Guest essay by David M Hoffer [Doug L. Hoffman]
It is remarkable what gems of wisdom one can find simply by sitting down and reading the IPCC AR reports and seeing what they actually say. Having spent more time than I would like to admit on WGI (the science) over the years, I decided to spend some time on WGII (the impacts). How bad is it going to be according to the collective wisdom of 97% of the world’s climate science brain trust?
Now it is a long report, it would take weeks to work through all the chapters, the tortured language, and dig into the references, many of which would be pay walled. So I went straight for sections on the economy. Now I’m not an economist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that anything bad that happens on a global basis will have a negative impact on our global economy. I wanted to know, if the 97% of scientists are right, how bad is it going to be? The answer blew me away. I won’t keep you in suspense, I’ll go straight to the money quote (bold theirs):
For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change. {10.10}
That’s the opening statement in the Executive Summary of IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10 (Key Economic Sectors and Services).
As [poll after poll] shows, the public rates climate change at the very bottom of their list of concerns. The United Nations IPCC AR5 brain trust is stating, point blank, that not only will changes in population, age, income, technology, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other things have a bigger impact on our socioeconomic wellbeing, they will be much bigger. Read it for yourself here:
Click to access WGIIAR5-Chap10_FINAL.pdf
In fact, Chapter 10 goes into considerable detail showing us how little climate change is going to affect us. Based on a two degree rise in temperature over the next 50 to 100 years, they break it down sector by sector:
Table 10-10 | Summary of findings.
| Sector | Climate change drivers | Sensitivity to climate change | Sign | Other drivers | Relative impact of climate change to other drivers |
| Winter tourism | • Temperature
• Snow |
 |
Negative | • Population
• Lifestyle • Income • Aging |
Much less |
| Summer tourism | • Temperature
• Rainfall • Cloudiness |
 |
Negative for suppliers in low altitudes and latitudes Positive for suppliers in high altitudes and latitudes Neutral for tourists | • Population
• Income • Lifestyle • Aging |
Much less |
| Cooling demand | • Temperature
• Humidity • Hot spells |
 |
Positive for suppliers Negative for consumers | • Population
• Income • Energy prices • Technology change |
Less |
| Heating demand | • Temperature
• Humidity • Cold spells |
 |
Negative for suppliers Positive for consumers | • Population
• Income • Energy prices • Technology change |
Less |
| Health services | • Temperature
• Precipitation |
 |
Positive for suppliers Negative for consumers | • Aging
• Income • Diet/lifestyle |
Less |
| Water infrastructure and services | • Temperature
• Precipitation • Storm Intensity • Seasonal Variability |
 |
Negative for water users Positive for suppliers Spatially heterogeneous | • Population
• Income • Urbanization • Regulation |
Less in developing countries Equal in developed countries |
| Transportation | • Temperature
• Precipitation • Storm intensity • Seasonal variability • Freeze/thaw cycles |
 |
Negative for all users
Positive for transport construction industry |
• Population
• Income • Urbanization • Regulation • Mode shifting • Consumer and commuter behavior |
Much less in developing countries
Less in developed countries |
| Insurance | • Temperature
• Precipitation • Storm intensity • Seasonal variability • Freeze/thaw cycles |
 |
Negative for consumers Neutral for suppliers | • Population
• Income • Regulation • Product innovation |
Less or equal in developing countries
Equal or more in developed countries |
The tourism industry (both winter and summer) will be much less affected by climate change than by population, lifestyle, income and aging. You’d think cooling and heating demand would change dramatically with climate change, but no, climate change gets trumped by population, income, energy prices and technology. Health services? With all the disasters to befall us, you’d think there would be major stress on our healthcare services. Turns out that even diet trumps climate change as a driver of impacts to our wellbeing (Curiously, technology did not make the list of drivers for health services!) . For transportation climate change gets trumped by no less than a list that includes population, income, urbanization, regulation, mode shifting (if someone knows what mode shifting is, by all means post in comments) consumer and commuter behaviour. The insurance industry is apparently the only sector where climate change rivals other drivers, and then only in developed countries.
