It's astonishing that they only consider deaths from heat, ignoring deaths from cold. Everything I have read says cold kills 10-20 times as many people as heat. The same for the distribution of temperature changes, rising more in winter than summer.
I used to have a subscription to nature, but dropped it about 10 years ago, tired of the increasing political nature. To accept such a shoddy article, and reject such obvious refutations, makes me happy I no longer subscribe.
It is claimed that, while total deaths from cold are much larger than from heat, the marginal effect is smaller, raising minimum temperatures by one degree saves fewer lives than raising maximum kills. I suspect it isn't true but have not looked into the analysis that produces that result.
They do consider deaths from cold and David never claimed otherwise. Cromar et al. state:
>Fewer studies that met the inclusion criteria were available that evaluated this dynamic compared with studies focused on increases in high temperatures; however, those studies that evaluated both increases in high and low temperatures (9–18) were used to estimate a net change in all-cause mortality risk.
Astonishing? I understand what you mean but, sadly, seeing this kind of slanted “science” from a mainstream Blue establishment publication isn’t surprising these days.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is slanted science but I would have to read the article that produced that result pretty carefully to be confident that it is (or isn't).
It's an important issue because if the relative marginal cost is similar to total cost the mortality effect of warming is positive, making it likely that the net effect is. Do any of you know of critical literature on the issue?
Nature is just one more in the sadly increasing number of journals that I used to respect but no longer do. I just hate how one-sided so many organizations publishing or writing about "Science" have become.
Thanks for posting it on your substack. I probably will never have the opportunity to actually study the topic or have an opinion, but I have faith in your humility that you are probably right that the world won't end as a fireball because I drive in a car instead of walking my kids to school. And that's cheering.
I don't think anyone serious believes that climate change will kill us all — that's pop science. Even the article I criticized shows some (very low) probability that the net effect of more CO2 is positive. We are a long way below the maximum temperature of the past hundred and fifty million years, and life survived that just fine.
P.S. After reading that you wrote some fantasy, I bought Harald. I enjoyed it a lot, but what kind of economist fails to make the story a 3-volume set? ;-) You could have added a lot and sold more books.
Regarding higher temperature causing lower farming output before adaptation, that is probably untrue aswell. Usually higher temperature causes everything to grow faster.
Reason why that result might be in statistics, is that for a given area, high temperatures are usually caused by lack of clouds, leading to too dry growing conditions. A raise in temperatures from global warming will not cause dryness on average (it should cause more wetness through higher evaporation, though unsure of how oceans being slow to warm up affects things during warming).
"Long, however, found increases of 12%, 13%, and 14% (rice, wheat, and soybeans) from an increase to 550 ppm from the ambient concentration, which implies an increase of about 17.5% for a doubling."
Instead of 17.5 %, should it be 26.7 % (= (0.12 + 0.13 + 0.14)/3*370/(550 - 370))? I may be missing something.
"Kimball 2016, a survey of FACE (Free-air CO2 Enrichment) studies of which Long is one, found that “Yields of C3 grain crops were increased on average about 19%” by increasing CO2 from 353 ppm to 550, which implies a 23% increase for a doubling."
Similarly, instead of 23 %, should it be 34.0 % (= 0.19*353/(550 - 353))?
Two points: 1. The Lancet study showing 10x more cold deaths than heat deaths in Europe. If this was factored into the Social Cost of CO2 it would go negative. 2. You are saying nothing new here! Rennert et al. are fully aware of all your rebuttals. They choose to ignore them because bang there go all their grants. They lie and they know that they lie.
I believe they used a formula in which the richer you are the more dollars your death represents, presumably on the theory that what you want is the amount someone would pay to reduce the probability of dying.
As you might know from my latest (https://amzn.to/3LTtfTJ) I am in general on your side. But honestly, you didn't need to read your analysis to know what it was, any more than you would need to read Bill McKibbon's analysis of the same piece.
Nobody should believe a conclusion just because it's mine. What I offer are arguments which a sufficiently interested reader should be able to check. You don't get that by knowing which side I will be on.
You might know what to expect as a general result but you definitely need to read it to understand the close reasoning -- not something you will get from a fanatic like McKibben.
They don't usually provide detailed explanation. Although I'm amused by the Nature story. Put it in the file.
One of the reasons I ended up on substack was that I could not get a single Jewish publication to consider my stuff. Not a single one. Mind you, they'd published plenty of letters to the editor from anonymous me over the years, so I know it wasn't my substance or style.
There was once that someone did accept something, but then they edited out all the jokes , and I decided it wasn't worth putting out something that didn't reflect my sense of humor.
Substack is really good for this. It's a free market. Maybe I don't have 30,000 readers, but I have 176 (as of today), and that's 176 people who actually want to read what I write. Now I am sure that everyone else here has more like a thousand if not more, and I'm definitely ambitious, but also I'm just happy to have a place to engage people for now.
It's astonishing that they only consider deaths from heat, ignoring deaths from cold. Everything I have read says cold kills 10-20 times as many people as heat. The same for the distribution of temperature changes, rising more in winter than summer.
I used to have a subscription to nature, but dropped it about 10 years ago, tired of the increasing political nature. To accept such a shoddy article, and reject such obvious refutations, makes me happy I no longer subscribe.
