Let the Litigation Flow!


Grasping at straws, it appears that another modeling study has been produced whose sole purpose is to allow developing nations to sue developed nations.

National Attribution of Historical Climate Damages

While the burden of proof for demonstrating liability is high and nonlinearities in the climate system make any such attribution difficult, our work is an important contribution to the effort to develop evidence that can be used to make claims for legal standing.


Here is the abstract of the paper

Quantifying which nations are culpable for the economic impacts of anthropogenic warming is central to informing climate litigation and restitution claims for climate damages. However, for countries seeking legal redress, the magnitude of economic losses from warming attributable to individual emitters is not known, undermining their standing for climate liability claims. Uncertainties compound at each step from emissions to global greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, GHG concentrations to global temperature changes, global temperature changes to country-level temperature changes, and country-level temperature changes to economic losses, providing emitters with plausible deniability for damage claims. Here we lift that veil of deniability, combining historical data with climate models of varying complexity in an integrated framework to quantify each nation’s culpability for historical temperature-driven income changes in every other country. We find that the top five emitters (the United States, China, Russia, Brazil, and India) have collectively caused US$6 trillion in income losses from warming since 1990, comparable to 14% of annual global gross domestic product; many other countries are responsible for billions in losses. Yet the distribution of warming impacts from emitters is highly unequal: high-income, high-emitting countries have benefited themselves while harming low-income, low-emitting countries, emphasizing the inequities embedded in the causes and consequences of historical warming. By linking individual emitters to country-level income losses from warming, our results provide critical insight into climate liability and national accountability for climate policy.


This paper appears to be an extended exercise in modeling over modeling with some more regionally scaled modeling. How they came up with 6 trillion in “damages” well, I guess that’s for the courts.

Here is the Discussion section.

Our analysis has shown that GHG emissions from high-emitting countries have caused substantial economic losses in low-income, tropical parts of the world and economic gains in high-income, midlatitude regions. Critically, these economic changes are attributable to the largest emitters despite the substantial uncertainties at each step in the causal chain from emissions to impact. Our results are robust despite the wide range of carbon cycle parameters and climate sensitivities, global-to-local forcing strengths, and temperature-growth specifications we test.

These results have two key implications. Firstly, they illustrate that physical climate uncertainty may constitute the dominant source of uncertainty in losses in tropical countries that are attributable to major emitters. While uncertainty in the relationship between the climate and economy is the dominant uncertainty in global losses from warming (Burke et al., 2018), our results demonstrate that this does not hold at the country level. In the low-income tropical countries that are most vulnerable to warming, internal climate variability and differences in model structure can produce a wide range in damages attributable to major emitters like the U.S. Scientific efforts to narrow uncertainty in regional climate change may therefore pay large dividends for countries seeking legal recourse for climate damages.

Secondly, our results show that the actions of specific emitters can be tied to the downstream monetary implications of climate change. Emerging discussions about climate liability have been limited to date by a lack of scientific evidence supporting causal linkages between individual countries’ emissions and the consequent local impacts (Burger et al., 2020; Stuart-Smith et al., 2021). Our framework shows that such linkages can be quantified using state-of-the-art climate models and empirical approaches and that we can process-trace exactly who has caused economic losses from their emissions, and how much. While previous studies have illustrated the economic harms of global warming, our work shows that these harms can be assigned to individual emitters in a way that rigorously accounts for the compounding uncertainties at each step of the causal chain from emissions to local impact. Finally, it is worth noting that our approach can be generalized to other actors, such as individual firms (Ekwurzel et al., 2017; Heede, 2014; Licker et al., 2019), or to other harms, such as the economic losses suffered by farmers due to extreme heat (Diffenbaugh et al., 2021). These results therefore contribute to resolving a key barrier to climate liability efforts and advance these critical emerging discussions.


Coverage in the Guardian

Here is the press release.

Research links national-level greenhouse gas emissions, warming and resulting economic damage

Study provides data on gains and losses attributable to individual countries.

Peer-Reviewed Publication



A sound scientific basis exists for climate liability claims between individual countries, according to a Dartmouth study.

The study is the first to assess the economic impacts that individual countries have caused to other countries through their cumulative national-level contributions to global warming. The research draws direct connections between national emissions of heat-trapping gases to losses and gains in gross domestic product in 143 countries for which data are available.

