Part III: Where does global warming rank among future risks to environmental health?
Guest essay by Indur M. Goklany
NOTE: Entire 3 part series is now available as a PDF here
In Part 1 of this series we saw that even if one gives credence to the oft-repeated but flawed estimates from the World Health Organization of the present-day contribution of climate change to global mortality, other factors contribute many times more to the global death toll. For example, hunger’s contribution is over twenty times larger, unsafe water’s is ten times greater, and malaria’s is six times larger. With respect to ecological factors, habitat conversion continues to be the single largest demonstrated threat to species and biodiversity. Thus climate change is not the most important problem facing today’s population.
In Part 2 we saw that even if we assume that the world follows the IPCC’s warmest (A1FI) scenario that the UK’s Hadley Center projects will increase average global temperature by 4°C between 1990 and 2085, climate change will at most contribute no more than 10% of the cumulative death toll from hunger, malaria and flooding into the foreseeable future. It would simultaneously reduce the net population at risk of water stress.
Clearly, climate change would, through the foreseeable future, be a bit-player with respect to human well-being.
Here I will examine whether climate change is likely to be the most important global ecological problem in the foreseeable future.
As in Part 2, I will rely on estimates of the global impacts of climate change from the British-government sponsored “Fast Track Assessments” (FTAs).
The following figure, which presents the FTA’s estimates of habitat converted globally to cropland as of 2100, shows that the amount of habitat lost to cropland may well be least under the richest-but-warmest scenario (A1FI), but higher under the cooler (B1 and B2) scenarios. Thus, despite a population increase, cropland could decline from 11.6% in the base year (1990) to less than half that (5.0%) in 2100 under the warmest (A1FI) scenario. That is, climate change may well relieve today’s largest threat to species and biodiversity!
One reason for this result is that higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 might make agriculture more efficient, and this productivity increase would not have been vitiated as of 2100 by any detrimental impacts of higher temperatures.
The next figure shows that in 2085 non-climate-change related factors will dominate the global loss of coastal wetlands between 1990 and 2085.
[In this figure, SLR = sea level rise. Note that the losses due to SLR and “other causes” are not additive, because a parcel of wetland can only be lost once. For detailed sources, see here.]
Thus we see that neither on grounds of public health nor on ecological factors is climate change likely to be the most important problem facing the globe this century.
So the next time anyone claims that climate change is the most important environmental problem facing the globe now or whenever, ask to see their proof that climate change outranks other problems.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An interesting reality jumps out when you study Mann’s bristlecone proxy data and the infamous “hockey stick” graphic his process produces. The reality the tree ring data and Mann’s graphic reveal is that nothing has done more to “GREEN” the planet in the past few decades than elevated levels of CO2 in the presence of mild sun-driven warming. That’s the natural science. In the face of huge volumes of data and studies to the contrary, political science has twisted this reality in a truly breath-taking Orwellian manner into 1) warming similar to the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period is bad, 2) warming is caused by an infinitesimal trace gas essential to life supporting photosynthesis, 3) human’s 3% annual contribution to a CO2 starved biosphere is putting the planet at some sort of risk. Just how high would fuel bills have to be elevated by Cap Tax to cut world hydrocarbon output by 1/3, or net 1%? What would such a reduction do to accumulations of CO2? That’s right, it’s quite literally in the noise, if you know anything about control theory. The cost is off the page. Like this recession? Then just wait for Cap&Tax. All of this then begs the question, “If humans can’t reasonably be expected to control the production of CO2, how they can possibly be responsible for the, as yet unproven, horrors of Global Warming?” The answer is, “they cannot and are not responsible.” The true proxy is the political science myth of Global Warming, foisted on a scientifically illiterate public as a distracting red herring to deal with the operational and economic exigencies of permanently declining oil production worldwide without actually revealing or discussing in the open media the most critical national security issue of our time. Doubt this assertion? Then just read all of the IPCC technical reports together with the most recent IEA oil production forecast. Too hard and time consuming? Okay, then just relax and believe the propaganda.
