Climate Change

Climate Change Costs By 2100: Doing Nothing Has the Same Price Tag as Doing Something

Adapting to climate change would cost roughly the same as trying to slow it.

|

Year 2100
Physics of the Future

"Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally." So warns the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a draft of its Synthesis report leaked to Bloomberg News. Lurking behind those first seven words is a political choice: To what extent do we react to climate change by trying to stop it, and to what extent do we respond by trying to adapt to it? Which approach will yield more benefits, and which will impose more costs?

The final report, due in November, will combine and summarize the findings in the IPCC's three earlier reports this year. The first of those reports looked at the scientific evidence for man-made global warming. The second analyzed how humanity might respond to warming temperatures through adaptation—the "process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects." The third looked at how we might respond through mitigation—"a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases." (In addition to cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases, this would include ways to suck such gases out of the atmosphere, by, say, planting more forests.) Most climate researchers believe that some additional warming is inevitable, so people will have to engage in both adaptation and mitigation.

The adaptation report reckons that if the world takes no steps to deal with climate change, and temperatures increase by around 2 degrees Celsius, the annual economic losses will be "between 0.2 and 2.0% of income." It adds, "Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range."

What about mitigation? Making the heroic set of assumptions that all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, that everyone adopts the same carbon price, and that all key low- and no-carbon technologies are now available, keeping carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million by 2100 would reduce consumption growth "by 0.04 to 0.14 percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6 percent and 3 percent per year." The median estimate for the reduced annual growth in consumption is 0.06 percent.

How can we compare the projected losses in the adaptation report to the projected costs in the mitigation report?

In 2012, the IPCC asked economists at the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) to peer into the future and devise a plausible set economic development and greenhouse gas emissions scenarios called shared socioeconomic pathways to the year 2100. The economists came up with five different scenarios. Let's take a look at a couple of those scenarios to get some idea of how the world's economy might evolve over the remainder of this century.

The OECD analysis begins in 2010 with a world population of 6.8 billion and a total world gross product of $67 trillion, yielding a global per capita income just shy of $10,000. (All figures are in 2005 dollars.) For reference, the U.S.'s per capita income in 2010 averaged $42,000.

One scenario is described as the "middle of the road" projection, in which "trends typical of recent decades continue, with some progress towards achieving development goals, reductions in resource and energy intensity at historic rates, and slowly decreasing fossil fuel dependency." If history unfolds as this scenario suggests, world population will peak at around 9.6 billion in 2065 and fall to just over 9 billion by 2100. The world's economy will have grown more than eightfold from $67 trillion to $577 trillion (in 2005 dollars). Average income per person globally will have increased from around $10,000 today to $60,000 by 2100. U.S. annual incomes would average just over $100,000.

In the "conventional development" scenario, by contrast, the world economy grows flat out at more than 3 percent annually, relying on "an energy system dominated by fossil fuels, resulting in high [greenhouse gas] emissions and challenges to mitigation." Because there is more urbanization and higher levels of education, world population peaks at 8.6 billion in 2055 and falls to 7.4 billion by 2100. The world's economy will grow fifteen-fold to just over $1 quadrillion, and the average person in 2100 will be earning about $138,000 per year. U.S. annual incomes would exceed $187,000 per capita.

It is of more than passing interest that people living in this warmer world are much better off than they would be in the "middle of the road" scenario. The OECD analysis notes that these richer and more highly educated people will face "lower socio-environmental challenges to adaptation," thanks to "attainment of human development goals, robust economic growth, highly engineered infrastructure with redundancy to minimize disruptions from extreme events, and highly managed ecosystems." In other words, greater wealth and advanced technologies will significantly enhance our capabilities to deal with the consequences of climate change.

Future temperatures will perhaps be higher, by 2100 the average is likely to hover around the ~2°C benchmark. In the scenarios sketched out above, a worst-case 2 percent loss of income resulting from adaptation would mean that the $60,000 and $138,000 per capita income averages would fall to $58,800 and $135,240, respectively.

In the IPCC's mitigation report, the optimal scenario for keeping greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million would cut future incomes by between 3 and 11 percent by 2100. Let's look at how much the worst-case mitigation scenario might reduce future incomes. Without mitigation, the increase of global gross product to $577 trillion in the "middle of the road" scenario implies an economic growth rate of 2.42 percent between 2010 and 2100. Cutting that growth rate by 0.14 percentage points to 2.28 percent yields an income of $510 trillion in 2100, reducing per capita incomes from $60,000 to $57,000. Growth in the conventional development scenario is cut from 3.07 percent to 2.93 percent, reducing overall income from over $1.015 quadrillion to $901 trillion and cutting average incomes from $138,000 to $122,000.

All of these figures must be taken a vat of salt, since they are projections for economic, demographic, and biophysical events nearly a century from now. That being acknowledged, the IPCC's projected losses to incomes from doing nothing to slow climate change appear to be roughly comparable to the losses incurred by trying to slow climate change. In other words, doing nothing about climate change will cost future generations roughly the same as doing something.

"Most philosophers and economists hold that rich generations have a lower ethical claim on resources than poorer generations," observes the Yale economist William Nordhaus. How much should people living on incomes averaging $10,000 a year now spend to make sure that people whose incomes will likely be many-fold higher don't see their wealth reduced by a couple of percentage points?

NEXT: America's Broken Immigration System is Crippling the Military Too

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Same low price, now with 100% less glaciation! Operators are standing by to take your order.

    1. Operators Bureaucrats are standing by to take your give you orders.

      Fixed!

      1. stupid auto-correct! my bad

    2. Sebastian . I just agree… Helen `s artlclee is astonishing, I just bought Chevrolet when I got my cheque for $6747 this-last/month and would you believe, ten k last-month . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I actually started 8-months ago and straight away made myself over $78, p/h .
      100% free registration——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  2. To what extent do we react to climate change by trying to stop it, and to what extent do we respond by trying to adapt to it?

    I recommend an intense round of negotiations with the Sun.

    1. Maybe sacrifice a few climatologists to the angry ball of fire to appease it?

      1. I will gladly donate to this undertaking.

        1. I smell a kickstarter campaign.

          The first stretch goal should be to offer up James Hansen.

          1. I am gonna have to vote Michael Mann.

            1. I’d suggest Al Gore but the fat-fire alone would be enough to kill us all.

      2. awesome idea!

    2. A shrubbery!

  3. Who cares?

    We all know accepting the realities and dealing with “immoral” behavior is tantamount to endorsing it. See the fights over abstinence only education and the war on drugs for templates. better to feel good and fight the good fight than to be overly concerned with result and trade-offs. In fact, admitting there are even trade-offs proves evil intent.

