wxtrix posted, I wonder how thoroughly those points have been looked at in context. 

--What is the overall trend in violence, on a per capita basis?  Developed vs. developing nations?

--Has there been any change in the relative differences between hot and cold days, between summer and winter?  Are the differences widening?

 

As to the post about US murder rate, North vs. South, I think that the rate has been higher in the South as long as it's been being tracked.  Is the spread increasing?

[Snow_Miser]

Burke isn't the article in the first post.

second, that's a letter--it's not a scientific paper, and it's not peer-reviewed.

 

http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/

 

I was referring to the Butke and Sherigan paper you posted in your response to tacoman. I misread it as Burke. I thought you had posted a different paper. The letter that I posted appears to be irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

Apologies.

[Snow_Miser]

the study under discussion cites "climate change". not only heating. you're created an artificial, binary, structure for the discussion solely to hawk your denier wares.

the reality is that the scientists who work in these cross-disciplinary efforts, are looking at all disruptions and significant changes to climate, not just heat-related ones. dramatic changes in climate, whether hotter OR colder, are going to have an impact on humans in those areas.

 

This is a red herring. The two papers I posted specifically mention that colder periods tend to promote more resource and social conflicts than warmer and milder periods. For future reference, here is what I am specifically talking about within the two papers:

 

http://link.springer...1007/BF02897517

 

"Results showed that war frequency in cold phases was much higher than that in mild phases. Besides, 70%–80% of war peaks and most of the dynastic transitions and nationwide social unrests in China took place in cold phases. This phenomenon could be attributed to the diminishing thermal energy input in cold phases resulting in the fall of land-productivity and hence, the deficiency of livelihood resources across society. Accompanied with certain social circumstances, this kind of ecological stress was transformed into wars and social unrests, followed by dynastic transitions in most of the cases. By closer examination, it was even found that war frequency was negatively correlated with temperature anomaly series."

 

http://rspb.royalsoc...1701/3745.short

 

"Our study suggests that food production during the last two millennia has been more unstable during cooler periods, resulting in more social conflicts owing to rebellions within the dynasties or/and southward aggressions from northern pastoral nomadic societies in ancient China."

 

[Jonger]

Wxtrix is worried about accuracy while the ENTIRE articles headline is misleading to begin with.

 

Rise in violence 'linked to climate change'

 

The premise of the article is about crime in different regions and different times of the year, NOWHERE does it cite current EXISTING climate change causing a damn thing.

 

And she is worried about what Filter snowslovers paper went through.

[Snow_Miser]

this is a great analysis of the scientific paper (which I am assuming is the legit topic of this thread, and not secondary news articles about it):

http://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2013/aug/02/climate-change-global-warming-violence-conflict

 

It is no different than the article on the Der Spiegel website that I linked to a page ago. Both articles are under the science category and mention the paper, while coming to different conclusions about the paper. Yet one article is heralded as a "great analysis" while the other is trashed.

[FPizz]

It is no different than the article on the Der Spiegel website that I linked to a page ago. Both articles are under the science category and mention the paper, while coming to different conclusions about the paper. Yet one article is heralded as a "great analysis" while the other is trashed.

Good post +1

[rygar]

Skepticism is good, for both sides of the argument.  Everyone argues as if there was only 1 possible correct answer, which is absurd at this point in time.

[Jonger]

Skepticism is good, for both sides of the argument.  Everyone argues as if there was only 1 possible correct answer, which is absurd at this point in time.

 

We are in an era of rapidly advancing technology, butting up to an era that was essentially in the dark and had been that way for eternity. There most likely won't be much debate in the year 2,500 AD when it comes to the last 500 years of weather records, there will be SOLID records. 

[tacoman25]

there's a wealth of literature out there.  it's not the job of peopling holding substantiated positions on an issue to endlessly regurgitate the studies and papers that support their contentions.  the fact that don't know anything about this issue doesn't mean that the assertion is wrong.  educate yourself and then come back with serious questions for consideration.  no one is obliged to refute your blanket ignorance of this topic.

 

here's an article for the journal of the AMS for you to start your self-education:

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010WCAS1043.1

 

There were far more questions put out there than just in that one post you quoted.

 

If you don't have the ability or desire to address valid and reasonable points, and all you can do is tell others who don't accept an assertion at face value to "educate" themselves out of "blanket ignorance", then all you have proven once again is that you are incapable of actual discussion on a topic.

 

For you to assume that just because someone poses questions that they are ignorant...well, that's pretty ignorant.

[tacoman25]

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

 

You asked questions. Why didn't wxtrix tell you that you are ignorant and need to educate yourself? Strange!

[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?

 

 

 

 

 

I have yet to see anything that adequately addresses this question.

[tacoman25]

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.

 

 

 

Any answers here? Is this not a valid point, if we're talking about climate change affecting violent crime, not just hot weather?

[Jonger]

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?

 

 

 

 

 

I have yet to see anything that adequately addresses this question.

If this month's 0.40C anomaly is "fairly warm", then I would say this is rubbish.

