From the UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE and the “intelligent CO2 molecules with targeting vectors know just who to hit” department comes this statistical emotional mishmash of a paper with a stereotypical headline.
The wealthiest areas of the world will experience fewer changes in local climate compared to the poorest regions if global average surface temperatures reach the 1.5°C or 2°C limit set by the Paris agreement, according to new research.
The new study, published today in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, compares the difference between climate change impacts for wealthy and poor nations.
“The results are a stark example of the inequalities that come with global warming,” said lead author Andrew King from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
“The richest countries that produced the most emissions are the least affected by heat when average temperatures climb to just 2°C, while poorer nations bear the brunt of changing local climates and the consequences that come with them.”
The least affected countries include most temperate nations, with the United Kingdom coming out ahead of all others. By contrast, the worst affected are in the Equatorial regions, including countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo.
This pattern holds true even if global average surface temperatures only reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
To get their results the researchers used a simple metric – the signal to noise ratio. The signal in this case is the local change in average temperatures caused by climate change. The noise is how variable the temperature is for that region.
In places outside the tropics, where there is greater year-to-year variability and those locations are more well adapted to a wide range of temperatures, the warming will be less noticeable.
But in Equatorial regions, where there is already a very high average temperature and less variation through the year, a small rise in temperatures due to climate change will be distinctly felt and have immediate impacts.
This difference in experienced temperature combined with the distribution of wealth across the world, with richer nations tending to be in temperate regions and the poorer nations in the tropics, adds to the future climate change burden of developing nations.
“Economically powerful nations, who are most responsible for the emissions that led to global warming, are going to have to pick up the slack if they want to maintain economic growth in developing countries,” said co-author Luke Harrington from the University of Oxford.
“It’s why we need to invest in limiting the worst impacts of climate change for developing nations today. By assisting developing nations to meet these challenges we help maintain their economic stability and security into the future and by extension, our own as well.”
###
The paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL078430
Abstract
The Paris Agreement aims to keep global warming well below 2°C above preindustrial levels with a preferred ambitious 1.5°C target. Developing countries, especially small island nations, pressed for the 1.5°C target to be adopted, but who will suffer the largest changes in climate if we miss this target? Here we show that exceeding the 1.5°C global warming target would lead to the poorest experiencing the greatest local climate changes. Under these circumstances greater support for climate adaptation to prevent poverty growth would be required.
Along with the emotional abstract, this figure made me laugh, with it’s signal to noise ratio claims.
For another viewpoint, read this:
Government policies intended to reduce carbon dioxide are directly harming the poor in both the developing and developed world, according to a report released [last year] by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
What actually hits the poorest hardest is the purported solution to the imaginary global warming problem.
Exactly. All the proposals to deal with AGW involve artificially high energy prices, which the poor are least able to afford.
Exactly. And most especially where there’s actual winter. Been there, experienced that, had to learn to cut firewood and dig coal, cuz propane had gotten WAY too expensive.
As to where there’s not … will someone in the AGW camp please explain why the hottest parts of the globe are the most heavily populated? might there be something attractive about never having to worry about cold, and meanwhile we cope just fine with a degree or two more of heat??
My 1st thought too.
Exactly! And citing the Democratic Republic of the Congo as hit hard is doubly disingenuous as they have the worlds largest undeveloped copper/cobalt deposit, Tenke Fungarame, and it is their corruption that prevents its development. Why not just condemn corrupt/dysfunctional countries and move on. A simple google search shows 19 times more people die from cold than heat, factor that into this study.
Maybe higher temperatures cause government incompetence and corruption? It would explain California.
Why not, nothing rational can explain California.
It’s as good a guess as any.
There is possibly a lot of be said about that, although the possible word we are looking at is ‘lazy’.
Look at it this way, assume you lived in a comfortable climate where there was ample food growing all year long and, provided you stood in the shade, the environment wasn’t trying to kill you.
