South Carolina Getting Pounded

[Star]

.

Below is a link to an interactive map showing the percent of Global Climate Change deniers. The map can be changed from 'National' to 'State' to 'Congressional District' to 'County'.

I wonder, after being hit by a 1,000 year storm, will the percentage of climate change deniers change in a place like South Carolina, where climate science has been politicized to the point that South Carolinians are among the highest percentage of deniers in the country -- according to the attached map, 43%


Estimated % of adults who think global warming is happening, 2014


.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There have been thousand year storms, floods that have happened for millions of years. Has nothing to do with glowarm.

 

[nuhuh]

Considering it is South Carolina after all, would it be more correct to call this a thousand year douche?

 

[Unvarnished]

You're right, this is the first ever storm South Carolina has ever experienced. The HORROR!!! It is all our faults, we made the clouds angry with our gas-guzzling vehicles and power plants. It's payback time for em!

 

[The Rabbi]

It's God's judgment on SOuth Carolina for taking down the Confederate flag.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

San Antonio and the surrounding area had two five hundred year floods that occurred within five years of each other thirteen and eighteen years ago.

 

[Misty]

Lol every time there is a storm it's global warming and every time there is a shooting it's time to confiscate guns.

Give it a rest.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, extreme weather events were predicted by the climate scientists, therefore no matter how many are occurring they cannot be occurring. You assholes are really skating the edge now. Record fires in Canada and the US. Record precipitation events. And the cost in infrastructure prevents building the new infrastructure that we need.

 

[Star]

Considering it is South Carolina after all, would it be more correct to call this a thousand year douche?

Maybe! And maybe, given that it's SC, a douche was necessary.
Hopefully, the South Carolinians were smart enough to surround their beautiful golf courses with sand bags? Nah, South Carolina + smart = oxymoron - evidence, 43% of South Carolinians don't believe in climate change b-b-b-but today their Governor ordered them to stay in their houses unless their house is underwater.


'Do not venture out': Record storm floods East Coast, kills at least 6
.

 

[SSDD]

Of course, extreme weather events were predicted by the climate scientists, therefore no matter how many are occurring they cannot be occurring. You assholes are really skating the edge now. Record fires in Canada and the US. Record precipitation events. And the cost in infrastructure prevents building the new infrastructure that we need.

Easy prediction...since what you people call extreme weather events have always happened everywhere...again, no matter what happens you get to say see...we told you. What you don't bother to mention is that it is all just business as usual on planet Earth.

 

[martybegan]

Of course, extreme weather events were predicted by the climate scientists, therefore no matter how many are occurring they cannot be occurring. You assholes are really skating the edge now. Record fires in Canada and the US. Record precipitation events. And the cost in infrastructure prevents building the new infrastructure that we need.

"extreme weather events", like the ones that have happened for centuries...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

.

Below is a link to an interactive map showing the percent of Global Climate Change deniers. The map can be changed from 'National' to 'State' to 'Congressional District' to 'County'.

I wonder, after being hit by a 1,000 year storm, will the percentage of climate change deniers change in a place like South Carolina, where climate science has been politicized to the point that South Carolinians are among the highest percentage of deniers in the country -- according to the attached map, 43%


Estimated % of adults who think global warming is happening, 2014


.

You people are as predictable as the sun rising. Every time there is a severe weather event it's "Global Warming!!" "Climate Change!" as if these things never happened prior.

 

[Star]

San Antonio and the surrounding area had two five hundred year floods that occurred within five years of each other thirteen and eighteen years ago.

Obviously, you weren't paying attention in your high school science class. When Governor Haley claimed SC was experiencing a 1,000 year storm, she was referring to the probability of having an event of this nature. If you had picked your head up off your drool covered desk during your jr. high and high school science classes, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But thanks for exposing your ignorance of [climate] science.


Can two "100-year floods" occur within several years or even within the same year?
Yes, although if "100-year floods" started occurring each year, then the more frequent occurrences of the floods would change the statistical probability that the floods would occur, and thus, the "100-year floods" could become "50-year floods" !

