Ryan Crompton and John McAneney of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia have an important new paper in the August, 2008 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Policy titled “Normalised Australian insured losses from meteorological hazards: 1967–2006.” (Available to subscribers here). The paper contributes to a growing literature that documents the importance of understanding the integrated effects of societal change and climate change. The paper also underscores the central role that adaptation policies must play in climate policy.
The abstract states:
Since 1967, the Insurance Council of Australia has maintained a database of significant insured losses. Apart from five geological events, all others (156) are the result of meteorological hazards—tropical cyclones, floods, thunderstorms, hailstorms and bushfires. In this study, we normalise the weather-related losses to estimate the insured loss that would be sustained if these events were to recur under year 2006 societal conditions. Conceptually equivalent to the population, inflation and wealth adjustments used in previous studies, we use two surrogate factors to normalise losses—changes in both the number and average nominal value of dwellings over time, where nominal dwelling values exclude land value. An additional factor is included for tropical cyclone losses: this factor adjusts for the influence of enhanced building standards in tropical cyclone-prone areas that have markedly reduced the vulnerability of construction since the early 1980s.
Once the weather-related insured losses are normalised, they exhibit no obvious trend over time that might be attributed to other factors, including human-induced climate change. Given this result, we echo previous studies in suggesting that practical steps taken to reduce the vulnerability of communities to today’s weather would alleviate the impact under any future climate; the success of improved building standards in reducing tropical cyclone wind-induced losses is evidence that important gains can be made through disaster risk reduction.
The text of the paper includes this discussion:
The collective evidence reviewed above suggests that societal factors – dwelling numbers and values – are the predominant reasons for increasing insured losses due to natural hazards in Australia. The impact of human-induced climate change on insured losses is not detectable at this time. This being the case, it seems logical that in addition to efforts undertaken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, significant investments be made to reduce society’s vulnerability to current and future climate and the associated variability. Employing both mitigation and adaptation contemporaneously will benefit society now and into the future.
We are aware of few disaster risk reduction policies explicitly developed to help Australian communities adapt to a changing climate, yet disaster risk reduction should be core to climate adaptation policies (Bouwer et al., 2007). . .
An increased threat from bushfires under human-induced climate change is often assumed. Indeed Pitman et al. (2006) and others anticipate an increase in conditions favouring bushfires. However, analyses by McAneney (2005) and Crompton et al. (in press) suggest that the main bushfire menace to building losses will continue to be extreme fires and that the threat to the most at-risk homes on the bushland– urban interface can only be diminished by improved planning regulations that restrict where and how people build with respect to distance from the forest. Disaster risk reduction of this kind would immediately reduce current and future society’s vulnerability to natural hazards.
Post lifted from Prometheus
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks to Paul and to ‘Prometheus’ for drawing attention to this valuable paper.
The authors note that the Insurance Council of Australia’s Natural Disaster Event List spans 40 years and that it is ‘one of the more comprehensive disaster loss records in the world.’
The above graph of adjusted normalized insurance losses in Australia for this 40-year period, on the basis of which Ryan Crompton and John McAneney drew their conclusion that ‘The impact of human-induced climate change on insured losses is not detectable at this time’ stands in stark contrast to the conclusions drawn from the same data in ‘Climate Change: Solutions for Australia’ (2004), the first publication of the Australian Climate Group.
The graph on p. 24 of that publication showed the trend in the number of natural disasters in Australia greater than $10 million as more than tripling between 1967 and 1999, and was immediately followed by the statement that ‘In 2004 the world’s second largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, warned that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened to spiral out of control.’
In listing the ‘Evidence that climate change is happening in Australia today’, the Climate Australia Group publication noted that “Heavy rainfall events” had “increased, particularly since 1960s”;that there had been an “increase in the frequency of intense cyclones”; and that there had been ‘increasing severity of bushfires’ (pps. 7, 21).
Tony Coleman of the Insurance Australia Group, who subsequently became a Contributing Author to the IPCC’s ‘Australia and New Zealand’ chapter, was the first-named author of the Australian Climate Group’s publication. At his suggestion (Comments 11-988 and 11-990 on First Order Draft), the Australia and New Zealand chapter of the IPCC report included unsourced statements such as “Climate change is very likely to affect property values and investment through disclosure of increased hazards and risk, as well as affecting the price and availability of insurance.”
Some of these statements may need to be reconsidered in the light of the peer-reviewed study by Dr. Crompton and Professor McAneney.
Pity they didn’t add in the 100s of millions of drought aid for decades and we might get a truer picture. The insurance payouts are really dependent on tropical cyclones hitting a major city or Sydney hail storm type events. Rare events. Also most people are not insured against flood.
Unconvincing analysis of just a portion of the issue. Good denialist fodder.
To be clear on tropical cyclones, the CSIRO modelling work projects FEWER cyclones, but with increased intensity and lifetime duration. And a zone expanding towards more southern trajectories. It would be good if the research outcomes on tropical cyclones were at least appropriately reported (whether you agree with it or not).
So Luke, whoever he is, dismisses this peer-reviewed study by two Australian scholars as ‘denialist fodder’, and says that it’s an ‘unconvincing analysis of just a portion of the issue.’ What issue, Luke?
John McAneney’s home page at Macquarie’s Centre of Research Excellence on climate change says that the unit of which he’s Director (‘Risk Frontiers’)’is devoted to helping the insurance industry improve its understanding and pricing of catastrophe risks in the Asia Pacific region.’
It goes on to say that ‘The Centre works with, and is sponsored by, some of the worlds largest reinsurers, international broking firms and the largest direct insurers in Australasia.’
I didn’t purport to report what CSIRO’s modelling had projected about cyclones: the statements I quoted came from the Climate Australia Group publication, which carried the logos of the Insurance Australia Group and WWF but not CSIRO. If you think that research outcomes on tropical cyclones were not appropriately reported by the Climate Australia Group, you should advise them accordingly.
PS. By the way, Professor McAneney currently has papers in press at ‘Geophysical Research Letters’, ‘Atmospheric Research’ and the ‘Journal of Volcanology & Geothermal Research’ – and he and the co-author of the paper that has now been published in ‘Environmental Science & Policy’, Ryan Crompton, together with three others, are the authors of a contribution entitled ‘Property losses due to natural perils’ to the edited collection ‘Transitions: Pathways Towards More Sustainable Development in Australia’, which is to be published by CSIRO Publishing. This paper is cited in the article by McAneney & Crompton that Luke denigrates as ‘denialist fodder’.
Considering the billions invested during this 40 year period in the big shift to meteorologically high risk areas such as fire prone bushland, storm and cyclone prone sea frontage and flood prone river and estuary frontage, this is a reality check for the AGW alarmists.
Read it and weep, Tim.
Ian Castles,
I’m not sure whether anyone has picked it up but 1972 to 1975 normalised losses also correlates with the Gough Whitlam period of government.
Truly what a terrible disaster that period was! For all Australians and now the insurance industry.
I suspect the present period of AGW madness might produce similar losses once it has passed.
People really do not learn from history.
(As for “Luke”, I don’t think he has published any science papers but he is very good at trawling arcane published papers on the web).
