American Doomsday: Climate Change?

[Brian R. VanCise]

american-doomsday-white-house-warns-climate-catastrophes-n98011
American Doomsday: White House Warns of Climate Catastrophes - NBC News

Let's discuss!

 

[Steve]

American Doomsday: White House Warns of Climate Catastrophes - NBC News

Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I don't think your link came through in your post, Brian.

Regarding the topic, I think that people largely believe what they are inclined to believe. Whether or not climate change is "human induced" is sort of beside the point for me. I've heard people from both sides acknowledge that climate change is happening. It's really just a matter of whether we're affecting it (either to cause it or to speed it up) or not.

The bottom line, though, is if it is a reality and we are going to experience stronger weather patterns, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides or whatever else, we have to adapt. If there are things we can do to mitigate or diminish the affect that extreme weather has on society, we should try to do those things. If there are things we can do to moderate climate change, we should. And, ultimately, if we can't affect it, we must adapt or die. Technological evolution is how we ascended to become the dominant species on the planet.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is interesting and definitely we are seeing climate change.

Just the year record snow in Michigan and probably most of the Midwest and East Coast.
Now, the fire season has started early in the Southwest. Not to mention the uptick in
Tornadoes, mudslides, etc. Yes, I am with you Steve we need to learn to adapt.

 

[billc]

Yeah, and if you like your doctor you can keep him...so I'll take their scare mongering with more than a grain of salt...

A Wicked Orthodoxy | National Review Online

Compared with the likely benefits to both human health and food production from CO2-induced global warming, the possible disadvantages from, say, a slight increase in either the frequency or the intensity of extreme weather events is very small beer. It is, in fact, still uncertain whether there is any impact on extreme-weather events as a result of warming (increased carbon emissions, which have certainly occurred, cannot on their own affect the weather: it is only warming which might). The unusual persistence of heavy rainfall over the U.K. during February, which led to considerable flooding, is believed by the scientists to have been caused by the wayward behavior of the jetstream; and there is no credible scientific theory that links this behaviour to the fact that the earth’s surface is some 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than it was 150 years ago.

Moreover, as the latest IPCC report makes clear, careful studies have shown that, while extreme-weather events such as floods, droughts, and tropical storms have always occurred, overall there has been no increase in either their frequency or their severity. That may, of course, be because there has so far been very little global warming indeed: The fear is the possible consequences of what is projected to lie ahead of us. And even in climate science, cause has to precede effect: It is impossible for future warming to affect events in the present.

The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme-weather events. And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme-weather events.

 

[K-man]

It's so good to have Bill to provide a healthy balance. It would be even better if he quoted credible science!

But having said that, I think, in reality, it is probably too late. If we had started when the evidence was first available it may have been reversible. Now I am not so sure. I think our generation has done the most in history to destroy the future for our children and their children. The only hope I see is that in the next short time those who have demonstrated an ability to rise to the occasion with technology will develop some form of effective and affordable carbon sequestration. Without that the pollution from the developing countries like China and India and the deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia will be the tipping point.

Pessimist? Yep. But what we are copping with climate change now is just the beginning.
:asian:

 

[billc]

More good news...

Sea Level Rises Are an Insignificant Problem to Which We Can Easily Adapt, Says New Report

Over the last 150 years, average global sea levels have risen by around 1.8 mm per annum - a continuation of the melting of the ice sheets which began 17,000 years ago. Satellite measurements (which began in 1992) put the rate higher - at 3mm per year. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support the doomsday claims made by Al Gore in 2006 that sea levels will rise by 20 feet by the end of the century, nor even the more modest prediction by James Hansen that they will rise by 5 metres.

Such modest rises, argue oceanographer Willem P de Lange and marine geologist Bob Carter in their report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, are far better dealt with by adaptation than by costly, ineffectual schemes to decarbonise the global economy.
They say:

No justification exists for continuing to base sea-level policy and coastal management regulation upon the outcomes of deterministic or semi-empirical sea-level modelling. Such modelling remains speculative rather than predictive. The practice of using a global rate of sea-level change to manage specific coastal locations worldwide is irrational and should be abandoned.
​

It is irrational not least because it is based on a complete misunderstanding of the causes and nature of sea-level rises. There are parts of the world where the sea level is rising, others where it is falling - and this is dependent as much on what the land is doing (tectonic change) as on what the sea is doing.

