Economic Growth: The Real Hockey Stick

Great Debates
21

First of all, these aren’t the predictions of “alarmists” unless your definition of alarmists includes, e.g., just about every major scientific society in the major developed countries. Second of all, a couple of degrees is toward the low end of estimates (if you mean C…If you mean F then it is on very low end if not under). In fact, just a linear extrapolation over the period of the last 30 years would project close to a 2C rise during this century.

The problem with this sort of logic is that you can use it to justify any sort of trashing of our planet and its environment for short term gain. As others have noted, the fallacy is in believing that it is written in stone that GDP will just keep going up and up. In the past, there have been societies that have prospered for quite some time and then collapsed, apparently at least in part due to environmental issues.

In fact, I would argue that if anything, your observation would more logically argue for taking strong actions to prevent an environmental catastrophe. After all, since the general trajectory of our society is to grow wealthier and wealthier, why should we risk it all by getting too greedy…when accepting just a little less growth now would allow us to avoid what could be quite disastrous consequences later.

22

This may be true, but it ultimately depends on the concentration and control of wealth. Who has it and who doesn’t.

*On a discounted cash-flow basis the earth simply is not worth saving. * S. David Freeman

China and India are experiencing massive economic growth. China is growing faster than any of the fashionable economists predicted; they have reached and surpassed what was considered impossible growth two decades ago.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/feffer

The devastating housing crash is the economic reality for the United States, and it is only foreshadowing what is to come. Global economic growth is not in the U.S. I don’t think we export anything anymore, maybe scrap metal. The service sector is now outsourced to cheap labor markets. How can the U.S. economy grow with no investment and mounting debt? It can’t, not meaningful growth.

23

Can you give me a cite for the amount of warming between 2000 and 2100 as predicted by the National Academy of Sciences? Thanks!

Not really. For example, suppose that we could become richer by greatly increasing the levels of heavy metals in air and drinking water. Since there is no known cure for heavy metal poisoning, being richer won’t fix those problems.

However, the problems of flooding, heat, extreme weather, etc. can all be addressed with money. And the proof is in the pudding. If you believe the “warmers,” the earth has warmed significantly due to human activities since the industrial revolution. And yet the number of people who die due to flooding, , extreme weather, etc. has dropped dramatically over the last 100 years.

There’s much better reason to believe in the GDP hockey stick than the temperature hockey stick.

Could you give me some examples?

The problem is that for people at the bottom, wealth will mean the difference between life and death.

It seems pretty clear to me that a small increase in economic growth has a much bigger impact on human well being than a small increase in temperature.

24

In its joint statement with 10 other academies in other nations, the NAS accepted the IPCC (at that time, Third Assessment Report) projection of 1.4 to 5.8 C rise in temperature by 2100 (above 1990 temperatures).

Well, there might be a cure in the future. (Allow me to amend my statement to make it clear that the trashing of the environment also occurs down the road…i.e., it affects people, say, 50 or 100 years in the future and not immediately. If it affects them immediately, then this whole discounting argument does not apply.)

Well, I would like to see some actual statistics on this. However, there is more than just direct deaths due to such weather events (which obviously can be lowered by better prediction and the means of desiminating that prediction out to the public…two factors that have obviously improved significantly). There are also the economic costs due to having to relocate low-lying areas and due to the increased extreme weather events. There are also both economic and human costs due to, for example, strains on water resources in some places due to droughts and due to less snowpack or glacial melt. And, then there are all the costs due to the effects on other species that cannot adapt well to the rapid changes in climate, especially along with other strains such as pollution and habitat fragmentation.

Not really. The basis for global warming is based on well-understood physics (albeit with complex interactions between the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, etc.). The GDP hockey stick is based on observations and the hope that we can extrapolate them forever, in particular, that such a trend will continue even if we utterly ignore what consequences our means of growth have on the environment.

Jared Diamond wrote a whole book about this. (I admit that I have not read the book nor am I very up on it.)