Well gee Castles – dat’s a hard un – perhaps the “overall cost of climate impacts” being a theme.
And I don’t care about you not being happy with the CSIRO aside – we’re not here just to make you happy – others may have independent points of view that don’t suit the old boy network.
Appeal to authority is an interesting oover defense. Pity it’s so selective.
I note you haven’t retracted on your ad hom to the Gallant paper either. I checked – you’d better submit your rebuttal analysis.
And Hissink – how’s your JORC reanalysis going? LOL.
Luke
Ad hom after ad hom, you really are as stupid as they come. Proves my point, you are clueless and simply a simpleton who knows where the pages are in the Litany, but not knowing what those mean.
JORC reanalysis – who the hell is reanalysing the JORC code, not I.
Don’t choke on your cakehole froth.
>(As for “Luke”, I don’t think he has published any science papers
My Louis, considering you don’t appear to even know ‘Luke’, your apparent certainty in something you know nothing about is yet again a testimony to your grasp of reality.
>Read it and weep, Tim.
As Tim works in the same faculty, he’s likely to have shared discussions, rather than sob stories.
Travis,
So you know Luke then?
“So you know Luke then?”
Wake up Louis.
Luke – SJT – Travis.
Do you think 3 such galactically moronic people could have come together in one blog by chance ??
Ivan
Good grief, you are right – instead of being schizophrenic what should it be called? multiple personality disorder?
Luke, AKA Phil Done seems to be a BOM or CSIRO public servant working in QLD I suspect, so his output here would probably be in par with James Hansen in NASA.
Whether one then feels sorry, or else, is moot.
Makes one want to reassess the case for prescribed euthansia.
Ivan, if that is the case then we have a 4th personality equivalence – in the Hot Fire thread – they guy is a total moron.
Louis,
I’m generally reluctant to use the phrase ‘total moron’ — they can always surprise you.
Just remember – your taxes are probably feeding these oxygen thieves (there – does that help?).
Travis,
If Tim shared those discussions he sure wasn’t paying attention.
Hi Luke, Who are the ‘we’ that aren’t here just to make me happy? What was this ad hom to the Gallant paper that you say that I should now retract? And who exactly are these ‘old boys’?
I had a cordial exchange with Ailie Gallant, whom you’d described on this blog as one of the real ‘pin up’ boys. To her credit, she replied promptly to a letter that I’d copied to her and her two CSIRO co-authors, and subsequently advised me that she had no objection to my using my conversation with her in my own correspondence.
Here’s an extract from her email to me of 8 May – I’ve added the EMPHASIS:
“Thank you for your correspondence re: the Gallant et al. paper in the December 2007 issue of AMM. I have subsequently thoroughly checked all values in each of the tables and YOU WERE CORRECT IN POINTING OUT THE MISTAKES IN ANNUAL RAIN DAY VALUES. However, I have also found a couple of calculation errors in trends for seasonal extreme intensity (99th percentile) indices from both 1910-2005 and 1950-2005. The changes do not alter the findings of the paper, however the magnitudes of some trends in all tables are incorrect (and underestimated in many cases). I have sent the corrected tables to Blair Trewin and I believe corrections will be posted on the AMM website.”
The Australian Meteorological Magazine website now states that a corrigendum to the Gallant et al paper from the December 2007 issue will be published in the June 2008 issue (having previously stated that the corrigendum would be included in the March 2008 issue). One of the erroneous annual rain day values in the tables on the version on the AMM website has been corrected, but corrections have not been made in the annual rain day values on five other tables.
Blair Trewin, the Editor of AMM, advised me on 3 June that these more extensive corrections “have been sent to the production staff but haven’t been uploaded yet.”
As yet I haven’t heard from Kevin Hennessy of CSIRO on this matter. He was a Coordinating Lead Author for the Australia and New Zealand chapter of last year’s IPCC report, in which the Gallant et al paper of which he was co-author was cited as having been “Submitted” to the AMM – but with the wrong title.
I wonder why the CSIRO co-authors of the paper – not to mention you and the reviewers for AMM – failed to notice the apparent errors that I noticed soon after you posted the link on this blog?
Luke’s comments about the Sydney hailstorm have some merit.
“The 1999 Sydney hailstorm was the costliest natural disaster in Australian insurance history”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Sydney_hailstorm
The hail damaged houses were in the eastern suburbs,one of the most densely populated parts of Sydney. Many of these houses had old terracotta tile roofs dating from the 1920’s which had become brittle with age. The hail damage would probably have been much less if the storm had occurred elsewhere in Sydney. This freak storm is one of the major peaks on the graph.
Castles your comments without first checking (probably as good as the Ag Census) were about the magnitude of the rainfall decline. My comments still stand.
Hissink you pretentious moron – you were submitting Steve Short’s latest analysis to your JORC standards – I await the outcome of your embarrassing offer (giggle).
Instead of being dragged around in the wake of the argument dribbling on – why not formulate an actual argument, instead of your usual tiresome tirade about socialism, and stick with it, instead of doing your usual runner.
After characterising other posters on the earlier thread as ‘denialist scum’,’pathetic guys’ and ‘typical no input denialist drips’, Luke now claims that I made an ‘ad hom to Gallant et al’. What was it, Luke? Exact words please.
After characterising other posters on the earlier thread as ‘denialist scum’,’pathetic guys’ and ‘typical no input denialist drips’, Luke now claims that I made an ‘ad hom to Gallant et al’. What was it, Luke? Exact words please.
Gee Ian would be good to have around when some robust comments are being made by your friends here on the blog. Your selective indignation is noted. Will be speaking in support of greater gentility and cordiality more often?
Was 27 April 12:45 pm after your first comment April 27 11:15am on another thread.
Words were “On the ‘Flannery – the Wrong Weather Maker’ thread of this blog I’ve just drawn attention to what I suspect are serious errors in a paper in the Australian Meteorological Magazine that was co-authored by Kevin Hennessy of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, who was Coordinating Lead Author of the “Australia and New Zealand” chapter of the IPCC’s recently-published Assessment Report (thanks to Luke for drawing attention to the paper in question).
If, to use Robyn Williams’s phrase, there’s a ‘science-trained man’ (or woman) who’s able to show that my analysis is wrong and that Mr Hennessy and his co-authors are right, I’ll be glad to accept correction.” ….
There may well have been some errors at that time? Serious I’m not sure. Relevance to the other thread? I don’t believe you have have answered your full list of original objections especially on the main issue of rate of decline. In any case, back in April, one would need some time to check the details on such a claim. To use the issue out of the blue as a political point in this manner I think is quite poor. Certainly I was stunned to see it revisited elsewhere 90 minutes later. My own error was not to get the raw data and spend hours following up. Blog was not updated on developments till now. I figured you would raise the issue of a corrigendum (which I have not seen).
And amusing someone called Denialist Scum was posting fulsomely in support of the assault on AGW. hmmmm. yes standards are very interesting things. Regrettably DS seems to have now retired from the fray.
And no I don’t work for CSIRO or BoM, nor do I know the authors of the paper personally.
Well — excuse us, Luke.