The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, provides an essential basis for nations to make legal claims for economic losses tied to emissions and warming.

“Greenhouse gases emitted in one country cause warming in another, and that warming can depress economic growth,” said Justin Mankin, an assistant professor of geography at Dartmouth and senior researcher of the study. “This research provides legally valuable estimates of the financial damages individual nations have suffered due to other countries’ climate-changing activities.”

Among the data, the research found that a small group from the world’s leading national emitters of greenhouse gases have caused $6 trillion in global economic losses through warming caused by their emissions from 1990 to 2014.

According to the study, emissions from the U.S. and China, the world’s two leading emitters, are responsible for global income losses of over $1.8 trillion each in the 25-year period from 1990. Economic losses caused by Russia, India, and Brazil individually exceed $500 billion each for the same years. The $6 trillion in cumulative losses attributable to the five countries equals about 11% of annual global GDP within the study period.

“This research provides an answer to the question of whether there is a scientific basis for climate liability claims—the answer is yes,” said Christopher Callahan, first author of the study and a PhD candidate at Dartmouth. “We have quantified each nation’s culpability for historical temperature-driven income changes in every other country.”

Warmer temperatures can cause economic losses for a country through many pathways, such as lowering agricultural yields, reducing labor productivity or decreasing industrial output.

In addition to losses, the research also values the economic benefits derived from warming caused by country-level emissions but highlights that the large gains disproportionately benefitting some countries do not negate the losses suffered in others.

The study focuses on the economic impacts of temperature change as a consequence of emissions, not other effects of emissions such as those on air quality. Data presented in the study quantifies economic impacts based on distinct greenhouse gas emissions accounting schemes, considering those emissions that happened within a country’s territory versus the emissions embodied in international trade.

The research shows that the distribution of warming impacts from emitters is highly unequal, with the top 10 global emitters causing more than two-thirds of losses worldwide. Countries that lose income are warmer and poorer than the global average and are generally located in the tropics and the global South. Countries that gain income are cooler and wealthier than the global average and are generally located in the middle latitudes and the North.

“Irrespective of the accounting, warm counties have warmed and lost income because of it, while colder countries have warmed but enjoyed economic gains,” said Mankin. “The responsibility for the warming rests primarily with a handful of major emitters, and this warming has resulted in the enrichment of a few wealthy countries at the expense of the poorest people in the world.”

For years, researchers have worked to establish direct legal links between economic loss and emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Previous studies have provided estimates on the total, global level of economic loss, but could not determine the warming attributable to individual nations, undermining national efforts to hold emitting countries accountable for legal damages because of the uncertainties involved.

By creating an analytical framework that links emissions from individual countries to the losses and gains in every other country, the Dartmouth research team hopes to help resolve questions of climate liability and national accountability to inform climate policy.

“For the first time, we have been able to show clear and statistically significant linkages between the emissions of specific countries and historical economic losses experienced by other countries,” said Callahan. “This is about the culpability of one country to another country, not the effect of overall global warming on a country.”

The team says that the study discredits the idea that climate mitigation is simply a “collective action problem,” where no one country acting alone can have an effect on the impacts of global warming.

“Until now, the complexity of the carbon cycle, natural variations in climate, and uncertainties in models have provided emitters with plausible deniability for individual damage claims. That veil of deniability has now been lifted,” said Mankin.

According to the team, identifying national culpability demonstrates that individual countries can have large, attributable impacts from warming due to their emissions; the actions of individual nations do matter; and country-level mitigation, even if pursued alone, would limit measurable harms to others.

“Nations need to work together to stop warming, but that doesn’t mean that individual countries can’t take actions that drive change,” said Callahan. “This research upends the notion that the causes and impacts of warming only occur at the global level.”

A major challenge for the research was to account for large uncertainties at each step in the causal chain from emissions to global warming, from warming to country-level temperature changes, and from country-level temperature changes to impact.

To overcome this difficulty, the research team combined historical data with climate models in an integrated framework to quantify each nation’s culpability for historical temperature-driven income changes in every other country.

The study sampled 2 million possible values for each country-to-country interaction. In total, 11 trillion values were calculated on a supercomputer operated by Dartmouth’s Research Information, Technology and Consulting.

