Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)
By Chip Knappenberger -- May 6, 2009Editor Note: Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming by 2050. A more realistic climate bill would be a fraction of this amount. The author will respond to technical questions on methodology and results and invites input on alternative scenarios and analyses.
“A full implementation and adherence to the long-run emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.” (from below)
The economics and the regulatory burdens of climate change bills are forever being analyzed, but the bills’ primary function—mitigating future climate change—is generally ignored.
Perhaps that’s because it is simply assumed.
After all, we are barraged daily with the horrors of what the climate will become if we don’t stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (the primary focus being on emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels). So doing something as drastic as that proposed by Waxman-Markey—a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the United States by the year 2050—must surely lessen the chances of climate catastrophe. Mustn’t it?
But if that were the case, why aren’t the climate impacts being touted? Why aren’t Representatives Waxman and Markey waving around the projected climate success of their bill? Why aren’t they saying: “Economics and regulations be damned. Look how our bill is going to save the earth from human-caused climate apocalypse”?
That reason is that it won’t.
And they know it. That is why they, and everyone else who supports such measures, are mum about the outcome.
The one thing, above all others, that they don’t want you to know is this: No matter how the economic and regulatory issues shake out, the bill will have virtually no impact on the future course of the earth’s climate. And this is even in its current “pure” form, without the inevitable watering down to come.
So discussion of the bill, instead of focusing on climate impacts, is shrouded in economics and climate alarm.
Getting a good handle on the future climate impact of the proposed Waxman-Markey legislation is not that difficult. In fact, there are several ways to get at it. But perhaps the most versatile is the aptly named MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change. MAGICC is sort of a climate model simulator that you can run from your desktop (available here). It was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (primarily by Dr. Tom Wigley) under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations. MAGICC is itself a collection of simple gas-cycle, climate, and ice-melt models that is designed to produce an output that emulates the output one gets from much more complex climate models. MAGICC can produce in seconds, on your own computer, results that complex climate models take weeks to produce running on the world’s fastest supercomputers. Of course, MAGICC doesn’t provide the same level of detail, but it does produce projections for the things that we most often hear about and care about—for instance, the global average temperature change.
Moreover, MAGICC was developed to be used for exactly the purpose that we use it here—the purpose for which Representatives Waxman and Markey and everybody else who wants a say in this issue should be using it. That purpose is, according to MAGICC’s website, “to compare the global-mean temperature and sea level implications of two different emissions scenarios” —for example, scenarios both with and without the proposed legislative emissions reductions.
So that is what we’ll do. We’ll first use MAGICC to produce a projection of global average temperature change through the 21st century under two of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s future emissions scenarios (which assume no explicit policy implementation). The two are: a mid-range emissions scenario (SRES A1B for those interested in the details) and a high-end emissions scenario (SRES A1FI). Then, we’ll modify these IPCC scenarios by entering in the emissions reductions that will occur if the provisions outlined in the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill are fully met (leaving aside whether or not that could be done). Basically, Waxman-Markey calls for U.S. emissions to be reduced to 20% below the 2005 emissions level by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. We’ll assume that U.S. emissions remain constant at that reduced value for the rest of the century. We’ll then use MAGICC to produce temperature projections using these modified scenarios and compare them with the original projections.*
And here is what we get all rolled into one simple figure.
The solid lines are the projections of the change in global average temperature across the 21st century from the original IPCC A1FI (red) and A1B (blue) high and mid-range emissions scenarios, respectively (assuming a climate sensitivity of 3ºC). The dotted lines (of the same color) indicate the projected change in global average surface temperature when the emissions reductions prescribed by Waxman-Markey are factored in.
By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.” Under the IPCC’s high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of 4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC—a “savings” of 0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years’ worth of warming. In other words, a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect. (Note: I present the results to three significant digits, not that they are that precise when it comes to the real world, but just so that you can tell the results apart).
Now, various aspects of the MAGICC model parameters can be tweaked, different climate models can be emulated, and different scenarios can by chosen. And different answers will be obtained. That is the whole purpose of MAGICC—to be able to examine the sensitivity of the output to these types of changes. But if you take the time to download MAGICC yourself and run your own experiments, one thing that you will soon find out is: No matter what you try, altering only U.S. emissions will produce unsatisfying results if you seek to save the world by altering its climate.
We have calculated only the climate impact of the United States acting alone. There is no successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol to bind other countries to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. But, truth be told, the only countries of any real concern are China and India. The total increase in China’s emissions since the year 2000 is 50 percent greater than the total increase from rest of the world combined and is growing by leaps and bounds. And consider that India carbon dioxide emissions haven’t started to dramatically increase yet. But it is poised to do so, and an Indian official recently stated that “It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce [carbon dioxide emissions] when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity.”
Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulations.
This is something that should be common knowledge. But it is kept carefully guarded.
The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80%, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature “savings” during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC. Calculating this isn’t all that difficult or costly. All it takes is a little MAGICC.
[Note: Be sure not to miss Part II of this analysis, where I take a look at what happens if the rest of the world were to play along.]
* Assumptions Used in Running MAGICC
There are many parameters that can be altered when running MAGICC, including the climate sensitivity (how much warming the model produces from a doubling of CO2 concentration) and the size of the effect produced by aerosols. In all cases, we’ve chosen to use the MAGICC default settings, which represent the middle-of-the-road estimates for these parameter values.
Also, we’ve had to make some assumptions about the U.S. emissions pathways as prescribed by the original IPCC scenarios in order to obtain the baseline U.S. emissions (unique to each scenario) to which we could apply the Waxman-Markey emissions reduction schedule. The most common IPCC definition of its scenarios describes the future emissions, not from individual countries, but from country groupings. Therefore, we needed to back out the U.S. emissions. To do so, we identified which country group the U.S. belonged to (the OECD90 group) and then determined the current percentage of the total group emissions that are being contributed by the United States—which turned out to by ~50%. We then assumed that this percentage was constant over time. In other words, that the U.S. contributed 50% of the OECD90 emissions in 2000 as well as in every year between 2000 and 2100. Thus, we were able to develop the future emissions pathway of the U.S. from the group pathway defined by the IPCC for each scenario (in this case, the A1B and the A1FI scenarios). The Waxman-Markey reductions were then applied to the projected U.S. emissions pathways, and the new U.S. emissions were then recombined into the OECD90 pathway and into the global emissions total over time. It is the total global emissions that are entered into MAGICC in order to produce global temperature projections—both the original emissions, as well as the emissions modified to account for the U.S. emissions under Waxman-Markey.
“(Note: I present the results to three significant digits, not that they are that precise when it comes to the real world, but just so that you can tell the results apart).”
Thank you for the note.
Avoidance of a 0.05C increase in global average surface temperature, assuming it really happened and assuming we could really tell it had happened, ain’t much “bang” for ~$30 trillion in investment, plus whatever the federal “take” is from “cap & tax”.
One wonders why China and India aren’t installing all of the wonderful new technologies which we are told would actually be cheaper than new coal plants. It’s almost like they question the economic projections for those technologies. Do they know something we don’t?
This analysis needs to be shared with the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Combined with alternative studies of the status of ice in the Artic and Antartica, someone needs to launch a full scale effort to educate the American people about what is really going on with the climate.
Masterful analysis, Chip!
Chip,
I second John A. Hill’s motion. Go for it!
The Washington Times might be a better choice than the “Old Gray Hag” though.
Ed
When it is not enough it will only be proof that they need more control…
[…] on Masterresource.org, climate scientist Chip Knappenberger shows by the numbers that the Waxman-Markey bill “will […]
Chip, thanks for hammering this home…again. I say “again” because Tom Wigley and a host of other credible scientists, economists, and statisticians have been telling us this for the better part of 10 years now. But the AGW Brownshirts just keep covering their ears, telling us the “science is settled”, refuse to debate these analyses, slinging ad hominem attacks, and shouting doomsday climate scenarios louder and louder. They seem to think they can make careful, rigorous analysis just go away through sheer willpower.
Send it to the NY Times, the WSJ, the WaPo, but don’t expect anyone in the camps of Al Gore, James Hansen, Andy Revkin, Tom Friedman, the UN IPCC (which has similar results in their 4 reports, if you know where to look for it…hint: you won’t find it in the policymakers summary) , Lisa Jackson at EPA, Steven Chu at DOE, or Carol Browner to accept this analysis.
The facts don’t matter to these people, only “feelings and intentions”. As Michael Crichton wrote in his Author Notes in State of Fear, “feelings and intentions about the environment don’t matter. Knowledge and results are the only things that matter.”
Eco-socialists aren’t really trying to protect the environment.
I would love to put clear, easy to understand articles like this on my door or wall at work so visitors could be educated. Can this be formatted to a print friendly format. It is a little narrow and long for bulletin boards.
Carbonicus,
It shouldn’t be a matter of anyone “accepting” the analysis. It is easy to do and readily reproducible and the results are robust.
It is matter of getting them to accept the implications of the analysis–which they are not want to do.
Perhaps if the outcome were more widely known (the intent of my article), their wants may be overridden.
Thanks for the comment.
-Chip
Chip – I’ve actually written a thoughtful article about the administration’s cap and trade policy/Waxman Markey bill that can be grasped by the average American quite well. Cost, benefit, what this is really about, where the “revenue” (read: tax) is going. Like your article above, it shines a light on some issues that are being largely missed by the media.
For instance, you’ve read about the administration’s publicly stated expectation of raising $646 billion over 8 years through cap and trade. What most people don’t know is that the deputy director of the administration’s National Economic Council told senate finance committee staffers in late February that privately the administration thinks it can raise 2-3 times that amount.
Another example: where is the “revenue” from a cap and trade tax going? You’d think that if they were serious about getting us carbon fuels that the bulk would be going to alternative energy R&D, right? Turns out that approx. 73% of the “revenue” is going to middle class tax cuts (read: wealth redistribution) and to fund approx. 40 new federal agencies, departments, etc. to oversee, administer, and enforce cap and trade and CO2 emissions.
That’s right. The overwhelming majority isn’t going to alternative energy R&D, carbon sequestration projects, or anything else that’s going to actually help the environment. It’s going to wealth redistribution and federal bureaucracy.
I’m trying to get it published. America needs to know. I’d be happy to share it with you if you have an alternative way of connecting.
[…] now Knappenberger has applied the broadly accepted model (I assume it’s the same one, but if not, Wigley is still the main scientist behind it) to the […]
This past Sunday, I chose MasterResource as our site’s “blog of the week.” Talk about fortunate timing – great and valuable posting, Chip!
BTW, a popular posting we did recently was a spreadsheet, seat-of-the-pants analysis of U.S. going to zero CO2 emissions immediately. This grade school approach produced a result that had temperatures being reduced by 0.152 C. After reflecting on your posting, I feel somewhat vindicated about our primitive analysis.
Our spreadsheet analysis can be found here:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/04/if-us-went-to-zero-co2-emissions-what-would-be-impact-on-global-temps-what-would-be-cost.html
C3H Editor
[…] post looked at the potential climate impacts of the proposed Waxman-Markey Climate Bill. But I limited […]
[…] all said, I come to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. Here is one estimate that the impact of that bill on global temperature will be very small. I am not at all endorsing […]
Check this out for a graphic of Kyoto’s impact on atmospheric CO2. Pretty much the same thing holds for anything Waxman can do.
Tom
ClimateSanity
Not everyone has been kept the emerging dominance of developing countries in the greenhouse “carefully guarded.” Lots on Dot Earth, including this: http://bit.ly/dotEquity . Just google for “alphonse” “gaston” and “nytimes” for more.
See also:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=arguments+against+public+health
and
> Prometheus: Less than A Quarter Inch by 2100
… what possible difference a quarter inch average rise in sea level …
Your analysis completely avoids considering the need for leadership – the world’s largest emitter (lbs/capita) leading the effort to achieve a sustainable energy system for us and our children. The concept that we should take no action because our actions alone will not fix the world’s problem is morally bankrupt. We have so much to lose from climate change, and only a few short decades to do anything about it.
As I believe Edmund Burke, one of the founders of the Conservative movement, noted “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
US’ per capita emissions are 3-4x those of China as it is, which are much more than India’s.
The less US does the harder it will be to persuade China and India to do anything.
Which is better, to aim that everyone does something or only one person does a little?
“Note: Be sure not to miss Part II of this analysis, where I take a look at what happens if the rest of the world were to play along.”
Oh the suspense. I can hardly wait. No doubt you’ll find that it will actually accelerate the catastrophe.
[…] of the Waxman-Markey Capn’ Trade bill would have on future climate. It turns out that it is totally ineffectually and even getting the whole world to take part doesn’t help much. The idea of […]
[…] all said, I come to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. Here is one estimate that the impact of that bill on global temperature will be very small. I am not at all […]
[…] of Greenhouse Gas-Induced Climate Change), the simple climate model Chip Knappenberger used in two recent posts to calculate potential global warming reductions from the Waxman-Markey […]
The trouble with this analysis is that is founded on a false premise. This sentence gives the game away:
“We have calculated only the climate impact of the United States acting alone.”
Of course if you take the effect of the US acting alone, the effect on the climate will be minimal! What did you expect?
But who says that the US will be “acting alone”? Only those Americans desperate to justify and prolong their profligate lifestyles, I guess.
Most of the rest of the world has been trying to get its act together to take action – including the Indians and Chinese – while the US has sat and fiddled for years while the world burns.
The rest of us are hoping that the US will finally get off its backside and start taking the leadership role in this matter that it demands in so many other spheres……
Perhaps what disturbs me the most is that those pushing for & writing this new legislation are already profiting personally & will handsomely personally profit, from all these actions. Yet the world will obtain less than one degree of actual temperature change, while CO2 levels continue to rise as temperatures currently fall.
This is obscene in the extreme & if Americans buy into this w/o looking at the facts, they invite living like tribesmen in hovels, scavenging for scraps of food, while killing each other off. Think that’s an exaggeration? Guess what? Its no more of an exaggeration than any of the claims of the Climate Change crowd who are using alarmism to push for their own personal profits.
We are being had big time & once the public realizes this, the real prosecutions will begin.
Richard Hankins,
Perhaps, had the US gotten “off its backside” 9 years ago, we could have reduced our carbon emissions as much as Canada, China and India have. Just imagine how much better Gaia would be had that occurred.
So Chip, and all of you out there, just how do we get our global atmospheric temperature down to where we can begin refreezing the polar ice cap and stabilizing our climate? I agree that the Waxman-Markey won’t get us there, but what will?
We must get to zero emissions as soon as possible, as well as develop safe methods for removing CO2 from our atmosphere.
Perhaps it would be better if we didn’t anthropmorphize the Members of Congress. Their ignorance of the true threat of dangerous climate change is appalling.
Dorothy, at this point I think it’s unrealistic to think we can actually reduce atmospheric concentration anytime soon, and I’m not convinced it’s really necessary at this point. What we DO need to do is get emissions below Earth’s natural sinking/absorption capacity. Only then will concentrations slowly drop over time. This assumes warming doesn’t progress enough to trigger strong carbon cycle feedbacks. If it does, then we’d better hope there’s an efficient and realistic technology for directly removing huge amounts of CO2 at reasonable cost. But it’s a huge gamble in my view to assume we’ll be able to geo-engineer our way out of such a mess, let alone without economic impact.
So you’re saying that we need to do far MORE than what’s in the Waxman-Markey bill?
Bjorn Lomborg says that all this hand wringing about climate change is hurting the poor. How can you people be so callous!
[…] program that will do almost nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emission and cool our planet down. See Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) by Chip Knappenberger, May 6, […]
Good article.
Actually things would be even worse than that. I you believe that markets work, then any reduction in the US use of fossil fuel would tend to reduce the world price of those fuels, encouraging more consumption in less developed countries. The net result would be zero reduction in net global emissions.
That, more than anything, is why a global agreement needs to be arrived at. Otherwise it is money down the drain.
The real question in my mind: Will any other countries, particularly India and China, take action to install more efficient technologies and curb emissions if the US doesn’t? The analysis shows that leadership is more important than the follow-through. If we enact Waxman-Markey, other countries will also take steps in the right direction, and the total effect will be much larger. If we don’t, other world leaders have the simplest excuse to make no changes.
Thank you. I have had a notion that efforts by the United States to reduce climate change gas emissions will have little, if any, affect on global warming. Your article supports my notion. Efforts by “leaders” of the United States would likely prove more productive in curbing global warming by placing their time, and our money, on technical assistance and political pressure, against the governments of China and India. However the latter would lessen the inference that they are doing “great” things for tomorrow by reducing emissions of climate change gases in the United States.
[…] I demonstrated in my analyses last week (here and here), the impact on global temperatures of U.S. actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions […]
[…] I is here; Part II […]
[…] Article Part 1: http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 […]
[…] climate scientists at RealClimate have not challenged Chip Knappenberger’s calculation that Waxman-Markey would alter the global temperature by 9/100ths of a degree F in 2050, the year […]
[…] Chip Knappenberger crunched the numbers and found: A full implementation and adherence to the long-run emissions restrictions provisions […]
Thanks for writing such a clear and detailed article on the subject.
A general question about climate change models. How do you deal with the chaos factor?
So the reasoning goes. It would be too expensive to fight the Axis powers, so WWII is canceled. Let’s just surrender. China and India want to burn dirty coal and live in mud huts, why should we do anything different?
This logic of Mr. Knappenbergs is the typical right wing conservative excuse for doing nothing. Why stop drinking? Guess I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue. Heroin is cheap and junkies can live a long time, why give up the needle? If this is rational conservative thought, it could be better written in the form of a mass suicide note like the Heaven’s Gate people.
I also find it boring to have to read commenter’s conspiracy theories about how Markey or Waxman are secretly going to get rich from this legislation when the facts are the legislation is being opposed by people who are making billions already by killing us slowly. Conservative approaches appear to me nothing less than sitting in the garage with the doors closed and the car running and complaining about the people in the kitchen.
[…] we have discussed here, and as has been discussed elsewhere, it is straightforward to determine the likely climate impact from legislation aimed at reducing […]
[…] This is a response to the commons analogy of Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate to Mr. Knappenberger’s temperature analysis of […]
Thanks for quantifying something that is intuitevly obvious — global Warming is a global problem.
It seems to me that something has been left out of the argument — if we (the USA) had been working for the last ten or so years to create alternate energy systems (high priority) we would by now be a leader in the field with complete new industries in place and our energy trade balance moving toward positive. Perhaps our employment and business base would be the envy of the world again, with actual real things being made within the USA along with an expanding business base and employment.
There is much more at stake for us than our contribution to Global Warming — our economic survival. The arguments that it will cause unemployment, etc, etc, ad nauseam to develop alternative energiy is silly in the long run.
The old saying (Einstein) — The height of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
[…] of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain),” MasterResource, May 6, 2009, at http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 (May 12, […]
Your articles and the tone of your contributors and commentators make interesting and encouraging reading. It should always be remembered that the calls for reductions of carbon emissions, cap and trade and other similar concepts are based on the proposition that the primary and overwhelming cause of climate change is anthropogenic. ie if we cut emissions we stop climate change. One researcher has stated that his models show the influence of CO2 to be five to ten times that of the solar energy. Wow!!!
It seems to be forgotten that without the influence of the sun we have no climate. Surely our first response must be to determine the influence of the solar radiation that reaches earthand particulalry its variation over time. Why have temperatures fallen over the past ten years while the CO2 concentration has risen. Your published papers suggest very strongly that curbing CO2 emissions does not have the oerwhelming effect that is claimed by others.
If the sun is our primary driver of temperature change (the primary indictor of climate change) then much of the vast expenditure on reduction of emissions is futile, enriches a few in the developed world and leaves the people of the rest of our planet in an ever growing poverty trap. Carbon emissions trading threatens to become the next “sub-prime” financial catastrophe.
The many scientists and others who oppose the IPCC and people such as Al Gore, who lacks the courage to debate his views on a public platform, must find a way to put the message across patricularly in the influential press and shake our legislators back to the world of reality.
Finally we do need to take care of our environment. Any actions that improve the quality of the air that we breathe and the world that we wish to leave for the future must be welcomed and encouraged. Let us now redirect the funds that are being wasted on the emissions research into fields that will be of greater benefit to all mankind and not the enrichment of the few.
[…] Here I want to follow up on Manzi’s great start, by showing that Chip Knappenberger’s estimate of the climate benefits of Waxman-Markey (W-M) actually erred on the side of optimism in its […]
[…] I told several members of the the editorial board in person several weeks ago, and as first posted here at MasterResource, the global impact even assuming a “perfect” Waxman-Markey bill (a […]
Getting beyond the bickering, the question comes down to: Is it better to fund innovation (e.g. NASA-style moon-landing for green tech) or is it better to forcefully change the economy with a purported minimal global impact (for moral principles and setting an example for the world)?
I think that the latter is perfectly valid, but it seems like the former *may* be better.
Instead of attacking each other, please debate this question.
[…] such as Waxman-Markey could be quite high. So what will it do to avert climate damage? According to this estimate by climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would lead to a planet that warmed 9/100ths […]
“Finally we do need to take care of our environment. Any actions that improve the quality of the air and the world that we wish to leave for the future must be welcomed and encouraged. ”
CO2 is the basis of all life on earth and increasing CO2 acts as a fertilizer for plant life. As such it is as benign as water vapor (another GHG btw). The idea that we should treat a harmless and worthless molecule like its toxic is absurd. If indeed, as I believe, the global warming alarmists are vastly overstating the threat of global warming, we will have done environmental HARM … for example, biofuels have chewed up vast acreage, and we will likely chew up more. CO2 regulation is not just an economic impediment but could be an environmental one as well.
“worthless ” – should read “‘worthwhile” (at least for plant growth)
“If we enact Waxman-Markey, other countries will also take steps in the right direction, and the total effect will be much larger.”
No, the opposite will happen. If we go forward without having a trigger that only implements it if China does, then China will get a free ride and ignore doing this. They will use our own stupid regulations as a means to overtake us economically.
[…] Knappenberger was perhaps the first analyst to demonstrate the negligible impact on global temperatures that would result from unilateral U.S. adoption of the […]
[…] such as Waxman-Markey could be quite high. So what will it do to avert climate damage? According to this estimate by climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would lead to a planet that warmed 9/100ths […]
[…] MasterResource readers know of Chip Knappenberger’s post on the negligible climatic effects of unilateral adherence to Waxman-Markey. Across the board, the […]
[…] the costs, we will get almost nothing in exchange. According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in […]
[…] given that Waxman-Markey is climatically inconsequential, a fact that Romm does not dispute ( “well, duh“, he said), the hard Left is […]
[…] become “any pain is worthwhile if this bill helps lessen future climate change?”. According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, the effect on global temperature in 2050 that this bill results in will be nine hundreths of one […]
[…] get in return? If the law works precisely as intended, in about one hundred years we should expect surface temperatures to be a about one-tenth of one degree Celsius lower than they otherwise would be. The expected […]
[…] Cap and Trade Jared Allen, The Hill: Democrats break logjam on climate change bill MasterResource: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: Gallup Poll Editor: Al Gore Is Losing Global Warming Debate Doug […]
[…] EPA reports this? Can this be so?! I’d criticisms of Waxman-Markey as ineffective.. But is the EPA really finding that no bill at all would result in faster implementation of […]
[…] With Newt Tweet New York Times: Tierney Lab: U.S. Climate Report Assailed MasterResource: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) Pronk Palisades: Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade […]
[…] longtime opponents of regulatory approaches to climate run the numbers and show the scant impact of the bill in isolation. Supporters of the bill readily acknowledge that American action in isolation would be […]
[…] Marc Sullivan mimes Manzi, in a report that Manzi and I have already tangled over, wherein Manzi cites the work of Chip Knappenberger, who works for and blogs with some well-known climate change skeptics. By […]
[…] To Push Global Warming New York Times: Tierney Lab: U.S. Climate Report Assailed MasterResource: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) Pronk Palisades: Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade […]
[…] as intended – not very likely – the grand result will be that, a century from now, we should expect surface temperatures to be a about one-tenth of one degree Celsius lower than they otherwise would […]
[…] parar a ver de donde salen estas cifras. Puedes hacer el cálculo tú mismo. Está explicado en este enlace –>. La idea es efectivamente correr esos modelos con esos datos, pero usando un programa simplificado […]
There are ways to significantly reduce our carbon but the current admin thinks they are evil. In my humble opinion fast fission reactors with fuel recycling is currently the only realistic potential to power the world without significant emissions but nuke is currently being shunned (Please read about generation 4 reactors for a great education as to what is reasonably practical). No chance that windsolar can do it now regardless of the cost (I know, I work with solar, wind, storage, and grid integration, it is difficult and expensive to say the least). Taxing and regulating energy without presenting a realistic alternative is insane regardless of the possible dangers or benefits. I’ve got some wonderful stocks to sell you if you think we will live entirely off wind and solar!
If you want a really entertaining read check out all the poly silicon pollution in China from Solar cells, no doubt you’ll get a great tax deduction from Obama while killing Chinese children. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solar_pollution_china.php
Scary times when the idiots are running the nuthouse.
[…] to pay if we want to get serious about global warming and believe that it is our moral obligation to reduce temperatures nine hundredths of one degree […]
[…] I have shown, the climate impact of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions prescribed under Waxman-Markey is very […]
[…] job losses and/or the fact that even in its fullest extent, the bill will have no scientifically meaningful impact on the future course of global climate. In fact, had you listened to the opposition […]
[…] of how much warming Waxman-Markey by itself will avoid comes from a decidedly biased blog, and they estimate it at a few hundredths of a degree by 2050. […]
[…] Knappenberger, author of energy blog Mastersource.org, writes in a wonderfully detailed piece that ““A full implementation and adherence to the long-run emissions restrictions provisions desc… Here’s the kicker: Waxman and his ilk would actually benefit if their bill failed to reverse […]
15% of Germany’s electrical generating capacity is now renewable. They have not reduced their co2 output by a gram.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html
[…] The justification for inflicting this financial misery, of course, is the onrushing catastrophe of human-induced global warming – a catastrophe that can be prevented only if we abandon the carbon-based fuels on which most of the prosperity and productivity of modern life depend. But what if that looming catastrophe isn’t real? What if climate change has little or nothing to do with human activity? What if enacting cap-and-trade means incurring excruciating costs in exchange for infinitesimal benefits? […]
[…] the bill is supposed to be reducing future global warming, but its likely impact by mid-century is only about 0.09 degree F reduction–an amount too small to detect and of no consequence to human or other ecological welfare. […]
[…] Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) – Masterresource.org Ti è piaciuto l’articolo? Condividilo: […]
[…] projected payoff? About 0.09 degree F reduction in global average temperature in the year 2050, or slowing allegedly manmade global warming by about 2 years. That works out to […]
[…] the conclusion of environmental scientist Chip Knappenberg, of Master Resource, a free-market energy blog. Knappenberger, who brings 20 years as a climate […]
[…] Change Republicans New York Times: Tierney Lab: U.S. Climate Report Assailed MasterResource: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) Pronk Palisades: Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade […]
[…] The justification for inflicting this financial misery, of course, is the onrushing catastrophe of human-induced global warming – a catastrophe that can be prevented only if we abandon the carbon-based fuels on which most of the prosperity and productivity of modern life depend. But what if that looming catastrophe isn’t real? What if climate change has little or nothing to do with human activity? What if enacting cap-and-trade means incurring excruciating costs in exchange for infinitesimal benefits? […]
[…] Change Republicans New York Times: Tierney Lab: U.S. Climate Report Assailed MasterResource: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) Pronk Palisades: Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade […]
[…] I’m glad the poor are being protected from the impact of this travesty that Jim Winkler’s fingers are all over (at least in his own mind). Everyone else is going to see huge increases in the cost of energy and goods that utilize it at some point int their trip to the marketplace (in other words, everything except the tomatoes you grow in your backyard). And for what? Every analysis I’ve seen says that the impact of this bill on global temperature will be negligible. […]
[…] La excusa para causar toda esta ruina financiera, por supuesto, es la catástrofe en curso del calentamiento global inducido por el hombre — una catástrofe que solo se puede evitar si abandonamos los combustibles fósiles de los que dependen la mayor parte de la prosperidad y la productividad de la vida moderna. ¿Pero qué pasará si la catástrofe inminente no es real? ¿Qué sucederá si el cambio climático tiene poco o nada que ver con la actividad humana? ¿Qué sucede si imponer el intercambio de emisiones significa incurrir en gastos asfixiantes a cambio de beneficios infinitesimales? […]
Quoted from Bernal(post 78)
“15% of Germany’s electrical generating capacity is now renewable. They have not reduced their co2 output by a gram.”
What if the renewable capacity was 0 percent? I am guessing the C02 output would be much greater.
Also, nicely written Alex J (post 30). It is easy to put up a graph of the world’s temperature over the next 110 years, but it is especially difficult to understand how climate works. Did the author consider the atmospheric retention time of carbon dioxide or the effects of other greenhouse gases? If the scientists that say emissions must be reduced 80% by 2050 are ignored, it will be the poor who will continue to suffer the most.
Notice also in the graph the drastic rise in temperature. No one seems to care about that.
In terms of the economy, I am not so worried. As Bernal nicely pointed out, Germany already has a decent percentage of renewable energy (which will payback in a few years). This bill is not so unrealistic as the editor notes, and I think the author had been doing laundry when writing so many times about the many fold increases (which will provide many fold jobs).
[…] Change Republicans New York Times: Tierney Lab: U.S. Climate Report Assailed MasterResource: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) Pronk Palisades: Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade […]
[…] Writes Jacoby: The justification for inflicting this financial misery, of course, is the onrushing catastrophe of human-induced global warming – a catastrophe that can be prevented only if we abandon the carbon-based fuels on which most of the prosperity and productivity of modern life depend. But what if that looming catastrophe isn’t real? What if climate change has little or nothing to do with human activity? What if enacting cap-and-trade means incurring excruciating costs in exchange for infinitesimal benefits? […]
[…] Figure 3 shows the projected temperatures (using a procedure similar to the one I described in an earlier post) resulting from the original A1B scenario, the A1B scenario adjusted for the OECD90 portion of the […]
[…] such as Waxman-Markey could be quite high. So what will it do to avert climate damage? According to this estimate by climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would lead to a planet that warmed 9/100ths […]
[…] 2454 does virtually nothing to reverse out the human influence on […]
[…] supposed slowing of global warming that would occur under the Waxman-Markey bill in the House is insignificant, but the $600 billion a year the government would plan to raise — a cost of about $3,000 per […]
[…] immediately became a touchstone of the climate debate for Left and Right, Republican and Democrat. Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) 10,783 […]
[…] isolation, some experts content that the Waxman-Markey caps on U.S. emissions will have virtually no impact on the trajectory of global warming, even taking the standard climate models at face value. Even the most outspoken scientists on […]
[…] isolation, some experts contend that the Waxman-Markey caps on U.S. emissions will have virtually no impact on the trajectory of global warming, even taking the standard climate models at face value. Even the most outspoken scientists on […]
[…] energy tax and Video Energy Czar Hasn’t Read Cap & Trade, Either MasterResource: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) Wired, Danger Room, What’s Next in National Security: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate […]
[…] and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, has been shown to be completely ineffective at slowing the rise in global temperature that is projected by climate models to accompany […]
[…] Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) 10,978 Views […]
[…] politicized cap-and-trade is all pain and no gain. A scorched earth economic policy that does not meaningfully address a feared “scorched earth” to come is worse than no policy at […]
[…] politicized cap-and-trade is all pain and no gain. A scorched earth economic policy that does not meaningfully address a feared “scorched earth” to come is worse than no policy at […]
[…] is a typical misconception that needs correction. By itself, passage of Waxman-Markey will do almost nothing to halt climate change, according to the standard models used by the IPCC. This is not a […]
[…] will impact world CO2 levels. That’s because it won’t. As mentioned in part one, Climatologists project the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill would only change global temperatures by two 10ths of a degree […]
[…] “A full implementation and adherence to the long-run emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.” Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) […]
[…] on what you read, but one thing’s for sure: the solution is not cap and trade. Climatologists project the Waxman-Markey cap and trade would only change global temperatures by five hundredths of a degree […]
[…] to a calculation by climatologist Chip Knappenberger, the temperature reduction by 2100 if we enacted the […]
[…] The rationale is this legislation will combat “global warming.” Climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimates the best case impact of the bill would be to lower global temperature by […]
[…] many of the posts on this site have shown, climate change legislation in the U.S. offers little gain for a lot of cost. The U.S. has been […]
This is such a great way to put into words exactly what “will not” happen with this bill. I say no to this bill and no to the raising of energy costs that it will cause. Feel the same? Prove it–sign the letter: http://dontcapandtradeourjobs.net/?soc=adtwt
[…] credits.” The rationale is this legislation will combat “global warming.” Climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimates the best case impact of the bill would be to lower global temperature by “0.1? degree […]
[…] because Waxman-Markey will not stop global climate change in its tracks. In the extreme case, standard models show that if the U.S. complies with the Waxman-Markey emission caps, while the rest of the world […]
[…] Chip Knappenberger projected that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation would moderate temperatures by only five hundredths […]
[…] even if, by some divine miracle, cap and trade did cost a postage stamp per day, Climatologist Chip Knappenberger projected that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation would moderate temperatures by only five […]
[…] Chip Knappenberger projected that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation would moderate temperatures by only five hundredths […]
[…] even if, by some divine miracle, cap and trade did cost a postage stamp per day, Climatologist Chip Knappenberger projected that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation would moderate temperatures by only five […]
[…] it alone” with Waxman-Markey targets that 4.5-degree rise is tempered by only 0.2-degrees. http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 Now, let’s assume the entire rest of the planet plays along. (And this means now, because […]
[…] And of course we should cite our ‘blockbuster’–Chip Knappenberger’s temperature analysis of HR 2454 (Waxman-Markey) that immediately became a point of reference for debate about the bill […]
[…] in making a big difference. The thing is, it will not make much of a difference at all. Here is an analysis of the House bill’s actual effect on the climate. The quote below is from that article: By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would […]
[…] Climatologists estimate that Waxman-Markey’s impact on world temperature will be too small to even measure in the first several decades. The projected reduction of world temperature would be 0.05 degree Celsius by 2050. If CO2-emission levels meet the Waxman-Markey target of 17 percent of 2005 emissions by the year 2050, and if they are frozen at that level for the rest of the century, Waxman-Markey would still reduce the world temperature by only .2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees F) by 2100. Therefore the increase from the “do nothing” baseline in GDP assuming a rough linear relationship of 11 degrees to 5% GDP is 0.36*(11/5) = 0.79% (a generous estimate). The cost of 3% of GDP must be compared against a benefit of (at most) 0.79% GDP. […]
[…] world that has more rather than less Co2. Given cap and trade’s massive economic consequences and negligible effects on the earth’s temperature, this is a bold and potentially very costly […]
[…] world that has more rather than less Co2. Given cap and trade’s massive economic consequences and negligible effects on the earth’s temperature, this is a bold and potentially very costly […]
Pictures at
http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/subsites/zhigljavskyaa/climatechange
show that there is no global warming
[…] of about 0.05°C. By the year 2100, the decrease in the rate of increase is projected to be between .112°C and .195°C. His projections are determined using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced […]
[…] […]
[…] something like a fifth of a degree over fifty years and potentially destroy our economy. Look: Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) — MasterResource Editor Note: Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 […]
[…] […]
[…] […]
[…] […]
[…] up, increasing to 285,335 by 2035. And the environmental benefit? Climatologist Chip Knappenberger projected that Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more […]
[…] Climatologists calculate that the measures in this legislation will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century (http://masterresource.org/?p=2355). […]
[…] 9. Knappenberger, Chip. “Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)” MasterResource. N.p., 06 May 2009. Web. 03 Aug 2009. http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 […]
[…] carbon 80 percent by 2050.If that didn’t make you grind your teeth with frustration, this will: According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, that 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and […]
[…] cap-and-trade target was to reduce carbon 80 percent by 2050. To put that number in perspective, climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger says that an 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in […]
[…] cap-and-trade target was to reduce carbon 80 percent by 2050. To put that number in perspective, climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger says that an 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in […]
[…] More seriously, the EPA regulations would also have little impact on the billions of additional tons of CO2 that China, India, and the developing world will emit each year in the decades ahead. As a result, the regulations would have damaging impacts on the American economy, but just like cap-and-trade restrictions, they would have negligible impact on world temperatures. […]
[…] More seriously, the EPA regulations would also have little impact on the billions of additional tons of CO2 that China, India, and the developing world will emit each year in the decades ahead. As a result, the regulations would have damaging impacts on the American economy, but just like cap-and-trade restrictions, they would have negligible impact on world temperatures. […]
[…] cap-and-trade target was to reduce carbon 80 percent by 2050. To put that number in perspective, climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger says that an 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in […]
[…] Even by the criminal IPCC’s own estimates, any adjustments made to the energy infrastructure to promote “green energy” will have no noticeable impact on the climate. […]
[…] Even if we set aside the abundance of scientific dissention when it comes to the EPA’s endangerment findings or the supposed effects of CO2 on climate, the EPA’s regulations will not reduce CO2 enough to have any meaningful effect. Attempting to reduce CO2 unilaterally will have an insignificant impact on overall global emissions. China and India’s CO2 emissions are rapidly increasing as they continue to expand their respective economies and they have no intention of scaling back economic growth to curb emissions. Even if the EPA were to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (what recent cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a very, very small portion of emissions worldwide. […]
[…] Even if we set aside the abundance of scientific dissention when it comes to the EPA’s endangerment findings or the supposed effects of CO2 on climate, the EPA’s regulations will not reduce CO2 enough to have any meaningful effect. Attempting to reduce CO2 unilaterally will have an insignificant impact on overall global emissions. China and India’s CO2 emissions are rapidly increasing as they continue to expand their respective economies and they have no intention of scaling back economic growth to curb emissions. Even if the EPA were to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (what recent cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a very, very small portion of emissions worldwide. […]
[…] limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions without limiting emissions from developing countries will have no meaningful impact on global temperature. Tags: carbon dioxide, EPA, GHG, McConnell Author:Daniel Simmons […]
[…] [1] The majority of Congressmen understand that regulations which greatly limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions without limiting emissions from developing countries will have no meaningful impact on global temperature. […]
[…] fifth or fiftieth time it is trotted out. These people demand a terrible imposition on society for no detectable climate impact. Let alone the subjective idea of ‘gain’ (as warming has historically been beneficial, […]
[…] fifth or fiftieth time it is trotted out. These people demand a terrible imposition on society for no detectable climate impact. Let alone the subjective idea of ‘gain’ (as warming has historically been beneficial, […]
[…] truth is that, running, e.g., EPA’s MAGICC model — that is, accepting all of the alarmist industry’s assumptions, methods and schemes […]
[…] that didn’t make you grind your teeth with frustration, this will: According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, that 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and […]
The reason CBO projects that Waxman–Markey will result in such a low and arguably immeasurable reduction in emissions in supposedly capped sectors of the U.S. economy is because their models predict most regulated firms will purchase emissions offsets rather than reduce their own emissions.
The reason CBO projects that Waxman-Markey will result in such a low and arguably immeasurable reduction in emissions in supposedly capped sectors of the U.S. economy is because their models predict most regulated firms will purchase emissions offsets rather than reduce their own emissions.
[…] reduce carbon 80 percent below 2005 levels of emissions by 2050. To put that number in perspective, climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger says that an 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in […]
[…] reduce carbon 80 percent below 2005 levels of emissions by 2050. To put that number in perspective, climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger says that an 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in […]
[…] reduce carbon 80 percent below 2005 levels of emissions by 2050. To put that number in perspective, climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger says that an 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in […]
[…] friend and fellow blogger Chip Knappenberger has posted a spectacular analysis of the effects that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would have on saving the planet. Using a climate […]
[…] and they have no intention of scaling back economic growth to curb emissions. Even if the EPA were to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (what cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a negligible portion of worldwide […]
[…] and they have no intention of scaling back economic growth to curb emissions. Even if the EPA were to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (what cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a negligible portion of worldwide […]
[…] below 2005 levels by 2050 (what cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a very, very small portion of emissions worldwide and reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the close of the […]
[…] below 2005 levels by 2050 (what cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a very, very small portion of emissions worldwide and reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the close of the […]
[…] below 2005 levels by 2050 (what cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a very, very small portion of emissions worldwide and reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the close of the […]
[…] below 2005 levels by 2050 (what cap-and-trade bills called for), it would constitute a very, very small portion of emissions worldwide and reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the close of the […]
[…] the same basic approach taken by Chip Knappenberger (and spread through the blogosphere), we’ll compare what would happen if Waxman-Markey […]
[…] let's talk about it. And how these models also belie a fallback notion usually offered with crossed arms that well, every little bit helps. It's doing […]
[…] A new Heritage Foundation report, “Environmental Conservation: Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic,” contains free-market, conservative environmental principles—one of which is that efforts to reduce, control, and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits. A carbon tax would produce almost immeasurable benefit in terms of global temperature reduction. […]
[…] A new Heritage Foundation report, “Environmental Conservation: Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic,” contains free-market, conservative environmental principles—one of which is that efforts to reduce, control, and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits. A carbon tax would produce almost immeasurable benefit in terms of global temperature reduction. […]
[…] That means that, if patterns return to normal, we should expect more big hurricane strikes without global warming. However, leading “climatologists” like Governor Andrew Cuomo (D–NY), New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and the editors of Bloomberg’s Businessweek seem immune to actual data. Further, they, along with some more legitimate climatologists, ignore the fact that none of the policies proposed—such as Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade—would have any significant impact on global warming. […]
[…] That means that, if patterns return to normal, we should expect more big hurricane strikes without global warming. However, leading “climatologists” like Governor Andrew Cuomo (D–NY), New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and the editors of Bloomberg’s Businessweek seem immune to actual data. Further, they, along with some more legitimate climatologists, ignore the fact that none of the policies proposed—such as Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade—would have any significant impact on global warming. […]
[…] 0.05°C. By the year 2100, the decrease in the temperature increase is projected to be between .112°C and .195°C. His projections are determined using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced […]
[…] That means that, if patterns return to normal, we should expect more big hurricane strikes without global warming. However, leading “climatologists” like Governor Andrew Cuomo (D–NY), New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and the editors of Bloomberg’s Businessweek seem immune to actual data. Further, they, along with some more legitimate climatologists, ignore the fact that none of the policies proposed—such as Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade—would have any significant impact on global warming. […]
[…] proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulationsm,” a new research paper by Chip Knappenberger found. ”This is something that should be common knowledge. But it is […]
[…] proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulationsm,” a new research paper by Chip Knappenberger found. ”This is something that should be common knowledge. But it is […]
[…] Julia Gillard back in July 2012. It seems the dust has whipped up to a dust storm that will have almost no environmental benefit or effect on global […]
[…] off the inevitable climate catastrophe by 2-5 years; it would decrease our estimated temperature by 0.05°C over the next 50 years while destroying our economy. Gore, friend of the Democrats controlling […]
[…] Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) 10,783 Views […]
[…] Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-Based Arithmetic of No Gain), MasterResource, May 6, 2009, at http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 (August 3, […]
[…] 0.05°C. By the year 2100, the decrease in the temperature increase is projected to be between .112°C and .195°C. His projections are determined using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced […]
[…] that has more rather than less Co2. Given cap and trade’s massive economic consequences and negligible effects on the earth’s temperature, this is a bold and potentially very costly […]
Jim,
No suspense called for. My analysis is already posted:
http://masterresource.org/?p=2367
-Chip