California’s economy will suffer plenty from climate change. But at least it’s not Florida

MIght as well make it three California stories in a row.

By Dale Kasler at the Sacramento Bee

dkasler@sacbee.com

Higher crime rates and electric bills. Crops and laborers wilting in the sun. A new study says California’s economy is going to lose billions of dollars a year to climate change.

But hey, it will be a picnic compared to states like Florida and Texas.

The groundbreaking study, led by two UC Berkeley scientists, says global warming will punish some areas of the country more severely than others. California will suffer, but not as badly as the national average. The situation will be far worse in Gulf Coast states, which can expect to get ravaged by increasingly frequent hurricanes, and areas of the Deep South and Midwest, where agricultural yields will plummet.

The study, published in late June in the journal Science, concluded that climate change will also widen income gaps between poor and wealthy areas of the country. That’s because hotter parts of the country, where incomes already tend to be lower, will take the brunt of the impact from global warming.

The same factors will play out in California. Coastal regions, where much of California’s wealth is concentrated, will be somewhat buffered because of the breezy ocean climate. The hot inland regions, the poorest areas of the state, will take more of a beating.

“Within the state of California, we have a mini-version of what we see across the county,” said study co-author Solomon Hsiang, associate professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. “The poor regions are getting really heavily hit and the coastal regions, which are wealthier, aren’t hit as hard.” The study is the first attempt at documenting the economic impacts of climate change on a county-by-county level.

All told, California can expect to lose 1 percent of its annual economic output for every 1-degree Celsius increase in average temperature, said co-author James Rising, also of UC Berkeley. While that’s slightly better than the 1.2 percent loss predicted for the U.S. economy, the 1 percent effect is still going to translate into a $26 billion annual hit to the state’s gross domestic product. A 1-degree Celsius increase is the equivalent of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Greater Sacramento doesn’t fare particularly well under the authors’ projections. Sacramento County and Yolo County’s economies will fall by about 4 percent a year for every 1-degree Celsius increase in temperatures, or about 4 times worse than the statewide average. The economies of Placer and El Dorado counties, which spill into the relatively cool air of the Sierra Nevada, will see declines closer in line with the rest of California.

Other Central Valley counties will do more poorly, with Fresno losing 6 percent of its annual economic impact, Merced 5.6 percent and Stanislaus 4.4 percent for every 1-degree Celsius rise in temperatures.

The actual economic effects are likely to be worse as the years go by. Temperatures are expected to increase by more than 1 degree during this century; a study by NASA, for example, says temperatures could climb 2 to 6 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Hsiang and Rising acknowledged the study has flaws, some of which mask the true costs of climate change in California. They include a failure to calculate the economic impact of rising sea levels gradually inundating beaches and coastal communities.

Predictions about rising seas in California are dire; a just-released study by the Union of Concerned Scientists said the Bay Area can expect chronic flooding by 2035 in well-heeled communities such as Alameda, Redwood Shores and Corte Madera. Another recent study, released by the state Ocean Protection Council, said, “Hundreds of miles of roads and railways, harbors and airports, power plants and wastewater treatment facilities, in addition to thousands of businesses and homes, are at risk from future flooding, inundation, and coastal retreat.”

However, the authors of the Science article said the financial effect was difficult to assess compared to, say, the damage done by a devastating hurricane.

Despite its shortcomings, the study is resonating with economists. University of the Pacific economist Jeff Michael, who wasn’t involved in the study, said it makes sense that inland California will be more vulnerable than the coast to the effects of global warming.

“In general, I think there’s some truth to that, particularly when you think about heat and energy costs and agricultural effects,” Michael said. “They are going to be felt more in the inland areas.”

Read the full story here.

HT/Rob Dawg

Advertisements

102 thoughts on “California’s economy will suffer plenty from climate change. But at least it’s not Florida

  1. Damn! The green blob is not even bothering to try to use plausible threats anymore. More hurricanes on the Gulf Coast? 3 to 6 degrees C temperature increase? Are they trying for a remake of Sharknado?

