by Judith Curry
On March 22, I will be testifying before the Senate Budget Committee on the topic “Risky Business: How Climate Change is Changing Insurance Markets.”
The web site for Hearing is [here], you should be able to watch on C-SPAN.
Here is the list of witnesses:
• Eric Anderson, President of Aon
• Nancy Watkins, Principal & Consulting Actuary at Milliman
• Dr. Benjamin Keys, Professor of Real Estate, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
• Judith Curry, President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech
• Jerry Theodorou, Director of Finance, Insurance and Trade at R Street Institute
All of these individuals look interesting and representative of a broad range of perspectives
Note that I am the only witness with “climate science” in my remit. This Hearing clearly isn’t about climate science, but based on various assumptions about climate change and its impacts.
I hear through the grapevine that this is a tough Committee to testify before. Should be interesting.
So I heard about this Hearing from a Congressional staffer last Monday afternoon, and received my official invitation on Wednesday, with written testimony due next Tuesday at 10 a.m. So this gives the witness a week to prepare, if you start working right after the call from the staffer (gambling that the individual will actually be invited to testify).
My written testimony is almost finished (need to work on conclusions and formatting). I was able to use some material from my book (condensing and simplifying), which helped me pull this together. This is an interesting (and newly relevant) topic for me, given its emphasis on risk.
I will post my written testimony in a new blog post Wednesday morning before the Hearing starts. This should be an interesting Hearing, stay tuned.
Note: I am able to testify via Zoom, so I don’t have to travel. Out of the horrors of Covid-19, one useful practice has emerged: having people travel to meetings or Hearings to present in person is not necessary.
I happened to watch a lot of Kremlin propaganda over the last year. They air talk shows with “diverse” opinions. The framework is obviously set, but the talkers as well as the audience may consider different approaches as to how the will of the Kremlin is to be implemented. Thereby it cynically enforces the bottomline, while suggesting freedom of opinion.
We have pretty much the same with such talks on “climate change”. Everyone shall be thinking about how to deal with it, think about the implications and provide “solutions” (as if there were any). By engaging in these discussions, one only confirms the bottomline and thinks “inside the box”. And that is what we are being trained to do..
Thank you for a good work. Good luck!
I’m fascinated about which side invited you. Surely they know your background. If the Dems invited you they might hear some things they don’t want to hear. If the GOP invited you, I would love to have listened to the negotiations with the Chairman about your appearance.
Kennedy quips are legendary.
Good luck.
CKid and Judith: I’d guess this hearing is least partially due to problems in the insurance market (and possibly real estate market) in Florida, thanks to last year’s hurricane under a Republican governor. Many of the major insurance companies have reportedly abandoned Florida, leaving smaller operators who allegedly are refusing to pay for expensive repair and who may not have the financial resources to pay.
From a climate “change” point of view hurricanes are likely a smaller threat to Florida that they have been in the recent past – assuming the AMO has entered and will remain in a negative phase. IIRC, the historic record shows three periods of high hurricanes fueled by a positive AMO and two periods of low hurricanes from a negative AMO, but we don’t have dataset long enough to covers dozens of these oscillations (as we do with ENSO) to have any confidence in their period or regularity.
This is another case where it is easy to reach erroneous conclusions if you dont have a broad understanding of the subject matter. (along with being easily fooled). There are lots of reports/studies/ or what ever you want to call them showing that insurance losses have increased significantly faster than the rate of inflation. Thus the erroneous conclusion that the increase in insurances losses is due to increases in extreme weather which is due to climate change.
The increase in insured losses greater than the rate of inflation is absolutely true, but those reports deceptively omit at least two other factors (among numerous other factors). First, the increase in population is not accounted for in those reports. The increase in population alone accounts for 30%-50% of the additional increase. The second point, there has been a significant increase in material assets, for example , the average size home in the 1950’s was 1200-1500 sq ft, while the average home size today is 2400-3000 sq ft.
Good points, Joe. Plus, I’d bet that construction costs have far outpaced the CPI, not only on materials and labor but the permitting/code regulations have added costs, particularly if you live along the shoreline.
As more people move in, the value goes up. There is a lot more property exposed to damage, so when a storm happens there is a lot more property to be replaced per event. This means that the cost to replace property goes up a lot more because the surge in demand is so much bigger.
The industry has not been properly accounted for the increase in property at risk, regardless of whether it’s insured, nor the effect new policies have on existing ones.
