Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

[Toddsterpatriot]

$76 trillion? Link?

You think we should spend more? Link?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced

Yeah, but are they $76 trillion convinced?

Lack of adaptation action is costly. Despite ongoing mitigation and adaptation efforts, economic losses from weather and climate-related extremes in the EU reached over half a trillion euros between 1980 and 2021. This signals an urgent need to speed up the implementation of adaptation measures.
Adaptation actions are cost-efficient when the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.5. Measures resulting in a lower ratio require careful consideration because of the uncertainty of their economic costs and benefits.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

You think we should spend more? Link?

Lack of adaptation action is costly. Despite ongoing mitigation and adaptation efforts, economic losses from weather and climate-related extremes in the EU reached over half a trillion euros between 1980 and 2021. This signals an urgent need to speed up the implementation of adaptation measures.
Adaptation actions are cost-efficient when the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.5. Measures resulting in a lower ratio require careful consideration because of the uncertainty of their economic costs and benefits.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

You think we should spend more? Link?

No link or credible source provided

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

You think we should spend more? Link?

Assessing the costs and benefits of climate change adaptation

Climate change is happening. To reduce its economic impact, adaptation and mitigation actions are urgently needed. Decision-makers need to understand their benefits and costs compared to not acting at all. This briefing summarises the main assessment concepts, key methods and related challenges...

www.eea.europa.eu

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lack of adaptation action is costly. Despite ongoing mitigation and adaptation efforts, economic losses from weather and climate-related extremes in the EU reached over half a trillion euros between 1980 and 2021. This signals an urgent need to speed up the implementation of adaptation measures.
Adaptation actions are cost-efficient when the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.5. Measures resulting in a lower ratio require careful consideration because of the uncertainty of their economic costs and benefits.

Having more expensive, less reliable energy is also costly.

Adaptation actions are cost-efficient when the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.5.

Let me know when the ratio exceeds 0.5

 

[Sunsettommy]

Does the source matter?

Does making a rebuttal matter?

Post one article content remains unaddressed thus unchallenged.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

You think we should spend more? Link?

The EEA uses information from reinsurance companies to estimate the economic impacts of climate change. According to these data, the total economic losses from weather- and climate-related events between 1980 and 2021 amounted to more than EUR 560 billion (based on euro values in 2021) in the 27 EU Member States (EU-27). Between only one quarter and one third of these losses were insured (EEA, 2022b). The scale of these losses means that adaptation efforts must be ramped up. Since adaptation investments are primarily publicly funded, the costs of adaptation programmes and their resulting benefits — compared to the costs of doing nothing — must be carefully considered to justify spending and channel resources most efficiently. It is also important to establish methods and gather data to better understand whether investing in adaptation helps reduce economic losses from weather and climate extremes

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Having more expensive, less reliable energy is also costly.

Adaptation actions are cost-efficient when the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.5.

Let me know when the ratio exceeds 0.5

You don't care about your great grandchildren

 

[Donald H]

The denialists keep bringing the issue of AGW up, mainly because they want to be able to understand.

They can't understand because it's too involved and deep for them

If any of them are capable of understanding, as is true of at least one of them, that one will make up his/her own science and then claim to be the expert.

Now let's hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(don't leave out a few attempts to insult, and profanities are always popular!)

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

You think we should spend more? Link?

Assessing adaptation benefits and costs across Europe
There is no single number reflecting the total investment in adaptation needed across Europe. The BASE study, carried out for a limited number of sectors, estimated the annual investment needed in the EU to be EUR 35-56 billion (BASE, 2015). Studies such as Peseta IV and COACCH estimate the annual investment needs for various sectors by assessing the changes in the cost of inaction over time, considering the climate impacts under various climate scenarios. In the scenario of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C, the estimated adaptation investments are around EUR 40 billion per year (for the EU-27 and the UK). In the scenario with a 2°C global temperature rise, the total investment needs are estimated at around EUR 80-120 billion per year. In the scenarios with an increase of 3-4°C, the investment needs will increase to EUR 175-200 billion per year (Joint Research Centre, 2020; COACCH, 2022).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No link or credible source provided

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

These were the old estimates.