“This is the first research to integrate and quantify all of the uncertainties in each step of the chain between emissions and economic impact,” said Callahan. “We are not addressing the question of whether fossil fuels have been good or bad for economic growth, but how to compensate for the damage caused by the warming from those emissions.”

According to the research team, future work can use the same analytical approach to determine the contribution of specific emitters, including individual corporations, to economic loss and gain.

The research was funded by the Wright Center for the Study of Computation and Just Communities, a research center in Dartmouth’s Neukom Institute for Computational Science. Funding was also provided through the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.


Climatic Change




National Attribution of Historical Climate Damages



From EurekAlert!

1.6 17 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 13, 2022 6:11 am

It should have been titled “It’s models, all the way down”

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 13, 2022 6:44 am

They are the very model of modern major meddlers.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 13, 2022 8:15 am

Right, Tom. They got close to a confession when they said “…nonlinearities in the climate system…”, which is an admission that climate is complex and chaotic. Losers.

July 13, 2022 6:15 am

Separating the completely unquantifiable effects of global warming from the myriad effects of bad policies and programs is an impossible task, particularly as there is no global warming that can be quantified without lying or changing the temperature data.

Richard Page
Reply to  Charles Higley
July 13, 2022 12:27 pm

I have an idea, no models required – any country with a volcano is liable for damages by emissions from any country without a volcano. Makes more sense than the garbage study outlined in the article!

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Richard Page
July 13, 2022 12:45 pm

New Zealanders like that suggestion!

Reply to  Mike Lowe
July 13, 2022 5:24 pm

Until Taupo blows… 😀

July 13, 2022 6:16 am

Have they possibly miscalculated the benefits of having steel axe heads instead of their old stone ones ?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  DMackenzie
July 13, 2022 6:31 am

Steel ploughs (plows) instead of Ox Scapulas to till the ground to produce high yielding crops developed by the evil Monsanto Corporation and fertilised courtesy of big oil?

Reply to  DMackenzie
July 13, 2022 6:38 am

How about infant and child mortality. It has plummeted.

The benefits of fossil fuels far outweigh the harms, not just in the developed countries, but all over the world. By almost any measure, the condition of the world’s poorest people has improved, mostly due to fossil fuels.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2022 7:04 am

Poor people would show appreciation for the good the West has done. It’s the Climate
Reset crowd armed with liars- I mean lawyers- who want to destroy the West.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2022 9:45 am

Infant and child harm including suicide is very high indeed in many remote Australian aborigine communities that choose traditional living plus free money.
Quite a disgrace, no practical cure in sight. Not due to fossil fuel being combusted, partly caused by ethanol being drunk in excess, Geoff S

Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2022 12:58 pm

The benefits of fossil fuels far outweigh the harms, not just in the developed countries, but all over the world”.

As compellingly presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

If any of this litigation gets to a courtroom the above should be the opening statement of the defense.

Reply to  Ty Hallsted
July 13, 2022 7:51 pm

Pretty neat, huh!

Indeed. Inequality can be a big problem. On the other hand, equality is horrible if everyone is miserable and starving and dying early.

Nobody in their right mind should want to be freezing and starving and dying of typhus along with everyone else given the choice of being free and comfortable and being less equal than the 0.1%. Of course the woke aren’t in their right minds … at all.

Reply to  DMackenzie
July 13, 2022 7:05 am


David Elstrom
July 13, 2022 6:34 am

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”.—William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.

Reply to  David Elstrom
July 13, 2022 7:06 am

I think you mean: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the science modelers. LOL

Reply to  Aeitiuz
July 13, 2022 11:46 am

Kill all the lawyers and you get rid of half the politicians as well.

2 birds with one stone.

Reply to  Aeitiuz
July 13, 2022 12:43 pm

Can we get a package deal?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  David Elstrom
July 13, 2022 7:07 am

The difference between pigs & liars- I mean lawyers- is that there are some things
a pig won’t do!

John Garrett
July 13, 2022 6:49 am

This was headline news for Seth Borenstein and the Associated Press yesterday.

P.S., the Associated Press has (finally) added a disclaimer to some of its/Borenstein’s propaganda reports advising readers that the AP has been bribed to produce climate propaganda:
“Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations…”

The bribes are paid by some of the usual suspects— Rockefeller Foundation, Hewlett Foundation and a new one, James Murdoch (son of Rupert).

Carlo, Monte
July 13, 2022 6:51 am

They hand-wave “uncertainty” all throughout, did they reference this paper?


July 13, 2022 7:02 am

From The Guardian, “Research puts US ahead of China, Russia, India and Brazil in terms of global damage as climate expert says numbers ‘very stark’.” 

A “climate expert”???? What in God’s name is a climate expert?


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 8:21 am

“What in God’s name is a climate expert?”

Someone with a degree in dentistry

Reply to  fretslider
July 13, 2022 9:13 am

I thought it was a degree in gender studies or social justice.

Reply to  Brad-DXT
July 13, 2022 9:47 am

Might as well be….

Mike Lowe
Reply to  fretslider
July 13, 2022 12:48 pm

Must be talking about our local expert Denis H. who is regularly published in our rags!

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 9:03 am

As it is an ex pert I assume it could be a transwoman.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 13, 2022 7:37 pm

😀 I’ve never seen a ‘pert’ one of those. 😀

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 11:18 am

Bob ==> Didn’t you know that Dartmouth is a leading The Science center? They have all the right attitudes and opinions on all the hottest topics on Twitter — race, sexuality, gender, climate crises, politics, movies, TV, fashion, ………

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 1:39 pm

One who pontificates about ‘climate’ with a prediction “batting average” of .000 apparently…

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 5:31 pm

Some old self appointed greentard like Griff and Nick Stokes?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 7:21 pm

A drip under pressure.

July 13, 2022 7:04 am

Sorry. But what a load of crap.

July 13, 2022 7:08 am

Social justice warriors here, social justice warriors there ………. Never mind that world wide extreme poverty and famine have been largely eliminated, life expectancy is way up, deaths from extreme events way down, THE SKY IS FALLING. May God have mercy on us. Everything we do is utter crap.

R Taylor
July 13, 2022 7:55 am

The Dartmouth hypotwits might marginally extend the shakedown of commoners in the US and other like-minded jurisdictions, but even The Guardian knows enough to excuse China, Russia, India and Brazil.

Gary Pearse
July 13, 2022 8:09 am

I believe a more-ready for litigation case can be made for the looming disaster from rampant inflation, crippling of the fuel and energy industry and agriculture/food system that is fallout from Westestern from idiot policy prescriptions. The base cause is the Climate Scam. When it cools another half degree we can go after the climate gamers, MSM, Universities and even garnishee retirement pensions and estates.

H. D. Hoese
July 13, 2022 8:10 am

From the abstract, the bottom of the bottom of the bottom of the height of scientific incompetence of authors. Statements like this could produce a lot of comparable comedy skits, might not be so funny. “Here we lift that veil of deniability,…” Then again maybe farther down the well is Fig. 1 (Attribution approach) Like Popeye, that’s all I can stands. Others will have to dissect the rest of the rot. I reviewed hundreds of student papers at various levels, dumbest ones never came close to this.

July 13, 2022 8:18 am

Delusional bolleaux

“The study is the first to assess the economic impacts that individual countries have caused to other countries”

Or more accurately,

“The study is not the first to invent a load of nonsense dressed up as the economic impacts that individual countries have caused to other countries”

The Maldives did not sink, they have expanded [fossil fuelled] tourism.

Michael in Dublin
July 13, 2022 8:38 am

What goes down into a long drop does not change no matter how deep you dig it.
No matter how deep these activists dig their long drop, what they drop does not change.

July 13, 2022 8:39 am

I’d like to see what a model that estimated the monetary benefit of CO2 fertilization to crop yields is, including the value of lives not lost to famine. Maybe add in the study estimating the affect to GDP of not having to walk everywhere, and using human or animal power to haul everything Including food every place instead of using fossil fuels.

They talk about “the expense of the poorest people in the world.” Well. before the end of WWII, and the era of big oil those famines were all too common. Now it takes a war (or Green politicians) to cause a famine.

Zig Zag Wanderer
July 13, 2022 8:42 am

No problem at all, mate.

Just as soon as you’ve paid for the following benefits you’ve received as a result of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution they allowed us to effect for you:

Cheap, reliable electricity
Cheap reliable heating & cooking fuels
Modern medicine
All plastic goods
Cheap and reliable transportation
Cheap and reliable global communication
Mobile phones
The internet

I’m sure there’s a few more, but we’ll happily start with that lot, ok? Let me know how you’d like to start paying. It may take a few centuries, though.

