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:
There is a post at Jo Novas about the French carbon tax thing.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/france-ditches-carbon-tax-as-protests-mount/
REPLY: Yes Richard, who pays for your publications when they go into a peer reviewed journal?
—————–
All the organisations that have supported my research are listed in the acknowledgements section of the relevant papers. Carlin does not acknowledge any financial support. If he received any funding, that would contravene the journal’s rules
‘Financial support for the study must be fully disclosed under “Acknowledgments” section.’
As well as this potential ethical breech, a second potential problem with the 1000 Swiss francs is well described at http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/
———————-
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 8:32 am
“By applying the scientific method…”, which is something few climate papers do
Carlin’s “scientific method” is to ignore any research that does not agree with his conclusions and accept any “skeptic” talking point however well debunked. Thankfully, few climate papers do this.
Since you can’t credibly debunk Carlin’s paper
Did you not read beyond the first line of my comment? Carlin’s arguments on the atmospheric life-time of CO2 are simply wrong.
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.
You are welcome to try your hand at rebutting any of my papers.
richard telford,
First you complain that Carlin may have paid to be published, then you complain that Carlin may have recieved payment — with zero evidence either way. Maybe it’s just your projection, eh? And I note that Jones, Mann and the rest live high on the hog at taxpayers’ expense [something Cuccinnelli is investigating]. But they get paid plenty, and it’s all A-OK with you, as long as they support the CAGW narrative.
Next, you are still dodging the fact that Mann & clique refuse to follow the scientific method. They’re hiding out from the scientific method by their lack of transparency. You can’t seem to understand that simple fact. Explain to us why Mann still refuses to release his data and code, thirteen years after publishing.
Finally, I’ll look at your papers when you provide a link that publicly archives 100% of your raw data, codes, metadata, methodologies, and everything else that you used to arrive at your conclusions.
Post it right here. Until then… Pf-f-f-f-t.
Dave Springer says:
April 3, 2011 at 6:33 am
The Holocene Interglacial has already begun what appears to be it’s rolldown to the Next Ice Age. It could take the form of the Interglacial of 400,000 yrs ago, or it could take the 130,000/240,000/330,000 yr Interglacials. Odds are 3-1 against continuing another 10,000 yrs.
The Warmists are betting against the House. 490,000/570,000/620,000/700,000 and 790,000 yr Interglacials never made it as high as the Holocene.
1/2 of the last 8 Interglacials were duds, meaning that the Holocene has already pushed the luck envelope being on the higher side of cycles.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
richard telford,
Finally, I’ll look at your papers when you provide a link that publicly archives 100% of your raw data, codes, metadata, methodologies, and everything else that you used to arrive at your conclusions.
Post it right here. Until then… Pf-f-f-f-t.
——————–
Your lucky day!
The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.
You can find the code at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/palaeoSig/index.html
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
What are you waiting for?
richard telford says:
“The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.”
Michael Mann provided “most” of the data in Mann ’08. What he didn’t make available was hidden away in a file labeled “censored.”
That little omission would have caused his paper to reach exactly the opposite conclusions than what Mann wanted [ie: no hockey stick]. SeewhatImean?☺
The scientific method requires complete transparency.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
—————-
Put in a FOI request for any data sets you need. (You don’t need any to evaluate the paper – the conclusions are not dependent on the data used in the examples)
What are you waiting for?
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
========================================================
We present a method to test the statistical significance of a quantitative palaeoenvironmental reconstruction inferred from biotic assemblages with a transfer function. A reconstruction is considered statistically significant if it explains more of the variance in the fossil data than most reconstructions derived from transfer functions trained on random environmental data. Given reconstructions of several environmental variables from the same fossil proxy, the method can determine which is the best reconstruction, and if there is sufficient information in the proxy data to support multiple independent reconstructions. Reconstructions that fail this test have limited credibility and should be interpreted with considerable caution.
=======================================================
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.
========================================================
Richard, you’re quantifying palaeoenvironmental reconstructions…..
and not telling people how you did it?
Are you grading them? and picking the ones you like and don’t like?
Any particular ones you favor, and why?
You start out with the statement that you are “presenting a method to test”
…then not releasing all of your codes and all of your data
It is just as easy to make all of your code and all of your data available.
Why did you not do that?
“The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b”
Ah, that’s great, I’d be interested in reading…
“Purchase
$ 35.95”
… never mind.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
“richard telford,
First you complain that Carlin may have paid to be published, then you complain that Carlin may have recieved payment — with zero evidence either way. Maybe it’s just your projection, eh?”
