Open Thread – AGU Week

climateace says:
December 8, 2013 at 4:16 pm
clipe
[climateace says:
December 8, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Snow at football games? Meh. The latest Australian Bushfire report:
Ah yes! A report from “Big Insurance”. Munich Re reduxulous.]
When insurers stop wanting to do business with homeowners it is not big business, it is no business.

Insurers always want to do business if they can increase premiums relative to the risk.
That’s why Munich Re bigs-up the risk. Simples

clipe
Insurers in competitive markets will up their premiums until the markets can no longer afford them. It has long been a feature in Australia, for example, that premiums for hail insurance for strawberry crops is prohibitive.
The point I was making is that insurers are moving out of home insurance in some areas in response to flood bills and fire bills.

I don’t know much about US governance other than that the seeming trend to a constitutional anarchy cum gridlock is a worry.
Given that you guys are our main military ally, and that Japan and China are rattling the sabres with gusto, we need you guys to keep your act together.

bobl
‘The Climate ace lost his argument, so now he is shifting the goal posts so it is the people that don’t live in cities own fault that they have burned to death after the councils restricted fire breaks around their houses to as little as 6m.’
Not at all. My main point was that my insurance premiums are going up faster than the rate of inflation. You have not addressed this main point but you have alerted the world to herds of unicorns and an orchard full of cheries.
‘He blames the same people that put food on his inner city canberran ( if I read the posts right) plate each night, day,after day, year after year.’
I run some beef cattle so I would hardly blame myself.
‘I might point out ace, that I did in fact offer you good advice on how to address your insurance problem. Have your government modify the laws to increase the clearance geometry to the point that houses can be adequately protected. Have your government do the protective backburns, build the dams and levy banks to control flooding, add some strategic sea walls and the reduced property losses will bring down premiums. Maybe $3 Bn could make a start on that, but you better get moving, or greenpeace will beat you to it!’
Very nice, I must say but a bit underdone. I would go a step further and concrete national parks. But why would I want to pay more taxes so governments can do things for private home owners who choose to build their houses in risky situations? They just want to abuse other peoples’ tax money. Not only do I get slugged with higher premiums for their foolishness, I get slugged extra taxes to protected them from their foolishness and then get slugged some more extra taxes every time their foolishness catches up with them. And this is before AGW makes the whole shebang even more risky and more costly. They should be ashamed of themselves.
‘Finally, Once again you are wrong, as a matter of fact I do own Australian property, lots of it , Australian rural property, and yes I do have insurance, good insurance, and yes I do have a firebreak, about 200m of it, oh and just for starters I also manage to sink some 20 Tonnes of CO2 every year more than I emit.’
(1) I wonder whether our properties abut? Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
(2) I am glad that you can get insurance. I suppose that means you would be against the way in which governments give no interest loans to farmers who get burnt out and you would also be against free grants to replacing fencing and so on and so forth?
(3) I suppose the firebreak is on your property? If so, I have no problems with that at all. Well done. If it is done on other peoples’ property, what right have you got to devalue other people’s property?
(4) The general history of clearing and farming in Australia is that the soil has been decarbonized. Note, please ‘general’. This has damaged soil structure, soil drainage, soil nutrient holding capacity and soil moisture holding capacity. Essentially, one way of looking at Australian farming has been that it has been a carbon mining operation. I am glad that you are conscious of your carbon balance. I would be curious to know how you measure both your gains and your losses to arrive at a net carbon gain.
‘For those in other countries, the Australian bush is tough, its fire hardened, the common trees, eucalyptus, etc have leaves loaded with hydrocarbons, some have seed that rely on being burned for germination. On a hot day, the oil evaporating off the trees can form an explosive mixture. If I burn off a pile of branches not 4 feet high and 6 ft wide of dry Australian natives the flames can reach 6 – 8 metres, intense radiant heat 20m and embers 100m. Yet some Australian councils only allow clearing of bush for barely 6m around a house,. If a 4ft pile of rubbish can produce 6m of flame imagine what a grove of closely spaced eucalyptus 20m high loaded with hydrocarbons can do. Consider then what sort of safety margin you’d want for YOUR loved ones from a grove of these biological firebombs.’
For those in other countries this is a cherry-picked example which does have the general benefit of showing that fires in Australia can and do kill people, burn houses, burn farms and destroy infrastructure.
The main lesson from the above example is that houses and bush do not mix. What happens is that city folk build a house ‘amongst the gum trees’ as a popular song goes, and then wonder why it all goes up in smoke. They then want to destroy the bush so that their houses are safe. Dopey stuff, from woe to go. Why would you put YOUR loved ones in that sort of position in the first place? Crazy, right?
Oh, and clearing bush habitats is one reason why Australia is a gold medal winner in the World Cup of extinctions.
If you want some statistical stuff, as opposed to discussion by way of examples, check out the Busfire Report for a statistical treatment of climate and fire trends in Australia. Check out any number of Googled links for the complexity of fire, fire management, and to biotic and abiotic responses to various fire regimes.

Khwarizme
“When their houses do get burnt or destroyed in floods, do they blame themselves for their folly? Oh no. They scream blue murder at the government/council/authorities for not protecting them from their own stupidity.,” explained the shameless troll calling itself “climateace.”
No need to get personal. I don’t agree with you but I don’t call you ‘shameless’. Nor do I call you a ‘troll’ because you disagree with me. I might call you ‘wrong’ but not a troll.
That paragraph describes EXACTLY what happens after every major flood and bushfire in Australia. And the result is that our house premiums go up, and up and up.

Meanwhile, in ‘Defier land’
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/not-thats-c-c-c-cold-antarctica-sets-record-135-2D11719427
it’s cold.

by .5°F

climateface – I’d rather you refrained from addressing me until you answer the questions that would allow us to verify your claims, e,g. what is the name of that very scary city that you live in, where insurance premiums are outrageous? I want to verify. I want to check the price of insurance premiums in your city.
Until you answer, I will assume you have been lying from the outset.
and folks,
you can’t assign temperature to a single molecule of CO2:
“Unless the molecules in the gas have a speed distribution that conforms to such a [Maxwell-Boltzman] curve, temperature has no meaning for the gas.” – Principles of Modern Chemistry (4th edition.)

Just had a quick squizz at some industry figures: building premiums have tripled in just over a decade. Phew.

Why are you always so cranky, Jim? Are you still holding onto all that gold you bought at $1900 because Glenn Beck told you to buy gold and it will go to $10,000? Like Blade probably did, like most of you cranky Red State Cons probably did. It’s getting close to $1200 and still has a ways to go.
Explaining economics to Conservatives is like arguing with a stubborn teenager, explaining it to a Libertarian is like reasoning with a 2 year old.
Gunga Din, you’re reply is pretty much unintelligible, please try again. Obviously, if you’d rather believe a billionaires’ slogan that appeals to your prejudice and fears instead of the facts you’re a Conservative.