Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[WIP]

I'm not arguing the physics behind the phenomenon, although I think it's a far more complicated relationship than some simple minds like to believe and recent data hasn't really confirmed it. I'm arguing that any measurement of the monetary impact of disasters caused by the temperature increase can't be measured accurately. It seems that you, at least, acknowledge that.

What exactly do you mean by "can't be measured accurately?" What degree of accuracy do we need to understand that we are on a trend for more catastrophic weather, and depending on where we live or how unlucky we are, we will feel its effects. This statement from Munich RE in the Insurance Journal shows that they are fully aware that the situation is complicated by the fact that in third world countries already trying to deal with floods and droughts caused by a changing climate, the actual property damages can arise from internal turmoil associated with violence and mass migration. Even with rising property values in some areas factored in, climate change remains as the underlying factor raising insurance claims costs:

Munich Re Highlights Climate Change Link to Extreme Weather Events

Munich Re also noted that its natural catastrophe database “shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events. For instance, globally there has been a more than threefold increase in loss-related floods since 1980 and more than double the number of windstorm natural catastrophes, with particularly heavy losses as a result of Atlantic hurricanes.”

The explanation for the increase in insured losses, however, is more complex than just more storms of greater violence. Munich Re explained that the “rise in natural catastrophe losses is primarily due to socio-economic factors. In many countries, populations are rising, and more and more people moving into exposed areas.

“At the same time, greater prosperity is leading to higher property values. Nevertheless, it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change.

[TimG]

Munich Re Highlights Climate Change Link to Extreme Weather Events

So you are happy to quote non-peer reviewed sources by for profit corporations when they happen to support your POV?

[wyly]

I recall several years back, reading that the world's largest insurance underwriter - Munich RE, was starting to factor in the increasing costs of storm damage in calculating the costs of insuring property; and in some cases, advising abandoning areas where the risks were getting too high. While the oil and coal companies were hiring PR firms to run disinformation campaigns trying to tell everyone to go back to sleep, Munich RE was calculating the rising damage costs, and attributing the rise....and more important - projecting increasing costs in the future, to the effects that a warming atmosphere is having on weather patterns. But, as far as I know, Munich RE has done nothing equivalent to alert the general public to the dangers. They, like the Kochs and other oil barons, are just in business to make money; and their primary concerns over climate change are business-related i.e. raising claims costs and making the calculations of future risk more difficult.....may they all burn in hell!

to be fair to Munich RE if you visit there website they do express concern with climate change...maybe they're more active than we know...but since they're all about risk assessment and profit we should accept their expertise when they say there is rise in extreme weather events...

Yes, in highly specialized fields that require years of training, we're usually stuck with using the consensus of expert opinion to find the truth. As much as I love reading about science and new discoveries, I don't have blanket trust in scientists or engineers either!

as wayward son pointed out earlier in the thread we have forum members who don't even understand the most basic science questioning the expertise of PhDs who have decades of experience, and not questioning just a few fringe experts but 97% of them, that's absolutely nuts! If your oncologist MD advised immediate surgery or die would you question his qualifications and judgement, would you seek out Shady's or WWWTT's opinion? I'm not a climatologist none of us on this forum are but I do have a grasp of basic science and I have the common sense to respect the opinion of 97% of the world's climatologists.

So, comparing the money and motivations from all sides, that 97% consensus on anthropogenic climate change is especially significant.

the best man at my wedding is a scientist on the Federal pay cheque, his research is climate change related(he's not a climatologist) and I can assure everyone his funds are not dependent on outside green sources...he gets a paycheque regardless where his research leads him...

[TimG]

the best man at my wedding is a scientist on the Federal pay cheque, his research is climate change related(he's not a climatologist) and I can assure everyone his funds are not dependent on outside green sources...he gets a paycheque regardless where his research leads him.

Wrong: he gets a paycheck as long as the government has tasks that it thinks are important enough for a full time scientist. The fact that he is not a "climate scientist" but does climate change related research now proves my point. He is simply chasing the funding where he can find it and he happens to find it in "climate change" cause that is the hot topic that gets politicians attention. If that "problem" went away he may be able to create another "problem" to justify his position but it makes more sense to milk the climate change angle for as much as he can first. This gives him a huge incentive to slant his research towards perpetuating the politicians' belief that "climate change" is a problem that needs funding.

[WIP]

First, your claim here is entirely unsubstantiated. There are no quantitative metrics for worldwide "happiness" that extend to times prior to the industrial revolution.

I hope you realize that trying to quantify happiness is difficult in itself. It depends on what we choose to measure as indicators of a subjective experience of happiness. But there are general rules that apply. Certainly if rates of mental illness and stress disorders are rising, that would be a sign of unhappiness. And in modern times, the 1950's are generally recognized by social researchers as America's peak decade for life satisfaction and personal wellbeing as numbers which would indicate personal satisfaction have actually declined in the midst of all of this material prosperity and new invention.

When it comes to the pre-industrial world, it should be pointed out that the notion that backward hunter/gatherers and subsistence farmers needed to be civilized and were better off under colonial occupation, is not backed up with anything factual, and is obvious self-serving propaganda designed to deflect any self-doubt from cropping up among the colonizers or former occupiers. As Jerry Mander wrote on this subject over 20 years ago in "Absence Of The Sacred" :

I am still astonished when intelligent people describe life in pre-industrial times as dirty, miserable, poor, and subject to the awful expressions of nature. Surely they must be aware that indigenous people of the temperate zones of the planet -- long before the harshness of the 16th and 17th century Europe -- lived very pleasant and relatively easy lives.... Our mythology has been that native people live with the awful oppression of "subsistence economics" -- a term that by its mere utterance invokes fellings of pity and images of squalor..... Pre-technological peoples, living hand to mouth in a never-ending search for food and protection from the elements, need and want what Western society brings. So goes the story. Given this logic, most Westerners are shocked to find that the majority of indigenous peoples on the Earth do not wish to climb onto the Western economic machine. They say their traditional ways have served them well for thousands of years and that our ways are doomed to fail....... The familiar assumption that everything before industrialization was pain, poverty, slavery, and victimization by nature is the assumption that works best for the technological-capitalist agenda and its massive invasion of these "afflicted" societies. It makes it seem as if capitalism and industrialization were altruistically motivated, do-gooder activities.

Your statement is simply opinion, nothing else. And, I hold the contrary opinion, that the human condition has significantly improved since the time of the industrial revolution for a significant majority of the world's population.

Even if I accepted your opinion at face value, I am also aware that the industrial revolution and the economic system it has powered, have a shelf life, and we are getting close to the expiry date! Too many natural resources to mention are running in short supply, and unless some great motherlodes are found in the melting Arctic, will be virtually exhausted within 50 years at present rates of economic growth and increased resource and energy use. If some recognition isn't made by the human race as a whole, the future (barring complete catastrophe like nuclear war) will mirror the past - as industrial production declines from lack of available inputs, cars are permanently parked by lack of fuel and resources to keep millions of cars running on the roads, and surviving populations are back to an agrarian, pre-industrial lifestyle.

As for one shot for what, that is an excellent question. What I want to see is a civilization that is flourishing and progressing, and will do so for as far into the future as possible, and that ensures the greatest possible chances for the long term survival of the human species and its descendants. And that means expanding out beyond this one vulnerable planet, which means large scale technology and industry and continued utilization of more and more resources to achieve that goal. Fortunately, we have barely begun to tap the resources available to us, we need only continue to develop our science and technology to be able to exploit new types of resources in new ways that we have not utilized in the past.

Finding and being able to utilize resources from the Moon, asteroids etc. was taken as a given back when I was young and the Space Race was still ongoing. But, we were also expecting moon colonies, manned Mars landings, and permanent space stations in Earth and Lunar orbit! The reality of the last 40 years has seen a gradual unwinding of space flight and even in public interest in going into space. Lately, we are getting news that the Russian Space Program is heading into a precipitous decline, and will have to be abandoned entirely as they have not built new booster rockets and put the money into the program in recent decades to keep it viable. And I don't put a lot of stock in SpaceX and Elon Musk's proposed future plans that libertarians are so enamored with these days as the "private enterprize" solution to our earth-bound status again. These private ventures are still depending on government funding to get off the ground, and if they decide that costs outweigh financial returns from their ventures, that's the end of the private space industry, even for the billionaire tech bubble enthusiasts who are trying to make their childhood dreams a reality. 40 years ago, I would have said that our environment and resource problems associated with our modern way of life could all be solved by going beyond Earth....today, when I look at the energy required and the costs of space launches, I don't see any of this being any more likely than the flying cars (which were also theoretically possible) becoming a reality either.

Edited October 5, 2012 by WIP

[WIP]

to be fair to Munich RE if you visit there website they do express concern with climate change...maybe they're more active than we know...but since they're all about risk assessment and profit we should accept their expertise when they say there is rise in extreme weather events...

I noticed that too! Actually, I hadn't looked at their website in a couple of years. Back when I first heard stories that they were trying to factor in effects of climate change to claims costs, their website wasn't exactly on the front line of the green revolution. I'm glad they are taking a public interest in promoting attention to the problem.

[wyly]

I noticed that too! Actually, I hadn't looked at their website in a couple of years. Back when I first heard stories that they were trying to factor in effects of climate change to claims costs, their website wasn't exactly on the front line of the green revolution. I'm glad they are taking a public interest in promoting attention to the problem.

it's cold hard cash doing the talking, if they don't anticipate a rise in extreme weather events it costs them billions...

how can anyone challenge insurance companies when it comes to risk assessment and data collection, it's their field of expertise...they're not scientists/climatologists but after decades of data collection, observation and consultation with experts they capable of doing the math, a wee bit of critical thinking and make the logical leap that it's climate change...forum members making claims that no one can claim there is an increase in extreme weather due to CC is talking out of their arses, insurance companies have no such hesitation or doubts...

Edited October 5, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

I'm glad they are taking a public interest in promoting attention to the problem.

Yet you have a big problem if Koch or Exxon take a public interest and point out how the science is being grossly distorted by activists with an agenda. Thanks for showing how two faced and hypocritical you are.

[wyly]

Yet you have a big problem if Koch or Exxon take a public interest and point out how the science is being grossly distorted by activists with an agenda. Thanks for showing how two faced and hypocritical you are.

the difference is Munich Re has no vested interest in fossil fuels, it could care less whether prices go up or down for oil, nor does it care what is causing CC, they only care that's it's happening and that it affects their bottom line, profits...energy corporations see CC/green energy as a threat to their profits...one industry is neutral the other isn't...

[TimG]

nor does it care what is causing CC, they only care that's it's happening and that it affects their bottom line, profits.

Actually, alarmism benefits the insurance company bottom lines. Insurance companies want people to believe that there are disasters coming. If they do they will buy insurance and pay more for it. On top of that if insurance companies can convince governments that a systematic problem exists they can justify asking governments to subsidize insurance in places like Florida which further increases their profit margins.

So insurance companies are no more neutral in this debate than oil companies. But I suspect you are willfully blind on this point because insurance companies tell you want you want to hear.

Edited October 5, 2012 by TimG

[wyly]

Actually, alarmism benefits the insurance company bottom lines. Insurance companies want people to believe that there are disasters coming. If they do they will buy insurance and pay more for it. On top of that if insurance companies can convince governments that a systematic problem exists they can justify asking governments to subsidize insurance in places like Florida which further increases their profit margins.

So insurance companies are no more neutral in this debate than oil companies. But I suspect you are willfully blind on this point because insurance companies tell you want you want to hear.

operating in a free market insurance companies that over charge on premiums lose business, they need to be competitive...over charging or undercharging for premiums is bad for the bottom line...

[TimG]

operating in a free market insurance companies that over charge on premiums lose business, they need to be competitive...over charging or undercharging for premiums is bad for the bottom line...

True if insurance companies operated in a free market. They don't. Insurance companies being "competitive" by excluding coverage raises the ire of the public and politicians who threaten with regulation. It is much better to convince the public and the politicians that its not the insurance company's fault - it is the fault of this big scary bugbear called climate change.

You can try to deny it but the fact remains: insurance companies are not charities. They promote climate alarmism because it is good for the profit margins. It is amazing to watch you twist and turn to try an convince yourself that a for profit company is acting in the public good simply because you happen to agree with what the for profit company is saying.

The fact also is: the reports published by Munich Re have been shown to be junk in the peer reviewed literature. They have no credibility among most scientists who study these things.

Edited October 5, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

the difference is Munich Re has no vested interest in fossil fuels, it could care less whether prices go up or down for oil, nor does it care what is causing CC, they only care that's it's happening and that it affects their bottom line, profits...energy corporations see CC/green energy as a threat to their profits...one industry is neutral the other isn't...