Now assume you live in a different environment where food stopped growing for about 1/3rd of the year and going outside at the wrong time would result in your body being found (maybe) come the spring thaw.
Which environment actively forces you to get your personal and social act together or die?
So true, Ron.
As in the old SNL skit of Clinton demonstrating why our $$$$ weren’t getting to the population in Somalia or other African countries. One McDonald’s customer would try to pass a burger to another and he would grab it and take a bite or two, then pass it on, “You see it’s the warlords. They are taking their bites, big ones, and passing on the dregs to the population”.
I saw it in Southeast Asia 40 years ago, and I even saw it in New Orleans after Katrina among the drug warlords ( you don’t think all their money comes from dealing drugs do you?).
I also found it interesting that humans migrated outta Africa and adapted to colder climates. Then became “wealthy”. So maybe the warmists have a point? Will a few degrees make us lethargic, unproductive, unable to exploit resources, bring about more warlords?
Gums wonders….
I forgot to include the video. The reference to the warlords starts at 3:20 or so, and after that it gets funnier and funnier.
Here’s one URL and I’ll try to embed the screen shot in WordPress format
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYt0khR_ej0&w=800&h=600%5D
Gums sends…
+1
Propaganda from a lobby group. From http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/06/Tony-Kelly.pdf
The conclusion is therefore that fossil fuels will remain vital and will be the major
source of energy for mankind for at least the next forty years – the widely accepted
estimate is that fossil fuels will provide 60% of world primary energy in 2050.
BAU for 30 years? Not a hint of concern, not a hint of doubt, not a hint of having any deeper understanding of the dilemma this causes. Its frankly insane to throw all caution out the window. Not a hint. I guess its about money.
The science says that cooks our goose. We the rich… are the goose that cooks itself and the poor get just trodden underfoot.
There might be a reason to be concerned if there was:
1) any evidence that the Earth warmed because of CO2. There is lots of evidence that CO2 increases ~800 years after the Earth warms. None the other direction.
2) any evidence that the Earth had gotten dangerously warm. The 20 year “pause” that was interrupted by the 2016 el nino has resumed.
No warming for 20 years when most of the CO2 emitted by humans has happened? Pretty much proof that the global warming fraud is a, uh fraud. Yes, that’s a good word for it.
If anybody needs any more proof, then the multiple name changes: global cooling, global warming, climate change, extreme climate, climate wierding, all demonstrate that it isn’t about facts, but propaganda.
zazove,
At least they were transparent in their bias. The very first line in the summary is, “This paper aims to show that the measures currently being taken to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are directly harming the poor, both in the developing and in the developed world.”
In other words, it’s not a report, it’s an argument.
Of course it’s about money! It’s sure not about science.
Funny, the entire field of climate science wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for billions every year in government money.
Since there is no dilema, why should anyone be concerned about it?
There are so many assumptions associated with the policy argument!
– The Marxist/alarmist community is pushing its policies on the poor (the corollary being, their victims have no say in the matter or are too dumb to make their own choices)
– The poor are suffering because of these policies
– The Marxist/alarmist types don’t care about the poor (according to some skeptics, they are murderers)
– Development is contingent on using only fossil fuels
– Cheap energy leads to development
– Any increase in the price of energy to mitigate global warming is wrong because it outweighs the cost of not doing it.
The poorest don’t have any electricity and use almost no fossil fuels, so how are they the hardest hit? (By “poor” I mean the poor in the developing world.)
Why is it assumed that the price of energy is keeping people in poverty?
Fossil fuels have been available for quite a while now, yet poverty still exists. The relationship of fossil fuel use and wealth is causal, yes: the wealthy use more energy. What is needed to get people out of poverty is far more than cheap electricity – some of them need access to electricity before it matters how expensive it is. Access itself could be a cost. That has to be factored in when evaluating the relative cost of a few solar panels vs. being hooked up to the grid, then paying for energy.
