Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[-1=e^ipi]

Well it does because what you wrote is only fraction of the costs and that makes it a misleading figure to quote.

That's silly. If the cobb-douglas approximation is roughly true (and it's used in a lot of IAMs because it is reasonable), then that is taking into the full account of all the costs, direct and indirect.

Anyway, how energy enters the production function is something which can be empirically tested, but I do like Nordhaus' model of abatement costs.

[TimG]

That's silly. If the cobb-douglas approximation is roughly true (and it's used in a lot of IAMs because it is reasonable), then that is taking into the full account of all the costs, direct and indirect.

It does not take into account indirect expenditures because it would take a lot more analysis to determine the fraction of product costs that embody energy costs.

If we simply look at agriculture:

Together, direct and indirect consumption by US farms accounts for about 2% of the [uS] energy use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#Energy_and_agriculture

So 2% of energy use to produce 1.3% of US GDP. Increase the cost of energy and the cost of food necessarily increases.

[-1=e^ipi]

It does not take into account indirect expenditures because it would take a lot more analysis to determine the fraction of product costs that embody energy costs.

Yeah it does. And there are other methods to estimate energy's share of income, such as cross sectional regression analysis of energy prices and ln GDP per capita.

These estimates put energy's share between 0.05-0.10. Although I've seen some indications that the assumption of Cobb-Douglas functional form isn't accurate and results in a slight underestimation of the impact of energy prices.

[On Guard for Thee]

The slow down still occurred. 2015 won't change that.

Apparently NOAA and NASA disagree with you. But take heart, the article does indicate that Ted Cruz is on your side. I'm looking forward to the warmer winters.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

[-1=e^ipi]

Apparently NOAA and NASA disagree with you. But take heart, the article does indicate that Ted Cruz is on your side. I'm looking forward to the warmer winters.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

Clearly you don't understand the difference between pause and slowdown.

And also lol at referencing Gavin Schmidt and his cherry picking nonsense.

[On Guard for Thee]

Clearly you don't understand the difference between pause and slowdown.

And also lol at referencing Gavin Schmidt and his cherry picking nonsense.

Yeah, Ted Cruz figures he knows the difference. Speaking of nonsense....

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm really confused about the relevance of Ted Cruz in this conversation.

[waldo]

And since this is on-topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-economy-1.3282446

the same study 'Euler' floated... someone should tell the guy it only covers temperature and doesn't include other extremes associated with warming. Notwithstanding it's effectively an economics model 'on top of' a climate model - no uncertainty there! (uncertainty which the paper authors highlight).

[-1=e^ipi]

someone should tell the guy it only covers temperature

And why wouldn't I know that? You don't think I can read?

Notwithstanding it's effectively an economics model 'on top of' a climate model - no uncertainty there!

Are you saying that the paper doesn't try to quantify uncertainty?

[waldo]

And why wouldn't I know that? You don't think I can read? [waldo: you said diddly squat about other factors, other considerations relative to warming and their impact on GDP... while presuming to speak of 'global output' without factoring sea-level rise, (other) weather extremes, etc.,]

Are you saying that the paper doesn't try to quantify uncertainty? [waldo: huh! ... you ask that while omitting this from your quote... where I say, "uncertainty which the paper authors highlight". Again, you say diddly squat about that most significant uncertainty the authors themselves raise - shades of your 'single study syndrome' reliance, hey!]

[waldo]

Clearly you don't understand the difference between pause and slowdown.

even if one accepts the (false) claim of a "slowdown", fake-skeptics never speak to what the warming rate would have been without the increased influence natural factors had... that study isn't unique in its findings - you know this. You yourself have acknowledged the efforts to present a more representative accounting of sparsely positioned measurements in areas of the earth with the most warming...

.

[-1=e^ipi]

waldo: you said diddly squat about other factors, other considerations relative to warming and their impact on GDP... while presuming to speak of 'global output' without factoring sea-level rise, (other) weather extremes, etc.,

waldo: huh! ... you ask that while omitting this from your quote... where I say, "uncertainty which the paper authors highlight". Again, you say diddly squat about that most significant uncertainty the authors themselves raise - shades of your 'single study syndrome' reliance, hey

So if I don't mention everything that is in the study in a post, I somehow don't know what I don't mention?