So where’s the alarm? The message to governments is pretty clear. On a global basis, there is a lot more to worry about while planning your country’s economy than climate change. Chapter 10 makes a valiant attempt to keep on message:
Losses accelerate with greater warming (limited evidence, high agreement), but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above.
So…. In trying to keep the fear and uncertainty at a fever pitch (losses accelerate with warming), the IPCC tacitly admits that they don’t actually know. They have, in their own words, limited evidence to draw this conclusion. Nonetheless, they forge on, insisting that they have high agreement (in the absence of evidence they nonetheless appear to have faith!). What evidence do they have? Here is the money chart from the same Chapter 10:
As can be seen from this chart, almost as many studies have been done at 3 degrees as have been done at 2.5 degrees, and they come up with almost the same result. In fact, their claim of a “few” studies at greater than 3 degrees is only two studies. One is a study done a 5.5 degrees. Given the constraints on sensitivity in the current literature, that large a temperature change could only be driven by natural variability. A single study done at 3.25 degrees which projects a negative impact of more than 12% appears to be the straw the IPCC is grasping at to keep the potential for the disaster meme alive. It is an obvious outlier from the rest of the literature, which the report tries to gloss over.
Now let’s ponder for a moment just how small these negative impacts actually are. The IPCC charts rating changes compared to other economic drivers as “less” or “much less” don’t paint the picture very well. Keeping in mind that 2% at two degrees (and that is the upper range in the estimate) is spread over the timeframe that it takes to reach that temperature. Since the target date in the Paris fear festival was 2100, let’s round it off to 100 years for easy figuring.
That’s 0.02% per year. Forecasted economic growth for most countries in the world ranges from -5% to +5% per year. In other words, the IPCC is telling us that the socioeconomic impacts of climate change are less than a rounding error. I’ll end this article by quoting the initial statement from the IPCC again. The public and government alike have a lot more to worry about than climate change:
For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers
So sayeth the United Nations
IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10
I accept them at their word.
Thanks for this. Coupled with the many indefinite and admitted unknown aspects in the science report, it is surprising that the politicos get away with all the deception. This will be a useful piece for local efforts to counter the mania.
Here is a plot with trendline of the underlying data points from SM10-1.
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap10_OLSM.pdf
http://oi63.tinypic.com/2e1rv9w.jpg
if we throw out the outlier, here is the trend:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/29wnwd3.jpg
so from the IPCC’s own data, anything less than about 1.6 C increase in temps will be positive. And since this is what is projected for at least the next 50 years, then Global Warming will have a cumulative positive effect for at least 50 years.
In other words, adapting Global Warming will likely pay for itself because the positive effects will kick in long before the negative effects. If we simply do nothing we will end up far ahead in 50 years as compared to spending money today to limit warming!!!
Because the benefits of Global Warming kick in sooner than the harmful effects, the effects of compound interest have a very big effect on the future, to determine if warming is a net benefit or loss.
Under RCP6.0, if we simply bank the benefits, at 0% real rate of interest then we get a net loss from global warming around the year 2150. However, if real interest rates are 1% then global warming doesn’t turn a net loss until about 2250. And if real interest rates are 1.5%, then global warming is a net benefit for the entire future.
The following graph uses the IPCC’s own data in:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap10_OLSM.pdf
I’ll publish the spreadsheet in a WUWT article if there is interest.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2edcx89.jpg
clear chart:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/ua13p.jpg
added 1.3%
http://oi67.tinypic.com/k0hxd1.jpg
I’d really like to see you write this up and submit it
I agree with David, Forbes would print this line of thought as a cover story Fred.
‘limited evidence, high agreement’ is a conclusion of a Lateran Council or a Synod, not a scientific meeting.
