Ryan Maue comments on new pager: The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature. He pulls no punches.
The methodology here is wild. Instead of using local climate data to diagnose the impacts of extreme weather events that drive damages, the authors use the global temperature time series. The logic is circular and baseless. The mean global temperature does not cause extreme weather, nor does the variability in global temperature. The climate itself does not cause nor fuel extreme weather.
The authors create a new metric called “global temperature shocks,” which to most climate folks probably looks like a detrended variance of about 0.2°C. Why would global temperature variability (warm or cold) related mainly to tropical temperatures (El Niño & La Niña) be a more appropriate metric to represent climate damages from extreme events rather than the extreme events themselves? We have extensive disaster databases and GDP at the national scale. Why not use those? Because that (more appropriate) analysis does not show much of a climate change damage signal. It’s tiny.
So, the authors find that local temperatures (as in national scale) are not correlated to damages with huge variance, yet global temperatures are b/c of smaller annual variability. At this point of the analysis, the authors should have quit, yet they plowed ahead undaunted. 😬
Here is the original X (formally Twitter) thread
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They would not dare examine energy consumption’s impact on quality of life. Their study should damn them to a life of cold showers in the freezing cold.
and with only the food they can grow in their personal garden- or whatever rats or rabbits they can catch
Arguably, as global GDP increases with temperature, any effect of increased temperature should be a benefit, not a cost. They are apparently not even getting the sign of the effect right.
Agree.
The “social cost of carbon” is negative.
Please send me my check for my prodigious energy usage.
Tom – I agree with you and am wondering on what scientific basis thay claim that GDP decreases with rising temperature. Is it because everyone starts to take a siesta?
They’re Economists. They don’t need no Steenking scientific basis.
I wonder how record harvests of a number of staples contributes to lower GDP . . .
You have to accept the premise that the Little Ice Age was some semimythical Golden Age, and all diversions from that era are Evil.
Except the True Believers also deny the LIA was worldwide, so also accepting Doublethink is required.
Global average temperature construct spawns more bullshit constructs.
And this is surprising how?
And of course, if they use GISS or any of its stablemates, that is another bullshit construct.
Most warming in them comes from urban and agenda-based contamination.
The fastest-warming global average temperature data set over the past 15-years is UAH_TLT, the lower troposphere record featured prominently on the side panel of this very website. From 2009 it has warmed at +0.34C per decade compared to +0.32C per decade in GISS.
Temperatures in the lower troposphere over land and ocean aren’t going to be greatly impacted by urban heat effect, so what agenda do you think it is that UAH is pushing?
Yeah, over the past 40+ years UAH6 has warmed at an average rate of less than half that of your cherrypicked time period.
what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive
Here in the US people live comfortably in temperatures from -10C (14F) in Anchorage Alaska in January to 31C (88F) in Miami Florida in August.
1.5C is nothing compared to the natural variability of temperature.
The cost is astronomical. Bloomberg’s green energy research team estimates $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
There are about 2 million households worldwide, which is $100,000 per household.
Probably only 10 percent of households can afford anything additional so that will be $1 million per household.
Given the choice, almost all households would prefer $1 million in the bank and a degree or two of warming.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain
PS Investors Call for Policy Unleashing $275 Trillion for Net Zero
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-21/investors-call-for-policy-unleashing-275-trillion-for-net-zero?embedded-checkout=true
My simple logic of four people/household returns a rough estimate of 2 billion not million households worldwide.
PS I would like the world to have more CO2 and be at least another 1.5 deg. C warmer here in central UK.
The state of Wokeachusetts claims the temperature here has gone up over 3 deg F. Hardly enough in my opinion!
Is that 3F increase since winter ended or over the past year? Or even 10 years?
I think you meant 2 Billion households worldwide, not 2 Million. With about 8 billion people in the world, a household with 4,000 people might get a little crowded.
Other than that, I would gladly take $100,000 in the bank and a little warming, which might save a few bucks on heating my home.
I just think of all the cold (or warm) beer I could get with $100k.
A recent summer high was 116°F (47 C) and a recent winter low was -17°F (-27 C).