We weren’t aware that God had died and left you in charge. Perhaps you should have informed everyone of this breaking news and we could have behaved accordingly.
As for “robust debate” — wouldn’t that be a welcome change, instead of your endless tiresome tirade about lack of rainfall in the MDB. No-one cares. It’s called a drought – get used to it. And get some new material while you’re at it – you’re boring everyone $hitless.
The double standards on this blog never cease to astound me.
Ian Castels writes:
>After characterising other posters on the earlier thread as ‘denialist scum’,’pathetic guys’ and ‘typical no input denialist drips’
After Hissink writes:
>Makes one want to reassess the case for prescribed euthansia.
But of course the real double standrads come from the blog admin.
Hissink, if you naturally conclude that I know Luke, simply from what I wrote, it further supports my comment ‘your apparent certainty in something you know nothing about is yet again a testimony to your grasp of reality.’ Thank you, all too easy.
Ivan writes:
>I’m generally reluctant to use the phrase ‘total moron’ — they can always surprise you.
After writing:
>Do you think 3 such galactically moronic people could have come together in one blog by chance ??
You guys and your logic are a constant source of amusement. Please, keep it up. LOL!
>No-one cares. It’s called a drought – get used to it. And get some new material while you’re at it – you’re boring everyone $hitless.
LOL! Ah yes, all the evidence one needs – ta!
Luke, Your allegation of an ad hom was levelled specifically against me. I’m not in the least indignant – just amused at your apparent inability to answer my simple question.
Excuse me for attempting some obvious local relevance Ivan. Also add in the ongoing situation in SEQ and SW WA. How many decades would you say we would have to have before “getting used to it”, becomes a change to another climate? Doesn’t bother that people have had 300 years worth of Exceptional Circumstances? You know – it’s just the elephant in the room that denialists like to ignore.
Ian I’m also smiling at your lack of recognition that there is an issue. Wow.
Reading Luke’s comments, and then factoring in all his alter-egos, seems to confirm what Warwick Hughes and I deduced some time that Phil Done, Luke’s ejected pseudonym, was a CSIRO staffer planted here to muddy the waters of anyb debate here, apart from trying to convert climate realists to “The Cause”.
I suspect Jennifer might know who he is.
No Luke, you are a political activist of the worst kind and that you are in the public service indicated how that service has been infiltrated by the green left. In Western Australia much of the Department of Industry and Resources are members of the ALP, though some sections in the department, Mines Department and Geological Survey, are generally apolitical, but from what I am told, it’s becoming harder to stop the encroachment of the department’s environmental section.
I have been told by one of the deputy directors in DOIR that Kyoto isn’t so much as science, as the means by which to regulate our behaviour for the good of the environment. Come July 1 when the regulatory regime of carbon emmission comes into force, so does the our individual behaviour – just look at the avalanche of advertisements telling us to be green and reduce our carbon foot print.
No Luke, my emphasis on socialism is raight on target, not AGW pseudoscience which Lubos Motl has commented on.
Ender has to be careful about whom he libels here since we know his real identity, but you, under the various guises, libels with impugnity. The tragedy of this situation is that when a new arrival posts here under a pseudonym, our immediate reaction will be that is Luke under a new guise. Hence I automatically deduce, from the literary style, that you are also Grendle.
There is an option to us to effect retribution, but I am loathe to do that but John Quiggin was libelled here some years back and made threats.
If your goal is to diminish this blog so that reaonable people shy away from it, then you have succeeded.
This is my last comment here until the blog moderators quarantine the libellers here. The lefty blogs censor the clilmate realists, perhaps we should start to do the same.
His contiuned use of denialists are simply slurs of peoples characters.
Does the word “tolerance” have any meaning to you Louis Hissink?
“If your goal is to diminish this blog so that reaonable people shy away from it, then you have succeeded.”
Are you kidding? I read what you and others here write Louis. What makes it ok for you and them to be offensive and rude but not others who don’t share your views?
“This is my last comment here until the blog moderators quarantine the libellers here.”
Don’t worry, I’m sure they will. They are on your side, as the likes of Mr Paul Biggs and his biased and heavy-handed approach has so clearly demonstrated. Ian Mott wrote about sleeping with dogs and getting fleas. You should listen to your mate.
“His contiuned use of denialists are simply slurs of peoples characters.”
You and your denialist buddies are total hypocrites. How many times have I read the words alarmists, not to mention eco-nazis, green bimbos, planet saving idiots, environ morons…?? Wake up to yourself.
“How many decades would you say we would have to have before “getting used to it”, becomes a change to another climate?”
And how many decades would you have us pay a pointless carbon tax to appease the rain gods?
“Wake up to yourself…”
Now there’s an interesting concept, Jen. I wouldn’t get too concerned with Louis’ outburst – he’ll calm down in a day or two. Most of us are adult enough to put up with the childish stream of verbal abuse from a small group of socially dysfunctional AGW ranters with self esteem problems.
Most of it is somewhat amusing in a twisted sort of way, although my seven year old was reading some of Luke’s verbal diarrhoea that was left up on the screen the other day, and asked “Why do I get in trouble when I talk like that?” Not sure how to answer that one.
Wrong on all counts Hissink. You just miss the cold war. I can’t help it if politics divides your personal situation as you have mentioned before. Don’t bring it here. Check under your own bed for reds mate. So rage on gramps.
I have said before the prospect of converting anyone here is virtually nil. Not my intention. My intention is to debate. Or is that not what you want?
However why should you be allowed to spray stupidity at will. In fact – it’s your railing against “socialism” that tells me something – more than anyone you’re telling me what to think and what I can and can’t do. How totalitarian is that?
It’s very hard for the born-to-rule right wing to be talked back to. Old reactionaries like you love to dish it out but get very touchy when you cop it back – so don’t bung on the glass jaw routine.
You may not have noticed that there are some reasonable discussions and issues here among the rubble. Just you are not part of it.
You might be interested in me but I couldn’t be less interested in you. I’m only interested in what you have to say, not who you are or how you vote – and on the content score you’re an irrelevance.
Anyway – instead of derailing the thread following me around having a snipe – why don’t you make a cogent argument on the thread’s subject and prosecute it.
Ivan – did you show her some of Motty’s “turdesque” comments too? Of course not.
But to your question – “How many decades” – have I argued for a carbon tax?
“”How many decades” – have I argued for a carbon tax?”
Hard to say — it’s impossible to tell what you stand for (if anything), other than using this as a forum to tell everyone how incredibly brilliant you think you are.
You have clearly stated enough times that you believe AGW to be a “near-perfect science”. The logical progression from this state of perfection will be to an ETS scheme (either cap-and-trade, or carbon tax) being implemented. (As per the previous discussion about not being able to separate the ‘science’ from the policy in a real world).
So – drop this cute fence-sitting bull$hit. If you support AGW, you support the policy outcomes. Any other posturing is simply being spineless.
“Anyway – instead of derailing the thread following me around having a snipe..”
Hmmm … don’t know why, but somehow the words “advertising” and “marketing” spring to mind.
Hypocrite!
No – you’re just being indulgent Ivan – where have I said AGW is near perfect science.