  4. “Most philosophers and economists hold that rich generations have a lower ethical claim on resources than poorer generations,” observes the Yale economist William Nordhaus.”

    Most commenters think Mr. Nordhaus is a bullshitter.

    1. That comment strikes me as 100% pure gibberish.

      Seriously, what is meant by the following words in that sentence:

      “rich”

      “poorer”

      “generations”

      “resources”

      and

      “ethical claim”

    2. That’s not a good argument to do nothing. It’s pompous to assume that future generations will be better off. I can make a good argument that they won’t.

      However, the fact that the global warming is 99% B.S. is a much better reason to do nothing.

    3. It’s standard ethics babble, as political ethics always reduce to claims of property rights.

      But the larger point is true: India and China have no responsibility whatsoever to harm themselves economically for the possibility that their grandchildren might earn 2% less a year than they would otherwise. And it’s obvious enough that reducing capital investment today to combat climate change will also hurt their grandchildren by limiting innovation.

      If we were to take Nordhaus’s principle seriously, we’d have a strong ethical claim for eliminating all taxation and monetary manipulation, as these result in inefficient use of scarce resources and harm future generations by reducing capital investment. I’ll hold my breath waiting for ethicists to come to my defense on that point.

    4. When Mr. Nordhaus donates his income and wealth, reducing himself to a diet of beans and rice so that ‘poorer generations’ can ‘claim HIS resources’… THEN he can preach for others to do likewise.

  5. Looks like it’s currently 78 degrees in L.A. and just 79 in Dupont Circle.

    So, MORE OF THIS “GLOBAL WARMING” PLEASE!

    1. 54 in NJ this morning. I am in the process of digging out a propane tank and going with a cheaper provider to deal with the climate change coming in a couple of months.

    2. The walls of my office are white today.

      1. Why is your company so racist?

    3. Your confusing weather and climate. See when it’s convenient they are the same but when it isn’t they are different.

      1. Colder than average temperatures are just weather.

        Warmer than average temperatures are OMG CLIMATE EVENT!

        1. If global warming (or whatever you want to call it) is real, then it is a cause of every bit of weather. If it is all bullshit, then it isn’t.
          It is just idiotic to look for discrete causes and effects in a big, complicated dynamic system like the atmosphere.

          1. Look Zeb nobody is saying that we weren’t dealing with illogical nitwits.

            1. “illogical nitwit”

              Isn’t that John Kerry’s nick name?

          2. They’re not looking for causes and effects. They’re looking to show human activity is bad because that’s their premise: that human activity is bad. So they’re just trying to prove their premise, so they can justify controlling all human activity. Being that just about everything humans do uses some kind of energy, by controlling energy they control everything we do.

            1. It’s question begging all they way down

        2. Likewise, any hurricane is OMG CLIMATE EVENT!

          1. And the fact that they aren’t getting seasonally worse and that we can’t predict a season any more accurately than a coin toss is a maningless non-sequitur.

            1. What would be weather.

              Anything that supports climate change theory is climate. Anything that contradicts it is weather.

      2. BTW, what was the name of the last Katrina-scale, Cat IV hurricane disaster?

        Al Gore said we’d be getting them by the dozen by now, even pictured them swirling on posters for his movie.

        “Super-storm Sandy” barely had hurricane force winds and rainfall. We call that a tropical storm here in Texas even though it was officially a Cat 1. It was pretty big, but hardly the apocalyptic hurricane of doom that Al Gore warned about, with the full support of the climate scientology community. That’s one destructive Cat 1 hurricane in the nine years since the 2005 season that brought Katrina’s Cat 5 hurricane.

        Science is all about making accurate forecasts. Any branch of knowledge that repeatedly makes bad forecasts is not good science. That’s why I call it climate scientology.

        1. Stop it! You’re not playing right.

          Whatever is said, is said for effect, not to be considered again.

          1. Haiyan hit the Phillipines. Hurricanes form in the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

            Al Gore was talking about the US getting battered by Cat 5 hurricanes. He even predicted that the National Weather Service would have to create a new Category 6 because they would be more powerful and more destructive than Katrina.

            And got accolades from the climate scientologists for doing it.

            1. “Haiyan hit the Phillipines.”

              So true. And wikipedia says that some 6,000,000 became refugees and thousands died. But enough of them, let’s discuss Al Gore, and other Hollywood celebrities as well, while we’re at it.

              1. If 6,000,000 became refugees and thousands died, it was because they are a poor country with limited resources, so any event is a disaster.

                Poverty causes more disasters than any climate change.

        2. and it made landfall as a tropical storm, hence the need to not call it a hurricane. Superstorm sounds horrific, which is exactly what that term was picked.

  6. BTW, there was a scare-headline in the local rag last week: “Sea levels could rise 23′”!
    Well, if you checked the source (and the article didn’t make that easy), you found that was a “prediction” for some thousand years in the future.
    Sorry; anyone claiming we should act on a 1,000-year prediction is a fool or a knave or both.

    1. You see, with the heat transferring to the deep oceans, this will increase biomass production on the ocean floor, thus raising sea levels.

      See, I can do “climate science”, too!

      1. Wouldn’t that biomass consume the CO2 and thus reduce the levels in the deep oceans?

        1. Whoa! Now you’re dealing in hypotheticals. But what you’re failing to take into consideration is that by raising sea floors, that would push water upwards, so even more land would be flooded.

          Keep this up and Kevin Costner’s movie Waterworld will come back as a documentary and finally make money.

  7. Look, just tell me who I’m supposed to transfer my wealth to.

    1. The Federal printing presses are doing it automatically. No need to thank them.

      1. The do it because they care.

    2. Al Gore.

      1. Fun fact ‘Algor’ is latin for cold or coldness, see Algor Mortis the coldness of death.

        Hrmmm… Is Algore the vanguard of the cyrozombies?

        *scribbles notes to be used in book 4 or 5*

        1. Will that be book #4 of your trilogy?

          1. I never claimed it was a trilogy. My plan has always been to write until I run out of ideas – then wander off to another porject and come back if I get new ideas.

            1. …porject…

              Along the way I might learn how to type.

            2. I thought it was to write until you ran out of ideas, then turn it into a TV show and delay the release of your sixth book to cover for the fact that you have no idea how to wrap up your story.

              1. … and they all lived happily together forever. The End.

              2. I thought it was to write until you ran out of ideas, then turn it into a TV show and delay the release of your sixth book to cover for the fact that you have no idea how to wrap up your story.

