We pay for greenhouse either way

[a_unique_person]

Insurance premiums are rising, and more areas that were once insured will no longer be able to get cover.

We can either take a pro-active approach to this business, and get Kyoto going, or sit back and see what disasters happen.

For myself, the pro-active approach is much more appealing.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/1071125591409.html



Economic losses in Europe from the summer drought exceeded £7 billion ($A16.5 billion) in the agriculture sector alone because of loss of crops and livestock, the insurance industry said at climate talks in Milan.

Premiums are being increased across Europe to cope with the number and frequency of extreme weather events and some parts are becoming uninsurable because of flooding.

Thomas Loster, of Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, said householders in lower risk areas might soon have to pay a £350 excess to get insurance for extreme weather events.

"We used to talk in terms of floods and heatwaves being one in 100-year events, but in the south of France this year we have had a one in 100-year heatwave, and last month a one in 100-year floods - all in the same year," he said.

"This is climate change happening now and a big headache for the insurance industry."

Mr Loster, a geographer and expert in weather-related losses, said this year's German heatwave, where record temperatures were reached over several days, was a one in 450-year event, according to modern measuring methods. Climate scientists had told him that it had probably not happened since the last ice age.

[BobK]

Mr Loster, a geographer and expert in weather-related losses, said this year's German heatwave, where record temperatures were reached over several days, was a one in 450-year event, according to modern measuring methods. Climate scientists had told him that it had probably not happened since the last ice age.

Nice touch saying 450 years instead of 400 or 500 years. Makes it sound like they have confidence in the accuracy down to +- 25 years.

Were the climate scientists referring to the ice age about 18,000 years ago? If so, it seems to me that Germany was well overdue for a once in 450 year event.

Maybe they were referring to the little ice age around 500 years ago. The one that Mann and his hockey stick say didn't happen.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
We can either take a pro-active approach to this business, and get Kyoto going, or sit back and see what disasters happen.


Feel free to get Kyoto going in your country. Then when your surface temperatures are quantifiably lower than before the world will follow your lead.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Feel free to get Kyoto going in your country. Then when your surface temperatures are quantifiably lower than before the world will follow your lead.

smartarse, you know that Kyoto only makes sense when the vast majority of the world starts to implement it, and follow up on it. Australia by itself will make no difference.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


Nice touch saying 450 years instead of 400 or 500 years. Makes it sound like they have confidence in the accuracy down to +- 25 years.

Were the climate scientists referring to the ice age about 18,000 years ago? If so, it seems to me that Germany was well overdue for a once in 450 year event.

Maybe they were referring to the little ice age around 500 years ago. The one that Mann and his hockey stick say didn't happen.

You seem to be ignoring two events that are 1 in 100 hundred years happening in the same year.

Insurance companies are true blue, dyed in the wool capitalist concerns. And they are scared of GW.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You seem to be ignoring two events that are 1 in 100 hundred years happening in the same year.

Not really. The paragraph I quoted deals strictly with one event. The one in Germany. If the figures are obviously bogus for that one event, why should I believe or even bother with the other figures? They're from the same mouth.

Insurance companies are true blue, dyed in the wool capitalist concerns. And they are scared of GW.

Might they not be using GW simply as an excuse to raise their rates? Or are they so forthright and honest that they must genuinely believe that GW is the cause of their poorer than expected bottom line.

[Badger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You seem to be ignoring two events that are 1 in 100 hundred years happening in the same year.

Insurance companies are true blue, dyed in the wool capitalist concerns. And they are scared of GW.

The probability of two 1 in 100 year events happening in the same year may be small but it's possible. Why does this support global warming?

The insurance companies here claimed that the effects of 9/11 were why they were raising rates. I think the only thing insurance companies fear is an unattractive bottom line.

[geni]

Originally posted by Badger


The probability of two 1 in 100 year events happening in the same year may be small but it's possible. Why does this support global warming?