If you don’t believe in the first place that there is AGW, if you think it’s “imaginary,” of course you are going to complain about the costs. But that is a separate issue. There’s the science, and then there’s the policy that is informed by the science. If you don’t believe the science, the policy won’t make sense, either.
The point is that just because “warmists” start with different premises doesn’t make them heartless and uncaring. You don’t even know what every warmist advocates. They are not clones.
I posted below about Green Climate Fund projects. Are they evidence of heartlessness? Of wanting to keep the poor in poverty?
The marxists have all the guns, therefore the victims rarely have much say in what happens to them.
That poor people suffer from Marxism has been demonstrated over and over again.
That Marxists don’t care how many people die because of the policies that they push has been demonstrated over and over again.
That development is dependent on cheap reliable energy has been proven. That renewables are incapable of providing cheap reliable energy is also proven.
The next point is redundant.
Since there is no downside to global warming and more CO2 in the atmosphere, any expenditures to limit either are foolish.
As to the rest of your rant, those questions were answered in the article. Too bad that you couldn’t be bothered to read it.
As to what warmists advocate, they all advocate replacing cheap reliable energy with expensive and unreliable energy. Because of that, they are harming everyone, the poor most of all.
I just want to point out that when I said “Marxist/alarmist” I was being facetious, using skeptic rhetoric to categorize anybody who is concerned about what climate change will bring. I loathe being called a Marxist because I’m (pretty much) a liberal.
Same goals, the major difference being time table.
Slightly warmer nights in the colder, dryer latitudes
of the Northern Hemisphere will hurt the poor?
How?
My climate change blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
“… least affected by heat when average temperatures climb to just 2°C”
I’d say that a temperature of 2C is cold. And if they are climbing to that, where did they start from?
It is common practice to write “two degrees Celsius” when what is meant is “two Celsius degrees”.
There is likely a linguist somewhere that has a name for this practice. Look that person up, get that name, and then get over complaining about it.
I’ve tried. It goes nowhere.
Did Climate Change fail? No problem, back to Global Warming.
Maybe if we would let them have cheap electricity and what goes along with it such as, proper food storage and cooking, heating when cold, air conditioning when hot, their lives would take a turn for the better.
Their truly massive over breeding is their main problem. They cannot support their own children, but they keep on having them.
So where’s the ‘women’s rights’ in 3rd world sh_tholes?
If the enabling continues nothing will change.
They have more childen so the children can support *them* in later life. And increase the chance that some will reach adulthood to do so (very much not a guarantee in impoverished and/or squalid conditions). We in the “First World” with our general wealth, extremely low infant mortality rates, retirement pensions, and social safety nets, don’t experience that motivation.
You mistake a symptom for the disease.
They don’t need well-meaning yet clueless busybodies handing out birth control. They need development and abundant energy at a reasonable cost. That’s what will truly “enable” them to lower their birthrates.
In your opinion, it’s only “women’s rights” when the children make the choices that you believe they should?
Would not the poor areas discussed also benefit the most from the greening effects of more CO2?
The economic cost increases more than any positive, even poor countries still buy goods they aren’t hunter gatherers although the true eco warriors probably would like that. There is no doubt that anything with emission controls will effect the poor more than the rich, that isn’t rocket science. Now if you are die in wall leftist the answer is obvious get the rich to give there money to the poor, the problem is that isn’t ever going to happen.
There is the paradox that all the Climate Science activists have got themselves into there solution won’t work and doesn’t fly in the real world and they don’t have a plan B.
There plan B is to push plan A harder.
“get other rich people to give their money to the poor”
fify
Is the Arctic wealthy? Because that is virtually the only portion of the world that has experienced ANY meaningful warming so far. And the purported effects of CO2 diminish with its accumulation, so…..NADA?
Oh yeah, also. its not warming!
The problem is that Dr. Willie Soon did a temperature study on many of the rural areas of the world and found no temperature increase in last 60 years. So if global warming is supposed to happen the question is when? I am 67 and I have been looking for it and haven’t found it in 30 years of looking. In my own city the temperature records go back to 1872 and the slight temperature increase can be easily attributed to the heat island effect.