Well according to that logic, you didn't mention that the Earth is round in your last post. Therefore, you are a flat-Earther.

With respect to the second comment, I still am unclear what you are trying to say with "Notwithstanding it's effectively an economics model 'on top of' a climate model - no uncertainty there!". Could you please translate from Waldospeak to English?

even if one accepts the (false) claim of a "slowdown"

So you are a slowdown denier?

fake-skeptics never speak to what the warming rate would have been without the increased influence natural factors had

You can empirically estimate the impulse response function from the instrumental record. If you want to know the warming rate if natural variability were held constant, that is certainly possible to estimate.

But I get the impression that you think the fact that not everyone can quantify everything off the top of their head somehow discredits their argument.

[Michael Hardner]

the same study 'Euler' floated... someone should tell the guy it only covers temperature and doesn't include other extremes associated with warming. Notwithstanding it's effectively an economics model 'on top of' a climate model - no uncertainty there! (uncertainty which the paper authors highlight).

That's fair enough (if true, I didn't verify your claim) but it's even harder to calculate impact values of those other extremes.

Economics model on top of a climate model... yes that's difficult but if you want to devote resources then it's a necessary exercise.

[TimG]

Economics model on top of a climate model... yes that's difficult but if you want to devote resources then it's a necessary exercise.

Except anyone who did such an exercise and concluded that the economic impacts will be minimal would be branded of as "denier" even if their assumptions and/or methodology is reasonable. The politicization of the field makes it impossible to believe anyone who makes any claims based on easily manipulated economic/climate models. Edited October 23, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Except anyone who did such an exercise and concluded that the economic impacts will be minimal would be branded of as "denier"...

Don't worry about what some say about dialogue, just engage in dialogue.

There's nothing to be gained from either side grouping their opponents with unreasonable people. Instead differentiate you arguments from unreasonable people who agree with you and help your opponents do the same.

I will always point out bad arguments such as "there's no price too high to pay for xxxx" even if I'm in general agreement with the position of the poster.

The politicization of the field makes it impossible to believe anyone who makes any claims based on easily manipulated economic/climate models.

Politics derives from individuals. If we improve ourselves, then our leaders will follow. See what I did there ?

[-1=e^ipi]

Except anyone who did such an exercise and concluded that the economic impacts will be minimal would be branded of as "denier" even if their assumptions and/or methodology is reasonable. The politicization of the field makes it impossible to believe anyone who makes any claims based on easily manipulated economic/climate models.

Yep. Look at what happened recently to Phillip Verdier, one of France's top meteorologists. Lost his job.

[-1=e^ipi]

Here's an aspect of climate change I think hasn't been discussed much.

Even if human productivity is maximized around 12 or 13 C, temperature may have a more direct effect on human well being beyond changing productivity and environmental impacts. Humans have a preference for moderate temperatures and are obviously willing to pay money to change their local climate (heating, air conditioning, going on vacation, etc.).

Here's a paper that suggests human happiness is maximized around 13.9 C.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00052.1

Edit: Here is a ppt of a study done by some European economists that I found with a quick google search. It's not very conclusive and I don't like the model specification.

Edited October 23, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Except anyone who did such an exercise and concluded that the economic impacts will be minimal would be branded of as "denier" even if their assumptions and/or methodology is reasonable.

anyone? How about Richard Tol... the "Euler's" favourite go-to economist! Why just a few posts back, the "Euler" even included suggestion that, as he stated, "Richard Tol is not a big fan of this paper." Of course, it was the waldo that busted one of the "Euler's" earlier Tol bubbles a while back; you know, the one where a Tol meta-study claimed that impacts of climate change would be positive... you know, that failed study where Tol had to issue multiple corrections... where it was ultimately shown that his analysis was completely failed and that of all the studies involved (twelve of them), only one showed a positive result of climate change... and even then that particular study within the meta-grouping didn't factor considerations of the impact of weather extremes (as the author's of that study acknowledged themselves).