                Don’t worry, they’re coming…

                Martin is a shit writer. A Game of Thrones showed some promise, but the rest of books have just gotten idiotic.

                And the show isn’t really any better.

                1. SUMMER is coming!

    3. Mistake number one is to think it’s your wealth – you didn’t make that.

      The better statement is to whom do I transfer my life essence. The answer, of course, is the Priests of Mother Earth. They’re fine with the installment plan (for now).

      1. Wait…does that mean I get laid? Maybe this isn’t so bad…

        1. No, you get strung upside down and bled from the jugular into the roots of the sacred grove.

        2. Everyone but you gets laid.

          1. So it’s just like high school? Shit.

        3. Well, sort of. You’re the catcher and not the pitcher.

      2. It always comes down to “Purity of Essence” or “Essence of Purity.”

        Am I right, Mandrake?

    4. “Look, just tell me who I’m supposed to transfer my wealth to.”

      Me, of course.

  8. How much does it cost to accelerate it, and PROFIT from the deaths of millions in the third world?

    The Left keeps telling me this is my plan… so I figure, ‘OK, why not’.

    1. +1 Evil Koch Plan to rule the world.

    2. We need to sponsor a college engineering project to develop a machine that process Third World human bodies directly into Bitcons.

    3. We still need to figure out step 2.

    4. Right on man! It’s not like the world really needs 3rd worlders anyway.

      Ask the leftists and they will tell you otherwise, but ask them to touch one and they will cower and tell you they’re just playin’. Like Nancy Pelosi saying she wanted to take all the little Mexican munchkins home with her, yet did she even take one? Hell no!

      By the by, just how do we PROFIT from the deaths of millions of third worlders. I haven’t figured that part out yet. I don’t think any of them have named me as beneficiary on their AFLAC policy.

  9. And of course the huge question not asked or answered by the IPCC (I assume, I can’t be bothered to read the thing) is whether the measures that might be taken to try to stop or reduce anthropogenic climate change will be effective at all. I’m pretty sure they won’t be.

    1. They have never and will never have any real solutions. Look at the line of logic we’ve gotten to, whenever they talk about this on npr it’s always discussed as if it is already to late but we still must do something. Not because it makes a difference whether we do anything or not but because it will put pressure on other gov. to do the same. The greenies are the definition of useful idiots.

      1. I remember when they Canadian tar sands were really getting going people were saying shit like “it’s game over for the climate if this happens”. My immediate reaction was “well, then it’s game over for the climate”.

        1. They really lack any real understanding of how global commodities work, don’t they? I remember talking about that with somebody in one of my business classes who couldn’t seem to grasp that that oil was getting pumped out of the ground whether we built the pipeline or not. He genuinely believed if the pipeline didn’t get approved that the oil would stay in the ground forever.

          1. In the 90’s it was all about the forests. Pointing out that as the supply of wood declined the resulting price increases create disincentives to logging or drive folks to innovate, conserve, or invent new technologies was met with a blank stare of disbelief.

            1. It ended up with one of the most heavily forested countries in the world (the US) having to IMPORT wood because we couldn’t cut down our own trees.

          2. Yeah, the pipeline thing was especially silly. I had to point out to people that if they couldn’t build a pipeline through the mostly flat planes of central North America, they were going to build one to some beautiful spot on the Pacific coast and put it on tankers.

            1. I live on the flat plains of central North America.

              1. Yes, I guess that is the word I wanted.

                I actually originally typed “plains”, but then I thought “planes” seemed better because they are flat.

    2. I am sure their measures to effect climate change will be just as effective as their measures to lessen gun violence.

    3. The other huge question is what fraction of “consumption” goes to reducing CO2 emissions per se rather than maintaining and improving standard of living of human beings.

      I am sure the IPCC’s economic prognostication is based on the standard definition of GDP, Y=C+I+G. But if C/n includes a large fraction of spending solely for the purpose of diminishing CO2 emissions, actual standard of living could diminish while Y/n increased (n=population). Neither the typical soccer mom nor the typical Asian peasant would say her standard of living improved if she had to pay $300/month, or $30, in higher fuel and electricity cost for the same fuel and electricity. Sure, the GDP deflator should factor out the higher cost, but you can bet that it will be offset with a hedonic adjustment, just like the bureaucrats already apply hedonic adjustment to the other cost increases due to regulatory requirments. (E.g., reformulated fuels, air bags, ethanol requirements, etc.)

  10. This is not the first time this point has been made at Reason, and it’s a point that I rely on when arguing about GW. That is, IF you believe in GW, and IF you believe that it’s caused by man, then we’re still better off dealing with it than trying to prevent it.

    And, it has just occurred to me that I can use a trope of the opposition in my argument as well! That is, their argument for decreasing green house gases is sometimes, “isn’t it better to do something now, even if not needed, rather than wait until we KNOW it’s a catastrophe?” The answer is, “No. Because if we deal with GW later, it’s cheaper, and if GW doesn’t occur, then look at all costs avoided!”

    1. It’s the point I make every-time. I always start from the premise that they are right because otherwise the argument is over because science. It’s easier to start from it is happening and how all these things you want to do hurt poor people the most.

      1. Not I, my friend. I will not cede that it’s happening. Libertarian’s argument is outstanding, however I will always preface it with:

        IF it’s actually happening. (as Libertarian does)

        I won’t succom to their psudoscience.

        1. Dilemmas are a very useful form of argument. You don’t have to believe or concede anything to assume something for the sake of argument.

        2. I’m just saying these people are a religous cult. Saying it’s not happening is like telling a member of isis that Allah and Mohammed don’t exist, it automatically renders everything you say after that moot. We will get further if start discussing libertarian/free market solutions to a nonexistent problem than if we insult their religion.

          1. these people are a religious cult

            Oldie but goodie.

            1. socialism, totalitarianism, communism, fascism, environmentalism…

              1. antidisestablishmentarianism?

      2. and how all these things you want to do hurt poor people the most.

        Good luck with that. You may as well try to convince the average person that raising the minimum wage hurts poor people the most.

        1. It’s not actually that difficult if you can raise a point they never thought of. At least you get them thinking outside the proverbial box.

          1. Listen, people who buy into these progressive tropes are IDIOTS. MOST points are points they never thought of, because their decision making process is completely devoid of thinking.

            If logical, thoughtful, rational arguments won hearts and minds, everyone would already be libertarian.

            1. If logical, thoughtful, rational arguments won hearts and minds, everyone would already be libertarian.

              I’d like to believe that too. But libertarianism, like any political philosophy, rests on some unproven assumptions. None of us is as rational as we like to believe.

