The increase, such as it was, over the past couple of decades has been mostly earthquake-driven.

But by and large, the trend is a plummeting in deaths due to natural disasters.

I do not cheer on a warming of the Earth, but I think people view change as some immutable awful thing, as if the temperature in 1850 was somehow "correct" and any sort of change of that is a negative thing that would bring the planet out of "balance." But we know that the earth is not in balance at all, and has huge shifts in temperature -- we're in a period of very long ice ages interspersed with brief interglacial periods (the current one has allowed humanity to flourish). If humanity weren't here, this interglacial period would eventually end and kill off quite a lot of life on this planet. And then a new interglacial period would start and the glaciers would recede, and etc. etc. etc.

It cannot be denied that the coldness of the earth is a far larger hindrance to the proliferation of life on this planet than a modicum more warmth. In fact, just for humans alone, cold temperature has proven far, far, far more deadly than warm temperatures (20x more deadly in this comprehensive study -- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...114-0/fulltext )

But I think talk of a catastrophically warming world are also pretty far removed from reality. I am super skeptical that we will even be able to emit enough CO2 to change the climate beyond 1-2C. The US economy is decarbonizing at a fairly good clip (2005 was the high point of US emissions), and we're already at the point where a new solar plant is cheaper than a new coal plant (natgas will be caught in due time). Runaway global warming is predicated on carbon-based growth, a coupling of GDP with CO2 usage, with high-end projections of like 1400 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere in 2100. Yet, GDP and CO2 emissions are headed in opposite directions at the moment, in the industrialized world.

Catastrophic warming projections basically assumes we make 0 technological progress and we're all driving around gas-guzzling cars and burning coal in the year 2100. If you think that, maybe google to see what life was like in the year 1920 compared to today.

Where did you get your degree in Environmental sciences from again?

domer2, 3 things:

Just because insurance companies exploit and perhaps exaggerate global warming fears for profit doesn't mean that said fears are not based on real predictions by climate scientists (AKA people who study the extremely complex climate of the planet for a living, and know much more than you do about said climate).

Just because death rate from natural disasters is trending down, doesn't mean that the overall impact of said disasters is still bad, by many other metrics (infrastructure damage, extinction of animal species, for example).

Just because glacial periods are perhaps worse than hot periods doesn't mean that it's probably a very bad idea to be injecting extra gases and chemicals into our atmosphere and soil, affecting the ecosystem in unnatural ways in which the outcome is difficult to predict, even for a climate scientist, much less for a layman like you or I.

Also, climate change is a highly politicized issue, perhaps one of the most politicized issues in modern times. This means that the rhetoric behind both sides of climate change is extreme, exaggerated, hyperbolic, and there are think tanks and "reputable" organizations on both sides of the issue that present their side of the argument, gift-wrapped and ready-made to quickly convince people that they are right and the other side is wrong. As such, if you're looking into it, it's probably better to only listen to the experts on the issue (in this case, the climate scientists), and check sources with a very fine comb, otherwise you're diving into a deep rabbit hole of potential BS.

See, the thing is, nobody knows the future, and anybody claiming to is just guessing, so the only models science can make are ones based on current technologies. Hypothesize: What if a massive solar flare knocks out all our complex computers, satellites, etc, and we revert back to what is essentially 1920's technology? What if a massive nuclear war breaks out?

It's a stretch, and somewhat dangerous, to assume that technological progress will continue at our current rate (although I ain't saying it wouldn't be nice)

Global warming is net-negative for humanity worldwide, but by far less than what the radical, immoral left wants us to believe.

And it is especially less damaging to europe than what the left tells every day.

Being a european citizen, i think we are already sacrificing ourselves too much to help indians, californians, chinese and brazilian people whom i don't feel to owe anything to.

Especially because THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR PART LIKE AT ALL.

If the case was that california, china, india had dramatically reduced their emissions because they are big losers from climate change and then had asked, gently, can you please do the same because it's hurting us? then yes i would agree to do so much more than i agree now.

