Major US Gov Study says Climate Change will shrink US economy and kill thousands

Regardless hurricanes are not the biggest problem with climate change in my opinion - although flooding events we've seen in the past few years have been catastrophic the connection to climate change isn't clear. Most of what I read seem to indicate that climate change makes hurricanes wetter and dump more rainfall from storms. The higher intensity is less of a concern as it's rarely the wind damage that is the biggest issue.

More concerning is drought conditions and coastal flooding that arise from increased co2

 

I would think that Decommissioning/Dismantling Existing Cities, Building/Moving Infrastructure, Re-Engineering, Building New Smart Cities, Mass Migration, Re-population, etc... would all be great for a new economy in the long term. The California Gold Rush was a huge boon to the world economy but terrible for native americans of the area. African American migration North from the South was economical very stimulating for educated blacks and their families leaving the economically deprived south. So at least recently in this country it has been a boom instead of a bust. I don't see why that wouldn't happen again.

 

I'm not sure how dire this is, it claims a 10% reduction in GDP over 80 years, which is slightly above 0.1% per year, the costs to america to have an impact on climate change given China's actions, would probably run closer to 0.5%-1% per year (i'm talking a wholesale change that would actually impact the global climate direction, not the transition to cheaper technologies that might be renewable as would happen under any situation).

Those predictions aren't dire at all, if they're true, then the correct course of action is to do nothing but let business take its course, is this one of those fake news things?

 

“Actual climate change in the United States is small and what little we see is largely beneficial.”

I’m sure this quote will age well.

 

the temperature of the US has gone up less than one degree Celsius in a century. how beneficial that is i have no idea, but the first part of the statement is undoubtedly true.

 

Where did you get this information?

According to this data:https://www.statista.com/statistics/500472/annual-average-temperature-in-the-us/
1920: 51.01F
2017: 54.58F

That is more than 3 degrees. Also do you even have any remote idea of the energy required to alter the entire average temperature just one degree for the mass of air of the lower atmosphere within the area of the United States?

 

that link is paywalled

 

another source that has the same data:https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

 

thanks

 

First off, Celsius is not Fahrenheit.

Secondly, the data comes from the NOAA's national climate data center.



Thirdly , I cant tell you how wrong it is to use two cherry picked data points when measuring change over time like you just did. The chart above should show you how awful it is to do what you did.

 

Hmm, my trendline has a slope of 1.51 degrees per century. I didn't pay attention to the plot tools the first time and didn't notice it had a toolbox to include a trend line.

From just visually looking at the graph, you can see a more consistent rapid change from 1970 moving forward. The trendline for just that range would have a Rsquared value closer to 1.

Anyways, the change in energy for just one degree of temperature change for the entire mass of air in the lower atmosphere for a region as massive as the United States is massive and has a tangible impact.

 

I wasn't going to say anything but when I played with the graph on the site you linked to, the trend is basically flat from 1895 to 1995, then spikes sharply. Flatten the vertical axis of the graph and you'll see it more clearly.

 

Trendlines become less reliable as the Rsquared value approaches 0.

That trendline from 1895-1995 seems rather weak with a low Rsquared value from the eye test. A strong trendline seems to occur between 1970 and the present.

At the end of the day, an increase of 1.5 degrees in temperature over such a large region is a rather significant change.

 

I get that. but I think it's hard to say there's been a 3 deg C increase in temps over any time period with any confidence as to why--are we looking at climate? weather? sunspots? better instrumentation? urban heat island effect? etc

 

Ya, no one is stating that this graph explains why we are seeing an increase.

 

you should run on this.

'if you don't surrender to the government large portions of your income, your children's children will grow up in a United States that is 1.5 degrees Celsius hotter!!!!!'

So what is this event in the 70s that you feel led to an uptick in temperature change?

 

I agree, in your narrow strawman of my argument, convincing the general public over 1.5 degrees in average temperature change in our country is a grave threat is a foolish endeavor. The average citizen won't realize the various levels of impact especially when you actually include the entire planet. I mean people are already b****ing about migration patterns currently.

The federal government is propping up oil and coal artificially. Does your libertarian views get irked by that at all?

In the long run, the monetary cost of climate change over the next century is going to be significantly higher than the monetary cost in investment to lessen our impact.

 

I don't approve of the government propping up any marketplace. For example all the tax breaks for renewable energy.

Let me get this straight though. You believe that if the government didn't interfere in the marketplace that the country would not be running on coal and oil? Is that really your claim? Such a claim defies all understanding of how energy efficient fossil fuels are.

 

I'll believe this is a serious problem when the people who tell me it's a serious problem start acting like it

Skin In The Game

 

Is everything in binary terms for you?

Unlike you, I believe that in circumstances where the motivations of quarterly profits harms society as whole due to short shortsightedness, government intervention is applicable. So yes, I want to government to artificially prop up renewable energy investments and it wouldn't interfere with my principles.

You being silent on the government propping up coal and oil is contradictory to your principles.