Extreme weather cost world $2 trillion in 10 years

[Unum]

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/11/extreme-weather-economic-cost-climate-change-cop29

Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the worst-affected nation, per
a report published as leaders gather for the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan

he damage estimates in the Oxera report for the International Chamber of
Commerce for 2014-2023 roughly equate to those of the 2008 global financial
crisis

In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers.

The U.S. had the greatest economic losses over the period from 2014-2023
($934.7 billion), followed by China at $267.9 billion and India ($112
billion).

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the worst-affected nation, per
a report published as leaders gather for the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan

A similar pattern over time is exhibited by contemporaneous number of
geophysical disasters – volcanoes, earthquakes, dry landslides – which,
by their nature, are not significantly influenced by climate or
anthropogenic factors. We conclude that the patterns observed are
largely attributable to progressively better reporting of natural
disaster events

Research Papers
Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?
Gianluca Alimonti & Luigi Mariani
Pages 186-202 | Received 28 Nov 2022, Accepted 18 Jul 2023, Published
online: 07 Aug 2023

ABSTRACT

We analyze temporal trends in the number of natural disasters reported
since 1900 in the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) from the Center for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Visual inspection
suggests three distinct phases: first, a linear upward trend to around
mid-century followed by rapid growth to the turn of the new century, and
thereafter a decreasing trend to 2022. These observations are supported
by piecewise regression analyses that identify three breakpoints (1922,
1975, 2002), with the most recent subperiod 2002–2022 characterized by a
significant decline in number of events. A similar pattern over time is
exhibited by contemporaneous number of geophysical disasters –
volcanoes, earthquakes, dry landslides – which, by their nature, are not
significantly influenced by climate or anthropogenic factors. We
conclude that the patterns observed are largely attributable to
progressively better reporting of natural disaster events, with the
EM-DAT dataset now regarded as relatively complete since ∼2000. The
above result sits in marked contradiction to earlier analyses by two UN
bodies (FAO andUNDRR), which predicts an increasing number of natural
disasters and impacts in concert with global warming. Our analyses
strongly refute this assertion as well as extrapolations published by
UNDRR based on this claim.

[JTEM]

Post by Paul Aubrin
ABSTRACT
We analyze temporal trends in the number of natural disasters reported
since 1900 in the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) from the Center for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Visual inspection
suggests three distinct phases: first, a linear upward trend to around
mid-century followed by rapid growth to the turn of the new century, and
thereafter a decreasing trend to 2022.

Is 122 years even meaningful?

The Holocene is close to 12k years old by popular dating, and more like
15K years old when factoring out the Younger Dryas cooling. Is the kind
of variation we're talking about the least bit unusual within the last
122 years? Is 122 years representative at all?

The planet earth hasn't seen any true "Catastrophe" in the last 1022
years. And all the truly major climate events have been tied to volcanic
activity, except maybe with the exception of sun spots in one or two
major events.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by JTEM

Post by Paul Aubrin
ABSTRACT
We analyze temporal trends in the number of natural disasters reported
since 1900 in the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) from the Center
for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Visual
inspection suggests three distinct phases: first, a linear upward
trend to around mid-century followed by rapid growth to the turn of
the new century, and thereafter a decreasing trend to 2022.

Is 122 years even meaningful?

If natural weather disaster frequency trends compare to non-weather
natural disaster frequency trends over a century, maybe a reporting bias
is a reasonable hypothesis.

[JTEM]

Post by Paul Aubrin
ABSTRACT
We analyze temporal trends in the number of natural disasters reported
since 1900 in the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) from the Center for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Visual inspection
suggests three distinct phases: first, a linear upward trend to around
mid-century followed by rapid growth to the turn of the new century, and
thereafter a decreasing trend to 2022.

Is 122 years even meaningful?

The Holocene is close to 12k years old by popular dating, and more like
15K years old when factoring out the Younger Dryas cooling. Is the kind
of variation we're talking about the least bit unusual within the last
122 years? Is 122 years representative at all?

The planet earth hasn't seen any true "Catastrophe" in the last 1022
years. And all the truly major climate events have been tied to volcanic
activity, except maybe with the exception of sun spots in one or two
major events.

[Unum]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the worst-affected nation, per
a report published as leaders gather for the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan

Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?

The report didn't mention the number of natural disasters. It referred to
the cost of damages from climate-related extreme weather events;

"In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers."

