Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
- Thread starter Liar Loan
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
morekaos
Well-known member
Meant only 3 made landfall (which is what matters) and most hit on the gulf not Atlantic so NOAA was wrong again (climate panic porn)
As of Oct. 3, 12 named storms had formed in 2024, including seven that reached hurricane status and three that strengthened into major hurricanes.
As of Oct. 3, 12 named storms had formed in 2024, including seven that reached hurricane status and three that strengthened into major hurricanes.
Again wrong. As someone who works with catastrophic event models and clients in the reinsurance industry, I can tell you the predictions are designed to help insurers and people like homeowners understand risks and making decisions.
Edit: and the predictions help the federal, state and local governments as well.
Edit: and the predictions help the federal, state and local governments as well.
morekaos
Well-known member
lesson being if you want to live in a fire zone then it’s going to cost you …if you live on an island like I do …it’ll cost you. those places caught fire and have flooded for thousands of years, if you don’t wanna take the risk then maybe you shouldn’t build there. If you insure in a hurricane area, get ready to pay or be like California and pull out of the market… weather gonna weather ….those losses have little to do with “global warming”…
Now that we seem to have a common ground, let me expand a little more. Basically two points.
Insurance companies have not entirely pulled out. It's true many companies are simply refusing to write individual policies. But they are still required by law to participate in the California Fair plan. You can always get a Fair plan if you cannot find insurance, and that is basically a mechanism for the insurance companies to share the losses.
Second, having no option for insurance is bad for the consumers. We as cat modelers and personally I, as hopefully soon-to-be a homeowner, think that if a company has a more accurate measure of the risk, then they will be able to set the premium accordingly. If they have no measure or data at all, then they do not know the risk, and are forced to stop doing business at all. That's bad for everybody.
Bonus point- the climate risk alone is not the entire reason they are pulling out. Well it probably is for Florida, there's just too much loss. But for California, rate increase proposals take too long to be approved, sometimes 2-3 years, due to bureaucratic red tape and back-and-forth. For a lot of companies it's simply more advantageous to pull out rather than trying to serve the consumers.
Insurance companies have not entirely pulled out. It's true many companies are simply refusing to write individual policies. But they are still required by law to participate in the California Fair plan. You can always get a Fair plan if you cannot find insurance, and that is basically a mechanism for the insurance companies to share the losses.
Second, having no option for insurance is bad for the consumers. We as cat modelers and personally I, as hopefully soon-to-be a homeowner, think that if a company has a more accurate measure of the risk, then they will be able to set the premium accordingly. If they have no measure or data at all, then they do not know the risk, and are forced to stop doing business at all. That's bad for everybody.
Bonus point- the climate risk alone is not the entire reason they are pulling out. Well it probably is for Florida, there's just too much loss. But for California, rate increase proposals take too long to be approved, sometimes 2-3 years, due to bureaucratic red tape and back-and-forth. For a lot of companies it's simply more advantageous to pull out rather than trying to serve the consumers.
morekaos
Well-known member
Simple answer to reduce risk in California, instead of relying on these garbage in garbage out climate models is just stop building in high risk areas. It’s not that difficult, look at all the major insurance losses in California and you’ll see they were in areas that were well known to be, incredibly risky for natural disasters, but they built there anyway. Like I said, I live on an island, an obvious flood zone, but given a choice I wouldn’t carry flood insurance., I understand the risks and I’m willing to take them to live where I live.
That's your point of view and totally fair. It's just market dynamics in play. Low risk = high demand = high cost. For people who cannot afford the cost, they are going to build in high risk areas, because high risk = low demand = low cost. If you want to stop that, you will need the government to control the market. Do you really want that?
morekaos
Well-known member
The government is already intimately entangled in development, they issue the permits. All the area of that caught fire recently from Trabuco Canyon over to Lake Elsinore doesn’t need a climate model to tell you that that area is at significant risk…just need a little common sense.
All I'm saying is that when you underwrite a property as an insurer, you do not do that based on common sense. You do not draw a random line on a map, and say okay this side of the line has double premium than the other side. We have better data and tools to make more accurate predictions now.
I recently worked on a wildfire model release. We have zip code, even lot level data of assets, their exposures, climate hazard of the location and what kind of vulnerability that assets may face based on said hazard and their exposure (think how many stories, construction materials, type of occupancy- residential/commercial etc.). We have financial models to project how much the losses will be in monetary terms for any specific kind of peril like earthquake, flood or wildfire on a particular asset, or a number of assets in a large area.
And there will always be errors in the model. We learn from errors, adjust our models, and given enough time, can come up with even more accurate models. The wildfire situation in California, or the Atlantic hurricanes- these are events that are very volatile now due to a number of factors with high variation. The models may underperform now, but given a few years, they will get better. When I say better I don't say just accurately predicting how many storms will be in a years, but very granular level predictions of loss of one or a number of assets such as homes or businesses.
That's just how science works. We come up with a hypothesis, create a model based on some observations, and as new observations come in, we keep adjusting and perfecting the models. Look up Weiner filters. It's literally how it works. The words that I am typing, they are being sent over electromagnetic waves, your device receives those with some errors introduced during transmission. There are models that predicts what I am sending and what you are receiving with near 100% accuracy, and it works because we had decades to perfect those kind of transmission. But you see none of what happening in the background and take it for granted.
I recently worked on a wildfire model release. We have zip code, even lot level data of assets, their exposures, climate hazard of the location and what kind of vulnerability that assets may face based on said hazard and their exposure (think how many stories, construction materials, type of occupancy- residential/commercial etc.). We have financial models to project how much the losses will be in monetary terms for any specific kind of peril like earthquake, flood or wildfire on a particular asset, or a number of assets in a large area.
And there will always be errors in the model. We learn from errors, adjust our models, and given enough time, can come up with even more accurate models. The wildfire situation in California, or the Atlantic hurricanes- these are events that are very volatile now due to a number of factors with high variation. The models may underperform now, but given a few years, they will get better. When I say better I don't say just accurately predicting how many storms will be in a years, but very granular level predictions of loss of one or a number of assets such as homes or businesses.
That's just how science works. We come up with a hypothesis, create a model based on some observations, and as new observations come in, we keep adjusting and perfecting the models. Look up Weiner filters. It's literally how it works. The words that I am typing, they are being sent over electromagnetic waves, your device receives those with some errors introduced during transmission. There are models that predicts what I am sending and what you are receiving with near 100% accuracy, and it works because we had decades to perfect those kind of transmission. But you see none of what happening in the background and take it for granted.
morekaos
Well-known member
I agree, your application is really a profit driven endeavor. But the incredibly complex worldwide climate models are notoriously inaccurate and using them to dictate policy and taxation is questionable at best and irresponsible at worst. The whole idea of average temperature is a ridiculous oversimplification. Data is used to create a narrative to justify a power grab. That’s not economic…it’s political and dangerous
morekaos
Well-known member
or they use the models to justify higher premiums that may not reflect reality but increase profits with a defendable excuse….hmmm
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Look who you're talking to.