| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
August 12th 04, 07:04 AM
posted to talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming already pushing up insurance premiums in disaster-prone states.
"... In a study released on March 3 by Swiss Re, the giant Zurich-based reinsurer pointed the finger at global warming, stating that it is the underlying cause for scores of catastrophes such as fires and floods which have resulted in billions of dollars of damage. The report also predicts that these events will only increase. Why would global warming lead to more catastrophes? Swiss Re suggests the $70 billion in catastrophic losses incurred in 2003 (including Hurricane Isabel, flash floods in France and the forest fires in California) are "consistent with the developments that climatologists expect in a warmer climate." ..." http://www.forbes.com/lists/2004/03/..._0312home.html Most Expensive States To Insure Your Home Betsy Schiffman The next time you wish you lived in Florida, think again. The Sunshine State may have balmy weather and great beaches, but it is also so prone to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods that its homeowners insurance rates are among the highest in the United States--and may only get more expensive. Insurance rates vary from state to state. Auto insurance is more expensive in New Jersey than in, say, Montana. In some states, however, homeowners insurance is rising so fast that some home owners are being forced to cancel their policies and others to make drastic lifestyle adjustments in order to swing the hefty increases. How bad are the hikes? In Florida, for example, after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992, residential property insurance rates increased over 100% in two years' time. Home owners who paid an annual premium of $400 in 1992 might have paid $800 by 1994. Such cases aren't rampant throughout the United States--they usually concentrate in disaster-prone areas of the country such as Texas, California, Louisiana or Florida. Although insurers should have cash reserves to cover catastrophe-related losses, they are continually revaluating the economics of insuring homes in areas that regularly experience catastrophes. Many insurers are now predicting that disasters once considered to be rare events are happening with greater regularity, sending pay-outs--and premiums--through the roof. While some of these catastrophic events are man-made--such as the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center--many more are the result of natural occurrences. In a study released on March 3 by Swiss Re, the giant Zurich-based reinsurer pointed the finger at global warming, stating that it is the underlying cause for scores of catastrophes such as fires and floods which have resulted in billions of dollars of damage. The report also predicts that these events will only increase. Why would global warming lead to more catastrophes? Swiss Re suggests the $70 billion in catastrophic losses incurred in 2003 (including Hurricane Isabel, flash floods in France and the forest fires in California) are "consistent with the developments that climatologists expect in a warmer climate." Although the study paints a dire picture for home owners, it suggests a rosier reality for the company's shareholders because of the increasing demand for catastrophe bonds. According to Swiss Re the volume of catastrophe bonds outstanding has steadily increased since 1997 to a current level of approximately $3 billion. In the first eight months of 2003, the volume of new issues was $910 million, which was nearly equal to the whole of 2002. Swiss Re Capital Markets underwrote approximately $750 million of 2003's new issuance on behalf of both Swiss Re and other clients. Several climatologists and insurance industry experts immediately dismissed Swiss Re's report as rubbish. Patrick Michaels, an outspoken critic of global warming research and the Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, called the study "bunk." "The European reinsurance companies are playing a very dangerous game. They tend to be coddled by their governments so they don't fear extinction, while U.S. reinsurance companies will not push for climate-related rate increases, and they are going to get more business because their rates are going to be lower," Michaels says. Moreover, it's been a good year for the insurance industry, in spite of the dangers of global warning. Swiss Re announced in August, the last period for which it reported, that it had seen first half net income rise from CHF 118 million (approximately $86 million) to CHF 691 million (approximately $504 million). Much of that growth came from its Property and Casualty group, which issues its homeowners policies. At Allstate (nyse: ALL - news - people ), the second-biggest issuer of homeowners policies in the United States, fourth quarter (2003) operating income was up 71% over the same period last year. And in his annual report, Berkshire Hathaway (nyse: BRK - news - people ) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Warren Buffett, whose company owns Connecticut-based reinsurance giant General Re, among others, stated that: "It was a terrific year for our insurance business, but the big boost that gave to earnings was largely offset by the pathetically low interest rates we earned on our large holdings of cash equivalents (a condition that will not last)." U.S. insurers may not be jumping on the global warming bandwagon, but they agree with the thesis that we will begin to see more catastrophes over the long-term--and furthermore, the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.), a New York City-based trade group, argues that insurance rates are bound to increase as a result. The I.I.I. economists predict the cost of homeowners insurance will increase 8% in 2004. The reasons for the rising cost of homeowners insurance are higher construction costs, and "increasingly expensive natural disasters," according to the organization's forecast. "Global warming isn't going to suddenly destroy property all over the earth," says I.I.I. Chief Economist Robert Hartwig. "The principal reason for more erratic and catastrophic events is that people are concentrating in areas that are prone to disaster. If Hurricane Andrew [which cost an estimated $20 billion], for example, had hit in the 1930s, it wouldn't have done nearly as much damage. What we're seeing is hundreds of millions of people who have put themselves in harm's way." The home owners who pay dearest for living "in harm's way"--based on the most recent insurance rate data available from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners--are Texans, where the average premium was $817 in 2000, more than $300 above the national average. To see the top ten most expensive places to insure homes, click below. The averages are calculated by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; they were taken from 2000; and they are for owner-occupied homeowners insurance policy premiums. They are shown in the order of the most expensive to the least expensive. To put the prices in perspective, the national average 2000 premium was $501. |
|
#2
August 12th 04, 05:13 PM
posted to talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
Global Warming already pushing up insurance premiums in disaster-prone states.