It's not small since it is a past event the chances of it happening are 1. After all there are many posible 1 in 100 year events so the odds of two happening at the same time are far below 10000 to 1.

[Badger]

Originally posted by geni


It's not small since it is a past event the chances of it happening are 1. After all there are many posible 1 in 100 year events so the odds of two happening at the same time are far below 10000 to 1.

I said "small" instead of choosing some other word such as "infinitesimal". Perhaps I should have been more quantitative, rather than qualitative, but I just don't feel like it at this moment.

However, this hair splitting detracts from the premise put forth that 1 in 100 year heat waves and 1 in 100 year floods occurring in the same year are indications of global warming.

I don't think these two events happening in France in the same year irrefutably support the hypothesis of global warming.

[Skeptic]

Speaking of Kyoto, many of the countries that DID sign the agreement--including France, which of course was really quick in lecturing the US on not signing it--will not meet the emission standards they so gloriously swore they'll save the world with.

Gee, what a surpise.

As usual, the only difference between the "evil" USA and the "good" France is that the USA was less hypocritical: it would not sign an agreement it knew it could not in good faith keep, while the French signed it, lectured the US on being irresponsible and selfish, and THEN didn't keep it.

Bet that doesn't get much press, though. After all, what's MORE important: a string of diplomats signing an agreement in a photo-op while making speeches about how important it is, or actually keeping that agreement? For Europe, the first. For the USA, the latter.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Speaking of Kyoto, many of the countries that DID sign the agreement--including France, which of course was really quick in lecturing the US on not signing it--will not meet the emission standards they so gloriously swore they'll save the world with.

Gee, what a surpise.

As usual, the only difference between the "evil" USA and the "good" France is that the USA was less hypocritical: it would not sign an agreement it knew it could not in good faith keep, while the French signed it, lectured the US on being irresponsible and selfish, and THEN didn't keep it.

Bet that doesn't get much press, though. After all, what's MORE important: a string of diplomats signing an agreement in a photo-op while making speeches about how important it is, or actually keeping that agreement? For Europe, the first. For the USA, the latter.

It gets about as much press as the impact of CO2 on the greenhouse effect, relative to other greenhouse gasses. Suffice to say CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. So effectively, Kyoto addresses a small part of a minor problem (reduction in CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels by 2010.....a 5% reduction in a component that is at most 5% of the problem over a 20 year period) This is less than riveting, in my opinion.

Take a brief look at http://greennature.com/article282.html for the gasses considered Greenhouse Gasses, and their CO2 equivalent value.

Edited to add:

None of this yet adresses the ambiguity of results of data discovered so far, nor the inaccuracy of the computer simulations used to initially justify the Kyoto Accord, either.

While I'm all for conservation, recycling, energy efficiency, and reduction of pollution, it is my opinion that the Kyoto Accord, and all the political posturing and activism that it fostered, is nothing but a large load of crap.

I'll stop now before I really start to rant.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Speaking of Kyoto, many of the countries that DID sign the agreement--including France, which of course was really quick in lecturing the US on not signing it--will not meet the emission standards they so gloriously swore they'll save the world with.

Gee, what a surpise.

As usual, the only difference between the "evil" USA and the "good" France is that the USA was less hypocritical: it would not sign an agreement it knew it could not in good faith keep, while the French signed it, lectured the US on being irresponsible and selfish, and THEN didn't keep it.

Bet that doesn't get much press, though. After all, what's MORE important: a string of diplomats signing an agreement in a photo-op while making speeches about how important it is, or actually keeping that agreement? For Europe, the first. For the USA, the latter.

Shut up, okay?

Why should France abide by a treaty that is not yet in effect?

It is so very typical of the USA to sabotage everything they don´t like and then gloat "See, I told you it wouldn´t work."

By the way, which treaty do you mean the the USA keeps? The ABM ban treaty? Nuclear test ban treaty? Free trade (no steel tariffs) treaties? No, wait, they walked out of all of these...

[Badger]

Originally posted by Chaos


Shut up, okay?

Why should France abide by a treaty that is not yet in effect?

It is so very typical of the USA to sabotage everything they don´t like and then gloat "See, I told you it wouldn´t work."

By the way, which treaty do you mean the the USA keeps? The ABM ban treaty? Nuclear test ban treaty? Free trade (no steel tariffs) treaties? No, wait, they walked out of all of these...

You're kidding, right?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Badger

It gets about as much press as the impact of CO2 on the greenhouse effect, relative to other greenhouse gasses. Suffice to say CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. So effectively, Kyoto addresses a small part of a minor problem (reduction in CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels by 2010.....a 5% reduction in a component that is at most 5% of the problem over a 20 year period) This is less than riveting, in my opinion.


Perfectl example of innumeracy in action. Whilst CO2 is certainly less effective then the other gasses listed, it is present in much higher concentrations than the others and therefore makes it the MAJOR greenhouse gas.

[Badger]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Perfectl example of innumeracy in action. Whilst CO2 is certainly less effective then the other gasses listed, it is present in much higher concentrations than the others and therefore makes it the MAJOR greenhouse gas.

THE major greenhouse gas? Um, "water vapour"?

Your argument remains less than compelling to me.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Bet that doesn't get much press, though. After all, what's MORE important: a string of diplomats signing an agreement in a photo-op while making speeches about how important it is, or actually keeping that agreement? For Europe, the first. For the USA, the latter.

It's called symbolism over substance.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Badger

THE major greenhouse gas? Um, "water vapour"?

Except that atmospheric H20 is present as a solid, liquid and gas. Each of which has dramatically different warming and cooling effects.
And don't forget, there is nothing we can do about water in the atmosphere other than add to it, which we are already doing anyway through methane pollution.
The human produced GHG are much more problematic than water because they stay in the atmosphere much longer and build up. H20 will precipitate out quickly, but a molecule of CO2 will stay for years.

Your argument remains less than compelling to me.

Considering your belief system is based on dogma, I'm not surprised.

[Badger]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Considering your belief system is based on dogma, I'm not surprised.

Nope, not dogma. Science. Several branches of it too.

Latest word is we're 8000 yrs behind the 8ball, too.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/10/prehistoric.climate.ap/index.html

The above is just one more reason I don't support Kyoto.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Speaking of Kyoto, many of the countries that DID sign the agreement--including France, which of course was really quick in lecturing the US on not signing it--will not meet the emission standards they so gloriously swore they'll save the world with.

Gee, what a surpise.

As usual, the only difference between the "evil" USA and the "good" France is that the USA was less hypocritical: it would not sign an agreement it knew it could not in good faith keep, while the French signed it, lectured the US on being irresponsible and selfish, and THEN didn't keep it.

Bet that doesn't get much press, though. After all, what's MORE important: a string of diplomats signing an agreement in a photo-op while making speeches about how important it is, or actually keeping that agreement? For Europe, the first. For the USA, the latter.

Fallacy of diversion. Thanks for attempting to derail my thread, idiot.

[Frank Newgent]

Funny. I had heard that global warming is a direct result of overpopulation in Hell. (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/colon.html)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


smartarse, you know that Kyoto only makes sense when the vast majority of the world starts to implement it, and follow up on it. Australia by itself will make no difference.

Why not lead by example though? When the US determines a cause just and worthy, we don't wait for everyone to come along. Why is Kyoto the right thing to do only if everyone does it? I thought every part per billion counts.

[Drooper]

Nice quote, but something insurers don't like to mention too conspiciously is that the MAIN reason why insurance premium have been rising rapidly over the last few years has is directly the result of the substantial losses they have made on their investments over the last 4-5 years.

Also, insurance claims are a function of the value at risk. That means that over time, more valuable things are getting damaged, hence higher premiums to cover the value. Also, there has been a significant escalation in personal injury claims and litigation, which again bumps up premiums.


If you want to maintain this claim that increased risk is boosting insurance costs, you need to go back to the underlying casues. Facts on storm frequency and force etc., not how often these events come into contact with insured assets. What information we do have on that score shows no increase these risk events.


The second point is, even if we are going to get AGW disaster (doesn't anybody else think it is funny how there are no benefits to AGW, just famine and pestilence?) paying the cost through insurance is possibly one of the best solutions.

In the first instance, it is probably cheaper than all the hair brained schemes dreamt up by politicians and lobby groups which will pour more money into public expenditure (grossly inefficient).

Secondly, higher premium for these types of risks wil create an incentive for people to take mitigating action to reduce risk.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper
Nice quote, but something insurers don't like to mention too conspiciously is that the MAIN reason why insurance premium have been rising rapidly over the last few years has is directly the result of the substantial losses they have made on their investments over the last 4-5 years.

Also, insurance claims are a function of the value at risk. That means that over time, more valuable things are getting damaged, hence higher premiums to cover the value. Also, there has been a significant escalation in personal injury claims and litigation, which again bumps up premiums.


If you want to maintain this claim that increased risk is boosting insurance costs, you need to go back to the underlying casues. Facts on storm frequency and force etc., not how often these events come into contact with insured assets. What information we do have on that score shows no increase these risk events.


The second point is, even if we are going to get AGW disaster (doesn't anybody else think it is funny how there are no benefits to AGW, just famine and pestilence?) paying the cost through insurance is possibly one of the best solutions.

In the first instance, it is probably cheaper than all the hair brained schemes dreamt up by politicians and lobby groups which will pour more money into public expenditure (grossly inefficient).

Secondly, higher premium for these types of risks wil create an incentive for people to take mitigating action to reduce risk.

I have worked in the insurance industry, and know exactly how they make their money. Insuring things that they aren't likely to pay too much out on so they can invest the premium income. This doesn't change the fact that a lot of areas are becoming untouchable for insurance companies. The State of Florida, for example, has forced insurance companies to provide cover in marginal areas. Areas that used to be a safe risk are now unwanted.

[Chaos]

While it is definitely true that insurance companies lost a lot of money on the stock market (embarassing...) and that 9/11 has made them raise premiums and cut coverage, it is still also true that the number, severity and damage (both property and loss of life) of natural disasters is increasing.

I don´t have any links to prove that, though. I only remember a large number of articles in insurance and re-insurance industry publications. They specifically mentioned tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and flooding - all of them are types of disasters that are under the influence by global warming.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Drooper:
..doesn't anybody else think it is funny how there are no benefits to AGW, just famine and pestilence?

Isn't this why the Russians aren't going to ratify Kyoto, the fact that a rise of a degree or two in temperature wouldn't be a bad thing at all in Russia? Likewise Ireland enjoyed a bumber yield of sugar beet this year thanks to the prolonged spell of good summer weather. Some have suggested that global warming would sound the deathknell of potato cultivation in Ireland due to an increased occurence of blight. A cartoon in one of the dailys summed it up pretty well;

Irish farmers may no longer be able to grow potatoes.........and will instead have to switch to grapes, mangoes etc.

Apocalypse indeed! :D

Originally posted by Chaos:
I don´t have any links to prove that, though. I only remember a large number of articles in insurance and re-insurance industry publications. They specifically mentioned tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and flooding - all of them are types of disasters that are under the influence by global warming.

IIRC flooding damage is usually the result of human enroachment on to river floodplains, and the building of extensive levees causing an increased velocity and movement of river water. While most forest fires occur in prolonged spells of warm weather the news reports suggest that sabotage and arson, rather than the unseasonal heat itself, is to blame.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


IIRC flooding damage is usually the result of human enroachment on to river floodplains, and the building of extensive levees causing an increased velocity and movement of river water. While most forest fires occur in prolonged spells of warm weather the news reports suggest that sabotage and arson, rather than the unseasonal heat itself, is to blame.

Good point Shane.

About 10 years ago, the Mississippi River in the US went through massive flooding.