And why do you care what I stand for? Do I care what you stand for? It’s the issue that’s the issue.
And there are more things in the world than just climate change, and for where we are in Australia currently a carbon tax isn’t the way to go. I think Rudd will lose government on it if he presses too quickly.
So it’s not a matter of being spineless – it’s more an issue of how you have compartmentalised your thinking. (Yes I am being most serious).
Anyway the thread topic is about cost of climate change from historical costs over the last 40 years. I had tried to make a point that there are other demonstrated costs not covered such a drought aid. And I would acknowledge that adjusting the dollar values in today’s terms is fine. Also any observation that increased coastal development increases exposure. But for cyclones and hail storms having impact on major conurbations we are dealing rare events and small sample numbers.
“where have I said AGW is near perfect science..”
Well, actually, over in the Channel 9 thread:
“the evidence for AGW is strong but not perfect..”
“And why do you care what I stand for?”
That’s my point. You stand for nothing – therefore you don’t debate, you rant.
“And there are more things in the world than just climate change, and for where we are in Australia currently a carbon tax isn’t the way to go. I think Rudd will lose government on it if he presses too quickly.”
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Fence-sitting elevated to an art form. Let’s have a bet each way: let’s rant on about AGW, but let’s not do anything unpleasant about if. “What — carbon tax? No – not my idea! It’s was those other guys!”
OK genius — what is the way to go?
“it’s more an issue of how you have compartmentalised your thinking.” — ROTFL at that one! Who is the single-issue fanatic here? Could anyone get more single-issue than AGW?
Single issue eh – hmmm – we’ve had Amazon regrowth, kangaroo grazing pressure, and Murray River barrages.
Now Ivan you’re just trying to pick me mate.
There is plenty we can do in adaptation responses. And need to anyway regardless as water reallocation decisions need to be made. Plenty we can do in no regrets planning. And plenty we can do in alternative energy – passive, solar and including nuclear. Export of alternative energy technology should be good business.
But anyway you should get back to the thread topic. Part of no regrets is perhaps working out where you are going to recommend development in areas already affected by inundation such as storm surge. As per the thread title should we continue to develop infrastructure in potential inundation zones. Building design. Have we learnt anything on bushfire management.
“But anyway you should get back to the thread topic.”
If I was Kevin Rudd reading this, I would do 2 things:
First, I’d reach for my bucket and have a really good vomit – right from the pit of my stomach.
Second, I’d begin to seriously worry that my government is Dead Man Walking. “I only did all this Kyoto Krap because it’s what I thought everyone wanted,” he must be thinking. Now that he’s put the ball in play, all the spineless fence-sitters are going to water on him.
That’s if I believed any of this nonsense, of course.
Ivan do you have anything practical to add here? Twice Luke has tried to steer the commentary back on topic, but you have continued to do your own rabid raving. I don’t care who he is, or who you are. Play the ball, not the man. I may not agree with everything Luke has to say, but he provides debate and information. You, on the other hand, provide nothing. Your daughter will grow up just like her daddy.
“Ivan do you have anything practical to add here?”
Let me get this straight. The AGW fruit loops are allowed to rant and rave, insult and abuse anyone that doesn’t agree with them, introduce red herrings, steer the topic all over the landscape ad infinitum — and for the first time in over 3 months (that I’ve been following it, at least) that they actually suggest getting back “on topic” they are elevated to sainthood??
Give me a break.
And who mentioned a daughter? You’re as big a dill as Luke is. As is usually the case with AGW fruit loops, facts are unimportant.
Luke, Thanks for trying to return to the subject of this thread – but that subject is ‘Normalised Australian insured losses from meteorological hazards over the past 40 years’, NOT the ‘cost of climate change from historical costs’ over this period. .
The Crompton/McAneney paper begins by saying that ‘Worldwide, increases in INSURED losses from natural hazards have risen dramatically [sources quoted] leading to concerns that human-induced climate change is contributing to THIS trend. A critical step before drawing this conclusion is to first filter out other influences known to contribute to increased disaster losses’ (EMPHASES added).
The authors go on to explain why their focus is on insured losses: it’s ‘for the simple reason that no credible equivalent economic loss database exists in Australia.’ An analysis of drought aid subventions from Federal, State and Territory budgets may be useful in some contexts, but it would not be a measure of economic loss.
Instead of arguing that the authors’ analysis is ‘unconvincing’ and accusing them of producing ‘denialist fodder’, you should give them credit for making what is, so far as I know, the most rigorous analysis yet attempted of ‘one of the more comprehensive disaster loss records in the world’.
In the course of their study, the authors do discuss the analytical problems arising from rare meteorological hazards impacting upon major conurbations (p. 375). They conclude that ‘Notwithstanding these and other cautions, the methodology produced here provides a relative simple and effective way of normalising original natural hazard event losses to year 2006 values.’
That conclusion is open for discussion, but there’s no point in criticising the authors for failing to do what they haven’t tried to do.
I don’t have any problems with the scholastic bona fides of their analysis. But it will be interpreted as good fodder for sceptics (can’t say denialists anymore as it’s offensive apparently). So my comment is that it is only part of the cost of climate variability and extreme events.
How much flood aid as financial assistance is handed out by governments. The vast majority of people don’t have flood insurance cover as the risk is obviously not shared with an level of equity across a community). Governments would have also spent a small fortune on Cyclone Larry relief, as well as Tracy and Althea.
I’d dare suggest that many States would have quite good data on economic loss from drought by district (and sorry for again mentioning the drought as people wish I didn’t mention that either). But of course there is the philosophical difficulty of doing drought accounting on “wool unshorn from lambs unborn”.
What’s actually a “loss” – and what’s just part of natural variation that farmers should live with.
Sorry, correction – Your son will grow up just like his daddy. That better?
Did I say I supported AGW? Did I say I elevated Luke to sainthood? I did say, and maintain, you have nothing to contribute. Give us all a break.
“That better?”
It depends on whether facts and research are important. In your case, you simply picked up a throwaway line of Luke’s and ran with it. More fool you.
“Did I say I supported AGW?”
Did I say you did? Re-read the comment.
“Did I say I elevated Luke to sainthood?”
No – I did. What you said was “Play the ball, not the man.” I just wonder what planet you live on that you would make a comment like that. If you had taken the trouble to read any these threads over the last few months, you would realise that Luke does very little else but play the man.
“I did say, and maintain, you have nothing to contribute.”
Everyone is entitled to their opinion – so I guess you are putting me in the same boat as yourself.
As has been pointed out several times on this thread, it’s not up to us denialists to ‘prove’ anything. It’s only incumbent on us to point out the utter stupidity of the AGW case. Which we will certainly continue to do.
The International Energy Agency estimates $47,000 Billion needs to spent on alternative energy technologies between now and 2050 to prevent global carbon emmissions MORE than doubling. My high-lights. The inference is, to stop them from just doubling will require much more.
