Should Lord Stern remember some economics?

After Lord Stern’s comments about becoming a vegatarian to save the plant, I suggested he should be consistent and become a vegan. A post by Martin Livermore on the Adam Smith Insitute blog got me thinking that maybe Lord Stern would be advised to remember some lessons from economics. After all, as an economist, Lord Stern was employed to do a cost benefit analysis of tackling global warming. The report was only able to reach its conclusion that we should do something now by taking an extreme view of future temperature change (thus overstating the benefits of any remedy) and seriously understating the costs. Mostly this was by failing to apply an appropriate rate of discount to future costs and benefits.

Since then Lord Stern has become increasingly alarmist. If instead, he applied some of the tools of his profession he would conclude the following.

 

1. Most of the largest greenhouse gas producers are things that have an inelastic demand – such as petrol and fuel to heat one’s home. Therefore the costs will tend to exceed the benefits.

 

2. There are diminishing returns to emissions reductions. Small decreases can be achieved easily. At home most can save a bit by better insulation in the loft, or by turning town the thermostat by 1 degree. Car fuel consumption can be reduced by driving more economically. Bigger savings are less easy, without fundamental changes in lifestyle, which for the majority would mean a significant drop in living standards. For instance,

- switching from frozen and chilled foods to dried and tinned foods.

- switching foreign holidays to camping in the back garden.

- From travelling by car to work to spending three times as long going by public transport, or catching pneumonia cycling.

 

3. Large government projects tend to overrun on costs, and under-perform on benefits. The bigger and more idealistic the project, the larger the (proportionate) discrepancy between plan and outcome. International projects tend to overrun more than national one, as consensus is only achieved by compromise fudging. For the greatest trans-government project of all time, this risk alone should lead to the complete abandonment.

 

4. Complex models tend to fail most in their forecasting when you need them most. Consensus economic forecasts made in 2006 for 2009 would have predicted growth, not biggest slump since the 1930s. Yet compared to economic, climatology is more complex and still in its infancy as a subject. Further there is no competitive market in forecasting to encourage improvement and revision in the light of new data. In economics reputable  forecasting is a valuable commodity. In Climate Science, one is paid to agree with the consensus.

Should Lord Stern now go Vegan?

According to the Times, Lord Stern has gone Vegetarian in an attempt to save the planet. The simple reason is that methane (which cattle and pigs produce in vast quantities) is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. We therefore need to cut back drastically on the quantity of cattle. But hold on a minute. We also get milkfrom cows as well. Should we be switching to Soya milk and synthetic cheese? Lord Stern

“predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

So when the eco-fanatics start attacking the meat counter of Tescos and sabotaging the school milk deliveries, we will know who to charge with incitement to commit acts of criminal damage and terrorism. Make a change from them dumping manure and sabotaging tyres ot 4×4s.

Post Briffa Yamal paper collapse, is the 0.5% chance of <2oC C21st a good bet?

One of my favourite blogs is Political Betting, not because I am a punter, but because (principally) Mike Smithson aims to give an assessment of how political opinion is moving ad the events that move it. One of the areas to bet on is spread betting, where (in the UK) the blog comments on bets on the number of seats that will be gained by the political parties in the forthcoming general election.

At Wattsupwiththat.com, it reports on some MIT academics producing a fortune wheel.

It is interesting that these chaps from MIT only see a 1 in 200 chance of temperatures not rising above 2 degrees. It is a shame that the forecast is for so long in the future as (where gambling laws allow) it would seem a pretty good wager.  It may be possible to still create a betting market in this with something known as spread betting – a sort of futures market in the gambling industry. For political elections it develops a valid consensus of people “putting their money where their mouth is.” It turns out to be a more accurate assessment of opinion than opinion polls. If the people from MIT represent to popular consensus, then it may be a chance for the skeptics to make some money. As the forecasts of catastrophe fail to materialize, the skeptics will be able to sell their positions at a healthy profit, at the expense of the consensus,who will lose their shirts. My forecast is that the consensus will suddenly become all moralistic about such an idea. Why? Because they would believe that the betting would be far less alarmist than the supposed consensus. This is particularly relevent since MIT have not taken account of the undermining of Briffa’s paper on tree-rings as proxies for temperatures in the Yamal Penninsula.