      • I read the IMDB post, and have to ask: is it just me, or is the “Sharknado” franchise getting a little…well…silly? Charo as the Queen of England?!?

      • Reminds me of this old gem from 2007

        http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/122407Lindorff.shtml

        Sat., 12/22/2007 – 19:21—Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining.

        Look at a map of the US. The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. …

        …So the future political map of America is likely to look as different as the much shrunken geographical map, with much of the so-called “red” state region either gone or depopulated.

        There is a poetic justice to this of course. It is conservatives who are giving us the candidates who steadfastly refuse to have the nation take steps that could slow the pace of climate change, so it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact….
        etc.

    • Really!

      Here’s an article that says a methane leak is the greatest climate disaster in the history of America. Surely for something like that, you should be able to measure an immediate increase in temperature. They don’t mention anything like that … but it’s going to be real bad … just you wait.

      • Oh that is in error. Methane has a short half life, so it has undetectably small effect now and no effect later.

        To use rather spent words, “climate” is a religious movement. It has its priests, holy books, sin, forgiving, apocalyptic foretellers. It has its own language.

        They say it was “bad”, as well you could they say it was a “sin”. They don’t need to show damages; the same with sins, they’re also bad even if you don’t show damages, and if there are damages, you can always say it was caused by the sin. Religion does not require you to show the relation between two. It is enough if the priest says so, or if holy writings say so.

    • The first of so many oxymorons is “The groundbreaking study, led by two UC Berkeley scientists”

      after that the BS just piles higher and higher!!

  2. Here’s something I honestly don’t understand.
    Hurricanes have at their heart a low pressure zone that raises water from depths. It seems like this would have a cooling effect. It almost seems like global warming cannot coexist with hurricanes. How do the models square that circle?

    • I think you’re missing something there. Warm water provides the input energy for hurricanes. Hurricanes transport the energy higher in the atmosphere and thus energy is expended on it’s normal journey to space. The water is, in fact cooled by this process. Situation normal!

    • Hurricanes and other tropical lows are equalizing mechanisms that very efficiently cool large areas. Just one of many self-limiting climate and weather events that warmists conveniently ignore or mischaracterize.

    • The situation will be far worse in Gulf Coast states, which can expect to get ravaged by increasingly frequent hurricanes

      How will they ever stand against more than 1 every 12 years?

      The 2017 hurricane season begins today, June 1–a record 139 months after the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
      The last major hurricane to hit the continental United States was Hurricane Wilma, which made landfall in Florida on Oct. 24, 2005.

      • I was wondering when they thought all these extreme hurricanes were going to start. Real soon now, no doubt.

        The numbers say we are getting fewer strong hurricanes, not more. We are getting fewer strong tornadoes, not more. Their theory isn’t working out. Their predictions are wrong. I wonder if the authors of this study ever contemplated that.

  3. CA economy is indeed shrinking, but not for any of the reasons put forward in this diatribe. It will be killed by imbecilic policies, ludicrous regulatory burdens, and INANE CARBON TAXES.
    When none of their predictions happen, yet the states economy still collapses, they will say, “I told you so.”

    • you beat me to it… the economic hit felt by all and especially the “poor” are from the idiotic “carbon” taxes and fees hidden and otherwise. Oh and if it passes the HUGE outlay of tax payer money to subsidize buying electric cars. Uuuuuuhhhhhhhgggggg though I don’t know it sure seems we must be near peak stupidity, if that is possible.

      Cheers!

      Joe

      • “carbon taxes” are forcings that exacerbate the initial change making everything ‘worse than we thought’.

    • ….. and then it will be reunited with Mexico as demanded by majority of population; CalMexit

    • Where exactly do you get the figures for the claim that California’s economy is shrinking? In 2016 it
      grew to the point that if it was a country it would be the 6th largest economy in the world,

      • Size, growth rate and economic health are very different things:

        http://www.ocregister.com/2017/01/28/in-california-a-poor-excuse-for-economic-growth/

        In the 40 years following World War II, from 1945 to 1985, wages and salaries in California grew at the average rate of 8.2 percent per year. Since 1985, the growth in wages and salaries has averaged 5 percent per year. Since 2000, 3.5 percent per year. In 2002 and 2009, wages actually declined.