A report in yesterday’s Australian notes this amount is 47 times the entire Australian economy’s annual worth. That point may be moot if AGW preventitive measures are introduced, since tommorrow’s worth of the Australian economy may be much less. The significance for insurance is that instead of looking at how little insurance is paid out for AGW damage (ie none), the insurance industry had better look at the insurance it may have to pay out to cover business losses due to conforming with the mandatory AGW measures. As far as I can tell the cost projections for AGW measures do not include that potentially sizeable impost.
Fascinating Ivan – alas you do have to “prove” something. You see decisions need to be made in the real world – things are a happening – water allocation in the MDB (oh sorry how obsessive); council planning approvals near the sea; agricultural investment decisions – e.g new peanut industry at Katherine; Cubbie Station wants more water; water allocation of Katherine aquifer; agricultural drought aid policy; and dare I say – hail and cyclone insurance premiums.
So Ivan – ignoring the AGW science is actually “participating”. You can tell the shareholders/stakeholders/electorate that you ignored the best science advice because “you didn’t like it”.
You have decided that all those papers in Nature, Science, Journal of Climate – all the various AGU climate journal publications – the whole lot – hundreds of papers from scores of institutions are all crap. That Louis has told you they’re all lefty socialists in a major global conspiracy. You Ivan confidently know best.
So Ivan – what actually would be your approach to making some of these necessary contemporary climate related decisions. How would you go about it?
After a long day outside in the winter sunshine I came home, glanced the through this thread again and wondered why Ian Castles is pushing the authors case here. This thought eventually dominated my earlier concern about methods of “normalizing” which are not immediately apparent from the post.
Beyond Prometheus and the above Ryan Crompton and John McAneney report there is anther very important doc. that links us back to Pielke Jr. and methods of analysis re impacts of climate change, “Australian Bushfire Losses, Past, Present and Future”.
This takes me back to the “ember showers” issue versus “spontaneous combustion” from radiant heat in the bushfire front and furnace like gas flow in fiercely driven inferno such as we had mid afternoon Jan 18th 2003 on the outskirts of Canberra. As a result of this report, urban bushfire risk has subsequently been assessed in therms of distance from the nearest forest rather than any dry fuel.
Sure; insurance payout was mostly about houses, pine forests and perhaps a full range of damaged suburban infrastructure but that same series of fires raged right through farms, national parks and other large natural reserves. Like the Hobart fires in 1967 the extent of damage is not completely gained through private and public insurance payouts. We could even be led to believe these major impacts are likely to return somewhere say every 15 years because nature has always worked that way. Get used to it hey.
Well; I don’t buy that argument or the supposed research after the events. Plotting progress of wild fire from satellite images after the smoke has cleared has about the same worth as watching thunder storms on radar. The risk from intense events can’t be appreciated until you have been through a few at ground zero. Stats can help the researcher but not the witness.
” You have decided that all those papers in Nature, Science, Journal of Climate – all the various AGU climate journal publications – the whole lot – hundreds of papers from scores of institutions are all crap. That Louis has told you they’re all lefty socialists in a major global conspiracy. ”
Given the actual temperature record from 1998 has cooled,
and even a cursory glance at geological timescale temperature / CO2 records confirms the relationship between CO2 and climate is NOT what we are supposed to believe..
Sue them for misinformation aimed at justifying new “Green” taxes,
that will not effect climate one iota,
but will harm all our economies / livelihoods.
WATERMELONS the lot of them – green on the outside, red on the inside should be, at bare minimum, laughed out of the debate.
Their aim is obvious, taxes (but some within the AGW camp want far more damage than that),
their intension nothing whatsoever to do with improving climate science’s understanding
of what is actually happening, and why.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT MAY HAPPEN NEXT.
What is happening to climate obviously is not what their precious models did / are projecting, BALONEY, pure scientific fraud.
(See the latest Ozone / Atlantic realisations..)
GUPPETS (green muppets) the lot of them, Hansen, Suzuki, IPCC, UN, etc, etc,
Sue them, then laugh them out of court.
That would be a good start, a dose of realism,
NOT politically biased (bad or incomplete)science, that is the AGW movements basis.
“Fascinating Ivan – alas you do have to “prove” something. You see decisions need to be made in the real world – things are a happening – water allocation in the MDB (oh sorry how obsessive); council planning approvals near the sea; agricultural investment decisions – e.g new peanut industry at Katherine; Cubbie Station wants more water; water allocation of Katherine aquifer; agricultural drought aid policy; and dare I say – hail and cyclone insurance premiums.”
And what do any of these have to do with ‘global warming’, may I ask? The graph at the top clearly shows that hail and cyclone damage has been decreasing with ‘global warming’. ‘Planning approvals near the sea’ is an alarmist myth that only exists in the Melbourne Age – where are the sea-level rises? So let’s dispense with those two straight away.
The rest are water allocation issues. We don’t need a whole lot of social re-engineering and a regressive new economy-flattening tax to solve water allocation problems – which are mostly political in origin anyway. All we need is some politicians with some spine.
No amount of ETS tax is going to create a single drop of rainwater. And if you think that city dwellers (read: taxpayers) are going to stand back and see their new energy taxes go to pumping desalinated water into the MDB then you are delusional. In case you haven’t noticed, in Victoria they’re doing it the other way around.
“You have decided that all those papers in Nature, Science, Journal of Climate – all the various AGU climate journal publications – the whole lot – hundreds of papers from scores of institutions are all crap.”
A lot are – most are self-serving and just document poor science. “Here’s what I’m trying to prove – I’ll keep looking until I find something that substantiates the theory (and ensures my next grant).” A lot of it looks like what is referred to as ‘success-oriented testing’ in the technology industry. By far and away a lot of these papers are just junk science and reflect a “Crab Nebula” view of the world.
So – what’s to “prove”?
I have a question for Ian Castles if he cares to review a recent lecture by Professor
Ross Garnaut and some audience questions re -broadcast on ABC Radio National this evening. I would appreciate a comment on the risk analysis here.
Two paragraphs at the end of the transcript (p25) will do, can anyone else comment too?
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf
Gavin
I’ve hesitated on this thread – almost given up on it, in fact, since most of it is abysmal. That insurance compensations are “normalized” to dependence on geographically-defined population growth and increasing property values rather than increasing frequency of wider-ranging weather catastrophes always seemed self-evident to me. I can still remember over 50 years ago being astonished one morning that Collaroy beach sand had almost completely disappeared over a 2 day storm front and then re-appeared over about 5 months: that houses built right on the edge of the sand are at supposedly unexpected risk seems to me the height of blunt stupidity.
Your comment above interested me. The interesting bit is here:
“Well; I don’t buy that argument or the supposed research after the events. Plotting progress of wild fire from satellite images after the smoke has cleared has about the same worth as watching thunder storms on radar. The risk from intense events can’t be appreciated until you have been through a few at ground zero. Stats can help the researcher but not the witness.”
I live high up in the Blue Mountains and have now for about 30 years (although my work literally takes me around globally).
In that 30 year period, I’ve observed and been at the centre of a number of bushfire seasons (I imagine Jennifer M has as well).
The three characteristics that are always present are:
1) a build-up of undergrowth fuel over some years
2) a relatively dry spring
3) most critically, a very strong, persistent WEST wind (ie. straight off the desert)
The satellite photos from the height of the 1993/4 season (which spread up the Great Dividing Range through to Central Queensland) showed the smoke in almost straight-line strands west-east way out over the Pacific.