How is there even a debate that cheap energy is better for the poor than a small sea level rise
More CO2 produces more vegies and fruit, which makes people more heathy andactive, which makes people wear out their shoes faster. Rich countries can afford new shoes, but poor countries end up bare-footed, resentful, and requiring monetary compensation.
What CO2 related “small sea level rise”?
I don’t see how anyone can argue with this chart? –
http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/03-1.3.jpg
Which also is clearly the solution to stabilizing world population –
I suspect that the real reason they continue to lie about all this stuff is that they really want things to get worse rather than better because then they can put themselves in charge to “fix” them.
But what effects from climate change will the poor suffer from? And what are we supposed to do about it? Hand over money presumably that can then be spent on what?
From my reading, the most likely (with greatest evidence, including observational) problems are predicted to be flooding and drought; heat waves could also be an issue, resulting in human mortality and crop loss. Then there’s sea level rise, of course.
Part of the Paris Agreement that is seldom mentioned is the Green Climate Fund (GCF), even though people are always complaining about it indirectly. Americans didn’t want to contribute another $6/person to helping the poor in developing nations through completing our pledge.
Cambodia:
“Cambodia’s agricultural value chains remain fragmented as a result of infrastructure gaps and a range of capacity and policy constraints.
“This initiative …will enhance the resilience and productivity of crops, and increase agricultural competitiveness and household incomes in the targeted provinces. It will address each stage of the agricultural value chain.”
70% co-funded by other sources, 30% by the GCF, comprised of $30 million grant and $10 million loan.
It is both a climate change mitigation and adaption program, life span 6 years.
An interesting one in Pakistan:
“The melting of the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Himalayan glaciers in Northern Pakistan due to rising temperatures have created 3,044 glacial lakes in the federally-administered territory of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). It is estimated that 33 of these glacial lakes are hazardous and likely to result in glacial lake outburst floods. Such flooding releases millions of cubic metres of water and debris in just a few hours, resulting in the loss of lives, destruction of property and infrastructure, and severe damage to livelihoods in some of the most remote areas of Pakistan.
“The project will build 250 engineering structures including damns, ponds, spill ways, tree plantation and drainage to reduce risk. At the same time, the development of disaster management policies and the introduction of weather monitoring stations, flood gauges, hydrological modelling and early warning systems will increase the ability to respond rapidly to flood scenarios.”
There’s a result of global warming I hadn’t heard about!
Anyway, there are over 80 of these projects planned, most or all co-funded by other public and private entities.
https://www.greenclimate.fund/home
Yep, the poor will get better if we greedy U.S. “wealthy” folks will just donate more money.
If you wanna donate to a “poor” person in the Congo, send a few $$in a USPS first class envelope. As I showed earlier, the warlords siphon off the $$$.
We are already trying to reduce our “carbon footprint” via onerous regulations and whacko laws as we see in California. We have already reduced emissions way beyond vertually any country in the world. We are paying more for gasoline and heating oil than otherwise.
If we fall into the trap of “helping” the “poor” with $$$, we will only create another generations of slaves.
Gums opines…
Gums,
“As I showed earlier, the warlords siphon off the $$$.”
Through an SNL skit? That’s your evidence?
How do you know the process by which the GCF projects are implemented, or the opportunities for fraud? Are they all so corrupt? Where exactly do the warlords come in, and who are they? How about in Senegal, who are the warlords there that will take all the money?
Sending cash to the poor is just another form of welfare; many of these projects are designed to save or improve millions of lives.
I really can’t believe that Kristi is unaware of the problems with warlords in various parts of the world.
I guess none of her professors mentioned it, so it can’t exist.
That the UN is hideously corrupt has been demonstrated over and over again.
MarkW,
You badly need a class in reasoning and inference. And you need to stop making up fantasies about me.