For those not following the recent climate change debate, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has taken apart another hockey stick (See Here, here, here & Here for Climate Audit, or here & here for a Layman’s summary from Bishop Hill)

Manure dumpers a product of Climate Change Extremism

The dumping of manure on Jeremy Clarkson’s lawn is another example of using intimidation is silence the critics. Just like those who vandalise 4×4 cars in Manchester, they are the product of taking an extreme line on Global Warming.

They are the outcome of a process of

1. The emission of greenhouse gases by humans will theoretically raise global temperatures by maybe 0.5 to 1.0 degrees this century. This seems to correlate with the temperature data of the past century, though it is not a complete explanation.

2. Bodies like the UNIPCC then assume that there will be a positive feedback loop. The computer models project with that small rise in temperatures will increase the water vapour in upper atmosphere. As this is over 95% of greenhouse gas, a small increase will lead to large rises in temperature. So the forecast churned out by those models is around 2 to 4 degrees.

3. The climatologists then assume that the data collected is unbiased, is accurate and the recent warming is a unique feature. Therefore the results have a high level of confidence and explanatory power.

4. This is then dressed up with appropriate political spin and certainty. They claim a scientific consensus. whilst denouncing those who reject it as having impure motives, or being deranged, or simply people beyond the pale.

5. The seriousness of the impending climate change enhanced by dire predictions of the consequences for the human race and for other species. Probable benefits of a slight warming and higher CO2 levels are never considered,

6. The UK government (along with others) responds by setting draconian reduction targets.

7. Environmental groups, like the Green Party, look at the most extreme predictions, then say it does not go far enough and want yet more draconian targets.

8. This gives the fanatical, morally self-righteous (e.g. Green Fist, Plane Stupid and Climate Rush) who want to commit puerile acts of vandalism and intimidation, dressed up as saving the planet.

9. The perpetrators of these acts then decide to take matters further, going beyond their remit. In this case of the 4×4 vandals, slashing car tyres, instead of just letting them down.

 

The extreme acts are as a consequence of the extreme case portrayed in the media. We need to pause, and consider the evidence. A more balanced view would be that the case is more nuanced, and that any further warming is likely is be small.

Achieving a 90% reduction in Greenhouse Gases

  How soon will the following statements be made to make this goal seem achievable?

“We need to urgently switch to 80% nuclear power, like the French.”

“On your bike!”

“Frozen and chilled food should be banned.”

“Households should switch from gas to electric, despite it being considerably more expensive”

“Heating should be rationed. No thermostats above 20^oC. Also “There is no real evidence that it is the winter cold that causes the mortality rates among the elderly to leap.”

“People should not live more than 3 miles from their place of work. Subsidies should be given to people to move nearer”

“People with foreign relatives and friends should only see them via video link” or “it is not racist to say that it is alright to pay a weekly visit to elderly parents who live 5 miles away, but not alright to pay an annual visit to elderly parents who live 5000 miles away.”

Douglas Carswell on Ian Pilmer’s Heaven & Earth

Like Douglas Carswell MP, I too ordered Pilmer’s Heaven & Earth following the Spectator’s article, and, like him, am only half way through.

 

At the half-way point Carswell point to six things he hadn’t previously known:

1.  Over the past million years, way before industrial man came along, the climate has often changed very significantly, very quickly.

2.  When climate changes, the shift is from being warm and wet to cold and dry.  Or vice-versa.  If global temperatures are rising, it’s most likely getting wetter, not drier. 

3.  Warm-wet climates are generally better for life on earth than cold-dry climates.

4.  CO2 levels have been far, far higher in the past - yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere don’t seem to have been a significant driver of climate in the past.

5.  Human activity accounts for a relatively tiny portion of global CO2 emissions.  To quote Plimer, ”One [submarine] hot spring can release far more CO2 than a 1000 mW coal-fired power station”.  There are many, many thousands of such springs.

6.  Plimer suggests that the really significant drivers of climate change are the sun, ossiclations in the earth’s orbit, and volcanic emissions of sulphur dioxide.  Indeed, the 1784 eruption of Laki in Iceland put 150 million tonnes of SO2 into the atmosphere – which wiped out crops and caused famine in the northern hemisphere for a couple of years.

