Study finds the warmer it gets, the more world economy hurts

Earth
Clouds over Australia are shown. Credit: NASA

With each upward degree, global warming will singe the economies of three-quarters of the world's nations and widen the north-south gap between rich and poor countries, according to a new economic and science study.

Compared to what it would be without more global warming, the average global income will shrivel 23 percent at the end of the century if heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution continues to grow at its current trajectory, according to a study published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature.

Some countries, like Russia, Mongolia and Canada, would see large economic benefits from global warming, the study projects. Most of Europe would do slightly better, the United States and China slightly worse. Essentially all of Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East would be hurt dramatically, the economists found.

"What climate change is doing is basically devaluing all the real estate south of the United States and making the whole planet less productive," said study co-author Solomon Hsiang, an economist and public policy professor at the University of California Berkeley. "Climate change is essentially a massive transfer of value from the hot parts of the world to the cooler parts of the world."

"This is like taking from the poor and giving to the rich," Hsiang said.

Lead author Marshall Burke of Stanford and Hsiang examined 50 years of economic data in 160 countries and even county-by-county data in the United States and found what Burke called "the goldilocks zone in global temperature at which humans are good at producing stuff"—an annual temperature of around 13 degrees Celsius or 55.4 degrees Fahrenheit, give or take a degree.

For countries colder than that economic sweet spot, every degree of warming heats up the economy and benefits. For the United States and other countries already at or above that temperature, every degree slows productivity, Burke and Hsiang said.

The 20th-century global average annual temperature is 57 degrees, or 13.9 degrees Celsius, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last year—the hottest on record—was 58.24 degrees and this year is almost certain to break that record, according to NOAA. Burke and Hsiang use different population-weighted temperature figures than NOAA calculates.

But the U.S. economy is humming despite the heat. When asked how that can be so, Burke said there were many factors important for growth beyond just temperature. He said one year's temperature and economic growth in one nation isn't telling. Instead, he and Hsiang looked at more than 6,000 "country-years" to get a bigger picture.

Burke compared the effect of global warming on economies to a head wind on a cross-country airplane flight. The effects at any given moment are small and seemingly unnoticeable but they add up and slow you down.

While it is fairly obvious that unusual high temperatures hurt agriculture, past studies show hot days even reduce car production at U.S. factories, Burke said.

"The U.S. is really close to the global optimum," Burke said, adding that as it warms, the U.S. will fall off that peak. The authors calculate a warmer U.S. in 2100 will have a gross domestic product per person that's 36 percent lower than it would be if warming stopped about now.

But because the U.S. is now at that ultimate peak, there's greater uncertainty in the study's calculations than in places like India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Nigeria and Venezuela where it's already hot and there's more certainty about dramatic economic harm, Hsiang said.

The authors' main figures are based on the premise that carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise at the current trajectory. But countries across the world are pledging to control if not cut carbon pollution as international leaders prepare for a summit on climate change in Paris later this year. If the current pledges are kept, the warming cost in 2100 will drop from 23 percent to 15 percent, Burke said.

Gary Yohe, an environmental economist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, praised the study as significant and thorough, saying Burke and Hsiang "use the most modern socio-economic scenarios." But Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex in England, dismissed the study as unworthy to be published in an economics journal, saying "the hypothesized relationship is without foundation."

Other experts found good and bad points, with MIT's John Reilly saying it will spark quite a debate among economists.


Explore further

Study: Hotter days in US mean less cold cash

More information: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature15725

Stanford website on the study: web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/

Journal information: Nature

© 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Study finds the warmer it gets, the more world economy hurts (2015, October 21) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-10-warmer-world-economy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
162 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 21, 2015
How does this compare with the economic effects of another mini ice age?

Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

KBK
Oct 21, 2015
First we have to get fascist dirtbags to stop assassinating and destroying over-unity energy researchers.

To stop oligarchs from trying to own the world, to open up the incredible technologies they've been trying desperately to keep to themselves, lest human freedom and humane people somehow erupt free of their enforced scarcity control gauntlet and agenda.

A scarcity agenda that keeps their control system wrapped up tight a straight jacket -inside it's own ass.

Only then, only after, can the world finally right itself.

Oct 21, 2015
First we have to get fascist dirtbags to stop assassinating and destroying over-unity energy researchers.
since when is over-unity (AKA perpetual motion) a viable or even possible device? this is what is called PSEUDOSCIENCE, and there is a simple reason: PHYSICS
This is impossible to ever achieve because of friction and other sources of energy loss...as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics
https://en.wikipe...l_motion

energy research is important, but wasting money on over-unity is stupid.

it would be better spent on Fusion or other means of energy production (other means as in: not yet learned or understood)

Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 21, 2015
What complete and utter crap.
Humanity has always flourished during warm periods, and now is the best of them all...well...except for the AGW Cult of doom and gloom.

Oct 21, 2015
One of such guys works as a Deputy U.S. Secretary of Energy by now...
!zeph
funny how your link provided absolutely NO reason for the cancellation other than rant and personal bias

that is called OPINION, not fact. the piece is OPINION, or personal conjecture.
it is not based upon anything other than the personal biased perspective of the poster, writer or quoted individual.

when you can provide the reasons for the cancellation, you will likely see more information than you would like to admit, including physics and things you don't understand (as demonstrated by your continued acceptance of daw/aw and other fallacies you routinely link/promote)

anyone can find supporting conjecture/opinion about anything they like/want, including (but not limited to) pedophilia, so linking an opinion that supports your diatribe only proves you can't comprehend the science. it only means you know someone who thinks like you do. nothing else

post the facts, not the opinion

Oct 21, 2015
What complete and utter crap.
Humanity has always flourished during warm periods, and now is the best of them all...well...except for the AGW Cult of doom and gloom.

Have any proof?
I thought so.

Oct 21, 2015
Our only economic difficulties come from government. Economies recover nicely when the government does not try to 'help' us. Most economic barriers have their sources in government regulation which on the large part are more obstacle the aid and often exist o0nly to provide a living for said government employees. But hey, only been in the business world for 38 years and I am sure I must be wrong....
Warm weather provides and abundance of life says the geological record. Proof enough.
But it is getting cold say the last twenty years....tricky stuff is climate predictions. There is a lot of egg on faces right now. So. How about just living until we adapt of die?
We certainly shall not allow a so-called elite class to continue with all the good stuff in our name and for our benefit (it is always to the benefit of those working 'for' us.)
The human race shall not abide it for long. Never trust a politician nor any who rely upon them for a living.

Oct 21, 2015
The study uses RCP 8.5 which is the worst-case projection of greenhouse gas emissions by 2100. It assumes the same mix of energy sources 85 years from now as today, continued population growth, and a faulty understanding of the relationship of CO2 to temperature.

There are obvious problems. Population growth is expected to peak and perhaps diminish in the next 40 years. The energy mix today is much different than 85 years ago thanks to technology. It's highly likely we won't use as much fossil fuel 85 years from now. And compared to measurements, the global climate models all overstate warming because of a poor understanding of the relationship of CO2 to warming.

RCP 8.5 projects global temperature will average 3.7 C higher than today. That's 3.7 times more than the 1 C warming we've experienced in the last 100 years since the recent warming phase began around 1910. Any studies like this one, based on the (wildly inaccurate) RCP 8.5, are difficult to take seriously.

Oct 21, 2015
and there has been no warming over the last 17 years
last three decades temps: http://www.woodfo...60/trend

last 17 years:
http://www.woodfo...60/trend


Oct 21, 2015
Anticipating almost 4 times as much warming (3.7 C) over just the next 85 years strains credulity. Any studies like this one, based on the (wildly inaccurate) RCP 8.5, are difficult to take seriously.
but making a blatantly wrong statement when it is easily checked doesn't strain credulity?

why is that?

also, why not ask WHY they used RCP 8.5:
http://www.skepti....php?t=3




Oct 21, 2015
For those of you who may be made mislead by Captain Stumpy's cherry-picking, here's an unadulterated graph from the same source (HadCRUT4 global) he used at WoodForTrees:

http://www.woodfo...last:360

You can clearly see that there has been no warming since 1998, the last major El Nino. That's 17 years. You can check it against the source data here:

http://www.cru.ue...erature/

And also against satellite data here:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Yep. 17 years of non-warming. Fact, not opinion.

Oct 21, 2015
making a blatantly wrong statement when it is easily checked

Once again, dear readers, have a look for yourself. Global temperatures increased 1 C since 1910 according to HadCRUT4 and other datasets:

http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

RCP 8.5 projects average temperatures 3.7 C higher than the 1986-2005 (ie.; today's) average. That's 3.7 times as much warming as we've actually experienced in the last 100 years. RCP 8.5 is based on flawed computer models. How flawed? IPCC AR5 (2013) shows all the models overstate warming when compared to measured temperatures. See here:

http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg

Oct 21, 2015
UAH server appears to be down currently. You can also see satellite temperature series here:

http://images.rem...ies.html

Oct 21, 2015
What complete and utter crap.
Humanity has always flourished during warm periods, and now is the best of them all...well...except for the AGW Cult of doom and gloom.

Have any proof?
I thought so.

Still paying for Exxon gasoline?
Thought so.

Oct 21, 2015
Have any proof?

The fact that humans flourish during globally warm periods, similar to temperatures in the last 100 years, is pretty self-evident. Maybe you could read about life during the Little Ice Age or perhaps during the last glacial maximum, when mile-thick glaciers covered much of the Northern Hemisphere. Here are a couple references:

https://en.wikipe..._Ice_Age
https://en.wikipe..._Maximum

FYI, anthropologists note the increased dispersion and success of humans as the ice receded.

By the way, how's that electricity working for you that powers your computer, appliances and lights? That powers factories that make stuff you use? And how about the food that arrives at your local grocery by ship, train, plane and truck? All still good? Coal, petroleum and natural gas. You're welcome.

Oct 21, 2015
Yep. 17 years of non-warming. Fact, not opinion.


Only a half-truth, which is even better than lying. You forgot to factor in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which has been well-covered here. A lot of the excess heat was trapped in the ocean's waters. Now, it's coming back out.

Nor, have you taken into account Global Dimming, as clearly identified by more than a century of pan evaporation rate records from all over the world. If it wasn't for Asian air pollution, which increases cloud albedo across the Pacific, it would be twice as hot. Asia cleaning up its air will ironically increase climate change.

Climate science is neither easy nor simple. Until you approach it comprehensiveley, instead of cherry picking just single elements that fit your religious bias, you're always going to be wrong.

Oct 22, 2015
aksdad Failed again claiming
..unadulterated graph from the same source (HadCRUT4 global) he used at WoodForTrees
You missed the trend
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

RSS link aksdad shows rising, your comprehension Fail ?
http://images.rem...ies.html

Read aksdad, last sentence 1st para
http://www.remss....eratures

aksdad stated
17 years of non-warming. Fact, not opinion
No !

You first need education in the correct use of maths/stats, not arbitrary uneducated redneck immature bias, tell us please aksdad, what is wrong with ?
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Where does most heat go aksdad ?

As 70% earth covered by oceans, it goes there - doh !

Also aksdad, get a base education in Physics - especially specific heat
https://en.wikipe...fic_Heat

Learn Physics aksdad - FFS & stop being disingenuous !

ie Learn !

Oct 22, 2015
aksdad states
The fact that humans flourish during globally warm periods, similar to temperatures in the last 100 years, is pretty self-evident.. Little Ice Age or perhaps..
Sure, when population was minimal, very different now.

Why can't you see the immense differences aksdad, blinkers on, head in sand ?

aksdad
FYI, anthropologists note the increased dispersion and success of humans as the ice receded
Doh. Different circumstances. Millions now on coast whilst sea levels rising - doh !

aksdad with immense stupidity
.. All still good? Coal, petroleum and natural gas. You're welcome
No !

NOT good, its tolerable for as short a time as possible but, Coal/Petroleum, add more background radiation to atmosphere increasing cancer risk

Adding CO2 retains more heat, ie Physics aksdad !
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

Is this wrong, do you appreciate its proven & for >100yrs ?
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Learn Physics !

Oct 22, 2015

The fact that humans flourish during globally warm periods, similar to temperatures in the last 100 years, is pretty self-evident. Maybe you could read about life during the Little Ice Age or perhaps during the last glacial maximum, when mile-thick glaciers covered much of the Northern Hemisphere.
By the way, how's that electricity working for you that powers your computer, appliances and lights? That powers factories that make stuff you use? And how about the food that arrives at your local grocery by ship, train, plane and truck? All still good? Coal, petroleum and natural gas. You're welcome.


Eeer.....a Little Warm Age could very well be as bad as the Icy one. Too much of something can be toxic, no? What's more, we're currently doing our best to replace Coal and Petroleum. And some countries uses nuclear energy. Computer, lights, factories? They're very well, but not thanks to what you named.

Oct 22, 2015
aksdad states
The fact that humans flourish during globally warm periods, similar to temperatures in the last 100 years, is pretty self-evident.. Little Ice Age or perhaps..
Sure, when population was minimal, very different now.

Why can't you see the immense differences aksdad, blinkers on, head in sand ?

Mutterin Mike, is back pretending to know science. This time I cried laughing at his comical stupidity. Hey Mike, if you could be so kind to pull your head out of where the sun don't shine and answer the following. How is population growth not indicative of humans flourishing?
Also, why don't you try living like those, when population was minimal, and let's see how long you'll last.

Oct 22, 2015
I do not think we will have a smooth transition to a new climate. When complex and interacting systems are perturbed, they can oscillate between states until they reach a new stable state.

One extreme can lead to another.

Oct 22, 2015
Average temperature and human productivity is only one aspect of climate change. There is also ocean changes, food productivity due to rainfall (floods and droughts can be equally bad), temperature and CO2, methane being released due to permafrost melt, the stress the human population is placing on the natural environment, etc. The system may be critically stable and the resulting instability could be more like a crash. Read Diamond's "Collapse"

Oct 22, 2015
Average temperature and human productivity is only one aspect of climate change. There is also ocean changes, food productivity due to rainfall (floods and droughts can be equally bad), temperature and CO2, methane being released due to permafrost melt, the stress the human population is placing on the natural environment, etc. The system may be critically stable and the resulting instability could be more like a crash. Read Diamond's "Collapse"

Oct 22, 2015
I do not think we will have a smooth transition to a new climate. When complex and interacting systems are perturbed, they can oscillate between states until they reach a new stable state.

One extreme can lead to another.
I guess you forgot when I showed you how complex systems do not necessarily tend toward stability?

Making shit up to make yourself look knowledgeable again huh george?

Oct 22, 2015
"The system may be critically stable and the resulting instability could be more like a crash. Read Diamond's "Collapse""
---------------------------------------------

RMJoe,

Yup. A collapse is a stable state, too.

That is a problem.


Oct 23, 2015
Yup. A collapse is a stable state, too
A dam is a stable state. Are you saying that the process of it collapsing is a stable state???

Bwahaahaaahaaaaaaaaa.

Explain please how your phony degree makes any sense out of that.

Picture the dam after it collapses. The water continues to erode the debris, carrying it downstream in an endless process of instability.

"Complex systems do not tend toward stability and in fact harbor the possibility of collapse."
"https://books.goo...;f=false

-Once again, what makes you think you can make up facts here and get away with it?

Oct 23, 2015

Yup. A collapse is a stable state, too.

That is a problem.


Is that what the psychiatrist told you?
Is that how you became a pathological liar and hypocrite?
That is a problem...for us...but obviously not for you.

Oct 23, 2015
According to AGW Cult "science" the world has been warming since 1900. So, how bad has the world economy gotten since then?

Oct 23, 2015
According to AGW Cult "science"

Also known as "Exxon".

Oct 23, 2015
What complete and utter crap.
Humanity has always flourished during warm periods, and now is the best of them all...well...except for the AGW Cult of doom and gloom.

Have any proof?
I thought so.

Still paying for Exxon gasoline?
Thought so.

So you do not have any proof. Of course. Trolls never do.

Oct 24, 2015
Temperature changes drive pressure changes, which drive hurricanes.

Seen any lately?

Oct 24, 2015
Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex in England, dismissed the study as unworthy to be published in an economics journal, saying "the hypothesized relationship is without foundation."
Lol of course he did! ANY study, regardless of how good or bad, that does not support Richard Tol's personal theory regarding the economics surrpiounding climate change is "wrong" and any study, regardless of how good or bad it is that supports Richard Tol's personal theory is "right". The guy is so obviously biased it's laughable.

Oct 24, 2015
Global warming is transfactual because data is changed to create a false appearance like a transgender cross dresser.

Oct 25, 2015
philstacy9 claims
Global warming is transfactual because data is changed to create a false appearance like a transgender cross dresser
So, since thermal changes ie Heat are fully & completely dependent upon simple Physics ?

https://en.wikipe...transfer
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

How is the Physics, proven for >100years, changed ?

Obvious to those of average intelligence & high school education who are not liars/cheats that with the oceans specific heat ~4000x that of atmosphere AND re links above that obviously heat is primarily absorbed by oceans - doh - covers ~70% of the earth

Therefore atmospheric noise variance temps statistically far less significant than even tiny increases in ocean temps ?

Heard of thermal inertia & key re AGW ?
https://en.wikipe...capacity

philstacy9 shows up low IQ, uneducated, liar/cheat

Learn Physics & avoid your tranny night clubs !

Oct 25, 2015
Global warming is transfactual because data is changed to create a false appearance like a transgender cross dresser.

I prefer to believe Exxon (since 1978) than some arbitrary troll, paid or not.
They put their money where their science pointed them.

Oct 25, 2015
my2cts offered
I prefer to believe Exxon (since 1978) than some arbitrary troll, paid or not.
They put their money where their science pointed them
Indeed & some d..k here called DQM, prob a clone of Benni is running around down voting but, has no courage to ever comment defend or offer a position worthy of any debate, the timing suggests with high probability its Benni, who has been caught out so many times as another liar & cheat, nuclear degree my arse - lol !

Facts seem to be the vast bulk of common deniers cannot get their head around physics, the key of course is radiative transfer, something their key engineers at Exxon knew extremely well from heat flow requirements in refinery design & operation.

Vindictive anti-science pr..ks like; Benni, antigoracle & the worst Water_Prophet with delusions of grandeur are so easily & so often caught out - why do they bother digging deeper holes for themselves,
fodder for further sources of embarrassment ;-)

Oct 25, 2015
I prefer to believe Exxon (since 1978) than some arbitrary troll, paid or not.
They put their money where their science pointed them.

That's why you continue to pay Exxon for the privilege to burn their gasoline.
You are not just stupid, but also a hypocrite and asshole.
Now, how does that make you better than Exxon?

Oct 25, 2015
"What climate change is doing is basically devaluing all the real estate south of the United States and making the whole planet less productive,"

"Climate change is essentially a massive transfer of value from the hot parts of the world to the cooler parts of the world."

"This is like taking from the poor and giving to the rich,"

-- Solomon Hsiang

"the goldilocks zone in global temperature at which humans are good at producing stuff"—an annual temperature of around 13 degrees Celsius or 55.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

SOoo... Because of Anthropogenic Global Warming (man-made GW) there will be these mass human migrations to cooler and more economically attractive locations. But according to Trump, that will just bring more crime, dirt and filth to the cooler and more economically vibrant climates.

Seems reasonable to avoid AGW now before the Trump crap hits the fan.


Oct 26, 2015
Some deniers are simply incapable of admitting error. They remind me of Julius Streicher, who screamed
"Heil Hitler!" on the gallows,

all

the

way

down

to

theendndofthe rope!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more