            2. “Idiot” is actually an archaic term that describes people of exceptionally low intelligence.

              In fact, many progressives are reasonably intelligent. Some are highly intelligent, but they’re usually the ones who are cashing in on the scam.

              It would much more accurate to say that people who buy into these progressive tropes suffer from a PROFOUND MENTAL DISORDER.

              1. I used to feel as progressives do. It’s easy. You just react. You don’t respond, as in thinking. You react. Then you reverse engineer logic to justify your emotional reaction.

                I had to train myself to recognize the difference between an emotional response, and a thoughtful reaction.

                I no longer feel as they do. I think.

                They’re not stupid. They don’t have a mental disorder. They’re not idiots.

                They’re emotional. They let their emotions override their mind.

                Reacting is natural. It’s what animals do. And we are animals. Animals with a mind.

                Unfortunately, many human animals never graduate to human beings.

                1. *emotional reaction, and a thoughtful response*

    2. And it is a huge assumption that doing something now will even make any difference to the future climate.

      Even if the industrialized 1st world can cut out fossil fuels, the developing world is still going to use all they can get their hands on. Either that or go back to cutting down all of the forests for fuel and subsistence agriculture.

    3. we’re still better off dealing with it than trying to prevent it

      Maybe humans are, but what about the rest of life on Earth? They can’t adapt as quickly or resourcefully.

      1. That may be true, but I am quite convinced that efforts to prevent it are certain to fail, so adapting is still a much better use of resources.

    4. The climate scientologists have a canned response to your argument: TIPPING POINT.

      Central to the CAGW theory is that CO2 levels will cause temperature to rise, and this will cause increases in atmospheric water vapor from higher temperatures and increases in CH4 from the outgassing and decay of organic matter in melting permafrost. Both water vapor and CH4 are greenhouse gases. Once this gets started it cannot be stopped even if AGW emissions are cut to zero.

  11. OT: CNN op-ed crams every gun derp slogan together

    Featuring hits like:

    -no one needs an assault weapon
    -there has never been an individual right to own weapons
    -gun ownership is racist
    -the Constitution was written by slave owners
    -2nd amendment only gives the right to be in the National Guard

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/…..?hpt=hp_t3

    1. No I will not click.

      1. I clicked it, just to see who the sage author was.

        This clown:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Parini

    2. I was just thinking about how our society has come full circle, from fighting for liberty to begging for tyranny.

      1. Eh, it was a lot worse during the New Deal, I think.

        1. It would be interesting to go back in time and compare. Has the demand for liberty steadily declined or is it on some sort of sinusoidal curve? I think even if it’s on a curve the overall trend is down over time.

          1. I think of it as a pendulum.

            1. Reversion to the mean.

          2. Impose the opposite of CAGW: a sinusoid superimposed over a background declining function.

        2. The ‘greatest generation’ can go fuck themselves.

    3. He also links to the thoroughly-debunked Everytown “74 mass shootings” bullshit from 3 months ago.

    4. His line of argument is bizarre. He says that the amendment only protects militias. Then goes on to describe how the militias were just there to enforce slavery. And of course, he ignores how gun control laws were used after slavery ended to keep former slaves in a low status not too different from slavery.

      I also found his characterization of school shootings as “commonplace”. Even assuming that the 74 shootings number is not bullshit, that makes them about as commonplace as fatal lightning strikes or being eaten by a wild animal.

      1. he ignores how gun control laws were used created after slavery ended to for the stated purpose of keeping former slaves in a low status not too different from slavery.

        Gun control is the last vestige of Jim Crow. No wonder the Dems (who passed so many Jim Crow laws, let’s not forget) are fighting so hard for gun control.

        1. “Control” is the operative term.

  12. The economic figures are more hubris-tic, specious, and naive than the Carbontology doom-numbers.

    1. Which leads me to wonder why an outfit that bills itself as “Reason” bothers with burping out this stuff.

  13. This shouldn’t even be news. This has been the conclusion for years of Bjorn Lomberg and other economics who’ve investigated the costs vs. benefits of the climate alarmists’ prescriptions.

    1. Perhaps CA should build some more reservoirs?

      1. Or people should move out of the desert.

        1. +1 Sam Kinison

          1. +! “Pretty sure the cameraman could have given Haji a sandwich… NOT UNTIL WE GET THE PIC! NOT UNTIL WE GET THE PIC!”

        2. No, if they leave that hellhole, they are going to end up in my backyard voting for Obama for a 3rd term.

        3. Isn’t drought stricken desert great conditions for the development of desalination plants?

          Not just politically and economically…but physically?

      2. Or maybe they should knock this shit off.

        California’s Man-Made Drought
        The green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers.

        California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley?farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America’s premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations.

        The state’s water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a “biological opinion” imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched.

        1. This shit has been going on for five years, BTW.

    2. Wait…the West is having a drought?!?!

      That has never happened before ever!!!

      http://extras.mnginteractive.c…..90_500.jpg

    3. Or maybe crony capitalists could not get sweetheart deals on the little water there is.

    4. Demand has exceeded 7Q10 supply.

  14. How can anyone (who has a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics) still take the IPCC seriously? They are the spearhead of the “new and improved” GW theory which states that we have not observed drastic temperature increases because the heat produced by GW has somehow, and in defiance of all well-established laws of thermodynamics, decided to hide from us on the bottom of the ocean (where it is also proclaimed to be undetectable, which is also bs).

    Of course, thermal energy is not conscious, so it cannot choose to be a sneaky bastard and hide on the bottom of the ocean. Yet this is exactly what the IPCC and AGW bozos are trying to push on us, thus revealing themselves to be not scientists, but political hacks desperate to protect their transparently rationalistic theory from the onslaught of objective reality.

    Their philosophy is also designed to do the same thing.

    1. “Where is the warming” is an “Earth is the center of the universe around which everything revolves – so why do planets move backwards sometimes?” type theological question to them. They cannot disprove or reject the article of faith that there is heat accumulating.

    2. Which law of thermodynamics makes the deep ocean warming obviously false?

      1. I’m not saying it is true, BTW. But the suggested mechanisms that I have read about seem plausible. I don’t think they have nearly enough evidence to come to any firm conclusions, though.

      2. Outside of fancy names, there’s the fact that water reaches maximum density at 4 degrees Celsius, so warmer water floats atop colder water, which would force the heat to the surface – or raise the whole ocean temperature – both of which would be measureable.

