My New Paper On The Economics And Science Of Climate Change
Guest Post by Alan Carlin
On Friday my new paper on climate change science and economics was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal. The paper is unusual from a number of different perspectives.
From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:
· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.
· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.
· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
From a historical perspective, the paper builds on my Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency in early 2009, by presenting an expanded version of a few portions of that material in journal article format, incorporating many new or updated references, and explaining the implications of the science for the economic benefits and costs of climate change control.
It is also particularly noteworthy for appearing in a peer-reviewed journal rather than the “gray literature,” such as a report to EPA, where many skeptic analyses end up—something that warmists never fail to point out. Although this article was not written for EPA, it has major implications for the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of the December 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding and the economics that EPA and many economists have used to justify current efforts to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, cap-and-trade schemes, and other approaches to controlling climate change.
From a scientific perspective, the paper starts with a detailed examination of the scientific validity of two of the central tenets of the AGW hypothesis. By applying the scientific method the paper shows why these two tenets are not scientifically valid since predictions made using these hypotheses fail to correspond with observational data. (See primarily Section 2.).
From an economic perspective, the paper then develops correction factors to be used to adjust previous economic estimates of the economic benefits of global warming control for these scientifically invalid aspects of the AGW hypothesis. (See primarily Section 2.) It also briefly summarizes many of the previous analyses of the economic benefits and costs of climate control, analyzes why previous analyses reached the conclusions they did, and contrasts them with the policy conclusions reached in this paper. (See primarily Section 5.) It also critically examines the economic costs of control. (See primarily Section 3.)
From a methodological perspective the article argues that economic analyses of interdisciplinary issues such as climate change would be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives that would accomplish the same objectives. (See primarily Section 1.) These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses.
Additional background and access information can be found at carlineconomics.com.
A CEI press release on it can be found at http://cei.org/news-releases/epa-whistleblower-criticizes-global-warming-science-and-policy-new-peer-reviewed-study . My 2009 report to EPA can be downloaded from http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1
See also:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Getting closer to the truth perhaps?
Here is what the EPA (for once telling the truth) estimates the effects on temp and sea level of lowering CO2.
“the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be
reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100 and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.06–0.14cm by 2100.
Top of second column
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=57cadd3c-afb0-4890-bae5-3d6a101db11f
Great article,
I note that references (which where in the early EPA draft report) to Ernst Beck’s paper are missing. That would have round off the questions over global warming and the models. It is a pity that Dr Noor Van Andel’s recent presentation to KNMI here http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf was not available for you but the September presentation http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf could have added to the overall picture.
Thanks Alan for your unbiased overview of the science/technology (note thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics are engineering subjects few scientist understand) and economics associated with the AGW political movement. Thanks should also be given for your courage and persistence.
Keep healthy and strong
cementafriend
The French have thrown out the CO2 tax it is amazing what a vote against can achieve.
Keep up the flow of truth about the economic consequences of this absurd belief.
Omigawd! An excess of sanity! I cain’t hardly stand it!
Will his 100 x 10 = 1000 net benefit overstatement assessment be taken on board by any pols? I’ve had a figure like that kicking around in my head for some time, and it’s great to see backup!
“The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are very much higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.”
Simply wonderful, now that the weakness of the CAGW proponents policy position is well articulated in the literature we really need to move from defense to offense. I submit that not only are the economic benefits of CO2 reduction two orders of magnitude lower then projected, but that the sign is wrong, and the BENEFITS of CO2 are orders of magnitude greater then formally acknowldged. The benefits to the biosphere are KNOWN, (health to the biosphere, crops, trees etc) the harm is now known to have been theoretical only and not matched by observations.
We need to have the editor of this journal removed, or maybe we even have to redefine what the peer-review literature is
Because the belief in CAGW is an emotionally driven one rather than a rationally driven one, the publication of several thousand papers of this type would not change the belief system of the CAGW zealots.
Great article! Mny txs.
The URL reads: …/former-skeptic-epa-researcher-alan… Shouldn’t “skeptic” be erased?