Mode shifting refers to the type of transportation; Air, rail, truck, etc. Changing the way things are transported.
Now that Doug has found this out, this becomes one of the now known unknowns.
The only known about environment and climate science is that both have been hijacked by Marxism?
Bravo.
Doug your analysis seems almost prescient, and certainly well argued, but it has a fatal flaw; it argues on enemy territory.
The very same people who have consistently (and falsely) alerted on Climate Change (AKA cAGW) are also the people who are dismissing it as a non-event relative to other economic factors we can only surmise they have less understanding of than Climate.
Bartleby,
Fatal flaw?
“The very same people who have consistently (and falsely) alerted on Climate Change (AKA cAGW) are also the people who are dismissing it as a non-event relative to other economic factors …”
In B-ball you’da heard: “In your face!! ; )
Fix “pole after pole”!
I always felt that the words, “limited evidence, high agreement” more or less summarize the state of the entire IPCC enterprise. Possibly though, an improvement on “zero evidence, unanimity of agreement” which can be found in religious organizations and cults, widely.
Although the distinction is perhaps not as great as many may imagine.
I recall that AR5 also discounted the effects of Sun+GalacticCosmicRays+Aerosols=Cloud cover variation.
They dismissed this effect with – surprise surprise – ““limited evidence, high agreement”.
It’s true that if we continue to dismiss the effect then we can preserve the current position of basing our opinions on limited evidence a.k.a. high ignorance. Robust ignorance can be maintained.
Judith Curry made this sarcastic remark in relation to the AR5’s bold assertion that the Sun and GCR’s can be ignored and that GHG’s run the show.
“What a relief that the IPCC consensus has decreed with high confidence that solar variations won’t influence the 21st century climate. For a minute there, after reading the NRC Report, Svensmark and Vahrenholt, I thought us scientists might have more work to do to figure out how the Earth’s climate system works.”
supplement to indefatigablefrog — “Sun —- variation” — the IPCC argued this creates cooling but they forgot the fact, these will reduce the energy available at the ground [energy balance] for greenhouse effect. When there is no energy how CO2 will convert it to temperature rise.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
No.
No, I think it is actually worse than that.
The CAGW community, regardless of their motives and their corruption of the scientific process of unbiased research and fact-based analysis, really truly “believes” their hearts and minds that they have (somehow) been accurately and correctly calculating the entire earth’s past, present, and (thus) future radiation energy balance by minutely analyzing EVERY interaction they can think of into their General Circulation MOdels (lately renamed Global Climate Models).
To do that, they have, since the early mid-1980’s GCM, been starting with the sun’s energy release – The sun’s Top of Atmosphere (TOA) radiation spectrum. If that TOA spectrum is wrong, NO other part of their GCM modeling can possibly be right.
Now, since everything hinges on the TOA radiation, and since today’s solar scientific community lives and dies on ITS TOA radiation studies, it is essential we look at TOA radiation over time, right? So, the solar scientists claim that there is NO change in TOA radiation since satellite measurements and earth-surface measurements began in 1979-1980, and that their proxy studies can extend this “static sun” model back as far as sunspot records exist.
Fine, we must let them make that claim.
But, these same solar scientific groups claim that ALL published decreases in their “established” levels of TOA radiation are NOT due to a change in the solar output of energy, but are ONLY due to repeated instrument inaccuracies and instrument improvements. (“What we reported 20 years ago is the same value as what we are reporting today, but the number is lower because today’s instruments are better than the old instruments that gave us a higher value.” )
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
IF that plotted series of near-continuous lower TOA reported values is correct, then the EARLIER GCM model analysis – EVERY GCM model result prior to today’s 1362 watts/m^2 needs to be revised DOWN, since the actual top of atmosphere radiation used in the CGM computers in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 were NOT 1374, 1370, 1367, 1366, nor 1364.
Thus the CAGW community’s projected future radiation “forcing” of 3 watts/doubling of CO2 have already been EXCEEDED by the 10-12 watt/m^2 apparent decrease in the TOA radiation that their models “expect”.
