Slashdot Mirror

I think I trust this more than your crazy conspiracy site. Hey, but don't let facts change your mind.

Here's a paper showing global ACE: https://www.casact.org/pubs/fo...

Figure 2 gives running means. The long term trend is up, but the paper suggests that only data after 1985 is robust. The trend since 1985 has been "flat to downward, but this time period is not sufficiently long for a credible conclusion."

Additionally, this is all consistent with the subject paper which found higher precipitation, but not higher wind speed (ACE measures the second only): "We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity."

It's worth noting that the same method suggests that "future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally).

I think I trust this more than your crazy conspiracy site. Hey, but don't let facts change your mind.

Here's a paper showing global ACE: https://www.casact.org/pubs/fo...

Figure 2 gives running means. The long term trend is up, but the paper suggests that only data after 1985 is robust. The trend since 1985 has been "flat to downward, but this time period is not sufficiently long for a credible conclusion."

Additionally, this is all consistent with the subject paper which found higher precipitation, but not higher wind speed (ACE measures the second only): "We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity."

It's worth noting that the same method suggests that "future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally).

Accumulated Cyclone Energy is statistically flat, and potentially falling.

The government is always self-insured. I believe that the private launch companies have to have some basic insurance to get a launch license. Commercial satellites are routinely insured, but that is a business move, not a requirement.

According to the sample syllabi at http://www.casact.org/admissions/syllabus/2006/ind ex.cfm?fa=summary the mathematics involved are of the sort that a good high school student will pick up if he/she takes the AP Calculus and Statistics courses. Failing that, the math would surely be easily within reach of a mathematics major at a university. Of course, only the first 3 out of 7 tests deal with pure mathematics, so I can't say much about the others, but it doesn't look like these tests really require any mathematical fireworks.

But I digress....

As part of the test, Progressive also patented the algorithms to turn such black box data into insurance rates. Prog isn't the type of company that would license that tech (I am a pricing actuary at a competitor.

A little gossip from some folks I talked to a Progressive, BTW: Although the GPS data was predictive enough to let them consider doing away with other seemingly intrusive underwriting analysis, the thing that was really predictive was the whether a person was willing to let a black box be installed in their vehicles. All other things being equal, people who were willing to be monitored had fewer accidents than people who weren't.

I doubt econoboxes are driving insurance rates up. The insurance industry has gone back and forth over this (for higher rates: safety, theft, higher liability, cause more deaths, etc.; against: safety for occupants). Allstate and Progressive charge more for SUVs while State Farm gives them a discount. Given that they waste about $250 a month on ego. For people to claim that SUVs are safer, they are only looking at from the aspect of being an SUV occupant in a crash. They are actually dangerous if you are in a car and are hit by one. Given that SUVs are less maneuverable and take longer to stop due to their mass, you probably have a better chance of avoiding an accident in a car. Since 85% of them aren't being used for what they are designed for, it is a waste. For most people, having a SUV in a metro area is just plain DUMB (let's have one person commute ina 10-15mpg vehicle, take up two parking spaces, or can't fit in some parking garages [a guy at work can't park his Excursion in the garage because it's too tall]). I can think of better things to spend my money on.