[tacoman25]

Without wishing to dispute any of the above points (or the position that AGW may be increasing violence), and also without reading the link wxtrix posted, I wonder how thoroughly those points have been looked at in context. 

--What is the overall trend in violence, on a per capita basis?  Developed vs. developing nations?

--Has there been any change in the relative differences between hot and cold days, between summer and winter?  Are the differences widening?

 

As to the post about US murder rate, North vs. South, I think that the rate has been higher in the South as long as it's been being tracked.  Is the spread increasing?

 

The South has actually warmed less than the North, so the spread should actually be decreasing overall if climate change is a significant factor.

[AvantHiatus]

The South has actually warmed less than the North, so the spread should actually be decreasing overall if climate change is a significant factor.

Exactly, violent crime trends are not related to Climate Change. Northern States have more gun laws and a different demographic setup with less poverty.

[Derecho!]

From the political science side there's a pretty rich literature on the general decline of human violence over time on a per-population basis (one has to be careful to define terms, as this includes warfare, civil war, other forms of political violence, criminal violence, etc). 

 

Obviously it's not a steady decline, but the overall trend extending back to hunter-gatherer times (the idea of the peaceful "noble savage" has been pretty well demolished) is down, and the overall trend since WWII is down, with unfortunate blips in the trend like the Rwandan genocide, the recent Syrian civil war, etc.

 

It's pretty safe to say that the world has never been more free of violence than it is today.  People have a really remarkably difficult time believing this, though, as the idea that war and/or violence either worldwide or domestically is increasing has become a matter of axe-grinding faith to a panoply of groups across the political spectrum, from religious end-times-fantasizing apocalyptikooks to anti-video game crusaders. And the growth of global media means that the violence that does occur is instantly shown to us now, making it seem more common.

 

We live in a world where warfare between states is practically non-existent, which is a remarkable human achievement. There are unfortunately many quite bloody civil wars, but a lot fewer of them than there used to be and many areas of the world have none on-going at the moment at all. And terrorism kills so few people it doesn't even register when you're looking at long term human violence trends.

 

I've been seeing articles about the coming "water wars" for three decades and they still haven't happened; various noises of displeasure happen (such as Egypt and Ethiopia recently) but the war never actually breaks out.

 

In terms of famine, there's actually also a pretty rich literature on famine in the last few hundred years that it's primarily CAUSED by violence, deliberate government attempts to kill a specific ethnic group, or abject government mismanagement or communist imposition of collective agriculture, and weather is a subordinate cause. And it's not the famine causing the violence, but usually some sort of civil war making it too dangerous to harvest or transport food.

[skierinvermont]

This thread is a case study in how stupid and incapable of rational thought most humans are. The logical fallacy that has been repeated a dozen times throughout this thread: If crime is primarily caused by demographics, human nature, poverty etc., then climate change cannot be a contributing factor. Another simpler version: if crime is going down, then climate change cannot be causing an increase relative to no climate change. 

 

Both are obvious logical fallacies that have been repeated at least a dozen times in this thread, which serves to demonstrate the small-mindedness of most humans.

[Derecho!]

This special issue of the Journal of Peace Research (not exactly a haven for crazed right-wing big-oil-funded lunatics, believe me) is pretty illuminating, particularly the overview article in the beginning:

 

Whither the weather? Climate change and conflict

[tacoman25]

This thread is a case study in how stupid and incapable of rational thought most humans are. The logical fallacy that has been repeated a dozen times throughout this thread: If crime is primarily caused by demographics, human nature, poverty etc., then climate change cannot be a contributing factor. Another simpler version: if crime is going down, then climate change cannot be causing an increase relative to no climate change. 

 

Both are obvious logical fallacies that have been repeated at least a dozen times in this thread, which serves to demonstrate the small-mindedness of most humans.

 

I think the main point you seem to be missing is that even if climate change or warmer weather in some places is a factor, it has certainly not proven to be a significant one.

 

Look at the thread title: where is the evidence that climate change is causing any kind of rise in violence?

[skierinvermont]

I think the main point you seem to be missing is that even if climate change or warmer weather in some places is a factor, it has certainly not proven to be a significant one.

 

Look at the thread title: where is the evidence that climate change is causing any kind of rise in violence?

 

The evidence is in the paper. You are just choosing to ignore this evidence and believe (illogically) that simply because violence goes down, climate change is not making it higher than it would be otherwise. 

[tacoman25]

the evidence is in the scientific paper linked to in the initial post. I've also posted a detailed analysis of the paper's methodology provided by a statistician and an evolutionary biologist.

you do realize the story in the first post is a newspaper article and not the paper, and that the evidence is contained in the paper itself, right?

 

Yes, I read the paper. And I find most of the links made to climate change to be tenuous at best.

 

Basically, I agree with this guy quoted in the article (also a scientist, of course, but obviously an ignorant idiot because he doesn't agree with you):

 

"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."

[tacoman25]

The evidence is in the paper. You are just choosing to ignore this evidence and believe (illogically) that simply because violence goes down, climate change is not making it higher than it would be otherwise. 