Geoff Sherrington
July 13, 2022 8:52 am

It is predictable.
Couple of young fellers at a minor uni struggling for promotion beyond aspro are forced to choose a weally, weally major topic in the hope that someone will read their paper, consistent with their earlier mega-topic publications since about 2017.
These academic qualifications, one not yet a PhD, do not allow them the experience and wisdom to publish anything likely to advance science, but name dropping helps. Rolfie Neukom from the super-activist Bern Uni and the label they both have of Google Scholars. Sad that name dropping is no guarantee of ability.
This is junk science at its most blatant. It is unbalanced to the point of being unhinged. It shows the emotion named hate, when emotion should not mix with science. It fails to cope with benefits from GHG such as increased crop yields. It fails to quote literature that strongly contests its assertions.
For example, while they write about causality, they are quiet about the works of Demetris Koutsoyannis on Hen-and-Egg causality that concludes with high probability that temperature changes precede and cause GHG changes globally, not the reverse causality that these young grant seekers assume.
There is far too much of this immature storytelling posing as grand science. Reviewers and publishers should hand in their tickets and go to work in fields better matched, like cab driving, where something of use is given for payment of money. Geoff S

Mark BLR
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 13, 2022 9:14 am

It fails to quote literature that strongly contests its assertions.

From the “Introduction” section :

This analysis represents an important step forward for at least four reasons.

Thirdly, nonlinearities in the coupled climate-economy system make any inference of national responsibility for climate damages from existing studies irresponsible.

My (overly ?) cynical translation : “The only people looking at this before us were complete and utter morons. Their ‘conclusions’ must be ignored. Our models are correct.”

– – – – –

The “Introduction” ends with :

While the burden of proof for demonstrating liability is high and nonlinearities in the climate system make any such attribution difficult, our work is an important contribution to the effort to develop evidence that can be used to make claims for legal standing.

Translation : “Our work is ‘important’ because WE say it is.”

NB (1) : There are valid reasons for that “burden of proof” being so “high”.

NB (2) : The output of (computer) models is called “conjecture / speculation”, not “evidence (/ data)”.

– – – – –

PS : Near the start of the “Introduction” :

Climate change attribution work has long been motivated by the possibility of being

used for liability claims …

I am told the appropriate academic term here is “NSS”, i.e. “No Sh*t, Sherlock …”.

Reply to  Mark BLR
July 13, 2022 2:36 pm

Whatever papers the alarmists need, they write. Typically, if sceptics are making progress in any particular area, an alarmist paper will appear in an amazingly short time. There are many examples. When they desperately needed a paper to say that there was a tropical troposphere hotspot, for example, because of the sceptics’ success in pointing out that there was no hotspot, they simply wrote one (Lockwood’s egregious paper that colour-coded zero as bright red so that it looked like a hotspot). Their latest need is for something to support liability claims, so they wrote it.

mario lento
July 13, 2022 8:53 am

Wait: At the end of the day, Are they saying warming in any amount is proportional to money loss? So warming does not reduce cost of heating? Reduce loss of life from cold? WUWT?

Dave Fair
Reply to  mario lento
July 13, 2022 10:41 am

While this study discussion is terribly badly written they seem to be saying the only damages identifiable occur in the tropics.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 13, 2022 11:18 am

Thank you Dave: If in the tropics, then I guess it cannot be temperature rise there. What specific thing changed; sea level rise? Does the study articulate some falsifiable thing?

Mark BLR
Reply to  Mario Lento
July 14, 2022 4:05 am

Does the study articulate some falsifiable thing?


Mark BLR
Reply to  mario lento
July 14, 2022 3:53 am

Are they saying warming in any amount is proportional to money loss?


Below is a “screen grab” of their Figure 1, which summarises their approach pictorially.

Look at panel (c) carefully …

They are saying that any country with an average (annual) temperature of (roughly ?) 14°C will be adversely affected by either warming or cooling.

Any country with an average below (or equal to) 14°C will benefit from warming.

Any country with an average above (or equal to) 14°C will suffer “economic loss” from warming. The hotter the country, the greater the loss (the steeper the slope of their curve).

