Increases in humidity caused as a result of climate change are reducing labour productivity and it’s only likely to get worse over time, argue researchers from America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In an article published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, the researchers say humidity is already reducing people’s working capacity by 10% during peak months of heat stress around the world, and this is likely to grow to 20% by 2050.
The researchers say even if the global community commits to active mitigation of CO2, there will be increasing environmental limitations on labour capacity in the coming decades.
In the worst case scenario considered by the model, safe labour would be prohibited in large areas during peak months by 2200, including the entire US east of the Rockies.
“So far little has been done to estimate the impact of climate change on labour productivity,” said David Peetz, professor of employment relations at Griffith University.
“The impact on productivity shown here, for people not experiencing the increasingly expensive benefits of air conditioning, is going to be quite stark, especially for people in warmer or mid-latitude climates,” Professor Peetz said.
“It all points to the fact that it’s much cheaper to deal with it now than to wait until some date in the future.”
The researchers combined analysis of humidity and climate change projections with industrial and military guidelines for people’s ability to work under heat stress.
Their projections do not include information about climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions and technological and societal change.
Nor did they consider labour productivity increases associated with a reduction in adverse conditions of extreme cold, snow and frozen soil.
Professor John Freebairn, an expert in environmental economics at the University of Melbourne’s Department of Economics, said the paper provided “provides a detailed assessment of just one of the ways in which higher temperatures and humidity across the globe would bring additional costs to society.”
“It is part of an extended exercise to assess the costs of climate change, and builds more details into the rough early estimates reported by Stern (2006), Garnaut (2008) and many others,” he said.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Lincoln Fung
Economist
In a perfect analogue, productivity in extremely cold regions should rise, shouldn't it?
It seems there are costs as well as benefits of higher global temperatures associated with the anticipated climate change.
It is not one way street, even though many may argue that the costs are greater than the benefits.
David Arthur
n/a
You'd be quite correct, Mr Fung, if the temperature-productivity relationship was a straight line.
This article suggests that there may be a "Goldilocks" temperature range ("not too hot, not too cold) in which humans can work - no surprises there, in which case a (concave-down) quadratic relationship might be a better first approximation.
Economists will start to understand this once Microsoft put a quadratic curve-fitting function into future releases of Excel.
David Clerke
Teacher
But I thought even Pachauri and NASA had finally admitted that there had been no Global Warming for seventeen years so what was the purpose of this article? Does the editorial staff of the Conversation ever write about anything else than CAGW?
David Arthur
n/a
Mr Clerke, your confusion may be alleviated by a more careful perusal of Roger Jones's "Time to stop hiding behind warming trends", https://theconversation.edu.au/time-to-stop-hiding-behind-warming-trends-12400.
I see you've already posted a comment to that page, indicating your present non-understanding of climate change. Please read and understand the following before returning to Prof Jones's article to continue your learning journey.
Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave…
Read moreDavid Clerke
Teacher
But the head of the IPCC admits that there has been no Global warming! QED.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
David, science disagrees with you.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80167
http://media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com/originals/e8/1b/31/e81b317aae3ea6282085b1f3a0f0958c.jpg
David Clerke
Teacher
But NASA and the head of the IPCC do! If the climate has not warmed then temperature rises cannot be blamed for loss of productivity.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Geez David what do you actually teach? - obviously ain't maths then.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
False cause and the fallacy fallacy. Not only are you making a false assertion you are then using that false assertion to argue against something.
As the two previous links I posted show, it has warmed, it continues to warm, all the reputable scientists and science organisations agree, so stop pretending otherwise.
David Arthur
n/a
Mr Clerke, who gives a rat's what some teacher's misinterpretation of some railroad engineer's comments pertaining to a partial understanding of atmospheric instrumental records might be?
Remember, the atmosphere has ~0.1% of the heat capacity of the oceans. After the rapid heating of the atmosphere ov er the 20th century, the oceans have a bit of catching up to do in terms of warming.
While this may well mean that the rate of further atmospheric temperature rise will be slowed while more heat goes into oceans and ultimately to melting of icecaps, it doesn't mean that warming has ceased.
