The Black Swan Effect: Why Predictions of the Future Are Hard to Make
A friend sent me this piece predicting a spike in worldwide political violence in the 2020s.
Craig: I don’t put any credence in this at all, for a few reasons, primarily the so-called Black Swan effect, i.e., we tend to underestimate the impact of unforeseeable events. Obviously, the effects of the US’s having just elected a president that many refer to as a “fascist” and “emotionally unstable” could easily cause the political violence suggested in the article. But think of how much else could happen in the next few years. Personally, I predict that Trump will be impeached and removed, legally and peacefully, from office in the next two years. I’m suggesting that we’re not yet too degraded a species to let this stay. Of course, I’ve been wrong before–once or twice. 🙂
So much uncertainty. And to make predictions based on what happened half a century ago? I don’t see it.
Friend: Thank you for your thoughts, Craig! He is using math models…
Craig: I’m aware of that, but I can’t imagine how anything like that could possible apply, given the maelstrom of change that is accelerating every day.
Actually, predictions of the future are quite easy to make. People make them all the time. However, they are usually wrong because something which could not have been predicted occurs. The election of Trumpet was one of those somethings.
Regarding president Old MacDonald Trumpet, this could be a lesson to some unstable countries which most commonly remove leaders via coups or whose leaders will not leave even when they have been defeated at the polls. Trumpet will not be removed by a coup. Instead, he will either be impeached constitutionally if legal means are found to do so, or he will be replaced at the next presidential election. It may be that he never expected that he would actually be elected and will come to regret that he was.
Unlike you Craig I find predictions interesting. Some of the most far-seeing were also the most mysteriously given. But there is a difference between some kind of psychic prediction that seems to pull information another realm, and those predictions that attempt to coorelate information that is avaliable for all to see.
If I leave paper money in my clothes pockets. And they go in the wash I can “predict” with some certainty that they will be wet. This basically follows an unbroken logical progression. But if the money were in a plastic bag the “prediction” may still be in error based upon unforseen circumstances.
This kind of prediction is a matter of asking the right questions and having the right information. The author of the original artical is trying to do just that. But with more complex predictions we try to make bigger and bigger guesses. There are more assumptions, extrapolitations, and averaging. And so the potential for error grows.
But perhaps our skepticism is best reserved to the outcome and not attempt for an ever more accurate process.
I should clarify that I DO find predictions interesting, and make them myself constantly; in fact, I made one re: Trump in the post itself. I just didn’t find the logic here compelling.
Craig,
I take it by “Black Swan” you mean the term used to describe the method of ” predicting the seemingly unpredictable, using the right data, the best algorithms and plenty of human intuition” ?
(Not the large Swan native to south-eastern Australia ?:)
Although I don’t always agree with your predictions, I do agree with your belief that predictions are easily made, but seldom fulfilled.
Regarding political violence:
I see no reason to suspect that political violence will not escalate.
There were two primary drivers for the mess in Syria:
First, the Iraq war drove millions of refugees into Syria.
Second, there was a massive drought/heat wave, which caused many farms to dry out and a wave of urban migration from farm hands that had no employment opportunities.
So you have overpopulation and climate change being the two biggest drivers of a horrifying civil war.
That same massive drought/heat wave lead to social uprising in much of the Middle East, the so-called “Arab Spring”.
Granted, the entire Middle East region was inundated with refugees from the Iraq war… so the population explosion was artificially intensified, but it shows pretty clearly that all it takes for political upheaval to begin is either population growth or negative effects from climate warming to occur at a rate that is too fast for the country in question to accommodate.
I see no reason why the negative effects of climate change will do anything other than accelerate over the next several decades, which should mean that the number of countries that cannot accommodate that that pace should only increase. Worse, those countries that cannot accommodate global warming and experience political upheaval will unleash a flood of refugees that will only serve to massively overpopulate surrounding areas and add more stress, increasing the likelihood that they might see political violence.
(like contagion from a pandemic, spreading with the people fleeing the last outbreak).
Actually, I agree; I just disagree that this has something to do with cyclic repetitions of violence throughout history.
Glenn,
Sometimes I wonder if I’m on another planet, please forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you.
You seem to be asserting that the Civil War in Syria (in fact all the violence in the middle east) is due to “global Warming” ? Is that correct ?
Well, I’ll grant you it’s a theory,..a pretty daft theory, supported by no evidence, and contradicted by a host of other factors existing in the real world, but it’s a theory !