The remaining global sea-level rise has been about 20 cm in the 20th century. Has this led to global disasters? The answer is no. If the projected rise over the 21st century is double what was seen in the 20th, is it likely that it will result in global disasters? Again, the answer is most likely no; human ingenuity, innovation and engineering, and the proper material and financial resources should solve local problems if and when they arrive, as they have in the 20th century.

 

[crushing]

american-doomsday-white-house-warns-climate-catastrophes-n98011
American Doomsday: White House Warns of Climate Catastrophes - NBC News

Let's discuss!

 

[pgsmith]

Compared with the likely benefits to both human health and food production from CO2-induced global warming, the possible disadvantages from, say, a slight increase in either the frequency or the intensity of extreme weather events is very small beer.

Hurricane Sandy, drought cost U.S. 100 billion dollars in 2012 ...

On target as usual!

 

[billc]

Wow, I guess there were never any hurricanes before man started to use fossil fuels...and there were never any droughts...

And there is this about 2012 hurricane season...

Hurricanes & Tropical Storms - Annual 2012 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

The number of named storms and storms that reached hurricane strength was above average, while the number of major hurricanes was below average. The 2012 season marked the lowest number of major hurricanes in the basin since 1997, which also had only one. There were no Category 4 or 5 storms during the season, only the third time this has occurred since 1995. Hurricane Michael, the only Category 3 hurricane of the season, retained major hurricane strength for 6 hours. One hurricane (Isaac), two tropical storms (Beryl and Debby), and one post-tropical storm with hurricane force winds (Sandy) made landfall during the season. No major hurricanes struck the U.S. coast, marking the seventh consecutive year without a major hurricane strike.

Although there was an extremely high number of tropical storms during the year, the below-average number of major hurricanes kept the seasonal ACE value relatively low compared to more active years.

You were saying...

 

[Master Dan]

It's so good to have Bill to provide a healthy balance. It would be even better if he quoted credible science!

But having said that, I think, in reality, it is probably too late. If we had started when the evidence was first available it may have been reversible. Now I am not so sure. I think our generation has done the most in history to destroy the future for our children and their children. The only hope I see is that in the next short time those who have demonstrated an ability to rise to the occasion with technology will develop some form of effective and affordable carbon sequestration. Without that the pollution from the developing countries like China and India and the deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia will be the tipping point.

Pessimist? Yep. But what we are copping with climate change now is just the beginning.
:asian:

Thank you but bill is not paid to be credible he belongs to the bubble that says anything is true if you just say it over and over and if it is printed in the media it must be true. I know there is good science to prove we have actually repaired the ozone holes due to changes in many types of emissions that damaged it however when it comes to Carbon the amount we have put in the air due to fossil fuels is going to not change for the next 10-20 years if we were to stop all artificial emissions and countries like China just now industrializing using massive amounts of coal are not going to stop. 50% of our us energy still comes from coal and damage to people in the mining areas on many levels is criminal but the needs of the many for cheap energy seem to out weigh the needs of the few. Regardless of where energy comes from I think the best we could do in the future is finding ways to use 50% less and still maintain our comfort. Thanks for your post

 

[billc]

As has been pointed out in the article I posted...

Of course, it doesn’t seem like that. Partly because of sensitivity to the climate-change doctrine, and partly simply as a result of the explosion of global communications, we are far more aware of extreme-weather events around the world than we used to be. And it is perfectly true that many more people are affected by extreme-weather events than ever before. But that is simply because of the great growth in world population: There are many more people around. It is also true, as the insurance companies like to point out, that there has been a great increase in the damage caused by extreme-weather events. But that is simply because, just as there are more people around, so there is more property around to be damaged.
The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme-weather events. And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme-weather events.

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...a list of the worst hurricanes...ever...

Worst Hurricane Ever | List of Biggest Hurricanes in History

Taking the cake for the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded the 1970 Bhola Cyclone hit East Pakistan (Bangladeshtoday) and India's West Bengal on November 12, 1970. While the exact death toll is unknown it is estimated that 300,000-500,000 people perished in the aftermath of this storm, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters recent history.

This cyclone was not extremely large, reaching strengths equivalent of a Category 3 Hurricane. The killing power of this storm was almost completely attributed to the cyclone's surge which flooded most of the low lying islands in the Ganges Delta, literally wiping villages and crops off the face of the earth.

Hmmmm...300,000-500,000 people actually killed...how many were killed in hurricane Sandy...

Not happy to just be one of the most destructive Pacific hurricanes to make landfall in Mexico, Hurricane Pauline had to be one of the deadliest too.