It’s a technique called mud-slinging.
richard telford says:
Dr. Telford, Bob Tisdale had a substantive criticism for Dr. Carlin to answer and I’ll be very interested to see Dr. Carlin’s (and Joe D’Aleo’s) response. You, on the other hand, posted innuendo. I have no information one way or the other (any more than you do), but my guess is that Dr. Carlin listed no funding sources because he had no funding sources. You posted a link to an article about fraudulent open-access journals that had nothing to do with either Carlin or the journal he published in. You keep making reference to 1000 Swiss Francs…. I may be a bit dim, but I don’t see where that reference came from or why 215.58 yankee green-back dollars makes any difference to this discussion. Character counts, Dr. Telford, and you are no better than any other of the no-name alarmist trolls who turn up here to sneer at the ignorant climate deniers. I’m not wasting my time on your papers because I doubt you have the integrity to provide the facts…. just another hide-the-decliner.
richard telford,
Why should I have to put in an FOI request?? It is YOU who admittedly withheld data. The scientific method is not in your work, and the truth is not in you. IMHO, of course.
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
…for $35.95! Err…No…
Robert E. Phelan says:
April 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm
richard telford says:
Dr. Telford, Bob Tisdale had a substantive criticism for Dr. Carlin to answer
————–
I also made substantive criticism – his account of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 being less than a decade is irrelevant to the problem of emissions.
215.58 yankee green-back dollars
———————–
It’s a long time since 215.58 yankee green-back dollars were worth a 1000 CHF.
Latitude says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:02 pm
…then not releasing all of your codes and all of your data
——————-
All the code is available. All my data is available.
Saludos to Mr Carline for having the balls to chime on his own dime.
Problem is though, every time you crazy scientists stray from the rest taking the rational heroic approach it’s feels like watching a classic zombie movie:
He’s going for it! He’s going for it. He’s running like hell, he’s almost there… he’ll make it, he’s almost over the fence.
Oh no, no, no, look at them munching on his brain. :p
God, how refreshing! Thank you, Alan.
An inconsequential paper behind a paywall with incomplete data.
What a breathtaking parry to Mr. Carlin’s massive thrust.
I find myself speechless and cowering in the brightness of Richard Telford’s genius.
Mr. Telford’s criticisms of Mr. Carlin of “may, and could have”, are just unsubstantiated negative opinions from a person where his entire track record here consists of nothing but complaining. Mr. Telford has never had a positive word for anything or anyone here. He’s a chronic downer.
Mr. Telford’s provided link: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/
…is the most pathetic attempt at guilt by association I’ve seen in quite some time.
And Mr. Telford sidestepped my point about the new journal “Nature Climate Change”, their time accelerated publishing schedule, and their $1000 fee for publishing papers.
Nature Chemistry, Nature Physics and Nature Cell Biology I can understand because Chemistry, Physics and Biology are actually branches of science. I could even approve of a journal called Nature Climate Science.
But Nature Climate Change? Surely, the climate changes, but that’s not a science… oh wait, I guess it’s not about science.
The very first technical point made by Carlin is based on Segalstadt’s work on CO2. This work is nonsense. None of the arguments in it makes any sense. The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began. The fact that industrial emissions are about twice as large as the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to the absorption of the extra human emissions by the environment. People who don’t understand and accept this as fact are simply not thinking clearly. The scientific literature on this leaves no room for doubt. In addition contrary to what Segalstadt claims, the concentration of Carbon isotopes is actually in agreement with the human industrial origin of the excess CO2.
Quoting Segalstadt and ignoring the rest of the scientific literature which overwhelmingly says that humans are responsible is contrary to what true scientific papers are supposed to do.
It is a sham to call this a scientific paper.
REPLY: Eadler, since you haven’t produced anything except complaints against people you disagree with, I suggest you write your own peer reviewed paper, get it published, and then submit it here for us to have a look at. Please apologize to Mr. Carlin for calling this paper a “sham”. You’ve been banned once already for calling Willis Eschenbach a “fraud”, and been forced to apologize for your comments. I relented and reinstated your commenting privileges when you agreed to apologize. Now I’m rethinking the wisdom of that decision. If you don’t wish to apologize then please refrain from commenting at WUWT any further. Your purpose here remains and always has been denigration of others, as demonstrated here again.
