What does a "mindburglar" know about theoretical physics?
~~~~~~~~~~
See -- cheap shots are just that: worthless...
TXnMA
Posted on 11/27/2018 2:35:10 AM PST by reaganaut1
Headlines warned of economic doom after the U.S. government released its fourth National Climate Assessment last week. Yet a close reading of the report shows that the overall economic impact of human-caused climate change is expected to be quite small.
Projecting human-caused changes in the global climate is a major scientific challenge; estimates of the temperature increases due to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations are uncertain by a factor of three. Trying to make projections for a particular region—such as the contiguous U.S., which comprises only 1.6% of the globe’s surface—compounds the uncertainty. Estimates of the economic impact are less certain still, in part because as-yet-unknown modes of adaptation will mitigate the effects.
The report’s numbers, uncertain as they are, turn out not to be all that alarming. The final figure of the final chapter shows that an increase in global average temperatures of 9 degrees Fahrenheit (beyond the 1.4-degree rise already recorded since 1880) would directly reduce the U.S. gross domestic product in 2090 by 4%, plus or minus 2%—that is, the GDP would be about 4% less than it would have been absent human influences on the climate. That “worst-worst case” estimate assumes the largest plausible temperature rise and only known modes of adaptation.
To place a 4% reduction in context, conservatively assume that real annual GDP growth will average 2% in the coming decades (it has averaged 3.2% since 1935 and is currently 3%). That would result in a U.S. economy roughly four times as large in 2090 as today. A 4% climate impact would reduce that multiple to 3.8—a correction much smaller than the uncertainty of any projection over seven decades. To put it another way, the projected reduction in the average annual growth rate is a mere 0.05 percentage point.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
“Scientists” walking back their global warming bullshit as we enter a solar minimum.
What does a theoretical physicist know about climate or economics?
Leaving aside the very real criticisms of combining measurements made using different methodologies and the highly questionable concept of average global temperature (in that, while there is a theoretical average at any given point in time, it is doubtful whether one can determine it with any reliability), I wonder how the determination was made that the temperature will shoot up 9 degrees F in the next 70 years after (maybe) increasing by 1.4 degrees in the last 140 years?
All anyone ever needs to know. Thanks for posting.
“...the overall economic impact of human-caused climate change is expected to be quite small.”
So if we are to have any hope of destroying the US economy, we need to tax its middle class into oblivion, addle their minds and destroy their sense of initiative. A new world order doesn’t create itself, students.
Ha! That’s the stupidest half a paragraph I ever read.
“The WSJ says “Mr. Koonin, a theoretical physicist,”
Yeah, - Him and Rod Serling, - two peas in a pod.
The worst case scenario assumes that human caused global warming is real.
Historically warmer temperatures have boosted economies as longer growing seasons lowered prices as food supplies grew.
True extreme heat waves can stress people out a cause a few premature deaths but overall warmer climates are favorable to economic growth.
What does a "mindburglar" know about theoretical physics?
~~~~~~~~~~
See -- cheap shots are just that: worthless...
TXnMA
I wish there actually was some global warming. I haven’t seen any yet. We are freezing in November in Minnesota with less than 10 days with temps above freezing. Feels like late December weather.
What’s a theoretical physicist? When I was at University I loved math and science because there was always a true answer to any problem. Looking for theories is the stuff that social sciences are made of - not math and science. Just my opinion.
Regarding your posted NYT URL, FWIW, everything to the right of the question mark is tracking information.
Don’t wanna be tracked? Cut the URL down to what’s necessary to go to the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-a-world-without-growth.html
So are hysterical rants about global warming and economics by a theoretical physicist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.