It already has run out for many people, certainly people who have been killed due to weather events made more common and extreme.
Even for the currently living, climate change has make it unaffordable for some people to live in their homes. This is very real. Just days before super-storm Sandy hit the U.S., the global insurance industry warmed that changes had to be made in North America because of the increased risks due to climate change.
Among the warnings from the insurance industry:
"Risk-adequate premiums are necessary to guarantee sustainable insurability."
In real people talk: Insurance rates have to go up, way way up.
http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relatio...
http://www.munichreamerica.com/pdf/ks_se...
And now, just as warned, insurance rates are being jacked up drastically on victims of Sandy and many people cannot afford to live where they were living, even though their insurance covers the cost to rebuild. They have to either pay to raise their homes ($100,000s for some people) or pay higher insurance rates ($10,000s/year for some people).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/09/aft...
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/eas...
http://www.liveinsurancenews.com/homeown...
Worldwide we are spending massively to adapt to climate change. That is already happening, it is not some future prediction.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/climate-c...
At this point the questions are primarily about how long we want to wait to encourage mitigation in order to lesson the costs for future generations. The time to avoid massive costs has long come and gone, it is now only about whether to allow costs to become even more massive.
********
Ian, your numbers exclude deaths from heat waves. The most extreme recent heat wave include Russia in 2010 which killed 50,000 people and France in 2003 which killed 70,000 people. Add those and re-run your numbers.
Please at least share the source of your data independent of WUWT, as WUWT is know to be deceptive. (You don't need to argue with this, just show your support independent of that blog.)
The changes that are happening to North American insurance rate are real and happening now. Deny and pay .. or don't deny and pay. It does not matter to your insurance agency.
I n a 1975 earth sciences text book, there was a graft depicting the decline of natural resources and the birth-rate. In a 1955 movie about a giant spider created with growth hormones running a muck, there is a reference to the decline of natural resources and population growth. I have never seen the references to climate change due to populations size, except in ice ages on Wikipedia and the sciencedaily.com site's breaking news.
According to a population report listed yesterday by the UN Council on Population growth, the population will increase to 11-13 billion by 2100.
In 1975 the estimate to outstrip natural resources was 2100-2200 AD.
The problem is not the climate, it is the people. with only 2% of all species known to have existed, exeunt, then what is the probability that the last remaining of the surviving 5-civilizations [out of 15 known to have existed] will continue?
That kind of depends on how you define "running out of time".
Is it too late to avoid all damage from AGW? Yes, because at least some damage has already occurred.
Is it too late to reduce AGW damage? No, it will (probably) never be too late to reduce any damage that hasn't happened yet.
Have we reached a point where we probably cannot avoid significant damage? I think so.
The basic thing to remember is that... the less we act now, the more drastically we will have to act later to achieve the same result, and vice versa.
"It already has run out for many people, certainly people who have been killed due to weather events made more common and extreme."
Really? Funny because statistically (I know alarmists hate FACTS but what the hay) LESS people than ever are dying from EXTREME weather events.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/global_deaths_table_1900-2006.png
And like all conquered peoples, the Americans have been split right down the middle on almost every issue. Coke or Pepsi, the choice is yours..
Drawing lines in the sands of time has been a political ploy since before the time of the Pharaohs. Exaggerating consequences to get your way is something most 4 year olds have figured out as anyone who has heard the screaming of a candy-denied child in a supermarket can attest to. Alarmists and the candy-denied child insist that they need their way right now or more screaming and crying will ensue and the world as they know it will end.
In reality, I suspect we probably have a couple hundred years to resolve the problems of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I also suspect that in a hundred years, our technology will have advanced beyond the need for significant concern for it.
Hi there,
Winrar is the best way to open compressed files, folders or documents. you can unzip files zip, rar, tar, jar, 7z, iso, ect...
I use Winrar and it works fine. I got it here http://j.mp/1p3PDVp
Cheers.
I think we are running out of time. I don't think things are going to get really bad for maybe another ten years but its going to affect our lives more and more
We ran out of time 640 million years ago when the Earth froze solid. There is no way we can recover, oh wait, volcanoes, we heated up and it was very warm for millions of years during the dinosaurs. Oh Wait it started getting colder again 5 million years ago. Oh wait, glaciers, Ice Age. Oh my god, it is warming up and that is bad why? Don't know! Oh, I get it now the weather is changing. This has never happened but thousands of times in the past. We need to get ready for change, because the Earth has only changed a few hundred times in the past and this is more important because we say so!!!! People HATE CHANGE! Things change, people hate it. TUFF! I personally love change and can't wait to sip maitai under palm trees in CT. Here's hoping.
Considering that the AGW hypothesis has never successfully been proven...meaning there is no crisis...No, we are not "running out of time." Still, I do support addressing some important ecological issues, such as a major effort toward development of alternative means of propulsion...and oppose scams like "carbon-trading" and the Tar Sands Pipeline construction.
