While the consensus warns of gloom and doom, the WSJ points out that warming has its positive aspects as well. For example, Trees seem to be responding well to increased CO2. See: Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years
The 1970’s worry of the “population bomb” may very well have been subdued by CO2 helping crop yields. WUWT readers may be familiar with Indur Goklany, a regular WUWT contributor. He figures significantly in this WSJ article.
From the Wall Street Journal:
It seems the U.N. IPCC only tabulates the benefits of climate change when they are outweighed by the costs.
By ANNE JOLIS
Could global warming actually be good for humanity? Certainly not, at least if we’re to believe the endless warnings of floods, droughts, and pestilences to which we are told climate change will inevitably give rise. But a closer look at the science tells a more complex story than unmitigated disaster. It also tell us something about the extent to which science has been manipulated to fit the preconceptions of warming alarmists.
According to a 2004 paper by British geographer and climatologist Nigel Arnell, global warming would likely reduce the world’s total number of people living in “water-stressed watersheds”—that is, areas with less than 1,000 cubic meters of water resources per capita, per year—even though many regions would see increased water shortages. Using multiple models, Mr. Arnell predicted that if temperatures rise, between 867 million and 4.5 billion people around the world could see increased “water stress” by 2085. But Mr. Arnell also found that “water stress” could decrease for between 1.7 billion and 6 billion people. Taking the average of the two ranges, that means that with global warming, nearly 2.7 billion people could see greater water shortages—but 3.85 billion could see fewer of them.
Mr. Arnell’s paper, funded by the U.K. government, was duly cited in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s supposedly authoritative 2007 assessment report. But the IPCC uses Mr. Arnell’s research to give the opposite impression, by a form of single-entry book-keeping. While it dutifully tallies the numbers of people he predicts will be left with less water access, it largely ignores the greater number likely to see more water courtesy of climate change.
The IPCC’s much-shorter “Summary for Policy Makers” is even more one-sided. It is riddled with warnings of warming-induced drought and—while acknowledging that a hotter Earth would bring “increased water availability” in some areas—warns that rising temperatures would leave “hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” Nowhere does it specify that even more people would probably have more water supplies.
The IPCC also neglects to mention Mr. Arnell’s baseline forecasts—that is, the number of people expected to experience greater “water stress” simply due to factors like population growth and resource use, regardless of what happens with temperatures. This leaves readers with the misleading impression that all, or nearly all, of the IPCC’s predicted “water stress” increases are attributable to climate change.
These omissions were no accident. In 2006, prior to the release of the IPCC’s report and the all-important policy makers’ summary, Indur Goklany—at the time with the U.S. Department of the Interior—alerted the summary’s authors that it was “disingenuous” to report on a warmer world’s newly “water-stressed” without mentioning that “as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).” Mr. Goklany’s advice was dismissed.
Read the rest of the Article at the WSJ here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To be fair, they also omitted the dark side of climate science, so it is a form of balance.
I wonder if anything will come of this: http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7649
Yet more damning evidence being shown in the Press.
But then we know about the benifits don’t we.
It is amazing the Coral deaths from Cold haven’t been made more of, perhaps a word to the Telegraph, Times etc.
More and more it seems that ALL alarmist “science” is tainted. We must demand that it be tossed out and an unbiased group or groups be commissioned to examine all the raw data and present to the world science that can be trusted. Right now, I don’t trust any of it.
Still lacking is the proof it is man’s fault.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
So this will be the next tactic of the AGW deniers…”OK, well, even if the earth is warming…it could be a good thing…”
I’m not convinced that the warming won’t be good thing, but at least I have the sense enough to filter through the propaganda spewed out by the cool-aid drinkers on both sides and see the science for what it is. The lower atmosphere is undoubtedbly warming beyond the variability of any natural cycles and despite a sun we see with a rediculously lower interplanetary AP index. But is this warming all bad? We’ll see…
I’m tired of winter. Bring on the warming.
Another bright side of ACTUAL anthropogenic global warming would be the lack of scientific dishonesty.
People like Mann wouldn’t be driven to have to lie, and we could get some scientific research we could have confidence in.
” The lower atmosphere is undoubtedbly warming beyond the variability of any natural cycles”
But do we know that it is? Surely any skeptic worth his green eyeshade would be aware that the temperature “data” released by GISS/NOAA/Hadley-CRU are to be taken with a five-pound bag of salt!
The UAH satellite dataset tells a wholly different tale, a gradual linear trend over the 30 years we have data for, perfectly consistent with natural cycles. Nor have I seen any *believable* evidence that we’re currently any warmer than the Medieval Climate Optimum, in fact the Vostok ice cores (among others) tell us we’re not.
