Economic Growth: The Real Hockey Stick

[aptronym]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
You could start with a few cites. Cites that a warmer Minnesota will produce less (or the same?) wheat and corn. Ditto for Canada.
[/quote]
Minnesota is not representative of the world, and the world figures have been already cited in this thread once and in “brazil84’s Global Warming Thread” twice.

@brazil84

How is my answer irrelevant?

Because you’re citing the fact that there has been an absolute increase in quality of life in the past century to try and prove that there will be no relative decrease in quality of life over the next. Predictions are that we as a species will grow and thrive through the 21st century - faster if global warming is slowed, and slower if global warming picks up. Your example is not a counterexample.

@brazil84

I doubt that human well being improved particularly outside of Europe. Can you give me some cites please? (And note that GDP in Europe did increase during this time period.)

I have cited as many papers in support of my claims of quality-of-life increases as you have.

@brazil84

Do you seriously deny that humans are much better off now than they were 100 years ago despite the warming that has taken place?

No, I’m asking you to prove it. Claiming that A > B requires both knowledge of A and B. My point is that you don’t know B, so stating that A > B is an unfounded statement.

@brazil84

I don’t know if it [temperature increase in the 20th century] has hurt people at all. But you don’t need to answer this question to see the truth of my basic point:

Your basic point is that economic progress has outstripped any adverse effects from global warming. If you cannot quantify the harm of global warming from 1900-2000, you have directly proven my point that your faith in economics is unfounded.

@brazil84

Whatever. I read your selections. My point stands.

That’s it? That’s your intellectually honest, fact-finding defense?

The NAS outright states that they agree with the IPCC - a direct contradiction to your repeated claims that the NAS avoids direct support of the IPCC - and your response is, “Whatever.”?

You claim to have read the selections, and in the very post I was responding to you claimed that “the NAS was very careful to avoid making the claim that you [jshore] claim they are making”? If you read the selections, why did you write that to jshore? If you didn’t read the selections, why do you insist that you did?

@brazil84

the NAS will have plenty of room to weasel

What part of this statement is weaselly enough so that it could incorporate your view?

@National Academy of Sciences (2001)

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.

You are in direct conflict with 5 out of 6 of the phrases in that quotation.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=aptronym]
Minnesota is not representative of the world,
[/quote]

So what? Do you remember what I said?

Here’s what I said:

And frankly, as a layman, it’s hard to believe that Minnesota will produce less corn and wheat if the weather there is a couple degrees warmer.

And here was your response:

What would it take to convince you? Scientists predict it, and I’ve tried my best to point out that corn doesn’t grow as well in Dallas as it does in Kansas.

Ok, if scientists have predicted it, then . . . .

Cite please.

I have cited as many papers in support of my claims of quality-of-life increases as you have.

I don’t know what you mean by “paper,” but in this thread I cited a chart at the very beginning and an article that discussed, among other things, deaths due to extreme weather.

You have cited nothing for your claim that “human well-being certainly improved from 1500 to 1700 with no visible increase in world GDP”

Cite please.

No, I’m asking you to prove it. Claiming that A > B requires both knowledge of A and B. My point is that you don’t know B, so stating that A > B is an unfounded statement.

Here’s a question for you from the world of financial accounting:

Suppose we know that XYZ Corp’s balance sheet shows 1,000,000 in owner’s equity. Let A represent XYZ Corp’s assets. Let B represent XYZ Corp.'s liabilities. Can we state that A is greater than B without knowing the values of A and B?

The NAS outright states that they agree with the IPCC

Where?

[aptronym]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Here’s what I said
[/quote]
Wait, so your point is that some areas will benefit from global warming? In which case, I agree. I thought you were citing Minnesota of being representative of the entire world (hence, my response including Kansas and Texas).

Do you contest that the overall effect will be negative?

@brazil84

I don’t know what you mean by “paper,” but in this thread I cited a chart at the very beginning and an article that discussed, among other things, deaths due to extreme weather.

Richer is not a quality-of-life measurement, nor is life expectancy (quantity-of-life).

@brazil84

Suppose we know that XYZ Corp’s balance sheet shows 1,000,000 in owner’s equity. Let A represent XYZ Corp’s assets. Let B represent XYZ Corp.'s liabilities. Can we state that A is greater than B without knowing the values of A and B?