Yup, CO2 make for more food and an easier life!
OT:
“GDP Growth of 6.3% Might Vanish Into Thin Air”
Commentary by William Pesek
May 1 (Bloomberg)
[snippets:]
“About 93 million of Southeast Asia’s 563 million people live on less than $1.25 a day. The only way to boost their living standards is rapid and efficient growth. The financial crisis will set back Asia’s prosperity goals. Yet what about the secondary, longer-term effects of today’s turmoil?
“Climate change is a big one.
…………
“Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines are uniquely at risk from rising temperatures and sea levels because of their 173,000 kilometers (108,000 miles) of coastlines. Their economies rely on farming and forestry, which need stable rain and temperatures for maximum production. Asia is seeing increasingly extreme weather, water shortages and forest fires linked to climate change.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a9ertXfJXA1k&refer=home
This article naively assumes that people from these unproductive areas will be able to migrate to more productive ones at will and that they are going to be welcomed with open arms by the indigenous residents. It just aint gonna happen. Not without a fight. So how many people have been pencilled in as dying this way? And how many from more intense hurricane activity?
The worst affected areas are already struggling from climate change and as it gets worse, from the continuing rising temperatures (despite the disingenuous attempts to deny it with cherry picked data) things are going to get much worse. Sea level will also rise as it has always done in the past from melting ice on land and the increased speed of glacier movement.
Sure a few glaciers in the southern hemisphere are advancing but the vast majority globally are retreating and speeding up. It is also worth mentioning that during the Little Ice age the glaciers in the Southern hemisphere did not advance much, if at all.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/05/01/2556106.htm?site=science&topic=latest
Further evidence that the Little Ice age only had a major effect on parts of the northern hemisphere. And thus reducing the perceived impact of lack of sun spots.
dennis ward:
Seriously, can you name one place where people are struggling from demonstrable human induced climate change and not just normal drought, hurricane or other types of weather cycles?
I’d love to hear where that is and see a 100 year record of the previous conditions. Really, just one. One single death or other evidence of suffering that you can definitively attribute to global warmening, climate changeling, or weather extreminening. I would like a name of a person. Not some extrapolation by multiplication of small effect over large population as the UN and bad epidemiologists are wont to do.
Hint: New Orleans was hit by an ordinary, regularly common Cat 3 Hurricane. Bad levees don’t count as climate change.
If there is a common theme in this whole non-debate,
it is that these folks believe they can dictate to the
rest of us. What they universally ignore, is that technology
is not static; just like the climate.
OT but relevant I think is this post at World Climate Report which examines what the effect of the US will be of reducing its carbon footprint as proposed under the Waxman-Markey Bill:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/#more-376
Shows that – “looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt, so 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.”
All that effort, all that cost and for what?
So I only have to store one link, here are the other two:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/29/is-climate-change-the-“defining-challenge-of-our-age”-part-2-of-3/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/is-climate-change-the-defining-challenge-of-our-age-part-1-of-3/
John M Reynolds
I believe reports show that there has been no increase in hurricane activity and that the number of hurricanes in any period is entirely random. In fact the worst period for hurricanes was at the beginning (1910 or 11, I believe) of the last century. But we all know that any event can be blamed on climate change, and is; see http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
jeez, I would like to back your challenge to dennis ward.
I’ve found it difficult to find the 100 year data I’d like to see, for example for storms and draughts. But when I could find the data there was never any correlation with carbon dioxide or even the actual global warming that has occurred. One example is Australian rain fall data. Despite the great Australian drought, in fact the data provided by the Australian government shows that the overall rainfall for the continent has been steadily increasing in recent decades. The problems are regional and as such may well have nothing to do with global warming. Even in regions where rainfall has fallen in recent decades, the 100 year data shows that the rainfall is simply returning to early 20th century averages.
