I don't understand then. Is being conservative a good thing or bad thing? Conservative sounds normal, while the alternative sounds like sensationalism and jumping to conclusions. In other words, people who accept the non-conservative approach are not basing their "beliefs" on science.
I am saying that they are probably already regulated (although I know little about this). If this is the case (which I am 99% sure is true) it is not a free market... and we should not expect insurance companies to act as if it was.
The actions of insurance companies are not a good way to assess the legitimacy of climate change research. Although I see where you are coming from, using this as a metric only adds confounding variables.
I was not asking you to hold my hand, it should be clear to you that I am already familiar with the IPCC reports. You claimed to wish discussing the science, but so far all we have seen from you is ad homs and arguments from authority.
If the problem is my unawareness, the solution is for you to provide sources of info about it (which you did half way). Can you provide references to Muller or Trenberth postulating on the earth becoming uninhabitable? There is too much noise in the google searches.
Also, the consensus is that even if the most extreme scenario comes true, warming will stop on its own after about 6C over the course of 100-200 years.
I read the article. They mention future climate in the abstract but it is irrelevant to the paper. They compare total organic carbon (TOC) from a sample of sediment layer from millions of years ago (I am no expert in this) to estimated ocean redox state based on Mo sequestration. I don't know how to convert TOC to atmopheric CO2, but in this case TOC rose a max of 15%.
I also realize it was basically a random artical you came up with. My main point is that anoxic events clearly aren't considered to be likely to result from AGW (you appear to agree with this), so the poster who keeps talking about the earth becoming inhabitable should shut up about it.
The studies you mention were only reported on in the last few years, and were necessary in my opinion. The "skeptics" are just forcing the research to proceed as it should.
Also, how is the degree of conservatism assessed? Have they underestimated some aspect of climate change in the past? People keep saying this but I never find out where the idea is coming from.
The actuaries have the same data available to us... honestly I have no idea why actuaries are suddenly an authority on climate science but whatever.
There is no scam necessary. If the insurance company can make more money by justifying higher premiums (for any reason), they should be expected to do so up to the point it loses them business.
Really, this is a very convoluted argument with regards to AGW. It unnecessarily adds all sorts of business, regulatory, and social factors. It makes much more sense to simply look at what the IPCC has said and discuss that.
You seem to be conflating studying anoxic events with thinking they will occur due to AGW. Yes, this should obviously be studied. That particular paper says nothing about AGW other than barely hinting at it in the final sentence:
The integration of the Mo isotope system with other proxy indicators of environmental change is able to increase our understanding of the evolution of the oceans and atmosphere over Earthâ(TM)s history and has the potential to indicate how the ocean-atmosphere system might evolve in the future.
So the idea is that the energy is being sequestered unequally throughout the system, leading to larger heat gradients. Makes sense. Would still be nice to look at some data.
That is different. Who is saying their ability to obtain food, water, and shelter will drop to near zero? Is it in this report? I haven't really looked through it yet but I assume they have a better estimate than "near zero".
I will try to look into it. For what it's worth there is no mention of "anoxic event" or "anoxic" in this IPCC report. I assume it would be mentioned if thought possible since the report is entitled:
MANAGING THE RISKS OF EXTREME EVENTS AND DISASTERS TO ADVANCE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
It could be under a different name though. All I did search for the terms.
Well, before talking about any invisible hands you need to address the degree of regulation. Often this factor adds substantially to the barrier to entry (e.g., only so many insurance companies can be licensed per region, etc). I am unfamiliar with insurance regulation.
We would have to look at the history of insurance rates for various regions, adjust for inflation, the definition of "excess profits", etc to draw any further conclusions. Interesting info though, thanks.
I didn't overstate anything. I said no one thinks this is going to happen. I was unaware there was work predicting an anoxic event due to CO2 emissions.
Well, I don't know about suppressed. As far as I know, the evidence for lamarckian inheritance wasn't strong enough for most researchers to accept it without a plausible mechanism. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Most people haven't ever cracked any IPCC report open, yet there is an endless stream of arguments between those who hold strongly held beliefs about climate change. I am probably in 99th percentile just because I have spent some time reading them.
Also, you really don't understand the point I was making about insurance companies, do you?
um... First of all, so far I'm the one in this thread actually referencing the IPCC report the discussion is supposedly about.
Insurance companies have a financial incentive to overestimate risk. This is obvious. The disincentive is supposed to be that if they do it too much they will lose business. What conspiracy are you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand then. Is being conservative a good thing or bad thing? Conservative sounds normal, while the alternative sounds like sensationalism and jumping to conclusions. In other words, people who accept the non-conservative approach are not basing their "beliefs" on science.
And I'm sure they will be unbiased and scientific about it.