Glenn, don’t you understand, it’s exactly this kind of bizarre claim that discredits all the hard work put in by serious scientists in public opinion.
Joe Public has grown weary of all the confusion and unfortunately no longer discerns between serious science and the weird ramblings of unqualified advocates.
The wars, and disputes in the Middle-Eastern region, have many causes, some dating back hundreds of years. But none of these have anything to do with global warming.
Marcopolo.
Look at Germany’s current problem with refugees. The unrest and social anxiety that is occurring there due to a mere 1% of their population worth of poor, desperate people that were fleeing a war is causing Germany.
Germany is a first world country, a very strong economy in a stable growth cycle, and their greatest problem is an aging population and a need for younger blood… and still there is unrest and strife due to a mere 1% population injection from refugees.
Syria’s population swelled by nearly 3 million during the Iraq war. That’s a swell of ~15% of Syria’s population in refugees, crowding their cities and causing social unrest. (Imagine a two-three year period in which 45 million undocumented workers poured over the Southern border of the U.S.).
Syria was not a 1st world democracy, it was a 3rd world authoritarian government. The country managed, in part because it was taking payments from the U.S. government to bolster its budget during the war, and in part because they cracked down VERY hard to maintain control during the chaos.
But the drought piled an economic collapse on top of the social disruption caused by so many refugees. The cities – already full of homeless refugees – were now being inundated with desperate and impoverished Syrians from the rural areas of the country, and it was a powder keg. The government continued to escalate its harsh measures to maintain control, until eventually the control slipped… and the civil war began.
That IS the history of the civil war in Syria. It’s fact.
Your ignorance of these facts is not laudable, but it’s understandable. Everyone is ignorant of many things. That’s not a problem. However, your choice to lash out at me, from a position of your own ignorance, when I try to explain these facts… That’s pathetic.
When ignorance becomes deliberate, you take upon yourself the mantel of a fool.
And here we are.
Comments like this have the unintended effect of getting me rolling on the floor laughing. I saw this on my phone early this morning before I got out of bed, and nearly fell on my head.
MP: Let me give you the same advice about Glenn I’ve given others: You’re (messing) with the wrong marine.
Thanks Craig.
🙂
(I’m not a marine. I know you weren’t intending to convey that, but I thought some readers might misread that… so I wanted to clarify. I doubt I would have lasted a week in marine boot camp.)
😉
I shouldn’t have used that reference; it’s a bit obscure. It’s from the wonderful Jack Nicholson / Tom Cruise film “A Few Good Men.” See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxtXOisa0cY.
Craig,
While the two of you are busy with a sort of weird mutual admiration society, you may not have noticed that Glenn’s angry dissertation doesn’t make sense!
Among the myriad causes for conflict in the middle east, and Syria in particular, “global Warming” simply isn’t a primary factor !
It’s so monumentally irrelevant, claiming “global warming” to be the primary cause of the conflict in that region, removes credibility from not only Glenn’s understanding of the region, but any sane understanding of climate change !
While the four year drought experienced in the region may have created some problems for the Assad regime and made stability more difficult, the regime has experienced far more difficult conditions before and weathered the storm.
The area is used to drought, crop failure and water shortages. It’s true that a four year drought during a time of great unrest due to other factors, didn’t help the stability of a regime that should have already been past it’s used by date, but to conclude that “Global Warming” was the major factor, is absurd.
Perhaps I have an advantage since I’ve visited Syria several times over the years, and being Australian, where droughts often last a decade, I have a better understanding of the problems facing the region.
The 2006-2010 drought, wasn’t unique to Syria, nor was Syria the centre of the drought. Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Iraq and Iran are were also affected with the worst effects being experienced on the Turkish-Iraqi border and in Iran.
What is seldom mentioned is some parts of Syria were barely effected by drought.
One of the most heavily contested areas, the 10,000 year old city of Aleppo during 2006-2011 experienced only 7% less rainfall than the average annual rainfall over the preceding 55 years.
2011 was only seventh driest on record and 2006-2011 only thirteenth driest six-year period on record.
Rainfall recorded in the ‘crop growing’ areas of Syria, Lattakia, Aleppo, Kamishi, Hama and Damascus regions, was only 4% below average.
Crops can fail for many reasons, but it’s easier to blame drought than investigate the actual reason.
Syria’s agricultural problems are not due to “global warming” but geopolitical factors and poor farming practices.