In all fairness, I posted the skit to add some levity, but also some truth.
Until the country we send “aid” to can have a government free of corruption and the “warlords”, I say lt them figure it out. We have the same thing here in the U.S.A., but on a more local level versus national.
I know from personal experience in Vietnam amd Thailand and “helping” some of the “developing” countries military and civic action efforts since then. I know from talking with my fellow vets that have been to the “developing” contries and some that are still there, plus my neighbors down the street that just got back rom the sandbox and other places ( special ops folks, mostly).
I fully agree about not sending money to the poor. And I shall look up the Senegal assistance. SO thanks or a soft link.
Gums sends…
The problem with warlords has been well known for generations.
The fact that you dismiss is just further evidence of how insulated you and your opinions are.
Mark,
Once again, you are making foolish assumptions. The question isn’t whether there are warlords, the question is whether the projects are planned and implemented in a way that minimizes the risk of fraudulent use of the funds. The organization that handle the projects have to be accredited. I am aware that this doesn’t necessarily mean all funds everywhere will be allocated directly to the project, but I’m not going to assume that a large percent will be siphoned off just because the project is in a developing nation.
Just because there has been corruption in the UN doesn’t mean the whole UN is corrupt. You might as well say that because some in Trump’s circle have been indicted, the whole administration is guilty. I’m not dismissing or minimizing the problems, I’m saying it’s easy to generalize erroneously, and you do it consistently, Mark. Oh, well.
Gums,
“Until the country we send “aid” to can have a government free of corruption and the “warlords”, I say lt them figure it out.”
Huh. I’ve forgotten – are you also one of those who argues that “alarmists” are killing millions by impeding development and demanding everyone buy expensive electricity? Would you feel differently if the projects focused on building coal-fired power plants?
Does it make a difference when other entities are contributing 70% of the funds to the projects?
Corruption is deeply entrenched in some of these countries, which is itself a burden to the populace. You evidently want their countries to be developed and stable BEFORE you give them assistance.
Projects like these shouldn’t be done in areas that are ruled by warlords, IMO. This isn’t Special Ops stuff. The funds need to go to the projects, not to protection. There don’t seem to be many projects planned in the most violence-prone countries.
It seems that at least the alarmists believe that CO2 created by man behaves differently from CO2 created “naturally”.
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been told that it doesn’t matter what the proxy records shows about the relationship between CO2 and climate because man wasn’t around 5 million years ago.
It’s got the hooman cooties! (The hooties?)
All adverse weather affects the poor more than the rich — nothing to do with latitude. The oil sheiks of Arabia just turn up the A/C in the Rolls and in their luxury penthouses. Same in the capitals of equatorial Africa.
Poverty is what hits the poorest the hardest.
Priceless. Or was it just cheap? New to me, anyway.
Kind of a spin on the ending of King Kong…
“Well Denim, it looks like climate change got ’em.”
“No. It was poverty that killed the poor.”
DM ==> You got that right….and most Americans have never seen real poverty.
A couple billion people around the world would give their right leg to be an impoverished American.
True.
And the poorest are hit hardest by everything.
Kip,
Isn’t the point that poor countries will get the most adverse weather? It’s a different issue.
Saudi Arabia is not a poor nation compared to many equatorial African countries – not that they, too, don’t have their wealthy elite.
Kristi ==> You confuse the claim with the facts. First issue is that there is no way to predict “most adverse weather” regionally at any time scale. Second issue is that there is no way to predict “adverse weather” regionally based on adjusting the global average temperature knob in models.
Equatorial Africa is poor due to lack of proper governance — not lack of resources or “bad weather” — maybe more “bad” weather or maybe “more bad weather” will affect the poor where ever they are — always did and always will.
Tropical regions are not poor because they are tropical and won’t be poorer if they get more tropical.
In general, the “global warming” we have seen in the last 70 years has occurred where? Most noticeably in the most northern latitudes, not in the tropics.
