Why climate change is good for the world
Don’t panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm
By Matt Ridley:
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.
At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. And academics have not exactly been keen to push such analysis forward. So here follows, for possibly the first time in history, an entire article in the national press on the net benefits of climate change.
There are many likely effects of climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today — and likely to stay positive until around 2080. That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.
To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensus, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off.
[Note as seen on WUWT before, here is the graph – Anthony]
Now Prof Tol has a new paper, published as a chapter in a new book, called How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?, which is edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and was reviewed by a group of leading economists. In this paper he casts his gaze backwards to the last century. He concludes that climate change did indeed raise human and planetary welfare during the 20th century.
You can choose not to believe the studies Prof Tol has collated. Or you can say the net benefit is small (which it is), you can argue that the benefits have accrued more to rich countries than poor countries (which is true) or you can emphasise that after 2080 climate change would probably do net harm to the world (which may also be true). You can even say you do not trust the models involved (though they have proved more reliable than the temperature models). But what you cannot do is deny that this is the current consensus. If you wish to accept the consensus on temperature models, then you should accept the consensus on economic benefit.
Overall, Prof Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare. By how much? He calculates by 1.4 per cent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 per cent by 2025. For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.
Read the full article here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
Matt – Don’t panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm
======================
Try telling that to the Australian NSW people about now.
Warmer climate since 1913, if it has warmed, is little thanks to human activity. If it is warmer than now in 2080, it likewise will be not much due to what people have done. If it is, most likely it will be after having been cooler between now & then.
To the extent that we increase CO2 levels, however, then, yes, our activities help make the world more hospitable for life.
just as an asside, I read Matt Ridley’s book “The Rational Optimist” recently. It is a great book and I highly recommend it
He concludes that climate change did indeed raise human and planetary welfare during the 20th century.
====
…as opposed to the LIA
duh
” The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm”
But, but…Al Gore said…
@ur momisugly James Allison says:October 17, 2013 at 11:25 am
I also wouldn’t have tried telling that to a 1930’s dust bowl record heat wave for a decade survivor.
Whoaaaaa you say CO2 was only at about 250 ppmv in the 30’s so it couldn’t be responsible for the 30’s drought and heat, JUST LIKE ANYTHING HAPPENING IN AUSTRALIA IS NOTTT BECAUSE OF CO2 !!!
“Climate Change” means AGW or the unstopple change in change in the climate?
Not sure why I should listen to the man who, while in charge of Northern Rock, couldn’t do his sums and nearly rolled the country into bankruptcy.
The 31C limit on water temperatures both fresh and salt water means that water temperatures in the tropics and subtropics will remain near the same with the warm layer spreading further North. This means that the temperature increases will be controlled and will simply extend the growing seasons further North.
Yes this is precisely why the whole global warming scare is totally insane. Warm is good and cold is dangerous.
If it was 1-2°C warmer ~4600yrs ago when the Egyptian, Minoan, Harrapan, Chinese, European Neolithic, Peruvian cultures all had their major expansions, I think we can safely say that we have plenty of headroom for some safe warming. I don’t believe for a moment that it will warm that much this century though.
And the most important fact to recognise, is that hard cold comes in fast. Just because the globe is a degree warmer doesn’t stop the AO/NAO plunging into deep negative conditions rapidly at all, as we have already seen at both ends of 2010 and March 2013. See what happens on the down side of this solar cycle and into solar cycle 25, it’s going to much worse.
Geoffrey Parker’s fine book, War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century, illuminates Ridley’s point that warmer since the Little Ice Age is better.
“Changes in the prevailing weather patterns during the 1640s and 1650s – longer and harsher winters, and cooler and wetter summers – disrupted growing seasons, causing dearth, malnutrition, and disease, along with more deaths and fewer births. Some contemporaries estimated that one-third of the world died, and much of the surviving historical evidence supports their pessimism.”
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Crisis-Climate-Catastrophe-Seventeenth/dp/0300153236
Global warming will keep away the Laurentide ice sheet, which believe me, we in Canada do not want to see growing again:
I followed the link to read the full article, but the page informed me…
Then I noticed an article on the sidebar, “Obesity is not a disease,” and clicked on it, and presto, I get the entire article.
WUWT?
Anyway, as I’ve opined here before, it has been easier for the climate alarmists to sell the idea that warm = bad when so many people are overweight these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States
It is my observation that portly people, and/or those with elevated blood pressure are more likely to feel too warm in any situation than those folks who are closer to an ideal weight.