        The California Business Roundtable’s California Center for Jobs & the Economy looked at the jobs data between the first quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016 and found that the total number of “private establishments” declined by 1,235. That means businesses. There are fewer of them.

        “Middle class blue collar jobs remain 300,000 below the pre-recession level,” the report says, and “the lower wage industries paying near or at minimum wage accounted for nearly two-thirds of net jobs growth.”

        There are now over 14 million Californians on Medi-Cal, the government’s safety-net health insurance, and more than 4 million Californians on food stamps. Many people who have jobs and are working hard are still unable to climb out of poverty.

        The “full employment” story is undercut by the reality that tens of millions of Americans are no longer counted in employment statistics.

  4. When you start out with “groundbreaking” and “Berkeley…and end with “In addition, the study appears to use misleading temperature data in some cases.”……….

    just hang it up

    • I do believe Mosher’s got his heart in the right place.
      Even if he can be a f’n jerk.
      Such is commenting on the intertubes.

  5. Apparently these people never learn about hurricanes and droughts, neither of which will be affected by global warming. Agriculture will flourish, a fact they seem to avoid. They can’t be basing their study assuming a range of from 2 to 6 degrees C. – that is way too large a span to be covered by one set of numbers.
    And if they really believe that increasing CO2 can cause such an increase, why do they believe we will still be burning fossil fuels 40 years from now and driving gas powered vehciles? Those are clearly their assumptions and those assumptions are clearly nonsensical.

    • The biggest affect that a 6 degree temperature increase would have, would be to move what crops get grown where.
      That’s the problem with these so called academics. They assume that everybody who doesn’t work for government, isn’t smart enough to adapt to changing circumstances on their own.

  6. I can’t even comment on this lunacy anymore, the really sad part is that many of these studies are conducted by tenure-track faculty in public universities who are failing to contribute anything useful to the public that pays their salaries. It’s just plain malfeasance.

    • Absolutely! Past time that universities had their funding cut for some of these self sustaining garbage studies that contradict themselves on a weekly basis with made up data contrived to produce a political result. Tenure should be at stake for repeated fabrications. (Michael Mann)

      • Mark and john… I agree. Such garbage and PC nonsense seems to be coming out of our universities. Cutting off the funding is the only to reduce the wasted money. I have always been for tenure to protect academic freedom. But, the modern universities have destroyed their academic freedom. Example: Try to get a conservative to speak at radical leftists universities such as Berkley and what do you get? University sanctioned and funded riots and violence and destruction of public property. Since academic freedom, fair play, honesty, and integrity have all been driven from our campuses across the nation we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by cutting public funding of our universities and eliminating tenure to all universities dominated by leftists.
        We could use the money saved to try and revitalize our inner cities by tutoring centers, building good high schools, trade schools, and junior colleges dedicated to the purpose of the betterment of all Americans through, education, work, and employment, and rebuilding families free of the plantations.

  7. California has a lot more serious problem than the earth having a fever .
    People there will eventually get fed up with sky rocketing energy prices
    and Brown will bail just before the wheels come off the wagon . But hey they elected him .

    • well exactly…..and people in the tropics grow plants/crops that grow in the tropics and will not be affected one bit by 1-2 degrees increase in temps, even if it did happen….summer average temps swing much more that that already

    • The world is not warming! Not for at least 18 years and only then according to jury-rigged data.

  8. This is the study that forecasts severe climate effects especially in the US South. The key points:

    First of all, this comes from model projections, not from observed temperatures and precipitation.
    Secondly, all forecasting was done using the worst-case scenario, which is wildly improbable.
    Thirdly the models show no skill at all at regional forecasting, never mind their deficiencies at the global scale.
    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Adaptation by humans is not allowed.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/07/01/climate-scare-in-us-south/

    • Ron: Interesting that adaptation by humans is not allowed, except for throwing themselves back to the stone age (okay, the 1800’s when life was idyllic and the earth had the proper temperature). Somehow people who made it to the moon, developed air conditioning and heating, invented automobiles and planes, are now incapable of adapting to a tiny change in the earth’s average temperature anomaly.