But this idea that we have to do more than anyone else (like we currently are) while being the countries that don't lose from climate change is bananas.

Then there is the thing i mentioned before (which lol, doesn't play well for russia) which is that 1st of all the main source of any money should come from fossil fuel extractors. Like let's wipe out all rent (extra-profits after normal capital and labor returns) from all fossil fuels extraction before we charge a dime to anyone else.

Fossil fuels are the direct source of CO2 (the main one), let's tax THEM AT THE SOURCE before taxing citizen in decent countries while keeping the profit of extractors intact.

Of course it's easier to the far left to ruin lifes in europe and let russian, arabs, etc etc enjoy their profits. But there is NO MORAL behind this approach. Nada.

There is no moral and no economic sense in taxing citizens and companies in europe, in forcing down the throat of europeans more and more regulations every year, while the big losers from climate change keep their emissions ultra-high and fossil fuel extractors reap immense profits without paying for the externalities they generate.

Just to take your first point. Neither the links you provided nor the studies I could glean from them seem to lend any credence to the above claim. The nearest I could find were the HadCRUT estimates that the ocean was warming at a rate of .07C per decade, which would at face value indicate that oceans had warmed by .35C over the last 50 years. This estimate has now been shown to be likely too low. Both NOAA (2015, using ARGO) and an even more recent analysis (2017, using ARGO along with other independent confirmation methods) indicates that recent warming has in fact been in the range of 0.12C per decade, which would sum to 0.6C over the last 50 years.

These studies seem to indicate your above figure was out by an order of magnitude.

Here's a link to the most recent study that contradicts your figures

And here's a supporting graph from NOAA that covers the period in question:

If you could rebut some of my criticisms surrounding your interpretation of Ricke's work that'd be great.

Bold is the problem. Because climate scientists aren't useful at all to the debate, after they did their useful job which is to model the current climate and telling us the world is a little warmer than 100 years ago and will probably get warmer in the future.

Why? because we need other kind of experts to determine what that means in term of value for humans.

Climate experts need:

1) biologists to tell them what happens to the various ecosystem with 1 celsius more, 2 celsius more etc
2) physicians/epidemiologist to tell them what happens to the human body, and to germs, in a warmer world
3) sociologist/phychologists to tell them what happens to society (if any) if the climate changes (in the sense of different organization of daily life, different propensity for vacation, more/less dopamine from the weather etc etc etc etc)

And , most of all

4) Economists, to put numbers to all of the above, and to the costs of regulation etc etc, to determine what makes sense to do.

Now 4) is notoriously the most hated expert community, and one of the most politicized. You basically don't have neutral economists. And economics is particularly prone to error, and particularly ferocius in the internal debate, exactly on modelling future macro stuff.

Which means that the whole enterprise of going to experts and ask them, given how crucial 4) is, is doomed.

Which brings us back to the moral character of people asking for various things. When experts aren't available to determine the best course in general the other option you have is how much you trust deeply, humanly, the skills and approaches of the people campaigning for something.

Which, in my case, is ZERO for radical leftists. And it is very little for "alt-right" types too.

So it's not just "ranting" when i talk about who are the people pushing this particular agenda. It is like the most important element we can use to determine wether that agenda makes sense, because of the lack of 4).

Must have missed that, care to point to where you commented on it?

But every single economic model that wants to describe the future in 100 years accounts for some trend growth rate in the real economy.

So it's absolutely a given in economics at least that the baseline can't and shouldn't ever be "0 technological progress" because that's not the expected, average future.

Yes there is great uncertainity in the pace of future technological progress but it's absurd to go full lapalisse and say given it's uncertain we model on 0 tech progress, when we know that's not where you would bet in a 1:1 bet am i right?