Hurricanes are well documented. The ACES measurement shows no trend that could be linked to CO2 or global warming, and indeed the trend appears to be falling in recent years. If more property has been damaged it’s simply because people insist on building more stuff in hurricane zones. Again, sea level rise appears natural with no global warming trend.
So, and with this in mind, I would like to back your challenge:
.
dennis ward, could you please name a region where it can be proven that large numbers of people have died due to global warming and provide data for the past 100 years for that region that demonstrates the conditions correlate with CO2/global warming and were not within the bounds of natural variability. Many thanks!
Chris
An interesting post from earlier last year:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message508734/pg1
I will third the challenge to Dennis Ward. Please provide specific verifiable data to back up your assertions. We would all like to see it.
On more recent data, projections suggest that there will be a Dust Bowl from Southern California to Oklahoma and Kansas.
@ur momisugly dennis ward (00:33:20) :
The simplest answer to your post is no, that’s not true–to every point.
There are things that could be done to reduce carbon emissions, but the Greens won’t talk about the only other solution, which is nuclear power. Instead they want to put up these idiotic windmills which will never be able to replace a single base load generator plant.
I’m all for doing sane and rational things, that will lower the cost of energy and keep the world progressing towards a better future. I love nature and wild critters, and do not wish to see God’s Creation destroyed, although I do not believe that CO2 will ever be able to do it. Thing is, sane and rational things do not make people wildly rich for doing nothing, for that you need fiat markets and political cronyism.
Mind you I have nothing against the people who work hard, plan their futures, provide a benefit to mankind and are otherwise more blessed than me with brains and talent becoming wealthy. Nothing wrong with being rich, so long as you earned that money honestly.
If the Greens were serious, instead of being the tools of General Electic, they would suggest replacing all coal powered electricity generators with nuclear over the next 50 years. They would support building a high speed rail here in America, to reduce or eliminate the need for short haul air flights or highway travel in a car. Doing just these 2 things would reduce CO2 more than the stupid windmills ever could, but the Global Warming advocates are anti-nuke, not because GE can’t build a nuclear reactor, but because their profit margins are not as high for a nuclear reactor, and by building the stupid windmills first they do not decrease the demand for a reactor, because a windmill cannot and never will be able to generate a base load.
Sad thing is, as a lover of nature and a conservationist, I hate to see nature destroyed in the name of a scheme that does nothing to enrich humanity, but rather serves the interests of a mega corporation, T. Boone, various members of the landowning class, and clever traders and political hacks making the big bucks and saddling the common man with the increased energy costs and lost opportunity.
Freedom is really easy, and it does not need an army of scientists, statisticians and economists producing junk science and statistics to confirm their preconcieved conclusions. Barry Goldwater, another conservationist, warned us, “The government that is big enough to give you everything that you want is big enough to take everything that you have.” I do not know if Barry foresaw the rise of the environmentalist/public health lunatic nanny state, but certainly Ben Franklin did when he stated, “Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security would deserve neither and lose both.” Now that the lunatics are running the asylum, I am willing to risk everything for liberty, while sacrificing nothing for the security statism promises to provide. Even old King George would have thought these people were nuts, well maybe…
dennis ward (00:33:20) :
Well said
jeez (01:56:47) :
Seriously, can you name one place where people are struggling from demonstrable human induced climate change and not just normal drought, hurricane or other types of weather cycles?