        1. Right, but the deep oceans don’t have to become warmer than the water above them to hold more heat, just warmer than they are to start with. The high pressure deep in the ocean also changes the way water density changes with temperature.

          The North Atlantic currents already move lots of water from near the surface to deeper down and it doesn’t take much of a temperature change in the ocean to sink a whole lot of heat.

      3. Which law of thermodynamics makes the deep ocean warming obviously false?

        The one that says you actually have to heat the atmosphere and the surface first before it can settle deep into the ocean.

        1. There hasn’t bee significant warming recently, but I think that there is good evidence for warming from the 60s to the 90s. How much humans have contributed to that is debatable, but broad temperature changes do happen, whatever the cause, and they are going to do something in the oceans.

          Again, I am not arguing for the contention that the reason we aren’t in catastrophe now is that all the heat is in the ocean. Just that it probably is something that can and does happen.

          1. Just that it probably is something that can and does happen.

            That is not what the study about deep ocean heating is claiming.

            It claims the Oceans surfaces and atmosphere have not heated because all the heat went into the deep oceans.

            Heated the deep oceans without actually heating the atmosphere and sea surface first. Literally transdimentional teleporting heat.

            In the 60s and 90s I am sure the deep oceans did heat up and if we had measuring stations back then we would have seen it moving from the air and sea surface down into the deep oceans.

          2. Re: Zeb,

            There hasn’t bee significant warming recently, but I think that there is good evidence for warming from the 60s to the 90s.

            No, there isn’t.

            Also, the fact that during the 70s climate scientists were worrying about a cooling trend belies your claim.

      4. What is the observed and measured physical mechanism whereby large quantities of warm sea water overcome the opposing temperature/density gradients and send warm water into the cold deep ocean?

        What set it in motion or accelerated it 18 or so years ago?

        And why wasn’t this phenomenon included in the previous peer reviewed all knowing settled-science climate models?

        1. Well, there is some evidence that it is a natural cycle that has always happened. And the mechanism is ocean currents.

          I agree that the climate science people are pulling it out of their asses to try to explain the lack of surface warming. But the phenomenon is not as absurd as a few people here make it out to be.

          1. But the phenomenon is not as absurd as a few people here make it out to be.

            You are moving goal posts.

            The current data show it is not happening.

            In some hypothetical world where the atmosphere was warmer and the sea surface was warmer yes the deep ocean would probably get warmer and we would see it actually move deeper with measuring posts we have all over the world oceans.

            That is not the claims being made with the study…they are saying it is happening even though it is absurdly impossible and entirely unmeasured.

            1. I’m not moving anything. The only thing I am arguing is that it is not obviously absurd based on the laws of thermodynamics.

              The current data show it is not happening.

              No, the current data don’t show that it is happening.

          2. Zeb is correct: it is not completely absurd that the additional heat that is trapped by adding one molecule of GHG to 10000 air molecules could be transferred to the surface of oceans and that heat could then be transferred by ocean currents to lower levels of the oceans.

            It’s not completely absurd, but it would only pass the laugh test if one has the true faith of climate scientology.

            Climate infidels would just cite a heretic named Occam, and say that the recent leveling of temperatures is just normal variability in an awesomely complex and chaotic system.

        2. BTW: “peer-reviewed” has nothing to do with science and everything to do with publishing.
          But, you can instantly identify a “human animal” by their using that term to prove AGW is real and we’re all stoopid.
          And, if all their “peers” are also AGW acolytes, how does it have any value?

          A little off topic ;(

    3. They are the spearhead of the “new and improved” GW theory which states that we have not observed drastic temperature increases because the heat produced by GW has somehow, and in defiance of all well-established laws of thermodynamics, decided to hide from us on the bottom of the ocean

      Actually that is not in the most recent IPCC report…it is a good candidate for the next report though. But will probably be disproved before the next report is released but after the cut off for new studies to be considered.

      1. What part of “thermodynamics” says that heat will not flow from a relatively hot atmosphere to a relatively cool ocean?

        Before you answer, I’ll have to inform you that I TAUGHT thermo in grad school. Good luck coming up with a coherent response.

        1. Nice non-sequitur. How do you explain the fact that nearly all of the climate models have failed to account for the “hiatus decade”. I think the argument has nothing to do with heat flow, but where is the supposed heat that’s non-atmospheric being stored and where is the evidence? Enlighten me grad school thermo master without pointing to some junk science, obviously biased, political action website, if you can.

  15. Shouldn’t Tony be here? After all, Ron rang the asshole bell.

    1. Francisco d’Anconia|8.29.14 @ 2:30PM|#
      “Shouldn’t Tony be here? After all, Ron rang the asshole bell.”

      See below. We got asshole and commie-kid.

  16. Climate change is the apocalypse they prophesy in Atheist church.

    1. Their bible are the books of federal codes and statutory laws

      1. Save us, Obama. You’re our only hope.

        1. Hey now, he only claimed that His ascension was the point at which the tide would begin to recede, not that it would fully recede during his time in office.

        2. Thus proclaimeth the Anointed One, and did He prophesy to the people:

          This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

          And thus explaineth the Anointed One to his disciples his Gospel:

          Hope and Change.

          And his disciples believeth, and in one voice saith, repeating the Holy Words of the Anointed One:

          Yes We Can!

    2. Climate change is the apocalypse they prophesy in Atheist Gaiaist church.

      FIFY.

  17. How much did it cost to adapt to the last 17 years of no climate change?

    1. My sanity

    2. A lot, becuase they keep throwing these climate initiatives at us.

    3. It’s 100% free to go to Google and disabuse yourself of this myth. But you’re not gonna do that are you?

      1. I forgot Tony has a magical wand where he can measure heat being teleported from cold air through cold ocean surfaces down to the cold deep and then hiding there avoiding all the measuring station scattered over the world’s oceans.

        1. So your alternative claim would be that the greenhouse effect is a hoax?

          1. Tony|8.29.14 @ 4:32PM|#
            “So your alternative claim would be that the greenhouse effect is a hoax?”

            Actually, no.
            The alternatives are:
            1) You are so fucking ignorant, you simply cannot understand what it written.
            or
            2) You are incapable of posting without including at least one and usually several lies.

          2. I don’t need an alternative claim.

            Measurements show the climate is not changing.

            That is what is happening. What the AGW alarmists claimed would happen has not happened, therefore their claims have been falsified.

            1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about to an unfathomable degree.

              1. I know you are a TEAM BLUE hack who changes his opinion about US military intervention in the middle east depending on which party a warmonger happens to be in then lie to yourself and everyone else about it.