So. We are left to speculate – since the modeler community refuses to address this “supply side decrease in TOA Radiation” – what the true effect of doubling CO2 is. The calculated effect of doubling? 0.5 to 1.5 to 3.0 watts, right?
But are not measured global average world temperatures “stagnant” as the CO2 level ever more rises but the solar TOA values is “actually” stagnant?
But their models’ “calculated” increase in temperatures (due to CO2’s increase) MUST decrease to show this 10 watts “loss” at Top of Atmosphere from EVERY earlier model! The 1976-1996 “baseline period” or “model calibration period” for the CGM’s that use ANY TOA value higher than today’s 1362 watts/m^2 average is NOT “stagnant”!
Dr. Reddy, as the IPCC is a quasi governmental agency, I don’t think they so much “argued this creates cooling” as they ruled this creates cooling.
For decades now the IPCC has been working up a lather of alarm, all the while fully aware of the deception. At some point our leaders must call “the game is up”.
Moderator: David M Hoffer, not Doug L Hoffman 😉
97% of WUWT readers….knew it was you 😉
Great article David!
I would be surprised if Richard Tol and B. Lomborg have not discussed this. And if they had, I am surprise I have not heard it. Tol was an author, yes? I recall there was some controversy in the process. Perhaps someone can remind us. Clearly the IPCC consensus is closer to Tol than Stern.
I wondered about that when I wrote this. It was my understanding that Richard Tol resigned from AR5 because he thought it was to alarmist. So, I was surprised to see his name at the top of the Chapter 10 document. Perhaps I misunderstood, perhaps they left his name on it anyway.
I withdrew from the author team of the Summary for Policy Makers, which, as you can see, has a very different message than Chapter 10.
In other words our world leaders have either not been informed of what the IPCC actually said in the report or know what’s in the report and are lying to us. Probably both. Looks like our vaunted Fifth Estate can’t read either or doesn’t want to tell the truth about the AGW scam. My take is that it’s some of each.
The leaders, such as the POTUS, neither know nor want to know. Would John Holdren tell B. O.? Would Axelrod or Jarrett want B. to know? Knowing would present problems. Remember, it is not about climate. It is about power and wealth redistribution under a new form of world government.
Can it be said they lied if they don’t know anything?
“Looks like our vaunted Fifth Estate can’t read”
Wouldn’t surprise me. Certainly can’t write decent English.
You got that right!
Did you mean poll after poll?
No, they only talked to people from Poland and tall, vertical rods sticking out of the ground.
At latitude 90N & 90S …on alternate days (;-}
But the results were homogonised across the globe, so the results are very robust 🙂
I think you meant “poll after poll”…..the public rates climate change at the very bottom of their list of concerns.
IPCC is playing safe. When later this century they will be called to account (as they surely will) they will blithely point to their main report and tell the world : “This is what we said! – And it is not our fault that you suckers only looked at our politically-determined summary!!!!”. And I think they have a point.
How many of the authors will be around in 2050, 2075?
No need for despair AndyE. The following is extracted from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website ipcc.ch
Major decisions of the IPCC will be taken by the Panel in plenary meetings
Principles Governing IPCC Work
Approval of the Summary for Policymakers at the Session of the Working Group, signifies that it is consistent with the factual material contained in the full scientific, technical and socio-economic
Assessment or Special Report accepted by the Working Group. Coordinating Lead Authors should be consulted in order to ensure that the Summary for Policymakers is fully consistent with the findings in the main report . . . For a Summary for Policymakers approved by a Working Group to be endorsed as an IPCC Report, it must be accepted at a Session of the Panel.
Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, approval, adoption and publication of IPCC
reports
Any international public civil service organization secretariat respecting good governance principles should maintain a public list of the heads of the delegations of the member countries of their governing bodies. Or in this case principal delegates of the Panel. It turns out to be surprisingly obscure, but I’m not giving up yet.
