Economics and Science of Climate Change

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:

· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.

· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.

· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.

· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf

I havent read the whole thing yet but confirmation bias leads me to predict that I will like it and that Old Rocks wont read it but if he did, he wont like it. lol
 
From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:

· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.

· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.

· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.

· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf

I havent read the whole thing yet but confirmation bias leads me to predict that I will like it and that Old Rocks wont read it but if he did, he wont like it. lol



no brainer..........been saying it for years!!! Its the main reason you're seeing states government greenhouse regulatory efforts crash and burn. People have woken up to the fact this fighting a scientific hail mary pass guess fcukks them in the arse. Its supported only by the nutballs who think we should follow through on all the idealistic notions that come to us. Of course, most of us call that the "liberal mind"!!!!!!:lol:

If people want to be green...............God bless.............go for it. Fall all over yourselves and be gone with the guilt.............drive tht little gay SMARTCAR like Old Rocks drives. Im keeping my high powered 18 mpg Mustang forever!!!
 
Last edited:
check out the pdf, it is impressive. this guy used to be an EPA researcher. I dont imagine they will be inviting him back any time soon! hahahaha
 
From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:

· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.

· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.

· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf

I havent read the whole thing yet but confirmation bias leads me to predict that I will like it and that Old Rocks wont read it but if he did, he wont like it. lol

No, I looked at the beginning assumption, and I am not going to waste my time reading 47 pages that are based on assumptions that fly in the face of all that is known at present.

If climate sensitivity is much lower, why are we losing the alpine glaciers, and why are we losing gigatons of ice from Greenland and Antarctica? How come the climatic zones are moving?

Feedback is negative rather than positive? Pure bullshit. Permafrost CO2 and CH4 is negative? Arctic Ocean CH4 is negative? As for the water vapor feedback, cloud reflectivity, ect., that has not been settled yet, but appears to be positive from most studies.

And when did the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere change?
 
when did the RT of CO2 change? when the CAGW alarmists found the historical values embarrasing to their theories. just like the MWP and LIA. and CO2 as plant food. and....
 

Forum List

Back
Top