←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.217s | source
Show context
bluedevil2k ◴[] No.42733208[source]
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.
replies(20): >>42733219 #>>42733293 #>>42733338 #>>42733367 #>>42733486 #>>42733536 #>>42733984 #>>42734013 #>>42734047 #>>42734060 #>>42734202 #>>42734459 #>>42734714 #>>42734874 #>>42739590 #>>42740487 #>>42741749 #>>42742138 #>>42743881 #>>42744799 #
Dig1t ◴[] No.42733338[source]
There should be a way to build fire resistant buildings to reduce the cost of insuring them, likely this would be the solution in California without price caps.

You can build out of concrete and use fire resistant materials like metal or tile for the roof and your house is nearly fireproof. These buildings would be realistically insurable in both California or Florida. They would cost more to build, not THAT much more though especially if land costs many millions, an extra 50k - 100k to build out of concrete is a very reasonable expense.

replies(5): >>42733371 #>>42733453 #>>42733677 #>>42734267 #>>42734815 #
matwood ◴[] No.42734815[source]
Since you mentioned FL, we have mostly solved hurricane level wind resistant building codes. Hurricane ties are cheap and they work. Anything built post hurricane Andrew has these. There's also materials like Hardi Plank siding, which does add a bit more cost, but effectively surrounds the house in a thin layer of concrete. Flooding is a mixed bag. My house is built substantially up and off the ground above the '100 year flood line'. Even if a flood didn't enter the dwelling proper, it would still be devastating.

The problem is storms are getting bigger and more frequent from climate change and hitting areas they normally don't.

replies(1): >>42734911 #
theultdev ◴[] No.42734911[source]
That's false. Hurricanes are not getting bigger or more frequent due to climate change.

They aren't getting bigger or more frequent at all.

NOAA has stated this multiple times and you can read an article addressing it here:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/can-...

It's well known that hurricanes go through multidecadal swings.

Why this keeps getting repeated when it's obviously false is beyond me.

replies(1): >>42735603 #
matwood ◴[] No.42735603[source]
Great article, scientifically written. I wish it was as confident as you are in your conclusion.

> No, we cannot confidently detect a trend today in observed Atlantic hurricane activity due to man-made (greenhouse gas-driven) climate change. Some human influence may be present

> The importance of this distinction between potential causes of AMV for future hurricane projections is clear: if strong man-made aerosol forcing and volcanic forcing were responsible for most of the “quiet period” of Atlantic major hurricane activity from the 1970s through the early 1990s, then a return to this more “quiet” regime in the coming decades may not occur. But if the “quiet period” of the 1970s through early 1990s (as well as the earlier quiet period of the early 20th Century) was caused mainly by internal climate variability, one would expect to return to relatively “quiet” conditions in the coming decades as the climate swings back and forth between more active and inactive Atlantic hurricane periods. This is an important research question that does not yet have a clear answer.

Meanwhile we continue to see stronger storms.

> Another hurricane metric, the fraction of rapidly intensifying Atlantic hurricanes, was reported to have increased since around 1980 (Bhatia et al. 2019), and they found that this change was highly unusual compared with simulated natural variability from a climate model, while being consistent in sign with the expected change from human-caused forcing. Even so, however, their confidence was limited by uncertainty in how well the single climate model used was representing real-world natural variability in the Atlantic region.

We do know for a fact that the ocean temperatures are rising. Also from your article,

> Global surface temperatures and tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures have increased since 1900 (by around +1.3 ˚C [+2.3 ˚F] and +1.0 ˚C [+1.8 ˚F], respectively), unlike the reconstructed hurricane counts or U.S. landfalling hurricanes. Finally, a number of studies have found that several Atlantic hurricane metrics, including hurricane maximum intensities, hurricane numbers, major hurricane numbers, and Accumulated Cyclone Energy have all increased since around 1980.

But climate science is about studying a complex system, and finding direct causations is hard.

> However, in a 2019 tropical cyclone-climate change assessment, the majority of authors concluded that the recent hurricane activity increases mentioned above did not qualify as a detectable man-made influences (meaning clearly distinguishable from natural variability).

Another study linked recently from climate.gov (near the bottom) https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2024...

>[R]ecent studies in attribution science show that climate change is causing an increase in the frequency and/or severity of tropical storms, heavy rainfall, and extreme temperatures.

So at the end of the day, it's fine to say there is no smoking gun, but it is absolutely not 'obviously false'. I think your biases are showing.

replies(1): >>42737737 #
1. theultdev ◴[] No.42737737[source]
Ofc they hint towards it, it's climate.gov. But the actual data shown, shows no increase at all.

You won't find a "smoking gun" because it's not happening.

Your biases are in-fact showing that you don't realize you went from claiming it was true to "well we have no smoking gun".