 

 

The major aim of the Pilmer’s Heaven & Earth is to provide to put the human influence on climate in perspective (both in magnitude and time scale), along with the limits of what we know. For instance on p.112 Pilmer says that a 1% change in the cloud cover could account for the entire C20th warming, whilst on p.115 we find that we can only measure cloudiness to an accuracy of 1%.

The broad sweep of the book is sufficient (to reasonable people) to put on hold any new policies to combat climate change. In particular any policy trying to negate runaway global temperatures. Pilmer shows the earth has a number of powerful forces affecting climate that gives fairly wide fluctuations over millions of years, but also countervailing forces (negative feedback) that gives sufficient stability to sustain life.

 

However, those who are about to read the book should be aware of the lack of an editor. The following can criticisms can be made

-         Pilmer uses every possible criticism available. So the temperature rise of the last century could be explained by a number of factors.

-         The case for the influence of climate on human history may be over stated, but still raises questions on the current orthodoxy.

-         There are a number of errors or exaggerations, that will be used as an excuse to dismiss the book. See George Monbiot in the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism. Some of the “errors” may be a matter of opinion, but they only counter points 4 and 5.

-          It is written in a polemical style, that may confirm the belief of the doubters, but will not gain many converts from the AGW true believers. It is repetitive, introduces new topics at random and gives too many, poorly supported, examples.

 

On the evidence to page 223, there is scope at least for a second edition. More plausibly, for a journal is better able to draw together the diverse bits of information than one person working alone. Pilmer’s book is more than sufficient to undermine the case for delivering the human race into poverty and serfdom to “save the planet” to the unbiased person weighing the arguments. Sadly, policy-makers are being railroaded in one direction by political techniques more akin to the USSR than modern democracies.

300,000+ per annum dead due to Climate Change?

The claim by the Global Humanitarian Forum that over 300,000 people per year is unsubstantiated and most likely false. It is based on a selective reading of data and should be challenged. In particular, the assumption that 40% of the increase in disasters is climate change related and the implication is that we should severely curtail greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate it.

 

The case studies from the full report (here) illustrate why.

-         Hurricane Katrina (p.21). Latest evidence is that there is most likely a link between global warming and hurricanes, but the nature is unknown. It may be temporary whilst temperatures rise. The deaths and much of the economic destruction in Hurricane Katrina was a result of poorly-maintained levees breaking. The human costs (lives and $) was due to a powerful hurricane hitting land on a major population centre. The probability of any one hurricane doing this is very low.

-         2003 European heat wave — 35,000 deaths (p.33).  Unique events cannot be easily adapted to. Contingency plans have been put in place, but in almost 6 summers since there has been no repeat. However, higher temperatures mean than winters are milder. In the UK alone there are thousands of deaths amongst the elderly with elderly every time due to extremes of cold. So the net impact of global warming (even with more extreme conditions) could be a reduction in climate-related deaths.

-         Ethiopian drought and flooding (p.32). The report quite rightly points out that many of the population is malnourished, there is severe water shortages and there are frequent droughts. However, they fail to point out how this is increasing as global temperatures rise. If my memory serves correctly, there has been no famine matching that of 1984, despite the population having increased. There was also a large famine in 1973. Unless there are strong counter-arguments to the contrary, any climate change may have had a positive impact. The counter-arguments are that a) There has been economic growth in the last 25 years. Although still one of the poorest countries on earth, there is sufficient wealth around to cope with famines. b) Aid agencies have structures and plans in place to avert potential disasters. c) There is no longer a pro-Marxist government pushing through collectivization of agriculture and placing obstacles in the way of relief efforts.

                         

The implication from my reading of these examples is that even if they are wholey due to climate change, the way to mitigate them is a targeted response at the local level. In the 3 cases above, it is unlikely that similar scale weather events would cause similar scale disasters, as there are now contingency plans in place. Further the evidence of earthquakes is that the most deaths occur in the poorer parts of the world. A similar-sized earthquake to that of China in 2008 or Bam, Iran in 2003 replicated in California or Japan would not cause the same number of deaths because of better buildings. and better emergancy services. And these are as a consequence of much greater wealth.

