• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Warming Might Spur Economic Growth

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fascinating. Among the scare stories flogged by AGW advocates is the claim that global warming will have negative economic consequences. These guys say the opposite may be true. We shall see. As you know, I don't think there will be much, if any warming. Maybe I should wish for more?


Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming

Posted on February 8, 2020 by curryja | 28 comments
by Peter Lang and Ken Gregory
A new paper ‘Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming’ finds global warming may be beneficial.
Continue reading →

A new paper ‘Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming’ finds global warming may be beneficial.

In this blog post we reproduce the Abstract, Policy Implications and Conclusions and parts of the Introduction, Results and Discussion. We encourage you to read the entire paper.

Abstract: This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation. . . .

In this case, the hypothesis that global warming would be harmful to the global economy this century may be false, and policies to reduce global warming may not be justified. Not adopting policies to reduce global warming would yield the economic benefits of warming and avoid the economic costs of those policies.
The discrepancy between the impacts projected by FUND and those found from the EIA data may be due to a substantial proportion of the impacts (37% for the US and 67% for the world) being due to non-temperature drivers, not temperature change, and to some incorrect energy impact function parameter values.
We recommend that the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Further, we recommend that the validity of the non-energy impact functions be tested.

 
If you pretend there are no negative side effects, sure, you arrive at the conclusion that there are only positive impacts.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fascinating. Among the scare stories flogged by AGW advocates is the claim that global warming will have negative economic consequences. These guys say the opposite may be true. We shall see. As you know, I don't think there will be much, if any warming. Maybe I should wish for more?


Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming

[FONT=&]Posted on February 8, 2020 by curryja | 28 comments[/FONT]
by Peter Lang and Ken Gregory
A new paper ‘Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming’ finds global warming may be beneficial.
Continue reading →

A new paper ‘Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming’ finds global warming may be beneficial.

In this blog post we reproduce the Abstract, Policy Implications and Conclusions and parts of the Introduction, Results and Discussion. We encourage you to read the entire paper.

Abstract: This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation. . . .

In this case, the hypothesis that global warming would be harmful to the global economy this century may be false, and policies to reduce global warming may not be justified. Not adopting policies to reduce global warming would yield the economic benefits of warming and avoid the economic costs of those policies.
The discrepancy between the impacts projected by FUND and those found from the EIA data may be due to a substantial proportion of the impacts (37% for the US and 67% for the world) being due to non-temperature drivers, not temperature change, and to some incorrect energy impact function parameter values.
We recommend that the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Further, we recommend that the validity of the non-energy impact functions be tested.
Click to expand...

I looked but I haven't found anything yet that will let anyone discount the authors out-of-hand.
But it's still early for the usual suspects to contribute their not so in-depth dismissals.
I did find something about connections to FUND.
Let's see if anyone comes up with something.
 
bubbabgone said:
I looked but I haven't found anything yet that will let anyone discount the authors out-of-hand.
But it's still early for the usual suspects to contribute their not so in-depth dismissals.
I did find something about connections to FUND.
Let's see if anyone comes up with something.
Click to expand...

This analysis seems purely based around energy consumption decreasing as average temperatures increase. It’s not that the conclusion is wrong, it’s just that it doesn’t actually apply to the real world. In the real world, there are other effects to consider. And they... didn’t.
 
Deuce said:
If you pretend there are no negative side effects, sure, you arrive at the conclusion that there are only positive impacts.
Click to expand...

Civilizations adapt.
 
Deuce said:
This analysis seems purely based around energy consumption decreasing as average temperatures increase. It’s not that the conclusion is wrong, it’s just that it doesn’t actually apply to the real world. In the real world, there are other effects to consider. And they... didn’t.
Click to expand...

Isn't energy consumption decrease what you want?

Beyond that, this was their projection ... just as alarmism is based on projections.
Only alarmist projections make a great many assumptions while ignoring or minimizing significant factors to arrive at their conclusions.
 
Deuce said:
If you pretend there are no negative side effects, sure, you arrive at the conclusion that there are only positive impacts.
Click to expand...

If you can show, show in a way that stands up to scrutiny, any significant bad side of a warmer world as per the IPCC's predictions, I'll take it on board. I'll change my mind. I invite you to do so.

That there are obvious positive good things for humanity from a warmer world, shame it is not expected to get to the levels of the Holocene Optimal, is very clear to all.
 
bubbabgone said:
Isn't energy consumption decrease what you want?
Click to expand...
To help avoid the problems caused by rapidly changing the climate, yes.

