I downloaded and read the Swiss Re report you linked. I wonder if I might prevail upon you for a couple of clarifications.
First, I was able to find the following statement:
“To date, the main drivers of rising losses have been economic growth and urbanisation. Climate change plays a relatively small role today, but we expect associated losses to accumulate and contribute more in the future. “
But I was not able to find a source for your slightly stronger claim that “any signal of climate change is not yet discernible in insured loss trends, but remains a risk for the future.”
Am I missing something in the report , or is this an actual discrepancy?
Second, the tables on ‘Probabilities of Hazard Intensification” are eye opening. Am I interpreting these correctly as IPCC based estimates of the probability P that hazards in a given region will worsen by the relevant date- versus a (1-P) probability that said weather hazards will NOT worsen. I have come to expect gross exaggeration of climate science in the media, but wow!
Thanks as always for your truly invaluable substack.
Dear Roger, I just finished your book "The Climate Fix" (I'm a fast reader but a slow thinker) My congratulations; it's a fine piece of work, truly profound in many places. I was particularly impressed with the 9th chapter. It spells out a "no-regrets" approach to policy which should benefit humankind regardless of how the weather and climate behave in years to come. I understand you intend to issue an updated 2nd edition at some point, since the first edition is now 12 years old. I look forward to it eagerly. One key point that bemuses me; climate sensitivity has been claimed to be somewhere between 0.5 to 4.5 K per 2X CO2, and despite 40 years of cogitation is still not known with any assurance. Thus it strikes me as quite difficult to assign priorities and cost-benefit ratios to policies designed to decarbonize or reduce the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Your thoughts?
Speaking of The New Yorker, they have a discussion of the Carrington Event that strikes me as highly relevant for energy policy. A repeat is guaranteed, quite possibly during my lifetime. And I'm pretty old.
Too old to be camping out for a year or so without electricity. I'd most likely be one of the millions who wouldn't make it.
There's a real question here about priorities. IMO hardening the grid is far more urgent, and deserves far more resources, than most current outlays on wind/solar.
“In a brief review in Foreign Policy, Keith Johnson wrote that “the best way to appreciate Vaclav Smil’s latest doorstopper is to take a deep breath, walk across the room, and pick up the book from wherever it landed after being tossed away for the umpteenth time as impenetrable, incomprehensible mush.””
I’ve only tried to tackle How The World Really Works but I can sympathize with this sentiment. I’m like dude you seriously need another editor. Job one would be removing everything in brackets (which is almost every line). But I suppose that’s the price of admission.
Another quote from that article:
““The things we’re talking about are not about sacrifice; they’re actually about abundance. They’re about creating a cooler, more exciting and better future.” The future that Stokes envisions will be built on heat pumps, solar panels, and the electrification of everything, everywhere.”
You often hear this line but when you start looking for “efficiency” as rationing in disguise you see it a fair amount. Energy efficient dryers that have settings that go from damp to dry, more dry and extra dry. EVs that limit the distance you can realistically travel and the cabin heat you use. Heat pumps that only send out low temperature heat. Real efficiency does exist of course (in the form of electric motors and LEDs for example) but the rationing as efficiency trick is one to watch out for.
Thanks for your information. I’m struck especially by the comments by John Kerry. Sums up the entire elitist position from his own horse’s ass perspective.
I *think* that there's a problem with the link for "Cardou and Vellend 2023: Stealth advocacy in ecology and conservation biology" (blank page opens for me).
Dr Pielke,
I downloaded and read the Swiss Re report you linked. I wonder if I might prevail upon you for a couple of clarifications.
First, I was able to find the following statement:
“To date, the main drivers of rising losses have been economic growth and urbanisation. Climate change plays a relatively small role today, but we expect associated losses to accumulate and contribute more in the future. “
But I was not able to find a source for your slightly stronger claim that “any signal of climate change is not yet discernible in insured loss trends, but remains a risk for the future.”
Am I missing something in the report , or is this an actual discrepancy?
Second, the tables on ‘Probabilities of Hazard Intensification” are eye opening. Am I interpreting these correctly as IPCC based estimates of the probability P that hazards in a given region will worsen by the relevant date- versus a (1-P) probability that said weather hazards will NOT worsen. I have come to expect gross exaggeration of climate science in the media, but wow!
Thanks as always for your truly invaluable substack.
Dear Roger, I just finished your book "The Climate Fix" (I'm a fast reader but a slow thinker) My congratulations; it's a fine piece of work, truly profound in many places. I was particularly impressed with the 9th chapter. It spells out a "no-regrets" approach to policy which should benefit humankind regardless of how the weather and climate behave in years to come. I understand you intend to issue an updated 2nd edition at some point, since the first edition is now 12 years old. I look forward to it eagerly. One key point that bemuses me; climate sensitivity has been claimed to be somewhere between 0.5 to 4.5 K per 2X CO2, and despite 40 years of cogitation is still not known with any assurance. Thus it strikes me as quite difficult to assign priorities and cost-benefit ratios to policies designed to decarbonize or reduce the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Your thoughts?
Does anybody have a link to the text of Jim Skea's Imperial College lecture? TIA
I loved this. Could you do this more often. The combination of short/long editorial along with podcasts is very helpful. Thank you.
The patrick brown article seems to be paywalled. Is there an open link you can provide?
Speaking of The New Yorker, they have a discussion of the Carrington Event that strikes me as highly relevant for energy policy. A repeat is guaranteed, quite possibly during my lifetime. And I'm pretty old.
Too old to be camping out for a year or so without electricity. I'd most likely be one of the millions who wouldn't make it.
There's a real question here about priorities. IMO hardening the grid is far more urgent, and deserves far more resources, than most current outlays on wind/solar.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/04/what-a-major-solar-storm-could-do-to-our-planet
“In a brief review in Foreign Policy, Keith Johnson wrote that “the best way to appreciate Vaclav Smil’s latest doorstopper is to take a deep breath, walk across the room, and pick up the book from wherever it landed after being tossed away for the umpteenth time as impenetrable, incomprehensible mush.””
I’ve only tried to tackle How The World Really Works but I can sympathize with this sentiment. I’m like dude you seriously need another editor. Job one would be removing everything in brackets (which is almost every line). But I suppose that’s the price of admission.
Another quote from that article:
““The things we’re talking about are not about sacrifice; they’re actually about abundance. They’re about creating a cooler, more exciting and better future.” The future that Stokes envisions will be built on heat pumps, solar panels, and the electrification of everything, everywhere.”
You often hear this line but when you start looking for “efficiency” as rationing in disguise you see it a fair amount. Energy efficient dryers that have settings that go from damp to dry, more dry and extra dry. EVs that limit the distance you can realistically travel and the cabin heat you use. Heat pumps that only send out low temperature heat. Real efficiency does exist of course (in the form of electric motors and LEDs for example) but the rationing as efficiency trick is one to watch out for.
Thanks for your information. I’m struck especially by the comments by John Kerry. Sums up the entire elitist position from his own horse’s ass perspective.
Thanks for the list!
I *think* that there's a problem with the link for "Cardou and Vellend 2023: Stealth advocacy in ecology and conservation biology" (blank page opens for me).