What an amazing amount of self agrandizement. These guys spend their whole life acquiring money to fund their \”research\” into global warming. Then when a category 3 storm breaks a levy that was everyone knew was going to break, this guy basically tries to take credit for it! The breaking of the levy caused the problem, not global warming. Authors like this are not worthy of being published in a national journal such as the insurance journal.
Ask yourself: 1) What is this guy\’s motivation? 2) How objective is he?
1) His motivation is more funding.
2) He\’s not very objective. A category 3 storm would be expected to hit New Orleans from time to time, even without global warming!
What a joke.
I\’m embarrased that the insurance journal published.
Its just one study. And just b/c you disagree with global warming does not mean the study is \”self-aggrandizing\”. It shares its findings: many people are not returning to the coastal areas–more than we thought. Then it shares possibilities the future may hold.
It is completely moronic to ignore possibilities of future risk. As an insurance professional it is absolutely imperative to understand that. If you\’re not, good luck finding another career.
Indeed, we must consider all possible risks. But we must also consider the source of the purported risk before we go overreacting. Ben has an excellent point about the motivations of this study. If there\’s not a big enough problem, research funding gets cut.
On divisive and complex topics such as global warming I tend to follow a certain strategy when deciding what I believe and what sources to trust. That strategy is to research one particular facet of an issue in detail so that I know logically and factually what is correct for at least a small portion of an issue. Then when I read articles on the complex topic I look for references to this facet and if the issue is not represented fairly I will be much more skeptical of the article and its source.
That is what happened with this article when it mentioned the polar ice caps melting would cause the seal level to rise and displace coastal residents worldwide. This simply isn\’t true and if anyone tells you this then they don\’t know what they\’re talking about. No person who is knowledgeable about climate change and global warming will tell you that there is any serious threat of the polar ice caps melting nor that rising sea levels have anything to do with displacing people.
First ice takes up more volume than water so icebergs melting have no effect on ocean level. Second for all the frozen ice on the continent of Antarctica (ie not floating in the water) to melt the temperature would have to change by such a dramatic amount that considering it would be like speculating that the sun explodes or a meteorite kills us all. Yes the ocean level may rise a little with global warming but it is mainly because water takes up slightly more volume when it gets warmer, this difference is measured in inches over 100 years though, not something that would displace millions worldwide.
So is it reasonable to expect warmer ocean water to increase the intensity of hurricanes? Yes.
Waterworld? No.
The Netherlands are like a giant New Orleans. There many locales around the globe where people live in low lying coastal regions. The possibility of millions being displaced is not that far fetched. Such a displacement need not be as a result of a catastropic event either. A few inches a year can have a great impact over time and coastal dwellers eventually would have to move further inland–in effect displaced by rising water. Rising water that would be an effect of a warmer planet.
I must not have been very clear. The ocean level would change a few inches over 100 years, not per year. So in the Netherlands they may have to make their wall say 2-6 inches higher in the next 100 years assuming this warming trend continues for 100 years. At any rate I think the more powerful hurricanes would be a much more significant factor to consider.
It is very simple. The world needs to reduce carbon emmissions. We must find alternative energy sources. China and India are developing rapidly and the pollution is increasing dramatically. Only oil companies deny it and will continue to deny it much like tobacco companies deny harmful affects to smokers. They are much more concerned with harmful affects to their bottom line.
It is simple but yours is not the answer. The number 1 greenhouse gas is water vapor. All of human activity, including the development of India and China, has less impact than a single volcanic eruption. Our planet has climate cycles and we\’re currently in an upswing.
Anyone remember 30 years ago when the same people said we were heading into an ice age?
Remember 1000 years ago when people thought the world was flat? Science has advanced. Is there a credible scientist who does not work for an oil comnpany that believes man is not contributing to global warming? It is an outrage that the right wing of our government is denying this because of pressure from big oil. It is time to sell your Hummer. It never made you look tough, just wasteful.
There are just as many independent scientists that don’t buy into the human contribution to global warming as there are scientists without some agenda that do.
So get yourself a Prius and I’ll keep my Hummer and if I run over you in traffic, it’s not because I think I’m tough it’s just because I didn’t see you.