As their map in the middle of panel (c) shows, according to their calculations Canada and Russia would benefit economically from a warming planet, while equatorial / tropical countries would suffer the most.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Mark BLR
July 14, 2022 4:01 am

NB : To avoid “zooming out” too much, which reduced the resolution / readability of the graphics, I “grabbed” the legend to the above figure separately …

mario lento
Reply to  Mark BLR
July 14, 2022 8:46 am

Thanks. So I wonder what justifies the precise temperature which the article believes is the perfect temperature and the metrics of all of the so-called benefits and costs.

A slight tweak here and there could probably show whatever the author wanted.

Mark BLR
Reply to  mario lento
July 14, 2022 9:51 am

A slight tweak here and there could probably show whatever the author wanted.

Not 100% applicable to your specific point, but see my post responding to “Kip Hansen” below mentioning “tweaks” …

Mario Lento
Reply to  Mark BLR
July 14, 2022 4:02 pm

Hi Mark BLR: I searched for your name and found the post to Kip. Nice work. You saved me from reading the paper!

Yes, I think you addressed the curiosity regarding tweaks, and in other areas.

Their claim of significance is diminishingly reduced by several stacks of hypotheses — and although the paper makes no falsifiable claims, they still measure damage with the precision of emotion.

What a hunk of junk that might be used confuse and sway a predisposed judge in a lawsuit seeking damages.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 13, 2022 9:00 am

And all that done by a gas that has next to nothing effect on the weather, let alone the climate.

July 13, 2022 9:01 am

The Dartmouth research team hopes to help resolve questions of climate liability and national accountability to inform climate policy.

They have high hopes, don’t they. But who asked the questions?

July 13, 2022 9:09 am

All awards should be predicated on the jurisdiction’s willingness to renounce modernism and eschew every invention and benefit of the fossil-fuel era. Because, anything less would be, you know, hypocrisy.

July 13, 2022 9:15 am

I quickly looked at the actual study.
They use economic data through 2014. So, Sudan comes out as one of the countries most hit in the GDP by global warming!

I put on my common-sense peer reviewer hat. When I peer-review, I consider hypothesis, data, statistical approach, etc., but I also take a step back and ask “does this make sense? what is the implied question, and how could it be answered, otherwise?” And such out-of-the-box-thinking questions.

This has made me a valuable manuscript and grant reviewer, and has put me at odds with others who have not yet taken this step back.

[One proposal was to test the impact of heart surgery using cauterization upon a certain style of pacemaker – would the introduced electrical current of the cauterizing tool harm the pacemaker, due to electricity traveling through the body tissue? The proposal was to examine this with a cohort of patients who were obviously very ill. I asked, “couldn’t we test this with a side of beef?”]

So, I ask myself: is the GDP of the noted nations experiencing a notable downturn? So, I get the article. They have a color coded map of who has decreased GDP 1990 to 2014. Sudan seems to be a leader in this GDP downturn damage.

So, I ask myself: what has Sudan GDP been, in recent years? So, I put into DuckDuckGo “GDP trend Sudan.” And I find the GDP trend for Sudan.

It is a good thing they only went through 2014! Sudan had a major downturn in GDP the 2 years before 2014. A real hockey stick type trend. But they are back!

The logic is: global warming is harming some countries, while benefiting other countries. If this is so, then Sudan must be experiencing harm. Steadily and regularly. but they are not. They had a couple anomalous years. Why? I do not know.

But it is most likely not the damage from “global warming.”

Is Sudan experiencing global warming, which could maybe be harming economic activity such as food harvests, and so on? No: Sudan has no increase or decrease trend in avg temp in recent decades. Link below.

With no decrease in GDP, and no increase in avg temp, I claim the hypothesis of the article to be debunked.

Sudan GDP link below.
Sudan avg temp link below (go to “WolframAlpha” and enter “mean termperature past 60 years Sudan”).



John Bell
July 13, 2022 9:37 am

OMG! they used an “integrated framework”, well that clinches it, the USA must be culpable then! They can now SOAK the RICH and money will come raining down on them from above.

David Dibbell
July 13, 2022 9:38 am

“We are not addressing the question of whether fossil fuels have been good or bad for economic growth, but how to compensate for the damage caused by the warming from those emissions.”

Paging Alex Epstein! His book “Fossil Future” is very sharp on this point – that it is egregiously wrong to ignore the benefits of fossil fuels to begin with.