      • For sure. As a species, we humans have excelled at adapting, but the notion that we should watch and wait, and modify our practices according to observed climate changes, that notion is not allowed, because it undermines the agenda.

      • I think that all those things were invented in the UK and US when they shared the same DNA. Anything new and revolutionary been “invented” lately?

      • “Ron: Interesting that adaptation by humans is not allowed, except for throwing themselves back to the stone age (okay, the 1800’s when life was idyllic and the earth had the proper temperature). Somehow people who made it to the moon, developed air conditioning and heating, invented automobiles and planes, are now incapable of adapting to a tiny change in the earth’s average temperature anomaly.”

        Yes, that’s true. Because of lawyers, of course.

  9. “…increasingly ravaged by hurricanes…”

    Yeah we have really been suffering for the past 11 yrs. Please make it stop.

    • Every time I hear a climate “scientist” predict already debunked things I laugh just a little harder in the faces of warmists everywhere. Mormons learn to be nice, Scientology *does* do self-help programs…. warmists just foot-soldier for stupid.

  10. Had to work on this one too, it makes far more sense now

    California’s economy will suffer plenty from climate change. But at least it’s not Florida
    Higher crime rates and triple electric bills. Lack of laborers causing Crops to wilt in the sun. A new study says California’s economy is going to lose billions of dollars a year to climate change regulations.
    And hey, it will be a panic compared to states like Florida and Texas.
    The groundbreaking study, led by two UC Berkeley scientists, says global warming regulations will punish some areas of the country more severely than others. California will suffer most, far worse than the national average. The situation will be far better in Gulf Coast states, which can expect to get ravaged by increasingly infrequent hurricanes, and areas of the Deep South and Midwest, where agricultural yields will plummet as CO2, the stuff of plant fertilization, is scrubbed from the air.
    The study, published in late June, concluded that climate change will also widen income gaps between poor and wealthy areas of the country. That’s because hotter parts of the country, where incomes already tend to be lower, will take the brunt of the impact from global warming regulations and 3 fold increases in energy costs.
    The same factors will play out in California only at a far faster pace mostly thanks to State Legislators and Governor Brown. Coastal regions, where much of California’s wealth is concentrated, will be somewhat buffered because of their ability to afford the higher cost energy. The hot inland regions, the poorest areas of the state, will take more of a beating from both State and Federal regulations and UN Climate Change Mandates.
    “Within the state of California, we have a Twisted Utopic-version of what we see across the county,” said study co-author Solomon Hsiang, associate professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. “The poor regions are getting really heavily hit and the coastal regions, which are wealthier, aren’t hit as hard.” The study is the first attempt at documenting the economic impacts of climate change regulations on a county-by-county level.
    All told, every California can expect to lose 2 percent of their annual economic growth for every single Climate Rule passed by regulators in state congress, said co-author James Rising, also of UC Berkeley. While that’s slightly worse than the 1.2 percent loss predicted for the U.S. economy, the 2 percent effect is still going to translate into a 30-40 percent annual increase in energy costs per resident. A 1-percent change nationwide is the equivalent of 1.8 percent in California.
    Greater Sacramento doesn’t fare particularly well under the authors’ projections. Sacramento County and Yolo County’s economies will fall by about 4 percent a year for every climate change regulation enacted, or about 2 times worse than the statewide average. The economies of Placer and El Dorado counties, which spill into the relatively cool air of the Sierra Nevada, will see declines closer in line with the rest of California.
    Other Central Valley counties will do more poorly, with Fresno losing 6 percent of its annual economic impact, Merced 5.6 percent and Stanislaus 4.4 percent for every climate change regulation enacted.
    The actual economic effects are likely to be worse as the years go by. regulations are expected to increase by more than 1 rule per month per year; a study by NASA, for example, says regulations could increase 2- 6 percent per year by 2100.
    Hsiang and Rising acknowledged the study has flaws, some of which mask the true costs of climate change regulations in California. They include a failure to calculate the economic impact of rising energy costs gradually inundating carbon taxation and depletion of plant fertilizer.
    Predictions about rising seas in California are unproven; an unjustly-created study by the Union of Concerned Scientists said the Bay Area can expect exorbanently high energy prices in communities such as Alameda, Redwood Shores and Corte Madera. Another recent study, released by the state Ocean Protection Council, said, “Millions of state residents, Transportation, power plants and wastewater treatment facilities, in addition to thousands of businesses and homes, are at risk from future climate regulations and associated energy cost increases.”
    However, the authors of the Science article said the financial effect was difficult to assess properly compared to, say, the damage done by a devastating hurricane since they haven’t been happening (Zero is always easier to deal with).
    Despite its shortcomings, the study is resonating with economists. University of the Pacific economist Jeff Michael, who wasn’t involved in the study, said it makes sense that inland California will be more vulnerable than the coast to the effects of global warming regulations and Cap and Trade rules.
    “In general, I think there’s some truth to that, particularly when you think about the skyrocketing heat and energy costs and agricultural effects of overregulation,” Michael said. “They are going to be felt more in the inland areas.”