Actually, what happens to the people at the bottom probably has more to do with how equitably wealth is distributed than small changes in the growth rate of wealth. While it is nice to see people concerned about the folks at the bottom, a lot of people who express this concern in the context of the costs of addressing global warming seem to have mainly ignored this issue until it became useful for them to use this to oppose actual on global warming.

Well, it may seem pretty clear to you but do you have any evidence of this? There are people who have actually done serious studies of this and reached a different conclusion. [And, what do you consider to be “small” in the context of temperature?]

25

Perhaps, but is the amount of money spent going to be less than what we’d spend fighting global warming? (An honest question - I don’t know, and I bet you don’t know either.)

First of all, don’t be so rosy about money magically curing these problems - how much do you think it would cost to build Dutch-style dikes around vulnerable cities in the United States? What would it cost in business if we were hit with a Katrina-magnitude storm every decade instead of every two decades? Where do we get the extra energy if we’re running AC 6 months of the year rather than 4?

At some point, forcing car companies to revise a 22-year-old fuel efficiency standard will be cheap by comparison. Arguably, many of the current proposals for mitigating global warming don’t cost anything at all if you buy into the conservative ideology that a dollar saved by the consumer will be reinvested into the economy and pay for itself - higher fuel efficiency will save consumers gas money, higher lighting efficiency will save consumers electricity money, and driving less or carpooling reduces infrastructure needs.

This belief is likely a function of you trying to jump from step (1) to step (5).

Let’s first talk about your likely misconception - what’s a few degrees, right? We don’t all suddenly die when a warm front comes through. A few degrees change in daily temperature is vastly different from a few degrees change in yearly temperatures. The former means you have a hot day one day. The latter means that you have a hot day every day. When we talk about yearly-averaged, global temperatures, it means every place on Earth has a hot day every day.

For comparison, I have listed the average yearly temperatures of various U.S. cities. Hopefully you will find a pair of cities that are close enough to you so that you can understand what a 1.5-4.5[sup]o[/sup]C change in yearly temperature means.

West Coast:
Seattle 11.6[sup]o[/sup]C (+0[sup]o[/sup]C from Seattle)
San Francisco 13.9[sup]o[/sup]C (+2.3[sup]o[/sup]C)
Los Angeles 17.2[sup]o[/sup]C (+5.6[sup]o[/sup]C)
San Diego 17.9[sup]o[/sup]C (+6.3[sup]o[/sup]C)

Central:
Minneapolis 7.2[sup]o[/sup]C (+0[sup]o[/sup]C from Minneapolis)
Chicago 9.4[sup]o[/sup]C (+2.2[sup]o[/sup]C)
St. Louis 13.4[sup]o[/sup]C (+6.2[sup]o[/sup]C)
Dallas 18.6[sup]o[/sup]C (+11.4[sup]o[/sup]C)
Houston 19.9[sup]o[/sup]C (+12.7[sup]o[/sup]C)

East Coast:
Buffalo 8.7[sup]o[/sup]C (+0[sup]o[/sup]C from Buffalo)
Boston 10.7[sup]o[/sup]C (+2.0[sup]o[/sup]C)
New York 12.6[sup]o[/sup]C (+3.9[sup]o[/sup]C)
Raleigh-Durham 15.2[sup]o[/sup]C (+6.5[sup]o[/sup]C)
Atlanta 16.3[sup]o[/sup]C (+7.6[sup]o[/sup]C)
Miami 24.4[sup]o[/sup]C (+15.7[sup]o[/sup]C)

The lower range of the IPCC 4AR would be like moving from Los Angeles to San Diego, Dallas to Houston, or Boston to New York (probably marginally noticeable). The upper range would be like moving from San Francisco to San Diego, Chicago to St. Louis, or Boston to Raleigh-Durham. If you think any of those can be considered “small” changes, you’ve got bigger problems than I can help you with.