Since then they have allowed the river to claim more of the floodplain and moved many of the levies back or abandoned them.

They had the effect of cinching the water so when it did break through it was of an enormous velocity.

[Mike B.]

As I recall for a number of years people have predicted increasing deaths from natural disastors for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming (I am not saying it doesn't exist though.)

The problem was that increased populations were in areas that got typhoons for example: Bangladesh. Or increasing cities on fault lines. As well as taller buildings to come crashing down.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have worked in the insurance industry, and know exactly how they make their money. Insuring things that they aren't likely to pay too much out on so they can invest the premium income. This doesn't change the fact that a lot of areas are becoming untouchable for insurance companies. The State of Florida, for example, has forced insurance companies to provide cover in marginal areas. Areas that used to be a safe risk are now unwanted.

I also know a bit about the insurance industry, being an actuary and all. If you read up a bit more, you will find that the biggest losses incurred by insurance companies over the last five years has come from the asset side, not the liability side of their business.

And the reason why somewhere like Florida for instance has become a bigger problem is because massive population growth has extended development into more vulnerable areas in a region subject to tropical storms.

[Luke T.]

Planet X is raising insurance rates, too. Just look at how much volcanoes and earthquakes raise the cost of insurance!

[Drooper]

Another anecdote on the "no news is good news" when it comes to AGW.

I don't know if anybody else read of the report from the WHO that claimed that "Global Warming (TM)" had led to X hundred thousand deaths in Europe over the summer.

I was wondering why there was mention of the X+Y hundred thousands of people who did not die because last winter was (supposedly) the warmest in a thousand years or so, or whatever the bogus claim is.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Chaos
They specifically mentioned tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and flooding - all of them are types of disasters that are under the influence by global warming.

Evidence that these phenomena have increased in number and/or force please. If you can do that, go further and prove the causality: People=>AGW=>Increased storms etc.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
As I recall for a number of years people have predicted increasing deaths from natural disastors for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming (I am not saying it doesn't exist though.)

The problem was that increased populations were in areas that got typhoons for example: Bangladesh. Or increasing cities on fault lines. As well as taller buildings to come crashing down.

The article is talking about areas that have traditionally been insured, but now the companies are pulling out.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The article is talking about areas that have traditionally been insured, but now the companies are pulling out.


And of course there's no other reason for that? Perhaps you can provide proof for that, but I could see many other reasons for the coverage to disappear, most importantly more people moving into a dangerous area.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper
Another anecdote on the "no news is good news" when it comes to AGW.

I don't know if anybody else read of the report from the WHO that claimed that "Global Warming (TM)" had led to X hundred thousand deaths in Europe over the summer.

I was wondering why there was mention of the X+Y hundred thousands of people who did not die because last winter was (supposedly) the warmest in a thousand years or so, or whatever the bogus claim is.

That is a ridiculous argument, as the people are used to providing for a cold winter. However, as the article points out, two 1 in 100 year events in the one year is highly unusual. Here in Melbourne, we have just had a 1 in 100 year event that caused 75 million dollars worth of damage. Only, one of the areas it hit, also had 1 in 100 year storm just ten years ago. In the middle of an Australian summer, there was hail so thick it looked like a white Christmas. There was a lot of localised flooding, and we were told it was because it was a 1 in 100 year event that the drainage system couldn't cope.

However, if you want to ask the experts

http://www.csiro.com.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=Prextreme



The cost to the community of coastal flooding could more than double in some areas in the next fifty years due to global warming.

The effects of extreme weather events will be worsened by the increase in Australia's coastal population.

Dr Debbie Abbs and Dr Kathy McInnes, from CSIRO Atmospheric Research, assessed the likely costs of severe weather events on cities in a warmer world.

They found the combined influence of increasing sea-level rise and extreme weather will result in an increase in flood heights.

"This equates to flooding over an area much larger than has been historically affected," says Dr Abbs. "What isn't a flood prone area now may become one in the future."

For example, in Cairns floods due to storm surges would cover about twice the size of what would be expected today if a 1-in-100-year storm occurred, due to an increase in flood height from 2.6 to 3.0 metres.

The number of flood-causing storm surges is likely to increase due to higher sea level. On average, a storm that would normally be expected every 100 years would hit every 40 years if sea levels rise by 40cm.

"Floods already cause more damage in Australia than any other natural disaster in terms of cost to the community," says Dr Abbs. "In southern Queensland and northern NSW, our results suggest damage costs associated with flooding would increase by half if sea level rose by 20cm, and more than double if sea level were to rise by 40cm."

"Changes in the intensity and the frequency of rainfall will make these problems worse. We estimate that severe rainfall events may become up to 30% more intense and occur more frequently," says Dr Abbs.

Most scientists now agree that, by 2050, sea level will rise by 10 to 40cm, tropical cyclones will increase in intensity, and the frequency of extreme rainfall will increase.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
However, if you want to ask the experts

The experts haven't cited human activity as one of the causes of global warming. Back to one of your original statements:

We can either take a pro-active approach to this business, and get Kyoto going, or sit back and see what disasters happen.

While "the experts" say;
Dr Abbs says Councils such as the Gold Coast are aware of climate change and are working with scientists to understand the risks. But she says more consideration of climate change is needed when planning building developments and infrastructure that will exist for the next 50 years.

"These likely impacts need to be taken into account when updating design rules and approving future developments," says Dr Abbs.

We could take a more proactive approach and resurrect Kyoto etc, but why not just listen to "the experts" and slightly modify our planning laws to take into account what could be a naturally occurring climactic phenomenon?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


The experts haven't cited human activity as one of the causes of global warming. Back to one of your original statements:



While "the experts" say;


We could take a more proactive approach and resurrect Kyoto etc, but why not just listen to "the experts" and slightly modify our planning laws to take into account what could be a naturally occurring climactic phenomenon?

Slightly modify? I think there is a bit more involved than that. Add to that the pressure of population growth and the desire to move to coastal areas, and you are getting a collision of forces such as Florida is experiencing where insurers are forced by law to cover home owners in high risk areas.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique-person;
Slightly modify? I think there is a bit more involved than that. Add to that the pressure of population growth and the desire to move to coastal areas, and you are getting a collision of forces such as Florida is experiencing where insurers are forced by law to cover home owners in high risk areas.

Pressure of population growth? How fast is Australia's population growing and is it running out of space? Are coastal areas prone to flooding the only habitable areas left to accomodate the increase in population?

Insurers being compelled by law to cover people living in susceptible areas? Then this is an example of bad law. People aren't being forced to live in Florida because of overcrowding elsewhere (plenty of room in Nebraska and Nevada), and as such it's idiotic that legislation would force insurance companies to cover people who freely choose to live in areas prone to flooding.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Pressure of population growth? How fast is Australia's population growing and is it running out of space? Are coastal areas prone to flooding the only habitable areas left to accomodate the increase in population?

Insurers being compelled by law to cover people living in susceptible areas? Then this is an example of bad law. People aren't being forced to live in Florida because of overcrowding elsewhere (plenty of room in Nebraska and Nevada), and as such it's idiotic that legislation would force insurance companies to cover people who freely choose to live in areas prone to flooding.

Australia is about 99% desert. Most of the population lives next to the coast.
http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/fig7/Brighton98/Comm7Papers/SS34-Mobbs1.JPG

The case of Florida is an example of the problem of a whole, people denying reality. You can twist a politicians arm, because this is a democracy, but that won't change reality.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
Australia is about 99% desert. Most of the population lives next to the coast.

Next to the coast? Is this the same as living in areas prone to serious flooding, now or in the future?

The case of Florida is an example of the problem of a whole, people denying reality. You can twist a politicians arm, because this is a democracy, but that won't change reality.

I agree. But this indicates that the insurance industries problems have little to do with GW, and almost everything to do with inadvisable government interference.