3 ms·

This tells nothing about weather or climate and everything about how rich we've become and where we are able to build today. It's simply misleading to put it u

This tells nothing about weather or climate and everything about how rich we've become and where we are able to build today. It's simply misleading to put it up this way. Even if the weather was getting less extreme you could experience an increase in cost. This is all the way up there with the claims of oil subsidies by measuring only arbitrary negative externalities with not talk about the positive ones (and no they are not factored into the price)

Retric 7y ago
Future impacts are not simply based on the weather but also people’s building habits. Any prediction ignoring such factors is going to be meaningless. Edit: But, that does not mean the current impact of climate change on these numbers are meaningless nor that further climate change can’t make the situation worse.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Thats what I am saying.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Not quite, saying the economy is the most important part of this graph is not enough to dismiss the impact of climate change.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      What I am saying is that the reason the cost can be bigger even if there were less extreme weather is that we have more stuff and we build places we didn't before. We have more stuff to be destroyed. You would have so show the same amount of stuff, extreme weather and that this extreme weather is because of climate change to make a case for this to be climate related. It's the usual sloppy catastrophic thinking that we unfortunately see in this highly policial debate.
      - Retric 7y ago
        Trends generally have multiple causes. The link between extreme events and high costs plus the link between extreme events and climate change is enough to say climate change is a factor rather than the only factor. Further, we don’t need to care about the causes to look into mitigation strategies. Banning construction at significant risk from storm surges is simply a good idea even if climate change where a non issue. Edit: I avoided saying numbers of events because type and intensity could be more important than overall numbers.
        ThomPete 7y ago
        It's non-sensical to use climate change as an explanation when it comes to cost for reasons I have already pointed out. There are multiple obvious reasons for why the cost is going up since the is more to get destroyed before we even get to "climate change". But there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that it has anything to do with "climate change" which itself is a completely meaningless and sloppy expression that really lumps all sorts of things together that should be separated. I am willing to bet that you can't actually find a single concrete piece of evidence that the rising cost have anything to do with climate change. And using your logic, Holland shouldn't exist at all. We are becoming better and better at living places that used to be inhabitable for humans. That has a cost because it's more exposed, but over time this will be countered by improved mitigation processes. I would love to see any concrete demonstrated evidence that climate is an issue here. There is a reason why they call it weather and climate disasters. Highly manipulative.
        Retric 7y ago
        If you want any evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 “Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.” As to climate change, the term is specifically used because it’s far from a uniform change in temperature. The poles warm far more than the equator with massive amounts of heat shifting between them. In some instances this can result in events where winter cold fronts stretching much further south on the same day warm fronts extend into the far north. The global temperature may be above average on the same day you get snow flurries in Texas.
Izkata 7y ago
Pretty much my thoughts on the graph. Look at the trend of the 5-year mean: It spiked in 2005, and has been pretty steady since then.

Retric 7y ago

Future impacts are not simply based on the weather but also people’s building habits. Any prediction ignoring such factors is going to be meaningless. Edit: But, that does not mean the current impact of climate change on these numbers are meaningless nor that further climate change can’t make the situation worse.

ThomPete 7y ago
Thats what I am saying.
- Retric 7y ago
  Not quite, saying the economy is the most important part of this graph is not enough to dismiss the impact of climate change.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    What I am saying is that the reason the cost can be bigger even if there were less extreme weather is that we have more stuff and we build places we didn't before. We have more stuff to be destroyed. You would have so show the same amount of stuff, extreme weather and that this extreme weather is because of climate change to make a case for this to be climate related. It's the usual sloppy catastrophic thinking that we unfortunately see in this highly policial debate.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Trends generally have multiple causes. The link between extreme events and high costs plus the link between extreme events and climate change is enough to say climate change is a factor rather than the only factor. Further, we don’t need to care about the causes to look into mitigation strategies. Banning construction at significant risk from storm surges is simply a good idea even if climate change where a non issue. Edit: I avoided saying numbers of events because type and intensity could be more important than overall numbers.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        It's non-sensical to use climate change as an explanation when it comes to cost for reasons I have already pointed out. There are multiple obvious reasons for why the cost is going up since the is more to get destroyed before we even get to "climate change". But there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that it has anything to do with "climate change" which itself is a completely meaningless and sloppy expression that really lumps all sorts of things together that should be separated. I am willing to bet that you can't actually find a single concrete piece of evidence that the rising cost have anything to do with climate change. And using your logic, Holland shouldn't exist at all. We are becoming better and better at living places that used to be inhabitable for humans. That has a cost because it's more exposed, but over time this will be countered by improved mitigation processes. I would love to see any concrete demonstrated evidence that climate is an issue here. There is a reason why they call it weather and climate disasters. Highly manipulative.
        Retric 7y ago
        If you want any evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 “Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.” As to climate change, the term is specifically used because it’s far from a uniform change in temperature. The poles warm far more than the equator with massive amounts of heat shifting between them. In some instances this can result in events where winter cold fronts stretching much further south on the same day warm fronts extend into the far north. The global temperature may be above average on the same day you get snow flurries in Texas.

Izkata 7y ago

Pretty much my thoughts on the graph. Look at the trend of the 5-year mean: It spiked in 2005, and has been pretty steady since then.