Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deleted member 2897" data-source="post: 797128"><p>Have you read that study in its entirety? The problem I have with it is the differential effects on health and property damage. What I mean by that is that if our world is more polluted, absolutely we're going to have higher health costs due to dirtier air and water and so on. But whatever that number is should not be compared to 0. In other words, if CO2 concentrations at 420 ppm = X healthcare costs, we should only be comparing that differential to what healthcare costs would be if CO2 concentrations were at say 350 ppm if we weren't polluting like we are. That differential healthcare cost number is significantly lower. Second, property damage from storms has exploded in size while the number and severity of storms has not. Its because the number of properties in vulnerable locations and the value of those have exploded in size. So using property damage (which is a huge proportion of the costs in this study) as the metric is disingenuous. The per square foot value of a home in my town has quadrupled in the last 30 years. So given the exact same frequency and severity of storms, property damage would still quadruple without any climate change effect. Now add in that there are 3x as many homes in my town as there were 30 years ago, and the multiplier is even worse. Using those super large numbers for property damage is real - that is damage and it is a cost - but its not due to climate change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deleted member 2897, post: 797128"] Have you read that study in its entirety? The problem I have with it is the differential effects on health and property damage. What I mean by that is that if our world is more polluted, absolutely we're going to have higher health costs due to dirtier air and water and so on. But whatever that number is should not be compared to 0. In other words, if CO2 concentrations at 420 ppm = X healthcare costs, we should only be comparing that differential to what healthcare costs would be if CO2 concentrations were at say 350 ppm if we weren't polluting like we are. That differential healthcare cost number is significantly lower. Second, property damage from storms has exploded in size while the number and severity of storms has not. Its because the number of properties in vulnerable locations and the value of those have exploded in size. So using property damage (which is a huge proportion of the costs in this study) as the metric is disingenuous. The per square foot value of a home in my town has quadrupled in the last 30 years. So given the exact same frequency and severity of storms, property damage would still quadruple without any climate change effect. Now add in that there are 3x as many homes in my town as there were 30 years ago, and the multiplier is even worse. Using those super large numbers for property damage is real - that is damage and it is a cost - but its not due to climate change. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top