It's sort of like the ice bath at a party - so long as there is some ice yet to melt, the ice bath stays cold, even though it's absorbing heat. How do we know it's absorbing heat? Because of the melting ice.
Do you teach thinking skills, or do you teach sophistry/rhetoric??
Mike Hansen
Mr
Clerke is not a teacher. Clerke is a sock puppet for John Coochey who was banned.
You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.
https://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/john-coochey-2525/activities
He lies about climate science. Are you surprised that he lies about who he is?
Moderators - how about ending this farce with Coochey - he spams every climate change article with his invincible ignorance. It was bad enough when he used his real name.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
Do you guys keep databases on online climate change deniers?
Don't you think that is a tiny bit odd?
Comment removed by moderator.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
You've missed the central point. Productivity in areas is defined by our environment, change that environment and you change the productivity. Thus, for most areas, productivity will fall.
Comment removed by moderator.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
They certainly can't keep up with the ramblings of the uneducated internet trolls output, that's for sure.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I don't know about the rest of the economy but it's damn obvious that the mining boom is in strife with all these geologists and engineers downing their picks and taking up the cudgels against Climate Change warnings here on the Conversation.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
Peter,
We had a conversation about this very subject the other day on TC.
It appears climate change alarmism is the new breeding ground for environmental antidisestablishmentarianism.
This 'venting' non linear warming trend has flatlined for sixteen years according to the head of the IPCC, but never more flatlined than the potential for statistical links to be plucked out of both economic and climatic variables the likes of which we have never seen!
Oh the drama!
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
Interesting take on things. I'm more concerned by similar impacts to plants and animals (our food and fibre sources) which have very well established comfort and stress zones. But it is unsurprising that similar impacts would be present in humans.
Gordon Smith
Private citizen
It appears that a witty comment re productivity of academics has been removed. Given e level of vitriol that appears at times on this site I would be interested to hear the moderators reasoning.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
Witty might be a stretch, if I was feeling charitable I might have said it was acerbic.
To be honest, I am amazed The Conversation lets me get away with as much as they do.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
I wouldn't be bothered listening to much NOAA have to say. One of the heads, Jane Lubchenco is from PEW environmental group and has hired her friends to take corporate privatisation/consolidation through environmentalism into the next generation.
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/x1896341757/NOAA-puts-allies-from-Pew-on-council
Mike Hansen
Mr
This is a lie. Like Coochey, MacDonald who has no understanding of science has to resort to lies to make his tin-foil hat inspired argument.
Lubechenko was awarded a Pew Fellowship - she is not from the PEW environmental group. She also won a Heinz Award - using Wade's logic that makes her the spaghetti monster.
" She has received numerous awards, including a MacArthur Fellowship, a Pew Fellowship, eight honorary degrees (including one from Princeton University), the 8th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (2002),[5] and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (2003). She served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for the year 1997."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Lubchenco
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Ahhh Mr Hansen
Up to your usual highly factual comment standards, '..has to resort to lies to make his tin-foil hat inspired argument.'
Tin foil hat!
Gerard Dean
Mike Hansen
Mr
factual?
The only "fact" in MacDonalds conspiracy theory was the claim that Lubechenko was a member of the PEW environmental group. It is a lie.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Billions of humans toil and thrive in hot and humid conditions found in the tropics.
On the other hand, the two authors working in air conditioned comfort (ironically powered by coal burning power stations) have managed to pen the shortest article I have ever seen on The Conversation.
Is this proof a warmer world is good for productivity.
Gerard Dean
Ken Swanson
Geologist
"Their projections do not include information about climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions and technological and societal change.
Nor did they consider labour productivity increases associated with a reduction in adverse conditions of extreme cold, snow and frozen soil."
Add to that industrial laws and practices and their regional differences around the world. Also the performance at an enterprise level based on working conditions mitigated by the employer such as air conditioners in the workplace. The list goes on.
So how does an article like this and a headline which says "Climate change linked to declines in labour productivity" ever get published as serious journalism in the first place?
More alarmist propaganda from the Conversation.