In terms of deaths through hunger, the greatest famines in the 20^th century were due to authoritarian governments and wars. The suffering under various communist regimes trying to instill their various brands of utopianism should be a cautionary tale to trying to regulate the world economy. This was based on the certainty that theirs was the perfect system, implementation was not an issue, and those who disagreed were deluded, or in the pay of the capitalist class.

The vast reduction in the proportion of the world’s population suffering hunger is partly due to the green revolution (higher-yielding crops and better types of agriculture of the 1950s & 60s – not the organic fad of the rich countries) but mostly due to sustained economic growth promoted by globalization. The growing countries (China & India, along with others) have turned their backs on state control and embraced globalization and let enterprise flourish. A consequence of that growth has been a massive rise in greenhouse gases. A government managed reduction carries the very great risk that the growth will be reversed, with a consequent increase in human suffering far greater than 315,000 live per year. For these reasons, analysis of the impact of climate change need to be better justified before they form the basis of policy decisions.

 

 

Other Sources

1. The Economist made similar comments when the report came out, commenting that the 40% of the increase in disasters is climate change related is arbitrary and also that money thrown at the problem will not necessarily provide answers. They do not point out the risks to the global economy, nor the local solutions to mitigate the impact rather than global reductions in greenhouse gases.
2. Christopher Booker in the Telegraph said “Then there was the 103-page report launched by Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, on behalf of something called the Global Humanitarian Forum, claiming, without a shred of hard evidence, that global warming is already “killing 300,000 people a year”. But Mr Annan himself had to admit that this report, drawn up by a firm of consultants, was not “a scientific study” but was “the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change”. He contrasts this with recent evidence that the planet has not warmed, and the recent cold winter.
3. Robert Pielke Jr (of wattsupwiththat) gives a more scientific (and thorough) debunking of the basis of the report, concluding “This report is an embarrassment to the GHF and to those who have put their names on it as representing a scientifically robust analysis. It is not even close.” Referred to by Delingpole in the Telegraph and Climate Depot

Climate Change Camp – for good or evil?

The Tax Payers alliance have a posting on the Climate Change Camp set up in Blackheath.

 

Here is my comment:-

 

The comment you make is a fair one. Before proscribing a painful and potentially harmful course of treatment, an ethical doctor would

-         check the diagnosis is accurate – both in type and to the extent.

-         Make sure that the treatment is likely to improve the condition of the patient.

In a similar vein

-         The assessment of the extent of the climate change is not helped by failing to examine validity of the data or statistical analysis.

-         Nor by ignoring contrary science.

-         Nor by ascribing every bit of extreme weather to anthropogenic factors.

-         Nor by ignoring the benefits of warming (e.g. less old people dying in the winter cold)

-         Nor by assuming that a global policy is both the best available and that it will improve the situation.

-         Nor by ignoring the harmful effects of oppressive taxes and regulation. You could reduce economic output and bankrupt the government. This could lead to the collapse of public services (with many dying as a consequence) and millions permanently unemployed. In the emerging nations, reduced output will lead to the mass hunger from which many have just escaped. It will also lead to an increase in wars.

 

To establish that climate change is the “biggest threat the world has known” needs substantiation. In the last century the cause of every major famine was either caused authoritarian government policies or by war. On the other hand, global growth ensured that, for the first time in human history, the vast majority of the worlds population can live free from hunger as a normal state of affairs, and each generation can look forward to better livings standards than their parents. For those who believe in peace and helping the poor should make sure that these achievements are not reversed.

Met Office’s Supercomputer consumes the power of 700 Ferraris

A major problem of the AGW enthusiasts is that they cannot get figures a proper, objective, perspective. This same method has been used by the Daily Mail yesterday (and repeated on wattsupwiththat) to make fun of the Met Office’s new £33m supercomputer. The Daily Mail compares it to using the power of more than 1000 homes. However a supercomputer running 24/7 should not be compared with the average load of a household, where most appliances are used for a small fraction of the time at maximum load.

 A similar comparison would be to say it uses the power of 700 Ferraris. How so?

