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.
The Pompous Git says:
March 28, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Aah. I see your point.
Indeed I have never voted for the “Greens” and I generally avoid all association with them and their like.
I suspect that the “Greens” have a similar dislike of my activities.
Certainly my views on CAGW/DACC and the like cause them some discomfort.
Didn’t we all ready spend 0.2% to 2% of GDP on global warming?
Didn’t Michael Mann and CRU get that much?
/snarc
Matt Ridley is too sane for his own good… LOL
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.
Yes, the Ozone “Hole” narrative seems like it was a practice run for the CAGW narrative. Both were blamed on trace atmospheric constituents, a kernel of truth about anthropogenic influences was blown up to try to explain primarily natural occurrences, there’s lots of fear-mongering, and grants and noble prizes are awarded. They even have the same story-lines and cheerleaders, i.e.:
Time – Feb 17, 1992
“What does it mean to redefine one’s relationship to the sky? What will it do to our children’s outlook on life we have to teach them to be afraid to look up?”
–Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“The world now knows that danger is shining through the sky. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer–our shield against the sun’s hazardous ultraviolet rays–is being eaten away by man-made chemicals far faster than any scientist had predicted. No longer is the threat just to our future; the threat is here and now. Ground zero is not just the South Pole anymore; ozone zone holes could soon open over heavily populated regions in the northern hemisphere as well as the southern. This unprecedented assault on the planet’s life-support system could have horrendous long-term effects on human health, animal life, the plants that support the food chain and just about every other strand that makes up the delicate web of nature. And it is too late to prevent the damage, which will worsen for years to come. The best the world can hope for is to stabilize ozone loss soon after the turn of the century.
If any doubters remain, their ranks dwindled last week. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with scientists from several institutions, announced startling findings from atmospheric studies done by a modified spy-plane and an orbiting satellite. As the two craft crossed the northern skies last month, they discovered record-high concentrations of chlorine monoxide (CIO), a chemical by-product of the chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCs) known to be the chief agents of ozone destruction.
Although the results were preliminary, they were so disturbing that NASA went public a month earlier than planned, well before the investigation could be completed.Previous studies had already shown that ozone levels have declined 4% to 8% over the northern hemisphere in the past decade. But the latest data imply that the ozone layer over some regions, including the northernmost parts of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Russia, could be temporarily depleted in the late winter and early spring by as much as 40%. That would be almost as bad as the 50% ozone loss recorded over Antarctica. If a huge northern ozone hole does not in fact open up in 1992, it could easily do so a year or two later. Says Michael Kurylo, NASA’s manager of upper-atmosphere research: “Everybody should be alarmed about this. It’s far worse than we thought.” http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/GEI/w3a.pdf
I think we might be able to take out the CAGW and Ozone “Hole” narratives together, which would definitely help put a damper on the whole scare up a grant model…
Here is a back-of-bar-coaster calculation of how a businessman would evaluate the most cost efficient manner to solve the CAGW crisis, providing there even IS a CAGW problem…
Assuming the current world GDP is $80 trillion and grows at 2%/yr over the next 80 years, by around 2100, the world GDP would be around $400 trillion. If the negative effects of CAGW were hypothetically 2% of GDP, that would equal $8 trillion/yr.
The Present Value of $8 trillion based on a 5% cost of capital would be about $180 billion/year.. Given that the cheapest and most efficient form of energy that produces ZERO CO2 emissions is nuclear power and assuming a cost/nuke plant of $3 billion, if the world built 60 nuclear plants/yr, we could completely avoid the $8 trillion/yr hypothetical cost of CAGW in the year 2100.
Since the powers that be aren’t doing this, one must assume the politicians have other agendas they’re pursuing aside from economic/environmental threat abatement…
Gee… I wonder what those agendas could be….
(Sarc/off)…
27 March: PR Web: MEDIA ADVISORY: International Gathering of Scientists Skeptical of Man-Caused Global Warming to Take Place in Las Vegas from July 7 to July 9
Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) will feature world-famous scientists and writers, precede FreedomFest 2014.
Is the theory of man-made global warming still credible? Why do surveys show a majority of Americans and scientists do not believe global warming is man-made and a major problem?
Hundreds of the world’s most prominent “skeptics” of the claim that human activity is causing a climate crisis will converge in Las Vegas on July 7–9 to review the latest research and celebrate what they see as recent events that vindicate their opposition to what some claim is a “scientific consensus.”
