Where Have All The Disasters Gone?

Warmists lie. Who’d a thunk it.

Where? gone to insurance profits despite green poster use of insurance companies facing disaster from climate change. Warren Buffet thanks you.

Nice analysis, Willis.

Please, also consider all the benefits of increased CO2

Derivatives?

Good question, and who is Brandon Galt?

Wishfull thinking !

The rest of the social cost must be fees to psychiatrists to treat people that have been frightened by the doom mongers

And to make the claim even worse, changing the discount rate in “Social Cost of Carbon” calculations to something more plausible changes the “costs” into benefits.

Reuters reports that world debt is fast approaching 300 trillion dollars. That’s 300 trillion spent that does not actually exist in the world economy.

So, world governments need to sell you carbon to recoup what they already borrowed and spent. There is no other raw material available in such quantity that they could sell you to pay their bills, except oxygen. But that’s considered tacky, so carbon will have to do.

Willis, I love your brain. Any chance of getting it cloned?

Thanks once again Willis!
… and just think if we havn’t had fossil fuels, we would have missed all the wealth and scientific progress.

SteenR

Good analysis. More of this needs to be done and people made aware. We’ve allowed the MSM to invent the AGW narrative, perpetuate it, and grow it without questioning them. It’s time people start doing something about the lies instead of ignoring them.

$960 trillion would be the cost of pursuing the anti CO2 economic policies………

Willis, you didn’t count all the CO2 emitted by the IPCC during their deliberations, both that produced during their meetings and that produced indirectly by their use of fossil fueled electricity to power all their electronic stuff. I think all that CO2 should be classed as disaster-producing CO2.

It is all just stuff from the Bandar-log who are becoming increasingly shrill.

Any idea what the costs of these type of events from 1880 to 1950 would come to? Would have to factor in inflation. I much prefer the begin climate we are enjoying now over that of the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were also some extreme heatwaves/weather events prior to 1920.

Are all of your estimates of the quality of that for the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm?

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2021/03/08/the-texas-winter-freezes-economic-toll-climbs-to-130-billion/

Yes, I am aware that even taking 6.5* you total still leaves us low. And that this might just be an oversight. One of the tenets here is, Don’t necessarily trust wiki….

Cyclone used to be a synonym of hurricane and typhoon.
Cyclones Lothar and Martin,; Cyclones Daria, Vivian, and Wiebke; Cyclone Kyrill; Cyclone Xynthia; Cyclone Klaus and Cyclone Gudrun are just depression systems which the DWD decided to give names to make them scarier.

much worse than that

social cost of carbon varies over time but is generally firmly in the negative (i.e. externality benefits outweigh externality costs, an anti-pollutant or “triumph of the commons” if you will)

ag greening alone has contributed trillions to human prosperity

reversing the 1940s-1970s cooling was even more valuable

future costs are based on speculative models that cannot reproduce the post-1979 satellite tropospheric warming of .2 degrees per decade, which may continue to be linear through 2100 for all anyone really knows

where are the missing $87 trillion dollars in damages purportedly caused by so-called “climate disasters”?

In the mind of the innumerate alarmists! Most of whom are also “instatisticate.”

To actually get a valid result one would need to add in all the benefit costs as well. To assume that there are no benefits is preposterous. So, not only is the estimate 10x too high and not all can be attributed to CO2,, they left out the positive piece of the equation. Typical liberal math – it’s why they can’t pass a math test in high school.

Money demands serious financial research.
So. let’s see what UN Climate Finance Czar Mark Carney, no mere Excel pleb, ex Bank of England chief, says in an Oct. 12 interview :
It will require between $100 and $150 TRILLION to be spent over 30 years in new “green” technology. To do this, he said, requires a change in financial “plumbing”. He is demanding a “Reset” that will give private banks and financial institutions control over the credit policies of nations; further, the move in this direction is already driving up energy prices, by cutting credit to producers, and pouring liquidity into speculators. As stated in the Economist, the mouthpiece for the City of London, “Get used to it.” But Carney admitted there is resistance, citing China, Indonesia and South Africa as three who will fight it. 
BlackRock is fully onboard. In other words, no credit for any carbon firm, hence the current hyperinflation.

Suck it up! Or take serious physical economic action and join in the BRI. Choose!

Might as well factor in crypto as a disaster also.

Why Crypto Mining Needs Nuclear Power (yahoo.com)

And here is yet another category of cost disaster….