Brgds/TJ
Did someone say the french have thrown out climate tax? If so was it a tax that is being discontinued or one they planned to introduce?
What is more has this been reported on the BBC?
We await the news with interest!
I’ll certainly be interested to see how you concluded feedbacks are negative. Every time someone has said that ‘predictions based on positive feedback haven’t stood up to observations’ so far, it’s just been a case of them cherry picking, fiddling the data, doing their sums wrong or just inventing the predictions and doing it wrong.
Alan, thank you for this paper. I hope to read it next week.
well, why read the paper? Obviously the Koch Brothers / Exxon / Illuminati / boogiemen du jour have bought him off.
/sarc
(there, I saved everyone from wondering what Romm’s response will be)
Ya know, it’s been a long time since I’ve read a peer-reviewed, journal published extensive paper that sensibly explains human effects on climate (which we do but in very different ways and very local ways than is usually trumpeted), and what can and cannot be done to mitigate such effects (we can mitigate but in much more reasonable and very local ways than is usually trumpeted). If I had said I’ve never read such a paper on climate change, I’ld be talking through a hole in my hat and then my gray hair at the temples would so give me away.
I remember the papers that came out announcing the discovery of the PDO and its long term affect on climate. What followed was paper after paper on other land species (one of my favs was on Elk) that demonstrated the same long term population rise and fall tied to this phenomenon that only industrious and wise salmon searching seamen knew. Back then, that was real science, brought to us from hard working field researchers.
Well done, well done.
Closer to the truth but still a ways to go. Higher atmospheric CO2 in and of itself has a large economic benefit. What small amount of warming it entails is predominantly in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere, during the night, and in the winter. This has been a boon to agriculture via longer growing seasons where they are most needed. Then we have the botanical effect of rising CO2 making plants bigger and consuming less water per unit of growth.
Migating CO2 by any means is economically counter-productive. Evev if the mitigation cost nothing it would still be counter-productive. We could stand a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere for, if nothing else, a hedge against the Holocene interglacial coming to an abrupt end. The Holocene interglacial period is already longer than the average interglacial and if ends people will find out the hard way that catastrophic climate change involves falling temperatures not rising temperatures.
1000 Swiss francs is certainly a bargain if it lets you claim the prestige that having your pile of recycled canards published in a peer-reviewed journal brings. But however many canards you stuff into the paper (don’t they have page limits?), it doesn’t amount to a “Critical examination of scientific validity”.
Carlin’s inability to distinguish between the atmospheric lifespan on a single molecule of CO2 and the speed at which an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are drawn down rather guts his argument.
I have only one question – who paid?
REPLY: Yes Richard, who pays for your publications when they go into a peer reviewed journal? Your objection that he had to pay the journal is simply stupid and condescending. Every journal has fees of some kind. There’s fees for word count, figures, color, and open access to name a few. On many journals they don’t even allow open access, but force user to pay to view government funded research, which is my opinion is wrong.
For example the new journal “Nature Climate Change” charges $1000 per publication, flat fee. By your argument that makes them untrustworthy.
You argument about fees fails fabulously. – Anthony
@Matter
Positive feedback: massive government funding
Negative feedback: public opinion of having energy prices artificially inflated
Positive feedback has been ahead for most of the game, but the public, with our annoying “votes” beginning to apply enough negative feedback, are pulling even.
Viva Democracy! No wonder some opinionistas are complaining about it (e.g. http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/09/thomas-friedman-our-one-party-democracy/)
(Pages 1000-1002) UN feedback hypothesis is not supported or even partially supported by a comparison with real world data. eg The UN’s Missing Hotspot in the Troposphere is still missing. Tremberth’s Missing Atmospheric of the last decade is still missing, hasn’t turned up in the oceans. Argo says ‘No.’
Where’s the feedback?
It sounds like the “companies” who have invested Billions in selling “Space Blankets will kept you warm” are going go broke.