It’s just as wrong to dismiss the potential change as “small” as it is to assume that the potential change is “large”, and there’s plenty of people on both sides of that. This is why scholarship in understanding the risks is a prerequisite for appropriately gauging what mitigation steps to take. If you don’t understand the cost of inaction, you can’t properly judge the cost of action. If you overestimate the cost of inaction (e.g. Gore), you end up with ridiculously expensive proposals which don’t do enough (e.g. Kyoto). If you underestimate the cost of inaction (e.g. Wanniski), you end up costing yourself a pretty penny in the long run (e.g. Stern).

This is why the questions I listed more or less have to be considered in the order I listed them.

26

Can you quote the specific language? I don’t see it. Thank you!

And there might not be. But if we’re willing to spend money, we can get around higher sea levels using present technology.

Do you deny that deaths due to extreme weather have dropped dramatically in the last 100 years, even as temperatures have risen?

And those problems can be solved with money. Like I said earlier, the proof is in the pudding. Humans are much better off now than 50 or 100 years ago, even as temperatures have risen.

Cite for the physics that shows that anomaly temperature variation has been less than 0.5 C in the past 1000 years, please. Cite for the physics that shows that temperatures in the past 50 years are the highest in the past 1000 years please.

I’m not asking for obvservations, I’m asking for physics. Thank you.

No, it’s also based on the common sense principle that increases in wealth and technology allow us to further increase our wealth and technology.

Examples, please. Thank you.

The two are obviously related. The U.S. does a lot more for poor people than it did in the past. Part of the reason for this is that we can afford to. Most advanced nations recognize that it’s in the public interest to help people at the bottom.

If you don’t care about the people at the bottom, then these issues don’t matter. If you do care about them, it’s worth observing that poor people are better off in a wealthier warmer world.

As I’ve said again and again, just look at the last 50 or 100 years.

27

I don’t know, but at the rate we are going, we’ll be 10 times as rich in 2100 as now. That’s a lot of $$.

Again, ten times as much money will go a long way.

According to the infamous Mann Hockey stick, temperatures have risen a full degree centigrade since 1900. Has that been even a fraction of a disaster? As far as I can tell, no.

Look, I think “Is AGW real” is an important question. Please feel free to open a thread about it.

28

Costs will also be rising over that time frame.

The full degree centigrade warming since 1900 doesn’t rely on the hockey stick - we have instrumental data back to 1850 which shows the same thing.

What makes you think that the effects would be linear with temperature increase? Do you spend $100 a month on liquor with no problem, and then conclude that spending $150-$450 a month on liquor will be 1.5x-4.5x as bad?

What if there’s a significant time delay between the emissions of greenhouse gases and their climatological effects? What if we’re only feeling the effects of emissions 1900-1950 with the effects of post-1980 emissions yet to be felt?

Can we expect the U.S. to maintain its current/historical level of GDP growth if we become net food importers rather than net food exporters (a scenario very likely if crop yield predictions are correct)?

29

We’ll be 10 times richer in real terms, my man.

Lol. The hockey stick is spliced. See my other thread.

Linear, quadratic, cubic, parabolic, who knows? But the fact that economic growth has – so far – overwhelmingly outstripped any negative effects of temperature increase is suggestive, no?

Since you like analogies, here’s an analogy for you:

It’s halftime, and the score is 50 to 3. Who will you bet on to win the game?

30

Won’t matter much, if they don’t live long enough to finish the game.

31

Of course not. I can just see somebody saying “I’m putting my money on the team that’s behind, because the team that’s ahead might all have heart attacks and die and have to forfeit.”

Actually, nobody would bet their own money on that sort of outcome. But they might bet somebody else’s.

32

And, another way of looking at it too: The change in global temperature between the last ice age and now is estimated to be about 5 C…and that was enough to make the difference between the climate we have now in upstate New York and being buried under 2 miles of glacial ice. So, the upper end of the IPCC range is indeed a huge change in the global climate!

