Skip to comments.Study: We all might be “overestimating climate sensitivity”
Posted on 01/28/2013 1:21:21 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Having heard it straight from President Obama last Monday, the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms looming in our immediate future are all imminent catastrophes fueled by rapid climate change about which we simply must do something right away but this is exactly the type of alarmist rhetoric that ensures we pursue the types of ineffective, top-down, big-government, expensive, and internationalist solutions that will actually have very little net effectiveness in sincerely addressing the issue.
One of environmentalists favorite past-times includes whipping up a certain amount of global-warming frenzy as an excuse to implement their central-planning pipe dreams, but as a new study out of Norway attests, all of the doom-and-glooming might be just a tiny bit exaggerated, via Bloomberg:
After the planets average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Earths mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s, said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.
As we have seen time and again throughout history, a top-down government trying to dictate peoples behavioral patterns is a reliable recipe for disaster if were sincere in our efforts to get more efficient with our energy habits, why is more regulation, government, and taxpayer spending almost always the proffered solution? Bjorn Lomborg did the topic justice in last weeks WSJ: All of the radical hysterics informing us of the ostensibly terrifying immediacy of calamitous consequences misdirects our time, money, and attention away from finding affordable, practical alternatives that actually do stand a chance at achieving some of the goals environmentalists are always claiming theyre after.
But if the main effort to cut emissions is through subsidies for chic renewables like wind and solar power, virtually no good will be achievedat very high cost. The cost of climate policies just for the European Unionintended to reduce emissions by 2020 to 20% below 1990 levelsare estimated at about $250 billion annually. And the benefits, when estimated using a standard climate model, will reduce temperature only by an immeasurable one-tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
Even in 2035, with the most optimistic scenario, the International Energy Agency estimates that just 2.4% of the worlds energy will come from wind and only 1% from solar. As is the case today, almost 80% will still come from fossil fuels. As long as green energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, growing consumer markets like those in China and India will continue to use them, despite what well-meaning but broke Westerners try to do.
When innovation eventually makes green energy cheaper, everyone will implement it, including the Chinese. Such a policy would likely do 500 times more good per dollar invested than current subsidy schemes. But first lets drop the fear-mongering exaggerationand then focus on innovation.
Al Gore does not approve of this message.
The fear mongering is what makes Obama’s and his politicians rich. They arent about to stop.
Follow the money.
Hot can anyone ignore that big hot spot,....?
Yes it’s all about state control and crony capitalism.
Extortion continues almost un-abated.
You all might be, professor, but I was never dumb enough to believe that.