|
Post by louise on Jun 4, 2011 16:15:11 GMT 1
Thanks for that link, stu, about Munich Re. I thought my memory was at fault. Perhaps Louise's is? Or perhaps more than one person posts as "Louise"? Listener, for example? I will remind you of the point I made in the thread that StuartG linked to. If the data and conclusions were just based on increasing value of property and/or insurance claims, why haven't earthquake statistics increased in the same way that extreme weather data has? The below link takes you to a PDF of NUMBER of 'catastrophic events (climatalogical and geophysical) over the last 60 years by category, nothing to do with VALUE of damage/insurance. www.munichre.com/app_pages/www/@res/pdf/NatCatService/great_natural_catastrophes/NatCatSERVICE_Great_1950_2010_number_en.pdf
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 17:41:37 GMT 1
Stuff collected by an insurance company doesn't count as serious scientific research, I'm afraid, Louise. I'm surprised someone who sets such store by peer review in academic literature thinks this dross is helpful. Meteorologists certainly don't claim tornadoes and hurricanes are due to anthropogenic global warming, quite the opposite. Only perpetual alarmists, like you, and companies on the make from supposed climatechange, like Munich Re and DeutscheBank, make these silly claims. Have you actually read this thread? Do so, and stop repeating these daft claims. See Roger Pielke's blog for the details of the World Meteorological Organisation Review paper entitled "Tropical cyclones and climate change" by Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi, here rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/updated-wmo-consensus-perspective-on.htmlPS Are you seriously claiming earthquakes are the result of extra CO2 in the atmosphere? If not, what is your point?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 4, 2011 18:13:21 GMT 1
Definition of a catastrophe from Munichre... "Definition: Great natural catastrophe Based on the United Nations definition, natural catastrophes are classified as great if a region‘s ability to help itself is distinctly overtaxed, making [...]" www.munichre.com/touch/login/en/service/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/touch/publications/en/list/default.aspx?id=1215on requesting the .pdf the screen informed me... "Notice * If you are a connect.munichre user, please use your connect.munichre credentials. Text only version" so no joy there, so off to the UN... the nearest thing I could find... "2.2.1 Essentially, disasters are human-made. For, a catastrophic event, whether precipitated by natural phenomena or human activities, assumes the state of a disaster when the community or society affected fails to cope. Natural hazards themselves do not necessarily lead to disasters. Natural hazards like typhoons, and earthquakes, however intense, inevitable or unpredictable, translate to disasters only to the extent that the population is unprepared to respond, unable to cope, and, consequently, severely affected. The vulnerability of humans to the impact of natural hazards is to a significant extent determined by human action or inaction. Even the occurrence of recent climatic anomalies attributed to global climate change is traced to human activities." unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan009657.pdf see 2.2.1 and on.. "Not even windstorm, earth-tremor, or rush of water is a catastrophe. A catastrophe is known by its works; that is, to say, by the occurrence of disaster. So long as the ship rides out the storm, so long as the city resists the earth-shocks, so long as the levees hold, there is no disaster. It is the collapse of the cultural protections that constitutes the disaster proper. (Carr 1932:211)" 2.2.3 the last entry in this .pdf made me wonder... "The uncertain nature of catastrophe modeling,” Major, John, Natural Disaster Management, IDNDR" it turns out He's one of the Patrons of 'Psychology Beyond Borders' psychologybeyondborders.com/IntBoard.aspxNot everyone knows that, and no-one seems to define 'catastrophe' except 'en passant' unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan009657.pdfStuartG
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 4, 2011 18:20:18 GMT 1
Stuff collected by an insurance company doesn't count as serious scientific research, I'm afraid, Louise. I'm surprised someone who sets such store by peer review in academic literature thinks this dross is helpful. I have never claimed to set "such store by peer review in academic literature", that is another thing you are making up about me. I frequently post links to blogs and media reports, however, our hostess recently said ... irrelevant remarks about the source of a linked article without ever tackling the contents of the article. which seems to be a direction taken frequently by yourself. PS Are you seriously claiming earthquakes are the result of extra CO2 in the atmosphere? If not, what is your point? I'll explain again. The report I linked to shows that there is an increase in climatological events but not an increase in geophysical events. If the report was just based on property/insurance values increasing, one would expect there to be no difference between climatological and geophysical events as these would equally impact on property/insurance figures.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 4, 2011 18:35:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 18:56:13 GMT 1
It was the World Meteorological Association Report disavowing the role of AGW in the incidence of hurricanes that I was linking you to, Louise, via Roger Pielke's blog.
When I refer to a blog it does not mean I endorse everything on it. The Pielke's are sane and sensible folk who I have time for, on the whole.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 18:58:20 GMT 1
"I'll explain again. The report I linked to shows that there is an increase in climatological events but not an increase in geophysical events. If the report was just based on property/insurance values increasing, one would expect there to be no difference between climatological and geophysical events as these would equally impact on property/insurance figures."
I still don't grasp the point you are making, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 19:36:23 GMT 1
Yale Forum: Is Extreme Weather Linked to Global Warming?...a panel of experts weighs in on whether the wild weather may be tied to increasing global temperatures. Only one, Keith Trenberth, insists it is. e360.yale.edu/feature/forum_is_extreme_weather_linked_to_global_warming/2411/Here was Roger Pielke's view, since Louise seems to be a fan. Roger A. Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] defines “climate change” as a change in the statistics of weather occurring over 30 years or longer and persisting for decades. Thus, the detection of a change in climate requires long-term records. To suggest that particular extreme weather events are evidence of climate change is not just wrong, but wrongheaded — every bit as much as the claims made during a particularly cold and snowy winter (or even several in a row) that such events somehow disprove climate change. Weather is not climate and short-term climate variability is not climate change. The detection of changes in climate requires looking at actual data — and the data on tornadoes, large-scale river floods (in unaltered river basins), and landfalling hurricanes shows no evidence of trends in the direction of more extreme events. This should not be surprising, because even if we assume a strong signal in extreme events from human-caused climate change, the statistics suggest that it would take many decades, and probably longer, before such signals would be detected. Given this context, claims that particular events can be attributed in a causal fashion to human emissions of greenhouse gases are simply unscientific if not fundamentally incoherent. It is true that overall damage from tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes has been increasing in recent decades. A recent literature review of extreme event impacts around the world found that everywhere that researchers have looked, this increase can be entirely explained by increasing value of property at risk and increasing exposures to these hazards. Human-caused climate change is real and deserves effective policies in response. The making of claims that are scientifically unsupportable will not further that effort.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 4, 2011 19:48:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 20:03:16 GMT 1
What do i think of this, Louise asks?
I know that "human-caused climate change" and CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming are two different things and Louise should learn the difference.
The Pielkes know the difference and are very keen to point out that things like felling forest, UHI, land irrigation and changing albedo due to soot all influence local and regional climate. All these known effects are quite independent of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 4, 2011 20:14:23 GMT 1
things like felling forest, UHI, land irrigation and changing albedo due to soot all influence local and regional climate. I too have pointed out that some of these have an impact on climate and have added others such as increasing global population. However, I do think that there is a link between some of these and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - that's one of the main consequences of felling forests for example and I think you'll find that soot is highly related to the amount of fossil fuel burnt (and so CO2 released) so these things cannot be looked at in isolation. However, what did you think of the second part of Roger's sentence?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 21:56:48 GMT 1
Soot in the developing world comes from burning of wood and dung as well as fossil fuels. The issue of dealing with soot is totally unrelated to CO2 emissions reduction. Soot can be largely eliminated, as it has been in the West, by the Clean Air Acts - simple legislation.
By "deserves effective policies in response" I expect Roger Pielke Jr means environmental challenges deserve "no regrets" policy responses.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 22:00:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 4, 2011 23:00:03 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 6, 2011 15:14:28 GMT 1
Re. The Yale Forum.
One of the participants, Judith Curry, who I know Louise admires, because she sometims quotes her (as well as Roger Pielke), says
The issue of whether or not global climate change is causing more frequent or intense natural disasters is a red herring that is interfering with developing sane policies for reducing our vulnerability to natural disasters.
I agree with this.
I would say that ALL CO2 alarmism detracts from rational efforts to improve conditions of those vulnerable to climate extremes and TO EVERYTHING ELSE as well.
It promotes a bottomless moneypit funnelling public tax revenue into the pockets of the rich and their henchmen in government, investment and banking etc (not to mention the IPCC scientists).
|
|