It is claimed that, while total deaths from cold are much larger than from heat, the marginal effect is smaller, raising minimum temperatures by one degree saves fewer lives than raising maximum kills. I suspect it isn't true but have not looked into the analysis that produces that result.
10x more cold deaths than heat deaths is going to take a lot of explaining.
They do consider deaths from cold and David never claimed otherwise. Cromar et al. state:
>Fewer studies that met the inclusion criteria were available that evaluated this dynamic compared with studies focused on increases in high temperatures; however, those studies that evaluated both increases in high and low temperatures (9–18) were used to estimate a net change in all-cause mortality risk.
I saw that, my ire was directed at Nature, not David, and there treatment of it seems rather poor in my eyes.
Astonishing? I understand what you mean but, sadly, seeing this kind of slanted “science” from a mainstream Blue establishment publication isn’t surprising these days.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is slanted science but I would have to read the article that produced that result pretty carefully to be confident that it is (or isn't).
It's an important issue because if the relative marginal cost is similar to total cost the mortality effect of warming is positive, making it likely that the net effect is. Do any of you know of critical literature on the issue?
Nature is just one more in the sadly increasing number of journals that I used to respect but no longer do. I just hate how one-sided so many organizations publishing or writing about "Science" have become.
Thanks for posting it on your substack. I probably will never have the opportunity to actually study the topic or have an opinion, but I have faith in your humility that you are probably right that the world won't end as a fireball because I drive in a car instead of walking my kids to school. And that's cheering.
I don't think anyone serious believes that climate change will kill us all — that's pop science. Even the article I criticized shows some (very low) probability that the net effect of more CO2 is positive. We are a long way below the maximum temperature of the past hundred and fifty million years, and life survived that just fine.
P.S. After reading that you wrote some fantasy, I bought Harald. I enjoyed it a lot, but what kind of economist fails to make the story a 3-volume set? ;-) You could have added a lot and sold more books.
I started a sequel and wrote a good deal of it, but have not been able to complete it. I did write two more novels, but in a very different setting.
Please finish the sequel. ;-)
Regarding higher temperature causing lower farming output before adaptation, that is probably untrue aswell. Usually higher temperature causes everything to grow faster.
Reason why that result might be in statistics, is that for a given area, high temperatures are usually caused by lack of clouds, leading to too dry growing conditions. A raise in temperatures from global warming will not cause dryness on average (it should cause more wetness through higher evaporation, though unsure of how oceans being slow to warm up affects things during warming).
Thanks for writing this, David!
"Long, however, found increases of 12%, 13%, and 14% (rice, wheat, and soybeans) from an increase to 550 ppm from the ambient concentration, which implies an increase of about 17.5% for a doubling."
Instead of 17.5 %, should it be 26.7 % (= (0.12 + 0.13 + 0.14)/3*370/(550 - 370))? I may be missing something.
"Kimball 2016, a survey of FACE (Free-air CO2 Enrichment) studies of which Long is one, found that “Yields of C3 grain crops were increased on average about 19%” by increasing CO2 from 353 ppm to 550, which implies a 23% increase for a doubling."
Similarly, instead of 23 %, should it be 34.0 % (= 0.19*353/(550 - 353))?
Two points: 1. The Lancet study showing 10x more cold deaths than heat deaths in Europe. If this was factored into the Social Cost of CO2 it would go negative. 2. You are saying nothing new here! Rennert et al. are fully aware of all your rebuttals. They choose to ignore them because bang there go all their grants. They lie and they know that they lie.
They are at least aware of my rebuttals if they read the copy of the article I sent them.
How do they translate mortality to a dollar figure? Do they adjust for quality life years? Do they use a single figure everywhere in the world?
I've seen multiple cost/benefit analyses during COVID which just used the common 10M per death figure, which inflates costs considerably.
I believe they used a formula in which the richer you are the more dollars your death represents, presumably on the theory that what you want is the amount someone would pay to reduce the probability of dying.
As you might know from my latest (https://amzn.to/3LTtfTJ) I am in general on your side. But honestly, you didn't need to read your analysis to know what it was, any more than you would need to read Bill McKibbon's analysis of the same piece.
Nobody should believe a conclusion just because it's mine. What I offer are arguments which a sufficiently interested reader should be able to check. You don't get that by knowing which side I will be on.
You might know what to expect as a general result but you definitely need to read it to understand the close reasoning -- not something you will get from a fanatic like McKibben.
Did the editors of Nature give any hints as to what they felt was inadequate about the article?
No. And I got no response from the authors, beyond the corresponding author saying he had forwarded my piece to the others.
They don't usually provide detailed explanation. Although I'm amused by the Nature story. Put it in the file.
One of the reasons I ended up on substack was that I could not get a single Jewish publication to consider my stuff. Not a single one. Mind you, they'd published plenty of letters to the editor from anonymous me over the years, so I know it wasn't my substance or style.
There was once that someone did accept something, but then they edited out all the jokes , and I decided it wasn't worth putting out something that didn't reflect my sense of humor.
Substack is really good for this. It's a free market. Maybe I don't have 30,000 readers, but I have 176 (as of today), and that's 176 people who actually want to read what I write. Now I am sure that everyone else here has more like a thousand if not more, and I'm definitely ambitious, but also I'm just happy to have a place to engage people for now.
I guess I am asking, is Nature peer reviewed, and if so did it get to the peer review stage? Probably not.