Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

And to think that many worry about melting glaciers not thinking what it would mean if glaciers were not only not melting but growing.

This recent study (h/t to Jim Simpson) comes from Australia and was published in late 2019. It studies the impacts of global warming on the U.S. economy. What the authors have done is used one the climate models (the FUND model) to look ahead at the impacts warming would have on other economic sectors besides energy. Now that the “worst-case scenario” RCP8.5 model has been put out of favor by a recent paper, the 3.0°C warming scenario they used is more in-line with the RCP6 and RCP 4.5 models that remain. The work replicates and improves upon earlier work done by Dr. Richard Tol in 2009 in The Economic Effects of Climate Change.

What they found is surprising; the overall economic impact of 3.0°C global warming would be beneficial nor just for the United States, but the entire global economy.

They write in the introduction:

There is a scientific hypothesis and political acceptance that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would have a negative impact on global economic growth. This hypothesis is supported by economic models that rely on impact functions and many assumptions. However, the data needed to calibrate the impact functions is sparse, and the uncertainties in the modelling results are large. The negative overall impact projected by at least one of the main models, Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (FUND), is mostly due to one impact sector – energy consumption. However, the projected negative impact seems to be at odds with empirical data. If this paper’s findings from the empirical energy consumption data are correct, and if the impact functions for the non-energy sectors are correct, then the overall economic impact of global warming would be beneficial. If true, the implications for climate policy are substantial.

From the conclusion of the paper:

This study tests the validity of the FUND energy impact functions by comparing the projections against empirical space heating and space cooling energy data and temperature data for the USA. Non-temperature drivers are held constant at their 2010 values for comparison with the empirical data. The impact functions are tested at 0° to 3 °C of global warming from 2000.

The analysis finds that, contrary to the FUND projections, global warming of 3 °C relative to 2000 would reduce US energy expenditure and, therefore, would have a positive impact on US economic growth. FUND projects the economic impact to be −0.80% of GDP, whereas our analysis of the EIA data indicates the impact would be +0.07% of GDP. We infer that the impact of global warming on energy consumption may be positive for the regions that produced 82% of the world’s GDP in 2010 and, by inference, may be positive for the global economy.

...​

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02...may-be-net-beneficial-for-the-global-economy/

 

Tell that to farmers all over the world who are experiencing weather related to global warming that is destroying planted crops and prevent planting new crops due to flooded fields or months of no rain.

 

I'll have to read and review the rest later, but there is a good reason that scientists aren't considering this scenario . . . because it would be daft to think it is true. Glaciers, overall, are melting. They aren't growing. This isn't even really controversial.

 

If the water doesn't create starvation so what?

 

Global warming being detrimental to humanity is a strictly political viewpoint. It really has nothing to do with environmentalism, it has to do with trying to undermine oil production. The API (American petroleum institute) is an organization that operates independent of the government. Meaning they are industry people that made their own regulations.

We started right after world War II. And the reason why all this is important is because Democrats want this under Federal control. So they did nothing to help form the API. So the API which oversees an industry that amounts to 8% of our economy, donates money to Republicans.

That's why people are championing electric cars even though they're worse for the environment terribly less efficient, and disposable.

It has nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with petroleum.

 

Alaska's once solid as a rock permafrost is now becoming melted mush which is now developing gigantic sink holes.

 

Not what I said. Try reading what I said again.

 

Record harvests.

Ukraine for one setting another record: https://www.intellinews.com/ukraine...remain-world-s-biggest-grain-exporter-171524/

This too, from Brazil: https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov....in-harvest-for-2020-240-9-million-metric-tons

 

"And to think that many worry about melting glaciers not thinking what it would mean if glaciers were not only not melting but growing." People aren't thinking about that because it isn't happening.

 

You still lack reading comprehension, particularly in context of the article in the OP. Have a nice day.

 

I’m a farmer and I’m downright giddy over the opportunities afforded by global warming.

 

Fake news.

Flooding has been going on for billions of years.

 

Seems to me it'll be easier to adapt to climate change than it will be to try and stop it.

 

Yea tell it to the farmers...

 

Glaciers have been melting for 25,000 years. Why would they magically stop now?

 

And other farmers prosper. This kind of shift is normal for earth as climate changes. Some people do better others suffer

 

Alright, so if I understand the paper correctly, the study attempts to address the theory that a warmer planet means that in America, the amount of energy used will reduce and that would lead to a net increase to GDP. And that, because they reach a different value for the costs associated with energy based on a warmer planet in North America that the rest of the world is likely to benefit as well.

The point where I take significant issue with that assumption is because North America - and the other mid-range latitudes - are probably some of the most likely regions of the planet to benefit from a warmer planet, in the short term. The regions around the equator and the arctic regions will suffer much more rapidly from a warmer climate. Setting aside the fact that the warming would not suddenly stop (and would continue to get worse for those mid-latitude regions), I can't imagine that the model attempts to account for those individuals who would flee the increasingly uninhabitable regions of the planet which would increase the cost.

 

LOL

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en...n grain yield improvements since 1940&f=false

The increase is due to the use of Hybrids. Not heat.

Also, this
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024001/pdf

 

most commercial greenhouses have used Co2 generators for years to increase crop yield. CO2 is a plant nutrient not a pollutant..

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/21/co2-and-crops-nas-vs-science/

 

Sure, and without water, humans would die. Too much water, and humans also die.

Same with C02. It has valuable uses in certain situations, but too much of it will kill us.

 

CO2 levels were 3 times higher during the Jurassic period and plants and animals flourished.

 

Is that statistic based on data supplied by (and available to) climatologists who also warn you about the threat posed by increasing CO2 currently at roughly 100x the natural rate?

 

Fat is also necessary to human survival and yet, too much of it is a bad thing.

 

No.

 

lol
yeah. Except very very few of those would survive today's conditions. Mean temp during the Jurassic Period was 73 degrees F (22C). Today it's 60F (16C). Basically, the vast majority of the Earth was akin to our Tropical Climates.

Having that cover the world couldn't possibly have negative consequences....