France
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
PARIS (AP) — The death toll in France from August’s blistering heat wave has reached nearly 15,000, according to a government-commissioned report released Thursday, surpassing a prior tally by more than 3,000.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, a record-breaking 38.5 °C (101.3 °F) was recorded in Brogdale Orchards, one mile (1.6 km) southwest of Faversham, Kent on 10 August 2003. The previous highest recorded temperature was 37.1 °C (98.8 °F), recorded in Cheltenham.[5]
A retrospective analysis published in 2005 showed that the heat wave caused 2,139 excess deaths in the UK for the period 4–13 August 2003.[6]
Italy
18,257 people died in Italy,[8] where temperatures were at around 38 °C (100 °F) in most cities for weeks, according to eurosurveillance.org.[citation needed] Other sources reported a much lower figure, not only for Italy, but for other countries as well. New Scientist magazine reported 4,200 deaths in Italy and Spain attributable to the 2003 heatwave.[9] The Guardian reported 1,000 deaths in Italy, 4,000 in Spain.[10]
Portugal
There were extensive forest fires in Portugal. Five percent of the countryside and ten percent of the forests (215,000 hectares[11]) were destroyed, an estimated 4,000 square kilometres (1,500 sq mi). Eighteen people died in the fires and there were 2100 heat related deaths over all[12]. Temperatures reached as high as 48 °C (118 °F) in Amareleja.
The Netherlands
There were about 1,500[15][16] heat related deaths in the Netherlands, again largely the elderly. The heat wave here broke no records, although 4 tropical weather designated days in mid-July, preceding the official wave, are not counted due to a cool day in between and the nature of the Netherlands specification/definition of a heat wave.[17]
Spain
There were 141 deaths in Spain[citation needed]. Temperature records were broken in various cities including 45.1 °C (113.2 °F) in Jerez , 41 °C (106 °F), with the heat wave being more felt in typically cooler northern Spain. Thus, record temperatures were reached in Sevilla [18] 52.2 °C (126.0 °F), Gerona [19], 38.8 °C (101.8 °F) in Burgos [20], 38.6 °C (101.5 °F) in San Sebastián [20] , 36 °C (97 °F) in Pontevedra [21] and 36 °C (97 °F) in Barcelona.[22]
[edit] Germany
In Germany, a record temperature of 40.4 °C (104.7 °F) was recorded at Roth bei Nürnberg, Bavaria.[citation needed] But some experts suspect that the highest temperatures occurred in the upper Rhine plain, which is known for very high temperatures. At some stations (private stations, for example Mannheim or Frankenthal), temperatures over 41 °C (106 °F) were reported, but not recognized by official statistics. With only half the normal rainfall, rivers were at their lowest this century,[citation needed] and shipping could not navigate the Elbe or Danube. Around 300 people[23]—mostly elderly—died during the 2003 heatwave in Germany.
[edit] Switzerland
Melting glaciers in the Alps caused avalanches and flash floods in Switzerland. A new nationwide record temperature of 41.5 °C (106.7 °F) was recorded in Grono, Graubünden.[24]
[edit] Effects on crops
Crops suffered from drought in Southern Europe, but in the north they did very well.
[edit] Wheat
The following shortfalls in wheat harvest occurred as a result of the long drought.[citation needed]
France – 20%
Italy – 13%
United Kingdom – 12%
Ukraine – 75% (Unknown if affected by heatwave or an early freeze that year.)
Moldova – 80%
Many other countries had shortfalls of 5–10%, and the EU total production was down by 10 million tonnes, or 10%.
[edit] Grapes
The heat wave greatly accelerated the ripening of grapes; also, the heat dehydrates the grapes, making for more concentrated juice. By mid-August, the grapes in certain vineyards had already reached their nominal sugar content, possibly resulting in 12°–12.5° wines (see alcoholic degree). Because of that, and also of the impending change to rainy weather, the harvest was started much earlier than usual (e.g. in mid-August for areas that are normally harvested in September).
It is predicted that the wines from 2003, although in scarce quantity, will have exceptional quality, especially in France. The heat wave made Hungary fare extremely well in the Vinalies 2003 International wine contest: a total of nine gold and nine silver medals were awarded to Hungarian winemakers.[25]
I’d love to hear where that is and see a 100 year record of the previous conditions. Really, just one. One single death or other evidence of suffering that you can definitively attribute to global warmening, climate changeling, or weather extreminening.
