Economist Brent Boehlert and his colleagues at MIT have issued a new report showing that curbing carbon emissions would represent a huge benefit for agriculture and the nation as a whole by reducing the frequency and severity of future crop-parching droughts and saving American farmers billions of dollars annually by 2100. The study is found in the July issue of Weather, Climate and Society. The study is interesting because the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change has been focused on the hard science side of academia. This is a group of economists who are adding an economic analysis supporting emission curbs.
The study estimates that large-scale climate action would save farmers about $980 million annually by 2050 while more modest cuts would net savings of around $390 million annually. The two scenarios would keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 500 and 600 parts per million, respectively, compared with 1,750 ppm without mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Droughts currently cost the United States between $6 billion and $8 billion a year. They are expected to grow worse in the absence of aggressive climate change action, particularly in other countries. The study found an overall benefit of $2.2 billion a year to U.S. agriculture from aggressive carbon emission reductions.
Source: Science News
Latest from Donald Trump “The concept of global warming was created by the Chinese to make U.S. Manufacturing non-competitive.” Really. You can’t make this stuff up.
I don’t know if they should be “curved”(sic) but our continued existence depends on them being curbed.
cdncurmudgeon – I thought the world’s existence depended on our being smashed.
“Critical thinking skills”, paleoclimatologists vs PI.
Inga – the paleoclimatologists have no critical thinking skills. Michael Mann is a weasel and should be driven from the scientific community.
ND
Global cooling or global warming is not the issue. The issue is man’s contribution. The point missed is economic revolution and infusion of innovation, creation, etc. All that stuff that dreams are made of come true. You remember?
hskiprob
There are indeed two sides to every story. However, the side that is openly observing global warming is, by far, more comprised of scientists, facts, statistics, data, etc., than the side that is disputing global warming. The side that is openly observing mankind’s contribution to global warming includes most of the scientists, facts, statistics, data, etc. as compared to the side that disputes mankind’s contribution. The only question that can only be answered after the fact, whenever that might be and with what results, is the effect of mankind on something that is obviously happening.
In other words if one recognizes that there is a tipping point, and to not recognize this is tantamount to not recognizing gravity, it takes a relatively small push at or before the half way mark to get the ball rolling down the other slope. There are vast amounts of methane stored in the deepest depths of the ocean and in the frozen areas of the earth. The release of this methane would send the world’s temperature well high enough so as to be indisputable. The release of this methane is effected by a very small change in ocean and/or earth temperature. If and when the oceans’ temperature rise to a point where the cold water that holds the methane down is warmed to a point where it cannot keep the lighter substance down, then it will come up and into the atmosphere. This is not something that can be reversed quickly, or at all, by mankind. The frozen plant life, tundra, would begin to decay if exposed to warmer air. These millions of square miles will release methane into the atmosphere.
There is no one ‘tipping point’ but a succession of events where one facilitates the next. A fraction of a degree encourages another fraction until there is one degree, and so on. One can criticize any and all scientists and science in general. However, finding fault in one part of the best way mankind has to predict does not mean the whole system is at fault. This tactic is the spine of the naysayer.
This brings us to a point where one has got to ask oneself what is better, defending the status quo or doing something about what might be catastrophic. If one were to do something about it and it did reverse the warming trend enough to take the issue off the table-I am reminded of the doomsday clock I grew up with. On a weekly basis the minute hand bounced back and forth between 11:57 and 11:59. The threat of nuclear war was imminent and there were those then that took one side or another. One side fought to do something about stopping it and the other side tried to convince the world that the threat of nuking the other side was the way to go-then mankind would have evolved positively. If mankind reduced the problem and the oceans’ temperature dropped then, even though many would still dispute the relationship, it would be a good thing.
Regardless, doing something is the best thing for the economy. It forces mankind to innovate, create, produce new technology, new science, etc. It is a positive revolution. Coal, today’s energy tail, replaced the deforestation through the use of wood for energy during the industrial revolution. Coal, a more concentrated energy source was, compared to wood, a better and more environmentally safer source of energy. Natural gas is better than coal and renewable sources the best of all. This is the sort of progress we need. Doing nothing does two things: it maintains the status quo and it maintains and increases the risk. The status quo has never been proven to be the way to be. If the status quo had prevailed we would all be living in caves still. Just as with the threat of nuclear annihilation we got used to the risk, which permitted it to increase. This is the boiling frog routine. A third thing that can be interpreted however one wishes is that it contributes to that part of humanity that is shameful. History illustrates this if nothing else.
Paul, What we are seeing here are Holy Rollers proclaiming their allegiance to their secular god of global warming. They prayed to the god of global cooling back in the 70’s, switched to warming in the 80’s. But, if they follow the undoctored data, soon they will be rolling in the aisles to the god of temperature stagnation. It is fascinating for a person w/ critical thinking skills to watch.
BTW, the Godzilla El Nino will be visiting this year, which is going to make all the diddling hard to keep up with. Next year will not be the warmest year on record.
Inga – NOAA has been fudging the climate numbers. This is a huge scandal in the scientific community. And the paleoclimatologists that you tout, have also juggled the numbers. Their computer models will not even predict today’s weather.
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html
“The rapidly rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affect plants’ absorption of nitrogen, which is the nutrient that restricts crop growth in most terrestrial ecosystems. Researchers at the University of Gothenburg have now revealed that the concentration of nitrogen in plants’ tissue is lower in air with high levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of whether or not the plants’ growth is stimulated. The study has been published in the journal Global Change Biology.