It is better to adapt than to fight something much bigger than us. If you look at the past, all species that adapted survived. Those that did not went extinct. Are we that stupid to make the worst choice? From the IPCC and Gore points of view, we are. As (supposedly) intelligent animals on this planet, and from our scientific body of evidence, CHANGE IS GOOD.
To R Gates
Why do you say “The lower atmosphere is undoubtedbly warming beyond the variability of any natural cycles and despite a sun we see with a rediculously lower interplanetary AP index.”?
A key uncertainty, I thought, is the scale of impact of natural variability. Events in the past, glaciations etc, show more warming and cooling than now and just as suddenly? And there is no warming at present.
Has anyone pointed out to the WSJ that it has conflated “benefits” and “costs” in its subtitle to this excellent article? Perhaps the editor responsible is far too accustomed to using the phrase “outweighed by the costs” when discussing this issue and hasn’t gotten his head around this piece, or didn’t bother to do more than skim it???
R. Gates,
To prove that it is warming beyond the variability of all natural cycles, you would have to prove that the rate of current warming has never been equaled in the past.
From what I have seen, equal rates of warming have indeed occurred in the past.
“The lower atmosphere is undoubtedbly warming beyond the variability of any natural cycles and despite a sun we see with a rediculously lower interplanetary AP index”
I would like to see your proof of this, using auditied and peer reviewed hard data.
>>MattN (11:55:33) :
>>I wonder if anything will come of this:
One of the best moments, ok, one of the only good moments, during Obama’s SOTU the other night was when he brought us the science of AGW being settled and the Republicans laughed.
I’d say a lot has already come of it.
Aha ! Finally ! Watergate !
“R. Gates (12:02:01) :
So this will be the next tactic of the AGW deniers…”OK, well, even if the earth is warming…it could be a good thing…”
I’m not convinced that the warming won’t be good thing, but at least I have the sense enough to filter through the propaganda spewed out by the cool-aid drinkers on both sides and see the science for what it is. ”
…shows his fine objective attitude, not without a little name-calling…
Believing in saviours of the world, like the IPCC, Saint Al (“Baby”) Gore, Rajendra Pachauri and all those reincarnated new-age subterraneans and their Gaia cult, and that they will save us from armageddon, it is simply stupid, and nothing will avoid them to be exposed in all their nudity to be watched and laughed by everyone.
Buy more popcorn!
R. Gates….The lower atmosphere is undoubtedly warming beyond the variability of any natural cycles…. You might want to look up the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum – all warmer than now.
From farther down in the WSJ article:
On the subject of selective climateering, it’s worth noting that Mr. Arnell’s 22-page paper is rife with caveats and uncertainties, and the results are highly dependent on the assumptions one adopts—as witnessed by the wide ranges of his estimates. In the 2004 paper he notes, for example, that “the numerical estimates of the implications of climate change on future water resources stresses are not to be taken too literally. . . . The estimated impact of climate change on global water resources depends least on the rate of future [greenhouse gas] emissions, and most on the climate model used to estimate changes in climate and the assumed future population.” (Emphasis added).
Why did he even bother to write this paper? All he’s saying is he doesn’t know squat.
Just think about it. Greenland Dairy and Inuit Corn or Iceland Vintners. Lapland Grain Farms. Tundra Methane Recovery Plant.
Living in the Pacific North West during the last El Nino we saved about 28% on our home heating bill. This year looks about equal. Bring on Global Warming, I’ll cry all the way to the bank.
R. Gates (12:02:01) :
“The lower atmosphere is undoubtedbly warming beyond the variability of any natural cycles…”
Even taking into account the variability, the IPCC models are way out there and still very far from the real temperatures and from the fact that things are cooling down.
You can’t just use a single place to extrapolate to the rest of the world. Gee, it’s warmer in the cities, the oceans must be about to boil.
“AdderW (12:31:32) :
Aha ! Finally ! Watergate !
”
LOL – you must be related to Black?
cheers David
AdderW (12:31:32) :
Aha ! Finally ! Watergate !
and…last but not least:
“The water cycle is not closed but opened. During summer time above two poles and due to increased radiation, atmosphere´s oxygen is turned into Ozone (O3), which during winter time and specially when there are proton flares from the sun or increased cosmic rays, as during solar minimums,(mainly composed of protons-90%), which, we must remember are hydrogen nucleii, these react with ozone to produce water (2H+…O3=H2O+O2 and so producing the “Ozone Hole”)”