This question points out the importance of proper terminology. The term "100-year flood" is used in an attempt to simplify the definition of a flood that statistically has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. Likewise, the term "100-year storm" is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has this same 1-percent chance of occurring. In other words, over the course of 1 million years, these events would be expected to occur 10,000 times. These events, as well as any recurring events, are assumed to be statistically independent of each other.

Therefore, each year begins with the same 1-percent chance that a 100-year event will occur.

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

San Antonio and the surrounding area had two five hundred year floods that occurred within five years of each other thirteen and eighteen years ago.

Obviously, you weren't paying attention in your high school science class. When Governor Haley claimed SC was experiencing a 1,000 year storm, she was referring to the probability of having an event of this nature. If you had picked your head up off your drool covered desk during your jr. high and high school science classes, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But thanks for exposing your ignorance of [climate] science.


Can two "100-year floods" occur within several years or even within the same year?
Yes, although if "100-year floods" started occurring each year, then the more frequent occurrences of the floods would change the statistical probability that the floods would occur, and thus, the "100-year floods" could become "50-year floods" !

This question points out the importance of proper terminology. The term "100-year flood" is used in an attempt to simplify the definition of a flood that statistically has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. Likewise, the term "100-year storm" is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has this same 1-percent chance of occurring. In other words, over the course of 1 million years, these events would be expected to occur 10,000 times. These events, as well as any recurring events, are assumed to be statistically independent of each other.

Therefore, each year begins with the same 1-percent chance that a 100-year event will occur.

.

You're stating the obvious, geo 101, and becoming emotional, without adding any additional substance. Has nothing to do with glowarm.

 

[SSDD]

All this 100 year and 1000 year this and that coming from the proponents of AGW is a fine example of how hopelessly confused they are. They are confusing the odds of one particular place getting 20 inches of rain with any place getting 20 inches of rain. Heavy rainfall is not particularly uncommon in the US...Hell, Alvin, Texas got 43 inches of rain in a single day back in 1979. We heard the 1000 year nonsense when the heavy rains happened in colorado in 2013 but in 1935 places in colorado got 24 inches of rain in a 6 hour period.

They fail to differentiate between the odds of a thing happening and the odds of a thing happening in a particular place. Your particular odds of winning the lottery are diminishingly small while the odds of someone winning the lottery are quite good. The odds are far better than 1% that some particular place will get a very heavy rainfall in any given year...in fact, they are probably edging up on 100%....the odds of that rain falling on a particular geographical area are, and always have been small.

The 100 and 1000 year hysterics coming from warmers is just more business as usual from a faith driven cult claiming that all things at all times are due to their god's anger at our production of a whisp of a trace gas in the atmosphere. The 100 and 1000 year logical error they are making in the case of rain is symptomatic of the way climate pseudoscience attempts to do science....and, by they way....why they never fail to get it wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult totally gave up on anything to do with science. They outright told us it was just a scheme to redistribute wealth*. Since there's been no warming for 2 decades, they magically add in "Warming" from the oceans at a depth of 700m and they just point to the top story on the Weather Channel and shriek, "MAN MADE CLIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CHANGE YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DEATH TO DENIERS!!!"

I live for the day when they're booted from from every college and University and their federal funding is zeroed out

* "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

 

[SSDD]

The AGWCult totally gave up on anything to do with science. They outright told us it was just a scheme to redistribute wealth*. Since there's been no warming for 2 decades, they magically add in "Warming" from the oceans at a depth of 700m and they just point to the top story on the Weather Channel and shriek, "MAN MADE CLIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CHANGE YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DEATH TO DENIERS!!!"

I live for the day when they're booted from from every college and University and their federal funding is zeroed out

* "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Alas, I am afraid that it is the same for luke warmers....they hold to their faith that the magic CO2 works (albeit less powerfully) with the same blind tenacity as the most rabid warmer wacko. It has been 20 years now without warming while CO2 has increased steadily....the warmer wackos are now full time in the business of denying the lack of warming with what....50+ excuses now.....the luke warmers acknowledge that there has been no warming for two decades....and they acknowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased but disconnect at the point where they should acknowledge that the magic doesn't work and CO2 doesn't cause warming....not even a little bit but they are invested at this point....same as the hard core warmers just for different reasons.

