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]

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]

Re: Re: We pay for greenhouse either way

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.