Bishop Hill Disagreement over nothing
Oct 17, 2013 Economics ;)
One of Matt Ridley's ancestors was burnt at the stake for refusing to toe the line on the religion of the day, and those in positions of power today seem to have the same distaste for dissent as the Marian persecutors of yesteryear.
The ire of the metropolitan "liberal" elite has been prickled by Ridley's article in the Spectator, which describes the consensus among economists that the effects of small amounts of global warming will be beneficial.
Prof Richard Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensus, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off.
Amongst the usual furious discharges on Twitter, has come this response from someone called Duncan Geere, who has this to say at the New Statesman:
If you read the paper yourself, you'll quickly see that Tol's actual conclusion is that things start going downhill at about a +1C rise.
In fact, if you look at the graph concerned you will see that they are actually agreeing with each other. Here it is:
;)
Ridley is saying that things get no worse until we've had another 2.2°C of warming, Geere that the downward trend starts at 1°C. But by saying that "things start going downhill at 1°C", Geere gives his reader the impression that Ridley is wrong and that net benefit only applies to much lower temperature rises.
Geere also says that "multiple analyses have shown that the long-term costs [of AW] are far in excess of the costs of preventing it", but intriguingly he doesn't actually cite any of them. I wonder where they are?
Reader Comments (89)
I wish Matt Ridley had been a little more vocal on the Daily Politics yesterday. He had a golden opportunity to put Caroline Flint in her place but her foghorn won hands down. Andrew Neil for some reason did not bring him in despite being "guest of the day", I wonder if this was an editorial direction?
Well Tol agrees with every historian who has ever written on the subject. I have yet to read anything that says the Medievel warm period or ideed any warm period was bad for life on Earth. Skeletons were longer indicating better health, crops grew more abundantly and in places formerly too cold and more cathedrals were built indicating more prosperity.
The entire field of paleoclimatology is based on the fact that trees grow more during warm periods than cold. The reason animals hibernate is because there is no food in winter. If there were less snow then Arctic anaimals could have a more varied diet.
Curious, you are right.
The elephant in the room is that it is models vs models here - and none of them has a good track record in predicting the future.
The "green" position seems to be that we are all doomed unless the plebs wear sackcloth and ashes, and give up their cheap holiday flights to foreign destinations, their cars (unless electrically powered), and ration their use of electricity and gas.
If it turns out that we are not doomed, that is very bad news indeed - for the Greens! Hence the vehemence of their reactions to Matt Ridley's arguments.
Roy, I don't think that supporting one set of dodgy models against another set of dodgy models does much credit to the sceptic cause. It is not about the ideology of the supporters, but about whether any of these models are supportable.
Oct 18, 2013 at 7:10 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna "The Con" blog
Johanna,
I've enjoyed your style many times. You must go on contributing at blogs you consider worthy.
This is not the best place to continue this as it takes advantage of the Bish's patronage without his permission, but I do get exasperated by the blind belief of so many writers at the Con that I am weak enough to engage too often. Or was. Still no reply to my "Why me?" emails to the Con.
Furthermore...
The two ancient amateurs whose efforts established modern-day concern about manmade warming, Arhennius and Callendar, were both of the opinion that warming would be beneficial.
Of course if either had known that natural CO2 flux is at least 30 times more than man's contribution even now then they likely would not even have bothered about it in the first place.
Geere uses the expression 'things start going downhill'', thus giving the strong impression that the chart shows that there is a point in TIME when things get worse.
Actually the chart has nothing to do with time. It simply plots the relation between two variables, neither of which is time.
Has Geere failed to understand the chart, or has he deliberately misrepresented it? A nice question.
Johanna
It's true that it's comparing models; are Dinky better than Corgi you might say. The only model we have is the historical record. This suggests that the benefits will continue up to and beyond a 2'C increase. Bearing in mind that it could be even better than the past (we have more technology than the Minoans and the Romans) as well as worse.
Why are humans so pessimistic?
Entropic Man (Oct 18, 2013 at 1:09 AM): I am truly puzzled by your insistence that AGW is real. There is no evidence for it, no matter how many “peer-reviewed” publications you cite. We were originally told that it was the rising CO2 levels that were causing the warming, and CO2 levels were rising because of human activity, and we should get scared – very, very scared – as it was soon going to be too hot to breathe, and sea levels would rise to swamp island states and engulf the Statue of Liberty. Almost as soon as that idea was mooted, the warming stopped, yet CO2 levels continued to rise, and still continue. In what appear to be desperate attempts to explain this disconnect, other “forcings” have been developed, utterly oblivious to the irony that the earlier
scaretheory was that CO2 was THE driving factor. When none of these “forcings” proved adequate, the even more absurd idea that the heat had stopped warming the atmosphere, and is now diving directly into the deep oceans wasmade up…. bollocks, “made up” is right. For reasons unknown – which we presume to be monetary, though it could be for power or other political reasons – we are being lied to by so-called scientists, aided and abetted with great gusto by the MSM and politicians.You do show us that you are a rational, intelligent person, yet still you cling to the idea that it is all our fault, and we are doomed unless we “do something”, though exactly what we are to do remains questionable; the prevailing idea is that we should revert back to the Dark Ages. The only way which we can progress, the only way in which we can improve the lives the many living in poverty, the only way we can resolve world-wide starvation, the only way we can “save the planet” (i.e. keep it habitable for humans) is by having energy readily available to everyone, which means that its price has to be kept low. We have several centuries’ worth of energy under our feet, removing this country’s dependence on the vagaries of other countries’ largesse; why are we being forced into a reluctance to get it?
