[quote]Ugly kids who do get laid and have children they neither want nor can afford to raise
Taco Bell
ToysRUs[/quote]
You’re getting confused, fred. This is evidence of the Zombie Apocalypse, not climate change. Fat penguins are caused by GM soya.
Anyway … what Xeno said.
BigJohn, I’m posting a news item of interest and a bit of pertinence. I’m pretty sure you’re capable of looking up info about the stats related to extreme precipitation. Jeff Master’s excellent blog might be a place to start. Or Realclimate.
PS I noticed Fred didn’t put anything about lava rain or fire tornados in his list. That’s because those are the only extreme weather incidents that he actually would credit climate change with.
Also I read the blurb on the NOAA study that finds the drought to be more natural than man-made. It contradict other studies that find otherwise, such as these:
Study Ties Epic California Drought, ‘Frigid East’ To Manmade Climate Change
National Science Foundation: Record California Drought Directly Linked To Climate Change
Studies Link Climate Change to Recent Extreme Weather Events
They all have their logic; I haven’t seen any research on consensus among papers investigating this topic, but the problem does point to why such research can be useful.
This is a tricky problem with no clear-cut answer, as you might imagine. An instrumental record of temperatures is relatively easy to understand and interpret by comparison (and look at how confusing that can get with all the bad arguments being thrown around). When you turn to extreme weather events you have to consider: How should the event be measured? Intensity, duration, energy, economic impact, number of lives lost, etc.? What existing records can we compare to (instrumental, proxy data, etc.)? How global is our coverage? What are the uncertainties? It should be no surprise that our current understanding is somewhere between “we don’t know” and “climate change is causing more extreme weather events”. Adding more energy to the earth system should increase extreme weather events; that much is logical. There are plenty of papers showing specific forms of extreme weather are increasing in specific areas at specific times. A global synthesis of all this information is bound to be much less certain, however.
Of course, since the level of certainty is lower than for other elements of AGW the denialists absolutely love to nitpick about extreme weather events. This is yet another place in the court of public opinion where honest scientific inquiry is no match for the merchants of doubt.
Anyhow, with extreme weather events we have an opportunity to escape the science/denialist dichotomy for an instant by considering what insurance companies have to say about the topic. I’ll leave this to someone else to dig up the nitty-gritty details but if I recall correctly most insurance companies around the world are raising rates and citing extreme weather as a major cause. Is there something to this or is it shameless profiteering? You know what the denialists will say already… but it could be interesting to consider this angle.
I’m out and about and still kinda disinterested in investing too much time in this discussion… but I noticed Tamino had a crack at this:
tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/ … astrophes/
Good post, Xeno.
Vay:
Always read the links before you post them.
NOAA as I have posted in my article/link concluded in its study that human-caused climate change was NOT the reason for California’s drought.
Your first link has an article dated April 2014. The NOAA study is much later and appears to be FAR more comprehensive but then I struggled with the motivation for you to post the third link, which mirabile dictu, contains the following:
[quote]New research in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society finds that climate change influenced the majority of 16 extreme weather events in 2013. Specifically, it found evidence that climate change linked to human causes—particularly burning of fossil fuels—increased the odds of nine extreme events: amplifying temperature in China, Japan, Korea, Australia and Europe; intense rain in parts of the United States and India and severe droughts in New Zealand and California.
“It is not ever a single factor that is responsible for the extremes that we see; in many cases, there are multiple factors,” said Tom Karl, director of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Climatic Data Center, of the third NOAA-led annual report to make connections between human-caused climate change and individual extreme weather events.
Twenty groups of scientists conducted independent peer-reviewed studies on the same 16 extreme events occurring on four continents to arrive at their conclusions.
“There is great scientific value in having multiple studies analyze the same extreme event to determine the underlying factors that may have influenced it,” said Stephanie C. Herring of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and lead report editor. “Results from this report not only add to our body of knowledge about what drives extreme events, but what the odds are of these events happening again—and to what severity.”
Although the report concludes that the long durations of heat waves “are becoming increasingly likely” due to human-caused climate change, the effects of such change on other types of extremes—California’s drought and extreme rain in Colorado—are less clear.
“Temperature is much more continuous as opposed to precipitation, which is an on/off event,” said Karl. “If you have an on/off event, it makes the tools we have a little more difficult to use.”