The post CoViD supply chain constraints also drove replacement cost up.
Good luck, but watch your back.
Let me dream for just a minute. What if a few folks got their heads together and put together a resolution, which demanded Scientific Transparency? It demanded that our government put a panel together to determine whether there is a Climate Emergency or not.
What if we could get it supported by every automotive and motorcycle group in the country and then we submitted to every politician we could get our hands on and forced a public hearing.
Imagine what that could mean for the world. We could be free again. We could be living in the best of times not the worst. We could deal on a level playing field once more. At least we would know the truth.
This has been done. Remember that the Koch brothers financed an independent assessment of the temperature record by Berkeley. Judith Curry was one of the participants. It was expected to find that the global warming shown by other datasets was exaggerated. Instead, the Berkeley study agreed with them.
If you formed such a panel it would probably not produce the truth you expect.
Government controlled climate indexes were found to be contaminated by non-climate effects by former meteorologist, Anthony Watts circa early 2000s. He found that many weather stations were poorly protected from heat radiating from pavement and air conditioning outdoor units. He also recognized that the climate record, although heavily corrected for every conceivable cooling bias, was considered off limits for correcting warming bias. Although it was acknowledged by government scientist that adjustment for urban heat island effects and land use changes that occurred from urban sprawl and farm irrigation were needed, none were made.
The degree of this non-climate warming bias to the historical record was studied here by Thomas Karl in 1988 to be significant. Later study by the father of global warming, James Hansen, found non climate effects to be insignificant, or equally split between warming and cooling biases.
Berkeley physics professor, Richard Muller, who became momentarily suspicious of government climate science after the 2009 Climategate emails and exposure of Michael Mann (Mike’s Nature trick), embarked on a private non-governmental project to produce an unbiased weather data historical record. The problem they apparently ran into was that there is no good systematic way to correct for non-climate effects biasing weather stations. The result is that instead of creating a more accurate weather station record of land-based climate they just added to a contaminated consensus, IMO.
Cliff Mass did a study of Cascade snowpack over a long period (I forget exact period) and found no significant decrease. I personally believe the average snow level has increased around 500 feet or so which translates to 2 degrees F. But you would be hard pressed to find any signal in most severe weather. A warmer world will have more benign weather because temperature gradients will decrease
It’s a little warmer now, than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age.
Good.
Should be very interesting given the lineup of committee members. Perhaps it is fortuitous you are attending via Zoom to reduce any hazards.
Depending on the order you’re called, you may want to modify/add to your statement based on prior testimony and senator questioning/statements. It’s a great opportunity to address fallacies and over-exuberance head on, and I’m sure there will be a few. Hopefully, there will be many questions that come your way.
Good luck, and we’ll be watching!
Pingback: Senate Budget Committee Hearing - Climate- Science.press
Good hunting, Dr. Curry in your opportunity to publicly put a little sanity in the climate “debate.” The long knives, however, will be out for you! Reviewing the prior public statements and lines of personal attack made by the main players seems to be a good suggestion, as made above.
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has some great material on the insurance aspects of extreme weather vis demographics, infrastructure and economics. Some of it should be very useful to you in your presentation.
Is it ‘climate change’ or state regulations? Here’s an op-ed about California’s insurance market, from Steven Greenhut, of the R Street Institute.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/insurance-companies-are-quietly-fleeing-california-proposition-103-natural-disaster-state-farm-market-competition-ricardo-lara-commissioner-db0af00?st=phbcx9p3d7f8p4x&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Dr. Pielke has also made adjustments for technological advancements.
Judith,
your message will be crisp and perfect. Thanks for what you do. Suggest you also seek some one on one time with members -mi find my best and most effective conversations are outside the froth of hearings.
Good luck Judith! Timely.
Could you please be mention the conclusions of R. McKitrick about attribution and be very clear on what he has to say about it.. So far they are undisputed and put that whole insurance issue into the realm of fantasy and computer worlds., mathematically unrelated to the planet we are living on.
I suppose the past Florida hurricane season will be a topic. “Break a leg” as they say in show biz.
Dr Curry,
This article may be of interest to you. He is saying very much the same thing regarding climate activism in climate scientists and putting the policy cart before the science horse.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-former-green-leader-disturbed-by-climate-fear-mongering
“For one thing, they could challenge what he sees as an era of “decision-based evidence-making — the antithesis of the scientific method.””
““We are seeing more and more populist policies globally wherein decisions are made first, and then evidence (real or imagined) is sought after the fact to support an ideological agenda.”
“Climate scientists need to model the climate leadership they are calling on others to follow. Failing to do so sends the wrong message, a message that undermines the prevailing narrative that we are in a climate emergency.”
Big big LOLZ.
I wonder why Pielke Jr. wasn’t invited to testify.
COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE.
U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s.
MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND
SINCE THE 1950s.
US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s.
THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR.
The IPCC is doubling down, saying if we reduce CO2 emissions 60% by 2035 there’s a chance we can get to 1.5C.
file:///C:/Users/aeci9/Downloads/IPCC-Sixth-Assessment-Report-Synthesis-03-20-2023.pdf
If that link doesn’t work …
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/IPCC-Sixth-Assessment-Report-Synthesis-03-20-2023.pdf
Thanks Bill.
A well orchestrated public relations initiative to push the kids under the bed with fear even more. I just read a survey that found young, liberal women were at risk of mental health issues nearly 10 times the rate of older conservative men. This report just adds to that divergence.
Pop the Valium.
Start earning over $600 a day from your timeshare home. In my free time after college I made $18,781 from this job._j3 An easy job and steady income is amazing. No skills are required for this position. All you need to know is how to copy and paste items online.Sign up today by following the details on this page.
This is where I started….. https://iplogger.com/onlinejob1.png
Risk taking with people’s lives is a dangerous business.
What if we reduce CO2 emissions ahead of schedule but the temperature just keeps on steadily rising with every living thing seeming to be enjoying the ride and seeing abundance on their proverbial doorsteps? What then and when?
Or an opposing risk that we have no effect on CO2 emissions reduction despite all our efforts and suddenly global temperatures plummet and we have totally inadequate energy provision and inapproprate transport means to cope with cold chaos? What then and when?
I wouldn’t trust the United Nations on any matter of mitigation whatever the subject. They proved with SARS-CoV-2 that they are overpaid, under-performing politicians who just cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything to citizens or our representatives. The sensible risk assessment for a citizen would be to abandon the UN as a body. The nonsensical route would be to allow them to carry on as now.
If we must have global organisations then let them be democracies where we have the power to throw people out or force policy change – something for them to think about – that risk of upsetting us ever again.
Good I will be watching. I hope you can straighten them out on water vapor vs CO2. It’s amazing how some of my texts will indicate that water vapor is the more potent greenhouse while those on the alarmist side are indicated that vapor has no role at all. So which is it? I think I’m gonna go with Salby. In process of reading 2 texts at the moment, I must say that yours is far better than the Hess stuff I had in grad school. Congress would be better off trying to develop necessary barriers or materials to be more resilent toward climate hazards than trying to anoint themselves as Jack Frost.
“Risky Business: How Climate Change is Changing Insurance Markets.”
Don’t insurance companies only provide coverage at a rate for a year? How is climate change a risk???
“Risky business” I think has the built in assumption that any natural disaster can be attributed to human-caused climate change or exacerbated by it. It’s so convenient that one would think that political leaders throughout ancient history might have used such attributions for political advantage. Naaaah…
“– leaders throughout ancient history–” meaning emperors and high priests, usually paid with their own life for failing to control the gods. The devious ones had a back-up plan, so beware.
However, based on own past experience, it helps to understand the psychological makeup of one’s ‘friendly’ adversary, and helps in better directing one’s own guns.
Ron-since Judith won’t see this before the hearing.
My point is that those holding the hearing (Senate democrats) have already shown their bias toward the belief that CO2 is causing a major problem. They need to be confronted. Insurance companies forecast potential weather damages not climate change.
The whole Democrat (Joe Biden led) position that CO2 is leading to dangerous climate changes needs to be challenged as unsupportable bad science.
Death by thermageddon as prophesized by Al Gore never happened.
Superstitious global warming alarmists are Western civilization’s hothouse flowers. They’ve never known misery, suffering and death from energy-deprivation. The end-of-the-world prognostications from the Left of global warming catastrophe that never came but, the Left never cared if they were right or wrong about that and it does not worry them that the EPA prefers politics to science.
The UK will pay the Climate Doomer, “green” energy piper unless it changes its ways.
The UK is facing a significant shortage of reliable power generation as nuclear, coal and gas plants will close in the years ahead without being replaced.
So-called dispatchable capacity, which can generally be called on at will, is set to fall from 93% to 85% of peak demand levels by 2027, according to consultant Baringa Partners LLP. That’s largely due to the retirement of inefficient fossil-fuel plants and nuclear reactors, as well as a rise in demand because of electrification.
The research, commissioned by Drax Group Plc, shows the danger of the nation’s increasing reliance on intermittent renewable power sources. Already this winter, the nation’s power system flirted with severe shortages as wind generation plunged and emergency measures needed to be taken.
While the UK is set to see a 25 gigawatt increase in intermittent renewable capacity, it still needs stable generation as backup. The UK faces a decline of secure capacity of 4.5-6.3 gigawatts by 2027 and a 4 gigawatt increase in peak demand, according to the Baringa report.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-21/uk-s-stable-power-supply-at-risk-as-nuclear-and-gas-plants-close
Dr. Curry, best of luck in the hearing.
The only productive advice I can possibly suggest, respectfully, is to find a way to expose your blog into the discussion by asking GOP reps to reference it specifically in context to some of the questions they’ll pose, and to do it more than once (repetition is fundamental to branding). While this tactic may seem overly self-indulgent, it’s not on a pragmatic, practical level; there’s too much at stake by allowing propaganda to continue to go on unchecked. I’m only suggesting that this tactic could incrementally introduce, perhaps, certain sympathetic journalists to the blog who seek robust critical thinking, and who in turn could expose this platform to the public, providing a better informed, broader, more rounded contextual discussion encompassing everything about climate; and not for the purpose of personal gain (you have too much integrity for the latter).
The truth that there’s bountiful unknowns is its own truth.
Sober reasoning especially needs tactical device as a counter to the hugely one-sided avalanche of propaganda being leveraged upon global populations; better methodologies to reach above the din of abundant, outlandish nonsense that global cultures are exposed to daily by the CAGW media hammer. Whatever the Lefts tactics are before this hearing, they’re already in place to be sure, otherwise they would have invited, i.e. Mann, to deliver the science message in this hearing. Sorry to be so cynical, but if one isn’t then they’re not really looking. Looking at the recent UN sound bite, its extrapolation pulled from the most recent IPCC report, is enough to convince me that gray matter is in fact the elusive dark matter that some in science have been trying to discover for decades; who would have known that it has resided around a red star all this time, just waiting to be teased apart.
Not finding paths for informed information exposure is in fact one of the “largest risks” to global cultural breakdown in a climate mitigation discussion dealing with the topic of “risky business”. Please, if you consider it too self-indulgent, then be too self-indulgent. One must fight science political activism with opposing science political activism; it’s understood by critical thinkers that only one side represents truth in discovery, where the lack of answers about causation, and mitigation are abundant, too abundant for THE answer using rigid draconian methodologies. Waiting for truth to unveil itself via the scientific method is the riskiest path of all to take when dealing with a global political machine hell bent to co-opt it.
The Left will control the Senate agenda, not neoliberal Democrats. I’d reach out to those “friendly” senators who will be part of the discussion before the hearing; truth can at least get something out of the deal, if you will.
Why not use Behavorial Economics to ‘nudge’ the population to ignore climate risks? It seems to work with economic systems in that the Fed has managed to keep interest rates below actual inflation for decades while the wage earners keep falling farther behind.
“The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s model-based expected inflation rate over the next 5 years, which combines financial data and survey-based measures using a dynamic factor model predicts the 5 year inflation rate projection as of March 2023 is 2.22%”
Thanks for the response, jacksmith
Alll cultural codes are non inclusive. If one is a Marxist, or Fascist, then individual liberty and freedom must be expunged, and collectivism promoted, otherwise how can authoritarian principles prevail? Behavioral economics would be the logical path to stifle individual choice, such is antithetical to freedom and liberty. Why would any individualist who respected liberty and freedom turn to statism as a metric to enforce fealty?
The Fed isnt a good analogy, they have a narrow charter to protect against inflation and unemployment.
Let me illustrate:
“Behavioral economics is a field that studies how people make decisions and judgments, often influenced by cognitive biases, emotions and social factors1. One of the founders of behavioral economics is Daniel Kahneman, who wrote the book “Thinking Fast and Slow” to summarize his decades of research that won him the Nobel Prize2.
