Global Warming Myth

[howeird]

dinogrl posted a link to a recent news item I'd heard a couple of days ago on the radio, which reminded me I wanted to say a few politically incorrect words about the great global warming myth.

When I was a fledgling journalist back in the 70's in Astoria, Oregon, one of the issues had to do with floods, and how the greedy insurance companies were gouging home owners in the low-lying neighborhoods by using actuarial tables which went back 100 years. Turns out that about every 100 years there's a record-breaking flood. Which basically means weather cycles are about 100 years long. I'm over-simplifying here because my point is not changed by trivia such as sometimes it's 112 years and sometimes it's 80 years and sometimes it happens twice in a 5-year period. The point is, global warming is part of a cyclical weather pattern which we can expect to peak about every 100 years.

Accurate global weather statistics have not been kept for anywhere close to 100 years. It's only been since the advent of the network of weather satellites that we've had global stats capability.

What I'm saying is we're merely approaching the peak of a cycle. The same way the dust bowl days of the 1920's and 30's are now a distant memory, this year's Gorefest will be forgotten 80 years from now.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to save the rain forests or drive cleaner vehicles. I'm just saying we shouldn't be all in a panic about it.

Which reminds me of something Henry Kissinger said when he was asked about the threat from Chile when a socialist was elected president there:
"Chile - an arrow pointed right at the heart of Antarctica."

Comments

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Ages ago I worked in property insurance and I really don't think that a 100 year actuaraial expreience/loss rating gouges the insured. In my experience Flood Zones that regularly cost insurers a lot of money tend to be in areas that flood more than once every 100 years. Look at some of the areas around the Russian River that flood with some regularity every decade.

Then there's the unexpected like New Orleans (or the dust bowl), though that technically wasn't a flood (from an insurance perspective)but the failure of levees.

One of the issues with Hurricanes and global warming (and I don't think it is all hysteria - Scientific American has had a few very good articles on this topic as of late). Using hurricanes as one loss variable, we encounter the problem that we didn't start keeping detailed data about hurricanes until (if memory serves) slightly before or after WWII -- by which I mean a time period of 1940 - 1947. I think the war actually stopped the earlier attempts to collect this data, and it was picked up again in 1947. So when we are discussing Hurricane data we don't even have a reliable 100 year period to draw conclusions from. So when we say there are more hurricanes we are really using a base measurement of roughly 40 years.

I am sure somewhere some grad student is collecting this historic data.

[howeird]

Insurance
What we're talking about is charging a rate every year based on what might happen once in 100 years. As opposed to spreading the cost of the risk across 100 years. That's gouging. The insurance companies don't insure against the unexpected. Those incidents are ducked by calling them "acts of God".

The grad student has no source for global data much more than 30 years into the past. What folks yelling "global warming" seem to forget is hurricanes are affected by and affect all weather in the same hemisphere, and somewhat across the equator as well. Records of weather over the Pacific are very spotty up till about 1970.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

spreading the cost of the risk across 100 years

That's not how it is done.

[howeird]

It depends on which state laws you're under. At the time in Oregon, the cost of insurance was supposed to be calculated on the likelihood of x $ of damage over a period of time, divided by that period of time. Plus shipping & handling.

It may never have been that way in CA, and it may not be that way in OR now, but it seemed like a reasonale formula at the time.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Now that flood insurance is a federal thing. Actuarial studies employ several formulas to determine their figures. To not get all technical they are concerned with the number of losses; the severity of losses and then they factor in other variable such as steps taken to prevent flood damage, ability to pay, whatnot.... Then they factor all that for inflation. There is a range of numbers that can be used. I think actuaries tend to rate these things conservatively. Usually, in an open marketplace, their conservative figures are tempered by market interactions. I don't know how this would fly with a federal program though.

BTW

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Did you see this article about NASA's response to the temperature error http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/16/must-read-from-hansen-stop-the-madness-about-the-tiny-revision-in-nasas-temperature-data/

Seems to me I heard a similar story not to long ago....

Re: BTW

[howeird]

I just love rants. What this clown forgets is the earth will recover from whatever organic crap we pile on it. The human race may not, but that's not what he's complaining about.

Re: BTW

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

There is a new book out about how the Earth would be affected if homosapien ceased to exist. Once the radiation wore off from the reactor meltdowns things would be sort of groovy. I remain agnostic on global warming and the causes - I think it is always a good thing not to waste though.

Re: BTW

[howeird]

It's a long-time sci-fi theme. There's also the variation of humans evacuating Earth, and their descendants returning a millennium later - to find intelligent apes in charge. ;-)

Speaking of books, Breakfast With Scot arrived yesterday, I glanced at the first couple of pages - it seems to be very well written - and it'll be next on my list, probably starting this weekend when I'm done with Greetings from Lake Wu.

Re: BTW

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Kewl one other person on my friend's list read Breakfast with Scot and liked it. I hope you do too.

The book I am thinking about is unique in that is non fiction: The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. I am hoping to pick it up when it comes out in paperback: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html

[edith-mf.livejournal.com]

Well, if we conserve more in many ways, we make more wealth. There are a lot of pragmatically good things to following the advice of the hair-pullers.

[howeird]

Sigh. We make more wealth by cutting down trees and selling them. By strip-mining minerals and selling them. The more petroleum sold and burned, the more money we make. Didn't Ronald Reagan teach you anything?
;-)