There would be absolutely no point giving you temperature charts as you would simply say UHI/adjustment/cherry picking. However, a quick search on the web shows no figures approach this number of deaths.
bill:
Not one of those droughts or heatwaves can be said to be outside natural variability, and of course if the climate had truly shifted, those temperatures would be happening every year in those same places.
Seriously try again.
From the same source you pulled those figures (go ol’ wikipedia):
jeez:
I cannot name names — nor can I name events — where someone has died of global warming. But I can name cases where there have been deaths due to global warming legislation.
dennis ward (00:33:20) :
The worst affected areas are already struggling from climate change….
The “worst affected areas” are already recognized to be the underdeveloped areas of the World, because they are already struggling regardless of any “climate change”.
So what are these underdeveloped areas actually doing? As a result of their own assessments, China and India are developing through quite massive fossil fuel dependent energy programs.
So are you saying that the Chinese and Indians are stupid in essentially rejecting AGW disasterizing?
Bonus questions: just why did the ipcc specifically not include all of these underdeveloped countries, which contain about 5 billion of the Earth’s 6.5 billion people, as having to follow its CO2 strictures if it also believes its own imminent AGW disasterizing? Is the ipcc crazy?
John A. Jauregui.
You’ve “hit the nail on the head”. The whole AGW myth depends on “a scientifically illiterate public”. The rest of us are not so gullible.
Because I have them avilable here are temp plots, enjoy!
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6884/oxfordmonthlymean196119.jpg
Here is a plot of temperature vs CO2
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2553/hadcrutvsco2andssn.jpg
Here a grape harvest and oxford plot of temperature/proxy that holds for well over 100years (found elsewhere)
http://i522.photobucket.com/albums/w342/thefordprefect/grapeharvestastemperatureindicator.jpg
Nothing shows up as as hot as the 2003 summer
jeez (06:30:04) :
Not one of those droughts or heatwaves can be said to be outside natural variability, and of course if the climate had truly shifted, those temperatures would be happening every year in those same places.
This natural variability has not been seen for 650 years according to grape harvest dates
Since you claim that there is no evidence for AGW acceptable to yourself, How can anyone give you this proof?
You’ve given evidence for a hot summer, nothing more, just as Katrina is evidence of a bad levy, nothing more.
Read the bottom of your own citation.
BTW, let me know when the source code and individual station data is available from HADCRUT.
Bill:
Why don’t you also do some digging on the deaths caused by excessively cold temperatures and let me know how that works out. I would be curious to see a comparison.
“Thus climate change is not the most important problem facing today’s population.”
No kidding, birth is!
This series starts off with absurd WHO categories in the first place. Blood pressure?
Mortality (%)
Blood pressure 1 7.1 12.8
Cholesterol 2 4.4 7.9
IT ALL ADDS UP TO 100%! Imagine that terrifying statistic!
Someone tell me the ideal human life span please. Heart attack is the final event for everyone, it stops beating and you are then pronounced dead. How old are the people in this chart who died? I hate to bring this up but life is 100% fatal, we are born with terminal illness.
Blood pressure and cholesterol are medical realities that increase with advancing age due to arterial aging. Who’s to say that dying of a stroke or heart attack at age 48, after a life filled with choice ribeye steaks and oysters is worse than living to 58 to die of pancreatic cancer, 68 to die of liver failure, 78 to die of a pulmonary embolism following hip surgery, or 88 to die of Alzheimers? Car wrecks? Drowning?
How long HAVE humans lived in the past? What is the goal, that everyone on earth live three score and ten? That no one ever have any health problems?
The categories of health are slanted from the start. Humans all need fresh food, clean water, and shelter from adverse weather. When they overpopulate an area they either migrate, have epidemics and wars, not to mention natural disasters..Humans either adjust to ever changing realities of all kinds, or they don’t.
