Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Ken Gregory has sent me his latest paper on the Social Cost of Carbon.
If he is correct, it upends all of the arguments for spending trillions of dollars on a non existent problem:
Social Cost (Benefit) of Carbon Dioxide from FUND
with Corrected Temperatures, Energy and CO2 Fertilization
By Ken Gregory, P.Eng. May 26, 2021
Summary
Climate policies such as carbon taxes are set by governments using social cost of carbon (SCC) values calculated by economic computer programs called integrated assessment models (IAM). FUND is the most complex of the IAMs which links emissions scenarios and models of economics, climate and impacts for 16 world regions. Unfortunately, the climate component of FUND that determines temperature is flawed as it assumes that the deep oceans are instantly in temperature equilibrium with the atmosphere, without any time delay, when the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 1.5 °C or less. The FUND model runs too warm compared to climate models.
The ESC can only be estimated using the energy balance method that compares the climate forcings to historical temperature records. The paper Lewis & Curry 2018 presents estimates of ECS with uncertainty analysis. The analysis was deficient in that the natural climate change was not considered and no correction was applied to remove the urban heat island effect from the temperature record. Making these adjustments, the likely range of ECS based on energy balance calculations using actual historical temperatures is 0.76 – 1.39 °C with a best estimate of 1.04 °C.
The energy impact components for space heating and cooling expenditures of FUND are very flawed. The change of expenditures with temperatures does not correspond to expenditure data published for the USA states. A paper by Peter Lang and me shows that a 3 °C temperature rise would decrease energy expenditures in the USA by 0.07% of gross domestic product (GDP) but FUND projects an increase of expenditures of 0.80% of GDP with non-temperature drivers held constant. A study by Dayaratna, McKitrick and Michaels (D, M & M 2020) of the CO2 fertilization effect and the FUND agricultural component shows that the FUND CO2 fertilization effect should be increased by 30%.
I have created a modified version of FUND which incorporates a 2-box ocean climate model that is tuned to closely match the temperature profile of climate models. I have replaced the flawed space heating and cooling components with new components to match the empirical heating and cooling USA data and increased the FUND CO2 fertilization effect by 30%. The social net benefit of CO2 emissions is calculated using the ECS probability distribution. The results show the net benefits of CO2 emissions are 11.74 and 8.41 US$/tCO2 at 3% and 5% discount rate, respectively.
Agriculture dominates the SCC values which are greater than 100% of the net benefits of CO2 emissions. The mainstream media is fixated on storms and sea level rise which are insignificant. The data show that climate change with the CO2 fertilization effect is quite beneficial, so policies costing trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions are misguided. See the report here.
The government cannot give out anything that it does not first take from taxpayers, savers and people on fixed income. They take from savers and people on fixed income by printing money which dilutes the buying power of what you have or will get.
This analysis, seemingly generous, greatly underestimates the benefits of carbon emissions.
First, the terminology is flawed. “Carbon emissions” are a euphemism for fossil carbon (oil, coal) usage. The benefits of petrochemicals are huge. Modern civilization would not be possible without them. Every economic sector is utterly dependent. No country on Earth operates without petrochemicals. There are no substitutes; not even nuclear power can do all the things that oil does. I estimate that 95% of the world’s GDP is based on oil. Without oil, the world’s economic output would shrink by 95%.
Second, if carbon dioxide is a GHG (many believe it to be, including so-called Luke-Warmers) the additional warmth is extremely valuable. CO2 fertilization is in the model, but the extra growing degree days are even more significant. Second and third cuttings, extra rotations, and full ripening more than double ag net incomes (fixed costs remain the same, gross sales double or triple).
The Earth is still in the Ice Ages, the Holocene is a temporary interglacial, and a severe cooling is inevitable. If that eventuality can be delayed or forestalled, the economic benefit is incalculable. Imagine what continental ice sheets covering a third of the Northern Hemisphere would cost, then put that amount in the benefit column. God bless CO2.
There is no social cost, CO2 is entirely beneficial, mild warming, big increase in plant growth, including crop yields. It alleviates starvation, provides cotton and other materials, makes plants more drought resistant, reducing water demands, and allowing plants to grow where it was too dry.
What’s not to like about CO2? We should try to get it to 1000 ppm as soon as possible. The planet needs it.
ECS of 1.04 is well below the mainstream calculation, and the US Climate Reference Stations seem to align pretty well with the UAH trends–which should eliminate the UHI effect. A set of calculations using the current 1.04, 1.7 and 3.0 ECS would create a useful comparison set. Even for the 3.0 case, I suspect that the SCC would be only mildly negative if agricultural productivity is properly considered.
The far bigger issues for environment today are overall water supplies and clean water and energy for the developing world.