But you already know something about the values of A and B - for one thing, that both numbers are positive, and second, that the two are additive.

In the other thread, you’ve stated you don’t believe that global warming causes net harm; while I disagree, by your reasoning, global warming from 1900-2000 may have cause the quality of life increase that you claim, not economic growth.

Your entire argument lacks self-consistency, and undoubtedly one of the reasons you’ve requested four different threads on the topic of global warming is to keep your inconsistent arguments separate.

@brazil84

Where?

Right under your nose.

[QUOTE=aptronym, post #39]
You have no excuse for not having read this prior to your most recent post.
…

@US National Academy of Sciences (2001)

The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WGI) scientific report

…

@US National Academy of Sciences (2001)

The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary.

For someone who asked for cites 5 times in his last post, you seem to have read very little of the cites you have already been given.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=brazil84, post #40, in direct response to the cited passages in post #39]
Whatever. I read your selections. My point stands. When the IPCC’s projections fail to materialize, the NAS will have plenty of room to weasel.
[/QUOTE]

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=aptronym]
I thought you were citing Minnesota of being representative of the entire world (hence, my response including Kansas and Texas).
[/quote]

Lol. I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Do you contest that the overall effect will be negative?

That’s “would be” not “will be,” and my answer is “yes.”

Richer is not a quality-of-life measurement, nor is life expectancy (quantity-of-life).

You gotta be kidding me. If tens (if not hundreds) of thousands fewer people die from floods, storms, etc., that’s clearly an improvement in human well being.

I don’t see how anyone could seriously dispute this fact.

But let me ask you this: Earlier, you stated that “human well-being certainly improved from 1500 to 1700.” How exactly are you measuring this improvement?

But you already know something about the values of A and B - for one thing, that both numbers are positive, and second, that the two are additive.

Lol. Look, earlier you said that “Claiming that A > B requires both knowledge of A and B.”

Will you admit already that this is false?

In the other thread, you’ve stated you don’t believe that global warming causes net harm;

Can you quote me where I said that? I believe what I said was that I don’t accept predictions that it would. Which isn’t quite the same.

while I disagree, by your reasoning, global warming from 1900-2000 may have cause the quality of life increase that you claim, not economic growth.

I accept that global warming may have improved quality of life between 1900 and 2000, but you need only open your eyes and use common sense to see that improvements in human well being were caused primarily by increases in wealth and technology (which go hand in hand).

So I don’t see how my position is inconsistent.

Please remember what I said earlier:

But the fact that economic growth has – so far – overwhelmingly outstripped any negative effects of temperature increase is suggestive, no?

(emphasis added)

Your entire argument lacks self-consistency,

That’s untrue.

undoubtedly one of the reasons you’ve requested

That’s not true either, but it’s getting outside the scope of this thread, which is about economic growth.

[brazil84]

@NAS

Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).

As I said, plenty of weasel room.

[brazil84]

Just an anecdote, but I think it illustrates my point:

On September 28, 1955, a Category 5 hurricane named Janet slammed into Chetumal, on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, killing over 600 people.

Hurricane Dean, another Category 5, and the third-strongest storm ever measured at landfall, hit in exactly the same place earlier this week (Tuesday, August 21,2007) and killed no one. Maximum winds in both storms were indistinguishable. The hurricane-hunter pilot who flew through the eyewall of the storm Tuesday reported severe turbulence, which is a temporary loss of aircraft control. Probably for the first time in human history, a Category 5 storm hit a populated area and everyone lived.

. . .

Similar storms, huge storms, very different results. What’s happening here?

Since then, people in the Yucatan have learned to adapt. While storms like these used to kill hundreds, even thousands, we now have the technology to forecast their tracks, at least for the critical last 24 hours, with reasonable confidence.

. . .

Adaptation includes technology, infrastructure, and response. National Hurricane Center forecasts and data are available to everyone. But the infrastructure to respond to a forecast hurricane costs money, and poor nations don’t have it. Among other things, it requires good roads for evacuation.

Perhaps even more important, adaptation to hurricanes or other natural disasters is political. No elected official wants to be blamed for hundreds of preventable deaths, so the nations that can afford it develop evacuation plans, open shelters, and deliver people from danger.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/23/taming-the-hurricane/#more-265