Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: World of 2030  (Read 1448 times)

be cause

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 368
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #50 on: April 17, 2019, 12:34:28 AM »
Thank God we're all spiritual beings .. what ever way we f##k the planet we'll keep on rocking :) b.c.
be the cause of only good
and love all beings as you should
and the 'God' of all Creation
will .. through you .. transform all nations :)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6503
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #51 on: April 17, 2019, 12:36:43 AM »
Well, I am a short-term pessimist and long-term optimist. I think technology will catch up with the problem eventually.
I created two "Furry" backgrounds for my stories and role-playing. In the Mammaloids (currently being retconned) global warming is a second order issue...maybe a meter or two of sea level rise over the Third Millennium (the first order issue is Humanity fighting, and losing, a series of wars with genetically engineered anthropomorphic animals). In GURPS Aesop the year is 1994 but technology is at World War One levels, so global warming is hardly on the horizon (the anthropomorphic animals are magical in origin).

I think you meant to post this in the RHJunior Forum, but accidentally posted it here.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #52 on: April 17, 2019, 04:04:24 AM »
Nonetheless, you should always look at costs relative to gdp,

Not true. You should use the best tools for the job at hand. GDP can be used as a normalizer for inflation, but you must understand what the GDP really is before you use it.

Quote
since GDP grows faster than inflation,

Halt right there. GDP may grow faster, slower and even the opposite direction of inflation. GDP and inflation are different phenomena, related in some ways but independent of each other. They do not represent the same thing.

 
Quote
therefore the value of buildings, infrastructure, etc grows faster than inflation meaning that if the same % of them gets lost to flood/fire, etc, its real (CPI-adjusted) value always goes up.

Go ahead and revise your inference. If GDP always went up and always faster than inflation your inference have some validity ( but not in this argument)


Quote
(BTW US GDP almost trpled in REAl terms from 1980 to 2018)

BTW during the 70's inflation went up as GDP went down in the US. Not fun.

Quote
So the correct method is either nominal losses relative to nominal GDP, or real losses relative to real GDP.

42.

The correct method to answer what question?

Have the cost of natural disasters increased?

After adjusting for inflation the answer is very clear. Yes.

If we adjust by GDP, then the answer is also yes, even in the US, who boasts the highest GDP growth in the world. In other parts of the world with high inflation and even negative GDP growth, but with about the same increase in climate disasters, the numbers must be much worse.

Has the increase in natural disasters cost had a negative impact in economic growth indicators in the US?

No. And the GDP would be the correct tool to come to that conclusion. The "negative local growth" increasing disasters cause and real non monetary impact of the disasters are a different topic.

To bring it back on topic, I reiterate my prediction.  If disaster costs (adjusted for inflation) simply stay at the 2010's level (and BAU) by 2030 the world will be much worse than we are now. We might already be past peak humanity.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 04:09:36 AM by Archimid »
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 849
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #53 on: April 17, 2019, 04:43:13 AM »
2030: Humanity will continue on a BAU trajectory (optimistic: a Green BAU). GHG levels will continue rising more or less along RCP8.5. Tensions will be rising, and more individual countries will join the march to collapse, but civilization itself will still be intact (I expect the global collapse to happen mid-century).
And the ASIF will still be infested with lukewarmists and closeted AGW deniers.

Edit: the 2012 record will be easily broken, and in all probability the first BOE of <1M km2 will have happened already.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 04:59:41 AM by oren »

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2019, 04:57:44 AM »
2030

The US / Canada / Australia

*Mostly the same for the largest cities
*Some regions and cities prone to minor catastrophes, with at least two events of Harvey's magnitude or greater occurring by this point
*Increasing populations of homeless individuals + families in the cities
*Business as usual for most

Europe

*Large changes possible in largest cities, minor unrest becoming much more common
*Increasing populations of homeless
*Large influx of refugees from Africa and Asia
*Major political instability, pending or possible collapse of EU, reformation of new political coalitions based on vulnerability to migration quite likely, extremist politics taking national governments by this point

Africa

*Largest cities are 1.5-2X the population of today
*Growing urban populations result in increasing perceived stability, however,
*Growing urban populations also become increasingly vulnerable to DISEASE
*By 2030 Africa will be on the verge of a major population correction

Asia

*Largest cities are 1.5-2X the population of today in developing regions
*China transitions to clean energy but has major social unrest and civil conflict as construction boom ends
*India and Pakistan have full scale conflict, possibly involving nuclear weapons
*Environmental degradation becomes staggering in most tropical regions
*By 2030 Asia will also be almost as due as Africa for a population correction

NET RELATIVE CHANGES

*The US, Canada, and Australia will have the most relative stability due to distance from the largest waves of potential refugees
*Europe is the region of highest income that is most vulnerable to political instability due to large refugee fluxes and faces largest potential relative decline in quality of life for ordinary citizens
*Situation likely to stay unchanged for most urban residents of Earth BUT
*Severe population corrections become increasingly likely in parts of Africa and southern Asia with a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan an event of increasing probability
*Net flow of capital and highest income individuals will favor stability and means to fund stopgap environmental intervention in the US, Canada, Australia, and wealthy areas of eastern Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore)

El Cid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2019, 07:49:42 AM »
This one to Archimid:

Since I have been working with economic statistics for 30+yrs and you do not have a correct understanding of these statistics here is a short primer :

REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation. Here is a chart for the US since the 50s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%. This means that the output of the country grew 3% more than inflation on average every year. The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things). The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation). The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth. Since the latter has grown 2-3-4% per year annually on average, therefore you can understand that nominal GDP growth constantly outpaced the growth of nominal prices ie. inflation. What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

Example:

You eran 1000 dollars per year. You incur a cost of 100 dollars. That's a big hit, 10% of your annual income. 10 years pass, inflation is 30% during that time, but now your salary is 2600 dollars. You incur the same cost: 100 dollars in old money, which is 130 dollars because of inflation. CPI adjusted the loss is the same, however it is now only 5% of your annual income, much more bearable, since you earn more (you had "real gdp growth" so to speak of). Consider GDP your salary and you will understand why this matters. I hope this makes it clear.



Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2019, 03:35:22 PM »
Quote
REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation.

Why does the GDP must be adjusted for inflation?  Do you know this answer? If you do, then apply the same concept to disaster cost. The REAL disaster cost is the disaster cost adjusted by inflation.

Quote
Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%.

You said GDP always went up, yet in the graph you posted it clearly shows many times GDP has gone down, with the 70's having many years of negative GDP growth and high inflation.

Quote
The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things)

Yes, that's what GDP growth measures. Productivity, not value.

Quote
The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Very much so, but productivity growth is not value. It represents economic growth, not the value of things within the economy.

Quote
Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation)

"not costs in themselves" wow.  You want me to consider cost as proportion of the GDP and ignore the actual cost. Sorry but no. If GDP was salary and I followed that advise with items I purchased that is a sure path to bankruptcy. I'm sorry, but the actual cost matters and it is extremely important information.

Quote
The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth.

The productivity of the economy is certainly determined by GDP growth, but only after an inflation adjustment. In the same way the true cost of natural disaster (monetary value) is the cost of natural disasters after adjusting for inflation.

Quote
What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

You are so close to getting it. Let's use your analogy. Let's say GDP is like a salary and natural disaster cost are like items you might purchase.

1. The cost of the items are completely independent from your salary. If you want to know the value of an item overtime you adjust the prices for inflation and compare. Salary is completely independent of that comparison. The same is true for GDP vs inflation. Adjusting for inflation tells you the actual cost, regardless of GDP growth.

2. When making the decision to purchase an item, salary does matter. The lower the price of the item relative to the salary the less significant the price becomes. For someone with a low salary buying a bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be a significant expense. To someone with a high salary the same bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be an insignificant percent.  The cost of the bowl of rice remains unchanged.

3. Salary and cost are not the only factor when purchasing an item. For example, some people have very high salaries but also have very high debt loads or costs of living. For such high salaried people the 5 dollar bowl of rice might be out of their reach.


Do you understand the difference now?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2019, 04:00:23 PM »
This one to Archimid:

Since I have been working with economic statistics for 30+yrs and you do not have a correct understanding of these statistics here is a short primer :

REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation. Here is a chart for the US since the 50s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%. This means that the output of the country grew 3% more than inflation on average every year. The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things). The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation). The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth. Since the latter has grown 2-3-4% per year annually on average, therefore you can understand that nominal GDP growth constantly outpaced the growth of nominal prices ie. inflation. What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

Example:

You eran 1000 dollars per year. You incur a cost of 100 dollars. That's a big hit, 10% of your annual income. 10 years pass, inflation is 30% during that time, but now your salary is 2600 dollars. You incur the same cost: 100 dollars in old money, which is 130 dollars because of inflation. CPI adjusted the loss is the same, however it is now only 5% of your annual income, much more bearable, since you earn more (you had "real gdp growth" so to speak of). Consider GDP your salary and you will understand why this matters. I hope this makes it clear.

Well said.  Everyone should be able to understand that now.

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1970
    • View Profile
    • Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multiple Sklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgia Modular Mobile Computing iOS Software OSX Android Custom Rom Rooted
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #58 on: April 17, 2019, 04:42:30 PM »
always interesting to see several participants meaning the same, being right and ending up with in a dispute because of a different angle, different wording and not to first agreeing on terms.

may i remind you all that a cilinder is a circle from one (top) angle and a square from another (side) angle?

it's such a waste of energy that we, and that includes myself of course, alway need so much energy to come to terms while sharing the same or a very similar view.

this, just to make sure it's understood is a compliment to all of you, combined with a call to increas the angles and perspectives how to look at things and express them.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

kassy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #59 on: April 17, 2019, 07:41:07 PM »
Quote
The REAL disaster cost is the disaster cost adjusted by inflation.

Using numbers to make it objective sounds good but do they cover the whole story?
No they don´t.

It also depends on the disasters. Species that die out don´t come back but you can rebuild the beach houses until people don´t want to live there anymore when too much disasters hit close in time.

And of course the REAL cost does not cover individual human tragedy while that too is real.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2019, 08:27:51 PM »
Quote
Using numbers to make it objective sounds good but do they cover the whole story?

Not even close.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 849
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2019, 09:49:46 PM »
All else being equal, disaster damage should have gone down sharply thanks to orders-of-magnitude-better forecasting, warning systems, and more suitable building codes.
The fact that this hasn't happened should tell you something. But that is really off-topic here.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #62 on: April 17, 2019, 10:08:22 PM »
Why the concentration on disasters? My guess it is a story of transition from places being livable, to places becoming less livable, to places becoming unlivable.

Extract from recent post by AbruptSLR
Quote
In addition to the overly simplistic nature of the IAM used by AR5 (such as they ignore interactions between impacting factors such as SLR, tides, storm surge, rainfall runoff, barometric pressures, etc.), but they largely ignore the matter of biocapacity and anthropogenic ecological footprint (see the attached image and the second linked website):

Title: "Earth Overshoot Day"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

Extract: "(World Biocapacity / World Ecological Footprint ) × 365" 

Footnote: When do you guess that Earth Overshoot Day will occur in 2019?

When do you guess that Earth Overshoot Day will occur in 2030?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)