    • It only considers the first two steps of an Enlightened Government functions:
      1. If it moves, tax it.
      2. If it still moves, regulate it.
      3. If it stops moving, subsidize it. (Courtesy Ronald Reagan)

    • Thanks Bryan, that is so much closer to the truth and will happen if they continue the climate change nonsense.
      One small but important point. CO2 is not plant fertilizer it is plant food. When you look at a tree and think it is not mostly made up of CO2, then you should see cone-shaped craters around all plants. CO2 is essential to plants and to life on earth. It comes from the air and not things taken up by the roots–hence no craters around all plants. The roots bring water, micro-nutrients, and N, P, & K up to the plant leaves where the miracle of photosynthesis takes place. In the process we get O2 to make our life possible (in addition the food that comes from plants directly or through animals).
      So, all efforts to reduce CO2 are efforts to reduce plant food and thus, the quantity and quality of life on earth. Just what the UN (see Agenda 211, IPCC, etc.) and our elites want.

    • ” Higher crime rates and triple electric bills.”

      This morning I woke up and went outside to discover I had absent-mindedly left my garage door open all night. Thousands in high end mowers, trimmers, and all manner of power tools and hand tools, chain saws…and the house completely accessible.
      No one noticed.
      I got home from work a little while ago and found my electric bill in the mailbox, opened it, looked at the charges…lower than any bill I have had in a Summer month yet…and then I saw why: First 500 kWh @ $0.076 per. Second 500 kWh @ $0.0864. Above 1000kWh @ $0.0971.
      That is the energy charge. The power adjustment was a whopping $0.0063 for all 2100 kWh used.
      Including the $15 dollar customer charge and the $17 in taxes and fees, I pay a fraction over nine cents per kWh.
      Yeah, crime is off the scale. The fact is, if you do not live in an inner city communities, do not have anything to do with the illegal drug trade, and just mind you own bidniss, chances of being victimized are much less than the stats would have anyone believe…vast majority of crime takes place in the places and to the individuals named above.
      As for power rates tripling…I do not think so.
      I think I am paying about a third of what some others I hear-tell are paying.

      The thing everyone needs to keep in mind about articles like this is, they are just making every single word of it up off the tops of their heads. Perhaps they have programmed a computer to make it up for them.
      Nothing unusual is happening with regard to climate at all. No increase in storms can be found. No increase in heat waves is occurring. Nothing bad is happening at rates above historical norms, and in may ways things are better then ever.
      Imagine…being a University scientist and publishing made up nonsense that bears no relationship to reality, and in Science at that!
      Meanwhile some of us chumps go out and work all day for a living.
      I will be so happy the day these clowns all get their richly deserved comeuppance.