We can discuss which rate of progress makes sense of course. But the fact that it should be modeled as a positive baseline year after year is really really clear.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=1466

this is sst, sea surface temperature

maybe try again

in what way would me having a degree in the field or not having a degree in the field make a difference to what i am posting?

Humans are winning the earth game.

Winners want lower variance and to maintain status quo (aka keep winning).

Global warming increases variance.

Humans don't want global warming.

Even if we wanted to terraform earth to be a little warmer, the current pace at which earth is warming is far faster than necessary. It is making pretty dramatic demands on a lot of people and there is just no reason for it.

It is not free to stop. It is actually incredibly expensive. So the "reason for it" is that it is a byproduct of the best ways we have to consume energy and to move people and goods around the planet.

There might still be some emissions that we can cut cheaply, and we should do so. But other than that it has to be something that is weigthed in the sense of pros and cons, and in order to do so we need numbers.

And this is before deciding who gets to pay which is always messy.

Even in case we decide that collectively we have to pay, given there are no global taxes and global taxpayers are will fight like hell to be the one who pays the less because i can assure you other countries will do the same.

This is something that would require a global government with global regulatory AND fiscal powers. But a global government is a terribad proposition unless you guys are all happy to have chinese and indians decide everything around the world. Democracy really shows its limits if we think about a global 1-head 1 vote count in those terms.

Your criticism and disbelieve of actual scientists presented as authoritative is of questionable value from someone with no formal training in the subject.

So even the worst prediction of the most extreme model, show a CSCC in the single low digit for europe, and i would be undermined in my assertion which is that the political radical left is lying to european faces every day in the last several years talking about an incoming apocalypse for our economies and our health?

lol.

Then you list aspects that weren't modeled but you fail to account that some of them could be positive. Like Maine record catch of lobster thanks to climate change, we could have very good catches of fish in the atlantic in the future , and ocean acidification and warming isn't necessarily bad for the northern atlantic.

Yes more things could be modeled but it's NOT A GIVEN that their aggregate impact would be negative, or even if it does, not by much. I am not sure they modeled for 6 months of bathing in ocean water for tourism in northern france for example. I am not sure they modeled for germany becoming a powerhouse in wine production either.

What is crystal clear from that report is that climate change isn't a threat to europe at all even in the most extreme scenarios. Which is something you don't hear very often. And which you didn't comment about, while bashing me for saying exactly that.

Climate change could be at most, in the most extreme occurrences, maybe slight bad for europe, but necessarily far less so than any meaningful cost accrued now and in the next decades to impact it slightly.

So anything we are going to do for climate change we are doing for others, as europeans. We aren't doing it for our children. We are doing it FOR OTHER PEOPLE CHILDREN. We are paying for others.

Do voters know that? it's like we multiplied foreign aid by an order of magnitude. Maybe to donate 5-10% of our gdp is something voters really want. But have they been informed that the great costs of the "green revolution" are all (or 95% of them) spent for other countries, or they have been manipulated into thinking it was for their personal and family future?

This is yet more evidence of your disingenuous posturing I'm afraid. All I requested you do was add the lag variable (use the LR) and keep everything else constant. This is not "the worst prediction of the most extreme model" it's adding a known effect to exactly the same model you were claiming was "the best."

Also, what are you talking about? First of all the prediction for Germany alone is double digits and it's quite evident the model displays individual countries that need to be summed together to get a mean prediction for larger geographic areas. The fact that you are making factual errors at even this basic level should give you pause as to how viable your conclusions are. Using the BHM-LR while keeping everything else you linked to exactly the same leads to a triple digit prediction for Europe.

I mean come on, just read what the report says about major European economies just by adding that variable:

You're making claims about the study you simply cannot make because you're either unable or unwilling to make the effort to understand what it is you're reading.

I am quoting almost verbatim from the list that the study ITSELF gave and which a huge array of other studies have found to be net harms.

The rest of your post is just bluster.