In actual running the computer uses 1200KW or 1600bhp. This is about equivalent to the maximum power output of 3 Ferrari F360s.

However your typical Ferrari will only cover 3000 miles per year. Let us say that is 150 hours, with an average energy power output of 100kw (134bhp) when running. 150 hours is 1.7% of a year, so average energy output is a puny 1.7kw (2.3bhp). 1200kw/1.7 is about 700, hence the supercomputer consumes the power of 700 Ferraris

 

Many might think this is fair game for an organization that makes forecasts like the one below.

 If no action is taken to curb global warming, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise by as much as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century. This would lead to signficant risks of severe and irreversble impacts.  (page 13)

 However, the exaggerated and shrill claims made for global warming climate change are due to lack of proper perspective. For instance  

1. Not putting recent warming in the perspective of natural climate trends over centuries or millennia.
2. Not looking for alternative explanations of recent warmings, such as the sun.
3. Alarming predictions or record events being widely publicized, but later corrections not being broadcast such as on July 2009 seas surface temperatures; recent Antarctic warming (or the full detail here);  the failure of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to collapse; or claims of the imminent disappearance of the arctic ice sheet.
4. Extrapolating a short-period of (unusual) data over a long period to get an absurd result. For example the 2005 hurricane season (with Katrina) to say that hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent in the future.

 

The example of the supercomputer’s power consumption provides a simple illustration of how we can get that perspective wrong.

Ann Widdecombe on Climate Change

Total Politics Magazine has interviewed Ann Widdecombe. Of note was the views expressed on climate change.

 

It so happens that I know that an awful lot of people in our party – and by that I mean a lot – are deeply unhappy with the way that we’ve signed up apparently quite blindly to the climate change agenda. It isn’t that they don’t want sensible things like recycling, it isn’t a silly rebellion. But there is a deep unease that we’re rushing in virtually to a theology: those who asked questions are ‘deniers’. The language is theological. We’re rushing in to what has become a theology imposed by the equivalent of what has become the mediaeval church and that nobody’s allowed to question it. And that even by questioning it, you’re doing the world a massive disservice and bringing it under perdition.

 

For those conservatives who share that unease, here are some basic points that may help get the issue in perspective.

 

1. The rise in  temperatures over the past century of 0.7⁰C is nothing unusual in the climate since the last ice-age. For much of the Roman Period 250 BC to 450 AD and the Medieval Period (900 to 1300) there is considerable evidence that temperatures were warmer than today. The view that recent temperatures are the highest in many thousands of years (held by the UN IPCC and Al Gore) is based on a single, now-discredited paper. (Shorter, but older, statement here) If there is nothing unusual historically in the recent rise in temperatures, then it is unlikely mostly or entirely by anthropogenic factors. If this is the case, then reducing carbon emissions is a waste of time.
2. The UN IPCC forecasts that the warming will accelerate is based on positive feedback. That is the small rise in temperatures already experienced (0.7⁰C) will cause a much larger rise in temperatures in the future (predicted to be 2 to 4.5⁰C this century). This view is not supported by actual evidence. See here. If there is no sign runaway warming, then there is no need to panic about drastic action now. Rather we should revise our long-term forecasts downwards.
3. There is a certain bias in

i)                    The collection of temperature data, meaning recent warming has been overstated (most recent discussion see here)

ii)                   Reporting the news when it supports the consensus, but not when it does not (e.g. Antarctic warming, hurricanes and Himalayan glacier melt.)

iii)                 Political spin in the presentation of the data. For instance ehe IPCC’s 4^th assessment report of 2007, instead of saying that warming had paused (or ceased) this century said “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).” (page 30 Col 1)

 

 In other words, far from “the science being settled” there are huge questions that must be answered. Before a new drug is launched we ask that tests should be independently verified. If a doctor gives us a diagnosis that we do not think is right we get a second opinion. If someone calls at the door saying “Your roof is about to cave in, but I can replace it for you bargain price of £20,000 if you let me start tomorrow” we would normally see through it and get an alternative opinion from an independent surveyor.

 

Ann Widdecombe may be overstating her case, but we need the alternative voices to be heard, so that between the extremes of Global Warming Alarmists and Climate Change Deniers, we get an honest assessment and realistic policy.