$224M Georgia Power rate hike likely for nuclear plant – ABC News (go.com)

I have made that error before… I do an energy audit of a building and/or a campus or installation, I pick some likely Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) based on the equipment currently installed, and then I do a life-cycle cost analysis of supposed savings vs. the cost of the improvement. I even went so far as publishing a report, and sending it to the client, that indicated the annual savings for an ECM was going to be about 5 times what he had actually spent on energy for that item in the previous year. That’s quite embarrassing, and it radically lowers the impact of your report, not just for that particular ECM, but for every other ECM and the entire report. 🙁 The only thing that could have made it worse was if I had tried to claim he didn’t have as much intelligence as me and was taking that number out of context. I did not try that.

I would suggest that a fair amount can be figured in damage to the economy. If you calculate all the failed companies that were paid for or bailed out by tax dollars, the increased cost of anything with an engine to cover emissions standards, the inefficiencies of refineries because you can’t build new ones due to environmental policy, etc. etc, you may find the total cost to the economy and drain on wealth will eat up a chunk of that missing $87 trillion.

The disaster is there alright – between all of them’s ears

Willis
I thought the damages included future damages, and damages included stuff like economically valuing impacts to humans and the environment.
The estimate of SCC is based on estimate upon estimate.
Using Dhaka as an example.
Say – Dhaka has 15m people of which 5m are impacted by flooding.
In 2100 it is estimated that the population of Dhaka to be 45m and their economic wealth doubles, and the area of the city subject to extra flooding doubles.
It would mean the level of impacts or forever suffering grows by a factor of 12. ( it is automatically assumed the extra rich people will move to the flood zones)
It is my understanding that SCC includes all these future exaggerated damages/impacts/sufferings.

Nice analysis, WE. I just looked up the SCC estimates for US. Under Trump, a maximum of $7. Under Biden, a minimum of $51. Now that’s real Bidenflation.

What about the Social Benefit of Carbon?

Consider, direct impact on, Life expectancy, infant mortality, health in general, education, and womens rights, for energy exporting countries such as Norway and indirect impacts on everyone else.

… where are the missing $87 trillion dollars in damages purportedly caused by so-called climate disasters …

And one must also offset the costs of climate disasters that did not happen thanks to CO2.
The utter absurdity of this accounting is hurting my brain.

So basically, they are claiming that everything bad that has happened since 1950 was caused by CO2.

Everything about the claims has its own inflation – it’s continually worse than we thought

Willis:

You’re forgetting the valuation for Greta’s stolen childhood, which I guess accounts for most of that missing $87 trillion. On the other hand, some people think Greta’s childhood is the disaster.

There is a specific definition of the “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC). It does not refer to past damages as you have stated:

“I read today that the EU is using an estimate of US$68 per tonne of CO2 emissions for the purported cost of the damages done by CO2. This is known by a Newspeak term as the “Social Cost Of Carbon”.”

The SCC refers to future NET damages (costs less benefits) resulting from each additional ton of CO2 emitted. The future damages/bebefits are discounted to net present value using a suitable discount rate.

Of course there is huge uncerainty in the calculations such as the discount rate used, equilibrium climate sensitivity, population growth/decline, etc. The uncertainty is so great that the calculated SCC has little value.

With apologies to Will Rogers:

It’s a good thing we don’t get all the disasters CO2 has caused.

Admiral Nimitz made a similar observation in response to Japanese claims of sinking multiple US carriers:

I wish we had all the carriers the Japanese claim we do!

Thanks Willis. I always enjoy your lateral thinking take on “factchecking”. As an engineer involved for many years in electricity supply issues I have frequently had to deal with regulatory questions on the economist’s concept of “social cost of carbon (SCC)”. it seems to me that this number is far too elastic to inform any energy policy or planning.

I have seen proposed SCC estimates ranging from -$50 to +$400. Considering the well documented benefits of a mildly warmer environment and promotion of floral growth, I think it plausible that SCC has a net negative value. In other words by the same logic behind carbon pricing or taxation, we should receive carbon credits for burning fossil fuels 🙂

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So CO2 is not responsible for any environmental disasters. On the other hand CO2 has enabled life as we know it on this planet. That has got to be worth something,

Not to mention the social benefits of emitting CO2…

Chicken Little says that the Sky is Falling and that it will cost us $97 Trillion dollars to fix it up in the Virtual World.

All weather related disasters have plummeted since the early 20th century- https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

Willis, I’ll bet that the fruitcakes pushing unlimited disasters and inflated social cost of carbon never saw you coming! Prozac futures are going through the roof!

