This will be a top sticky post for a day, new stories will appear below this one.
Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm
Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists’ accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come.
But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.
The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.
Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government. (See WUWT report about Stern who gets asked some tough questions by Australia’s ABC)
…
In climate science, the real debate has never been between “deniers” and the rest, but between “lukewarmers,” who think man-made climate change is real but fairly harmless, and those who think the future is alarming. Scientists like Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Richard Lindzen of MIT have moved steadily toward lukewarm views in recent years.
Even with its too-high, too-fast assumptions, the recently leaked draft of the IPCC impacts report makes clear that when it comes to the effect on human welfare, “for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers,” such as economic growth and technology, for the rest of this century. If temperatures change by about 1C degrees between now and 2090, as Mr. Lewis calculates, then the effects will be even smaller.
Indeed, a small amount of warming spread over a long period will, most experts think, bring net improvements to human welfare. Studies such as by the IPCC author and economist Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University in Britain show that global warming has probably done so already. People can adapt to such change—which essentially means capture the benefits but minimize the harm. Satellites have recorded a roughly 14% increase in greenery on the planet over the past 30 years, in all types of ecosystems, partly as a result of man-made CO2 emissions, which enable plants to grow faster and use less water.
…
I liked this part the best:
Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population “bomb,” pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.
Full article here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303725404579460973643962840?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303725404579460973643962840.html
===============================================================
Indeed, so many environmental scares have gone the way of the dodo, and yet here we are again, watching some people freak out about another one, and with wholesale planetary warming not cooperating as predicted, they are starting to see climate bogey-men in every weather event. It seems the fear of weather from the dark ages has returned to the mindset of some irrational thinkers.
This one little fact though is a deal breaker for alarm:
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century.
Hang on to that thought, James Delingpole writes:
Previous reports – notably the hugely influential 2006 Stern Review – have put the costs to the global economy caused by ‘climate change’ at between 5 and 20 percent of world GDP.
But the latest estimates, to be published by Working Group II of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, say that a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures by the end of the century will cost the world economy between just 0.2 and 2 percent of its GDP.
If the lower estimate is correct, then all it would take is an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent (currently it’s around 3 percent) for the economic costs of climate change to be wiped out within a month.
Ouch. Game over for climate alarm.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century.
But, hang on – I didn’t think GDP was the issue. I thought that it was the survival of life on Earth. If it’s only a couple of GDP points, then hell – that’s less than what happened in the GFC back in 2008. Now, I don’t believe that we all died in a hell-fire of the vanities back then.
Once upon a time, 2.5C was going to kill us all.
Yes we all know that “money talks.” I do however believe it would sit better with many people, on all sides of the argument if, when taking and writing about the (now seemingly very small) maximum negative IMPACT ON GLOBAL GDP , i.e. a money measurement, of a little warming, we should add that it is at least as important to assess any such negative impact in terms of its effect on the most vulnerable members of the human race. I suggest this is simply a question of presentation and appearance. The factual/observational evidence is again so strongly on the ANTI-alarmist side in terms of “climate refugees,” ” disappearing islands,” “spreading incidence of disease,” “extreme droughts and floods,” “species extinction” and all the other supposed impacts on the most vulnerable people and creatures.
It is increasingly clear to me that the most important questions related to climate remain largely unasked and unanswered.
What is the optimal temperature range of the earth?
What is the optimal carbon content?
Without addressing these two (and likely many more) how can any of these predictions and assertions have any merit whatsoever?
In other words, to make catastrophic predictions, demand action, feel passionately about (pick your term) change and demand funding, should one not first determine what the best option is and be able to coherently explain why?
mikeuk
‘Ocean “acidification” is a new front’
————————————————-
yes noticed they pushing acid oceans now the warming won’t sell.
weatheraction put up a reply to the bbc report.
“The CO2 content of the oceans is 50 times that of the atmosphere so even if all the CO2 plunged into the ocean (impossible) the CO2 content of the seas could only go up 2% which given all the ‘buffering solution’ complexity of the ocean could only have an infintesimal effect on the ‘ph’ (acidity/alkalinity).
Sea Life did not die out, it boomed, in Juarssic and Devonian times in Geological history when CO2 levels were 5x and 10x present in air and sea!
The ocean is alkaline. “Acidification” is a mis-nomer bogey and there would be none even if all the atmosperic CO2 went into the sea – all we could have is potentially a trivial reduction in alkalinity (or in their insane jargon the sea would be ‘less caustic’ (oops sound like a good thing to do!).
Coral does not like fresh water – which is non-alkaline – which is why Coral does not grow near river outflows in Australia”
/end quote.
If IPCC is saying that, then the actual situation is that global warming would bring net benefits to the world, to the tune of 5-20% of GDP. Too bad global warming is not happening, as those are substantial benefits.
I wish there was something I could do to help bring it about. Drive a bigger car more frequently, perhaps? Crank up the thermostat on my house in the winter? Install central air conditioning? Demand disposable shopping bags a the supermarket?. I know these might be just token, feel-good type things to do, but I’m willing to try anything to do my part to save the planet.
A good book on the exaggeration of environmental threats back in the day is Aaron Wildavsky’s <But Is It True?: A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues, at:
http://www.amazon.com/But-True-Citizens-Environmental-Health/dp/0674089235/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396014351&sr=1-1&keywords=But+Is+It+True%3F
So can I get my cheap lightbulbs back please?