[JTEM]

Post by Unum
The report didn't mention the number of natural disasters. It referred to
the cost of damages from climate-related extreme weather events;

Are "Extreme Weather Events" frequently measured in terms of cost?

You do know that housing is at an all time high, waterfront property
at the highest.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more
than $2 trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the
worst-affected nation, per a report published as leaders gather for the
COP29 summit in Azerbaijan

Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?

The report didn't mention the number of natural disasters. It referred to
the cost of damages from climate-related extreme weather events;
"In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers."

What would be the economic cost of stopping using FFs?

My guess is that would be much higher than the numbers you are quoting.

[Unum]

Post by Kenny McCormack

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more
than $2 trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the
worst-affected nation, per a report published as leaders gather for the
COP29 summit in Azerbaijan

Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?

The report didn't mention the number of natural disasters. It referred to
the cost of damages from climate-related extreme weather events;
"In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers."

What would be the economic cost of stopping using FFs?
My guess is that would be much higher than the numbers you are quoting.

Nobody is suggesting that fossil fuel use would be halted immediately. It
would merely be phased out ASAP, and all attempts by dirty energy companies
to keep that from happening would be strictly prevented.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum
The report didn't mention the number of natural disasters. It referred to
the cost of damages from climate-related extreme weather events;
"In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers."

Climate, eight years. Climate is 30 or more years. This "report" doesn't
take into account the basic definitions.

[Unum]

Post by Unum
The report didn't mention the number of natural disasters. It referred to
the cost of damages from climate-related extreme weather events;
"In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers."

Climate, eight years. Climate is 30 or more years. This "report" doesn't take
into account the basic definitions.

Aubrin retreats to his usual whining about 30 years.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
Climate, eight years. Climate is 30 or more years. This "report"
doesn't take into account the basic definitions.

Aubrin retreats to his usual whining about 30 years.

AR6 WG1 Annex VII Glossary page 2239
quote :
Climate Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average
weather, or more rigorously as the statistical description in terms of
the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time
ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical
period for averaging these variables is *30 years*, as defined by the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The relevant quantities
are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation
and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical
description, of the climate system.

[Unum]

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
Climate, eight years. Climate is 30 or more years. This "report" doesn't
take into account the basic definitions.

Aubrin retreats to his usual whining about 30 years.

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/11/extreme-weather-economic-cost-climate-change-cop29

Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the worst-affected nation, per
a report published as leaders gather for the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan

he damage estimates in the Oxera report for the International Chamber of
Commerce for 2014-2023 roughly equate to those of the 2008 global financial
crisis

In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers.

The U.S. had the greatest economic losses over the period from 2014-2023
($934.7 billion), followed by China at $267.9 billion and India ($112
billion).

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <vjs68o$1q3eb$***@dont-email.me>,
Unum <***@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
...

Post by Unum
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/11/extreme-weather-economic-cost-climate-change-cop29
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the worst-affected nation, per
a report published as leaders gather for the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan
The damage estimates in the Oxera report for the International Chamber of
Commerce for 2014-2023 roughly equate to those of the 2008 global financial
crisis
In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers.
The U.S. had the greatest economic losses over the period from 2014-2023
($934.7 billion), followed by China at $267.9 billion and India ($112
billion).

Your reporting does not contain any prescriptions about "And therefore, we
should do what???". I.e., without a "And then what?", it is pretty
meaningless to say "Such and such has cost us so-and-so much money". There
has to be a "And we can fix/avoid this by doing ...".

The problem, of course, is that there is no solution. So-called "green
energy" might buy us a few years at best, but it is just simply not
possible to clothe and feed 8 billion people without using fossil fuels and
(unfortunately) there is no way we can continue using fossil fuels without
(further) wrecking the ecosystem. That's our Hobson's Choice. The only
"solution" (and I put that in scare quotes b/c it's the solution nobody
wants to contemplate much less openly talk about) is to reduce the world's
population to pre-industrial (i.e., pre-fossil-fuel) levels.

[Unum]

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by Unum
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/11/extreme-weather-economic-cost-climate-change-cop29
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the worst-affected nation, per
a report published as leaders gather for the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan
The damage estimates in the Oxera report for the International Chamber of
Commerce for 2014-2023 roughly equate to those of the 2008 global financial
crisis
In the last two full years of the report alone, global economic damages
reached $451 billion. That's a 19% rise compared to the previous eight years
of the decade, according to the researchers.
The U.S. had the greatest economic losses over the period from 2014-2023
($934.7 billion), followed by China at $267.9 billion and India ($112
billion).