As a result, the air conditioners run full throttle hereabouts in the California desert, the frosty blasts soon driving me & my skinny frame back outside into the glorious warmth and sunshine where my bicycle awaits.
And I note in closing: ‘haven’t seen too many portly pedal pushers out in the heat. and I assume they hop from their cool cars directly indoors where the a/c is cranked, and the warm glow of the boob tube beckons.
“Le consensus, c’est moi.” – Al Gore
Margaret Hardman said on October 17, 2013 at 11:51 am:
What a marvelous self-tailored memory you have, my dear.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7969974/Northern-Rock-chief-admits-to-catastrophic-black-mark.html
He had the integrity to accept his responsibility, resign, and admit what happened. Here in the US we had responsible bankers who still collected bonuses, paid for with federal government bailout money, some “decided to voluntarily retire” with extravagant “golden parachute” packages.
Hell, the responsible politicians kept running and were re-elected, with very few very old exceptions.
I’d say Mr Ridley has, by his exemplary example, shown he is very much deserving of being listened to!
From Steve P on October 17, 2013 at 12:06 pm:
Right click, “Open Link in New Private Window”. They can’t set cookies, can’t track you (unless you have a static IP address), can’t count how many articles you’ve loaded.
Voila! I’m reading Margaret Hardman already obfuscating and (practically) libeling in the comments:
Wonderful, isn’t it?
Increasing CO2 from 400ppm to 500ppm will increase plant growth 30%.
More CO2 = More SUGAR!!!
Plants will convert 100 Kilograms 0f CO2 into 66 Kilograms of sugar.
James Allison says:
October 17, 2013 at 11:25 am
Matt – Don’t panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm
======================
Try telling that to the Australian NSW people about now.
*
I’m an Australian NSW person. I live in the country about 300 ks inland from Sydney and we don’t have air conditioning. Yesterday was the first day I didn’t have to light the heater. It was a nice day. I nearly lit the fire in the evening, but a blanket over the knees saw me right. This morning it is chilly again, and the heater is on in my office.
Current outside temperature is -4.5 (yes, minus 4.5) C.
It was a mild winter here, and pleasant for it (last year’s winter was bitterly cold). We sit outside when we can and the last few weekends have been bliss. Not overly hot, and I still had to light the fire in the evenings.
I believe the northern hemisphere is frequently told how hot it is in Australia as a way of saying “CAGW is over there,” because it’s hard to believe in in when you’re up to your armpits in snow. So you hear about our “angry summer” (that wasn’t) and no body up there knows one way or the other. Who’s going to pop over and check the facts? It doesn’t help that warmists here are in charge of the reports.
We may have a hot summer, we may not. Hot summers in Australia are normal, by the way, it’s only the alarmists who panic about it.
The Climate Optimum, from the period of about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago was warmer and wetter than today. Hmmm, wonder why the word ‘optimum’ is used?
Climate bedwetters have it backwards. If anything, we should worry about cooling.
James Allison says:
October 17, 2013 at 11:25 am
Matt – Don’t panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm
======================
Try telling that to the Australian NSW people about now.
________________________________________________________________________
You are an idiot. Bushfires occur EVERY year since Adam was a boy in Australia. These days bushfires COULD be reduced by decent winter burnoffs but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the greens put a stop to that.
So what caused the bushfires before say 1800AD?
OT but I’m seeing this on the sidebar.
========================================================================
Is it just my PC or do others see it also?
@Steve B,
You beat me to it mate! The causality of bush fires / forest fires have very little to do with the heat. It usually come down to poor land management. Which, depending on how you twist it, the fires can still be attributed to human (in) activity. No less so, if an arsonist wanker is in involved.
Argh! I’m a writer – I hate typos – in my post above, it should have read “hard to believe in it” and “nobody”. Never mind.
Re fires in NSW (if that’s what James Allison is referring to), last year we were surrounded by them. Five in the area – huge reports on the news and overseas – yet all the fires were small and quickly under control. Also, Steve B is right, it used to be that a cooler burn off would keep the summer wildfires from getting savage.
I do find it interesting that every time a total fire ban is reported on the news, some idiot goes out with a box of matches. I can’t be sure, but I rather believe such arson is done by those wanting to promote “dangerous warming” alarmism.
Warm weather is better, we know this to be true in Australia, too. Nobody likes extended winters.
@ur momisuglyGunga Din – It’s not just your PC. Mine’s showing the same, even after switching NoScript off.