 

[Old Rocks]

Insurance Industry Perspectives on Extreme Weather Events | Briefing | EESI

Summary
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) organized a briefing on insurance industry perspectives on recent extreme weather events and how strategic investment can help manage the threats posed by a changing and more severe climate. In New York, Washington and California, insurance companies are required to disclose their climate change response plans, and many insurers are considering modifying rates and expected payouts to address increasing extreme weather events and rising sea levels.

As experts in assessing, quantifying and transferring risk, the insurance industry is a natural partner for the federal government as it looks to manage extreme weather vulnerability. The briefing included the industry’s response to the growing number of very costly climate-related disasters and considered how public-private collaboration can help manage risk and guide policy to promote long-term resiliency.

Now who would know the most about increased risks and extreme weather.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Risk Disclosure

Climate Change and Risk Disclosure
Last Updated 6/03/15
BRIEFS, LETTERS, MOUs, TESTIMONY & SPEECHES
Issue: Disclosure of climate risk is important because of the potential impact climate change can have on insurer solvency and the availability and affordability of insurance across all major categories. Munich Re estimates weather related losses increased nearly fourfold in the United States since 1980. According to a study by Munich Re, extreme weather events (such as prolonged droughts, hurricanes, floods, and severe storms) led to $510 billion in insured losses from 1980 to 2011. Experts predict climate change will continue to intensify the frequency and severity of these types of weather related events. Given these trends, it is important for insurers to identify climate-related factors and evaluate how they will impact their business and the exposures they indemnify.

Recognizing the need to ensure insurers account for any potential effect these risks might have on the marketplace and the availability and affordability of insurance, state insurance regulators and other stakeholders have moved forward to administer a climate risk disclosure tool. Disclosures allow regulators a window into how insurers are incorporating these changing dynamics into their risk management schemes, corporate strategy, and investment plans. Disclosures also benefit insurers, providing them with a benchmark from which to assess their own climate change strategies and strengthening their ability to identify how climate change impacts their business. Furthermore, disclosure allows policymakers to gain an insight into needed public policy changes.

Seems we have some hard headed business men concerned.

 

[Old Rocks]

Despite Varney's claims, five top insurance companies have recognized that disaster losses are increasing, which may be related in part to climate change:

1. Munich Re, an internationally distinguished reinsurer, found that the number of weather-related loss events in North America over the last three decades has "nearly quintupled." It noted that "p to now" the increase has been "primarily driven by socio-economic factors, such as population growth, urban sprawl and increasing wealth." However, a Munich Re study also found an increase in thunderstorm-related losses "in line with the modelled changes due to human-made climate change," in addition to some increase from urban sprawl.
   

.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which consults with many major insurance companies, states that "Twenty of the 30 most costly insured catastrophes worldwide from 1970 to 2011 have occurred since 2001. With the exception of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they were all natural disasters." The consulting giant further states that "A combination of a growing and rapidly urbanising population, particularly in coastal cities, and the increasing frequency of disasters due to climate instability mean that companies and governments will have to learn how to better manage the risk of expected but unpredictable disastrous events."

Swiss Re, a leading global reinsurer, found that large-scale weather events in 2012 led to the "third highest insured losses since 1970," adding up to $71 billion worldwide from natural catastrophes. They assumed a model of a ten-inch rise in sea levels by 2050 -- a conservative estimate, according to Swiss Re -- to show that the "frequency of losses like Sandy are likely to increase in the future."

The Geneva Association, a leading international think tank of the insurance industry, found that "in some high-risk areas, ocean warming and climate change threaten the insurability of catastrophe risk." They predict that a "new normal" of climate change may require changes in the insurance industry.

AIG, a multinational insurance corporation, recognizes climate change as an "ongoing, significant" problem with "risks to the global economy... including risks to adequate water supply for human consumption and agricultural use." They are sponsoring research on how to include climate change in catastrophe modeling because "no other industry responds as quickly to changes in climate patterns as the insurance industry," and contributed to a set of principles to "guide coastal community resilience ... in light of more intense hurricanes."

Of course all of our denial experts here know so much more than these fellows.