The Canberra fires devastated suburbs directly east of the pine plantations for exactly the same reason – the fronts were driven through dry pine forests by an unremitting west wind.
My point is that urban planners (including the ACT Council) have directly ignored this self-evident pattern in permitting areas at obvious risk to be developed for housing right on the east edge of the pines – and yet these people consistently claim that the disasters could not be foreseen.
This has nothing to do with AGW; rather it is good example of the Einsteinian definition of stupidity.
“And what do any of these have to do with ‘global warming’, may I ask?” Yes that tells me heaps. Never had to make a climate related decision on infrastructure, investment or policy in your life. You simply haven’t a clue mate.
“No amount of ETS tax is going to create a single drop of rainwater” – didn’t say it would.
“A lot are – most are self-serving and just document poor science” – what proportion would you say – 30% – 50%?
And how many of these papers would say you’ve read ? 0.0000000000000000000000001% ?
Where do you get your information from? Mainly blogs = 1000000000000.3142 %
Ianl
Collaroy 50 years ago? (Yes Ivan is right I have returned but there is method to the madness, and no, did not leave in a huff, just manipulating the search engines).
That would have been around 1958 when my, now deceased, father caused a stir with beachfront development along the whole peninsular from Narrabeen to Long Reef.
Ianl: I’ve personally had plenty of time to think through bushfire risk factors, both urban and rural. One of the most important events was meeting a chap who had made it his business to understand wildfire risk back in his native farmlands in the UK. At the time a few of us were scouting around down south after a local firebug had established a thorough routine of hazard reduction on other folk’s private holdings.
I suddenly became aware of crop fires and their behavior in the sea breeze. By contrast we could all witness regular large scale forestry operations further inland. The swiftness of these grass fires became painfully obvious so I got back to thinking about industrial furnaces again. Previously I had a lot of work in fuel conversions. Measuring combustion and smoke watching had been my bread and butter. That in turn got me into fire protection door to door.
When I say stats don’t reflect a situation, I mean it’s all that information at the grass roots that’s missing. Stupidity exists at many levels and a lot of it is rooted in our ignorance. When assessing grave risk to the public, from experience I don’t talk about the details much because of the copycat and glory factors. I certainly don’t enjoy talking about arson and sabotage. Let’s say though, claiming insurance is a funny business depending on your stand point.
Claims can go down one way or another depending on vigilance. Changes in industry may reflect a policy of returning the onus to individuals. Nobody wants AGW really.
I recall too one fine day a CSIRO researcher took me to Mt Wilson. He was a mathematician not a firefighter though. We contemplated moisture levels there based on the private gardens. I observed soil types in that region vary little. Better soil types are one factor that attracts dwellers away from the beaches and sandstone cliffs and that’s not a fault of Sydney urban planners. Neither is it in the Dandenong Ranges or up the sides of Mt Macedon.
The question of regrowth is critical in terms of a fresh fuel hazard but I don’t see the natural forest understory, the same risk as the exposed even crop of shrubs or trees at any stage of maturity where all the fuel can be converted at a constant rate depending mainly on wind speed.
“Where do you get your information from? … blah … blah … blah”
Let me see now — what was your quote? I have it here somewhere — ah yes, here it is:
“My intention is to debate.”
This is your definition of “debate”? Ranting and raving and hurling personal abuse? Knew it wouldn’t last.
Gavin
Thank you for the reply.
My point, though, was dead simple.
The westerly winds drive the fires and these winds have been a feature on this continent for geologic time – look at the symbiosis between the native wattle and these winds. The dissemination of wattle pollen depends on the west winds; such evolutionary symbiosis does not occur overnight.
People who do not grasp the essential driving force to catastrophic firestorms are likely to fall victim, or at least run a constant risk of such.
Over 30 years ago, I deliberately bought and built on a block of land that used the quite large cleared, established village as a westerly windbreak. And I know I’m not Einstein … nor did I consider any possible later AGW hypothesis, just the obvious firestorm pattern.
Not abuse in the slightest. Highly relevant in fact. Pls answer the questions Ivan and stop ducking.
“A lot are – most are self-serving and just document poor science” – what proportion would you say – 30% – 50%?
And how many of these papers would say you’ve read ? 0.0000000000000000000000001% ?
“This has nothing to do with AGW; rather it is good example of the Einsteinian definition of stupidity.”
The other aspect of this, of course, is that we are now living in an age where there is no such thing as personal responsibility.
– Trip on a footpath? Sue the council.
– House burns down? Sue the council (again).
– Built on a flood plain? Sue the council (again).
– Get lung cancer? Sue the cigarette companies.
Everything is someone elses fault or problem.
“Global warming” plays to this mind-set. If you are a “responsible authority”, Global Warming is a godsend. What is means is they don’t have to accept responsibility for the things they are charged with either.
– House burns down because it was approved to be built too close to a pine forest? Not our fault — it’s global warming.
– House falls into the sea because it was was approved to be built too close to the beach? Not our fault — it’s global warming.
– etc. etc.
AGW actually raises this from the idiotic to the sublime. Instead of actually looking into how and why bad decisions are made (hmm .. let’s say, for example, water allocations), now they can simply say: “It’s EVERYONE’s fault for burning fossil fuels!” Talk about a positive feedback loop – no wonder the human race is doomed.
AGW as a ‘universal excuse for everything’ lets everyone off the hook. Easy to see why governments and government-funded ‘scientists’ embrace this hogwash.
Blah blah blah …
– just tell us how you would make a calculation on water allocation? You know personal responsibility – how would YOU do it?
gavin; I have read Garnaut’s speech; it is a resonant speech; Garnaut readily admits the great uncertainty surrounding the science and the costs of implementing AGW preventitive measures, and even the futility of doing so globally when the main players are not doing the same. Where Garnaut comes unstuck is on p.7 where he invokes Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s bet was an indictment of the sincerity, or lack thereof, of faith, which could be shown to be reducible to an economic process whereby minimal investment (ie hypocrisy) would guarantee against catastrophe. On p.17 Garnaut looks at the ideal insurance approach to AGW, which really is it a restatement of Pascal. Garnaut says the remote chance of catastrophe if AGW is left unchecked can be prevented for, by comparison, minimal investment. There are several layers of hypocrisy operating here. The 1st is that it has been the threat of catastrophe which has been selling AGW since day one; we don’t read about gradual and manageable aspects of AGW; the threat is always expressed in dire and apocalyptic imagery. The 2nd level of hypocrisy is the notion of minimal cost. As my first post shows, $47000 Billion, at least, is not minimal. 3rdly,and most profound, the science is not settled; and it is the continuim of the scientific scenarios which defines the risk and ultimately the likelihood of a Pascal’s situation. With the doomsday science the question must be asked, does this cease to be science and become a sort of paranoia, a ‘what-if’ psychology which has as much relevance as little green men, or the ‘sky-is-falling’. And is this paranoia nothing more than a stultifying form of misonewism and a wish to return to the security of the womb? I mean, how can you live a life under a constant doomsday threat?