Kip,
No, I don’t confuse the claim with the facts. I’m differentiating between your statement and the assertion of the author.
Kristi ==> The author makes the claim, I give the fact. The author’s claim is just plain wonky — in effect, they predict what is already, a priori, the case. Why bother? Saying that the poor, already the worst hit by any adverse weather will be the worst hit by adverse weather, if it happens, in the future, is silly.
Further, they utterly fail to establish in any scientifically supportable fashion, that the tropics will have more adverse weather in the future than the rest of the world. (Read the other comments here…”signal to noise” ratio does not equate to “more adverse weather events”.)
Kip,
So, are you saying that poor countries are hit by worse weather than rich countries? That wasn’t my understanding of your comment.
I actually misstated the author’s point myself. He says that those with high signal-to-noise ratios will perceive climate change more than those who experience more climate variability to begin with, and the former are mostly poorer nations. That’s a bit different from having “adverse whether.”
I’m not arguing who is right, or who is talking facts and who is talking claims. I’m saying that your rebuttal, “All adverse weather affects the poor more than the rich” (i.e., the rich have more resources to cope with adverse weather), wasn’t relevant to the author’s point. That’s all.
I’m not sure myself that I am convinced of his S/N ratio idea in its effects on humans. I don’t know, and it’s irrelevant to my point. I should never have said anything. I sorry. I think I tend to nitpick with you because you have been condescending to me.
I suppose in the temperate zone it’s less likely that a heat wave will come at a time when the norm is already hot. As you know, the humidity can be pretty brutal in the wet tropics, making a heat wave more dangerous.
(I didn’t see any comments that talked about signal-to-noise ratio.)
For many years now, there has been a standard format for these Climate Scare stories.
Step 1. Assume a Terrible Thing will happen, with no explanation, just assume it.
(in this case 2.0 degrees temperature rise in a short period of time)
Step 2. Do studies that show “look how Terrible the Terrible thing that we just assumed will
happen really is! It’s really really terrible!!!!”
Step 3. Demand that infinite amounts of money be spent to stop the Terrible Thing from
happening, even though the writer simply made up the claim that it will happen out of thin air.
So, we know the problem. What is the solution? Do we spend trillions to change the weather to defend the poor, or do we save the trillions and have the poor leave poverty so they can be protected against bad weather with quality infrastructure?
Politicians, by and large, love nothing better than to be seen to be solving a crisis (whether real or imaginary being immaterial); and the more money they get to spend while doing so, the more self-important they feel. So your first option is the one they’ll prefer.
Reasonable Skeptic – May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
RS, did you just get back from a long trip, or what? They have ALREADY spent TRILLIONS on their futile attempts to “change-the-weather” …… and have literally nothing to show for it other than their high-paying “do-nothing” jobs, personal fortunes and/or extravagant life styles.
And “DUH”, they have ALSO ALREADY spent TRILLIONS to help and assist the poor to escape/leave poverty (The War on Poverty, otherwise known as The Great Appalachian Program that was signed into Law by POTUS LBJ in 1962) ….. which only accomplished the exacerbation of Poverty in America, which is now far, far worse than it was before they tried to fix it/change it/eliminate it.
Government “troughfeeders” quickly got in on the “free-money” action ….. and they had to “insure” there was a steady ”increase” in the number of “poverty” applicants to protect their “do-nothing” jobs.
All the spending on your constituents will make them loyal voters for decades into the future.
The more you spend on them the more they will reward you with an election victory.
“The Paris Agreement aims to keep global warming well below 2°C above preindustrial levels”
Whenever I see a claim like this about the Paris Climate Agreement, it always occurs to me that whatever its aim is, it has a snowballs chance in Hell of actually accomplishing anything at all.
As the individual countries wrote there own agreement that they signed they all have different targets and chances of reaching them.
Obama ignored his country’s reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of the fracking revolution.
As for the poor suffering more from any possible “climate change” than from the sad lack of investment in things that would improve their lives now, it makes me so cross!