Radical Rodent
Well said ! I agree with every word of you post. Thank you.
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
Hugh Latimer, 16th October 1555
RR
Never yet put quite so succinctly. Well done!
Ridley's closing paragraph bears repeating. He brought a smile to my face with the words
Interesting article here:
http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/5388/Nuclear-Fusion-in-Five-Years.aspx
about the development of reasonably cheap fusion reactors by Lockheed. If this is actually true then there is no need to mortgage our future to the Chinese.............
Oct 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM | Radical Rodent
Excellent!
"I wonder why we're decommissioning coal fired power stations."
Oct 18, 2013 at 2:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrent Hargreaves
To comply with EU directives regarding emissions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Combustion_Plant_Directive
http://www.defra.gov.uk/industrial-emissions/eu-international/lcpd/
Ross Lea (by the way, always enjoy you on "Have I Got News For You" – or am I making erroneous assumptions?), Mike Jackson, Roger Longstaff: thank you all for your praise.
I felt I had to say something, after watching Question Time last night, to be soon driven out of my own front room by an audience stuffed with the usual drones (including the archetypal bearded, sandal-wearing, earnest “yoof” pontificating about the “evils” of big business). On returning after cooling down, I was pleased to see the panel of Mark Harper, Tristram Hunt, Diane James, Peter Oborne and Bonnie Greer actually talking sense on other issues, without the usual recourse to political point-scoring. Perhaps I was being a bit oversensitive earlier.
Radical Rodent (Oct 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM), what's even more frustrating is that most 'true believers' in CAGW seem to turn a blind eye to the global consequences of their 'prescription' for change, especially with respect to limiting access to cheap energy (i.e. coal) in developing countries.
The simple fact is that access to energy is one of *the* fundamental requirements to improving the human condition; something that has been spectacularly successful, especially in the last century...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
More specifically, I wonder how people can argue such draconian energy reduction policies and then claim that they're doing it for 'our children' while ignoring this sort of evidence...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwII-dwh-bk#t=36
Sure, maybe we'll reach a tipping point and the oceans will boil, but where's the empirical evidence to support such claims... to quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"!
Don't forget, folks - this 'achievement' by the government (of getting the Chinese involved in the funding of EDF's Hinkley Point 'C') involves them agreeing to paying EDF £92.5 per kilowatt hour (TWICE the wholesale price) FOR THE NEXT FORTY YEARS...
Yeah - good result...!
I realise that this is a theoretical exercise for economists only, but in fact we have a record against which we can check the figures. I refer to the last thirteen years of the CET. The temp has been up and down. Now, where is that seen in the economic numbers? Nobloodywhere, that's where. Drowned by the noise. The only signal of climate change you could possibly point to is the economic cost of the measures which are piously hoped will 'tackle' it. I'm pretty sure you could do that exercise globally too, and find nothing. This is pure econanism, and I don't even have to say whether the eco bit relates to ecology or economics.
Ah, that Hans Rosling – what delightful presentations, with great wit and a wonderful accent! One thing that he misses in his “River of Myths” clip is that many, usually for nefarious reasons, now harp on about “relative poverty”. Yes, relative poverty exists – but, here’s the rub – relative poverty will ALWAYS exist! A multi-millionaire lives in relative poverty alongside a multi-billionaire; I have been in relative poverty in Manhattan, and in relative wealth in the slums of Cotonou; the key is in the term “relative”.
The reality is that, as global wealth increases with the increasing availability of low-cost energy, then the birth-rate will fall, ultimately leading to a shrinking population. That, of course, rather spikes the guns of some political extremists – many of whom, oddly enough, hold Carl Sagan up as a paragon.
Radical Rodent
You flatter me Ross Noble is half my age and much better looking :-)
Sherlock1
Thank you for paying attention. Wind turbines are indeed pretty useless. This isn't.