Syria’s population has grown enormously over the last 40 years. In fact the population has expanded by five times ! In the last 20 years, the fastest growing percentage of the population have been among the poorer, ethnically and religiously sections of the populous most of whom are opposed to Assad and his supporters.
The Syrian government in an effort to keep up with the massive explosion in population, pursued an unwise agricultural policies.
During the 1980’s the Syrian government and their Russian advisors, encouraging the rapid development of irrigated croplands. Syria boosted a cropland increase of 170% !
When the droughts came, Syria turned to it’s aquifers to make up the difference. The result was a degradation in aquifer quality and groundwater levels plummeted.
Over grazing and the spread of urbanization over some of the most productive land, also hastened desertification and crop failures due to disease etc.
One of the biggest mistakes of the Assad government was to remove the subsidy on diesel causing the price to triple. Since the most marginal farmers and communities rely on diesel for irrigation and transport of crops to the cities, this drove many to poverty.
The Assad government also neglected production and subsidization of adequate fertilizer.
None of these factors have anything to do with “Global Warming” !
Everything I just written can be verified by countless reputable sources. The conclusions are obvious.
Craig, I don’t find the plight of Syria or it’s people the subject of levity.
But again, perhaps I have an advantage in knowing more about agriculture (and for that matter warfare) than you, having experienced both.
Blaming everything on “global Warming” , is not helpful.
You will notice that when I dispute something, I try to base my conclusions on an analytical, objective assessment of ALL relevant material and information.
Unlike Glenn, I don’t just pick that information to fit a predetermined belief.
Marcopolo:
Yeah…
Making multiple references to a drought/heatwave that devastated the region as one of the two principle causes for the Syrian civil war… I can’t see where AGW came up at all…
You snidely look at rainfall totals, determine they were not record lows, and thus conclude that the drought was not a major factor? Really?
You failed to look at the temperature, you failed to consider the average rainfall of the region.
In 2011, there was a 6 month period where the average temperature was 5-10 degrees C above average (April-October), and the recorded high temperature was 3-7 C above average. During that span no rain fell. You say that you are familiar with drought? In a region that traditionally averages only ~13 inches of rainfall/year, after 4 years of drought, to suddenly have a heat wave that is far warmer than normal accompanied by zero rain, what happens to the crops?
At those temperatures, every 5 C of temperature rise increases the vapor pressure of water by ~30%. So you have ~70% more water being drawn from the crops and land that has been under low water conditions for the past 4 years. The aquifers went dry. The crops failed.
The crops failed. Massive crop failure, across every region of the country.
It was an economic catastrophe that would have caused severe stress on the Syrian government even if they hadn’t had a deluge of refugees flooding every street as a result of the U.S. decision to take a stint at recreational military adventurism in Iraq.
Again, it’s not an attack that you don’t know this. It just means you didn’t research it. But you continually are turning yourself into a joke by lashing out from a position of ignorance.
What is it you are trying to gain by doing so? Attempting to cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change? That ship has sailed… so what is the goal that you are willing to make an ass out of yourself to accomplish? I don’t get it.
Glenn,
It’s evident your fanatical obsession with AWG has no basis in science. That’s not to say Climate Change has no basis in science, just your knowledge of the subject has no basis in science.
Science requires a gathering of all relevant information for analysis, not just those you find convenient your beliefs.
The causes underlying the civil war in Syria are complex and involve a combination of ancient historical animosities, population growth, demographic changes, failed government policies, bad agricultural practices, outside interference, cultural and religious differences, the rise of social media, mass communications, sectarian discrimination and the mistakes of an aging power structure.
For you to ignore all these tensions and obvious factors, instead claim the sole cause, or even the principle cause of the civil war, is due to “global warming”, is ludicrous !
What’s most irritating, is like most fanatics when you are are presented with far more credible explanation, based on verifiable information you can’t refute , your only reply is abuse.
Calling people “ignorant” “Stupid” “Idiots” ,or “Deniers”, because they disagree with your narrow misunderstandings, is exactly the sort of behaviour which makes the task of genuine environmentalists so much more difficult.
That’s the trouble with all fanatical reasoning, you only see what you want to see. You ignore any other, more obvious and rational explanations for fear of exposing the flaws in your ideological beliefs.
You are not alone. Unfortunately, a considerable number of people have also become adherents to a weird sort of new religion created from a misunderstanding of Climate Change.
Such movements are not new in the human dynamic. Quasi-religious pseudo-scientific beliefs have always arisen in each period of human history, and adherents often do great harm and damage before being replaced by more rational explanations.