We're sitting here arguing over ideals about how to deal with climate change, about the actual effects that climate change will have on the world, and Europe, etc, etc, but the truth is, whatever happens happens. As humans, we like to see ourselves as separate from nature, and as being born into the world, but the truth is we are part of nature, and we come out of the universe. As such, I think we should place some value and attempt to live in harmony with nature, at least a bit more than we currently do.

You have to realize that even if you believe climate change isn't a direct threat to Europe, the millions of refugees it creates will be a destabilizing force on Europe, much moreso than the millions of refugees that are already catalyzing a breakup of the EU. Maybe some people aren't adventurous enough to leave their own house (country), but many other people enjoy travelling the world, visiting their neighbors, and experiencing the joys that the world has to offer (and yes, even a 3rd world country like India or Brazil has much to offer).

Moreover, there already is a pseudo world government (called the economy), and the world is already heavily, and irreversibly, interconnected. Globalization is a natural force and a natural progression of mankind, and it likely won't stop because government and government-like structures is how the human animal naturally organizes. Someone saying they don't want government is a nice fairy tale (which of us hasn't lamented the failures and inefficiencies of bureacracy, and hypocrisy of politicians), but it is just wishful thinking not based on reality. It is like saying, "I wish the sky were pink, I wish planets were square, I wish birds would swim, I wish ants wouldn't construct anthills, and birds wouldn't make nests and flock together". If you were an entity of a higher magnitude than humans, much like humans are to ants, and you were to look at the Earth through a magnifying glass, you'd see humans doing their thing: fighting wars, gathering resources, reproducing, and organizing. This organzation we have is called government, and were it not for humans organizing, we'd still be living in trees and huts, or makeshift nests made out of twigs and leaves. If you don't want government, go live with an undiscovered tribe in the Amazon, not that there's anything wrong with that way of life.

The problem of climate change will ultimately work itself out, either through the elimination of mankind (or a big chunk of it), or through our cooperation, and I believe most sensible people choose cooperation. This is why nowadays, despite the Bannons, Trumps, and Farages of the world, you are seeing a greater focus on the environment and pushback on the insular nationalists from even the unlikeliest sectors of humanity - the big corporations and financial nodes of the "world economic government". Elon Musk is an easy example, along with Apple and Google (who have shifted their data centers to be powered by renewables). Even Blackrock investments (7 trillion dollar bank) and other financial giants are showing concern for financial instability caused by climate change, and are shifting some of their inner workings to account for climate change.

Yes, these shifts may mean small sacrifices from developed countries in order to help developing countries, but most people are willing to make these small sacrifices when they realize that their small sacrifice is multiplied in magnitudes when it reaches that developing country. One Euro doesn't buy you much in Italy, but it sure as hell could save someones life in Haiti. It has been shown time and time again in psychology studies that charity makes the human brain happy, which is very telling of the natural state of humans - cooperation.

More experts and policymakers would disagree with you than agree.


100% of experts and most policymakers would disagree with you than agree. Even in the most extreme scenarios, really? You think the economic collapse of several countries and pressure from millions of refugees wouldn't be a negative for Europe? You're crazy.

More experts and policymakers would disagree with you than agree.

Nothing wrong with that, we are all humans living in the same house.

It is for their personal and family future, because we all live in the same house.

can you elucidate this point with an example?

Cf. your entire posting history ITT of cherrypicking, misrepresenting legitimate science, lying, and inventing conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

I'm not him but it's common sense - you don't know how to interpret the data as well as someone who has expertise and years of study in one or several of the fields that connect to the data you're looking at. As a result, the conclusions you reach when looking at said data are undoubtedly less correct than someone trained to look at and interpret the data. Unless you yourself have a degree in Climate science, International Relations, Economics, or somesuch, in which case I apologize and you are qualified, sir. Otherwise, consider the fact that you don't, and you're looking at this data and reaching conclusions that are unusual, or unpopular in the field, and maybe realize that you may be erring in some of your thought-process.