You seem to have no ability to contribute here in any sort of a positive way. It’s fine to point out technical issues and disagreements, but Mr. Carlin has borne a heavy load for having the courage to speak out, and unlike you put his full name to his words each and every time he’s written something.
-Anthony Watts
The science of CAGW is being dismantled openly now, the economics are being embarassingly destroyed, the public don’t buy it one little bit and now the politicians are disowning it except for the tax.
Where does it have to go from here? Will we perhaps see some acknowledgements of incorrectness or perhaps even apologies from the AGW industry? Not a chance on this planet.
What needs to happen very quickly is a termination of their funding until some sense is restored to the debate and hysteria allowed to subside.
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm
It’s a long time since 215.58 yankee green-back dollars were worth a 1000 CHF
You’re right of course. I can’t find the actual curency calculator I used, so I have no idea whether the calculator was whacked or whether I selected the wrong currency. I also finally figured out that you were nattering about the publication fee (I’ll attribute that to the onset of mild food poisoning after accompanying some arab students who thought a Japanese/Chinese buffet was the epitome of haught cuisine)… but your attempt to link that fee with the situation described in your link is despicable. I also note that you did not answer Anthony’s question about Nature Climate Change… by your logic they fall into the same category.
As for your “substantive comment”…. go back and compare Bob Tisdale’s with yours:
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.
Bob Tisdale didn’t sneer and my reading of Carlin’s paper is that he was addressing the issues you claim he wasn’t.
Finally, I really like the way you emphasize that all of your data is available… but not all of the data you used is available? Something, perhaps, about confidentiality agreements? I think it would be quite entertaining, actually, if Steve McIntyre or Ryan O’Donnell took an interest in your work.
eadler,
In order to show that you’re not a climate alarmist promoting your usual disinformation, please provide empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence showing, as you improbably claimed, that “The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began.” In fact, there are no such facts supporting your bogus assertion.
You cannot provide testable, verifiable facts showing that CO2 levels remained unchanged at 280 ppmv for thousands of years without any change. Beck et al. has shown widely varying CO2 concentrations, measured by numerous internationally esteemed scientists, including several Nobel laureates [when that meant something], in numerous locations including ships transiting the Arctic, Antarctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans; the Sea of Okhotsk, unpopulated mountain peaks, desolate Scottish shores, and other wind-swept locations. They consistently showed CO2 levels far in excess of your claimed steady-state 280 ppmv, and in fact, they showed CO2 levels exceeding current levels in the early 1800’s and in the 1940’s.
The fact is that you have nothing but circular pal-reviewed, hand-waved-through papers, and always-inaccurate computer models as your putative authority. Time and again you have shown yourself to be totally clueless about the scientific method. You are the Barrie Harrop of WUWT. I am calling you out on your deliberate and/or ignorant misrepresentation of the facts:
Show us with empirical, testable, reproducible evidence that CO2 levels have remained at 280 ppmv “for thousands of years,” as you have claimed. Otherwise, admit that you were wrong. Or not; it’s your credibility at stake.
Nothing in the climate remains static for thousands of years, Barrie – except in the minds of climate alarmists with an agenda; people like you, who have never believed in natural climate change. Your mantra is based on Mann’s repeatedly debunked hokey stick, with its straight handle from 1400 AD until the industrial revolution, showing neither a MWP nor a LIA. It is only the climate alarmist crowd that wrongly believes climate change can’t happen naturally.
The fact is that CO2 levels have varied from under 200 ppmv, to almost 20,000 ppmv – at a time when life flourished, and the biosphere was incredibly diverse. You are simply fabricating bogus facts to promote your alarmist agenda, and as a result you have no credibility. Barrie, take your globaloney to echo chamber blogs like realclimate and CP, where they welcome scientific illiterates spreading disinformation. We need verifiable facts here, not alarmist propaganda.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm
eadler,
In order to show that you’re not a climate alarmist promoting your usual disinformation, please provide empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence showing, as you improbably claimed, that “The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began.” In fact, there are no such facts supporting your bogus assertion.”
=================
Right, Smokey. I doubt if he/she can provide that type of evidence. [I say he/she because none of us know what an eadler is.]
And that “stable” number of 280 ppm is just 100 ppm greater than the lowest point during the last glaciation….of 180 ppm….NOT an “ideal” number of stability no doubt.
Plant photosynthesis shuts down at 150 ppm. Talk about a disaster.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bravo !