What an amazing amount of self agrandizement. These guys spend their whole life acquiring money to fund their \”research\” into global warming. Then when a category 3 storm breaks a levy that was everyone knew was going to break, this guy basically tries to take credit for it! The breaking of the levy caused the problem, not global warming. Authors like this are not worthy of being published in a national journal such as the insurance journal.
Ask yourself: 1) What is this guy\’s motivation? 2) How objective is he?
1) His motivation is more funding.
2) He\’s not very objective. A category 3 storm would be expected to hit New Orleans from time to time, even without global warming!
What a joke.
I\’m embarrased that the insurance journal published.
Its just one study. And just b/c you disagree with global warming does not mean the study is \”self-aggrandizing\”. It shares its findings: many people are not returning to the coastal areas–more than we thought. Then it shares possibilities the future may hold.
It is completely moronic to ignore possibilities of future risk. As an insurance professional it is absolutely imperative to understand that. If you\’re not, good luck finding another career.
Indeed, we must consider all possible risks. But we must also consider the source of the purported risk before we go overreacting. Ben has an excellent point about the motivations of this study. If there\’s not a big enough problem, research funding gets cut.
On divisive and complex topics such as global warming I tend to follow a certain strategy when deciding what I believe and what sources to trust. That strategy is to research one particular facet of an issue in detail so that I know logically and factually what is correct for at least a small portion of an issue. Then when I read articles on the complex topic I look for references to this facet and if the issue is not represented fairly I will be much more skeptical of the article and its source.
That is what happened with this article when it mentioned the polar ice caps melting would cause the seal level to rise and displace coastal residents worldwide. This simply isn\’t true and if anyone tells you this then they don\’t know what they\’re talking about. No person who is knowledgeable about climate change and global warming will tell you that there is any serious threat of the polar ice caps melting nor that rising sea levels have anything to do with displacing people.
First ice takes up more volume than water so icebergs melting have no effect on ocean level. Second for all the frozen ice on the continent of Antarctica (ie not floating in the water) to melt the temperature would have to change by such a dramatic amount that considering it would be like speculating that the sun explodes or a meteorite kills us all. Yes the ocean level may rise a little with global warming but it is mainly because water takes up slightly more volume when it gets warmer, this difference is measured in inches over 100 years though, not something that would displace millions worldwide.
So is it reasonable to expect warmer ocean water to increase the intensity of hurricanes? Yes.
Waterworld? No.
The Netherlands are like a giant New Orleans. There many locales around the globe where people live in low lying coastal regions. The possibility of millions being displaced is not that far fetched. Such a displacement need not be as a result of a catastropic event either. A few inches a year can have a great impact over time and coastal dwellers eventually would have to move further inland–in effect displaced by rising water. Rising water that would be an effect of a warmer planet.
I must not have been very clear. The ocean level would change a few inches over 100 years, not per year. So in the Netherlands they may have to make their wall say 2-6 inches higher in the next 100 years assuming this warming trend continues for 100 years. At any rate I think the more powerful hurricanes would be a much more significant factor to consider.
It is very simple. The world needs to reduce carbon emmissions. We must find alternative energy sources. China and India are developing rapidly and the pollution is increasing dramatically. Only oil companies deny it and will continue to deny it much like tobacco companies deny harmful affects to smokers. They are much more concerned with harmful affects to their bottom line.
It is simple but yours is not the answer. The number 1 greenhouse gas is water vapor. All of human activity, including the development of India and China, has less impact than a single volcanic eruption. Our planet has climate cycles and we\’re currently in an upswing.
Anyone remember 30 years ago when the same people said we were heading into an ice age?
Volcanic Eruptions don\’t contribute to global warming. The net effect of a volcanic eruption is a global COOLING. Just FYI.
If there is global warming it is DESPITE the net cooling effects of a volcanic eruption.
Remember 1000 years ago when people thought the world was flat? Science has advanced. Is there a credible scientist who does not work for an oil comnpany that believes man is not contributing to global warming? It is an outrage that the right wing of our government is denying this because of pressure from big oil. It is time to sell your Hummer. It never made you look tough, just wasteful.
There are just as many independent scientists that don’t buy into the human contribution to global warming as there are scientists without some agenda that do.
So get yourself a Prius and I’ll keep my Hummer and if I run over you in traffic, it’s not because I think I’m tough it’s just because I didn’t see you.