[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Study finds the warmer it gets, the more world economy hurts WASHINGTON (AP) — With each upward degree, global warming will singe the economies of three-quarters of the world's nations and widen the north-south gap between rich and poor countries, according to a new economic and science study. Compared to what it would be without more global warming, the average global income will shrivel 23 percent at the end of the century if heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution continues to grow at its current trajectory, according to a study published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature. Some countries, like Russia, Mongolia and Canada, would see large economic benefits from global warming, the study projects. Most of Europe would do slightly better, the United States and China slightly worse. Essentially all of Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East would be hurt dramatically, the economists found. "What climate change is doing is basically devaluing all the real estate south of the United States and making the whole planet less productive," said study co-author Solomon Hsiang, an economist and public policy professor at the University of California Berkeley. "Climate change is essentially a massive transfer of value from the hot parts of the world to the cooler parts of the world." "This is like taking from the poor and giving to the rich," Hsiang said. Lead author Marshall Burke of Stanford and Hsiang examined 50 years of economic data in 160 countries and even county-by-county data in the United States and found what Burke called "the goldilocks zone in global temperature at which humans are good at producing stuff" — an annual temperature of around 13 degrees Celsius or 55.4 degrees Fahrenheit, give or take a degree. For countries colder than that economic sweet spot, every degree of warming heats up the economy and benefits. For the United States and other countries already at or above that temperature, every degree slows productivity, Burke and Hsiang said. The 20th-century global average annual temperature is 57 degrees, or 13.9 degrees Celsius, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last year — the hottest on record — was 58.24 degrees and this year is almost certain to break that record, according to NOAA. Burke and Hsiang use different population-weighted temperature figures than NOAA calculates. View gallery Graphic shows countries most affected economically … Graphic shows countries most affected economically by climate change; 2c x 4 inches; 96.3 mm x 101 m … But the U.S. economy is humming despite the heat. When asked how that can be so, Burke said there were many factors important for growth beyond just temperature. He said one year's temperature and economic growth in one nation isn't telling. Instead, he and Hsiang looked at more than 6,000 "country-years" to get a bigger picture. Burke compared the effect of global warming on economies to a head wind on a cross-country airplane flight. The effects at any given moment are small and seemingly unnoticeable but they add up and slow you down. While it is fairly obvious that unusual high temperatures hurt agriculture, past studies show hot days even reduce car production at U.S. factories, Burke said. "The U.S. is really close to the global optimum," Burke said, adding that as it warms, the U.S. will fall off that peak. The authors calculate a warmer U.S. in 2100 will have a gross domestic product per person that's 36 percent lower than it would be if warming stopped about now. But because the U.S. is now at that ultimate peak, there's greater uncertainty in the study's calculations than in places like India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Nigeria and Venezuela where it's already hot and there's more certainty about dramatic economic harm, Hsiang said. The authors' main figures are based on the premise that carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise at the current trajectory. But countries across the world are pledging to control if not cut carbon pollution as international leaders prepare for a summit on climate change in Paris later this year. If the current pledges are kept, the warming cost in 2100 will drop from 23 percent to 15 percent, Burke said. Gary Yohe, an environmental economist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, praised the study as significant and thorough, saying Burke and Hsiang "use the most modern socio-economic scenarios." But Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex in England, dismissed the study as unworthy to be published in an economics journal, saying "the hypothesized relationship is without foundation." Other experts found good and bad points, with MIT's John Reilly saying it will spark quite a debate among economists. ___ Poster Comment: Dorthy & Dotto... Articles like this are such a CON GAME. Hold onto your wallets and purses--they re coming for YOUR savings! Warmer? Yeah, sure. The few land-based temperature sensors they use for their fraudulent propaganda are located in HEAT ISLANDS--areas like cities and airports--in the path of jet exhaust--no, that's not a joke--to ARTIFICIALLY RAISE temperature readings so they can come out with BS articles like this one. Data from satellite systems is much more accurate, and instead of less than 500 data points, use 78,000 data points from all over the planet--and show a very different picture--NO WARMING. We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past. Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa--and MANY other earth and climate scientists fully agree with him but don't want to lose their research funding, so they stay quiet. And, 2015 is NO DIFFERENT from the last 19 years--there has been NO WARMING. Do you know what IS new this year?"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” - Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015 That describes a disturbing trend toward dishonesty in ALL science in the quest for the almighty research dollar. "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." - Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Feb 3, 2015She is speaking about DESTROYING CAPITALISM—to be replaced by one-world government (United Nations) with one economy (free trade agreements), currency (special drawing rights from the IMF and World Bank), military (United Nations ‘peacekeepers) and religion (chrislam—research it). United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres also said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Old Communist China, she says, is the best model. You need to be a total moron - or liberal president, or candidate - to still believe in man-made global warming. Real science doesn't need to fake reports in order to get the results that it wants, or call skeptics names, or suppress accurate findings that disagree with touted junk science. Folks, we're being HARMED by all this criminal fraud--and the people responsible should be in PRISON for a significant part of their lives! 21-7 Jim ... The government has failed in The War on Poverty. The government has failed in The War on Drugs. Hell, the government can't even fix potholes. So why do you have blind, religious faith that the government can manage the planetary climate? 45-2 hPaul ... They are winning, politically, in the war on Capitalism. When they finish, no one will have ANY money for them to redistribute ! 11-1 JR Exposing Seth Boringstein and his BIG GREEN MONEY horseschitt: Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records. Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.” Yet, in the 1100s, Greenland cooled dramatically, briefly stabilized, and then dropped even further in the 1200s to the early 1400s. As Dale Mackenzie Brown writes “An ice core drilled from the island's massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century” . Indeed, when I was visiting Iceland at Skaftafell Nat'l Park two years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park - that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today. We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the facts himself. More evidence: There are records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can't grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!), that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “ On the other side of the world, research by Panin and Nefedov in 2010, where they analyzed rivers and lakes in the Upper Volga and Upper Zapadnaya Dvina areas in Russia, also found evidence of a Medieval climatic optimum in that part of the world Even worse for the warmers, recent research has found evidence for the Medieval Climatic Optimum in the central Peruvian Andes – see http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/sep/21sep2011a3.html, southern South America, see http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/dec/14dec2011a4.html, China, see, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/jan/18jan2012a4.html, where the author XJ Zhou notes "temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those in the current warm period over China," and Antarctica, Li, Y., Cole-Dai, J. and Zhou, L. 2009. Glaciochemical evidence in an East Antarctica ice core of a recent (AD 1450-1850) neoglacial episode. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011091 (summarized at http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/sep/20sep2011a5.html). Amazingly, there is even clear evidence of the LIA and MWP in Antarctica- see http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/paper-antarctica-did-experience-both.html#more 14-4 ekofreek ... Greenland is subject to changes in the gulf stream. That doesn't make a case against global warming 3-1 See AGW - Skeptics below (separate article) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||