                Why would I trust what you have to say about climate change (An issue mired in TEAM BLUE partisanship) rather then my own investigation into the subject?

                1. What is my opinion on military intervention in the Middle East?

                  1. You supported giving aid to Syrian rebels (who turned out to be ISIS) and bombing Libya.

                    For now on we can just call it the Hilary doctrine.

                    1. I did? When?

                    2. The moment a democrat did it.

  18. Shorter Ron Bailey:

    The IPCC has been wrong about climate for longer then Hit and Run has existed but I still think they are right about climate so I will use their bullshit numbers to compare to their other bullshit numbers.

  19. If we take the rosiest scenarios for the cost of doing noting about climate change, pair them with the most pessimistic models for what it would cost to clean up the mess that has been produced almost exclusively by the first world, halt any analysis of what our grandchildren will have to put up with due to our inaction, and promote energy guzzling policies that will exacerbate the suffering of poor people that largely have not contributed to this calamity then , yes, doing nothing may be, more-or-less a wash. This is the finest argument that can be put forward by the leading magazine of libertarianism? Help, mr. Koch, we need better arguments for miniarchism.

    I see, ron, that simply acknowledging the existence of global warming puts you to the left of the commentariat, who think AGW is a commie plot put forward by Neil degrasse Tyson and other evil climate change scientists. Those people are just trying to pad their resume with grants from the evil NSF so fuck them.

    1. american socialist|8.29.14 @ 3:41PM|#
      “If we take the rosiest scenarios for the cost of doing noting about climate change, pair them with the most pessimistic models for what it would cost to clean up the mess that has been produced almost exclusively by the first world, halt any analysis of what our grandchildren will have to put up with due to our inaction, and promote energy guzzling policies that will exacerbate the suffering of poor people that largely have not contributed to this calamity then , yes, doing nothing may be, more-or-less a wash. This is the finest argument that can be put forward by the leading magazine of libertarianism? Help, mr. Koch, we need better arguments for miniarchism.”

      If commie-kid didn’t make up all the lies, why he wouldn’t be able to come to those wrong conclusions!

    2. the most pessimistic models for what it would cost to clean up the mess that has been produced almost exclusively by the first world,

      As always, here we go with assuming the conclusion that catastrophic AGW is gonna happen, any day now, dammit! Data and science be damned! CONSENSUS!!eleventy

    3. If we take the rosiest scenarios for the cost of doing noting about climate change, pair them with the most pessimistic models

      The earth today is colder then the rosiest scenarios ever predicted by the IPCC.

      Why the fuck would anyone even waste their time to even look at the most pessimistic models?

      1. “The earth today is colder then the rosiest scenarios ever predicted by the IPCC.”

        You lie.

        http://www.skepticalscience.co…..right.html

        Sorry, but more than half of the atmospheric warming predicted by the models actually happened, and the part that didn’t has natural causes that have been confirmed (low solar output, ocean current shifts, and volcanoes have all been cooling the earth the last fifteen years).

        Now that I have corrected your mis-information, repeat after me: “I was wrong, and I apologize for having wasted your time”.

        Come on, you can do it. Type it. With your own fingers.

        1. Why don’t you try finding a link to anything other than an obviously biased junk science site. You claim to be a scientist and then reference garbage like this. I love the “unpaused” qualifier in the title. Typical explanations of a hiatus decade are something any scientist with half a brain should recognize as fudging…or invalidation of a model. If the ocean is storing the heat, please point to a pier reviewed analysis of the data. I want to believe. Really

          1. Holy cow, did you lose this argument. Badly. You clearly have no counter-argument to my link at all. Not even a whit of one.

            Go home, dude. You are over your head.

            1. So…..if my clearly inferior mind understands your argument, you are saying that the climate models fail to take into account solar output and volcanic activity? I have a hard time believing that….of course I don’t know how the models are generated and what input they take. I’m guessing you don’t either. I’m just not stupid enough to think I do.

    4. If we take the rosiest scenarios for … then , yes, doing nothing may be, more-or-less a wash

      I’m sorry, but you misunderstood the article. Perhaps it is not surprising that someone who still believes in thoroughly debunked economic nonsense like socialism would have trouble with a basic economic argument, but, geez, keep your ignorance to yourself.

      promote energy guzzling policies that will exacerbate the suffering of poor people

      Actually, “poor people” are massive users of cheap fossil fuels. Mitigating climate change would primarily hurt those societies and condemn them to continued poverty.

      Technically, developed societies can drastically reduce carbon emissions without a reduction in living standards; all we would have to sacrifice is economic growth. Of course, any politician in a democratic society actually going down that path would be lynched by voters, which is why politicians generally just pay lip service to AGW without doing anything substantive about it.

      who think AGW is a commie plot

      AGW isn’t a “commie plot”; it’s just a fact. The “commie plot” is attempts to use AGW to push anti-free market economic policies, policies that left wing morons like you still believe in in the same way that right wing morons believe in creationism.

  20. I assume that the ‘something’ that would be done will be optimal and exactly what is necessary and that reality will politely conform to projections.

    If the cost of doing something is about the same as doing nothing, then obviously we must do something. This is because doing something is always better than doing nothing, especially when history supports the certainty we’ll have that anything we actually do will always have the effect we expect.

  21. Bjorn Lomberg and his Copenhagen Consensus have made similar arguments. It seems very clear that even if we assume all the projections of the IPCC are true adaptation is much smarter than draconian carbon cutting. The third world especially needs access to cheap energy that fossil fuels still provide. It is arrogant to assume that man can do much to alter the climate and even more arrogant to assume government regulations will stop global warming. Hard core environmentalists do not care about economic growth and prosperity to begin with. They will continue to call for cap and trade and other ideas that will hurt mankind especially the most vulnerable.

    1. Oh, man can do plenty to alter the climate, and man probably has done so for thousands of years.

      What man hasn’t been able to do is to alter the climate deliberately; that would take concerted action on a global scale, and setting up any sort of governmental structure capable of doing that would basically mean the end of civilization.

  22. 44 of the last 45 days Dulles Airport has had a below average daily high temp.

    Question #1: Is there actually global warming?

    Question #2: Is there anything we can do to mitigate it?

    Question #3: Will it actually be harmful?

  23. “Adapting to climate change would cost roughly the same as trying to slow it.”

    Kinda like man made global warming is indistinguishable from natural, normal climate variation?