Go-ahead for 10 nuclear stations
The government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them in locations where there are already plants. It has rejected only one proposed site - in Dungeness, Kent - as being unsuitable on environmental grounds. A new planning commission will make decisions on the proposals "within a year" of receiving them, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told MPs. Nuclear was a "proven and reliable" energy source, he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8349715.stm
The Geere article at the New Statesman criticising Ridley was the headline article this morning, complete with drought photo of parched clods. Then since Ridley’s comment it’s been hidden in the middle of the sci-tech articles. It’s at
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2013/10/no-climate-change-will-not-be-good-world
There are lots of critical comments, but no one from the B-aitch Boys that I can see. Geere replies to each one, and is showing signs of losing it, accusing someone who objected to élites of being a conspiracy theorist. The Staggers isn’t what it was in Orwell’s day. “Two legs bad, Green élites good “ is the new watchword.
" is showing signs of losing it, accusing someone who objected to élites of being a conspiracy theorist." that would be me.
On Twitter Geere referred me to this re "multiple analyses have shown that the long-term costs [of AW] are far in excess of the costs of preventing it" http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/econ_costs_cc.pdf
When I questioned if this is peer-reviewed or an activist-commissioned report he said he was referring me to the list of references in that report, not the actual report (!) which seemed odd- a couple of the references appear to be the same used by Tol. The worst thing is Geere's last statement, accusing of Ridley profiteering from his position on this.
The world does indeed face a dire and truly urgent threat from Climate Change.
It is just not what the Global Warming advocates want to think it is.
The last millennium 1000 - 2000 AD has been the coolest of our current benign Holocene interglacial and on average, including the MWP, was a full 1.5 °C lower that the earlier Holocene optimum according to ice core records. So a little global warming could be very welcome.
But to be parochial since the year 2000 a further significant change has been occurring: the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record has shown an annual decline of ~ -1.0°C and a winter (DJF) decline of ~ -1.5°C. These declines are as much or even more than the total CET gains in the period 1850 - 2000, since industrialisation.
However, this year 2013, has seen a more extreme temperature decline in the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record. In the first half of 2013, UK Met Office CET temperatures were a full 1.89°C lower than the monthly averages of the previous 12 years.
That is pretty significant and it really matters. That marked decline has lead to significant crop failures and serious loss of agricultural productivity. The effect has been seen throughout the Northern hemisphere and cooling effects are also clear in the Southern hemisphere.
Assessing the sunspot records we seem to be rapidly heading for a Dalton minimum event (at best) in the next few decades. This will destroy agricultural productivity throughout the world.
But Global Warming advocates only ever propose solutions for the control of Global Warming, (overheating), by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates fail to explain how reduction of man-made atmospheric CO2 can ever can help to control Climate Change towards a cooling world.
In addition having made so many dire predictions of impending climate catastrophes from overheating, the advocates of Global Warming / Climate Change fail to accept that a climate change towards a cooler climate is more likely to lead to more intense adverse weather. There is good reason to expect this, simply because the energy differential between the poles and the tropics is bound to be greater and that in itself leads to less stable atmospheric conditions.
A cooling world as the Northern Hemisphere seen in the years since 2000 leads to much more dire consequences for the biosphere and for mankind than any realistic amount of warming that could ever arise from future man-made CO2 emissions.
National policy makers and the United Nations are neither recognizing nor are they preparing for this potentially disastrous eventuality.
Just watched Matt R on yesterday's Daily Politics. I live in the hope that Caroline Flint will get to eat her words when she called MR a 'Denier of Climate Science'. She is all politician and no humility. Unfortunately, Barker was not much better. especially when he and Flint agreed that the cost of renewables was getting to be cheaper than fossil, having drowned out MR's protest that this was because the have raise the cost of fossil to make the relative costs balance. Pathetic TV.
Ross Lea
I was once a student starving in freezing digs. I have that t-shirt.
I sympathise with your position, but see no easy solutions. Anything you propose will have severe costs. TANSTAAFL.
SandyS
On a sceptic blog, it is natural for you to ignore potential damage from climate change as a cost. I know it is customary here to rubbish the Stern Review and other such analyses; that does not necessarily mean they are wrong.
If you remove the CCA and FITs from energy bills you will produce a short term reduction in energy bills, but will then have to find the money from other taxation. Shall we increase taxes, or cut the NHS and education? Remember that a major purpose of this money is to help keep Ross Lea's Gran warm by subsidising her fuel bill and insulating her house.
Regarding wind power, every kilowatt-hour generated from wind is a kilowatt-hour equivalent less fuel burned. That's less fuel imported and less.money paid to Russia, Norway or Quatar. Considering how close we came to running out of gas last Winter, every saving in gas usage should be welcome.
Wind power alone will never supply the amount of energy we demand. What it does is reduce our fuel burn. Wind power prices are stable, while fuel costs rise and availability becomes uncertain. You may yet come to regard wind power as a useful adjunct to fuel burning power stations.
Never forget this the wilful acceptance of ignorance by government
see Hansard 13/9/2013
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130910/halltext/130910h0001.htm#13091045000001
3.50 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): I am glad to be able to respond to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has performed a useful parliamentary service in allowing the issue to be aired. Although profound climate scepticism may be only a minority interest, such sceptics voice a view shared by a number of my constituents and people in the newspapers. It is a view heard on the Clapham omnibus and it is right that we hear such views and debate them in the open. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) that a cloying consensus in Parliament does no service to legislation or national debate. However much I profoundly disagree with some of the arguments, it is right that we have the chance to air them in Parliament.
Steve Baker: We have agreed here that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, so in an attempt not to have a cloying consensus, will the Minister fund some climate scientists who wish to refute the current thesis?
Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I do not have a budget for that sort of research.
In spite of the enormous costs and appalling waste it is clear that the powers that be do not want to hear the good news.
It is now estimated that Climate Change policies in Europe alone will cost ~ £174,000,000,000 annually by 2020 or about 1.5% of European GDP.
But this figure does not include the attendant losses to Europe of industries already leaving the EU for regions with more rational energy policies.
Geoff S et al.
I left the following comment at The Conversation blog concerning the latest from the IPCC
Is it possible that the computer model projections are not accurately representing the ACTUAL effect of [CO2] because they are confounding them with the effect of water vapor? Almost all of the model projections are too high so it leads one to conclude that the underlying science may not be exact...
In the video, the "reasons" given were long on opinion and short on numbers.
I am loathe to spend my tax dollars on something that will not have any effect on the problem (such as it is). The Summary for Policymakers seems to have strayed from the WG data and conclusions ( more confidence even though the actual projections are LESS clear).
I am not convinced that there is a problem but especially that the science can provide us with an accurate prescription for what apparently will ail us.
entropic man
If you remove the CCA and FITs from energy bills you will produce a short term reduction in energy bills, but will then have to find the money from other taxation.
Why?
Regarding wind power, every kilowatt-hour generated from wind is a kilowatt-hour equivalent less fuel burned.
Is [it? Ed] actually a saving though, bearing in mind there is no pumped storage and how much is invested in infrastructre?
entropic man: "If you remove the CCA and FITs from energy bills you will produce a short term reduction in energy bills, but will then have to find the money from other taxation."
My understanding was that the FITs (at least) is a conduit of funds from energy consumers to (certain types of) energy producers. It is not a net source of revenue to the government.
We've all been hoping you'd just go away, EM. Your attempts at debate are not as such, and generally amount to "well, my peer-reviewed <whatever> says this so pbththhth!" which is really rather boring. You understand very little of what it is you are citing so you aren't even qualified to stand up to its veracity, even if you are accidentally correct from time to time (which has been very rare). People offer up plenty of legitimate counter arguments to you, but you simply refuse to recognize them - your insistence on peer-reviewed literature is simply an excuse that allows you to ignore any argument (even facts) outside of the dogma you so fervently cling to.
Please, please, hasten your departure. I doubt anyone will miss yet another climate troll.
Mark
Mark T
I like it here.If I am poking holes in the comforting certainties you hide behind, so much the better.
Bob Ward has responded to Matt Ridley's article
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2013/Oct/lord-ridleys-flawed-article-spectator.aspx
EM
May I express hope that you soon achieve release and your ultimate destiny.
So EM says: "Regarding wind power, every kilowatt-hour generated from wind is a kilowatt-hour equivalent less fuel burned. "
Do you not grasp the fact that, unless there is an efficient storage mechanism, it is better to generate power when it is required? Power generated when it is not required will be wasted.
That is the problem with most renewable sources. If you are in Southern California or Central Australia, solar power makes sense because maximum solar power happens to coincide with your maximum need for energy to power your aircon.
In the UK in Winter, you need electricity from about 3pm to 10pm, when it is dark and the sun is never going to shine. Not much use for that source of power, unless there is an efficient storage mechanism - and the Lake District is not big enough and the sun never shines enough during the course of a Winter's day.
If the wind blows during the night, which it does quite often to judge from the buffeting of my windows in wintry gales, that is wasted power because it happens when I am trying to sleep. The power I need will have to be generated once the gale has blown out by.....any guesses EM?
If you check how the grid is managed you will find that they start with wind. They then add nuclear and the efficient gas power stations designed for contimuous running. This supplies the base load.
Finally they add the more inefficient, but rapidly started gas turbine plants when peak load is expected.
When it is windy more wind power is available and less fuel needs to be burned further along the chain. When it is calm, more fuel has to be burned to supply demand.
Since only a small proportion (10-15%) of the total generating capacity is wind I doubt that there has ever been a time when the country has run entirely on wind power withour the need for anything else on line.
At present storage is not an issue. It is only likely to become important when insufficient fossil fuel and nuclear generation is available.