Another level of hypocrisy running through Garnaut’s vision is referred to in his reference to his good friend, Warwick McKibbon, McKibbon is a strong advocate of carbon trading. Carbon trading will allow carbon ‘pollution’ to continue, and in situations where demand is inelastic (ie driving your car to work, heating your house in the coming ice-age), CT will simply promote a massive transfer of funds away from the consumer to the business elites. In this respect Garnaut is a fox looking after the chicken littles.
2 final observations; if I were an insurance company I would be promoting policies for all sorts of loss due to provable manifestations of AGW; as an acturial I would be confident of never having to do a payout.
2ndly, Garnaut demonstrates that AGW measures will be regressive; the rich will be insulated – some men are islands -, and the rest of us will be forced into that section of the pro-AGW camp which is often overlooked but which has a powerful ideological motive for supporting AGW; this is the anti-materialism, anti-prosperity and arguably, misanthropic, pro-nature camp, best symbolised by Clive Hamilton;
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-7.htm
The irony is, as I say, that 2 antithetical forces, the economic elite, and an anti-business fundamentalism, with some scientific egoes in the middle (Garnaut does invoke the Oreskes-type scientific consesus myth), have joined forces to wreak havoc; it really is a sign from the heavens. Now where’s Pascal when you need him?
Ianl: See this latest report to the Victorian Government, particularly chapter 7 “Climate Change and Bushfire”
Apart from my theme, grass fire risks I noticed a reference to the “Age of Mega Fires”.
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/inquiries/bushfires/Report/chapter_7.pdf
The section “What is Climate Change” needs to be appreciated in regard to figs. 7.2 & 7.3 (p236).
Other readers will be ammused by the section “Climate Change Debate”
I reckon the whole thing is worth another thread.
“And how many of these papers would say you’ve read ?”
Ahh… the ever-reliable intellectual snobbery tack. The old “because you don’t have a PhD and haven’t read all the literature, you are not qualified to pass an opinion on climate”. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
Since ‘Climate Science’ is not a true ‘science’, the ‘literature’ produced should be regarded accordingly. What, may I ask, is the point of labouring over all of the mountains of ‘research’ papers produced in support of the 21st century’s equivalent of Piltdown Man?
As I see it, the WMO is the peak body in this whole farce, and since they have been decent enough to admit that their ‘models’ are garbage and that they have no clue as to what the climate is actually doing, why would anyone waste the effort in reading what is now acknowledged as meaningless if not fraudulent.
Consider this:
On 4 April, the WMO issued a press release and accompanying Info Note – ostensibly to provide an update on the status of the current La Niña event, but it is in fact more of a party political broadcast:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/info_notes/info_44_en.html
Info note #44 is a real piece of work. It starts off with:
“The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing.”
That is, it starts with a lie. Every temperature tracking organisation (except Hansen’s, of course) shows the opposite.
It then goes on to say:
“Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average.”
That is – a guess. This is supposed to be a scientific organisation, and it is offering us a guess. Mountains of ‘research’ papers – thousands of ‘experts’ – and the best they can do is a guess?
It then goes on to provide a lot of weasel words to try and shore up the IPCC’s increasingly shaky position. (Incidentally, in any commercial organisation, this would be seen as a clear conflict of interests).
You have to read all the way down to paragraphs 7 and 8 to get to the factual data:
“However, cooling was recorded over the Middle East, Turkey, Central Asia and China….”
“..significant parts of the central and eastern Pacific … have been dominated by sea-surface temperature cooling.”
“..sea surface temperatures about 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius colder than average..”
That is – the facts contradict their opening statement – if anyone bothers to read that far.
It then concludes with the statement: “WMO is to release its next El Niño/La Niña Update in early May.” The clear implication here being: “Stand by for normal warming to be resumed.”
Waiting – waiting… early May comes and goes, and finally — on the 24 June, they release their update. No fan-fare this time – no media briefing, they just quietly slip it out on their website.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html
What does it say this time?
“La Niña conditions prevailed through May 2008..”
Small wonder there was no update in early May. I guess they held out as long as they dared, hoping that there might be some warming somewhere .. anywhere.
But the interesting line is this one in the first paragraph:
“However, model forecasts and expert interpretation suggest that the pathway of the system is loosely constrained at this time, and there is need for careful monitoring over the coming weeks.”
ROTFL. In layman’s terms – with all the gobbledegook stripped out – what they are saying is this:
– Our models are completely worthless
– We haven’t got a clue what is going on
– The natural system will keep doing what it’s doing
– In the meantime, we will continue pouring your money down the drain in pursuing this lunatic fallacy
Given this – why would anyone waste their time reading all the so-called ‘literature’?
Pathetic Ivan – you’ve just ducked the issue.
(1) you’re commenting on journal material you’ve never seen and burying all of it – that’s objective
(2) no idea on a practical problem I asked – zip – zilch – zippo
(3) you’ve gone off on some rant about seasonal forecasting. What does that have to do with the price of eggs.
Gavin
Again, thank you for the link. On 1st reading of Chapter 7, I believe the “climate change” factor is exaggerated (good marketing, I expect) and the 3 elements I listed in my 1st post are downplayed.
What I fear most in my home environment here is a relatively wet autumn and winter, followed by a drier spring. This combination cranks up the available fuel. A hard summer westerly (we’ve experienced these blowing without cessation for over 2 weeks quite often over the last 30 years) is sufficient unto itself to invite the psychotic firebugs to start a blaze just to watch it run ferociously as the wind drives it.
But perhaps you may be kind enough to answer a direct question for me ? Why do the AGW people characterise a 30 year period as “climate” ? That’s a serious question and I’ve yet to find a sensible answer.
“(2) no idea on a practical problem I asked – zip – zilch – zippo”
I don’t know how complex problems get solved on your planet, but in the world I live in, we wouldn’t simply ask all and sundry “what would you do to solve the problem, then – eh ? eh?”
Normally, I would expect to see a few things happen in getting to a solution:
– First, a proper description of the problem and its contributing issues, its root causes, its symptoms and its likely impact – at least.
– Second, a very detailed summary of the assumptions surrounding it, in particular, what can and can’t be done, for whatever reason (usually political). One of the big assumptions would be: “Do we think rainfall is going to stay the same, get worse or get better – and over what timeframe?” These assumptions would tell you whether it was worth proceeding to the next step.
– Third, I would then use the above to develop the specific policies to address the problem.
At the risk of putting the cart before the horse, I would probably do the following:
1) Sack all the government ‘scientists’ that were supposed to be giving advice while the problem was created. It seems to be fashionable to quote Albert Einstein, so I will: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” This problem has come to pass while all these morons have been off on a frolic of their own trying to ‘prove’ AGW instead of doing the job they were paid to do.
2) I would set up a Royal Commission with sufficient terms of reference to enable it to establish exactly how the water allocations mess came to happen – technically, politically, financially, the lot. Specifically, I’d follow the money and political influence trail.
3) Convene an expert panel to develop the recommendations on how to proceed into the future. There must be some skills left in this department – they can’t all be looking up polar bears’ backsides.