  24. The theory of Man caused global warming got started back in the 18th century when some dude theorized that the burning of coal for steam engines would create a greenhouse effect. He theorized this despite being ignorant of these facts

    Humans are not the primary source of Carbon in the Atmosphere (forest fires, volcanoes, and every other creature that respirates O2 is)

    Carbon is not even the most potent greenhouse gas (methane is about 20 times more potent)

    Humans are not the primary source of methane either (decaying organic matter is, and there is nothing we can do about it)

    The Earth has been in a warming trend since the last Ice age ended some thousands of years ago (there was a slight cooling during the medieval ages however the warming trend resumed before the industrial age began)

    The climate is changing regardless of human activity, spending vast quantities of resources on trying to stop it is like buying snake oil for baldness.

    1. Whether nature causes catastrophic global climate change or humans do, the moral argument for acting to prevent the harm is completely the same. We respond to natural disasters. That’s what civilized people do.

      Except you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about despite the existence of painstakingly easy information one Google search away.

      1. Tony|8.29.14 @ 11:58PM|#
        “Whether nature causes catastrophic global climate change or humans do, the moral argument for acting to prevent the harm is completely the same. We respond to natural disasters. That’s what civilized people do.”

        Except you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, asshole.
        The answer isn’t even a google away, even for fucking moral cripples like you.

      2. WTF–so the government should make laws against natural processes?

        Should they launch a drug war against the most abundant element in the universe?

        You lefty climate freaks are going to be a laughingstock of history lol

        1. Should they launch a drug war against the most abundant element in the universe?

          As though carbon weren’t enough, the antis are going after hydrogen too? And we already know how they feel about Au and Ag. At this rate, they will hate every known element by 2200.

          Like Punxsutawney Phil, these people have to be stopped.

      3. maybe thats your problem Tony, googling the sierra club is not likely to get you the correct answer. Knowing a smidge of chemistry, biology, or even history might. For instance

        Chemistry tells us that methane is more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon

        Biology tells us that Humans are not the primary source of Methane, bacteria is (specifically the bacteria that consumes decaying organic matter)

        History tells us that the globe was much colder long before us, it was also much hotter at times too. It also tells us that the composition of gas in the atmosphere was different at times as well (the enormous size of creatures during the time of the dinosaurs could only have been possible with a much greater O2 concentration). So history tells us that the enviroment can change drastically without Humans to blame.

        The original article posed a question do we A) attempt to prevent climate change or B) attempt to resolve the problems caused by climate change. I am merely attempting to point out that A is futile because it is occuring without regard to humanity. Think of it in terms of preparing for a natural disaster such as a flood do you A) buy a range rover to help you escape the flood better? or B) buy a Prius and hope that it somehow prevents the flood altogether?

      4. Whether nature causes catastrophic global climate change or humans do, the moral argument for acting to prevent the harm is completely the same.

        Climate change mitigation isn’t “preventing harm”, it is replacing one kind of potential harm with another kind of certain harm.

        We respond to natural disasters.

        If you mean things like FEMA, it is highly questionable whether that’s a good thing.

        That’s what civilized people do.

        Yes, but it is not what free people do. People emigrated to the US in order to escape the mass murdering civilized people of Europe and live in a free society. So you can take your civilization and shove it.

    2. The question of who is causing climate change is moot because, no matter what the cause, there is no realistic way we can prevent it and because it’s not even clear that we should prevent it.

      1. “… there is no realistic way we can prevent it….”

        That is correct: we cannot prevent what is already happening. But we can, and should, prevent human-caused climate change from getting worse. That involves removing human-released CO2 from the atmosphere and not putting any more into the atmosphere. I thought that was swatting obvious.

        1. That involves removing human-released CO2 from the atmosphere and not putting any more into the atmosphere. I thought that was swatting obvious.

          There is no practical way that we can “remove human-released CO2 from the atmosphere”; the only way it goes away is through natural processes. And there is no way that we can stop “putting any more into the atmosphere”; we can’t even achieve meaningful reductions in annual emissions without serious harm to the world economy.

          Your statement are representative of the kind of scientific illiteracy that fuels climate change activism. Climate change is happening no matter what we do; deal with it and stop making a fool of yourself.

  25. my classmate’s sister-in-law makes $72 an hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for seven months but last month her pay check was $13676 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read this article…….
    ============== http://www.netjob70.com

  26. Stop the EPA, BLM, USFS and the Endangered species act. Return all these needs to the individual States to end the one size fits all rules from the too big to govern government.

    http://articlevprojecttorestor…..dment.html

  27. Actually, it’s much worse. The economic losses from mitigation occur now and are certain, while its benefits are uncertain (i.e., most likely, mitigation would fail anyway). The economic losses from adaptation to climate change are speculative and occur many decades from now, but if they are incurred, they will yield an immediate return on investment. Basic economics tells you that that means that the cost of action on climate change now are staggeringly higher than the cost of doing nothing. That’s assuming that the IPCC report actually correctly accounts for costs and benefits.

    But the IPCC’s numbers are even skewed in the direction advocating mitigation. Its estimates of current costs of mitigation neglect regulatory capture, opportunity costs, rent seeking, and plain corruption. And its estimates of future costs of adaptation neglect technological progress and economic development.

    The IPCC report itself provides an absolutely unshakable argument that governments should do nothing to attempt mitigate climate change.

  28. “In the IPCC’s mitigation report, the optimal scenario for keeping greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million would cut future incomes by between 3 and 11 percent by 2100.”

    Prove it. I dare you. Under what absurd assumptions did you come up with that figure? What are the mechanisms by which we would be poorer? Frankly, any speculation as to what the economy of the year 2100 will look like is bunk. So is the idea that, outside of a few large-scale infrastructure projects, much of anything we do today will have a direct impact then. My guess is this figure is nothing but a combination of (bad) assumptions plus extrapolation into absurdity.

    More broadly, if you can prove that any conservative policy (defined herein as something mainstream Democrats object to) causes long-term, sustainable growth, generalizable economic growth, I’ll bow before you. Good luck. No conservative has ever met this challenge, and I’ve asked a ton of them.

    Hint: If your plan involves deficit spending, accelerating the use of natural resources, or poaching jobs from across some line on the map, it fails to meet my criteria.

    1. “‘…would cut future incomes by between 3 and 11 percent by 2100.’

      “Prove it. I dare you. Under what absurd assumptions did you come up with that figure? What are the mechanisms by which we would be poorer? ”

      He pulled the falsehood out of his ass. Human-caused climate change has already made the world poorer, and it is getting much worse. In many places of the world, people’s incomes have already been cut that much by human-caused climate change—- mostly due to loss of food they produce.