“The findings of the study are unequivocal. The nitrogen content in the crops is reduced in atmospheres with raised carbon dioxide levels in all three ecosystem types. Furthermore, we can see that this negative effect exists regardless of whether or not the plants’ growth increases, and even if fertiliser is added. This is unexpected and new,” says Johan Uddling, senior lecturer at the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences at the University of Gothenburg.”
Annie
Maybe plants in a higher CO2 atmosphere need less nitrogen.
But then I haven’t been to a university or a monastary in Gothenburg so what do I know?
These MIT economists are just socialists, bent on destroying our leaders and their provision of a consumer heritage for the rest of us and the freedom to chat online and watch the Super Bowl halftime extravaganza.
“The enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economic conquests only, but for political power. The question will arise, and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine: Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect; who shall fill public stations — educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?”
– Edward G. Ryan, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in his address to the graduating class of the University of Wisconsin, 1873.
There’s no excuse for turning a blind eye.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-carbon-dioxide-stunt-sea-shell.html
“Scientists have discovered that stunted growth can be a genetic response to ocean acidification, enabling some sea creatures to survive high carbon dioxide levels, both in the future and during past mass extinctions.
Professor Hall-Spencer added, “It is critical that we understand the mechanisms by which certain species survive chronic exposure to elevated CO2 since emissions of this gas are already having adverse effects on marine foodwebs and putting food security at risk.””
So science is about conspiracy theories…?
And Religion is about what, exactly?
Sounds like a government funded study that gets the result that the government bought and paid for….
use your brain for something other than a hat rack people.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1132.short
“Warming of the oceans and consequent loss of dissolved oxygen (O2) will alter marine ecosystems, but a mechanistic framework to predict the impact of multiple stressors on viable habitat is lacking. Here, we integrate physiological, climatic, and biogeographic data to calibrate and then map a key metabolic index—the ratio of O2 supply to resting metabolic O2 demand—across geographic ranges of several marine ectotherms. These species differ in thermal and hypoxic tolerances, but their contemporary distributions are all bounded at the equatorward edge by a minimum metabolic index of ~2 to 5, indicative of a critical energetic requirement for organismal activity. The combined effects of warming and O2 loss this century are projected to reduce the upper ocean’s metabolic index by ~20% globally and by ~50% in northern high-latitude regions, forcing poleward and vertical contraction of metabolically viable habitats and species ranges.”
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=Cj0KEQjwr8uuBRCcg6-s-4TrmIsBEiQAN1TdEXN3-WiFe3QvD2royPuawIfxpgq1kBhA_HZFEU9thIIaArnT8P8HAQ
“Scientists had struggled to understand a slowdown in the world’s warming starting 15 years ago. A new study says it never happened.
A new study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that the world’s warming never really stalled during the last 15 years—it was just masked by incomplete data records that have been improved and expanded in recent years.”
Annie
All the missing climate data was in Hillary’s emails.
Shazam!
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html
Ice melt, sea level rise, and superstorms, evidence from paleoclimatologists.
pinandpuller wondered:
How much are crop yields reduced by dropping C02 levels?
—-
I had the same thought on reading this. We know that plants love love loooove CO2, and by running a line through roots is actually shown to reduce water consumption of a plant while boosting it’s growth and production. Professional growers pump up the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere of the greenhouse which the plants eat up and kick out oxygen. Humans, according to engineeringtoolbox dot come, can stand up to roughly 10,000 PPM without severely adverse health effects. The more serious and noticeable effects start to be noticed around 30,000 PPM.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
So of course reducing CO2 emissions will reduce droughts! Plants will grow less, be smaller, and therefore require less water. They’ll also be producing less food, and feeding less people, and making less money, and therefore stimulating the economy less.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2015/07/23/sobering-climate-science-extreme-weather-rise
“A recent Lancet report on climate change impacts is sobering: More people will be exposed to extreme weather over the next century than previously thought. We also just learned that 2015 is on pace to be the hottest year on record, following last year’s record-shattering global temperatures.
By the end of this century, there will be 2 billion more people exposed annually to extreme rainfall events, 3 billion more elders exposed to heat waves, and 1.4 billion more people exposed every year to drought, scientists found.”
http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/climate-change-2015
Scientists need to make up their minds.
If there are too many people then extra famine, pestilence, war and crop failures will reduce the human scourge and restore environmental balance.
Why do they care if some geezer gets rained on a little more in his twilight years?
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/west-antarctica-sea-level-estimates-19345
“The West Antarctic is one of the most remote places on the planet, but its fate is intimately tied with hundreds of millions living along the world’s coastlines. That’s because it’s frozen expanse contains enough ice to raise sea levels by up to 13 feet.
There have been multiple warnings of growing instability across the region and the possibility of collapse due to a mix of warming water and air and the topography below the ice. But the complexities of how much ice melts and when it disappears are still outstanding.
The cause of Antarctica’s melting ice is twofold. Rising air temperatures are one culprit. The average temperature has risen 4.3°F over the past 50 years in the region. Warm water is also putting West Antarctica’s massive stores of ice at risk of sliding into the sea. Some signs indicate big changes already are afoot.”
Annie
Who decided which part of Antarctica was west? Did someone discover East and West Poles?
Annie, you are believing so much that is just down right erroneous. You cannot take 97% of what is being delivered as fact by the main stream media. You don’t even seem to consider that Democracy Now is part of the main stream media.
As an example, their is no high degree of consensus by scientists that global warming even exists much less being man made. The main stream media has written this so often that you now believe it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
There is no consensus:
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere …”. (Petition Project)
Beware of the logical fallacy, as we all fall victim to some of them from time to time.