Your reporting does not contain any prescriptions about "And therefore, we
should do what???". I.e., without a "And then what?", it is pretty
meaningless to say "Such and such has cost us so-and-so much money". There
has to be a "And we can fix/avoid this by doing ...".

The fixes have been described here for years. Clearly they will be less
expensive than the ongoing harms of increased global warming.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum

Post by Kenny McCormack
Your reporting does not contain any prescriptions about "And
therefore, we
should do what???".  I.e., without a "And then what?", it is pretty
meaningless to say "Such and such has cost us so-and-so much money".
There
has to be a "And we can fix/avoid this by doing ...".

The fixes have been described here for years.

“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this
about?” (Maurice Strong)

"It's a terrible thing to say. But to stabilize the world's population,
we have to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It's a horrible thing to say,
but to say nothing is even more horrible". (Jacques-Yves Cousteau)

[Unum]

Post by Unum

Post by Kenny McCormack
Your reporting does not contain any prescriptions about "And therefore, we
should do what???".  I.e., without a "And then what?", it is pretty
meaningless to say "Such and such has cost us so-and-so much money". There
has to be a "And we can fix/avoid this by doing ...".

The fixes have been described here for years.

“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations
collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?” (Maurice Strong)
"It's a terrible thing to say. But to stabilize the world's population, we
have to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It's a horrible thing to say, but to
say nothing is even more horrible".  (Jacques-Yves Cousteau)

in other words, nothing that has ever been suggested here.

Rapid transition away from dirty energy is entirely feasible and far
less expensive than enduring the harms of extreme weather and sea level rise
for the next several hundred years.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Unum
The fixes have been described here for years.

“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this
about?” (Maurice Strong)
"It's a terrible thing to say. But to stabilize the world's
population, we have to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It's a horrible
thing to say, but to say nothing is even more horrible".  (Jacques-
Yves Cousteau)

in other words, nothing that has ever been suggested here.
Rapid transition away from dirty energy is entirely feasible

Wishful thinking. Quickly cutting energy use by 80% means rapidly
dividing world population by 5.

[JTEM]

Post by Kenny McCormack
The problem, of course, is that there is no solution.

I've been pointing that out for years:

IF -- and I do mean "If" -- you believe the Gwobull Warbling
narrative, the only option left open to you is preparation.

There is literally nothing you can do.

Even slaughtering 7 billion people, restoring the earth's
population to the level when Gwobull Warbling supposedly
began in the 1800s, we'd still be a post industrial society
with a "Carbon footprint" much higher than the now popular
1830 date.

If we butchered every last man, woman & child outside of
China, the planet would STILL be producing about 14x the
amount of CO2 that is claimed to have sparked Gwobull Warbling
in the first place...

There is nothing, literally nothing anyone anywhere can do,
EXCEPT prepare.

If -- and I do mean "If" -- you believe the narrative.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Unum

Post by Unum

Post by Paul Aubrin
Climate, eight years. Climate is 30 or more years. This "report"
doesn't take into account the basic definitions.

Aubrin retreats to his usual whining about 30 years.

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/11/extreme-weather-economic-cost-climate-
change-cop29
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade and the U.S. was the worst-affected nation, per
a report published as leaders gather for the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan

Your premise is false, let's just ignore the conclusions.

Loading Image...

[JTEM]

Post by Unum
Climate-related extreme weather events cost the global economy more than $2
trillion over the past decade

When did they start costing money?

Obviously they were FREE!before 1830 or so, the
current popular date attributed with the start of
Gwobull Warbling. Before then, droughts would wipe out
your crops for free! They might even pay you! All your
crops died but the heat left gold coins in & on the
soil...

....was bored and had a documentary on ancient Rome
playing in the background. Apparently one amphora of
wine was worth a slave. Several MILLION amphora were
exported to Gaul each year. A slave in the ante bellum
south was worth maybe $800. But, gold at the time was
only worth $20.67 an ounce. In today's money that's
$101,101.11, which is a lot. So...

Multiply 2,000,000 by $101,101.11 and a drought killing
off the wine exports JUST TO GAUL cost the Romans
some $202,202,220,000

The BIGGEST cost of "Extreme Weather" in ancient time
was probably shipwrecks. You not only lost the crew
and the cargo, you lost the ship!