    2. Frankly, any speculation as to what the economy of the year 2100 will look like is bunk.

      Precisely, which is why climate change models are worthless: they all are primarily based on assumptions about the long term development of the economy.

      More broadly, if you can prove that any conservative policy (defined herein as something mainstream Democrats object to) causes long-term, sustainable growth, generalizable economic growth, I’ll bow before you.

      We don’t know how to produce a desired level of economic growth, but we certainly know how we can harm economic growth, and climate change mitigation policies certainly meet the criteria of causing economic harm. Basic textbook economics; the same that goes into climate models.

      1. I am very familiar with “basic textbook economics”. Can you refer me to which book and chapter backs your claim?

        You do realize that any basic economic textbook outlines the reasons that the costs of pollution need to be internalized for markets to function properly, right? Econ 101 argues FOR doing something, not against it.

  29. “Doing Nothing Has the Same Price Tag as Doing Something…”

    … Plus A Great Deal More. Note that human-caused climate change is already costing the world almost 1.6% of its gross production (goods and services), mostly in loss to coastal infrastructure and loss of agriculture. Mitigation and adaptation efforts will cost more the longer we delay, and the cost of not making those efforts has already been greater than the damage done to the world’s economies. Every country paying a tiny fraction of their GDP now (about 1%: the same as what is currently being lost due to human-caused climate change) will save a massively larger fraction of their GDP later (from 5% to 20% depending on the country and its coastal infrastructures and its agriculture metrics).

    At the moment about 1.2 trillion USA dollars (1.6%) are lost globally due to human-caused climate change. By year 2030 the number is likely to be a 3.2% loss globally, with some countries losing about 11% GDP. Human-caused climate change has already caused some countries to lose roughly 10% of their agriculture production.

    All of this currently wasted wealth, represented by lost goods and services, could have gone into mitigation and adaptation efforts— way back when scientists were first warning governments of the crisis in the 1920s. But it’s better late than never: the time to meet the crisis is now.

    1. Plus A Great Deal More.

      So you’re saying that the IPCC panel, the selected world experts on climate change, the people who actually advocate action on climate change are wrong? Why should we believe your handwaving over what the experts actually say?

      All of this currently wasted wealth, represented by lost goods and services, could have gone into mitigation and adaptation efforts

      Yes, of course! The USSR and Germany demonstrated how well that kind of economic planning works out for everybody!

      At the moment about 1.2 trillion USA dollars (1.6%) are lost globally due to human-caused climate change.

      “Lost” relative to an “all things being equal, except no climate change” world or what? All things wouldn’t be equal if we had started mitigation, and the opportunity costs alone would have been far, far higher. So, even if your ludicrous figures were right, we’d still be better off the way we are.

  30. Olivia . you think Elaine `s st0rry is inconceivable, last week I bought a top of the range Ariel Atom since I been earnin $9671 thiss month and-over, ten-k this past-munth . it’s by-far the most comfortable work Ive had . I began this six months/ago and immediately began to bring in more than $71, per hour .
    Get More Info——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  31. I have no idea where authors here get their facts. The obvious error in their assumptions is that the best model will occur, indicating a maximum atmospheric CO2 content of 450 ppm. The mitigation strategies are dependent on halting CO2 increases in the atmosphere by 2040. That is the two degree centigrade model. And a 3.8 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature is actually a big deal.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publication…..ns-of.html

    The 3.8 degree Centigrade model describing keeping our current fossil fuel infrastructure policies is a different beast. 6.84 degrees Fahrenheit is a monster of a climate shift.

    The key to all of this is water availability. Would the South West even have enough water to maintain the current population with the increased evaporation? Rainfall pattern shift might turn major parts of this planet into deserts. Hotter air holds more moisture than cooler air. Will surface evaporation increase to make up the difference.

    And then there is sea level rise. At a reasonably conservative estimate of five feet large portions of Miami are likely to become uninhabitable. No coastal barrier island will exist on the East coast. If NYC cannot be protected that is a trillion dollars in damage. Much of Bangladesh will be underwater.

  32. Ron, do you realize how much pollution and fossil fuel exploitation occurs thanks to governments, the vast sweep of lands/mineral rights they claim to own, the corporations they make, and the pollution licenses they grant, rather than allowing people to either protect their own private property and bodies, or common resources that they depend on and value, from pollution or destructive exploitation?

    With no corporation status, no government-given licenses to pollute, and simple enforcement of common-law rights to enjoin trespass and nuisance, there would be very little coal burning. And the lack of private or collective owners for mineral resources mean that government bureaucrats make decisions, rather than a catallactic process reflecting the views/values/priorities of others who use surface resources.

    I find it galling when so-called “libertarians” like Ron Bailey trot out utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses like these that ignore basic human rights/Austrian principles regarding exchange/libertarian ideals.

  33. Ron, do you realize how much pollution and fossil fuel exploitation occurs thanks to governments, the vast sweep of lands/mineral rights they claim to own, the corporations they make, and the pollution licenses they grant, rather than allowing people to either protect their own private property and bodies, or common resources that they depend on and value, from pollution or destructive exploitation?

    With no corporation status, no government-given licenses to pollute, and simple enforcement of common-law rights to enjoin trespass and nuisance, there would be very little coal burning. And the lack of private or collective owners for mineral resources mean that government bureaucrats make decisions, rather than a catallactic process reflecting the views/values/priorities of others who use surface resources.

    I find it galling when so-called “libertarians” like Ron Bailey trot out utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses like these that ignore basic human rights/Austrian principles regarding exchange/libertarian ideals.

  34. “All of these figures must be taken a vat of salt, since they are projections for economic, demographic, and biophysical events nearly a century from now.”

    From a group whose predictions were completely wrong for the last decade in their supposed field of scientific expertise, and are now expanding their predictions into economics on a 100 year time scale.

    Their prediction: The Soviets bury us with their scientifically planned economy.

  35. Many years ago, I saw a graph of global temperatures over the past 2,000 years (from tree rings) in the Economist. It showed that temperatures naturally moved up and down and currently the world is a couple of degrees below the average and is moving up back to the average. So climate change is normal.

    But does this mean that anthropogenic global warming is the same thing as scientifically disputed anthropogenic climate change. And what do we call non-anthropogenic climate change now that the alarmists have elided the two terms.

    Why is the Dogger Bank in the North Sea now under water when it wasn’t a few thousand years ago? Climate change – non-anthropogenic climate change – is indeed normal.

    Why have ice ages occurred and vanished? Yet more climate change – non-anthropogenic climate change. Climate change is indeed normal…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.