Shocking, I tell you – shocking.
No one died, there was no structural damage, and my personal GDP was unchanged.
what about the fairies at the end of your garden?
Gardens have gnomes, not fairies!
Didn’t you ever watch Harry Potter? 😎
My home town has 135 F temperature range. Highest recorded 98 F. Lowest -37 F. Yet here we are.
How do you know that no one died?
They are “thrilled to share” this? Oughtn’t they be embarrassed to share it?
The only “shock” is that anyone with a capability to think logically would take the “climate” hucksters seriously after all the decades of failed prophecies and data which backs up nothing. Well, other than the total BS the grifters try to foist off on the citizens of the planet.
Harvard and Northwestern aren’t what they used to be.
This insanity is a forecast of the collapse of human civilization.
I always thought a shock required a step function or transient as part of the definition.
A gradual increase (or decrease) in temperature does not get into a definition of shock.
This drivel is equal to the IOC study that created a new metric. Basically a man is 10% larger than a woman (height, weight, whatever parameter) and 10% stronger. But when you divide the strength by the mass it proves that men and women are equal (unstated on a per pound/inch/whatever basis).
B.S. alarm is blaring at high decibel levels.
Hmmmm . . . obviously missing from the paper by Bilal and Känzig:
— any mention of the “greening of Earth” due to rise in global atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 200 years or so, from about 280 ppm to today’s ~420 ppm, with the attendant increased production of food crops for mankind at little/no additional cost
— any mention of the health care cost savings/reduction in human suffering due to the reduction of cold-related excess deaths due to “global warming” over the last 200 years or so . . . cold-related excess deaths being about ten times greater than heated-related excess deaths on a global average basis.
If there was any peer-review of this paper by NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH (publisher), by Harvard University, or by Northwestern University, it doesn’t show.
All Dr Maue had to do is say “there is no global temperature”. That’s more than enough to debunk this paper.
Has Dr Maue published his analysis in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or is it merely an opinion piece?
Would that make a practical difference? Peer-review today has little of the credibility that it had 40-100 years ago.
If Maue doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to have his paper reviewed by experts, then I’m suspicious he knows it’s invalid analysis
If Maue had to do a “peer reviewed” paper to comment on every nonsensical paper put out by climate alarmists, he would have no time for doing his own work. Warren is suspicious mainly of anything that doesn’t fit the climate emergency hype.
I know Maue. He’s trying to slip under the radar of expert review because he knows what he’s writing has no scientific rigor ie, it’s bs.
Interesting claim . . . care to cite any particular psychoanalysis sessions you’ve had together, or your past history of how you came to know his thinking so intimately?
ROTFL.
I’ve read many of Maue’s”articles’. They’re mostly opinionated BS, without scientific foundation. If he submitted them for expert review, he’d fail.
Care to cite?
This one
That’s not a cite. Show us which parts are without scientific foundation, and the other articles you claim.
He has a Phd and doesn’t rely on alarmism for a paycheck, so I’d trust him before any of the hockey team.
Maude has trashed his PhD by abandoning science and embracing Denialism and its propaganda
“Albert Einstein only had one anonymous peer review in his career — and the paper was rejected. This happened in 1936 . . . earlier in 1905, Einstein’s annus mirabilis (remarkable year), he had published four breathtaking papers. One introduced the world to special relativity.”
— https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/einsteins-only-rejected-paper/
(my bold emphasis added)
You have any lingering suspicions about Einstein’s invalid analyses for lack of peer review of his papers?
I’ve read both. Maue is not Einstein.
Warren Beeton is no Einstein.
I’m back to the impossibility of actually determining an average or mean global temperature and the actual scientific value of such a measurement. SMH
Really? Did you skip the 5th grade class on how to calculate an average?
Did you skip the class about not averaging intensive properties?
.
lol! Your absurd claim that ‘an avg temperature can’t be calculated’ is right up there with ‘there’s no such thing as the GHE’, ‘the earth is flat’, and ‘there’s no global warming happening’. You’re
so stuck in your silo of blind followership that you think ‘averages’ are a conspiracy.