How about re-running your economic models with the assumption that a “net zero” condition was somehow imposed in 1990? Pretty bleak outcome, no doubt!

July 13, 2022 10:59 am

Be careful what you wish for.

The logical next legal target will be Chinese emissions….

July 13, 2022 11:07 am

I wonder where these developing and emerging economies were, if it was not for western civilization and technology. Who is going to pay that bill?

July 13, 2022 11:13 am

Uncertainty is not only additive from step to step, but multiplies from step to step in the “process” described as “Critically, these economic changes are attributable to the largest emitters despite the substantial uncertainties at each step in the causal chain from emissions to impact.”.

If they are claiming attribution from such a chain of multiplying-uncertainty steps, then it is only because they decided before any analysis was performed.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 14, 2022 3:39 am

Standard Operating Procedure. That is basically a perfect description of what laughingly passes for “climate science” for over three decades now.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 14, 2022 4:53 am

… because they decided before any analysis was performed

Their “empirical damage function” (see by reply to “Mario Lento” above) is the only “empirical” part of the paper. Everything else is based on models.

Such a “function” virtually guarantees the “result” shown in panel (a) of their “Fig. 2”, copied below.

– – – – –

From the “Results” section of their paper (page 13 of 19 in the PDF file I downloaded) :

The compounding uncertainties in each step of the analysis—from emissions to GHG concentrations, from GHG concentrations to temperature changes, and from temperature changes to economic damages—imply that country-level attributable damages can be highly uncertain. To address this, our analysis incorporates a significance test to ensure that we only consider statistically significant damages (Methods).

Our incorporation of a significance test also means that small differences in emissions can lead to major differences in attributable damages. For example, Pakistan and Bolivia have similar CO2 emissions, with Pakistan emitting an average of 35 MtC ­[per] year of ­CO2 over 1990–2014 and Bolivia emitting an average of 32 MtC [per] ­year. But that slight difference means that while Pakistan can be tied to $130B in statistically significant losses, Bolivia cannot be tied to any.

One of the axioms of “climate science” is that CO2 is a “well mixed” GHG.

If you inject 10 (or 50, or 100, or …) mega-tonnes of carbon (dioxide) in any given calendar year from a limited geographical area — e.g. “one country” — then 6 to 8 months later whatever has not been absorbed by plants (and/or plankton) will be evenly distributed around the globe.

They came up with a “significance test” that could be tweaked to decide which “damages” were “statistically significant”.

Their “methodology” said that two countries emitting an average of 32-35 MtC per year over 25 years could be “tied to” damages that they determined to be “statistically significant” of :
1) $130 billion, and

I agree with you that it looks like their “methodology” is, to use a local colloquialism, “complete Horlicks”.

Rud Istvan
July 13, 2022 12:08 pm

Three conclusions.

  1. The Ivies are no longer worth their high tuition.
  2. Supercomputers can compute anything you want them to, even if the output is nonsense as here.
  3. The alarmists do not seem to realize the ridicule they generate. Yesterday Dessler anger, today Dartmouth silliness.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 13, 2022 12:54 pm

Were they ever worth the tuition?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 13, 2022 1:30 pm

They still are. But not for the edumacation. For the connections, networking, access, and CV/resume. What or even if you learn is secondary to schmoozing with the children of the rich and connected.

July 13, 2022 12:08 pm

Quantifying which nations are culpable for the economic impacts of anthropogenic warming is central to informing climate litigation and restitution claims for climate damages.

Does anyone else remember the days when scientists reported the data without the politics?

Reply to  Redge
July 13, 2022 12:54 pm

I do. But is this science?

Tom Abbott
July 13, 2022 12:12 pm

From the article: “Quantifying which nations are culpable for the economic impacts of anthropogenic warming is central to informing climate litigation and restitution claims for climate damages.”

First you have to establish that anthropogenic warming is causing damages.

There is no evidence that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change to the point of causing damage. There’s no evidence for this. Yet these misinformed people/liars carry on like there is.

I don’t see how human-caused climate change damages can make any headway in a court of law, if heard by an unbiased judge. There’s no evidence humans are causing this damage. It should be apparent to a common sense judge. Speculation, which is all these claimants have, is not evidence of anything. Speculation should be thrown out of court. A good judge would make short work of such lawsuits.