The Heartland Institute – which The Economist magazine in 2012 called “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change” – is joining scores of other think tanks and advocacy groups to host the 9th International Conference on Climate Change at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas…
“The scientists Heartland works with demanded we host a ninth conference this year to foster a much-needed frank, honest, and open discussion of the current state of climate science,” said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, “and we just couldn’t refuse. The public, the press, and the scientific community will all benefit from learning about the latest research and observational data that indicate climate science is anything but ‘settled.’”…
For more information about The Heartland Institute and the 9th International Conference on Climate Change, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely(at)heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11708533.htm
@roger and Pompous:
ARTI – Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
Their official website is http://www.arti-india.org/
I did not find the sugar-water P-liberation story immediately but it is easy to contact them and ask Dr Karve about it.
For those interested in biogas they have invented an Ashden Award-winning very much faster and smaller digester that is starch and sugar-based, not cellulose and it is a real breakthrough technology. The key is to change the digesting organisms. The complete explanation is available on CD for $3. The direct page is http://www.arti-india.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43:latest-achievement-arti-wins-the-ashden-award-2006-for-its-design-of-the-compact-biogas-system&catid=17:archive&Itemid=71
Just The Facts says: March 29, 2014 at 12:44 am
I recently caught an episode of STNG produced in 1988:
I was disappointed to discover this alarmism was embedded in this TV show.
The 1986 movie RoboCop had ridiculous spoof ads for protection products from the sun.
I have developed a new fondness for Gilligan Island episodes; no climate change references, though there was an Gilligan made island sinking episode.
Now stop the CO2 Taxes, the roll-out o UN Agenda 21 and the freaking NYT, the biggest AGW shit recycling factory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=3541E5FFB61F41DB64634101B66D4686&gwt=regi&assetType=nyt_now
there will be only one winner in this global warming debate is the earth it will tell us what the climate is now and in the future nobody alive today will be ably to control the earth,s Enviroment and so it be
And don’t forget the to tell the lying moron currently occupying the White House:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xHqYITaT
Maybe he should stop playing with his own shit.
The “costs” of manmade warming or climate change are, of course, completely imaginary, whereas the costs of the CAGW/CACC memeplex have been enormous both financially and socially. Those costs will be reverberating for decades.
The IPCC is backpedaling desperately in an effort to stay in the climate game, but they remain professional liars.
By this time the fear-mongering elites have made their millions from the fraud and can retire defeated.
Republican led investigation panel: Take note. There was some serious exaggeration going on and it has cost us PLENTY of coinage as well as unspeakable damage to lands now scarred with wind turbines! And we been SAYIN IT AND SAYIN IT!!! I want my tax money back!!! Now!!! And I wanna see heads rolling off to jail!! Start with Ivory Tower public employees and top it off with Obamination!
garymount says: March 29, 2014 at 1:58 am
I was disappointed to discover this alarmism was embedded in this TV show.
The 1986 movie RoboCop had ridiculous spoof ads for protection products from the sun.
I have developed a new fondness for Gilligan Island episodes; no climate change references, though there was an Gilligan made island sinking episode.
Yes, the whole thing would be comical, if it were not so sad…
I recently got into it with Phil. over the existence of natural dynamical explanations for Ozone “Holes”, in comments on this thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/09/mysterious-new-man-made-gases-pose-threat-to-ozone-layer/
and he lost…
and this?Geo engineering proposes a negative solar radiative
forcing, in a global average of 3,7W/m2, in Holand a study of the impact of the trails from the planes, showed a negative forcing peaking at 50W/m2
Equation (5) shows that the radiative forcing is taken as the difference between the global irradiance
observations from January 16th 2012, G(obs, 2012), and the smoothed observations of January 16th 2005, G(obs,
2005). These results are plotted in Figure 9 and suggest that the forcing was both negative (cooling) and
positive (warming) during parts of the day. Positive values go up to ~+20 W/m2
and negative ones reach
~-50 W/m2
at the most. Interestingly enough, the forcing is appears to be positive at low solar angles and
negative around midday. http://www.knmi.nl/bibliotheek/stageverslagen/traineereport_Gerritsen.pdf
Stratospheric sulfate aerosols as proposed by Paul Crutzen,[9] with the purpose to modify the Earth’s albedo with reflective or absorptive materials spread over portions of its surface. This would typically be achieved using hydrogen sulfide or sulfur dioxide, delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons.[9][18][19][20] [21] (Alternative approaches using photophoretic particles have been proposed.[22]) Ozone depletion is a risk of such techniques,[23] but only if high enough quantities of aerosols drift to, or are deposited in, polar stratospheric clouds before the levels of CFCs and other ozone destroying gases fall naturally to safe levels because CFCs can settle on larger sulfate particles, increasing their ozone destroying potential.[24] This proposal, not unlike the others, carries with it considerable risks, including increased drought[25] or acid rain.[26]
Broadly speaking, this technique is seen as a credible climate engineering scheme, although not one without major risks, and challenges for its implementation. This technique can give >3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[4] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management
=============================================================
It sounds like they can no longer ignore that people have noticed reality is not cooperating with them. (Meaning that people remember what they claimed would happen in their lifetime has not. Changing from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” was not enough.) So their excuse for needing to control has not panned out.