Although the IPCC lead authors have a major responsibility, the list of panel members will reveal the names of the 195 who IMO can and should be held accountable for this fundamental inconsistency and mind-blowing non-compliance against their own principles and procedures.
Jaakko Kateenkorva – You write that “[you are] not giving up yet”. Well, you’d better – because you are up against sovereign nations which you cannot take to any court and expect to follow their own (paper)rules, principles and procedures. You are hitting your head against a concrete wall – the concrete wall will win that battle.
As a comparison I can draw the fact that The Soviet Union had the most admirable, democratic constitution you could imagine – whereas a country like New Zealand, for example, blithely sailed (and still sails) along without any written constitution at all. Sovereign nations don’t really give a hoot about paper promises – that is why the recent Paris agreement isn’t worth the paper it is written on. What strong countries like e.g. U.S.A., China, Germany or France will look back and worry about promises given many years before??
This is tricky. Energy prices are affected by our stupid CAGW driven policies like carbon taxes. Heating and cooling demand will be affected by CAGW because our beloved politicians will make it so that we won’t be able to afford fuel or electricity.
This is absolutely true and highlights a vital point the IPCC report misses – The things we DO to ‘avoid’ Climate Change, real or not, WILL have a strong depressing effect on any economy choosing to take such actions. The most obvious impact is in the energy field where wealth multiplication by being able to efficiently (cheaply) move products to the place in the world where they can fetch the best possible price will drastically affect the costs, and therefore the volume sold. There are thousands of similar examples.
I see NO consideration of this aspect in the report. ie what will be the probable economic impact if we DO all the things the self appointed ‘experts’ tell us need to be done.
Should be “poll after poll show”…:)
Wonderful, thanks a lot for this.
Since when did anyone shed a tear for the 5 billion Iraq UN Troops (Angels of God) slaughtered in Kewait during Operation Desert Storm?
[5 billion? Out of a total armed forces of … <1.0 million, most of whom are still living now? .mod]
Math is hard!
“They have, in their own words, limited evidence to draw this conclusion. Nonetheless, they forge on, insisting that they have high agreement (in the absence of evidence they nonetheless appear to have faith!) …”.
==================================
Surprise me, they have little to no evidence to support their signature statement, their fundamental premise: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”, except “expert judgment”.
And of course “expert judgment” is not evidence.
“pole after pole” should read
poll after poll
[Fixed, thank you. .mod]
“Turns out that even diet trumps climate change as a driver of impacts to our wellbeing”.
Yeah, whodathunkit?
It turns out that people prosper when they have plentiful food and warmth and low taxes.
We can potentially provide all three by not transforming the global economic model to meet the non-challenge of global warming.
This changes everything. So let’s quit freaking out and focus on expanding the reach of modern agriculture and energy infrastructure to the world’s poor. Property rights, access to education, access to capital markets, security, telecommunications and good governance.
Plus plentiful atmospheric CO2.
Some may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
As a dreamer you make better sense than the original.
lyrics
You mean Trump’s diet is doing all this? 🙂
Interesting.
Did the report guestimate anything about the impact of future armed conflicts?
I’ve only read Chapter 10 in detail, so I don’t know about the rest of the report. Chapter 10 did speculate that climate change may lock in the poverty cycle, though the evidence for same wasn’t convincingly presented. If there was anything about armed conflicts, I missed it.
From the SPM: “Violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Large-scale violent conflict harms assets that facilitate adaptation, including infrastructure, institutions, natural resources, social capital, and livelihood opportunities.16” (Page 8).
“Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence).” (Page 20)
But no guesstimates….
Hmm, large scale violent conflict also tends to dramatically change technology, industries, and economies. I think there may be some positive feedbacks to consider.
I thought most of your Marxists considered war, crisis, and conflict as an opportunity to increase their power; and thus their ability to manage this ‘fever’ the earth has.