The NOAA study reached mixed conclusions about the ongoing California drought’s connection to climate change.[/quote]
before going on to note the Stanford University research that DOES show a link. So what is the “consensus” on the California drought? I note that you have cited NOAA frequently as an “expert” on climate change. Does it thus get the winning vote based on its “expertise” or are you going to cite one or the other of these climate studies to support your stance? because doing so is a rebarbative effort to “cherry pick” as I believe you have termed it… and as I recall, you were “against” such efforts in the past… no doubt Xeno can help you explain what you mean here. Xeno? Any help for Vay? Looking forward to more regurgitatively repressive regressive riffs on right-thinking, righteous revelations of rectilinear rectitude… or something along those lines… oh and have I used the word rebarbative? I think that I have but let me use it again! :roflmao:
If you’re looking for a simple yes or no answer to the question “did global warming cause this particular extreme weather event” you’re going to be sorely disappointed. Again, returning to the baseball analogy, it’s like asking if performance-enhancing drugs caused one particular home run. This is why the piece you quoted states “it found evidence that climate change linked to human causes—particularly burning of fossil fuels—increased the odds of nine extreme events”. That much should be clear at least… but you’re busy scanning the text for ambiguity for whatever reason. (Well, I’m pretty sure I know why, but it isn’t like pointing it out will change anyone’s behavior.)
Anyhow, talking about extreme weather events is fair game. Nobody is trying to say “this is it, the ultimate piece of evidence!” The California drought happens to be in the news and many things about it match our expectations for AGW so it is a legitimate target of inquiry. The bigger picture: there is evidence that global warming is driving extreme weather events as we would expect. Mixed conclusions about one extreme event don’t change that.
Yes, simplistic analogies seem to be the only mode of communication left to the climate change pants-wetting alarmists. And here’s another example!
My suggestion is to go back to the non-starter of how smoking was once “denied” as a cause for something bad as well, while failing to note that the true challenges were regarding the alarmism on what was more second-hand smoke and exposure to the same. Still reason for concern, as with global warming, but… perhaps not quite so easy to prove and more political in tone? How’s that for an analogy in reply?
Yes, simplistic analogies seem to be the only mode of communication left to the climate change pants-wetting alarmists. And here’s another example!
My suggestion is to go back to the non-starter of how smoking was once “denied” as a cause for something bad as well, while failing to note that the true challenges were regarding the alarmism on what was more second-hand smoke and exposure to the same. Still reason for concern, as with global warming, but… perhaps not quite so easy to prove and more political in tone? How’s that for an analogy in reply?[/quote]
Analogies can be useful, especially when attempting to explain complex probabilistic phenomena. Obviously they’re of no use when speaking to people who already have their minds made up.
As for your smoking “analogy”, I don’t really follow what you’re trying to say. Smoking isn’t bad? Let’s not forget that some of the very same people who were paid shills for the tobacco industry are now paid shills for the fossil fuel industry.
Yes, that is another of the tired bromades that make the rounds for people who, as you have stated, “already have their minds made up.” May I remind you that the “doubt” expressed by many of these individuals was with regard to the dangers and thus liabilities of second-hand smoke. Without intending to, you have, in fact, come up with a very appropriate analogy about how an issue was magnified and milked to sue and sue again to take $$$s from those who produce to give it to those who “need it.” I see the same sentiments regarding “justice” and “what is fair” now surfacing with the new and improved climate change! and the need to “compensate” and to “assist” and to “pay retribution” for…
Of course, it would be equally amusing to trace all those in the anti-nuclear movement who are now pro-nuke because of the urgent need to deal with climate change. Another equally amusing effort would be to trace all those who are now in the climate change alarmism movement and see what roots they grew from… Third Worldism… Marxism… Liberation Theology… redistributionism… all the same pet causes that have achieved all the same results: distorted economies that punish the productive and reward the non-productive until which point they collapse to be bailed out by those productive companies who are the ones, as you have noted, are hiring “paid shills.”