They are trying to tone down the predictions (projections, if you prefer) while still insisting thy need to keep their hands on the control knob.
It appears that Japan is following the German approach to keeping the lights on- http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304688104579464942892719528
“Japan’s Answer to Fukushima: Coal
Many Nuclear Plants Are Too Expensive to Retrofit While Carbon Dioxide Emissions Continue to Climb”
Per M. Iwata at the WSJ, 3/28/14 article on page B6.
It looks like Japan will remain in the number 2 spot for “Coal imports in 2012 millions of tons” for a while:
China- 289
Japan- 184
India – 160
S. Korea- 125
Taiwan- 64
Lord Stern is either incompetant or a liar. See this.
What is more he is being protected by the “system”. In his reply to this letter The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards stated “a members views and opinions are outside my remit”
The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards,
House of Lords, London,
SW1A 0PW.
Dear Mr. Kernaghan.
As you can see I sent the accompanying letter to Lord Stern on 25th April, 2012. Despite the fact it was sent by recorded delivery, Lord Stern did not have the courtesy to reply. Having given Lord Stern ample opportunity to reply to my enquiry, I now believe it is appropriate to make a formal complaint about Lord Stern.
I have taken a particular interest in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Stern Report, which largely concerns crop productivity, as I am a Plant Physiologist by training (M.A. PhD, Cantab) and can therefore write with authority in this area.
My first concern is why Lord Stern used data from an obscure publication (Wheeler et al 1996) and indeed, manipulated it to produce a conclusion that was not supported by the original authors? They clearly state in their abstract “Mean seed dry weight was increased by > 72 % at elevated CO2, because grain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2”. Furthermore whilst Lord Stern went to the trouble to delete data, which did not support his narrative, from the graph (see my original letter), he further emphasised the apparent decline by adding a “dogleg” line, which did not appear in the original graph.
Moreover one has to question why Lord Stern did not chose to present evidence from multiple publications, all available at the time, that clearly demonstrate that under the scenarios of increased CO2 and temperature used in his report: “Projections of future warming depend on projections of global emissions (discussed in chapter 7). If annual emissions were to remain at today’s levels, greenhouse gas levels would reach close to 550 ppm CO2e by 2050. Using the lower and upper 90% confidence bounds based on the IPCC TAR range and recent research from the Hadley Centre, this would commit the world to a warming of around 2 – 5°C.” (Stern review Page 12 and Table 1.1) plant and agricultural productivity are increased, rather than decreased as Lord Stern states: “In tropical regions, even small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yield. In higher latitudes, crop yields may increase initially for moderate increases in temperature but then fall. Higher temperatures will lead to substantial declines in cereal production around the world, particularly if the carbon fertilisation effect is smaller than previously thought, as some recent studies suggest.” (Stern review Page 67).