 

I am not ignoring anything. I don't see anything compelling in the paper's evidence. The authors project that 2C climate change will cause significant rises in violence. Regardless of other factors. We have already experienced almost 1C of climate change, so why isn't there compelling evidence showing that global climate change is leading to an increase in violence?

 

Pointing out that there are short term spikes in some types of violence during heat waves (how much of that is due to climate change? Will a 97 degree heatwave cause significantly more violence than a 95 degree one?), or that places that experience drought (which may or may not be caused by climate change) may have higher rates of violence (heavily dependent on social/economic conditions) does NOT prove any kind of substantial link between violence and climate change.

 

Anyone that swallows this study without any questions is losing their ability to think critically and objectively. Scientific papers come to all sorts of different conclusions based on "evidence" all of the time. Doesn't mean they are all correct.

[tacoman25]

you have a subscription to Science?

 

Nope. You can find the paper online.

 

Now, are you going to make an actual point in this thread, or are you just going to keep telling people they are ignorant, or they need to read the paper and accept it as gospel - and then when someone does read it, question whether they did?

[tacoman25]

I'm sure many of us would love a link to the paper--could you please post the link here so we can get more discussion going--thanks!

 

Oh, you haven't read it? http://www.solomonhsiang.com/research/publications I use this handy little tool: http://www.google.com/

 

Enough with the questioning/demeaning of others. That's mostly what you do on here, often without answering questions posed to you. Step up or shut up.

[tacoman25]

Many of the conflicts the authors cite take place in places that have seen little or no warming because they are right on or near the equator. The real question should be how is warming affecting places that are seeing serious warming - mainly the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

 

Citing droughts or other climate phenomena that may or may not be related to climate change as causes for regional conflict/violence is not satisfactory.

[skierinvermont]

I am not ignoring anything. I don't see anything compelling in the paper's evidence. The authors project that 2C climate change will cause significant rises in violence. Regardless of other factors. We have already experienced almost 1C of climate change, so why isn't there compelling evidence showing that global climate change is leading to an increase in violence?

 

Pointing out that there are short term spikes in some types of violence during heat waves (how much of that is due to climate change? Will a 97 degree heatwave cause significantly more violence than a 95 degree one?), or that places that experience drought (which may or may not be caused by climate change) may have higher rates of violence (heavily dependent on social/economic conditions) does NOT prove any kind of substantial link between violence and climate change.

 

Anyone that swallows this study without any questions is losing their ability to think critically and objectively. Scientific papers come to all sorts of different conclusions based on "evidence" all of the time. Doesn't mean they are all correct.

 

Although I cannot find access to the entire paper,  a number of excerpts and quotes from the paper I have found speak directly to some of the questions you ask and provide evidence in the affirmative.

 

For example, you ask if there is a difference between a 95 and a 97 degree heatwave. The answer is yes, the greater the temperature anomaly the greater the per capita violence rate. Also, logically, with climate change, more places will experience 95 degree heatwaves (and more places will reach 70F, and 80F and 90F that have never before reached those temperatures) or they will experience those warm temperatures more frequently.

 

They also establish a firm correlation between droughts intergroup conflict. Wars, riots, and civil wars are all more frequent during droughts. Droughts will become more common with climate change. Therefore, logically, wars riots and civil wars will also become more common (of course other factors like rising standards of living may simultaneously decrease them). It's not bullet proof logic, but it is fairly sound. Of course it's possible that all these civil wars, riots and wars would have happened anyways without the droughts that kicked them off, and perhaps the drought only made them happen a few months earlier than they would have otherwise, but that seems pretty unlikely to me. At least a good portion of these conflicts that began in droughts probably wouldn't have happened without the drought that kicked them off. 

 

They present psychological evidence. For example, a 1994 study found that police officers in a warm room were more likely to draw their weapons compared to another group of police officers undergoing the same simulation.

 

Other mechanisms by which climate change causes violence are also quite logical. Climate change (warm or cold) causes disruptions in resources leading to resource competition, lower standards of living, and poverty all of which are known causes of both personal and inter-group violence. 

 

 

Our study is not saying that climate is the only cause of conflict, and there's no conflict that we think should be wholly attributed to some specific climatic event," he said. "Every conflict has roots in interpersonal and intergroup relations. What we're trying to point out is that climate is one of the critical factors the affect how things escalate, and if they escalate to the point of violence.

[skierinvermont]

Many of the conflicts the authors cite take place in places that have seen little or no warming because they are right on or near the equator. The real question should be how is warming affecting places that are seeing serious warming - mainly the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

 

Citing droughts or other climate phenomena that may or may not be related to climate change as causes for regional conflict/violence is not satisfactory.

 

This is false. The authors cite evidence from around the globe. And the violence that does occur at the equator is found to correlate to even small amounts of warming. 

 

Why should the question be "how does warmth affect places that are seeing serious warming?" Places near the equator have increases in violence in response to small amounts of warmth (1 sigma deviations) which at the equator often amounts to less than .5C difference over the course of a year.

 

The common theme found in all regions at both low and high latitude is that when temperatures fall above their normal range, violence is more frequent.