33

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.” (Yes, I know, in brazil64-land this won’t count as accepting it because they didn’t use the exact words that they accept this as accurate, even though the whole context of that statement makes it clear that they do.)

Well, I haven’t seen any massive increase in how much the U.S. is spending for foreign aid for the poor. Maybe you can quote some figures?

This actually flies in the face of what people who actually study the problem, rather than simply talk out of their behinds, have concluded. In fact, the conclusion is that the poor will suffer very disproportionately from climate change. Part of this is because of the luck of the draw with where they are but even more important is the fact that they lack the resources necessary to adapt.

Your simple extrapolations are essentially meaningless as has been pointed out to you again and again.

34

Assuming growth continues - I notice you avoided my question about why you think we could continue that level of growth if food had to be redistributed.

Why do you assume that economic growth has “outstripped” negative effects of a temperature increase, much less “overwhelmingly outstripped” it? Perhaps we’d be twice as rich right now if we weren’t constantly spending our resources resolving tribal fighting in the Sahara (an definite effect of global warming).

That’s a pretty poor analogy, because you don’t know the score. Here’s a better one: it’s halftime, and you have 50 points and expect to score another 500 in the second half. Who would you bet on to win, given that you don’t know the opponent’s current score or even how points are scored?

Furthermore, which team would you bet on - the one that, by halftime, has taken an interest in their opponents’ strategies, viewed videotapes of their opponents’ defensive signals ( :stuck_out_tongue: ), and after a cost-benefit analysis believes they’re coming out with a victory; or the team that, at halftime, has no idea what the rules of the game are or what their opponents are doing, yet simply believes that scoring 500 points in the second half will blow away anything their opponents might do?

35

Sorry, but that’s just somebody making a statement about what the IPCC says. It doesn’t state that they accepted it.

Lol. No, in brazil84-land, I expect people to say what they mean. The NAS could have easily stated that they accepted this projection. Even without using the word “accept.” But apparently they didn’t. No?

I did an image search for foreign aid and time and found this graph:

I can’t vouch for it, but I will say that if it were a temperature graph, Michael Mann would probably approve.

Cites please?

Exactly why? Does it mean anything to you that human well being has improved dramatically even as the Earth warmed over the last 50 or 100 years?

Do you deny that deaths due to extreme weather have dropped dramatically in the last 100 years, even as temperatures have risen?

And . . .

Cite for the physics that shows that anomaly temperature variation has been less than 0.5 C in the past 1000 years, please. Cite for the physics that shows that temperatures in the past 50 years are the highest in the past 1000 years please.

I’m not asking for obvservations, I’m asking for physics. Thank you.

Examples, please. Thank you.

36

I must not have noticed the question. But anyway, if we are 10 times richer, there will be plenty of money for food. Even now, the U.S. has tons of capacity to produce food. To me, predictions that we will run out of ability to produce food are a bit like peak oil predictions. And frankly, as a layman, it’s hard to believe that Minnesota will produce less corn and wheat if the weather there is a couple degrees warmer.

Because human well being has improved dramatically in the past 100 years, even as the temperature increased. Duh.

Sure we do. We know that the effects of improved technology have helped people a lot more than the increase in temperature has hurt people. Radio, radar, internal combustion engines, and even computer models: These things help us know when extreme weather is coming and help to get people out of its way when it does come.

So far, technology is beating temperature increases by a wide margin.

I would bet on the team that’s kicking the other team’s ass in.

37

Man, what a pathetically weak argument (although anticipated). There is little reason to dispute this with you. I will just refer readers to my original link and they can see for themselves if it seems that the statement seems to be accepting or not accepting this projection. Also, [is a link to NAS President Ralph Cicerone’s testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 2005:

Well, thankfully, at least foreign aid is going up in constant dollars. However, I don’t think it has been keeping up with the rise in GDP. I.e., if you normalized this plot by GDP, you would see a declining percentage. (I base this on the fact that a 3% growth rate in real GDP would lead to it doubling about every 23 year.)