I am saying that they are probably already regulated (although I know little about this). If this is the case (which I am 99% sure is true) it is not a free market... and we should not expect insurance companies to act as if it was.
The actions of insurance companies are not a good way to assess the legitimacy of climate change research. Although I see where you are coming from, using this as a metric only adds confounding variables.
I was not asking you to hold my hand, it should be clear to you that I am already familiar with the IPCC reports. You claimed to wish discussing the science, but so far all we have seen from you is ad homs and arguments from authority.
If the problem is my unawareness, the solution is for you to provide sources of info about it (which you did half way). Can you provide references to Muller or Trenberth postulating on the earth becoming uninhabitable? There is too much noise in the google searches.
Also, the consensus is that even if the most extreme scenario comes true, warming will stop on its own after about 6C over the course of 100-200 years.
I read the article. They mention future climate in the abstract but it is irrelevant to the paper. They compare total organic carbon (TOC) from a sample of sediment layer from millions of years ago (I am no expert in this) to estimated ocean redox state based on Mo sequestration. I don't know how to convert TOC to atmopheric CO2, but in this case TOC rose a max of 15%.
I also realize it was basically a random artical you came up with. My main point is that anoxic events clearly aren't considered to be likely to result from AGW (you appear to agree with this), so the poster who keeps talking about the earth becoming inhabitable should shut up about it.
The studies you mention were only reported on in the last few years, and were necessary in my opinion. The "skeptics" are just forcing the research to proceed as it should.
Also, how is the degree of conservatism assessed? Have they underestimated some aspect of climate change in the past? People keep saying this but I never find out where the idea is coming from.
The actuaries have the same data available to us... honestly I have no idea why actuaries are suddenly an authority on climate science but whatever.
There is no scam necessary. If the insurance company can make more money by justifying higher premiums (for any reason), they should be expected to do so up to the point it loses them business.
Really, this is a very convoluted argument with regards to AGW. It unnecessarily adds all sorts of business, regulatory, and social factors. It makes much more sense to simply look at what the IPCC has said and discuss that.
You seem to be conflating studying anoxic events with thinking they will occur due to AGW. Yes, this should obviously be studied. That particular paper says nothing about AGW other than barely hinting at it in the final sentence:
The integration of the Mo isotope system with other proxy indicators of environmental change is able to increase our understanding of the evolution of the oceans and atmosphere over Earthâ(TM)s history and has the potential to indicate how the ocean-atmosphere system might evolve in the future.
Are they? So much so that a possible extreme event is not even mentioned in a 596 page report? How is degree of conservatism assessed?
So the idea is that the energy is being sequestered unequally throughout the system, leading to larger heat gradients. Makes sense. Would still be nice to look at some data.
That is different. Who is saying their ability to obtain food, water, and shelter will drop to near zero? Is it in this report? I haven't really looked through it yet but I assume they have a better estimate than "near zero".
I will try to look into it. For what it's worth there is no mention of "anoxic event" or "anoxic" in this IPCC report. I assume it would be mentioned if thought possible since the report is entitled:
MANAGING THE RISKS OF EXTREME
EVENTS AND DISASTERS TO ADVANCE
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
It could be under a different name though. All I did search for the terms.
Well, before talking about any invisible hands you need to address the degree of regulation. Often this factor adds substantially to the barrier to entry (e.g., only so many insurance companies can be licensed per region, etc). I am unfamiliar with insurance regulation.
We would have to look at the history of insurance rates for various regions, adjust for inflation, the definition of "excess profits", etc to draw any further conclusions. Interesting info though, thanks.
Ok, and who has said that an anoxic event is likely to occur? I'm not being snarky, it is an honest question.
I didn't overstate anything. I said no one thinks this is going to happen. I was unaware there was work predicting an anoxic event due to CO2 emissions.
Interesting, thanks. How are "excess profits" determined?
I don't really follow your last question.
What pieces of evidence though?
He's talking about inheriting epigenetic patterns... which occurs alongside normal genetic inheritance.
I am unfamiliar with the idea this was suppressed though.
And at what point did you accept AGW? How much evidence did it take to convince you?
Well, I don't know about suppressed. As far as I know, the evidence for lamarckian inheritance wasn't strong enough for most researchers to accept it without a plausible mechanism. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Most people haven't ever cracked any IPCC report open, yet there is an endless stream of arguments between those who hold strongly held beliefs about climate change. I am probably in 99th percentile just because I have spent some time reading them.
Also, you really don't understand the point I was making about insurance companies, do you?
um... First of all, so far I'm the one in this thread actually referencing the IPCC report the discussion is supposedly about.
Insurance companies have a financial incentive to overestimate risk. This is obvious. The disincentive is supposed to be that if they do it too much they will lose business. What conspiracy are you talking about?
Who? When? Please provide a source.