Psalm 110 wrote in message . ..
[a bunch of tripe, surrounding this gem of truth] In some states, however, homeowners insurance is rising so fast that some home owners are being forced to cancel their policies and others to make drastic lifestyle adjustments in order to swing the hefty increases. Well there you go. Insurance companies raise rates, people conserve money by driving less and conserving energy. Those that cannot conserve cancel their policies, eventually lose their homes to a fire or disaster, and freeze to death on the streets. It's simple Darwinism in action. Global warming averted, all thanks to the mega-insurance corporations and good 'ol fashioned capitalism. Mission accomplished, now watch this drive. |
|
#4
August 15th 06, 09:29 PM
posted to talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
Global Warming already pushing up insurance premiums in disaster-prone states.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:04:11 GMT, Psalm 110 wrote:
|"... In a study released on March 3 by Swiss Re, the giant |Zurich-based reinsurer pointed the finger at global warming, stating |that it is the underlying cause for scores of catastrophes such as |fires and floods which have resulted in billions of dollars of damage. |The report also predicts that these events will only increase. | |Why would global warming lead to more catastrophes? Swiss Re suggests |the $70 billion in catastrophic losses incurred in 2003 (including |Hurricane Isabel, flash floods in France and the forest fires in |California) are "consistent with the developments that climatologists |expect in a warmer climate." ..." | |http://www.forbes.com/lists/2004/03/..._0312home.html | | |Most Expensive States To Insure Your Home |Betsy Schiffman | | | |The next time you wish you lived in Florida, think again. The Sunshine |State may have balmy weather and great beaches, but it is also so |prone to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods that its |homeowners insurance rates are among the highest in the United |States--and may only get more expensive. This (isn't) all necessarily a Global Warming process, it is mostly directed to the passing orbit of UB2003/PlanetX which has been around every 3,695 years, which equates somewhat to 41,000 passes in Earth's 15 Billion year life....... This natural event, causes these catastrophes to occur every time...but you are only looking at the *tip of the iceberg* in 2001--2011, as in the last passing *Noah's Ark* era the concurring event always occurs. Woopee were all going to die!....at least the Pacific Coast....... |
|
#5
August 16th 06, 12:05 AM
posted to talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
Global Warming already pushing up insurance premiums in disaster-prone states.
