European left blames bush for floods

[Lemmy]

But the question is, does pollution cause the global warming, or is it cyclic and independant of pollution, and therefore inevitable.
If it's the latter, then Kyoto is pretty much useless

[Dauphin]

It depends on which vested interest group you talk to.

The current climate trend may be cyclical but I find it hard to believe that people refute the human impact on the trend.

Its not a one or other situation. The effects can easily be superimposed effects.

[rah]

Sagacious Dolphin, I have to chuckle a bit. Insurance companies coming up with arguements to justify to regulators the need for premium increases. STOP THE PRESSES.

The economic slowdown is what's really frightening them. Insurance companies, prior to a few years ago, were satisfied if they paid out (plus operating expenses) a few more percentage points then they took in on premium because they made all their money on investment income. Now that investment income has dramatically decreased, they must search for ways to either reduce costs or increase premiums. Most major companies cut workers/expenses dramatically in the 90's and there isn't a lot more they can do on that side. So their best chance is to increase premiums. (which a lot of companies are doing this year and it has nothing to do with GLOBAL WARMING) Some companies are even clamping down on writing new business and focusing on renewals, since most of the first year premium goes to the selling agent, thereby making renewal business more profitable. (which seems real short sighted)

I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of "the sky is falling" stories from the insurance companies in the coming year into order to justify how they're going to stick us with increased premiums.

Rich
A veteran of two seperate Major insurance companies spanning 15 years.

[DanS]

SD: Good retort. Arguably, that answers to the current costs--half a trillion dollar cost over the last decade--or roughly $50 billion per annum.

Now please divide that number into two parts: (1) those calamities that would have happened anyway; and (2) those calamities that are outside the norm. Further divide (2) into: (2a) Those calamities caused by global warming and (2b) Those calamities not caused by global warming.

From the (2a) cost base, adjust to reflect the percentage of the global warming trend attributable to human carbon dispersion. Then adjust to reflect other human factors for this cost, such as the propensity to build in a flood plain.

Is the modified cost $1, $1 billion or $1/2 trillion?

Lastly, weigh the modified (2a) against the costs of doing something and the risk that doing something would have unintended negative consequences. Further, consider the possibility that we're actually helping the situation rather than hurting it.

Please contact me when the analysis is done. Thanks.

[Ned]

Well, SG, we do know that the Earth's temperature have not followed the most global warming model's predictions heretofore. This forces the scientests to constantly refine their models. Actual data is inconsistent. City temperatures are warming, but atmosphere temperatures are cooling. Antarctica is showing remarkable cooling.

As we learn more about Earth's climate history, we know there is a lot of variabily that is "regular." This strongly suggests some sort of solar pattern, but there could also be feedback mechnisms tied to the planet - for example, it takes 50,000 years before the major glaciers in Greenland reflect a change in temperature.

What does seem to be happening with more CO2 is that growing seasons seem to be longer in the North. The forests in Canada, for example, are greening about a week earlier and losing their leaves about a week later. This, however, is a positive development.

Finally, we 13,000 years into the current interglacial period. This is the longest such period in the last million years. How much longer this will last is unknown. But we did have a mini-ice age in the last millenium. Does this portend the final descent into a real ice age?

All of this suggests caution. We really do not understand cause and effect well enough to act.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
Please contact me when the analysis is done. Thanks.

I've got my hands full with investment appraisal analyses at the moment. Do it yourself.

[Dauphin]

Sod it, see what I can do in five minutes - so don't complain if it is insufficient for your demanding needs.

Originally posted by DanS
SD: Good retort. Arguably, that answers to the current costs--half a trillion dollar cost over the last decade--or roughly $50 billion per annum.

Now please divide that number into two parts: (1) those calamities that would have happened anyway; and (2) those calamities that are outside the norm. Further divide (2) into: (2a) Those calamities caused by global warming and (2b) Those calamities not caused by global warming.

"The number of really big weather disasters has increased fourfold compared to the 1960s,"

Therefore we can say that three out of four disasters are due to climate change since the 1960s.

3/4 *$50b = $37.5 billion

From the (2a) cost base, adjust to reflect the percentage of the global warming trend attributable to human carbon dispersion.

Well, you never like figures people put up, so lets go evens - 50/50

0.5 * 37.5 billion = $18.75billion

Then adjust to reflect other human factors for this cost, such as the propensity to build in a flood plain.

The percentage of costs due to flooding alone are pretty small, from the example for the UK above it was due to a heatwave.

For want of better figures again lets use 50/50

=> ~$10 billion dollars per year.

Lastly, weigh the modified (2a) against the costs of doing something and the risk that doing something would have unintended negative consequences. Further, consider the possibility that we're actually helping the situation rather than hurting it.

Now you tell me the cost of following the Kyoto protocols - a one off cost, versus an annuity in perpetuuity of $10 billion.

Use whichever discount rate you feel appropriate.

[DanS]

"Therefore we can say that three out of four disasters are due to climate change since the 1960s. "

Recheck your math. That would mean 4/5 are due to climate change.

"Well, you never like figures people put up, so lets go evens - 50/50"

Where do you get this number? From your hairy bum?

"For want of better figures again lets use 50/50"

For want of a better figure, let's pull one out of our asses?

[Dauphin]

Edited to reduce size.

Miserly attitude to climate rubbished

New Scientist vol 174 issue 2347 - 15 June 2002, page 5


Fighting global warming would barely dent the world's economy


PEOPLE will be five times as rich in a hundred years' time. And if we are willing to postpone that prosperity by just two years, we could fix global warming into the bargain.
....
Last year's report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the economists' assessment that stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at twice pre-industrial concentrations by 2100 would cost between $1 trillion and $8 trillion. It sounds a lot, says Schneider, but the money would be all but invisible against the 2 per cent a year economic growth predicted by the same economists.
...
Without action to halt global warming, economists predict that the world as a whole will be 10 times as rich by 2100, and people on average will be five times as well off. Adding on the costs of tackling warming, says Schneider, would postpone this target by a mere two years. "To be 10 times richer in 2100 versus 2102 would hardly be noticed." Similarly, meeting the terms of the Kyoto Protocol would mean industrialised countries "get 20 per cent richer by June 2010 rather than in January 2010".

Put that way, he believes, the American public and politicians could be convinced that curbing greenhouse emissions is a necessary insurance policy against the potential dangers of climate change.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
"Therefore we can say that three out of four disasters are due to climate change since the 1960s. "

Recheck your math. That would mean 4/5 are due to climate change.

1-> 4 less the original 1 equals 3. = 3/4.

Rechecked, and I'm sticking with 3/4

Even if I didn't it only increases the cost of global warming.

"Well, you never like figures people put up, so lets go evens - 50/50"

Where do you get this number? From your hairy bum?
"For want of better figures again lets use 50/50"

For want of a better figure, let's pull one out of our asses?

They are in the order of magnitude that is bandied around, what more do you want?

Insulting a person is not the best way to make an argument, just tell me why the figures are wrong/ come up with your own.

[DanS]

You're right on the increase.

"They are in the order of magnitude that is bandied around, what more do you want?"

I want numbers that are credible.

"Insulting a person is not the best way to make an argument, just tell me why the figures are wrong."

You are putting yourself in a position that invites insult.

How can I prove that your numbers are wrong when I have no basis for judging myself?

[Dauphin]

"They are in the order of magnitude that is bandied around, what more do you want?"

I want numbers that are credible.

They are credible, but the point moreover is whether you personally subscribe to the conclusion of experiments and experimentors. I will try to find something that will suit your thirst for specifics, in a notoriusly inspecific field.

My reasonong behind 50% as a figure is that estimate extremes (GW believers and naysayers) that I know of are centred around that figure. Do some variance analyses if you want to see how important the exact figures are.

"Insulting a person is not the best way to make an argument, just tell me why the figures are wrong."

You are putting yourself in a position that invites insult.

How is making a guesstimate from memory putting one up for personal insult. Deride the numbers, sure, insulting the person is not necessary. Tosspot.

How can I prove that your numbers are wrong when I have no basis for judging myself

You can surely find your own sources that show how much CO2 is due to human activity? Similarly you can find data on how much the cost of reducing emissions will be? etc.

I could find it, I just don't have the time at the moment.

[DanS]

"I will try to find something that will suit your thirst for specifics, in a notoriusly inspecific field."

Well, isn't it time we demanded specificity? Do you have an idea why this is a notoriously inspecific field? Could it be that they just don't know for sure?

"My reasonong behind 50% as a figure is that estimate extremes (GW believers and naysayers) that I know of are centred around that figure. Do some variance analyses if you want to see how important the exact figures are."

It seems that I can't believe the numbers of the naysayers either. In my view, each of the variables listed above is bound by 0% and 100%. Sure, you can split the difference, but that doesn't mean the result will in any way match reality.

"Tosspot."



OK, maybe I was trying to be forum Nazi a little too much.

I'm just a little tired of hearing non-specifics, when a great deal of specificity is required and somebody is lurching for my pocketbook. It's about like a beggar that gives you hell every time he asks for money and you don't give him any.

There's a huge cost delta based on relatively small adjustments to the variables, owing to the fact that there are lots of variables to consider.

[Dr Strangelove]

Getting back on topic, Bush's presidency hasn't been long enough to make so much as a hair's difference in the weather no matter which theory you subscribe to, so it is illogical to blame him.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Species8472

Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable.

1. There is very high reason to believe global warming exist.
2. The effects of global warming are catastrophic to life on earth.
1 + 2 Global warming is so dangerous, that we can not allow it to take place. The chance that it does not exist is neglectable in comparison to the severness of the problem.

By this same reasoning the government would be able to put forward a case for the forced conversion of the population to Christianity. "Even if we were able to only save one soul from hell for eternity..."

There are a lot of ideas around that make great sense, whether global warming is proved or not, such as energy conservation, nuclear power to replace coal, etc. If you are particularly worked up about the issue, then you can lead by example, just as the signatories to the Kyoto accords should do. Pointing the finger is no substitute for action, it is an excuse not to act.