Working it's way up the Mexican coastline Pauline dumped torrential rain falls with 16" of rain in Acapulco alone! The relentless downpour caused disastrous land slides in some of Mexico's poorest villages, killing roughly 250-400 people and leaving a striking 300,000 people homeless.

Beyond all the lives destroyed Hurricane Pauline caused a massive amount of damage, exceeding $7.5 billion (USD 1997).

l<​

Hmmmm...

killing roughly 250-400 people and leaving a striking 300,000 people homeless.

Beyond all the lives destroyed Hurricane Pauline caused a massive amount of damage, exceeding $7.5 billion

 

[billc]

Hmmm...this hurricane was when...?

The year was 1900, the place was Galveston Texas. On September 4th a warning was released saying a large tropical storm had just passed Cuba and was headed west across the Gulf of Mexico.

Even though the US Weather Bureau had warning that a large storm was on its way their policy at the time was to avoid pesky words like "hurricane" or "tornado" to avoid giving people a chance to escape oops, I mean to avoid panic.

In this case panic is really what the people of Galveston should have done as there was a big *** storm on it's way and they were grossly unprepared.

In 1900 Galveston was only about 9 feet above sea level which was a bit too low. When the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 made landfall on September 8th it brought a 15 foot tall storm surge along with 135mph winds, making it a category 4 hurricane. The surge was so powerful it washed over the entire island, knocking buildings off their foundations and then pounding them into scraps of wood. In total over 3600 houses were destroyed.

The Galveston Hurricane is the deadliest natural disaster to ever hit the US, claiming over 6,000 lives. The total damages exceeded $20 million in 1900 dollars, which is over $500 million in todays dollars (inflation is no joke!).

But...But...1900...how much global warming could there have been...I mean, the car wasn't around that long...industrialization wasn't that great...but I guess the man made global warming religion is only forward thinking...that is it only counts if it happened while the people who believe in man made global warming were alive...

I think restating this is a good idea...

There are many more people around. It is also true, as the insurance companies like to point out, that there has been a great increase in the damage caused by extreme-weather events. But that is simply because, just as there are more people around, so there is more property around to be damaged.

Here we go...from wikipedia...the Automobile...

The year 1886 is regarded the year of birth of the modern automobile - with the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, by German inventor Karl Benz. Motorized wagons soon replaced animal-drafted carriages, especially after automobiles became affordable for many people when the Ford Model T was introduced in 1908.

Wow, 14 years before the hurricane hit Galveston...that man made global warming is pretty quick...but...then...why did it slow down for the last 17 years, 9 months when countries are just dumping green house gases into the atmosphere...?


And the industrial revolution...from wikipedia...

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and spread to Western Europe and the United States within a few decades. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[SUP][6][/SUP]while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[SUP][7][/SUP]

Hmmmm...in some figures the build up of industry was about 60-140 years...and most of the early years weren't pumping out those green house gases all that much...and yet...by 1900 there was a hurricane in Galveston, Texas...

I guess there had never been hurricanes ever before so it must have really been a shock...

 

[billc]

This must be made up...there was barely any man made global warming for this hurricane...If the industrial revolution even started in 1760 then man made global warming would only have had 20 years to cause this hurricane...right?

Worst Hurricane Ever | List of Biggest Hurricanes in History (Page 8)

The Great Hurricane of 1780

Holding the record as the deadliest Atlantic hurricane this storm devastated Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Lesser Antilles, Bermuda, and possibly Florida and other States.

While the total damages are unknown the death toll was well over 22,000 people, more than any other decade of Atlantic hurricanes.

In the height of man made global warming extreme weather hysteria...how many people died in Hurricane Sandy again....?

And here is another list of horrible, tragic hurricanes long before man could have caused global warming...

http://www.livescience.com/7568-greatest-hurricanes.html

 

[billc]

For those curious, the loss of life in Hurricane Sandy...43.

The Hurricane of 1780...

While the total damages are unknown the death toll was well over 22,000 people, more than any other decade of Atlantic hurricanes.

Taking the cake for the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded the 1970 Bhola Cyclone hit East Pakistan (Bangladeshtoday) and India's West Bengal on November 12, 1970. While the exactdeath toll is unknown it is estimated that 300,000-500,000 people perished in the aftermath of this storm, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters recent history.

So you were saying...

From wikipedia on the Hurricane of 1780, an important point is made...I'll highlight it...