Also, to get an idea of the scale of that aid, we should note that the current world GDP is something like $47 or $66 trillion (depending on whether you use exchange rates or purchasing power parity). That suggests that the scale of the aid is on the order of a couple tenths of 1% of this amount. It seems that the ability of the wealthy countries to give aid to the poorer ones is hardly limited by GDP.

38

Lol. Man, what a pathetically weak argument (although anticipated).

Looks to me like the NAS was very careful to avoid making the claim that you claim they are making.

The fact is that wealthy nations tend to be stingy as far as foreign aid goes. But I don’t see how this undercuts my point, which is that the U.S. has done more for poor people both at home and abroad as it has gotten wealthier.

Cites please?

Exactly why? Does it mean anything to you that human well being has improved dramatically even as the Earth warmed over the last 50 or 100 years?

Do you deny that deaths due to extreme weather have dropped dramatically in the last 100 years, even as temperatures have risen?

And . . .

Cite for the physics that shows that anomaly temperature variation has been less than 0.5 C in the past 1000 years, please. Cite for the physics that shows that temperatures in the past 50 years are the highest in the past 1000 years please.

I’m not asking for obvservations, I’m asking for physics. Thank you.

Examples, please. Thank you.

39

How short-sighted. What if there’s not enough food? What if the new breadbaskets are in nations hostile to us? What makes you think “we” are going to be 10x richer just because the world, on average, is 10x richer?

What would it take to convince you? Scientists predict it, and I’ve tried my best to point out that corn doesn’t grow as well in Dallas as it does in Kansas. Your personal opinion directly contradicts facts you have not contested, and it’s unclear what the basis for your decision is.

But that’s irrelevant. Nobody thinks that human well-being would decrease in the next century, only that it wouldn’t increase as fast as it might otherwise do.

On another note, human well-being certainly improved from 1500 to 1700 with no visible increase in world GDP - why do you attribute current increase in human well-being to growing GDP at all?

Exactly how do you quantitate how much the increase in temperature has hurt people? What statistic would you cite to say that the increase in temperature has hurt X numbers of people, or hurt people by Y amount?

You mean that you would bet on the team that believes, without evidence, that they are kicking the other team’s ass in.

This post was made well after you responded to my other thread about global warming, in which I linked you to, and pointed you specifically to, the Summary for the 2001 Climate Change Report.

You have no excuse for not having read this prior to your most recent post.

For someone who asked for cites 5 times in his last post, you seem to have read very little of the cites you have already been given.

40

Then millions of people will starve and Paul Ehrlich will have been right.

Here’s one for you: What if space aliens attack and destroy the earth because they are sick of us beaming re-runs of The Brady Bunch into space? Maybe the prudent thing to do is to ban The Brady Bunch?

You could start with a few cites. Cites that a warmer Minnesota will produce less (or the same?) wheat and corn. Ditto for Canada.

Dude, do you even remember the question you asked that prompted my statement? I’ll repeat it:

How is my answer irrelevant?

I doubt that human well being improved particularly outside of Europe. Can you give me some cites please? (And note that GDP in Europe did increase during this time period.)

Because increased GDP means more and better goods and services. Vaccines. Stronger buildings. Early warning systems. Better food production and distribution. The U.S. is so wealthy now that we just give away food for free.

I don’t know if it has hurt people at all. But you don’t need to answer this question to see the truth of my basic point: That the improvements due to increased wealth have helped people a lot more than the temperature increase has hurt people.

Lol. Are you kidding? Do you seriously deny that humans are much better off now than they were 100 years ago despite the warming that has taken place? What do you think accounts for this improvement?

Whatever. I read your selections. My point stands. When the IPCC’s projections fail to materialize, the NAS will have plenty of room to weasel.