Alan Carlin: Your paper uses the term “Ocean Warming Index”, which you describe as “the Pacific Decadal Oscillation plus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (PDO + AMO).” And you refer to a source written by Joe D’Aleo: “D‘Aleo, J. US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895. Icecap (online), 2008:” http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
The PDO and AMO cannot be added as Mr. D’Aleo has done, so that part of your paper is wrong. This has been discussed many times here a WUWT. Example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/26/a-must-read-european-climate-alpine-glaciers-and-arctic-ice-in-relation-to-north-atlantic-sst-record/#comment-492327
The applicable portion of that comment reads: Unfortunately, the PDO and AMO are not similar datasets and cannot be added or averaged. The AMO is created by detrending North Atlantic SST anomalies, while the PDO is the product of a principal component analysis [of the] North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N. Basically, the PDO represents the pattern of the North Pacific SST anomalies that are similar to those created by El Niño and La Niña events. If one were to detrend the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N, and compare it to the PDO, the two curves (smoothed with a 121-month filter) appear to be inversely related:
http://i52.tinypic.com/fvi92b.jpg
I’ll have to update the discussion of this in the Introduction to the PDO post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3.html
In your paper, you later write about the PDO, “In fact, major changes in the PDO from positive to negative and back appear to coincide almost exactly with observed changes in global temperature trends over 20–30 year timeframes, as hypothesized in Figure 5.”
There is no mechanism by which the PDO could cause the observed changes in global temperatures, since the actual Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N (the area used to determine the PDO) are inversely related to the PDO. Refer to the tinypic link above.
Holbrook on April 3, 2011 at 5:16 am
“Did someone say the french have thrown out climate tax? If so was it a tax that is being discontinued or one they planned to introduce?
What is more has this been reported on the BBC?
We await the news with interest!”
Was it an EU instigated tax that the French had thrown out?
That would make it even more interesting!
richard telford,
The paper was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal. Carlin notes: “By applying the scientific method…”, which is something few climate papers do, and something which Mann, Jones, Briffa and the rest of their clique never do. They all refuse to provide the transparency required by the scientific method.
Phil Jones says he “lost” most of the raw temperature records. Mann still refuses to disclose his methods and data after thirteen years, despite constant requests. And Harry the programmer wrote that he fabricates the missing data as he goes along. Those are the people on your side, the ones you defend. Tell us why we should trust them.
Since you can’t credibly debunk Carlin’s paper, you set up a fake strawman of un-named “recycled canards” instead, and knock it down. That’s typical of what passes for alarmist argument: attack the messenger. Attack the journal, because Michael Mann doesn’t have that particular climate journal in his back pocket.
Here’s a thought: since you apparently believe you know how the climate works, write an article for WUWT. Let’s see what remains standing at the end of the day.
Bob Tisdale says: at 6:49 am ~~~ “The PDO and AMO cannot be added …”
Bob has said and demonstrated this time and time again.
Somewhere it is said that it is way harder to unlearn a thing than it is to learn it in the first place. A few months ago I wrote (a rare) letter to the editor of our local newspaper regarding a false statement in an opinion piece from one of their contributors. Two weeks ago the same person used the same false material again. He knew of my letter and had commented on it at the time. I call foul on that.
Now Alan Carlin and Joseph D’Aleo have been told (again) by Bob Tisdale of their error. It is time to unlearn!
because feedback is negative rather than positive
For those who don’t know what negative feedback is here is an easy to understand explanation from Reginald Newell. He worked at MIT, NASA, and IAMAP.
1 minute video
Matter says:
April 3, 2011 at 5:23 am
I’ll certainly be interested to see how you concluded feedbacks are negative.
Here is a work showing negative:
Roy Spencer, 8:34 video, part 1:
Roy Spencer, 8:53 paper, part 2:
Matter,
Positive feedback is found in computer modelling only. If you have a study showing the positive feedback you speak of please link them. I am talking about actual measured data. I am not asking for papers that talk about the results from a computer program. They are different.
I did a dogpile search on the French carbon tax thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/global/24iht-carbon.html?_r=1
About a year old– but apparently it was dropped, in part, due to ruling party loses in local elections. Elections have consequences and the French prole is no more interested in spending a lot of money into the pockets of global warming rent-seekers than any other group of people.