Irrelevant.
The only document that counts is the SPM; it sets the tone and the agenda (and the funding priorities). That’s why the SPM is released first … everyone gets in lockstep behind it and funding goes to those conforming to the agenda. If anyone makes too much of a fuss over anything in this report from a working group that strays from accepted dogma, it’ll be corrected in AR6.
Politicians never read reports, only the Executive Summary, (SPM) which is written to reflect the policy wishes that were sought at the outset. On a lesser scale, so are minutes of meetings.
David:
Thanks for this.
Apologies for omitting “medical technology”. Malaria is indeed being curtailed faster than we dared to hope only 10 years ago, and a dengue vaccine is in trial. These are two key concerns about the impact of climate change.
At the same time, obesity has spread to lower middle-income countries, and this makes people much more susceptible to heat stress.
These things change so much faster than climate, but climate research remains focussed on ceteris paribus.
No Richard, thank you.
I see upthread that you withdrew from the AR5 SPM but not Chapter 10 itself. So we all owe you a note of thanks for ensuring that the facts stayed in Chapter 10. Please know that none of my sarcasm was aimed at you, but at those who raise alarm while hoping that the facts as you have laid them out are never read by the public. (The thought that you might read this hit me about ten seconds too late for a rewrite)
“a note of thanks for ensuring that the facts stayed in Chapter 10”
that needs to be seconded (supported) – thanks, from an amateur, but fellow human life-scientist
i would have thought one of the biggest problems was the spread of non native species around the world.
IN the US it costs 120 billion in damages every year-
https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/PythonPDF/CostofInvasivesFactSheet.pdf
Richard Tol:
In the absence of statistically meaningful warming in any of the pertinent metrics over the past two decades [margins of error being what they are] it seems to me that the issue of “heat stress” due to increased economic well being and accompanying girth is one of local weather rather than of climate.
In other words, obese or rail thin, the odd 50C vs.a regular 42C day [in the shade, of course] in Fatehpur Sikri hits one considerably harder than 0.8C over 100 years.
Mvg
These are two key concerns about the impact of climate change….
===
Wouldn’t the temperature have to actually change first?
Seriously though, obesity and related health problems are proving to be a far more urgent problem than non-existent “extreme weather”.
“By 2010, seven out of ten Mexicans were overweight with a third clinically obese. Mexico ranks the most obese country in the world in adult obesity (as of 2013), and first for childhood obesity with about 4.5 million children diagnosed as such. Mexico passed the United States as the most obese country in the world. Since the 1990s, fat has become the principal source of energy in the Mexican diet and it is assumed that the consumption of highly processed food will continue increasing. As a consequence, Mexico has seen the same kind of health issues that other countries with overweight populations have. Standardized mortality rates (SMR) for diabetes, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and hypertension have increased dramatically. As of 2012, diabetes – associated with obesity – was the largest single killer of Mexicans.”
Source wikipedia.
Meanwhile a major pacific hurricane hit Mexico in 2015 and tossed some deck chairs several yards up a beach. The world has some pretty skewed priorities.
Of course, on top of this is the massive problem with the drugs trade and uber-violent gore-fest created by warring drugs cartels. I seriously doubt whether barely detectable trends in the frequency or intensity of weather phenomena are high in their minds.
Indefatigable,
From my years of observation, Mexicans consume very high levels of sugar (Coca Cola, sweets, etc.) and carbohydrates (corn), which are far more fattening than fats proper.
Great post, showing again the political manipulation of the IPCC process.
“Mode shift”, otherwise referred to as “modal shift”, just means changing from one mode of transport to another, e.g. swapping from a car to a bus, or from walking to cycling.
For transportation climate change gets trumped by no less than a list that includes population, income, urbanization, regulation, mode shifting (if someone knows what mode shifting is, by all means post in comments)
Presumably it means changing the mode of transport, for example when an African farmer can afford to buy a moped so that he doesn’t have to walk to market.