Global Warming

Well, this is definitely not good. For every 1C of warming, we could take a 12% GDP hit in the aggregate sense.

I skimmed the paper. This is interesting:

When we start the economy in 1960 and feed in the historical path of warming until 2024, our counterfactuals indicate that world GDP per capita would be 37% higher today had no warming occurred between 1960 and 2024 instead of the actual 0.75°C increase in global mean temperatures

During that time period, actual global per capita GDP tripled. Of course, one driver of the increase in per capita GDP is the benefits of increasing our exploitation of fossil fuels, which produced the CO2 that led to the warming.

That 37% is from a model the is populated with assumptions derived from correlations involving short term fluctuations in temperatures. I couldn’t find anything that talked about the physical mechanism that converted the warmer temps to long term reduction in GDP.

I can imagine a mechanism. Maybe higher temps increased the number of hurricanes which destroyed physical capital (primarily buildings). Rebuilding used human labor that might have been employed creating some other capital goods (I can’t think exactly what that would be). The lack of those goods reduced long term GDP. It shouldn’t reduce short term GDP (because re-building is economic activity).

But, my comment is that the paper doesn’t seem to have any discussion of that. There in no correlation between short term warmings and short term weather disasters, for example.

Maybe for the researchers doing all the math, their results are really convincing. For me, it’s just a model built on some correlations with nothing to really grab onto. Other researchers may be impressed, I just can’t visualize the cause-effect mechanism.

If they studied the costs of warmer temperatures and ignored the benefits of cheap energy, sure, they are going to get to a scary number. It might be an interesting number, but it does not make a good argument for taking a different path.

A potentially scarier number is the inequality that global warming has created. I dont think the costs on the US have been that high, and we have been one of the largest beneficiaries of cheap energy during that time. I am sure that study exists, probably elsewhere in this thread.

I think the authors of this particular study would say that they subtracted the benefits of cheap energy by backing out the global secular growth in per capita GDP and just looked at variation around the long term trend.
They also say that virtually all regions suffered losses.

But, again, the method to me is to look at short term correlations between GDP and short term temperature variations, then develop numbers they could plug into a long term model.

Interesting article on Mexico City’s water crisis. Climate change could be a factor here but overpopulation, poor planning and lack of infrastructure investment are also culprits.

This is climate change in a nutshell. What were once 1 in 100 year events, have now become 1 in 30 year events leading to widespread economic damage.

How many 1 in 500 year events has Houston had in the last 10 years?

That’s just the Tribulation. Perfectly natural.

1 Like

That question directed at me?

I have no idea. We live in the UK and Brazil right now, hence my focus. I was in Rio in February and the heat was way worse than normal (El Niño effect contributed), so excessive precipitation was likely as a consequence.

Here is an article from the FT (gift link) that is covering the evolving flood situation in the south of Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul).

The flood graphic below tracks the strength of the flooding over the last 20+ years.

Was just throwing it out there as an example.

1 Like

If I’m reading this correctly? they estimate that our 2020 shipping regulations (reducing sulfur aerosols) is doubling the rate of global warming this decade.

The finding seems to be disputed where the paper used a very simple model which may not account for a bunch of key couplings.

Yes, they admit to doing back-of-the-napkin math. But I don’t know, it’s Nature, so I assume they at least checked it over. Do you have better studies/estimates?

Science and Nature often publish stuff that wouldn’t be accepted without some significant revisions in journals that are closer to the specific topics because key details are being glossed over. I’ve seen it a few times for fish related stuff. Colleagues have tried writing critiques of some studies, but the journal publishing the original study often won’t accept them.

I wouldn’t expect to see the critiques to be published for a few months to a year plus just due to the time needed to complete a more detailed analysis, plus writing time and then peer review

1 Like

$500k+ in destroyed value due to climate change/sea level rise in the Outer Banks, NC. Don’t buy real estate on barrier islands.


I take it there is a robust market in valuing this house at $500K. “Don’t worry, insurance will cover it!”

“Maintaining that beach over 30 years would cost more than $175 million.”

$\textcolor{red}{\text{Totally worth it.}}$

The amazing thing is that the $500k value comes from the last selling price – in 2021.

I can’t imagine that.

The 2021 sellers dodged a bullet.

1 Like

I live 1/4 mile from the beach, and almost every house between me and the beach has flooding problems. Despite that, there are 2 new constructions going up along the road from my house to the beach, and a couple more that were finished semi-recently. It’s crazy to me. One of the recently finished projects is elevated, but the ones in progress are not. (And the one that is elevated was done so partially so that they can park their BMW and their boat underneath their living space.)