[-1=e^ipi]

the "Euler's" favourite go-to economist!

Not sure about that. Nordhaus' work is certainly very good.

a Tol meta-study claimed that impacts of climate change would be positive

That was only for the first 1.1 C of warming.

where Tol had to issue multiple corrections... where it was ultimately shown that his analysis was completely failed and that of all the studies involved (twelve of them)

Apparently it's bad to bring up studies now?

I never even put that much weight on the Tol result since I don't think a meta-study is the best approach. I favour the Richardian-approach such as the recent paper that finds productivity is maximized around 13 C.

[waldo]

So if I don't mention everything that is in the study in a post, I somehow don't know what I don't mention? [waldo: you run with the results of the study... that has yet to receive any peer response... while omitting any reference to the most significant and study author's own acknowledgment to the most significant uncertainties involved... while omitting any reference to the study being completely focused on temperature only to the exclusion of all other extreme weather/environmental considerations on GDP.

more pointedly, you presume to leverage another of your ready-reaches - adaptation... while completely dismissing the study's focus/emphasis on mitigation (or rather, the lack of).! In that study both China and the U.S. are currently in that claimed 'sweet spot' for temperature-to-productivity gains... and that they will both be hit significantly with the negative economic results of warming temperature. But hey now... perhaps that's why the U.S. and China are finally on the mitigation bandwagon, hey!]

So you are a slowdown denier? [waldo: so are you a slowdown alarmist? You know there's significant analysis countering the suggestion a slowdown even occurred... you know this as we've discussed aspects of it in the past. Again, my stated point was to emphasize how fake-skeptics downplay/ignore what the warming rate might have been had there not been that anomalous 'perfect storm' line-up of natural factors. And now the pendulum somewhat swings the other way with an apparently most significant El-Nino pushing hard on increased warming.]

You can empirically estimate the impulse response function from the instrumental record. If you want to know the warming rate if natural variability were held constant, that is certainly possible to estimate. [waldo: of course, it's been done many times over... more pointedly in terms of separating natural from anthropogenic... and I've brought some of it here. Of course, fake-skeptics rally against those initiatives because they bring forward most inconvenient results for them.]

[-1=e^ipi]

Also, there is a bit of irony here. If the next 1.1C has a negative impact rather than a positive impact then this suggests that the second derivative of the function is smaller in magnitude (assuming that the 2.5 C - 3C estimates are still decent), which suggests that the marginal impact of additional warming after about 2C is larger, which suggests that less mitigation is desirable, not more.

[waldo]

Apparently it's bad to bring up studies now?

I never even put that much weight on the Tol result since I don't think a meta-study is the best approach. I favour the Richardian-approach such as the recent paper that finds productivity is maximized around 13 C.

like I said... your Tol-bubble blew-up... blew-up real good! Ya, ya... Tol's not your guy!!! That's why you mentioned him again just a few posts back!

[TimG]

I favour the Richardian-approach such as the recent paper that finds productivity is maximized around 13 C.

Intuitively productivity is a function of technology - not temperature. Changes in average temperature could cause a transient drop in productivity until technology catches up. How long and how serious that drop would depend on many factors.

[waldo]

Also, there is a bit of irony here. If the next 1.1C has a negative impact rather than a positive impact then this suggests that the second derivative of the function is smaller in magnitude (assuming that the 2.5 C - 3C estimates are still decent), which suggests that the marginal impact of additional warming after about 2C is larger, which suggests that less mitigation is desirable, not more.

I look forward to you publishing your Euler-speak!

[waldo]

Intuitively productivity is a function of technology - not temperature. Changes in average temperature could cause a transient drop in productivity until technology catches up. How long and how serious that drop would depend on many factors.

it's a tad difficult to air-condition staple-crop fields - yes? Wadda bout that impact of rising temperatures on health... on productivity... more technological adaptation?