Beyond that, this was their projection ... just as alarmism is based on projections.
Only alarmist projections make a great many assumptions while ignoring or minimizing significant factors to arrive at their conclusions.
Click to expand...
This “projection” is purely a projection of energy consumption and entirely ignores the idea that climate change could have other effects that negatively impact economic activity.

I further reject “economic activity” as the be-all and end-all of measuring outcomes.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you can show, show in a way that stands up to scrutiny, any significant bad side of a warmer world as per the IPCC's predictions, I'll take it on board. I'll change my mind. I invite you to do so.

That there are obvious positive good things for humanity from a warmer world, shame it is not expected to get to the levels of the Holocene Optimal, is very clear to all.
Click to expand...


Rapid shifts in climate are linked to mass extinction events in the fossil records.

]
 
Deuce said:
Rapid shifts in climate are linked to mass extinction events in the fossil records.

]
Click to expand...

Also, what has that to do with the very small changes that the IPCC predict, which show no signs of happening?
 
Deuce said:
False. Permian-Triassic extinction event was during a rapid increase in temperature.
Click to expand...

Are you expecting such a vast change as when the earth opened and vast tracts of Siberia flowed with liquid rock?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Are you expecting such a vast change as when the earth opened and vast tracts of Siberia flowed with liquid rock?
Click to expand...

Goalposts shift so far they're on the wrong continent :lamo
 
Deuce said:
Goalposts shift so far they're on the wrong continent :lamo
Click to expand...
How many continents were there during the Permian-Triassic extinction?
 
Deuce said:
Goalposts shift so far they're on the wrong continent :lamo
Click to expand...

I acknowledge that once there was a massive warming, with vast atmospheric disruption and poisoning, that caused mass a extinction.

So mass extinctions always happen during cooling, big cooling, and once there was a very warm period which had other massive troubles which was accopanied by a very serrious mass extinction.

But hey, you get the point of finding the exception that proves the rule.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I acknowledge that once there was a massive warming, with vast atmospheric disruption and poisoning, that caused mass a extinction.

So mass extinctions always happen during cooling, big cooling, and once there was a very warm period which had other massive troubles which was accopanied by a very serrious mass extinction.

But hey, you get the point of finding the exception that proves the rule.
Click to expand...

Great, you admit you were wrong when you said only rapid cooling causes problems. This means you've accepted the premise of what I wrote: rapid warming can cause problems.

Now, what if rapid warming of a smaller magnitude causes extinctions, just less of them? You still don't give a ****, do you?
 
Drawdown said:
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Click to expand...

So should we we stand the middle of the hwy and get hit by a car because we will adapt and necessity is the mother of invention?
 
ataraxia said:
So should we we stand the middle of the hwy and get hit by a car because we will adapt and necessity is the mother of invention?
Click to expand...

I will stand on the shoulder and film it for youtube if that makes you feel better.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fascinating. Among the scare stories flogged by AGW advocates is the claim that global warming will have negative economic consequences. These guys say the opposite may be true. We shall see. As you know, I don't think there will be much, if any warming. Maybe I should wish for more?


Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming

[FONT=&]Posted on February 8, 2020 by curryja | 28 comments[/FONT]
by Peter Lang and Ken Gregory
A new paper ‘Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming’ finds global warming may be beneficial.
Continue reading →

A new paper ‘Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming’ finds global warming may be beneficial.

In this blog post we reproduce the Abstract, Policy Implications and Conclusions and parts of the Introduction, Results and Discussion. We encourage you to read the entire paper.

Abstract: This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation. . . .

In this case, the hypothesis that global warming would be harmful to the global economy this century may be false, and policies to reduce global warming may not be justified. Not adopting policies to reduce global warming would yield the economic benefits of warming and avoid the economic costs of those policies.
The discrepancy between the impacts projected by FUND and those found from the EIA data may be due to a substantial proportion of the impacts (37% for the US and 67% for the world) being due to non-temperature drivers, not temperature change, and to some incorrect energy impact function parameter values.
We recommend that the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Further, we recommend that the validity of the non-energy impact functions be tested.
Click to expand...

One would hope so. After all, economic growth spurred global warming.
 
Drawdown said:
I will stand on the shoulder and film it for youtube if that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Why would you stand on the shoulder? I thought you would adapt and necessity is the mother of invention.
 
ataraxia said:
Why would you stand on the shoulder? I thought you would adapt and necessity is the mother of invention.
Click to expand...

Getting out of the middle of the road is adapting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom