That's only because our stuff is more plentiful and more expensive than it was 100 years ago.
We're more prosperous and, God willing Obama isn't reelected, better able to recover.
Last word is yours.
(bows dramatically)
That's only because our stuff is more plentiful and more expensive than it was 100 years ago.
We're more prosperous and, God willing Obama isn't reelected, better able to recover.
Also, there's no proof AGCC is causing the weather to be any more severe than it has at various times in the past.
Except thats a lynchpin in AGW arguments. Seriously, you guys should try to understand the arguments sometime. Speaking out of ignorance is not flattering.
Hurricane Katrina wasn't worse because of anthropogenic global climate change; it was worse because humans chose to build, grow, and prosper on a piece of below-sea level plot of land and then, protect it with inferior, poorly maintained human engineered levees.
The 1900 Storm was more devastating than Katrina, both, in terms of human loss and in terms of damage caused directly by the storm.
The weather isn't getting any more severe than it's ever been. We're just more vulnerable; for several reasons. There's more of us (even though we've managed to figure out how to protect our populations against severe weather events much, much better.), We have more stuff that is costlier while, at the same time being more disposable and less durable, (which -- combined with government flood insurance -- explains why there are idiots that continue to build on geography prone to storm damage and flooding). Of course, I would ask who's the idiot for continuing to give them tax dollars to rebuild.
AGCC is a hoax. Global cooling was the hoax of the 70's. Overpopulation was the hoax of the 80's. AGCC (formerly Global Warming) is hanging on a little longer but, that's only because so many powerful people have so much invested in it.
I never said Katrina was worse. Katrina was a catagory 3 storm at landfall so there have been a large number of storms that have been stronger. Your assertion that the 1900 storm is somehow a worse storm is meaningless. A properly placed weak storm can cause far more damage than a strong storm that comes in where there is no semblance of civilization.
You really are severely unfamiliar with AGW theory and instead rely on bad talking points. The global cooling thing is proof of that. Scientists in the 70s - just as they have in every decade since - predicted warming. Its not even close.
I don't know much about over population and I see no reason to bring it into the debate here at all. Strawman and red herring all abound.
Whether or not the weather is getting more severe is debatable but you once again show your ignorance with the theory here as well. AGW predictions regarding the severity of weather aren't concerned with what happens in this decade. In any event, your opinion is fairly meaningless regarding the amount of severe weather and whether or not an increase that may or may not exist can be attributed to AGW. I prefer the opinions of those who actually understand the subject material and whose research into these questions does not involve visiting right wing websites to get the latest talking points.
Like I said, its fun watching you flail. Once again, if you actually cared you'd educated yourself and remove the ignorance.
So educate me. What's the end game.
If we successfully stopped all man-induced effects to the climate would it stop changing? I think you and I both agree the answer to that is no. The geologic record definitively demonstrates this planet will become both much warmer and much cooler than it currently is -- despite anything we do.
All the "flailing about" by the AGCC community is doing is getting a bunch of governments to burden already struggling economies with measures that are absolutely meaningless in the face of a natural course of events that will obliterate any affects humans could ever have on something as astronomical as global climate.
If you want to control the earths climate, you're going to have to learn to control the sun's behavior and the orbits of both our planet and the moon; your also going to have to learn to control plate tectonics and the Earth's volcanoes and ocean currents. Those are the principle determinants in global climate.
What man contributes to our atmosphere, and then, what those contributions do to affect global climate, are minuscule when compared to the effects of our place in the universe at large, our place in the solar system, and the planets natural geologic and atmospheric composition.
And, I do believe THAT is settled science.
Educated yourself, Yoni. The IPCC reports are readily available. There are numerous books that are accessible by anyone with a modest understanding of science. I doubt you're even going to take the time to read them, but if you'd like some recommendations I'd start off with some of David Archers books. He's written two fantastic easily accessible books on climate change. The Long Thaw and this one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052...0CFFAA4H14AFXT
Now, as for your question, its poorly thought out. We as humans, all have limited lifespans and eventually will die. However, do you use that as an excuse to pollute your body with toxins? Do you roll around in asbestos because, well you're going to die anyway?
Completely ignores that AGW will have costs in the future that will outweigh costs to mitigate now. You are obviously not qualified to make distinctions in what or what is not meaningless but you chose to continue to make those judgments out of ignorance even when those who ARE qualified to make those calls tell you otherwise. Its your choice to keep your head burried in the sand and you are more than welcome to continue.All the "flailing about" by the AGCC community is doing is getting a bunch of governments to burden already struggling economies with measures that are absolutely meaningless in the face of a natural course of events that will obliterate any affects humans could ever have on something as astronomical as global climate.
No one has said anything about controlling the climate. Do you notice how nearly even other sentence you type out on the subject is one rife with ignorance?If you want to control the earths climate, you're going to have to learn to control the sun's behavior and the orbits of both our planet and the moon; your also going to have to learn to control plate tectonics and the Earth's volcanoes and ocean currents. Those are the principle determinants in global climate.
Miniscule? Absolutely not. For example, the ozone hole. Had the world not undertaken measures in curbing CFC emissions what part of the system would somehow change the fact that we were all going to be exposed to a lot more UV?What man contributes to our atmosphere, and then, what those contributions do to affect global climate, are minuscule when compared to the effects of our place in the universe at large, our place in the solar system, and the planets natural geologic and atmospheric composition.
And, I do believe THAT is settled science.
I'm not sure why you think that humans are incapable of changing things on a global scale. From extinctions (how many passenger pigeons have you seen lately? A bird that used to turn day into night is now gone), to the CFCs I just mentioned, to deforestation (do you think the North American continent looks much like it did when humans first got here?), to CO2 that argument simply holds no merrit.
It absolutely is settled science that we can alter our globe in dramatic fashion. One need only look at humanities history.
In any event, as I've said before, I don't really care much for the arguments that center over the political ramifications of climate change. I don't think by any means humans are in danger of extinction. I simply think its going to be expensive as and its going to seriously alter climate patterns around the Earth. You don't increase the energy in a system by that much and expect small things.
1 degree in 100 years = dramatic?
If you say so.
I wonder what the measurement error bars are on the 100 year global temperature anomaly?
You're conflating pollution with climate change. They are not necessarily related. CO2 is not a pollutant (except according to the EPA) and, yet, it is the chief target of global climate change alarmists.
I'm firmly in favor of pollution control. What I think is folly, is the suggestion we can have any appreciable, long-term affect on global climate.
I think that's debatable and, is the chief point of contention between all the people, on both sides of the argument.
So far, the AGCC alarmists' models have failed to adequately predict the amount of climate change, just over the past 10 years. Why should anyone believe their century-out prediction?
Secondly, if you continue to re economic expansion, in the name of climate control, you will ultimately destroy an economy that will force society to revert to less costly and more damaging forms of energy. I would suggest the harm done by economy-crushing regulations do more short-term harm than any crystal ball predictions made by the IPCC or Algore.
Is not the attempt to effect climate by regulating the CO2 out of humanity? I call that climate control.
Ozone holes come and go. Now we're going to deprive asthmatics their inhalers to have a negligible affect on that. Sad.
And, yet the climate is not appreciably different than it has been in years, decades, centuries, eons before. It's been both colder and warmer and it will continue to cycle through those extremes despite anything we do.
Let's stick with global climate, shall we? I don't disagree man can cause global changes.
Isn't the sun eventually going to start expanding, before it dies? Won't that have more affect on our planet than whether or not my car has a catalytic converter?
But, about those political ramifications. What about the countries that are ignoring your AGCC alarmism? China? India? The third world where eating and living pretty much take precedence.
Darrin raises a good point and a way for you to demonstrate, in simple terms, the nature of the problem as you see it.
Three questions.
1) If we do nothing, what do AGCC models predict the average global temperature would be in 2100?
2) If we implemented every measure recommended by AGCC proponents, what do their models predict the average global temperature would be in 2100?
3) What is the margin of error on the AGCC predictions. Both of them.
I'm sure these figures exist in your vast compendium of AGCC literature.
Storms? Maybe.
Droughts, floods, and changes in participation patterns, it would seem so.
Either way, the fact that fewer people have died due to extreme weather events hardly supports your statement. If you think it does, you are, again, being less than honest or cognizant of the implications of that data.
"AGCC is a hoax."
You yourself posted evidence that our understanding of weather and climate systems has improved, and that understanding has led the majority of scientists studying the topic to believe that we are markedly affecting our climate.
The fact that the people who believe it is a hoax can't produce peer-reviewed science proving otherwise, and that people like you can't put together a logical or honest thought to save their lives says volumes about that claim.
If your case is so strong, why do you have to resort to bad logic, and shaky data?
Of course they do. Very easy to find too. When are you planning to post them? Darrin keeps posing the question of what the margin of error is on the temps and I'm sure he's capable of finding out.
You guys have questions and the ability to use the internet. Answer them.
I'll fully admit, if we're looking at a time scale of 5 billion years then we definitely should be more worried about the death of the Sun as opposed to AGW.
You can suggest that.
You can also suggest that magic unicorns will fart pixie dust to make everybody vote Republican.
Whether or not you can prove that is another matter.
I reject the assertion that ins uting CO2 controls will harm the economy.
Further, I can, and have, made the case it will help the economy.
Regardless of whether AGCC exists, the mitigation of the risk will end up helping the very economy you want to grow.
That makes the scientific debate moot.
How noisy is the temp record? I don't know, what does it mean when multiple independent analysis and all current tracking methods show the same thing?
Why don't you just say you don't know?
If the values to those three questions supported your position that AGCC was something we should worry about, to the point of implementing economically ruinous policies, you'd post them.
Once again, I will start believing Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis when those who say Anthropogenic Global Climate Change start acting like it is a crisis.
because I do know. I don't care enough if you believe to link every answer to some who is obviously lazy. Darrin himself has linked the IPCC reports. All you have to do is read.
But, I'm not trying to support your believe it is imperative that we engage in draconian controls to change our affect on the climate. You are.
Those are three simple values that would tend to support or refute your view. If the two first values are within the margin of error, the third value, you've got no case.
And, your case only grows stronger with every degree outside and above the margin of error value #1 is, over value #2.
I don't care to hunt for them. A few years ago, we were implored to adopt the Kyoto Protocol when the proponents openly admitted the benefit was minimal, somewhere in the neighborhood of .5 degrees centigrade, over the next 50 or 100 years.
Maybe you can't find the answer in all of your jumble of IPCC model adjustments, University of East Anglia e-mails, and Algore Powerpoint slides.
They're simple questions.
Well, I never said anything about draconian measures. Thats your thing. Those issues have all been discussed and they certainly do not disprove anything by any stretch of the imagination but you wouldn't know because you've never actually bothered to research it.
And that ultimately, Yoni, is my point. My point is that your opinion on the matter is one born out of ignorance and you've proven that many times in this thread. Many of the answers are provided in this very thread but you and others on here would prefer to simply post talking point after talking point after talking point that have all been refuted for years if not decades in an effort to keep your position as opposed to actually reading on the subject.
When someone like you displays such outright laziness and conformation bias there is absolutely no need for me to go digging for the exact places in these studies and do ents where your answer lies because the moment I do you'll simply move on to something else and never bother to give the actual data its due attention. I've done the dance with Wild Cobra and Darrin and now you and at some point I just refuse to care enough to continue to look for data that simply gets ignored. I'm much more concerned with the beliefs and views of my peers as opposed to people on the internet who have made up their minds without ever actually taking an honest view on the science involved.
I view your intellectual laziness with a large amount of pity but I also realize its not my responsibility to dig your head out of the sand for you. Not when the information is so easily and readily accessible.
If someone who I know honestly cares ever asks for information in this thread who has differing views - say El Nono or Winehole - I would be MORE than happy to provide them with data and have a reasonable conversation as to why things are what they are. I know with people like that even if they do not come to my conclusions they will give the data an honest view.
And "hunt" for them is laughable. Google is hard to use. You don't care to hunt for them yet making that post took far more keystrokes than finding the IPCC reports would have.
I realize asking you to read in order to make an informed opinion is asking a lot, though. That type of mindset really says a whole of a lot about a person, IMO.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions