Absurdity in Climate Models

In an effort to write about the most bizarre topic possible, I thought I would write about climate models. In this case, a climate model that policy makers in the developed nations, the developing nations, the UN, and the NGOs are using to simulate the climate over time. The policy-maker’s objective in using this model is to examine how different national policy options on GHGs (Greenhouse Gases) will affect human society.

For example: If country X cuts its output of CO2 by 60% by 2030, how will that impact the global society? On the face of it, this “what if” software is a useful tool for climate negotiators and policy-makers to help them decide where the correct balance is for coping with GHGs.

Sounds good to me, George–let the farce begin:

An interesting bit of information in this model is the affect that unbridled GHGs have on economic output. In the “business as usual” scenario according to the model, the effect that GHGs have on economic growth is zilch, zero, nada, nil, zip, not a bit. If fact, according to this simulator software, if GHGs are allowed to rise in the “business as usual” scenario (nothing is done to mitigate GHGs–a scenario considered the devil’s workshop by most environmentalists), world GDP rises from $78 Trillion in 2011 to almost $800 trillion worldwide by 2080.

HUH? Good heavens, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises from 390ppmv to over 800ppmv. The global temperature rises 4 degrees C and sea level rises about 780 mm. Oh my gosh, oh my golly–don’t these numbers matter?

Nope. Not according to the simulator–but surely, there is reason to be concerned. Let’s see–overall catastrophic weather-related events (inflation adjusted) climbed from $4.5 billion a year in the 1950s to $50 billion a year in the 1990s. Then it climbed to an average of over $110 billion a year for the first decade of this century.

Hold on, if we plug these numbers into the model and postulate $110 billion a year in damage due to weather related events when the world GDP averaged over $60 trillion per year for the decade, that means GHG induced events cost the citizens of this world less than ½ of one per cent of world GDP. Forget the tree-hugging, says our absurd model, it’s time to go out and buy that SUV you always wanted.

So in a perfect parody of logic, our GHG policy-makers are using a model that says GHGs are not a problem, and it also says remediation is a setback. And then here is the kicker: When you start cutting GHGs, according to the model, guess what happens? The world GDP drops by more than that ½ of one percent.

With this kind of fantastic input, policy making on the climate gets pretty darn easy. GHGs don’t impact our economy because world GDP rises from $78 trillion to $800 trillion–during the period that all those climatologists have been bleating alarm. What’s the big deal with energizing the climate? Economic output is a pretty good indicator of quality of life and if we are going to see 10x increase in world GDP over the next 70 years–where is the issue? “Thanks for the data, don’t call me. I’ll call you. Throw a steak on BBQ and deal the cards. We’ll take our chances.” Policy–out.

Okay that was fun. Let’s step back to reality: All this data doesn’t signify that anthropogenic forcing of the radiative balance is a minor problem or that when you compare it to economic activity, the GHG affects are marginal. It affirms that we cannot reliably model the damage from GHGs, yet.

Before we head out to the Ox Bow and lynch the people who coded the application, there are some compelling reasons why the damage estimates to GDP are not included. Quantifying harm based on the cascading interrelated issues correlated to the climate is a non-linear model. Additionally, we don’t have any historical data to work with to evaluate our assumptions. This climate damage topic is new, to everyone.

Also, as we have seen in Japan, an earthquake leads to a tsunami that leads to a nuclear event. Moreover, it leads to an inability to deliver Hondas and Toyotas to customers. And in the US, a La Nina leads to a set of storms that leads to a series of tornadoes that destroys infrastructure. How do we quantify the infrastructure losses and the damage to the economic systems that rely on that infrastructure? Cave-lite, anyone?

Getting ten people to agree on worldwide damage in two years is almost impossible. Getting them to agree on which part of that damage is caused by the changing climate is a devil of a problem. Add to this, the need to go out two or more decades and you can bet your last terabyte that peer reviews will not only shoot down the model–they will bury it and your reputation as well.

Still, a software model on the affect of GHGs without showing societal impacts from those GHGs is like buying a computer without software–it’s a heater.

This also means our policy makers are using a model showing that no significant economic damage is expected from the changing climate. That’s like delivering a corporate economic forecast to stockholders and forgetting to consider the debit side of the balance sheet. “Ah, sorry about that, Mr. and Ms. Stockholder, we’re working on the debits but we’re not there yet. We figured a partial model is better than none–right?”

Juvenile models are a pitiable system for establishing sane national policy. So what good is their model–you might ask–other than to make us feel good about shooting ourselves, and our progeny, in the foot? Is it any wonder that little gets done on the climate problem?

Sadly, the real flaw isn’t the model. The flaw is that policy-makers are willing to believe economic growth can continue at a healthy pace if we ignore GHGs. Who drilled the hole in the common sense bucket of our policy people? The curve representing economic growth will peak and drop long before 2050 with unbridled GHG output.

So while the problems we face include assuming computers can replace common sense–as well as our need to build an information delivery vehicle that doesn’t paint a target on the back of the coders and scientists–the major fiasco is a policy of the absurd that is defining our future.