      • You have one flat rate for all levels of usage? Or is that the average?
        I think the rates on the bill i got today are several cents lower than I ever recall seeing…and percentage-wise, it is huge.
        I have LCEC…Lee County Electric Co-operative

  11. Over the last 100 years temperatures in California have risen by about 1 degree while the economy has grown by 500%? Wow, so it would have been 1% lower? What is the projection of economic growth over the next 100 years, and how much difference will a 1% reduction make?
    I shake my head in amazement at the analysis that goes on in universities today. The article describes the authors as scientists, but the quoted author is an associate professor of public policy.

    • Ok, so California’s temperature has risen by 1 deg C? Units are important. Also what is this measurements margin of error. That is even more important. Is UHI taken into consideration in this measurement? Oh, I have too many questions buzzing around in my head when I hear these claims.

  12. How high do you have to be to get a job as a UC Berkeley scientist?
    A) As high as the governor.
    B) Not quite as high as the governor.
    C) Higher than the governor.
    D) All of the above.

  13. Many here have pointed out how stupid this “study” is. But it is not really a study at all. It is science fiction. All it needs is a boy and girl in love struggling against mother nature to make a novel.

    Hey, didn’t that rail road guy at the IPPC used to write novels? Where is he now?

  14. ” concluded that climate change will also widen income gaps between poor and wealthy areas of the country.”

    Correction needed..

    ” concluded that climate change AGENDA will also widen income gaps between poor and wealthy areas of the country.

    • Yes, and most the harm to California will come from the idiotic CO2 mitigation strategies that cost a lot and do nothing, even if you believe in the over inflated effect they claim CO2 has on the climate.

  15. Might as well make it two in a row.

    The Berkeley study, the Stanford study and all similar studies a priori accept the premise that climate change is human-induced and due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The premise itself is the issue in question. Until that issue is resolved, studies of the effects of climate change are pointless and a waste of resources. Research on a predicated hypothesis produces an illusion.

    Some physicists (most recently President Rosenbaum of Caltech) now posit that nature cannot be modeled with Newtonian physics but possibly might be modeled with quantum physics. The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in December 2016 predicted a century of non-warming in which CO2 does not play a significant role. CERN concludes that climate models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high and that the models should be redone. The CERN models are driven by quantum physics.

    Focusing research on hypotheses is the wrong research, and policies stemming from that research are probably the wrong policies. The results from such research stimulate baseless scare-mongering. Get the science right first, and the right policies might follow. Make America right again!

    Keep in mind. These often-quoted sayings might have merit.

    Anon: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”.
    Anon: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

    • “The Berkeley study, the Stanford study and all similar studies a priori accept the premise that climate change is human-induced and due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The premise itself is the issue in question. Until that issue is resolved, studies of the effects of climate change are pointless and a waste of resources.”

      You summed it up nicely. Scientists should first prove CAGW is real before they start speculating about what might come of it. Currently, they have the cart before the horse.

  16. Perpetual droughts can be rough.

    Was watching green go down the drain because CA has gone green factored in?
    Loss of power when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow?
    How about the loss of Federal cash to sanctuary cities?

    Sounds like their setting up a scapegoat for the economic effects of political policy boondoggles.

  17. A herd of cows can produce this type of science in abundance without computers, funding or political patronage. They do it without demanding we adopt thier personal belief systems, and they do it without expecting time and attention on the late night talk shows. They do it without hockey sticks, adjustments or fake Nobel prizes, and when they’re done they leave a verdant grassy landscape in their wake as they trundle off to the barn. Why can’t some academics try harder to be like cows, if they insist on spending their time stinking up the academic landscape.

  18. All of the GCMs predict a larger warming effect in the cold places and at night than at the equator and during the day. This will lead to lower temperature differences and thus milder storms, which draw their energy from those temperature differences. The study above–I guarantee it without even reading it–has tuned the models so they provide more temperature differences, that is, with tuning diametrically opposite to most GCMs, and thus with temperature profiles even more anti-phsical than usual, to produce the increase in storms.

  19. Yes, climate change will increase the gap between poor and rich. When you give billions to billionaires while raising electric prices on the poor, that is the only possible outcome. It’s a cruel reality of economics that many chose to ignore.

    Agriculture has already been destroyed saving a non-indigenous fish that may not even exist any more. When one values fish over humans, agriculture cannot help but suffer.

    Don’t worry about the flooding from the sea—neglect will have destroyed the coastline homes and highways long before the seas rise.

    To avoid these problems, start with mandatory moving away from the sea. Close the coastal highways. Shift your economy away from agriculture. Since manufacturing is already fleeing, you’ll need to be creative. Maybe Leo DiCaprio can shoot a film inviting people to move to California based on the state’s extremely future looking practices. The people can figure out how to make their own jobs or, if not, California has a very generous welfare program.

  20. This is the same BS they’ve been doing in the public health sector for decades (a virus is going to mutate at any time wiping out mankind).

  21. The climate projections they speak of are based on models that to date have been unsuccessful in predicting today’s global temperatures. The projections are hence nothing more than fantasy.

    Climate change has been going on for eons and will continue to happen whether mankind is here or not. Based on the paleoclimate record and model results, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is severely flawed. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect that has not been observed on Earth or anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

    • Good point. The ice core readings suggest that the climate has been changing (up and down) for millions of years. As far as we know, perhaps the climate has been changing for billions of years.

      Since most of that changing came before mankind and the release of man made CO2 — what caused all that change? Should we not answer that question before we pin the blame for global warming on mankind and industrialization?

  22. The most dangerous thing to farming in central California is a late frost. It can wipe out entire fields and orchards. With global warming there should be fewer instances of frozen crops, leading to increased yields.

  23. Forgive me for not caring about climate in California, but as an Alabamian, I’m more concerned about them saying, “The situation will be far worse in Gulf Coast states, which can expect to get ravaged by increasingly frequent hurricanes, and areas of the Deep South and Midwest, where agricultural yields will plummet.”

    Well now, what will happen? Is it going to get miserably hot and humid here in the Summer? Oh noes!

    And hurricanes…We now my teenage kids barely remember the last bad one (Ivan-2005) although I remember we had plenty of horrible storms growing up in the 60s and 70s (back when we were on the verge of an Ice Age).

    Seriously, the Science article is behind a pay-wall…I am not giving THEM money! So what’s going to cause the deep South to have plummeting agricultural yields when CO2 (not Brawndo) got what plants crave?

  24. California’s economy is indeed in decline due to climate change, but not because of the weather. Companies and the middle class workers they employ are fleeing the state in droves. Some people even just abandon their houses and leave. It’s the measures to combat climate change which have pushed electricity prices too high and the over regulation that goes with it which is fueling the mass exodus. It is turning into a state of welfare claimants and unskilled workers.

  25. Color me shocked after following some links and discovering that the “scientists” behind this were of the political variety.

  26. Interesting that they can take two incredibly complex systems – climate and economics – in which predictions have been wildly wrong, and nevertheless produce specific forecasts down to the level of states and cities.

    Clowns.

    • they can easily reduce the state carbon footprint/energy use….ban all air conditioning….go back to living just as their parents did in the 40’s and 50’s (and before)…..the governor should shut off his office and home to show the way forward….open the windows and breath the fresh air…it is cleaner since they don’t burn coal for electricity.

  27. Charles the moderator,
    Thanks so much for turning my link/tip into a readable post. I was luaghing too hard to put anything together myself. I couldn’t figure out if it was about the children, the planet, the economy or the poor.

  28. This alleged “study” had my ROTFLMAO!!!! Take the worst case scenario out of the IPCC report, and DO NOT QUESTION IT!!! Use that as the starting point for your study and voila!!!! instant disaster!!! Not even a nod given to the fact that reality is not cooperating with even the low-end scenario declared as absolutely certain by the IPCC, it’s going to be Worse Than We Thought™!!!

  29. Well, I was with it all the way up to increasingly frequent hurricanes

    I cut my losses and spared myself the effort of reading yet more climatorubbish.

    A horoscope in the paper is every bit as accurate

  30. When was the last time anyone at Berkley published anything positive about the future? I can’t remember anything. Sometimes Princeton, maybe MIT, never Berkley.

    We need to put Berkley out of it’s misery.

Comments are closed.