I think this helps me to understand people like MarcoPolo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/25/we-asked-people-which-inauguration-crowd-was-bigger-heres-what-they-said/
LOL. I just want to know who pays him. He says he does this for free, but it’s hard to imagine how/why anyone would make it their life’s work to challenge virtually everything I write.
Craig,
Let me clarify something.
I first became interested in your forum because it primarily focused on the advancement of Clean technology.
Since both personally and as a financier I have an interest in clean technology, I felt I could contribute some useful insights.
Like many people, I believe I’m also try to be a practical, pragmatic environmentalist.
Sadly, over the last few years, I have witnesses the green movement steadily lose impetus and influence due to the politicization of those who see the green movement as a method of reviving old leftist political/ideological agendas.
I contribute to forums as a form of relaxation when traveling and as a break from work. My comments often contain information collected and analyzed for other purposes, but retained and easily recovered.
Forums also provide an opportunity for learning, and trying out ideas.
I spend relatively little time on comments, (usually less than a few minutes, since I’m fortunate to have access to an extensive library with a software program that quickly provides relevant material derived from a wide range of sources.
I could be wrong, but from my observation,over the last few years your interest in Green Energy has started to take second place to your defense of leftist political agenda’s.
I’m sorry that you feel I oppose everything you write, it’s not my intention.
For years I’ve warned fellow environmentalists of consequences of alienating moderates and the general public by confusing environmental objectives with leftist political agenda.
I’ve also warned of the folly of discouraging debate and treating dissenting opinions with derision.
Of course, I have a measure of self-interest. I want to ensure clean(er) technology maintains a high level of public and government support. Government incentives are essential for new technologies, especially with the cost of R&D increasing.
But government and public support must be earned by tangible results. It’s not a prerogative for self-appointed ideologues and bat-shit crazy advocates with fanatical agenda’s.
For years I called for more inclusive dialog and more self criticism. More examination and understanding why the environmentalist message isn’t resonating with the general public.
Craig, Glenn’s latest claim is a good example of how you have moved into a laager mentality. The claim the sole(or even primary) cause of the complex Syrian civil war is “Global Warming” is just plain silly. I know it, you know it, probably deep down Glenn knows it, but yet you defend it on the basis of “the enemy of my enemy, is my friend.
In itself, it’s just harmless nonsense. But it reflects how far you have isolated yourself from mainstream reasoning, and how deeply you align yourself with an increasingly small group of fellow “true believers”.
In my opinion, once an advocate can no longer engage with dissenting opinion preferring instead to arrogantly disdain criticism or challenge, his voice is diminished and only heard among fellow travelers.
What you seem to fail to grasp, is you are responsible for the Trump Presidency ! All over the world, the general public have grown weary of being lectured by sanctimonious advocates.
Politicians have tried to appease the fanatics and self appointed advocates, egged on by the media eager for sensationalism and excitement.
The result was inevitable. The public grew weary and lost interest. In many cases the public grew angry at being treated with contempt, angry enough to elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress!
But you still don’t get it, had Donald Trump been just a little less personally, ah,.. eccentric, and a little more polished, while retaining the same agenda, his election would have been a landslide !
There is an old saying, “we have met the enemy and he is ourselves” !
In Australia we have a maxim called the “pub test” (public bar). The test is basically the reaction of the average person to any proposition.
The idea that the Syrian conflict was due to “global warming” would be met with amused disbelief by any assemblage of the general public, and deservedly so.
What’s disappointing, is your reaction. Not once did Glenn or yourself try to disprove, or correct, any of the far more verifiable and rational causes I advanced ,but instead resorted to behaving like school yard bullies and shout irrelevant abuse.
It’s not each other you need to convince, preaching to the already converted is a waste of time. It’s the vast majority of the general public who need to be convinced.
Opinion polls have proved to be useless when the public tells you what you want hear, instead of what they really think.
The public will never be persuaded for long by raucous demonstrations, loud abuse or fanatical advocacy.
In his own way, Trump is an extremist, an aberration. His star will quickly wane, but not the primary causes of his appeal. His appeal, was born from a rejection of public policy driven by equally extremist ideologues.
The world is willing to listen and act responsibly to rational and reasonable information on the risks inherent with climate change.
Analysis of the climate change and the sacrifices required by the general public are not helped, in fact harmed, by extremists making ludicrous claims that the sole cause of the Syrian civil war is due to “global warming” !