But, of course, here I go again taking away the important need that you have to “raise awareness” and to “make a difference.” My goodness. So many of you have become so adept at these qualities… so good that you should really be rewarded for all the hard work that you do for society. Perhaps, world governments can provide you and others of your ilk with a salary and benefits… so that you could, for example, travel the world to meet others who are also seeking to “raise awareness” and “to make a difference.” I do hope that you are very active on facebook and twitter. It just wouldn’t be the same without colorful photographs of you meeting street children in Rio or providing a bottle of your imported mineral water to the thatch lady as she climbs the steep slopes of the Himalayas in Nepal. Then, of course, we could all look forward to the endless photos of culinary delights. You would knowledgeably explain that in Peru, ceviche is made with xxx and yyy and here you are at the nationally famous establishment Casa Clueless… or perhaps we could see a casava field and then women pounding it in appropriately picturesque and quaint villages with traditional mortars and finally voila! on your plate! Maybe a soupcon of “did you know that” casava is rich in iron and vitamin C? and it provides a much-needed source of energy for many in subSaharan Afrique? Admit it! You secretly not only own 10,000 Places to Visit before You Die but you have been tallying them off with colored markers… each one another point… each one an indication… a validation that your life MEANS something… and best of all, when you were like in that last meeting like in the Marshall Islands, you like had totally been to like so many more places than any of the other delegates… and thus you are the difference that you hope to make… in fact, that is quite a good slogan… I shall use it in all future communications with the climate change alarmist brigade: be the difference that you hope to make! Of course, one imagines that it will not take long for others (perhaps me?) to parody this into “be the difference that you hope to change,” but let’s not get ahead of ourselves and ruin what promises to be such a fascinating story of one dedicated individual’s commitment and efforts to raise awareness regarding the dangers of climate change alarmism… whoops! Please delete the alarmism! PLEASE! hahahahahaha
[quote=“fred smith”]Yes, that is another of the tired bromades that make the rounds for people who, as you have stated, “already have their minds made up.” May I remind you that the “doubt” expressed by many of these individuals was with regard to the dangers and thus liabilities of second-hand smoke. Without intending to, you have, in fact, come up with a very appropriate analogy about how an issue was magnified and milked to sue and sue again to take $$$s from those who produce to give it to those who “need it.” I see the same sentiments regarding “justice” and “what is fair” now surfacing with the new and improved climate change! and the need to “compensate” and to “assist” and to “pay retribution” for…
Of course, it would be equally amusing to trace all those in the anti-nuclear movement who are now pro-nuke because of the urgent need to deal with climate change. Another equally amusing effort would be to trace all those who are now in the climate change alarmism movement and see what roots they grew from… Third Worldism… Marxism… Liberation Theology… redistributionism… all the same pet causes that have achieved all the same results: distorted economies that punish the productive and reward the non-productive until which point they collapse to be bailed out by those productive companies who are the ones, as you have noted, are hiring “paid shills.”
But, of course, here I go again taking away the important need that you have to “raise awareness” and to “make a difference.” My goodness. So many of you have become so adept at these qualities… so good that you should really be rewarded for all the hard work that you do for society. Perhaps, world governments can provide you and others of your ilk with a salary and benefits… so that you could, for example, travel the world to meet others who are also seeking to “raise awareness” and “to make a difference.” I do hope that you are very active on facebook and twitter. It just wouldn’t be the same without colorful photographs of you meeting street children in Rio or providing a bottle of your imported mineral water to the thatch lady as she climbs the steep slopes of the Himalayas in Nepal. Then, of course, we could all look forward to the endless photos of culinary delights. You would knowledgeably explain that in Peru, ceviche is made with xxx and yyy and here you are at the nationally famous establishment Casa Clueless… or perhaps we could see a casava field and then women pounding it in appropriately picturesque and quaint villages with traditional mortars and finally voila! on your plate! Maybe a soupcon of “did you know that” casava is rich in iron and vitamin C? and it provides a much-needed source of energy for many in subSaharan Afrique? Admit it! You secretly not only own 10,000 Places to Visit before You Die but you have been tallying them off with colored markers… each one another point… each one an indication… a validation that your life MEANS something… and best of all, when you were like in that last meeting like in the Marshall Islands, you like had totally been to like so many more places than any of the other delegates… and thus you are the difference that you hope to make… in fact, that is quite a good slogan… I shall use it in all future communications with the climate change alarmist brigade: be the difference that you hope to make! Of course, one imagines that it will not take long for others (perhaps me?) to parody this into “be the difference that you hope to change,” but let’s not get ahead of ourselves and ruin what promises to be such a fascinating story of one dedicated individual’s commitment and efforts to raise awareness regarding the dangers of climate change alarmism… whoops! Please delete the alarmism! PLEASE! hahahahahaha[/quote]
So much for moderating my tone in this discussion. :loco:
… to people who wouldn’t understand the scientific explanation. 
which one? I mean we have so many different predictions from Vay that one struggles to know what to make of it… of course, with all those “scientific” predictions comes the even bigger question: the economic policy prescription. This seems to shut “concernists” up rapidly. Want to take a stab at that one again? Tell us how it is all going to work out? and what it will cost? and what the deliverables will be? No? And you seemed so SURE this time…
OMG, again, fred? Haven’t we done this a million times already? Here’s a really, really simple summary again for your goldfish-like attention span.
Well, first, we’re going to run out of resources, principally oil and phosphorus. They will become as rare and expensive as monkey spunk, and your magic civilisation machine will stop working. They will run out because “a lot” is not the same as “infinite”. Then, and only then, will people stop wittering about “how much is it going to cost?” and start thinking about “how quickly can we get something else working?”. By that time, it’ll be ten times more difficult and costly than it would be today; and you know what? Nobody’s going to be complaining. They’ll be begging the gumbint to please please fix it, here’s all my lunch money mister, please fix it. Analogy: it’s better to put out a kitchen fire with a wet cloth, instead of waiting for it to turn into a conflagration and calling the fire brigade. If the fire brigade are a bunch of corrupt crooks, you’re in big trouble.