On 15 Aug 2006, you wrote in sci.environment:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:04:11 GMT, Psalm 110 wrote: |"... In a study released on March 3 by Swiss Re, the giant |Zurich-based reinsurer pointed the finger at global warming, stating |that it is the underlying cause for scores of catastrophes such as |fires and floods which have resulted in billions of dollars of damage. |The report also predicts that these events will only increase. | |Why would global warming lead to more catastrophes? Swiss Re suggests |the $70 billion in catastrophic losses incurred in 2003 (including |Hurricane Isabel, flash floods in France and the forest fires in |California) are "consistent with the developments that climatologists |expect in a warmer climate." ..." | |http://www.forbes.com/lists/2004/03/..._0312home.html | | |Most Expensive States To Insure Your Home |Betsy Schiffman | | | |The next time you wish you lived in Florida, think again. The Sunshine |State may have balmy weather and great beaches, but it is also so |prone to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods that its |homeowners insurance rates are among the highest in the United |States--and may only get more expensive. This (isn't) all necessarily a Global Warming process, it is mostly directed to the passing orbit of UB2003/PlanetX which has been around every 3,695 years, which equates somewhat to 41,000 passes in Earth's 15 Billion year life....... This natural event, causes these catastrophes to occur every time...but you are only looking at the *tip of the iceberg* in 2001--2011, as in the last passing *Noah's Ark* era the concurring event always occurs. Woopee were all going to die!....at least the Pacific Coast....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air Density of air The density of air, is the mass per unit volume of Earth's atmosphere, and is a useful value in aeronautics. In the SI system it is measured as the number of kilograms of air in a cubic meter (kg/m3). At sea level and at 20 °C dry air has a density of approximately 1.2 kg/m3. varying with pressure and temperature. Air density and air pressure decrease with increasing altitude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure A column of air, 1 square inch in cross section, measured from sea level to the top of the atmosphere would weigh approximately 14.7 lb. A 1 m2 column of air would weigh about 100 kilonewtons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avagadro%27s_number The accepted value is 6.0221415e23 atoms/mole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2 Molar mass 44.0095(14) g/mol [6.0221415e23 divided by 44.0095 = 1.36837307853986e22 molecules CO2/gram. 1.36837307853986e22 molecules CO2/gram = 136,837,307,853,986,000,000,000 molecules CO2/gram] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere Assuming that the gases act like ideal gases, we can add the percentages p multiplied by their molar masses m, to get a total t = sum (p·m). Any element's percent by mass is then p·m/t. When we do this to the above percentages, we get that, by mass, the composition of the atmosphere is 75.523% nitrogen, 23.133% oxygen, 1.288% argon, 0.053% carbon dioxide, 0.001267% neon, 0.00029% methane, 0.00033% krypton, 0.000724% helium, and 0.0000038 % hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air The density of air at sea level is about 1.2 kg/m^3. 1.2 kg/m^3 divided by 1,000,000 = 1.2e-6 kg per CC (cubic centimeter) 1.2e-6 kg = 0.0000012 kg = 0.0012 grams per CC. Of that 0.0012 grams per CC, 0.053% is CO2. 100% of 0.0012 = 0.0012 10% of 0.0012 = 0.00012 1% of 0.0012 = 0.000012 0.1% of 0.0012 = 0.0000012 0.01% of 0.0012 = 0.00000012 0.001% of 0.0012 =0.000000012 0.053% is 53 times greater than 0.000000012 = 6.36e-7 = 0.000000636 grams CO2 per CC of air. Therefore, there are 0.000000636 grams of CO2 per CC of air at Earth Surface STP conditions. It requires 1572327.04402516 CC of air (about 1.6 m^3) to gather together one gram of CO2. 136,837,307,853,986,000,000,000 molecules CO2/gram divided by 1572327.04402516 CC of air to gather together one gram of CO2 = 8.70285277951351e15 molecules of CO2 per CC of air at Earth Surface STP conditions. 8.70285277951351e15 = 8,702,852,779,513,510 molecules of CO2 per CC of air at Earth Surface STP conditions. At 10 kilometers altitude the air pressure is only 20% of STP, therefore the CO2 density is 1/5th the number given for STP conditions. The CO2 density is highest at the lowest levels of the atmosphere, and therefore the Infrared Radiation absorption occurs mostly at lowest altitudes closest to the Earth emitter of IR radiation. USEFUL DATA LINKS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avagadro%27s_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenho...al_greenhouses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...e_and_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_conduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrological_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%...body_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ard_Atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...e_and_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity http://wahiduddin.net/calc/density_altitude.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callendar_effect |
|
#6
August 16th 06, 08:36 AM
posted to talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
Global Warming already pushing up insurance premiums in disaster-prone states.
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:05:51 GMT, Drunk Cheney Shot His Own Face
wrote: |On 15 Aug 2006, you wrote in sci.environment: | | On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:04:11 GMT, Psalm 110 | wrote: | ||"... In a study released on March 3 by Swiss Re, the giant ||Zurich-based reinsurer pointed the finger at global warming, stating ||that it is the underlying cause for scores of catastrophes such as ||fires and floods which have resulted in billions of dollars of damage. ||The report also predicts that these events will only increase. || ||Why would global warming lead to more catastrophes? Swiss Re suggests ||the $70 billion in catastrophic losses incurred in 2003 (including ||Hurricane Isabel, flash floods in France and the forest fires in ||California) are "consistent with the developments that climatologists ||expect in a warmer climate." ..." || ||http://www.forbes.com/lists/2004/03/..._0312home.html || || ||Most Expensive States To Insure Your Home ||Betsy Schiffman || || || ||The next time you wish you lived in Florida, think again. The Sunshine ||State may have balmy weather and great beaches, but it is also so ||prone to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods that its ||homeowners insurance rates are among the highest in the United ||States--and may only get more expensive. | | This (isn't) all necessarily a Global Warming process, it is mostly | directed to the passing orbit of UB2003/PlanetX which has been around | every 3,695 years, which equates somewhat to 41,000 passes in Earth's 15 | Billion year life....... | This natural event, causes these catastrophes to occur every | time...but | you are only looking at the *tip of the iceberg* in 2001--2011, as in | the last passing *Noah's Ark* era the concurring event always occurs. | | Woopee were all going to die!....at least the Pacific Coast....... | | | |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air |Density of air |The density of air, is the mass per unit volume of Earth's atmosphere, |and is a useful value in aeronautics. In the SI system it is measured as |the number of kilograms of air in a cubic meter (kg/m3). At sea level and |at 20 °C dry air has a density of approximately 1.2 kg/m3. varying with |pressure and temperature. Air density and air pressure decrease with |increasing altitude. | |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure |A column of air, 1 square inch in cross section, measured from sea level |to the top of the atmosphere would weigh approximately 14.7 lb. A 1 m2 |column of air would weigh about 100 kilonewtons. | |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avagadro%27s_number |The accepted value is 6.0221415e23 atoms/mole. | |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2 |Molar mass 44.0095(14) g/mol | | [6.0221415e23 divided by 44.0095 = 1.36837307853986e22 molecules | CO2/gram. |1.36837307853986e22 molecules CO2/gram | = 136,837,307,853,986,000,000,000 molecules CO2/gram] | |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere |Assuming that the gases act like ideal gases, we can add the percentages p |multiplied by their molar masses m, to get a total t = sum (p·m). Any |element's percent by mass is then p·m/t. When we do this to the above |percentages, we get that, by mass, the composition of the atmosphere is |75.523% nitrogen, 23.133% oxygen, 1.288% argon, 0.053% carbon dioxide, |0.001267% neon, 0.00029% methane, 0.00033% krypton, 0.000724% helium, and |0.0000038 % hydrogen. | |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air |The density of air at sea level is about 1.2 kg/m^3. | |1.2 kg/m^3 divided by 1,000,000 = 1.2e-6 kg per CC (cubic centimeter) |1.2e-6 kg = 0.0000012 kg = 0.0012 grams per CC. | |Of that 0.0012 grams per CC, 0.053% is CO2. |100% of 0.0012 = 0.0012 |10% of 0.0012 = 0.00012 |1% of 0.0012 = 0.000012 |0.1% of 0.0012 = 0.0000012 |0.01% of 0.0012 = 0.00000012 |0.001% of 0.0012 =0.000000012 |0.053% is 53 times greater than 0.000000012 | = 6.36e-7 = 0.000000636 grams CO2 per CC of air. | |Therefore, there are 0.000000636 grams of CO2 per CC of air |at Earth Surface STP conditions. It requires 1572327.04402516 |CC of air (about 1.6 m^3) to gather together one gram of CO2. | |136,837,307,853,986,000,000,000 molecules CO2/gram divided by |1572327.04402516 CC of air to gather together one gram of CO2 | = 8.70285277951351e15 molecules of CO2 per CC of air at |Earth Surface STP conditions. | |8.70285277951351e15 = 8,702,852,779,513,510 molecules | of CO2 per CC of air at Earth Surface STP conditions. | |At 10 kilometers altitude the air pressure is only 20% of STP, therefore |the CO2 density is 1/5th the number given for STP conditions. | |The CO2 density is highest at the lowest levels of the atmosphere, and |therefore the Infrared Radiation absorption occurs mostly at lowest |altitudes closest to the Earth emitter of IR radiation. | |USEFUL DATA LINKS: |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2 |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avagadro%27s_number |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenho...al_greenhouses |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Balance |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...e_and_pressure |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_spectrum |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_conduction |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrological_cycle |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%...body_radiation |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_law |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climate_change |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ard_Atmosphere |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_models |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Atmosphere |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...e_and_pressure |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity |http://wahiduddin.net/calc/density_altitude.htm |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callendar_effect | | Ok...I read that stuff..... and now I don't feel well, I feel dizzy and somewhat confused...if I had a head, I think I would have headache, depending on my newly acquired cerebral spinal fluid 4x daily change. I'm still working on the square root of ñ3.13333333 pie............. I think I'm getting it....... But the insurance scams are an arbitrary process, where detailed science holds the backseat (gut) instinct and marketing evaluations...??? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Hawaii is already seeing effects of global warming | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
| SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and WhySuicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
| NIPCC report states there is no anthropogenic global warming | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
| Global warming is already killing people | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
| Aagghh! Global warming disaster | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Linear Mode
