I’ve been getting emails from reporters asking for comments on the climate claims of Vivek Ramaswamy during a GOP debate and subsequent media appearances. While I hate to give oxygen to bad-faith climate misinformation, it seems like this is a subject that people are interested in.
Unfortunately, all of what you have written is true, but requires some thinking. Politicians specialize in one liners and slogans that appeal to their base voters. I dbobt that many MAGA voters will take the time or spend the mental energery to read your post. Perhaps it will persaude some who are undecided and I hope so.
I asked one of my past associates to look at what I call "Big Money" and watch what they are doing. Insurance companies are raising rates due to losses and now refusing write or renew coverages in some areas, long term tanker owners building double hulled tankers to sail across the top of the world because melting sea ice is opening new shipping lanes, and reinsurance rates going up around the world due to huges losses from climate change.
Liberals have been accused of being enemies of free speach, but are lies and distortions true examples of free speach? I realize that to some, things like "vaccines kill people" is free speach, but in reality it is the lack of vaccines that kill people and endanger others. The exaamples you have debunked are perfect examples of free speach being used to sell lies.
Vivek is a perfect example of an intellegent, well educated person who is selling lies to benefit his political position. There is no thought given to the harm the being done by these lies. The only thought is will it help my political standing. The worst part, he is not the only politician to follow this path.
My only hope is the younger generation that is seeing their future world being destroyed and that they will act accordingly. Do not vote for politicans that promote lies.
"Insurance companies are raising rates due to losses and now refusing write or renew coverages in some areas, long term tanker owners building double hulled tankers to sail across the top of the world because melting sea ice is opening new shipping lanes, and reinsurance rates going up around the world due to huges losses from climate change."
I haven't seen credible sources for these claims. Can you point me to some?
"CLIMATEWIRE | The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets.
"Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.”
"Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee." [continues]
"The impacts of climate change are all around us: sea level rise, severe heat waves, drought, extreme rainfall, more powerful storms. These impacts are making natural disasters more intense and more frequent. Between 1980 and 2021, the U.S. suffered 7 or 8 natural disasters per year, on average, but so far in 2022 there have already been 15. Losses from each disaster—drought and wildfires in the southwest, severe storms in the Midwest, flooding in Kentucky and Missouri, and hurricanes in the southeast—have exceeded $1 billion, with the cumulative cost of disasters over the last five years reaching $788.4 billion." [continues]
Thanks for the reply. I'm not teasing, just trying to find the best, most supported arguments, in order to figure out what to believe. I do appreciate your providing those links. Herewith my responses:
The prepared testimony doesn't say the things quoted by Climatewire. That's not too surprising - witnesses at committee hearings often prepare testimony which is "read into" the record, and mostly answer questions. I will note that the prepared testimony talks about things the insurance industry can do to manage risks. I didn't read the whole 124 pages, but I didn't find any reference to climate change causing more losses, or causing companies to withdraw from markets.
Mr. Andersen's testimony starts at 48:01. He mostly talks about insurance products that can help recovery from disasters, and others that can help finance green energy startups. At 1:32:02, he does say that there is "a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss." He does not say that this is in any way related to climate change. He also says that insurers have been withdrawing from high-risk areas around wildfire and flood, but again does not say that these risks are increasing due to climate change.
Professor Judith Curry starts her testimony at 1:08:40. She says that the latest IPCC reassessments of likely warming have "rendered obsolete much of the climate impacts literature and assessments of the past decade."
There have been other claims I've seen that wildfires, floods, and storms are increasing due to climate change, but I've seen no data to support those claims. There are also claims that seem well substantiated that property losses are increasing, but this is at least partly explained by putting more property, and more valuable property, in risky areas (near dry forests, on flood plains, on beaches, etc).
> The Columbia article offers no evidence to support the claims that severe heat waves, drought, extreme rainfall, and more powerful storms are increasing. They do cite increases in the numbers of natural disasters causing $1B or more damage. They go on to note the increased values of property in vulnerable areas is causing more insurance "losses". (By "losses", I mean damage covered by insurance, not financial losses of insurance companies.) They highlight other problems for insurance companies, such as California's forbidding insurers from leaving the state for a few years.
They also note the increased reliance of homeowners on state government FAIR insurance plans. This seems to be driven by unavailability of commercial insurance, and this unavailability may be driven by insurers unwilling to insure because of climate change, but it could also be driven by excessive litigation risk in Florida and unlimited liability for insurers in California if California's underfunded FAIR program should need more money. Nancy Watkins talks about this issue at 1:22:05 in the Senate hearing above.
> The KPMG paper lists issues previously identified by the Bank of England. These are:
1. Increased losses due to more bad weather, but it doesn't claim there has been more bad weather. The latest IPCC reports don't predict much in the way of worse weather.
2. Risk of financial losses if physical assets lose value, for instance if coal plants are forced out of use due to government policy changes.
3. Liability risks if companies are sued for alleged climate-related damages.
These may be important considerations for insurers to plan for, but they don't show that climate change is causing more damage, and they don't say that insurers are changing the way they do business due to climate change.
I read claims like these with a skeptical eye, not because I'm a "denier", but because I'm used to people of various persuasions making unsupported assertions, and drawing unwarranted conclusions from genuine data. 28 years ago, the "consensus" in IPCC reports seemed to be pretty close to imminent disaster - at least that's the way it was presented in the popular press. Recent IPCC reports are much more modest, but the popular press still seems stuck on the "imminent disaster" narrative. It might be worth your time to go to more of the sources for the material you're reading, just to see if they support the conclusions.
Judith Curry and a handful of retired climate scientists including Richard Lindzen plus a handful of other scientists who have no demonstrated expertise in the field ... VERSUS about 150,000 scientists publishing in the field and every scientific society and institution on the planet.
Don't know about you but I know where I'd put my money - and my life - and it wouldn't be a ditherer or has-been.
I suggest you forget atomising the evidence and look at television - what climate disasters are doing to people. Do you see a pattern? Or don't you trust your own eyes?
I am still equally bewildered by people telling me Covid-19 is only a bit of flu - when I saw the army in Italy carrying away corpses early when hospitals were overwhelmed.
Perhaps some people are living on the same planet - just in a different universe :)
But what, exactly, are those "150,000 scientists" (are there really that many?) saying? Can you point me to the scientific papers you're referring to? I've read significant parts of the most recent IPCC assessment reports (not the Summaries for Policymakers), and I don't find anything that amounts to either current or forecast catastrophes.
If you refer to television, I'll remind you that television news is a business, that requires viewers for its business model. I've read (long ago - I can't find a reference handy) that the New York World and the Journal American, back in the 1890s, essentially created a "crime wave" in New York City by reporting in depth, and repeatedly, on every reported crime and arrest - leading citizens to believe that they really were in a crisis of criminality.
Certainly, we have had a trend over the last 50 years of increasing Atlantic hurricanes. But I've seen no scientific claims that this was caused by warming. There are plenty of unfounded speculative claims, but no reputable scientific claims I've seen. And before 1970, we had a 30 year trend of decreasing Atlantic hurricanes. And before that, an increasing trend. Hurricanes are certainly important, especially to the people caught in their paths. But that doesn't mean we can prevent them by anything we can do.
The main reason deaths are way down is because of better warnings. This is especially so for cyclones in the Indian Ocean where thousands lost their lives in the past, but warning systems trigger major evacuations and these have been implemented better in India and Bangldesh than in Texas and Florada and have reduced deaths to a handful. This applies more generally, with all warning now giving more notice.
Bangladesh is a good example of the argument that the first climate change priority for very poor countries should be improved resilience to weather events. In 1970 the Great Bhola Cyclone of Bangladesh killed between 300K and 500K people. The floods in 2020 caused about 300 deaths. This is due to improved forecasting and early warning, cyclone shelters, and improved coastal protection.
But that improved resilience correlates tightly with improved standard of living, which, like everywhere, corresponds tightly with energy use. In 1970 Bangladesh consumed 10 KWh electricity per capita. In 2014 they consumed 320 KWh per capita. In 1970 Bangladesh consumed almost no coal. They currently consume over 2 million short tons per year.
Can we tell poor countries to stop using fossil fuels to mitigate CO2 hazard risk, when they need to use them to increase resilience?