The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant production causes a “CO2 depletion” to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food production. As the “Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses” fact sheet explains:
Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.
That kind of depends on how you define "running out of time".
Is it too late to avoid all damage from AGW? Yes, because at least some damage has already occurred.
Is it too late to reduce AGW damage? No, it will (probably) never be too late to reduce any damage that hasn't happened yet.
Have we reached a point where we probably cannot avoid significant damage? I think so.
The basic thing to remember is that... the less we act now, the more drastically we will have to act later to achieve the same result, and vice versa. It's a bit like saving up for retirement. If you start putting away a little money when you're in your 20s, you'll have enough saved up by the time you're in your 60s that you'll be able to retire without having to make a big dent in your lifestyle. If you don't start saving 'til you're in your 50s, you'll have to take a lot more out of your paycheck to even save a little for retirement.
If the answer is yes, then when did we start running out of time? Last week? Last year? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago? More?
No There is no crisis only in imaginations . In the 1980s We had 10 years left and
nothing happened . They keep on moving the goalpost into the future . That way when
the scientist made those predictions are long dead they wont get in trouble when
nothing happens .
No, because there is no single "solution" to anthropogenic climate change, just as there is no one solution to your anti-science deception about it.
If you think fire insurance is a socialist hoax, then after your house is 10% burned down you have indeed "run out of time" to save 100% of it. It will nevertheless be to your advantage to not wait until the house is 40% burned down before ceasing obsessions about socialism and calling the fire department instead.
And like all conquered peoples, the Americans have been split right down the middle on almost every issue. Coke or Pepsi, the choice is yours..
Drawing lines in the sands of time has been a political ploy since before the time of the Pharaohs. Exaggerating consequences to get your way is something most 4 year olds have figured out as anyone who has heard the screaming of a candy-denied child in a supermarket can attest to. Alarmists and the candy-denied child insist that they need their way right now or more screaming and crying will ensue and the world as they know it will end.
In reality, I suspect we probably have a couple hundred years to resolve the problems of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I also suspect that in a hundred years, our technology will have advanced beyond the need for significant concern for it.
Hi there,
Winrar is the best way to open compressed files, folders or documents. you can unzip files zip, rar, tar, jar, 7z, iso, ect...
I use Winrar and it works fine. I got it here http://j.mp/1p3PDVp
Cheers.
I think we are running out of time. I don't think things are going to get really bad for maybe another ten years but its going to affect our lives more and more
We ran out of time 640 million years ago when the Earth froze solid. There is no way we can recover, oh wait, volcanoes, we heated up and it was very warm for millions of years during the dinosaurs. Oh Wait it started getting colder again 5 million years ago. Oh wait, glaciers, Ice Age. Oh my god, it is warming up and that is bad why? Don't know! Oh, I get it now the weather is changing. This has never happened but thousands of times in the past. We need to get ready for change, because the Earth has only changed a few hundred times in the past and this is more important because we say so!!!! People HATE CHANGE! Things change, people hate it. TUFF! I personally love change and can't wait to sip maitai under palm trees in CT. Here's hoping.
Considering that the AGW hypothesis has never successfully been proven...meaning there is no crisis...No, we are not "running out of time." Still, I do support addressing some important ecological issues, such as a major effort toward development of alternative means of propulsion...and oppose scams like "carbon-trading" and the Tar Sands Pipeline construction.
The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant production causes a “CO2 depletion” to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food production. As the “Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses” fact sheet explains:
Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.
That kind of depends on how you define "running out of time".
Is it too late to avoid all damage from AGW? Yes, because at least some damage has already occurred.
Is it too late to reduce AGW damage? No, it will (probably) never be too late to reduce any damage that hasn't happened yet.
Have we reached a point where we probably cannot avoid significant damage? I think so.
The basic thing to remember is that... the less we act now, the more drastically we will have to act later to achieve the same result, and vice versa. It's a bit like saving up for retirement. If you start putting away a little money when you're in your 20s, you'll have enough saved up by the time you're in your 60s that you'll be able to retire without having to make a big dent in your lifestyle. If you don't start saving 'til you're in your 50s, you'll have to take a lot more out of your paycheck to even save a little for retirement.
If the answer is yes, then when did we start running out of time? Last week? Last year? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago? More?
No There is no crisis only in imaginations . In the 1980s We had 10 years left and
nothing happened . They keep on moving the goalpost into the future . That way when
the scientist made those predictions are long dead they wont get in trouble when
nothing happens .
No, because there is no single "solution" to anthropogenic climate change, just as there is no one solution to your anti-science deception about it.
If you think fire insurance is a socialist hoax, then after your house is 10% burned down you have indeed "run out of time" to save 100% of it. It will nevertheless be to your advantage to not wait until the house is 40% burned down before ceasing obsessions about socialism and calling the fire department instead.