Mike Lowe
July 13, 2022 12:43 pm

Is a reasonable translation of their word “nonlinearities” the more usual word “lies”?

July 13, 2022 12:58 pm

The US, China, Russia, India, and Brazil are the most culpable parties, according to this attribution study. Fat chance of anyone suing, let alone successfully, any of these sovereign states. However, since reparations for past injury are the rage in the US, we will, probably, voluntarily pay to reconcile the poor countries for the damage we’ve done. It’s the woke thing to do.

July 13, 2022 3:17 pm

As someone once asked: “What have the Romans ever done for us?”

We might also ask what have fossil fuels ever done for us?

Well apart from lifting 92% of the world out of Extreme Poverty, nothing.

July 13, 2022 4:44 pm

Developing countries were developing long before the industrial revolution in the West.

If so much damage is being done by developed countries to developing countries (wealthy to poor) wouldn’t that same and maybe more damage be done to the so called polluting countries.

Perhaps they could punish their markets by cutting off trade. See how the models handle that.

Reply to  Olen
July 13, 2022 6:50 pm

I was going to propose an alternative study. India still has many villages that do not have running water or electrical power. Women and girls get up early each morning and go to the communal well to get water. There are also villages that now have power and water. The authors could do a comparative study between the quality of life between the haves (using harmful western technologies) and the have nots.

July 13, 2022 5:23 pm

So I presume they will be hauling China off to the Court… right?

Or is it only to be used where enough self-hating, guilty guilty leftists will proclaim mea culpa and demand their ever-so-woke/broke govts pay even more $Billions to the already stinking-rich?

Cos we KNOW none of this money will ever help the putative ‘poor’ who are the ones supposedly affected by the non-existent, man-made global warming. It’s just more ways to steal money from the People to hand to the so-called ‘elite’!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkMcD
July 14, 2022 3:59 am

“So I presume they will be hauling China off to the Court… right?”

Xi better get himself a lawyer. 🙂

Xi must be laughing at the antics of Western fools. I know I am. The only problem is Xi benefits from the antics of Western fools, whereas, I do not.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
July 13, 2022 5:39 pm

As W.M. Briggs says, all models say what they are told to say.

John Wilson
July 13, 2022 5:50 pm

China and the USA are equally culpable when the USA is exceeding it’s climate goals to combat climate change? I call BEE-ESS!

July 13, 2022 6:00 pm

Another “for the first time” claim. Always followed by unsupportable and unreproducible biased models and assumptions. Oh well, the professor gets another publication on his CV and a paid trip to some conference.

John Wilson
Reply to  Pflashgordon
July 13, 2022 6:03 pm

I looked up the Neukom Institute and it’s so vague to be opaque on purpose. The fed fund them thought.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Pflashgordon
July 14, 2022 4:59 am

the professor gets …

Note 1 on the principal author name :
“1 Graduate Program in Ecology, Evolution, Environment and Society, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA”

I’m probably wrong but my inference from that is that this is a “doctoral dissertation” type paper from a PhD candidate and their “supervisor” professor.

July 13, 2022 6:52 pm

Yep. Here’s another climate change pig that won’t fly. Using modeling to base the footings for such litigation should be a dead end and deprive the lawyers from their massive fees.
No one can actually prove AGW, with facts, that it even exists.
I suggest that folks dox these clowns proposing this nonsense then shame them out of existence.

steen Rasmussen
July 14, 2022 8:33 am

Could it be a payed study to support the WEF Agenda 2030. CO2 is not a matter of climate but a matter of power for a little non elected elite to control the world?

Paul Stevens
July 14, 2022 4:51 pm

I wonder when a study will be done that quantifies the damage done to developing countries by despotic rulers and their oligarch friends. What is the damage when centralized economies and nationalized resource companies and barriers to free trade are added to the balance? Why not a study on the impact of the lack of education, ownership of private property and the lack of business opportunities for women and girls. There has been no massive effort to keep the laws of physics, technological knowledge, or the elements of economic freedom and prosperity hidden from the population of the world. The questions that should be asked are in the area of why the developing world is still developing when the models for success have been available for adaptation. Many countries that were developing when I was born are now developed. What happened in those countries that did not happen in those left behind. That is the kind of study I want to see.

%d bloggers like this: