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.
Bill,
I would turn your argument around. If we do nothing, there is a good possibility there will be no or only slight increase in temperature. There is every possibility the world will in fact be wealthier if we do nothing to impede economic progress and mitigate the effects of any warming. See the first two parts of this discussion. I really don’t agree with many of your conclusions or suppositions. Less dependent on oil. Fine — let’s drill our own, use coal, use natural gas, use nuclear. I’m with you.
On the other hand we may spend billions of dollars, or trillions, to reduce any warming by much less than 1 degree at the end of this century. And, to my point above. How much must we reduce CO2 to lower the temperature enough that we can be assured New Orleans will never again get hit by a cat. 3 hurricane? How much will it cost? What would be the alternatives. If it was me, money spent on proper levies might help me sleep better at night. There is no way you could reduce CO2 enough, to claim you would reduce temperature enough, to claim you were reducing hurricane strength, to make me feel any safer if the levies are bad.
Tim Clark (08:31:01)
The Dust Bowl (of the 30’s) was a regional situation of “drought, high temperature, and high winds”, compounded by “poor farming practices”. But, it was temporary.
Higher temperatures are projected for this future Southern California to Kansas Dust Bowl. And, they would be permanent.
I’ve heard this mentioned twice: from Copenhagen, and from some Harvard study. Being from Arizona, I wouldn’ wish its climate on anyone else.
1. Several commentators – jeez, bill, Paul, Bill, Mike T, Alexej Buergin, WakeUpMaggy, Eve — got into a discussion of heat- and cold-related deaths. The differences in the number of deaths during the colder months versus warmer months in the US, UK and a number of European cities have been discussed previously in a number of posts on WUWT. See:
• 95,000 Excess U.S. Deaths during the Cold Months Each Year, (12/22/08).
• Follow up to Questions on Deaths from Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat, (12/20/08). The information provided in this post is broadly consistent with Eve’s information. The comment thread on this one also provides a link to a study by Deschenes and Moretti (2007) which estimates that 8%-15% of the total gains in life expectancy experienced by the U.S. population over the past 30 years may be because of ongoing migration from the cold Northeastern states to the warmer Southern states.
• The Deadliest U.S. Natural Hazard: Extreme Cold, (12/18/08).
• Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events/,
2. With respect to the 2003 European heatwave, a critical question from the policy perspective is how many of the tens of thousands of those deaths could have been avoided had the Kyoto Protocol (or any other greenhouse gas emission reduction scheme) been fully implemented by all its signatories (including the US, which signed the Protocol but didn’t ratify). The answer is, unfortunately, virtually zero. I contend that if European countries had spent a fraction of the resources they expended on the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol on adaptation instead, they could have avoided thousands of deaths from the 2003 heatwave. See An Irrelevant Europe – Best for the World?
3. Ron de Haan (08:29:16)
RESPONSE: I agree. Time frames used in projections of impacts are way too long considering the uncertainties in the assumptions and inputs used in the modeling exercises for reasons laid out at: http://goklany.org/library/Richer-but-warmer%20RV.pdf. Moreover, ignoring secular technological change, which virtually all impacts assessments do, probably overestimates impacts by several fold, if history is any guide.
4. bill (09:19:15) :
I have looked at all evidence with an open mind and I believe that on balance AGW is a fact.
RESPONSE: I doubt you not, but I think you are confusing fact with theory/hypothesis. GW is a fact, assuming surface temp data are not fatally contaminated. [Anthony’s surfacestations work raises the possibility that the US surface data might be fatally contaminated, and it is plausible that no matter how good US data might be, other countries’ data is probably worse.]
[One may ask: what about satellite data, don’t they show warming? Indeed they do, but I am skeptical – yes that word! – that 30 years worth of data is long enough to establish a trend in the CLIMATE, particularly considering that there seem to be large scale natural cycles of longer periodicity.]
However, the causes of GW are not facts. They are based on hypotheses and theories. One can develop hypotheses and theories as to the cause(s), and try to falsify them. In fact, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a showing that the null hypothesis that GW is due to natural causes can be rejected with 95% confidence (a standard scientific/statistical criterion). Once having done that, then one can try to figure out:
(a) what fraction of the GW is AGW, and
(b) what fraction of AGW is due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), and what fraction is due to other causes (soot, land use and land cover changes).
Until this is done, one can’t be confident that CO2 reductions will have much benefit, if any.
5. In the previous thread [part 2 of 3], Francis (21:52:57) commented:
This is an estimate (of deaths) based on old computer forecasts …from older climate data. We now have more recent climate data (some of which has already advanced beyond its projections in those old forecasts).
RESPONSE: I would appreciate getting references. In fact, since life is short, I would appreciate receiving the reprints/preprints. My contact information is available at goklany.org. Thanks.
6. CknLitl
… am I free to print and distribute it in it’s entirety? …
RESPONSE: Be my guest. Just indulge me, and give credit. Thanks. Talking of credit, Anthony came up with the “Civilization” graphic – a most inspired move! One more reason to thank our host.
MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE DISAPPEARED. MY APOLOGIES IF THIS IS A DUPLICATE.
1. Several commentators – jeez, bill, Paul, Bill, Mike T, Alexej Buergin, WakeUpMaggy, Eve — got into a discussion of heat- and cold-related deaths. The differences in the number of deaths during the colder months versus warmer months in the US, UK and a number of European cities have been discussed previously in a number of posts on WUWT. See:
• 95,000 Excess U.S. Deaths during the Cold Months Each Year, (12/22/08).
• Follow up to Questions on Deaths from Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat, (12/20/08). The information provided in this post is broadly consistent with Eve’s information. The comment thread on this one also provides a link to a study by Deschenes and Moretti (2007) which estimates that 8%-15% of the total gains in life expectancy experienced by the U.S. population over the past 30 years may be because of ongoing migration from the cold Northeastern states to the warmer Southern states.
• The Deadliest U.S. Natural Hazard: Extreme Cold, (12/18/08).
• Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events/.
2. With respect to the 2003 European heatwave, a critical question from the policy perspective is how many of the tens of thousands of those deaths could have been avoided had the Kyoto Protocol (or any other greenhouse gas emission reduction scheme) been fully implemented by all its signatories (including the US, which signed the Protocol but didn’t ratify). The answer is, unfortunately, virtually zero.
I contend that if European countries had spent a fraction of the resources they expended on the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol on adaptation instead, they could have avoided thousands of deaths from the 2003 heatwave. See An Irrelevant Europe – Best for the World?
3. Ron de Haan (08:29:16)
RESPONSE: I agree. Time frames used in projections of impacts are way too long considering the uncertainties in the assumptions and inputs used in the modeling exercises for reasons laid out at: http://goklany.org/library/Richer-but-warmer%20RV.pdf. Moreover, ignoring secular technological change, which virtually all impacts assessments do, probably overestimates impacts by several fold, if history is any guide.
4. bill (09:19:15) :
I have looked at all evidence with an open mind and I believe that on balance AGW is a fact.
RESPONSE: I doubt you not, but I think you are confusing fact with theory/hypothesis. GW is a fact, assuming surface temp data are not fatally contaminated. [Anthony’s surfacestations work raises the possibility that the US surface data might be fatally contaminated, and it is plausible that no matter how good US data might be, other countries’ data is probably worse.]
[One may ask: what about satellite data, don’t they show warming? Indeed they do, but I am skeptical – yes that word! – that 30 years worth of data is long enough to establish a long-term trend in the climate, particularly considering that there seem to be large scale natural cycles of longer periodicity.]
However, the causes of GW are not facts. They are based on hypotheses and theories. One can develop hypotheses and theories as to the cause(s), and try to falsify them. In fact, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a showing that the null hypothesis that GW is due to natural causes can be rejected with 95% confidence (a standard scientific/statistical criterion). Once having done that, then one can try to figure out:
(a) what fraction of the GW is due to AGW,
(b) what fraction of AGW is due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), and what fraction is due to other causes (soot, land use and land cover changes).
Until this is done, one can’t be confident that CO2 reductions will have much benefit, if any.
5. In the previous thread [part 2 of 3], Francis (21:52:57) commented:
This is an estimate (of deaths) based on old computer forecasts …from older climate data. We now have more recent climate data (some of which has already advanced beyond its projections in those old forecasts).
RESPONSE: I would appreciate getting references. In fact, since life is short, I would appreciate receiving the reprints/preprints. My contact information is available at goklany.org. Thanks.
6. CknLitl
… am I free to print and distribute it in it’s entirety? …
RESPONSE: Be my guest. Just indulge me, and give credit. Thanks. Talking of credit, Anthony came up with the “Civilization” graphic – a most inspired move! One more reason to thank our host.
Indur Goklany (21:25:46) :
Excellent comments Indur – thank you.
Bill,
In science, first there is Hypothesis, then Theory (Evolution) and finally Law (Gravity).
Catastrophic humanmade global warming is still only a hypothesis, and I would suggest it is already a failed one. All evidence suggests that the sensitivity of Earth temperature to CO2 is at most 0.3C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm. This is not a problem for the planet.
The sensitivity might be even lower – there has been no net global warming since 1940, in spite of an 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions. The only noticeable impact is that we have made little plants happy.
Regards, Allan
@Bill,
you did at least meet part of the challenge, which was to provide data over at least 100 years. But the challenge was to provide evidence that large numbers of deaths have been caused by AGW.
You provided a very interesting chart relating to grape harvests, for which many thanks. Unfortunately it completely undermines your case. At a first glance it looked like Swiss grape harvests had fallen catastrophically as temperatures rose. But in fact the graphs are of grape harvest *days*. The values get smaller as the temperature rises. The conclusion is quite clear: as temperatures rose the grape harvests were earlier, which would probably be of large benefit to the farmers. In fact I would have thought a slight rise in average temperatures would have been of particularly great benefit in a temperate country such as Switzerland.
.
If anything that graph confirms a simple – and to some, inconvenient – truth, that the modest warming we have enjoyed has been of overall benefit.
You gave a list of events that killed large numbers of people, particularly heat waves. But that’s the whole point of the challenge. There have always been heat waves, droughts and storms. The challenge is to provide data over at least 100 years to show a distinct trend directly related to those deaths that correlates with AGW.
.
I don’t deny that there has been some amount of global warming, though the figure of 0.7 degrees C is almost certainly exaggerated. But I know of no credible evidence that, overall, large numbers of people have been killed by this very modest warming. Quite the reverse.
Chris
Chris Wright (04:01:25) :
You provided a very interesting chart relating to grape harvests, for which many thanks. Unfortunately it completely undermines your case. At a first glance it looked like Swiss grape harvests had fallen catastrophically as temperatures rose. But in fact the graphs are of grape harvest *days*. The values get smaller as the temperature rises. The conclusion is quite clear: as temperatures rose the grape harvests were earlier, which would probably be of large benefit to the farmers.
My case for providing the graph was toprove that temperatures similar to 2003 had not been seen for over 150 years
The original plot was the only one available from work. This is a more recent one showing the correspondance of higher temperature and earlier harvests. It also clearly shows that in about 150 years 2003 was the warmest.
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9059/grape18602003.jpg
These plots show the corresponence of temperature and CO2 levels. The first is used to predict a rise of 2.5C from average 1961 to 1990 levels (I do not claim this to be accurate)
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3140/tempvsco2logfit.jpg
And this is a simple zoom on the proxy/real data
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/2696/hadcrutnhvsco2.jpg
The IPCC is probably required to recognize that climate change is not most important, as the UNFCCC which drives the IPCC states that poverty has a higher priority.
@Bill,
thanks for the info. I tried to find more data on Swiss wine production but without much success. Several times I found Switzerland described as ‘marginal’ in terms of grape production due no doubt to its relatively cool climate, so it seems clear that some modest warming is probably of great benefit.
Your graphs do indeed show that some locations have become significantly warmer. But one can find many weather stations where the trend has been down over the last century, so I’m not quite sure what those graphs prove, assuming of course that they are showing real temperature increases not contaminated by UHI.
As has been pointed out, if the global temperature had been precisely constant over the last century, high temperature records would occur quite regularly in some parts of the world. It’s in the nature of statistics. And of course low temperature records would also occur. Many low temperature records have been featured at WUWT during this winter.
You listed several major heatwaves such as the one in France. Statistically, these will occur occasionally when a set of weather conditions conspire to cause very high temperatures. They will occur from time to time. There have been many large heatwaves and storms in the 18th and 19th centuries, so it’s nothing new. Just listing some severe weather events proves nothing. But if you can produce data that shows a clear trend of heatwaves or storms over the last hundred years or so, then let us know.
Unfortunately it can be very difficult to find the data even with Google. For example yesterday I searched trying to find up to date data on world food production, but without much luck. I believe world food production per head of population has been steadily increasing, but the latest data I found some time ago only went up to maybe 2005.
But when I did find the data, e.g. Australian rain fall, then in every case it became obvious that the overall trends were well inside natural variability over the last 100 years. If you want to prove your case then it’s pretty pointless listing individual weather events. As the saying goes, the trend is your friend!
.
The original challenge was to find evidence to justify the claims that in some regions large numbers of people had already died because of global warming. Where is the evidence?
Chris
Changing (a bit) the subject, i want to comment some old record temperatures posted earlier here: All the continental records presented in that table (except for North America and Antartica) were found to be not reliable, they were taken under not standardized conditions, as the Mildura’s 50 and Melbourne’s 47, they were not AIR TEMPERATURE but instead measured inside shelters that acted like “mini saunas”, all discontinued by BOM, some australian cities even used Glaisher Stand that had highs as much as 3 to 4 degrees (celsius) above stevenson screen in clear days. The Seville (50ºC) record was already discontinued by spanish meteorological office some time ago, today the accepted is the Murcia’s 47.8ºC, Argentina 47,3ºC Campo Gallo and Victoria’s (Australia) 48.1 in the (INDEED) record breaking heatwave this year (natural, records are expected to be broken from time to time, no doomsday here). I’m also agains climate alarmist (or AGW), but we sohuld not act like them manipulating data to validate unreliable old temperature records. Sorry for the por english, i’m a foreigner.
Reply: Boa tarde, desculpe, nós não falamos muito de Português aqui. ~ charles the moderator
Oh how I wish we could return to a more utopian time before CO2 emissions by man caused such things as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and severe drought. Before
global warming brought about disasters like famine, disease, divorce, larger snakes, larger spiders, kidney stones and the nearly 600 items on this list: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm.
Having said that, I now feel compelled to suggest the following as required viewing, listening, and reading before the conference in Copenhagen:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
The fight for global warming should be the fight of each and every citizen of the world and we should really work together in this issue.