4) I’d probably introduce a short-term petrol tax to pay for whatever remediation is needed – whether it is to buy out the water licences, compensate farmers for moving off marginal land, develop drought-resistant crop strains, etc.
Presumably taxpayers benefitted from the governments selling these water licences in the first place, so it’s not a big ask to expect them to dig into their pockets to fix the problem. There is a precedent for this – the Vic gov’t did this to bail out Pyramid Building Society investors in the 90s.
At the end of it, remove the tax (as they did with PBS). No need for a ETS in perpetuity, no need for social re-engineering. Solve the real problem. Of course none of this will ever happen – it would require a lot of political fortitude. (The tax might – as a quick financial fix – the rest won’t). All this could be done well before 2010.
That enough for you to rant and rave over for a while??
BTW – 6 years worth of cooling is “seasonal”?
“One of the big assumptions would be: “Do we think rainfall is going to stay the same, get worse or get better – and over what timeframe?””
Brilliant ! And how do you think you might do that?
“I’d follow the money and political influence trail. ” hahahahaha – oh please don’t – you’ll have the irrigation industry in a panic. You’ll have to indite the National Party ! giggle ….
Who’s going to front your Royal Commission – you’ve sacked them all remember. You and your mates who are clueless, are going to be on the expert panel are you? ROTFL. “M’Lord is there a hydrologist in the house” ‘ Err no – we sacked them all” “Oh good show old boy”.
“Any one got an met data” “Sorry all sacked I’m afraid” LMAO. You’re a bit of a ranter Ivan
What cooling. Where’s your data?
“Brilliant ! And how do you think you might do that?”
You really are a moron – no doubt about that.
The point is: each of those assumptions would dictate a different approach. It doesn’t matter HOW you do it, the main thing is – you need general agreement up front as to the severity of the solutions to be adopted. So that you don’t get fence-sitters like you coming along later saying “I never agreed to that.”
“Who’s going to front your Royal Commission – you’ve sacked them all remember.”
Incontrovertible proof that you are a moron and haven’t got the first clue as to how the world operates. The last people you would want at a Royal Commission are government ‘scientists’. What are they going to contribute? Do you think a single one of them have been in the room (or the building, even) when these decisions have been made? Give me a break!
“You’re a bit of a ranter Ivan”
This from the acknowledged expert on the issue?
But you’re right. It’s all too hard, so there’s no point in doing anything. Let’s all shout and rant and blame everyone else. Pretty much as I expected.
Ianl: Why do the AGW people characterise a 30 year period as “climate” ?
We could say I have no idea on that one but with some reflection we must pick a period that at least covers any known cycles such as solar activity by an odd factor of say 3, 5 or 7 to strike a balance between natural max/min events. I’m no mathematician however from experience we must try to smooth over any rhythm or resonance to find our neutral starting point for a time series. Example; a temp peak like 1998 is not fair dinkum.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/big-questions/what-are-the-origins-of-the-phrase-fair-dinkum-and-how-did-it-come-to-mean-what-it-does/2005/01/21/1106110931932.html
In the absence of universally agreed climate standards an engineering student should be inclined to look up all the Wiley textbook info on radio waves and filters, whereas the policy people should find something from stats theory before climate periods can be conveniently shortened to some era within modern instrument measurements.
Given today is my birthday I can claim an association with the above over 50 years. During my apprenticeship it was necessary to look back through our prewar instruments and their evolvement in the field. Working with technology in both good and bad situations I can say Lab work by itself is not enough to gauge conditions and therefore we have to include a multitude of every day measurements from wherever records exist.
IMO we can easily use 200 years in support of the hockey stick. The common ground for all researchers is the fact that boys like me could calibrate a thermometer with a bucket of ice water and another bucket with a fully immersed Birko heating coil working beside the first lot. I don’t care to recall all those dial thermometers in retirement but they too were good enough to record max/min ambient conditions when we had finished.
Note; the more rugged the gear the more likely it would survive in the worst conditions without replacement or calibration.
I have to laugh Ivan – clueless to the max.
You’ll find that the scientists have been doing a pretty good job – you’ll find it’s the compromises forced on governments by business and swifty deals that has over-allocated the system against advice. States getting inequitable shares and wanting better deals than others. Too many people promised too much. And scientists who you despise didn’t do it.
And utter boofheads like you will solve it by sacking everyone who actually knows something. Brilliant.
Good luck finding some experts to help. The very best luck. There’s an emerging skills crisis in the area so your solution is to sack everyone. Well done.
Ivan old son – you have to make some decisions on climate, hydrology, system yield and operating risk when you build any water supply system or allocate any water supply infrastructure. What information do you have to do that modelling with – your have 120 years of rainfall records. Maybe some paleo information. And some climate modelling of the current situation and future with AGW factors (oooooo oooooo AGW scary). And you have Joe Bloggs guesses. Which data or combination might you like to use.
Nothing to do with carbon taxes – simply straight decision making on rainfall and evaporation.
Coz that’s what is sitting in front of people now who are trying to sort this mess out !
Thanks, Gavin.
It’s the perennial issue – compared to what ?
As a geo, I regard 30 years as a complete non-entity, except I’m most unlikely to live another 30 years, so it’s about the most significant period I can think of. Such is life.
Ivan: “But you’re right. It’s all too hard, so there’s no point in doing anything. Let’s all shout and rant and blame everyone else. – The last people you would want at a Royal Commission are government ‘scientists’. What are they going to contribute? ”
Remember the yarn about the old fellow and the youngster in the bull paddock gate open, watching a herd of dairy cows, some fresh in season go past? A lot of bellowing and posturing beforehand is eventually defeated by patience.
Mate: I’m witnessing climate change on a daily basis. There is likely to be a record for June. Even this wild winter weather is drying the country. There was an overnight fire in an old road bridge under repair.
Take any temp series you like for S E Aus, max or min (frosts are decreasing), add them and find about 6 Deg C difference in the totals, then and now.
“you’ll find it’s the compromises forced on governments by business and swifty deals that has over-allocated the system against advice…”
Go on! And if you’d bothered reading anything I said, you’d probably realise that we’re in violent agreement on that point.
But what is your response?
“..you’ll have the irrigation industry in a panic. You’ll have to indite [sic] the National Pary..”
Oooooh — let’s all be spineless and sit in the corner and quiver like a jelly. Whatever we do, don’t let’s upset any politicians and/or address the root cause of the problem. Might make a bit of work for ourselves.
As you point out, it’s largely a political and commercial problem – so why would anyone in their right minds ever think of using scientists to solve it? If their advice wasn’t followed before, why would it be followed next time?
You’re all piss and wind. You talk big, but clueless when it comes to action on the hard issues.
So now that we’ve become friends what are you going to do about:
you have to make some decisions on climate, hydrology, system yield and operating risk when you build any water supply system or allocate any water supply infrastructure. What information do you have to do that modelling with – your have 120 years of rainfall records. Maybe some paleo information. And some climate modelling of the current situation and future with AGW factors. And you have Joe Bloggs guesses. Which data or combination might you use.
(yes “indict”)