Do you realize how dumb this sounds?

How is an energy's company concern with their bottom line any different than Munich Re's concern for its bottom line? An energy company wants to poo-poo the threat of climate change to ensure people keep burning fossil fuels, and an insurance company wants to exaggerate it as an excuse to hike premiums.

Besides, didn't we already show you the IPCC's conclusion that extreme weather events were NOT on the rise???

Edited October 6, 2012 by Moonbox

[WIP]

Yet you have a big problem if Koch or Exxon take a public interest and point out how the science is being grossly distorted by activists with an agenda. Thanks for showing how two faced and hypocritical you are.

I guess you're a jackass who's not worth trying to talk to, because anyone who disagrees with you or argues against jumping to conclusions is subject to personal attack -- as you are when you pull out a paper indicating that there might have been a rapid decline in sea ice with factors causing Arctic temperatures to rise at twice the rate down here. I've actually thought about this issue and changed my position over the last 10 years, and a big part of the reason is because the side you represent has no theory or proposal for a theory to explain how rising CO2 levels will not increase temperatures; and no one in the little club that you follow zealously even mentions the likely greatest environmental problem of increasing CO2 levels - ocean acidification. The half of all man-made carbon absorbed by the world's oceans was first connected with damaging effects on shellfish and corals; then discovered to impair fish sonar abilities, and is also connected with the deforestation of the world's oceans - the rarely covered crisis of declining plankton and other ocean plant life.

Paleontologist - Peter D. Ward, who's research has specialized in the Permian/Triassic Extinction, believes that the gradual poisoning of the oceans today is following the same pattern (at an accelerated rate) that he has found in analyzing sedimentary rocks all over the world from that period 250 million years ago...and it seems that the case for drawing attention on the world's oceans is very strong for what its worth.

So, what significance should I draw from your evidence that, at least a portion of the Arctic Ocean was warmer 9000 years ago? Maybe it was those Milankovitch Cycles you warming deniers are always yacking about! But today, we have converging evidence from all directions that carbon levels are rising...and even at an increasing rate still, the oceans are dying, topsoil is eroding in all of the world's major agricultural zones at rates many times the ability to build new soil, fresh water is being pumped at an unsustainable rate in over 70% of the world's grain production regions....and there's other problems I could list if I wanted to take more time...the point is that the world is facing an ecological crisis from all directions, and yet the deniers want us to keep building more pipelines, blasting out tar to extract and upgrade as oil...in short, just keep on with business as usual. And this is the policy that is killing us! There is not enough vested interest like we had 40 years ago to take an honest, hard look at the way our economy works, and whether we need changes to our whole way of life. The proposals advanced by the mainstream environmentalists are actually tepid at best, and likely fall way short of staving off a future crisis.

For example: Electric cars 'pose environmental threat' In short, this story reported on the BBC, for the first time does a complete analysis of the carbon footprint of electric cars by factoring in the environmental costs of electric car production. They note the problem of electric cars in areas where electricity comes from coal-fired generating stations, but even if the electricity was provided by windmills (though new windmills also have a high carbon footprint to produce), when the environmental assessments take production into account, the benefits are severely reduced.

So, once again, I don't think either side in this debate: the deniers or the mainstream environment lobby, are actually dealing with the issues which would have an impact - starting with a drastic reduction in energy use and industrial output worldwide. Nothing short of putting an end to ever-increasing energy use and resource exploitation will solve the environment crisis.

[TimG]

the side you represent has no theory or proposal for a theory to explain how rising CO2 levels will not increase temperatures;

A silly strawman. No serious skeptic believes that CO2 will not result in a increase in temperatures. The real question is how much of a rise and what will the consequences be. There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the view that rise will not be as much as claimed by alarmists or the effects will be relatively manageable.

[WIP]

Do you realize how dumb this sounds?

How is an energy's company concern with their bottom line any different than Munich Re's concern for its bottom line?

As far as I am aware, Munich RE's concern for their bottom line doesn't extend as far to hire PR firms to create front groups and hire lobbyists and encourage a few scientists to produce dodgy and confusing studies of the climate issue! So, the conduct of the oil companies is especially egregious. But what else would we expect from corporations who deliberately poison land and ground water to save money -- i.e. Texaco (now Chevron) operations in Ecuador, or the reckless disregard for safety to save money that caused major offshore oil spills by BP first in the Caspian Sea, and then in the Gulf of Mexico...both are still leaking btw. And then there's the poisoning of the Niger River Delta region in Nigeria, where big oil (backed by the CIA) handpicked a despotic government to repress the local population in the Delta and brutally suppress any uprisings. The oil corporations are reckless psychopaths who have no concerns beyond immediate obscene profits and where to make even more money. The least of their concerns is the survival of Planet Earth and the welfare of future generations who will have to inherit what's left here.

[Moonbox]

Nobody is questioning the oil industry's interest in continuing the status quo, so everything you just wrote there is just a big red herring.

All people are saying is that the insurance industry has the exact same sort of bias, but in the opposite direction. Given that the IPCC has concluded that climate related disasters have not been on the rise over the last few decades, the fact that Munich Re has concluded they have is interesting, albeit unsurprising.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Moonbox

[wyly]

There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the view that rise will not be as much as claimed by alarmists or the effects will be relatively manageable.

well let's see this "plenty of evidence" tim....

and how will these effects be managed...

and just what your solution is if it isn't manageable, what then?...there is no reversing the damage, there is no adaptation...getting it wrong is not an option, there are no do overs....

if the "alarmists" have their way what's the worst case scenario?...a greener planet, less pollution, less energy waste, freedom from fossil fuels...if the deniers have their way and we doing nothing what's the worst case scenario? the end of our civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event...which is the safer course of action?

as demonstrated by another poster CPC "who's afraid of a few degrees warmer temps lol"...well just a "few" degrees colder puts right back into the middle of a full on ice age, a few degrees in the other direction holds the opposite dangers...

[TimG]

if the "alarmists" have their way what's the worst case scenario?...a greener planet, less pollution, less energy waste, freedom from fossil fuels

Worst case scenario: collapse of developed world economies which are unable to function with artificially expensive energy. Complete failure of emission control programs requiring adaptation anyways except the cost of adaptation has sky rocketed because of artificial restrictions on fossil fuels.

I see the latter scenario as much more likely than the various alarmists predictions of climate change.

Edited October 6, 2012 by TimG

[wyly]

Worst case scenario: collapse of developed world economies which are unable to function with artificially expensive energy. Complete failure of emission control programs requiring adaptation anyways except the cost of adaptation has sky rocketed because of artificial restrictions on fossil fuels.

I see the latter scenario as much more likely than the various alarmists predictions of climate change.

I never asked you which is more likely, I asked which worst case scenario is preferable

A-go green/economic collapse...which throughout history always has and always will be a temporary situation....

B-do nothing... and risk total environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event...

those are the two worst case scenarios tim A or B, which is it...

[WWWTT]

A-go green/economic collapse...which throughout history always has and always will be a temporary situation....

B-do nothing... and risk total environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event...

those are the two worst case scenarios tim A or B, which is it...

No wait just wait.

Maybe there's a third case.

What if in fact the available carbon available in our environment is actually dwindling and human activity of seeking out hydro/carbon fuels is actually rejuvenating life on Earth.Extending its viability by tens of millions of years?

WWWTT

[TimG]

I never asked you which is more likely, I asked which worst case scenario is preferable

So which do you prefer: amputating your leg today or risk the chance of dying from leg cancer in the future? Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Tim no offense but that's pretty broken logic. That type of argument doesn't hold any water and you're best off abandoning it.

[TimG]

Tim no offense but that's pretty broken logic. That type of argument doesn't hold any water and you're best off abandoning it.

No sure why. I guess it depends on whether you believe that a destroyed economy is a 100% guaranteed outcome of fully implemented anti-CO2 policies (which I do). The cost of energy is too fundamental to the economy for there to be any other outcome. Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG

[jbg]

Tim no offense but that's pretty broken logic. That type of argument doesn't hold any water and you're best off abandoning it.

No, his argument is called "risk management". I fully support it. Let me explain.

If a risk is sever and immediate we take action to protect against it, even if it's expensive. If the risk is more diffuse we may take more action but not expend significant funds. An example is the risk of getting into a car and driving to work. We buckle our seatbelts and try to observe traffic laws. We don't refrain from driving.

We may feel differently about skydiving on a regular basis. Those with loved ones who depend on them tend to avoid it. This "risk management" occurs every day and is not broken logic.