The Great Hurricane of 1780, also known as Huracán San Calixto, the Great Hurricane of the Antilles, and the 1780 Disaster,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] is probably the deadliestAtlantic hurricane on record. Between 20,000 and 22,000 people died when the storm passed through the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean 10&#8211;16 October.[SUP][3][/SUP] Specifics on the hurricane's track and strength are unknown since the official Atlantic hurricane database only goes back to 1851.[SUP][4][/SUP]

The official Atlantic Hurricane database starts in 1851...

Do I need to post about the worst droughts in history as well...? You know, the ones before man made global warming was...warming things up...up until the 17 year, 9 month hiatus...

Well...it's like trying to eat one potato chip...once you start...the worst droughts...happened in the age of Columbus, at least in Utah...hmmm...was that before man started the industrial revolution?

http://www.zmescience.com/research/tree-rings-drought-west-history-53435/#!KHusN

- Consecutive worst-case scenarios: The most severe drought in the record began in 1492, and four of the five worst droughts all happened during Christopher Columbus&#8217; lifetime.

&#8220;We&#8217;re conservatively estimating the severity of these droughts that hit before the modern record, and we still see some that are kind of scary if they were to happen again,&#8221; said Bekker, a geography professor at BYU. &#8220;We would really have to change the way we do things here.&#8221;

This analysis which goes back more than 500 years tells us that the West was once subjected to drought fluctuations much more severe than anything we&#8217;ve seen in recent history. If this happened before, then it can certainly happen in the future. The real questions that remain to be answered is when these periods of severe drought might come again in the future, and what signs can scientists look for to forecast their coming.

Say again...

This analysis which goes back more than 500 years tells us that the West was once subjected to drought fluctuations much more severe than anything we&#8217;ve seen in recent history.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Billc it is like you are spamming the thread? Less is some times more!

 

[crushing]

Billc it is like you are spamming the thread? Less is some times more!

There is a school of thought that if you throw enough **** at the wall something is bound to stick.

 

[K-man]

It doesn't require much brain to differentiate between the damage caused by hurricanes and the power and frequency of hurricanes. If a very powerful hurricane goes through an area with sparce population and little infrastructure there will not be huge damage and loss of life. If a less powerful hurricane goes through an area of high population, like Bangladesh then obviously the loss of life will be much higher.

Despite all the propaganda being peddled by the skeptics, global warming and climate change is here. That has even been confirmed by people Bill has quoted. The only thing that can be argued is whether this is being caused by the actions of man and the burning of fossil fuels and whether anything can be done to reverse it. If your future depended on picking sides which side would you choose?
:asian:

 

[billc]

Sorry, just responding to this...

Hurricane Sandy, drought cost U.S. 100 billion dollars in 2012 ...

On target as usual! ​

I post in smaller posts so that it isn't one giant post...and I was trying to show the perspective from a historical point of view. Much like history, people believe that climate started when they were born and that what we see is all there is or was...I try to stay in the basement these days but sometimes I get drawn out...

I will get my juice box and Teddy Grahams and go back downstairs...nice thread though...

Oh, and...

There is a school of thought that if you throw enough **** at the wall something is bound to stick.​

Hmmm...try reading the posts over...It's more than throwing things at the wall...

--------------------------------------------

K-man:

It doesn't require much brain to differentiate between the damage caused by hurricanes and the power and frequency of hurricanes. If a very powerful hurricane goes through an area with sparce population and little infrastructure there will not be huge damage and loss of life. If a less powerful hurricane goes through an area of high population, like Bangladesh then obviously the loss of life will be much higher.

Despite all the propaganda being peddled by the skeptics, global warming and climate change is here. That has even been confirmed by people Bill has quoted. The only thing that can be argued is whether this is being caused by the actions of man and the burning of fossil fuels and whether anything can be done to reverse it. If your future depended on picking sides which side would you choose?

Missed the point...hurricanes have always existed and we haven't been keeping records all that long...he pointed out the damage of Hurricane Sandy to show an extreme weather event...allegedly being created in frequency and intensity by man made global warming...that was the point of the Hurricane of 1780 and the other horrible hurricanes... to show that long before any man made global warming...and the point of the droughts that occurred in the time of Christopher Columbus...droughts that made our drought look like child's play...

And you are just repeating what I posted...to repeat what I posted originally and you repeated...

There are many more people around. It is also true, as the insurance companies like to point out, that there has been a great increase in the damage caused by extreme-weather events. But that is simply because, just as there are more people around, so there is more property around to be damaged.
The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme-weather events. And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme-weather events.

The posts I posted show that from 300-500 thousand deaths...to 43...makes the point...

 

[granfire]

Climate change drives salmon evolution - life - 11 July 2012 - New Scientist