See
You Ought to Have a Look: Climate Fretting and Why It’s Unjustified by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger of Cato. Excerpt:
"While “climate fretting” has become a pastime for some—even more so
now with President-elect Trump’s plans to disassemble much of President
Obama’s “I’ve Got a Pen and I’ve Got a Phone”-based Climate Action
Plan—climate reality tells a much different story.
For example, a new analysis by Manhattan Institute’s (and YOTHAL
favorite) Oren Cass looks into the comparative costs of climate
change vs. climate action. His report, “Climate Costs in Context”
is concise and to-the-point, and finds that while climate change will
impart an economic cost, it is manageable and small in comparison to the
price of actively trying to mitigate it. Here’s Oren’s abstract:
There is a consensus among climate scientists that human activity is contributing to climate change. However, claims
that rising temperatures pose an existential threat to the human race
or modern civilization are not well supported by climate science or
economics; to the contrary, they are every bit as far from the
mainstream as claims that climate change is not occurring or that it
will be beneficial. Analyses consistently show that the costs of climate
change are real but manageable. For instance, the prosperity that the
world might achieve in 2100 without climate change may instead be
delayed until 2102. [emphasis added]
In other words, the economic impacts of climate change aren’t something worth fretting over.
Next up is a contribution
(at Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc.) from Nic Lewis showing more
evidence that the temperature response in most climate models is too
sensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Nic
reviews a new paper that suggests the paltry increase in global average
temperature in recent decades may continue for another decade or more
from forces of natural variability alone, and then adds his own analysis
showing that an alternative view supported by the paper is that the
transitive climate sensitivity (TCS; how much the global average surface
temperature rises at the time of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentration) is rather low. Instead of the climate model
average TCS of around 1.8°C, Nic finds observational support for a TCS
of about 1.35°C. From this information, he concludes:
Based on these estimates, the average TCR [transient
climate response] of [current climate] models likely exceeds that in the
real world by about 30%…the future warming projected by [these] models
is on average 65% or more above that projected by simple but
physically-consistent models with a TCR of ~1.35 K.
Rather than fret about high-end climate change scenarios, folks ought embrace lukewarming as the way of the future."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.