Simply assuming 10% compound growth year-on-year without any basis is, frankly, ridiculous.

Which is why I wrote "for the sake of the argument". You can of course make your own assumptions, but for my money, 10% is not necessarily unrealistic.

The average global temperature is already rising by several percentage points each year: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly

Temperature = energy and more energy will necessarily lead to an increased number of and more severe weather events which in turn will claim more lives.

Natural disasters also have the nasty tendency to have tipping points. If a disaster (or a string of disasters) overwhelms the ability of a society to mitigate its effects, deaths rise exponentially not linearly with the severity of the event. I.e. the U.S. government can likely mitigate the effects of any one hurricane, but a series of catastrophic hurricanes might lead to a total collapse of the disaster response system, leading to potentially tens of thousands of deaths which otherwise could have been avoided.

And again: direct deaths from natural disasters are only one aspect of climate change and likely a minor one. Indirect effects will likely play an even bigger role, i.e. premature deaths due to worsening life conditions for children and elderly people, mass displacement/migration or political crises up to and including war.

> The average global temperature is already rising by several percentage points each year. > Temperature = energy

Plainly incorrect and wrong.

Have you considered mitigating factors to prevent deaths?

Try the calculation with simple growth instead of compounding growth.

> The average global temperature is already rising by several percentage points each year

This marks you as an unserious person in the matter being discussed.