My real fear is by supporting such nonsense, you harm your credibility in the far more important area of promoting clean(er) technology.
First, let me say that I’m sincerely glad that you find it relaxing to engage in this blog with the frequency and vigor that you do.
I’ll have blog post on your comment up in a moment.
Glenn, an interesting reference. In order to find common ground there must be some agreement about which facts are significant. The problem with a bias is that from that kind of position someone might then find all facts insignificant.
In some recent town hall type meetings Bernie Sanders has overcome bias by first finding common ground. We might say he is either rather skillful with this or he simply is using the right issues. Either way it is interesting to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeYgy-8j3Ao But I think what is really going on here is that he is finding finding the lie.
It is a bit like looking at hydrogen promoted as a “clean fuel” and finding the lie that it would in fact be made from fossil fuels.
Many climate objections have at their core concerns about economics and jobs. A recent lie is that pipelines will create thousands or millions of jobs. But construction jobs are temporary without a commitment to an industry. Construction of offshore wind turbines would involve construction jobs for decades while pipeline construction jobs are for a year or two at most and then require far fewer employees than carting oil by rail.
Also perhaps not enough has been done to clarify the economic cost of using fossil fuels to counter the social benefits of such an energy source. Again it is a matter of finding the lie.
Glenn,
More name calling, but I notice you can’t refute my facts or reasoning.
The reason you can’t dispel the more rational explanations I provided, is because you lack sufficient knowledge.
So, here’s the challenge!
Explain why:-
Ancient historical animosities, population growth, demographic changes, failed government policies, bad agricultural practices, rising cost of diesel, removal of subsidized fertilizer, outside interference, cultural and religious differences, the rise of social media, mass communications, sectarian discrimination and the mistakes of an aging power structure.
Are all all less relevant than “global warming” ?
Still too hard ? Okay, explain which one of these factors is untrue, or non-existent ?
I’m waiting……
They may well be less important than global warming.
Hi Frank,
Intriguing,if more than a little cryptic. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate ?
Curiously, if asked, I doubt whether any of the 22 million inhabitants of Syria (including the millions displaced) would recognize “global Warming” as the primary cause of the bitter six year long civil war.
But I’d be fascinated to hear your explanation, I’m always willing to learn.
Global warming will have effects lasting for centuries. It will affect many generations. It could even be a threat to human existence. By comparison, a civil war will affect far fewer people now or in the future. Therefore, global warming is more important. Moreover, the current effects of global warming are already having an effect. Even though it would be a mistake to assert that global warming is the sole cause of the civil war, it may have provided the final straw that set it off. In that respect, it may be like a road accident. Normally a road accident is the result of several causes and could have been prevented by removing only one of the causes.
It is disingenuous to understate the importance of global warming in the civil war simply because it is not the SOLE cause. If it had not been for defacto autocratic governments, probably the civil war would not have occurred. Ditto for cultural differences, religious differences, poverty, and other factors. If any one of those contributing causes had not existed, then probably the civil war would not have occurred.
Frank,
Thank you for your reply,
I appreciate your point that long term global climate change may prove more important than relatively minor civil wars in localized area’s.
However, that wasn’t the issue of contention.
Glenn supported by Craig insisted that the sole (or at least primary cause) of the Syrian Civil war was”global warming” !
When I responded by pointing out all the far more believable causes for the war, and applying an empirical test proving the war would have still occurred without any “global warming”. Syria’s nieghbours were affected by the drought to a greater degree, yet remained stable providing further evidence against the “global warming” theory.
Glenn’s response offered no rebuttal information, only abuse and derision.
I then pointed out, making erroneously and fanatical claims blaming all sorts of completely unrelated events events on “global warming” based solely without any credible evidence, is counter-productive and only serves to bring serious discussion of the effects of Climate Change science into disrepute.
Again, Glenn responded (supported by Craig), not by advancing any evidence to refute my comments, but a simply a tirade calling me an “idiot” ” stupid” “climate denier” and liar !
I used this exchange to illustrate the damage done by extremists, ideologically driven advocates making illogical, even ludicrous claims.
Why should the general public support such nonsense? Worse, such quasi-religious fanaticism fragments the environmental movement, alienating moderate sympathizers who disassociate themselves with the rantings of such fanatics and ideologues.
Is it any surprise that characters like Donald Trump exploit these divisions to dismantle not only policies of excessive zeal, but beneficial ones as well ?