Even a cursory search of the relevant literature, available at the time, shows that Lord Stern’s conclusions are seriously flawed. Perhaps the most authoritative paper of the time is that of Ainsworth and Long (2005) which collated data from 120 primary, peer-reviewed articles describing responses to plants under a variety of high [CO2] (475–600 ppm) scenarios, precisely those envisaged in his report. They state that: “Stimulation of photosynthesis at elevated [CO2] is theoretically predicted to be greater at higher temperatures (Drake et al., 1997). When the FACE data were divided between experiments conducted below 25°C and those conducted above 25°C, this prediction was supported. At lower temperatures (< 25°C) Asat was increased by 19%, and at temperatures above 25°C Asat was increased by 30% when plants were grown under elevated [CO2] . Precisely what Wheeler et al (1996) found. Significantly they quote Drake et al (1997) which demonstrates that the theoretical underpinning of increased plant productivity, in response to elevated CO2 and temperatures, was well-known at the time Lord Stern wrote his report, further undermining Lord Stern’s partisan conclusions.
Finally I note that the other graph that Lord Stern has chosen to use in Figure 3.4 (Page 69), from Vara Prasad et al (2001), uses Peanut (hardly a major crop) as an example of a tropical crop where “even small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yield”. However Lord Stern studiously omits to say that the authors only exposed the plants to high temperatures, rather than in combination with high [CO2], as is required by Lord Stern’s own future high temperature, high [CO2] scenarios.
Accordingly it is clear that Lord Stern has some serious questions to answer:
1) Why did he exclude mainstream papers from his review that clearly show that plant productivity will increase under the future [CO2] and temperature scenarios he predicts?
2) Why did he deliberately remove data from the Wheeler et al (1996) paper, which clearly stated “grain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2”, to suggest precisely the opposite?
3) Why did he further manipulate the already altered graph, using a superimposed line, to emphasise a decline in productivity when, in fact, no such decline existed under his stated scenario?
4) Why did he further compound the misinformation presented in the Wheeler paper with that of Vara Prasad et al (2001) which does not duplicate the conditions of his chosen high [CO2], high temperature scenario?
I do not accept that the misinformation in this part of Lord Stern’s review is the result of lack of expertise. Lord Stern is one of the World’s foremost economists and well versed in the collation, interpretation and presentation of complex data. The fact of the matter is that Lord Stern actively and deliberately chose and manipulated data to support a particular conclusion. Any reasonable person would conclude that these omissions of fact and manipulation were specifically designed to mislead Parliament. The fact that so much Government policy is directly informed by Lord Stern’s report is particularly disturbing.
Accordingly I request that you communicate my concerns to Lord Stern and I await his and your considered reply.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. D. Keiller.
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. (2005). What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
Drake BG, Gonzàlez-Meler MA, Long SP. (1997). More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609–639.
Wheeler TR, Batts GR, Ellis RH, Hadley P and Morison JIL (1996) Growth and Yield of Winter Wheat (Triticum Aestivum) Crops in Response to CO2 and Temperature. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 127, 37-48.
Vara Prasad, P.V., P.Q. Craufurd, V.G. Kakani, Wheeler TR and Boote KJ. (2001): 'Influence of high temperature on fruit-set and pollen germination in peanuts', Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28: 233.
Reblogged this on Lloyd's of Rochester – an Eclectic blog and commented:
In the interests of intelligent balance in the “climate change” discussion we present the following for your consideration.
Here’s a guess: portions of “his” report were written for him by Big Green. He needs to be interrogated about whom he consulted with and how much collaboration (i.e., ghostwriting) was involved.
My mistake, it was Robocop 2 , 1990 : “RoboCop 2 contains many of his familiar touches, including satirical television commercials (such as for an ultra powerful sunblock to deal with Earth’s depleted ozone layer) and ironically upbeat news broadcasts.”
Time to drag out the old phlogiston theory – We’re all gonna burn, I tell ya!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated a fire-like element called phlogiston, contained within combustible bodies, is released during combustion. The name comes from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón (burning up), from φλόξ phlóx (flame). It was first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher. The theory attempted to explain burning processes such as combustion and rusting, which are now collectively known as oxidation.
The funny thing about climate alarmism, it boils down to either the believer is extremely gullible or they profit.
Now the former outnumber the latter and in this is the major weakness, as even the most gullible start to think when it is time to pony up the cash.
Now as electricity prices skyrocket across North America, as gasoline and diesel prices rise against falling demand,food inflation marches upward and wages stagnate, even the clueless are getting their attention focussed.
As with all mass hysterias some will profit, some will preen and claim divine wisdom and then the masses will react.
Buy Popcorn, when the mob starts to pay attention the end can be very swift.
Poverty; A wonderful way to focus ones attention.
I personally believe this “gift” should be granted to all promoters of CAGW.