There is a mixture of truth and misinterpretation here. Carbon dioxide can help growth of some vegetation: almost 25% of emissions of CO2 goes into the "land surface". But plant location and existence depends entirely on adequate water. Deserts may bloom after a wet spell, for instance in SW USA after Hilary, or in Australia after La Nina rains that reincarnate Lake Eyre. In general there is more rain on land during La Nina, as has been the case the past 3 years up until end of March. As we go into El Nino, more rain occurs over tropical Pacific and droughts become more widespread. Droughts are intensified and set in quicker with extra heating from climate change. But where plants are already growing, they may grow faster from carbon dioxide fertilization. Weeds certainly do!
Turnout, turnout, turnout is the only way to defeat Ramaswamy and other politicians’ distortions of free speech.
Defeat Ramaswamy and others at the Ballot Box.
Four grassroots I know of, perhaps more, are reaching out to younger Voters -- and voters of additional communities -- with letters, postcards, phone calls, door to door canvassing, donations re: climate change for 2023-2024.
I would encourage anyone who can, to join a grassroots to take action for GOTV on Climate Change.
To say that the guy has been a huge disappointment for me personally would be an understatement. An immigrant, and 38 years old, one would think this is ONE issue where he would be far more to the "left" of his party and demonstrate a next-generation style of young Republican leadership. Instead, he is selling the same old crap in shiny new BS.
And yes, as an immigrant from Indian origin myself, it is extremely disappointing to put it mildly if not disgusting if I throw caution to the wind and actually speak my mind.
The Wall St. Journal has talked about the declining insurance market and the increased rates charged by reinsurers - but it is a paywall site, so unless you are wlling to sign up it is hard to get access.
"Ask someone in Florida who’s trying to home owners insurance."
This claim borders on dishonesty. The column linked identifies increased litigation costs and fraudulent roof damage claims, not climate risk, as the cause for increasing premiums and insurers leaving the state. Perhaps the writer didn't read the link he used.
"The alternative is climate-safe, renewable energy, which is now as cheap as fossil fuels"
This is flat-out dishonest. To quote from Page 6 of the Lazard study linked (numbered as Page 3): "The Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”), Production Tax Credit (“PTC”) and domestic content adder, among other provisions in the IRA, are important components of the levelized cost of renewable energy generation technologies" Like all studies purporting to show that renewable energy is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, this study assumes current subsidies continue indefinitely. If you want to argue that the costs of subsidies are worthwhile, then make that case. But, don't pretend that they aren't needed to make a "competitive" cost.
I beg to differ with your statement and conclusion about energy costs.
On the preceding page, Page 2, the Lazard report gives unsubsidized costs and shows that the range for Utility Scale PV and Onshore Wind are cheaper than Gas Combined Cycle, RE:
"An increase in storm hazards played another important role. United Property and Casualty, a Florida insurance company that is in liquidation, wrote that between 1851 and 2018, 41% of the 292 hurricanes that hit the U.S. in that time frame also hit Florida — 37 of those 120 hurricanes were rated a Category 3 or higher.
A recently published study led by researchers from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances looked at how climate change was strengthening hurricanes along the East and Gulf Coast.
Their takeaway? Hurricanes impacting the U.S. could rise by one-third compared to what we’re seeing now if things don’t change."
Thanks. It seems to me there are two separate claims here:
1. There has been an increase in storm hazards. This isn't stated explicitly, but it would make sense as a cause for insurance company liquidations. It doesn't specify a timeframe, and it doesn't say how much storm hazards have increased. I expect that storm damage, and related insurance losses, have increased over the past 50 years, because the number of hurricanes has increased over the past 50 years, and there's a lot more valuable real estate in coastal areas that are vulnerable to hurricanes. It may be that insurance companies' models to price risks were invalid, based on many years' experience of relatively low activity. However, the number of hurricanes, and their strength, has had no discernable trend over the past 150 years or so - the increase since 1970 is a reversion to the mean after the time of lowest hurricane activity recorded.
2. There may be an increase in storm hazards, according to a recent paper. Reading the paper's abstract, this conclusion is based on a new model that uses climate models as an input. It claims to be the first to propose a physical mechanism (or maybe not the first, I can't tell) to describe how hurricanes might increase. I'm certainly not qualified to judge the scientific basis for the paper, or the validity of its conclusions, but the normal caveat seems appropriate - this is one study, and deserves attention, but it would be good to see some confirmation before giving it too much credence. In any event, I doubt that a paper published in April 2023 has yet been a significant factor in insurance companies' decisions.
There is a mixture of truth and misinterpretation here. Carbon dioxide can help growth of some vegetation: almost 25% of emissions of CO2 goes into the "land surface". But plant location and existence depends entirely on adequate water. Deserts may bloom after a wet spell, for instance in SW USA after Hilary, or in Australia after La Nina rains that reincarnate Lake Eyre. In general there is more rain on land during La Nina, as has been the case the past 3 years up until end of March. As we go into El Nino, more rain occurs over tropical Pacific and droughts become more widespread. Droughts are intensified and set in quicker with extra heating from climate change. But where plants are already growing, they may grow faster from carbon dioxide fertilization. Weeds certainly do!
No thanks. Even if I were a professor of physics at Oxford and a Nobel laureate I would still accept the consensus as summarised by the IPCC.
Because I couldn't refute the science. Or at least no one in such a position has so far or is likely to, although one emeritus professor at Cambridge and FRS is associated with the GWPF. He talks utter tripe.
I don’t think the evidence you have pointed out is clear enough for us to radically change the course of human progress that has helped so many people. If renewable energy is the better alternative step into the capitalist arena and sell it. No republican has a love for fossil fuels, but don’t ban the opposition let us drill frack and produce coal. You can sell solar energy and wind energy, this is the land of the free and we can produce coal. Also the air pollution death rate is just misinformation, we need to look at life expectancy as a better metric and life expectancy has gone up.
I’m enjoying this blog. Recently the NYTimes discussed the relationship between El Niño and warm water temperatures, indicating that when warmer waters exist the positive storm destroying benefits of El Niño are reduced. I wonder if your group is studying this phenomenon. In either case, can you please comment on this theory?
"If you do want to focus on deaths from fossil fuels, air pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels has been estimated to be responsible for one in five deaths worldwide." My understanding is that most deaths from air pollution come from the burning of wood and animal manures in the homes of people in developing countries. If these people were supplied with cleaner affordable energy such as fossil fuels, millions of lives would be saved every year.
All hell has broken loose in London because the mayor is charging polluting vehicles a fair whack to enter the greater London area. Our son will have to pay to drop us off at Heathrow when we return home to Auckland.
All new taxis in London must be emission free.; electric.
If humans were not wasting money either fighting wars or getting ready to fight them we could gift renewable energy to the poor people you are so worried about.
As to the claim that greening of the Earth is due to increased levels of CO2 and therefore beneficial, I have not seen any analysis that considers how much of this greening is being caused by an increased use of synthetic fertilizers as opposed to being caused by more CO2. I say this because the papers that I have read that discuss this greening, show mapping of the greened areas that appear to overlap areas with intensive agriculture. Any thoughts on this?
Unfortunately, all of what you have written is true, but requires some thinking. Politicians specialize in one liners and slogans that appeal to their base voters. I dbobt that many MAGA voters will take the time or spend the mental energery to read your post. Perhaps it will persaude some who are undecided and I hope so.
I asked one of my past associates to look at what I call "Big Money" and watch what they are doing. Insurance companies are raising rates due to losses and now refusing write or renew coverages in some areas, long term tanker owners building double hulled tankers to sail across the top of the world because melting sea ice is opening new shipping lanes, and reinsurance rates going up around the world due to huges losses from climate change.
Liberals have been accused of being enemies of free speach, but are lies and distortions true examples of free speach? I realize that to some, things like "vaccines kill people" is free speach, but in reality it is the lack of vaccines that kill people and endanger others. The exaamples you have debunked are perfect examples of free speach being used to sell lies.
Vivek is a perfect example of an intellegent, well educated person who is selling lies to benefit his political position. There is no thought given to the harm the being done by these lies. The only thought is will it help my political standing. The worst part, he is not the only politician to follow this path.
My only hope is the younger generation that is seeing their future world being destroyed and that they will act accordingly. Do not vote for politicans that promote lies.
"Insurance companies are raising rates due to losses and now refusing write or renew coverages in some areas, long term tanker owners building double hulled tankers to sail across the top of the world because melting sea ice is opening new shipping lanes, and reinsurance rates going up around the world due to huges losses from climate change."
I haven't seen credible sources for these claims. Can you point me to some?
I know you're only teasing but start here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/
"CLIMATEWIRE | The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets.
"Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.”
"Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee." [continues]
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/11/03/with-climate-impacts-growing-insurance-companies-face-big-challenges/
"The impacts of climate change are all around us: sea level rise, severe heat waves, drought, extreme rainfall, more powerful storms. These impacts are making natural disasters more intense and more frequent. Between 1980 and 2021, the U.S. suffered 7 or 8 natural disasters per year, on average, but so far in 2022 there have already been 15. Losses from each disaster—drought and wildfires in the southwest, severe storms in the Midwest, flooding in Kentucky and Missouri, and hurricanes in the southeast—have exceeded $1 billion, with the cumulative cost of disasters over the last five years reaching $788.4 billion." [continues]
https://kpmg.com/mt/en/home/insights/2022/06/two-degrees-off-the-implications-of-climate-change-for-insurers.html
Thanks for the reply. I'm not teasing, just trying to find the best, most supported arguments, in order to figure out what to believe. I do appreciate your providing those links. Herewith my responses:
> On the Climatewire story, I checked Mr. Andersen's testimony, as presented on the Senate Budget Committee's website. Here's the prepared testimony: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Mr.%20Eric%20Andersen%20-%20Testimony%20-%20Senate%20Budget%20Committee.pdf
The prepared testimony doesn't say the things quoted by Climatewire. That's not too surprising - witnesses at committee hearings often prepare testimony which is "read into" the record, and mostly answer questions. I will note that the prepared testimony talks about things the insurance industry can do to manage risks. I didn't read the whole 124 pages, but I didn't find any reference to climate change causing more losses, or causing companies to withdraw from markets.
There is a video of his testimony (https://www.budget.senate.gov/hearings/risky-business-how-climate-change-is-changing-insurance-markets).
Mr. Andersen's testimony starts at 48:01. He mostly talks about insurance products that can help recovery from disasters, and others that can help finance green energy startups. At 1:32:02, he does say that there is "a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss." He does not say that this is in any way related to climate change. He also says that insurers have been withdrawing from high-risk areas around wildfire and flood, but again does not say that these risks are increasing due to climate change.
Professor Judith Curry starts her testimony at 1:08:40. She says that the latest IPCC reassessments of likely warming have "rendered obsolete much of the climate impacts literature and assessments of the past decade."
There have been other claims I've seen that wildfires, floods, and storms are increasing due to climate change, but I've seen no data to support those claims. There are also claims that seem well substantiated that property losses are increasing, but this is at least partly explained by putting more property, and more valuable property, in risky areas (near dry forests, on flood plains, on beaches, etc).
> The Columbia article offers no evidence to support the claims that severe heat waves, drought, extreme rainfall, and more powerful storms are increasing. They do cite increases in the numbers of natural disasters causing $1B or more damage. They go on to note the increased values of property in vulnerable areas is causing more insurance "losses". (By "losses", I mean damage covered by insurance, not financial losses of insurance companies.) They highlight other problems for insurance companies, such as California's forbidding insurers from leaving the state for a few years.
They also note the increased reliance of homeowners on state government FAIR insurance plans. This seems to be driven by unavailability of commercial insurance, and this unavailability may be driven by insurers unwilling to insure because of climate change, but it could also be driven by excessive litigation risk in Florida and unlimited liability for insurers in California if California's underfunded FAIR program should need more money. Nancy Watkins talks about this issue at 1:22:05 in the Senate hearing above.
> The KPMG paper lists issues previously identified by the Bank of England. These are:
1. Increased losses due to more bad weather, but it doesn't claim there has been more bad weather. The latest IPCC reports don't predict much in the way of worse weather.
2. Risk of financial losses if physical assets lose value, for instance if coal plants are forced out of use due to government policy changes.
3. Liability risks if companies are sued for alleged climate-related damages.
These may be important considerations for insurers to plan for, but they don't show that climate change is causing more damage, and they don't say that insurers are changing the way they do business due to climate change.
I read claims like these with a skeptical eye, not because I'm a "denier", but because I'm used to people of various persuasions making unsupported assertions, and drawing unwarranted conclusions from genuine data. 28 years ago, the "consensus" in IPCC reports seemed to be pretty close to imminent disaster - at least that's the way it was presented in the popular press. Recent IPCC reports are much more modest, but the popular press still seems stuck on the "imminent disaster" narrative. It might be worth your time to go to more of the sources for the material you're reading, just to see if they support the conclusions.
Judith Curry and a handful of retired climate scientists including Richard Lindzen plus a handful of other scientists who have no demonstrated expertise in the field ... VERSUS about 150,000 scientists publishing in the field and every scientific society and institution on the planet.
Don't know about you but I know where I'd put my money - and my life - and it wouldn't be a ditherer or has-been.
I suggest you forget atomising the evidence and look at television - what climate disasters are doing to people. Do you see a pattern? Or don't you trust your own eyes?
I am still equally bewildered by people telling me Covid-19 is only a bit of flu - when I saw the army in Italy carrying away corpses early when hospitals were overwhelmed.
Perhaps some people are living on the same planet - just in a different universe :)
But what, exactly, are those "150,000 scientists" (are there really that many?) saying? Can you point me to the scientific papers you're referring to? I've read significant parts of the most recent IPCC assessment reports (not the Summaries for Policymakers), and I don't find anything that amounts to either current or forecast catastrophes.
If you refer to television, I'll remind you that television news is a business, that requires viewers for its business model. I've read (long ago - I can't find a reference handy) that the New York World and the Journal American, back in the 1890s, essentially created a "crime wave" in New York City by reporting in depth, and repeatedly, on every reported crime and arrest - leading citizens to believe that they really were in a crisis of criminality.
Certainly, we have had a trend over the last 50 years of increasing Atlantic hurricanes. But I've seen no scientific claims that this was caused by warming. There are plenty of unfounded speculative claims, but no reputable scientific claims I've seen. And before 1970, we had a 30 year trend of decreasing Atlantic hurricanes. And before that, an increasing trend. Hurricanes are certainly important, especially to the people caught in their paths. But that doesn't mean we can prevent them by anything we can do.
Well the climate scientists I know are saying we're up shit creek without a paddle. If that's too technical I can paraphrase it.
The main reason deaths are way down is because of better warnings. This is especially so for cyclones in the Indian Ocean where thousands lost their lives in the past, but warning systems trigger major evacuations and these have been implemented better in India and Bangldesh than in Texas and Florada and have reduced deaths to a handful. This applies more generally, with all warning now giving more notice.
Bangladesh is a good example of the argument that the first climate change priority for very poor countries should be improved resilience to weather events. In 1970 the Great Bhola Cyclone of Bangladesh killed between 300K and 500K people. The floods in 2020 caused about 300 deaths. This is due to improved forecasting and early warning, cyclone shelters, and improved coastal protection.
But that improved resilience correlates tightly with improved standard of living, which, like everywhere, corresponds tightly with energy use. In 1970 Bangladesh consumed 10 KWh electricity per capita. In 2014 they consumed 320 KWh per capita. In 1970 Bangladesh consumed almost no coal. They currently consume over 2 million short tons per year.
Can we tell poor countries to stop using fossil fuels to mitigate CO2 hazard risk, when they need to use them to increase resilience?
We can ask them to stop burning coal if we offer to install wind/solar but rich men would rather parade a codpiece/very large yacht.
Kevin, could you comment on this comment please:
Rita de Heer, 10 hrs ago
The world's deserts are greener than they were due to increased CO2: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2013/July/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
My understanding is the deserts are spreading and soil desiccation is a terrible consequence of global warming.
There is a mixture of truth and misinterpretation here. Carbon dioxide can help growth of some vegetation: almost 25% of emissions of CO2 goes into the "land surface". But plant location and existence depends entirely on adequate water. Deserts may bloom after a wet spell, for instance in SW USA after Hilary, or in Australia after La Nina rains that reincarnate Lake Eyre. In general there is more rain on land during La Nina, as has been the case the past 3 years up until end of March. As we go into El Nino, more rain occurs over tropical Pacific and droughts become more widespread. Droughts are intensified and set in quicker with extra heating from climate change. But where plants are already growing, they may grow faster from carbon dioxide fertilization. Weeds certainly do!
Thank you for this important truth!
Turnout, turnout, turnout is the only way to defeat Ramaswamy and other politicians’ distortions of free speech.
Defeat Ramaswamy and others at the Ballot Box.
Four grassroots I know of, perhaps more, are reaching out to younger Voters -- and voters of additional communities -- with letters, postcards, phone calls, door to door canvassing, donations re: climate change for 2023-2024.
I would encourage anyone who can, to join a grassroots to take action for GOTV on Climate Change.
Or to donate.
To say that the guy has been a huge disappointment for me personally would be an understatement. An immigrant, and 38 years old, one would think this is ONE issue where he would be far more to the "left" of his party and demonstrate a next-generation style of young Republican leadership. Instead, he is selling the same old crap in shiny new BS.
And yes, as an immigrant from Indian origin myself, it is extremely disappointing to put it mildly if not disgusting if I throw caution to the wind and actually speak my mind.
Born Cincinnati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Ramaswamy>
So a genuine American rrrs hole but I understand your feelings.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/transportation-research-part-a-policy-and-practice northern sea route
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrNPrjEJvZkolMeckEPxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1693882181/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fabc13.com%2ffarmers-insurance-companies-leaving-states-aaa-what-are-high-climate-risk%2f13518796%2f/RK=2/RS=mofrPZconp0_.1wX1fLmK7YxJ0s- article describing insurances companies withdrawing from several states
The Wall St. Journal has talked about the declining insurance market and the increased rates charged by reinsurers - but it is a paywall site, so unless you are wlling to sign up it is hard to get access.
"Ask someone in Florida who’s trying to home owners insurance."
This claim borders on dishonesty. The column linked identifies increased litigation costs and fraudulent roof damage claims, not climate risk, as the cause for increasing premiums and insurers leaving the state. Perhaps the writer didn't read the link he used.
"The alternative is climate-safe, renewable energy, which is now as cheap as fossil fuels"
This is flat-out dishonest. To quote from Page 6 of the Lazard study linked (numbered as Page 3): "The Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”), Production Tax Credit (“PTC”) and domestic content adder, among other provisions in the IRA, are important components of the levelized cost of renewable energy generation technologies" Like all studies purporting to show that renewable energy is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, this study assumes current subsidies continue indefinitely. If you want to argue that the costs of subsidies are worthwhile, then make that case. But, don't pretend that they aren't needed to make a "competitive" cost.
I beg to differ with your statement and conclusion about energy costs.
On the preceding page, Page 2, the Lazard report gives unsubsidized costs and shows that the range for Utility Scale PV and Onshore Wind are cheaper than Gas Combined Cycle, RE:
Utility Scale Solar PV range is $24 - $96 / MWh
Onshore Wind range is $24 - $75 / MWh
Gas Combined Cycle is $39 - $101 / MWh.
The Florida link also says
"An increase in storm hazards played another important role. United Property and Casualty, a Florida insurance company that is in liquidation, wrote that between 1851 and 2018, 41% of the 292 hurricanes that hit the U.S. in that time frame also hit Florida — 37 of those 120 hurricanes were rated a Category 3 or higher.
A recently published study led by researchers from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances looked at how climate change was strengthening hurricanes along the East and Gulf Coast.
Their takeaway? Hurricanes impacting the U.S. could rise by one-third compared to what we’re seeing now if things don’t change."
Thanks. It seems to me there are two separate claims here:
1. There has been an increase in storm hazards. This isn't stated explicitly, but it would make sense as a cause for insurance company liquidations. It doesn't specify a timeframe, and it doesn't say how much storm hazards have increased. I expect that storm damage, and related insurance losses, have increased over the past 50 years, because the number of hurricanes has increased over the past 50 years, and there's a lot more valuable real estate in coastal areas that are vulnerable to hurricanes. It may be that insurance companies' models to price risks were invalid, based on many years' experience of relatively low activity. However, the number of hurricanes, and their strength, has had no discernable trend over the past 150 years or so - the increase since 1970 is a reversion to the mean after the time of lowest hurricane activity recorded.
2. There may be an increase in storm hazards, according to a recent paper. Reading the paper's abstract, this conclusion is based on a new model that uses climate models as an input. It claims to be the first to propose a physical mechanism (or maybe not the first, I can't tell) to describe how hurricanes might increase. I'm certainly not qualified to judge the scientific basis for the paper, or the validity of its conclusions, but the normal caveat seems appropriate - this is one study, and deserves attention, but it would be good to see some confirmation before giving it too much credence. In any event, I doubt that a paper published in April 2023 has yet been a significant factor in insurance companies' decisions.
Yes dear.
There is a mixture of truth and misinterpretation here. Carbon dioxide can help growth of some vegetation: almost 25% of emissions of CO2 goes into the "land surface". But plant location and existence depends entirely on adequate water. Deserts may bloom after a wet spell, for instance in SW USA after Hilary, or in Australia after La Nina rains that reincarnate Lake Eyre. In general there is more rain on land during La Nina, as has been the case the past 3 years up until end of March. As we go into El Nino, more rain occurs over tropical Pacific and droughts become more widespread. Droughts are intensified and set in quicker with extra heating from climate change. But where plants are already growing, they may grow faster from carbon dioxide fertilization. Weeds certainly do!
Ha ha ha. "Do your own research".
No thanks. Even if I were a professor of physics at Oxford and a Nobel laureate I would still accept the consensus as summarised by the IPCC.
Because I couldn't refute the science. Or at least no one in such a position has so far or is likely to, although one emeritus professor at Cambridge and FRS is associated with the GWPF. He talks utter tripe.
" I do doubt that there's any reason for panic or despair"
So what increase in global mean surface temperature and heat added to the ocean would you perhaps start to think was maybe a problem?
I don’t think the evidence you have pointed out is clear enough for us to radically change the course of human progress that has helped so many people. If renewable energy is the better alternative step into the capitalist arena and sell it. No republican has a love for fossil fuels, but don’t ban the opposition let us drill frack and produce coal. You can sell solar energy and wind energy, this is the land of the free and we can produce coal. Also the air pollution death rate is just misinformation, we need to look at life expectancy as a better metric and life expectancy has gone up.
An additional comment re: insurance: 2023 costs in Florida https://www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/florida-best-homeowners-insurance/
Thank you Dr. Dressler. I've seen a few comments re insurance. Where live we hope to be able to buy earthquake insurance. That will change when we have a significant "bump".... insurance companies enjoy making money but abhor pay it out. I'm guessing premiums are very high or unavailable in several areas of FL and around the Gulf Basin. This link is from Canada but I suggest that the philosophy might be more general: https://www.insuranceinstitute.ca/en/resources/insights-research/Climate-risks-report#:~:text=In%20the%201980s%2C%20the%20industry,just%20four%20to%20five%20weeks.
I’m enjoying this blog. Recently the NYTimes discussed the relationship between El Niño and warm water temperatures, indicating that when warmer waters exist the positive storm destroying benefits of El Niño are reduced. I wonder if your group is studying this phenomenon. In either case, can you please comment on this theory?
"If you do want to focus on deaths from fossil fuels, air pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels has been estimated to be responsible for one in five deaths worldwide." My understanding is that most deaths from air pollution come from the burning of wood and animal manures in the homes of people in developing countries. If these people were supplied with cleaner affordable energy such as fossil fuels, millions of lives would be saved every year.
Haven't heard from you in a long time, Bernie.
All hell has broken loose in London because the mayor is charging polluting vehicles a fair whack to enter the greater London area. Our son will have to pay to drop us off at Heathrow when we return home to Auckland.
All new taxis in London must be emission free.; electric.
If humans were not wasting money either fighting wars or getting ready to fight them we could gift renewable energy to the poor people you are so worried about.
As to the claim that greening of the Earth is due to increased levels of CO2 and therefore beneficial, I have not seen any analysis that considers how much of this greening is being caused by an increased use of synthetic fertilizers as opposed to being caused by more CO2. I say this because the papers that I have read that discuss this greening, show mapping of the greened areas that appear to overlap areas with intensive agriculture. Any thoughts on this?
The world's deserts are greener than they were due to increased CO2: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2013/July/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
Thank you Rita. Interesting that the mapping shows yellow to red, indicating a negative effect.