So the WHO is going to nanny us wealthy away from burgers and fries so we will all live forever? Who ARE these idiot Utopians anyway?
Dr. Goklany, an excellent series. Let’s hope that your evidence gives many more millions of readers here at WUWT enough evidence so that the public belief in AGW/Climate Change/ Climate Sensitivity/Atmospheric Sensitivity continues its rapid southward trajectory in the polls. Then everyone will know that it is only authoritarianism using propaganda to gain control.
dennis ward (00:33:20) : This article naively assumes that people from these unproductive areas will be able to migrate to more productive ones
Pardon? I don’t see any mention of migration at all… That, for example, a dozen feet of coastline is assumed to be covered at high tide that was not covered at high tide before does not seem to me to be cause for any ‘migration’. It looks more like you have an AGW talking point in mind rather than this article.
And how many from more intense hurricane activity?
Like the last couple of hurricane seasons? Oh, wait, they were duds… maybe that hurricane prediction stuff isn’t workin’ out for ya too well…
The worst affected areas are already struggling from climate change
OK, I’ll bite: Exactly what place has already been inundated by rising sea levels from climate change in the last 50 years? 100 years? (And a sinking atoll in the Pacific doesn’t count – they SINK due to crustal effects, not due to the sea rising…) So, show your work: Exactly how much as the global ocean risen and what place did it cause to have what ‘struggle’?
from the continuing rising temperatures (despite the disingenuous attempts to deny it with cherry picked data)
Like this cherry pick by AGW advocates?:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/picking-cherries-in-sweden/
Nothing like setting your starting point right in the bottom of the Little Ice Age…
things are going to get much worse.
Yes, they will; with extreme cold, crop failures, and a very frozen north polar ice cap as the PDO flip has pretty much locked in a 20 to 30 year cold side of the normal cyclical changes. Add in the sleepy sun and cold is going to make it much worse…
Sea level will also rise as it has always done in the past from melting ice on land and the increased speed of glacier movement.
Well, the sea has not always risen. Sometimes it goes up. Sometimes it goes down. Depends on how cold it gets. Take a longer term view of things. There are ports (such as one in Italy from Roman times) that are now a fair distance away from water… BTW, glaciers move more when they grow more ice. They slow down when they shrink. It’s that mass and gravity making force stuff from the physics class…
Sure a few glaciers in the southern hemisphere are advancing but the vast majority globally are retreating and speeding up.
Retreating and speeding up are mutually exclusive unless you are sitting on a volcanic area. Pick one.
Further evidence that the Little Ice age only had a major effect on parts of the northern hemisphere. And thus reducing the perceived impact of lack of sun spots.
Still trying to erase the LIA, eh? How’s that workin’ out for ya?
And an interesting “proof” that some single datum for one thing in one place somehow restricts the LIA to only one other place (ignoring the rest of the world…). So if it’s hot in Phoenix it can be cold ONLY in NYC? Who knew… /sarcoff>
Then somehow a southern glacier is a sunspot / weather / climate relationship proxy.
Well, here’s a tiny bit of clue: Glaciers grow and speed up from more snow fall at upper levels and that is NOT a direct proxy for cold. Glaciers need two things, a cold zone up slope where it can snow and not melt AND a warmer source of water down slope somewhere that can evaporate to make the moisture that later falls as snow up slope. Using glaciers as a proxy for cold confounds these two effects and can confuse hot with cold.
Basically, glacier growth is more about the availability of water than about the degree of cold. Yes, “It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity”! 😉
Read the bottom of the bottom of your own citation.
jeez (06:49:05) :
while confirming that greenhouse gas emissions do increase the risk of such extreme weather
BTW, let me know when the source code and individual station data is available from HADCRUT
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly.
and poke arround for other hadcru data.
( http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/ )
Software? for what?
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
this could be interesting – not seen it before
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/urban/
Some UK data
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/