Only 4 days to go before BBC One screens The Trick and nothing from WUWT.

Phil Jones will be declared a hero after being hounded by climate change deniers for 12 years.

FFS wake up!

Its similar to the fossil fuel subsidy calculation.

In the subsidy studies, the largest “subsidies” are the difference between actual carbon taxes and whatever the study team thought they SHOULD have been, and depreciation of assets.

The largest part of the “cost of carbon” is what they think those disasters SHOULD have cost.

“but $960 trillion in disasters …”

Should be mi$$ing (97-1) = $96 trillion in disasters.

Another way to put it is that we’re missing (96/97)*100 = 99.0% of the damage purportedly caused by CO2 since 1950.

We know where it’s gone, don’t we. It ran off with Trenberth’s missing heat.

It’s so nice, isn’t it, when a new insight explains data that’s been sitting neglected and lonely in the literature. You’re welcome, Ken.

Even though you probably can’t show the governments pays for much of those disaster costs, ten percent is not to much lower than most charities deliver.

The actually issue should be where does all that carbon tax their citizens pay go?

Seems kind of high prices for indulgences for those exhaling and using energy. Those carbon taxes are likely part of a pyramid scheme.

Thanks WE for all your work.

“And given even that incorrect and wildly exaggerated assumption, the obvious question is … where is the other $87 trillion dollars of purported CO2 damages from weather-related disasters since 1950?”

A large error could be in thinking that the only damage from CO2 is disasters. You really need to find out what their definition is.

Willis has some form on this. See https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/ where he works out:
“As Figure 6 shows, the benefit that we get from emitting that additional tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is an increase in goods and services of $4,380 … which dwarfs the assumed social cost of carbon of $40. When we do an actual cost/benefit analysis, the result is almost all benefit.”
(Note- seems the pictures there don’t show, may need to refer to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/ to get the pictures.)

Thus even with the !diots claiming that our CO2 emissions have cost us $97T since 1950, we’ve gained around 10 times that from the use of that energy.

From Willis’ calculations above, though, looks like the actual SCC is an order of magnitude less than the EU estimate, so the cost/benefit ratio for using those fossil fuels gets even better. Apart from that, of course, there’s the slight problem that without that cheap energy we couldn’t feed the population we have.

$97 TRILLION dollars since 1950!! What’s the value of the estimated 10% – 15% of increases in C3 crop yields (rice, wheat, potatoes…) over the past half century or so?

Shouldn’t they call it the Socialist Cost of Carbon?

Score: $97 trillion for Willis, $1.35 in the hole for the eco loons.

This may have been pointed out already, but is the $960 Trillion a typo – shouldn’t be $96 trillion?

“And it gets much worse if we don’t assume that 100% of the responsibility is due to CO2. Suppose we say (still an exaggeration) that 10% of the responsibility comes from CO2. That would mean that we are missing, not $87 trillion in disasters, but $960 trillion in disasters” …

I think it’s even worse than you imagine!

The Global Social Cost of Carbon: 418 USD/tCO2 according to this website: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/dte-infographics/social_cost_corbon/index.html

There definition is that the Social Cost of Carbon reflects the income that society will lose in the future for each tonne of CO2 emitted. They make some attempt to quantify the benefits and even show that some countries, such as UK, Canada, Russia and Germany, will benefit from releasing CO2.

I believe it’s one of those things which has it’s own positive feedback loop built in!

This is known by a Newspeak term as the “Social Cost Of Carbon” making stuff up

Fixed it.

The suitable, poetic answer to the question that Willis asks in the title of his above article:
“Gone to graveyards, everyone
Oh, when will they ever learn?”

(With a tip of the hat to song writers Pete Singer and Joe Hickerson.)

Meanwhile we are well past the height of the tropical storm season and there are not tropical storms or even a single “invest” in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico. And it has been very quiet for two weeks. Global ACE is 95% of “normal”.

Their figure may well be wrong, but your argument doesn’t show it is. CO2 lasts for a long time in the atmosphere, so the cost of CO2 released today isn’t born today, it’s born over a very long time into the future.

Interesting analysis, but of course missing the obvious. As you know, the warming from GHG is exactly what has been calculated, although due to other things the measured temperature increase is less than the real one. And it therefore follows that the cost of those natural disasters are as calculated, but due to other things the experienced cost is less than the real cost. I mean, do you really believe that those smartest minds in the world would not know this?