I'm sure the morons...err...greens have much higher numbers in mind today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The EEA uses information from reinsurance companies to estimate the economic impacts of climate change. According to these data, the total economic losses from weather- and climate-related events between 1980 and 2021 amounted to more than EUR 560 billion (based on euro values in 2021) in the 27 EU Member States (EU-27). Between only one quarter and one third of these losses were insured (EEA, 2022b). The scale of these losses means that adaptation efforts must be ramped up. Since adaptation investments are primarily publicly funded, the costs of adaptation programmes and their resulting benefits — compared to the costs of doing nothing — must be carefully considered to justify spending and channel resources most efficiently. It is also important to establish methods and gather data to better understand whether investing in adaptation helps reduce economic losses from weather and climate extremes

1980? Was that when weather and climate related events began?

 

[gtopa1]

The denialists keep bringing the issue of AGW up, mainly because they want to be able to understand.

They can't understand because it's too involved and deep for them

If any of them are capable of understanding, as is true of at least one of them, that one will make up his/her own science and then claim to be the expert.

Now let's hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(don't leave out a few attempts to insult, and profanities are always popular!)

AGW are a lot of unsupported theories that appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals as it's basically anti-Western politics. It's crap!!

Greg

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't care about your great grandchildren

I think that my great grandchildren should have affordable, reliable energy.

How much should we invest in new nuclear plants?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watch this get ignored:

===

Meanwhile, increasing CO2 is causing increased plant growth all around the globe, which is increasing the food supplies of humans and animals alike. Here’s the data from NASA.

===

Regarding heat, very hot days in the US (over 100°F, or 38°C) were much higher in the 1930s than at any other time in the last 125 years.

===

How about the dreaded heat waves that are supposed to be an inevitable result of “global warming”? If you need something to worry about, that’s not it … the real danger is not heat, it’s cold.

=======

Consensus arguments does NOT address these facts/evidence of the charts, they are real and that is why they are valid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The denialists keep bringing the issue of AGW up, mainly because they want to be able to understand.

They can't understand because it's too involved and deep for them

If any of them are capable of understanding, as is true of at least one of them, that one will make up his/her own science and then claim to be the expert.

Now let's hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(don't leave out a few attempts to insult, and profanities are always popular!)

I know, they are literally the worst.

So how much should we spend on new nuclear plants?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

You think we should spend more? Link?

At the local authority level — considered the bedrock of adaptive actions in the EU adaptation strategy (EC, 2021) — the median budget for adaptation declared by those authorities that are signatories to the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy was EUR 535,000, with wide discrepancies in budgets between authorities (EEA, 2020b). Comparing the signatories with the smallest and largest total implementation budgets, the bottom 20% of local authorities, with a mean total budget of EUR 16,000, had on average 10 planned adaptation actions and had completed two. The top 20% of signatories, with a mean total budget of over EUR 51 million, had on average 16 planned actions and had completed five (EEA, 2020b).

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Watch this get ignored:

View attachment 1150644
===

Meanwhile, increasing CO2 is causing increased plant growth all around the globe, which is increasing the food supplies of humans and animals alike. Here’s the data from NASA.

View attachment 1150646

===

Regarding heat, very hot days in the US (over 100°F, or 38°C) were much higher in the 1930s than at any other time in the last 125 years.

View attachment 1150647
===

How about the dreaded heat waves that are supposed to be an inevitable result of “global warming”? If you need something to worry about, that’s not it … the real danger is not heat, it’s cold.

View attachment 1150649

View attachment 1150648

=======

Consensus arguments does NOT address these facts/evidence of the charts, they are real and that is why they are valid.

Future projections

 

[80zephyr]

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation
by Bart Verheggen
Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased in my opinion. Still, they find a strong consensus on human causation of climate change: 87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes (question v007). Responses were given on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In line with Bray (2010) a response between 5 and 7 is considered agreement with anthropogenic causation. In their 2008 survey the level of agreement based on the same question was 83.5% and in 2013 it was 80.9%.