About the same as what it costs us to maintain an oil-based infrastructure. Operating costs will be the same or less (in some cases a lot less, depending on the application). I gave you a few numbers. I also suggested a lot more numbers can be found via Google, for your edification and delight.
Incidentally: the modern article of faith is that GDP growth is good. Therefore, higher costs = good. It means resources and manpower are being used and currency is circulating. Spending $1T on a brand-new transport or power infrastructure after the 2008 recession would have been an excellent way to jumpstart the economy. However, there’s an inherent contradiction here: it’s a good thing for an individual business to achieve more with lower costs because that means they win more business; but it’s a bad thing (in the minds of economists, who apparently don’t live on planet Earth) for the whole of human society to do so, because that means everyone would have too much leisure time instead of working in the pin factory. Economists don’t like that. They call it “unemployment”, even when it isn’t. This is why, I suggest, governments are fighting tooth and nail to keep things as inefficient as possible.
Um … something that works? Seriously, you want a politburo-style planning session? The market will evolve some solutions around the constraints. Unfortunately that can’t happen until governments understand and acknowledge the scale of the problem. It’s very hard for private corporations to install transport networks or power systems (for example) because they don’t have the legal clout that a government does: right-of-way negotiations just get bogged down by individuals who can’t see further than a single opportunity to hold out for a big lease/sale payoff. In some countries it’s actually illegal for private corporations to build these things (because they’re run by protected monopolies). Those are the problems. Nothing whatsoever to do with finance or lack of it.
Finley… er, I think that, er, um, you might want to give the 70-year old predictions of peak oil a rest… but WHAT A GREAT ANALOGY for the climate change alarmism crisis! :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Not sure what you meant by it. You mention some extreme weather event in a thread called “Climate Change - Impacts” but don’t clearly state whether you think there is a definite relationship. That’s a bit fuzzy, IMO.
Yes, I can look up stats by myself on the internet, thanks. But usually the person making a point will 1) state clearly what point it is that they are trying to make and 2) Provide supporting arguments and evidence.
Friend of mine is a senior geologist in oil exploration. She’s pretty confident she’ll have a job for the foreseeable future. But she’s equally confident her grandchildren won’t be doing the same.
Humans have been on the planet for millions of years. We’ve been using oil for a couple of centuries, and we’ve already burned through a good fraction of the economically-accessible deposits. If you think it’s infinite, that’s fine. We all know you struggle with math and science. But there will (presumably) be another million or so years during which humans have to survive without it.
Bully for her.
As am I.
Let’s hope not. But remember I am the one who is saying and has been saying oil use (carbon-based energy) will be around for 30 more years. It may be a shorter time period than that but solar and wind are NOT going to displace these fuels for quite some time. LET’S HOPE that green technology DOES replace them in 20… 30 or even 40 years. We all WANT THAT.
Thanks for the history lesson and also for the one in hyperventilating hysteria.
As usual, you interject these nonsensical statements. What is infinite? Again, I am saying we are NOT going to enter some happy clappy world of green energy solutions for AT LEAST 20-30 more years and thus will depend PRIMARILY not SOLELY on fossil fuels and other forms of carbon-based energy. I have repeatedly stressed this as there are some like you who think that there is a grand conspiracy of subsidies and evil fat cats trying to keep the world from acheiving kumbaya TODAY!
That is so cute… coming from you! Adorable little child with his peak oil panics… there there… daddy will give you a sucker!
Funny isn’t it how we jump from a realistic appraisal of world fuel sources for 20-30 years and then get this millions and millions nonsense. There is a lot that you don’t understand… math and science being first and foremost … apparently, the English language and logic are also challenges. But then you have your CAUSE! march march march… the system must be to blame!!!
AFAIK you don’t work in the oil industry, and therefore know nothing about it. I was quoting somebody who does.
If you think oil is going to run out (or become unfeasibly expensive) in 30 years, we’re fucked. It takes at least that long to iron out the bugs from any new technology. And that’s why we need to start hyperventilating now.
Says the expert on renewable technology :roflmao:
Finley:
I know that you don’t really have the capacity to understand but feel free to tell us when renewables will replace carbon-based fuels. Humor me because that is how I view your comments… And show us how that will happen… I don’t know color me bad… I just cannot help reading your responses… Now, I know that you have posted all sorts of just fascinating information about how there is some grand conspiracy by tobacco companies to keep aliens communications from being revealed but … barring some amazing breakthrough, it is going to take 20-30 years to see the kind of input from renewables that will see them replace carbon-based fuels. Ask you friend the gas station attendant. I am sure that she will be able to explain it all to you… Perhaps, your friend the cashier can also discuss the financial implications of this.