Should have said “when talking and writing….”
So there Mr. Economist … Was the negative “growth” rate of Spain’s GDP over the last 6 years caused by “climate change” – or was it caused by their “green” energy policy to “combat” it?
https://www.google.com/search?q=spain+gdp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=spain+gdp+per+capita&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgz8HjxKHfq6-gVludpaWY3aylX5OfnJiSWZ-nn5xCZAuLslMTsyJL0pNBwpZpacUxOfl52bmAYUKUovikxMLMksS48vzi3JS4pMS87I32Xe-1NZsX91e1z_980E-v4ivnH8AIzC19mwAAAA
The article “Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm” seems to be gone.
bruce says: March 28, 2014 at 6:48 am So can I get my cheap lightbulbs back please?
Most of the mfg machinery has already been sold as scrap or to the Chinese who are now enjoying cheap coal powered electricity. But hey, at least we’re less likely likely to be held hostage by tungsten producing countries like Peru!
Here’s an idea for a cartoon that is better than the WSJ’s. I suggest that the WSJ use it next time it runs a contrarian op-ed:
A quack doctor’s office. Mr. Globe is standing by while a wacky, weird-beard Far Side doc squints at an oral thermometer under a magnifying glass that is (unbeknownst to him) focusing the rays from a head-mounted lamp onto the thermometer’s bulb, saying, “You have a fever.” On the shelf (or Mr. Globe’s head) is an ice pack with a price tag of $1 trillion.
rogerknights says: March 28, 2014 at 7:14 am
Or, him inserting a ginormous hypodermic syringe labeled “Green Energy Policy”, (with red liquid inside of course), and him saying, “This is going to hurt you a lot more than it’s going to hurt me.”
Farmer Gez said @ur momisugly March 28, 2014 at 4:05 am
Only 40% of the P in super is used by the crop on average; the remainder is “locked-up” by the chemistry of the soil. You can “unlock” the P by stimulating the soil biota (earthworms, bacteria, actinomycetes etc). It’s called organic farming. Stimulating the soil biota is simple: feed it protein (fish emulsion, animal manures, composts etc).
Greens everywhere hate me for pointing out that organic farming mostly seems to consist in mining superphosphate deposits made by the organic farmers’ predecessors.
So insignificant side effects?
Can I have my share of the taxes wasted on this shameless fear mongering , abuse of authority and treason by my civil servants?
Shall we tally up the costs?
Waste of public treasure? The deliberate impeding of development in our poorer countries?
How to cost, the deaths from fuel poverty, starvation and economic strangulation?
Once again we see the damage of allowing fools and bandits access to other peoples money.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Climate Change Is Not The Problem Fuel Poverty Is. Higher Fuel Prices = More Poor People = More Children Dying and when you add in starvation we need more CO2 to feed the world which burning fossil fuel provides. CO2 Emissions to date from Fossil Fuel has resulted in a 14% greening of the Earth! Down with the Climate Change Alarmists . Lets all be happy and Celebrate!!!
An excellent and timely article.
It is interesting to read the comments in the WSJ, which are overwhelmingly supportive with the notable exception of a pompous fool called Barrie Harrop. In one of his many interjections he states that “carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the planet’s main thermostat”.
The problem is that there are so many people like him who have raised CO2 to the status of a deity.
They really should have said
Think about this – what if it hots up by 3C? 4C? Will it be the end of the world? We can only look at the past as a guide.
I have been told that the signs of climate change are everywhere and we must act now. Can anyone put a cost on this?
“It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century.”
Does anyone know what the uncertainty of the GDP measure is? Certainly the whole thing is a rough estimate as nobody could possibly account for everything on the planet down to the penny.
It’s much worse than that. It’s like cutting of your head to clear a zit.
What would be the outcome if we went the other way. Let’s say the temps FELL 2 deg C over the next several decades. Is there a plan in place if we keep dropping to the point of crop failures due to colder climates?
SCheesman:
Re the 14% greening. On Myneni’s page 7, beneath the table are these words:
” – 31% of the global vegetated area greened
• This greening translates to a 14% increase in gross productivity
• The greening is seen in all vegetation types”
Donohue comes to an estimate of 11% and has a different distribution of where the greening is mostly happening. I am not sure what accounts for the difference between them, but they both agree dry grassland and open shrubland show the most greening.
Jimbo and Dodgy Geezer
I have also used the analogy of putting a tourniquet round your neck to stop a nosebleed.
Take some radiation physics, add a slice of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, add increasing emissions of CO2, stir in a green agenda and what do you have: thermal Armageddon. As you read into the primary literature one gets a picture of a patchwork quilt of a science where all are agreed its a quilt but where the holes are bigger than the patches. ‘Just look at the (tiny) imbalance between radiation in and radiation out’ the demi-scientists howl. ‘The heat must be going somewhere’. The answer is : the biosphere stupid. The biosphere doesn’t just mop up CO2 it absorbs energy like a thick green sponge surrounding the planet. Sure, the planet warmed up for a spell, now it’s making hay getting greener and richer with every passing season. Some of that energy gets released quickly as the circle of life and the seasons turn but a large proportion goes into the planet ‘s fat store. Climate change isn’t just about radiation physics, nor about the 2nd Law. It’s about a dynamic living world with the emphasis on living. Conservation and looking after our environment must be our primary concern but CAGW and all of those who leeched on it was a scare. And how we all love a scare.