Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Sorry to do this in JakeS style but I see little other option here.

scientific studies with sparse data and short time series are going to have difficulty drawing a trend line with a high confidence interval, and are therefore deontologically obliged to declare "no significant correlation".

Not-withstanding deontologically, agreed entirely. I don't think ethics are of a concern here.

The same paper quotes a number of studies which demonstrate, without question, increased winter rainfall overall, and higher rainfall per rainy day, over the examined period (as well as a warming effect which is bigger than the global average). It is not unimagineable that these increases have not provoked any increase in major flooding; but it is powerfully counter-intuitive.

Something being "powerfully counter-intuitive" has led to some poor scientific thinking before.

Your rhetoric would lead one to believe that science has demonstrated an absence of an increase of insureable risks. I'm sure none of the authors linked would agree with that.

Except that's not what the science authors write, nor what I write. It seems that's what you presume. I'll repeat my key-point: no increase for normalized hurricane, storm or flood damages could yet be attributed to climate change.

In case that was too subtle, let me spell that out: The inability to attribute a trend does not equate to argumentation of an absence of trend. And actually, I explicitly argued from the absence of proof is not proof of absence POV.

European Tribune - Catastrophe Cacophony

Except that increasing flood, windstorm and hurricane losses have not been attributed to global warming / climate change so far.

increasing hurricane damage for the USA can't be contributed just yet
 
has not be attributed so far

Emphasis mine.

reinsurers do not require evidence that would stand up in a court of law, or in a scientific publication, before making projections or fixing premiums. I suspect they would do very little business if they did.

Nice rhetorical trick. Of course I am not talking about projections or fixing premiums, you are. I am talking about claims released in the public domain and press by a company proclaiming the presence of a trend, without providing any evidence to show for.

That is a practice just as acceptable as, let's say, a pharmaceutical company selling anti-cancer drugs, announcing by press release a global increase in liver cancer rates for 60+ years old males, and then not providing the evidence.

None of this argues against the possibility (which appears to be your subtext) that reinsurers are scamming us with inflated premiums. Perhaps they are. But the evidence you present is unpersuasive in that respect.

Nice rhetorical trick again - point me the specific sentence where I argue that "reinsurers are scamming us with inflated premiums". It is no wonder I am unpersuasive in that respect - I am not even arguing for it.

by Nomad on Thu Nov 18th, 2010 at 08:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The same paper quotes a number of studies which demonstrate, without question, increased winter rainfall overall, and higher rainfall per rainy day, over the examined period (as well as a warming effect which is bigger than the global average). It is not unimagineable that these increases have not provoked any increase in major flooding; but it is powerfully counter-intuitive.

Something being "powerfully counter-intuitive" has led to some poor scientific thinking before.

While studies of damage up to now may be ambiguous about a link, all the studies with future projections I found show a link.

Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change

We compute that US corn production losses due to this factor, already significant under current climate, may double during the next thirty years, causing additional damages totaling an estimated $3 billion per year.

ingentaconnect The Impacts of Socioeconomic Development and Climate Change on Se...

...The climate change scenarios respectively project 13.5% and 21.5% increases in annual precipitation. The first simulation increases only the mean value of annual precipitation; the second simulation assumes that the mean and standard deviation of annual precipitation change in the same proportion. Results show that the growth in reported losses from weather-related natural disasters is due mainly to three socioeconomic factors: inflation, population growth and growth in per capita real wealth. However, weather variables such as precipitation and the number of hurricanes per period also clearly affect losses. The three stage least squares (3SLS) simultaneous equation model shows that a 1% increase in annual precipitation would enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%...

The IPCC mentions the last one, and also: AR4 WGII Chapter 3: Fresh Water Resources and their Management - 3.5.2 How will climate change affect flood damages?

Another study examined the potential flood damage impacts of changes in extreme precipitation events using the Canadian Climate Centre model and the IS92a emissions scenario for the metropolitan Boston area in the north-eastern USA (Kirshen et al., 2005b). They found that, without adaptation investments, both the number of properties damaged by floods and the overall cost of flood damage would double by 2100 relative to what might be expected with no climate change, and that flood-related transportation delays would become an increasingly significant nuisance over the course of the century. The study concluded that the likely economic magnitude of these damages is sufficiently high to justify large expenditures on adaptation strategies such as universal flood-proofing for all flood plains.

This finding is supported by a scenario study of the damage due to river and coastal flooding in England and Wales in the 2080s (Hall et al., 2005), which combined four emissions scenarios with four scenarios of socio-economic change in an SRES-like framework. In all scenarios, flood damages are predicted to increase unless current flood management policies, practices and infrastructure are changed. For a 2°C temperature increase in a B1-type world, by the 2080s annual damage is estimated to be £5 billion as compared to £1 billion today, while with approximately the same climate change, damage is only £1.5 billion in a B2-type world. In an A1-type world, with a temperature increase of 2°C, the annual damage would amount to £15 billion by the 2050s and £21 billion by the 2080s (Hall et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2004).

The impact of climate change on flood damages can be estimated from modelled changes in the recurrence interval of present-day 20- or 100-year floods, and estimates of the damages of present-day floods as determined from stage-discharge relations (between gauge height (stage) and volume of water per unit of time (discharge)), and detailed property data. With such a methodology, the average annual direct flood damage for three Australian drainage basins was projected to increase by a factor of four to ten under conditions of doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Schreider et al., 2000).

I also found a more recent study from Spain, Flood risk and climate change. An estimation for the catchment area of the River Urola from 2009. It has a crappily worded summary so I won't quote it, but in the scenarios they investigated, not only did climate change increase damage significantly, but extra flood damage due to climate change dwarfed extra flood damage due to socio-economical change.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 19th, 2010 at 03:25:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Quibble: Since when are projections capable of "proving" a link? A underlying trend in those projections is assumed - not that I have an immediate problem with these what-if assumptions. Except that projections are not evidence for something - although they are useful data points to quantify scientific understanding in hindsight.

Of course I am not dealing with projections at the moment, and I thought I had already made clear in the diary that projected increased losses due to climate change are indeed likely, and that at some point in time there will be consequences. Quantifying these consequences, however, is a topic rife with speculation and assumption.

by Nomad on Fri Nov 19th, 2010 at 05:35:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If only all ET argumentation could be so good! (A comment from someone with no expertise in the science under review)

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Nov 19th, 2010 at 03:35:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series