James Bull
What happens if the ‘globe’ gets colder? My head burns when I try to think about this. Less CO2 emitted in mid latitudes, more in high ones? No no, more CO2 everywhere? Which won’t warm the ‘globe’. Or will it?
Forecast temperature range for Los Angeles, California today is 14ºC to 21ºC … a range of 7ºC which is well above the demon 2ºC.
How do you stand it?
Pfft. Compared to the current 32C in my southeastern Oklahoma front yard, that’s downright chilly.
First of all, an average temperature increase of 2°C ….. is equal to an increase of 3.6°F
And here are a few, ….. to wit:
Average summer temperature in:
Democratic Republic of Congo, … July – 77.3° F (25.2° C)
Los Angeles, California, ………… July – 81° F (27° C)
Miami, FL, ……………………… July – 85° F (29.4° C)
Albuquerque, NM, ……………… July – 90° F (32.2° C)
Phoenix, AZ, ……………………. July – 106° F, (41.1° C)
Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, ……… July – 95.4° F, (34.2° C)
Now you get three (3) guesses as to why the study authors are claiming that …. “Equatorial regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo are currently experiencing a very high average temperature, ………. but your 1st two (2) guesses don’t count.
If not for the corrupt government, etc., etc., ….. me thinks the Democratic Republic of Congo with its “year-round” average temperature of 77.3° F (25.2° C) would be a comfortable place for living. …. even if the average temp increased to 80.9° F (27.2° C) in a hundred years or so.
“DUH”, …….. Los Angeles, California is productive @ 81° F, ……. so why isn’t the Democratic Republic of Congo productive @ 77.3° F?
I don’t know where you got your stats or what part of DoC was being measured. In Kinshasa the avg max temp in Feb, March and April is 88 F. July is the coolest time of the year.
https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/democratic-republic-congo
We welcome you to be a part of this exciting Earth Science 2018. We believe your voice would be a critical insertion to the Earth Science 2018 stage.
If you are interested, kindly confirm your presence as soon as possible.
For more information go through the link: https://www.meetingsint.com/conferences/earthscience
I live in Western Canada, where the record low is something like -50C and the record high is 47C, And yet we live! Doing fine actually, thank you very much.
hmmm aren’t the warmer parts of the world supposed to warm least in the “climactic science” propaganda?
just askin…
Cheers!
Joe
This difference in experienced temperature combined with the distribution of wealth across the world, with richer nations tending to be in temperate regions and the poorer nations in the tropics, adds to the future climate change burden of developing nations.
Sounds like prosperity is linked to large changes in temperature and where the weather varies the greatest.
Why are we worried about climate change again?
Is that a joke? They actually have a department with that name?
With a name like that, at least we know what the pre-determined conclusions of their research will be.
Branding is essential in the marketplace to attract money.
There is a network of ARC (Australian Research Council) Centres of Excellence in Oz but yeah this takes the cake for marketing excellence and propaganda purrrrfection. Your one stop shop for the msm for climate alarmism and with free scary graphics too. Their should be a little gold statue given out for this stuff.
The latest LPU from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremism. Wow and look at those scary graphs… Science communication at peak propaganda.
Warmist climate policies hit the poor hardest.
I wonder what an accurate body count would be if you tallied up all the damage environmentalists have done, just since the 70’s.
There might be a grain of truth in that. Policy based on the CAGW meme has made the poorer poorer and the “Gorer” richer.
More Australian garbage to ignore.
We already knew about the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, now we have the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes producing equally unscientific rubbish.
It appear that the only thing an ARC Centre of Excellence excels at is lying.
I suggest that somebody take a variable choke 410 shotgun with about a number 8 shot, produce a “graph” like b) S/N ratio vs GDP per capita and see how many “experts”get fooled.
As far as I know these chokes don’t have a log scale on them, however.
I know cheaper energy is a long term solution to help the poor but,
Why the heck don’t they use chimneys in the interim???