In his book, Kahneman introduces two systems of thinking: System 1 and System 23. System 1 is fast, intuitive and emotional. It relies on heuristics, stereotypes and associations to make quick judgments. System 2 is slow, deliberate and rational. It requires more effort and attention to process complex information and solve problems.
According to Kahneman, most people use System 1 most of the time, even when they should use System 2. This leads to many errors and biases in our thinking, such as overconfidence, confirmation bias, availability heuristic, anchoring effect and loss aversion.”
One possible way to use the concept of behavioral economics as portrayed in “Thinking Fast and Slow” to construct a narrative that emphasizes caution and uncertainty in dangers of human caused climate change is to appeal to both systems of thinking.
For example:
System 1 methods that would delay taking quick action on climate change:
>Using emotional appeals or fear tactics that backfire and cause people to disengage or deny the problem.
>Framing climate change as a distant or abstract threat that does not affect people’s immediate lives or interests.
>Exploiting social norms or peer pressure to discourage people from adopting more sustainable behaviors or supporting climate policies.
System 2 methods that would delay taking quick action on climate change:
>Casting doubt on the scientific evidence or consensus on human caused climate change and its impacts.
?Presenting false or misleading alternatives or trade-offs between economic growth and environmental protection.
>Overemphasizing the uncertainties or complexities of climate change and its solutions, creating confusion or paralysis.
Its all about phycology until our technology can change reality.
Very interesting.
“System 1 is fast, intuitive and emotional. It relies on heuristics, stereotypes and associations to make quick judgments.”
The before represents the global narrative on climate change, correct? Phycology, as you say. I agree that tech can change reality though.
When I see
“fast, intuitive and emotional. It relies on heuristics, stereotypes and associations to make quick judgments.” I think of the advertising industry LOL.
But it works the same within any human social order. I see a lot of it on the WUWT website, not so much here.
“fast, intuitive and emotional. It relies on heuristics, stereotypes and associations to make quick judgments. [your original reference]” I think of the advertising industry LOL.”
I don’t think of the advertising industry at all, nobody would who follows political alignment. The advertising industry, similar to most global media en masse, are firmly rooted in not only the IPCC narrative, but worse, the UN narrative. They regurgitate CAGW like Biden acid reflux.
A System 2 method that would greatly speed up CO2 mitigation: Present solid scientific evidence that man-made CO2 will cause a catastrophe.
jim2,
IMO, the reason there is so much attention paid to CO2 is because it is both a proxy and a catalyst. It represents 2 forces that are perturbing the environment and the biosphere. Adding billions of tons of CO2 in less than 100 years does have an effect on global temperature and humidity which in turn can shift regional climate patterns. The catalytic effect is all the second order processes created by using fossil fuel energy to create billions of tons of synthetic chemicals (fertilizers, plastics, PFAS) which further destabilize the biosphere.
What you guys don’t realize is that we couldn’t stop ourselves if we wanted to. That’s what Daniel Kahneman has said on numerous occasions. Besides, nobody really cares what happens 10 or 20 years from now except the Chinese.
@JackSmith –
You and your fellow travelers are trying to dismantle just about everything that benefits us humans. Petroleum and the vast array of products made from it keep us warm, cool, and clothed. That’s just scratching the surface. How many lives have been extended by economical warmth from fossil fuels? Many more years have been added than specious studies claim have been taken away. Many other products made from fossil fuels have made our lives longer and of higher quality.
By my lights, you are completely irrational.
jim2,
All I am pointing out is that we are the apex predator on the planet and that comes with responsibilities. Looking forward to the very near future I think AI and genetic engineering will give us fantastic power to change the planet for the better and fix many of the problems that seem so intractable now. What bothers me is we might fall into a Behavorial Sink (look up the Mouse Utopia experiments*) and spiral into a social collapse.
*I think it’s related to the number of social relationships that mammals can maintain at once. The caged environment forced the mice to interact way beyond what they were evolved to experience in their natural environment. The internet and social media has exploded the number of social connections we have to deal with and it may have similar effect on homo sapiens as it did for the mammals in John Calhoun’s experiments.
Is there any chance that anyone will believe:
The only item causing climate change on earth is the rise and fall of average surface temperature of the sun.
The surface area of the earth covered by foliage relative to that covered by water.
The breaking off of the ICE BLOCKS at the polls, melting keeping a constant height of the oceans.
The oceans height will stay constant for the next 80,000 years.
The ICE BLOCKS will be gone.
The oceans will drop for about 7,000 years.
The next Ice Age will begin.
CO2, until man arrived, only showed the ratio of water surface area to green foliage area.
Robert Clark asked: “Is there any chance that anyone will believe:
“The oceans height will stay constant for the next 80,000 years.”
After it rose 120 m as the last ice age ended? No!
“The breaking off of the ICE BLOCKS at the polls, melting keeping a constant height of the oceans. The ICE BLOCKS will be gone.”
No! Only floating ice doesn’t raise sea level when it melts. Ice on land raises sea level when it melts or flows into the ocean. Some floating ice and ice resting on ground under water slow the flow of ice into the ocean where it raises sea level.
“The oceans will drop for about 7,000 years. The next Ice Age will begin.”
If rising CO2 hasn’t prevented the next Ice Age from arriving, it will arrive over centuries to millennia, too long a period for people today to waste much time worrying about whether it will come.
“The only item causing climate change on earth is the rise and fall of average surface temperature of the sun.”
No, but changes in the sun obviously influence the temperature of the Earth. Since the end of the last ice age, ice cores at the poles (and ocean sediment cores) don’t show any planet-wide change in temperature expected to be associated with significant changes in solar output (though there have been changes in the NH). Few, if any, believe the ice ages were caused by changes in solar output. Some hope that changes in solar output can reduce future warming due to rising GHGs, but there isn’t a solid case for optimism.
Consider getting out of the poorly informed social media echo chamber you currently belong to. I could say, join the real world, but there is a great deal of controversy about where to find it given today’s politics. However, you can do better. If you like real science and climate change, consider reading climateofdoom.com
At the beginning of this Ice Age the oceans were down about 400feet which is 7 feet less than 120meters.
Those ice blocks are still sitting on the solid earth. The 28degree saturated salt water at the bottom of the oceans is eating away a horizontal opening creating an overhang.
I consider an ICE AGE is from the lowest ocean level to the lowest ocean level. The last one was 120,000 years. I expect this one to be about 130,000 years.
Ms. Curry, as you can see I am still following you.
Oliver Stone’s new film is once again taking a provocative stance on a hot-button issue, this time tackling climate change.
His upcoming documentary Nuclear Now (trailer below) makes the case that nuclear energy is the best solution to meet global energy needs. The film — previously titled Nuclear — premiered at the Venice Film Festival last year. Its messaging has received praise from critics, though the film’s execution has been chided for being very drab, which is rather uncharacteristic for Stone.
“We’ve run out of time to be afraid,” Stone says in the trailer. “We’ve been trained from the very beginning to fear nuclear power. The very thing that we fear is what may save us.”
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/oliver-stone-nuclear-now-trailer-1235357522/
jim2 | March 21, 2023 at 9:47 pm in suspense.
Pingback: ≫ Audiencia del Comité de Presupuesto del Senado | Clima Etc
Remind the committee that the precautionary principle is a truly simplistic risk management device. Far more rigorous ways of evaluating possible risks are practised every day in all sorts of industries by people such as engineers and one possible outcome is that doing nothing may be the least risky option.
Good luck.
It doesn’t take an expert economist to know that as more people move in, the value goes up. There is a lot more property exposed to damage, so when a storm happens there is a lot more property to be replaced per event. This means that the cost to replace property goes up a lot more because the surge in demand is so much bigger.
The industry has not been properly accounted for the increase in property at risk, regardless of whether it’s insured, nor the effect new policies have on existing ones.
Also, the post CoViD supply chain constraints and energy crisis also drove replacement cost up.
Also, an important consideration is the danger the draining of the SPR put us in. Imagine if Ian had continued north-northwest instead of turning east into south florida.
Or worse, turned northwest.
Any direction other than the one it took would have been OK with me.
Antarctica’s four largest ice shelves are the Ross, Ronne, Filchner, and Amery. These vast floating sheets of ice tend to calve off giant icebergs once every few decades. All four are on track for major calving events in the next 10 to 15 years, and none would normally be cause for alarm.
These were formed at the beginning of the Ice Age and are sitting on solid earth. The 28degree saturated salt water at the ocean floor is eating under the ice block forming a shelf. the 32degree fresh water is against the bottom of the ice block forming a large overhang with a relatively flat bottom which eventually breaks off.
After they break off, they sit on the bottom until the 28degree saturated salt water frees them.
When you understand this you will understand that 80,000 years until the oceans start down is correct!!!!!