European left blames bush for floods

[Solly]

Yep, too much building in the flood plains.

[Lemmy]

This is one reason why many people in the United States do not take the ignorant rantings of some of our more 'enlightened' European brothers seriously.

Where did you get the idea that the Germans where 'enlightened' ?
But seriously, if global warming is real, and these people believe it to be real, then the US, as the biggest polluter, is more responsible than other countries. So you can go around calling these people ignorant, but that all depends if global warming is real or not, and there is evidence for both arguments, whether you choose to dismiss that evidence or not.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Species8472


Spray paint contains arrosols, which damage the Ozon Layer. A very important environmental problem, but different from the Green house effect that we are talking about here.

Depends on the paint. All spray paints in the Southern California Air Quality Management District must be water based with no other volitile compounds as a solvent. Most use either CO2 or Nitrogen as a propellent.

I like the AQMD. The air is much cleaner in Southern California then when I was a kid. It used to hurt to breath way too often.

Spray paints with Ozone damaging chemicals have been ilegal for a long time in the US. Cloro-flouro carbons were outlawed here quite a while ago and they are not only an ozone layer hazzard they are also very strong green house gases.

[Species8472]

Those sprays are only a very small part of the USA emissions of greenhouse gasses. The main emissions are from industrialization. The burning of fosil fuels in cars or to generate electricity.

[Species8472]

But seriously, if global warming is real, and these people believe it to be real, then the US, as the biggest polluter, is more responsible than other countries. So you can go around calling these people ignorant, but that all depends if global warming is real or not, and there is evidence for both arguments, whether you choose to dismiss that evidence or not.

Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable.

1. There is very high reason to believe global warming exist.
2. The effects of global warming are catastrophic to life on earth.
1 + 2 Global warming is so dangerous, that we can not allow it to take place. The chance that it does not exist is neglectable in comparison to the severness of the problem.

[Ethelred]

I am aware of that. The comment I made was specific to spray paints. Cloro-flouro carbons are many times stronger than CO2. Even methane has 40 times more heat trapping power than CO2 and CFCs are stronger yet. As a consequence of the power of methane Australia is trying to figure out how to decrease sheep and cattle flatulence.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Species8472


Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable.

Oddly enough that is not certain. For one thing the Earth is still colder now than it was prior to the Little Ice Age. If the place warms up a bit (not a lot of course) we will be back to the weather that existed prior to about 1200 AD. Greenland for instance was a much more pleasant place when it was colonized by Eric the Red. I wonder just how many bad floods happen then. Hundred year floods do happen occasionaly. About once per hundred years.

[Species8472]

this may all be true, but if the world warms up just a little bit, already many habitats for many plants and animals disappear, and these creatures will die if they cannot adapt or move.

Ofcourse this is also a natural phenomenon, but if humans are responsible to fasten this process, life on earth will decrease more rapidly then ecosystems can have. If that happens, and entire ecosystems will be harmed or even destroyed (dessert forming), this will also damage our own food supplies.

the reasoning is like this:
1. Increased Global warming leads to destroying of habitats.
2. destroying of habitats leads to dying of the creature that fills this habitat.
3. Faster dying of life, leads to damaging of ecosystems.
4. Damaging ecosystems leads to desertforming.
5. Desert forming leads to hunger and starvation.

[Ethelred]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Species8472

the reasoning is like this:
1. Increased Global warming leads to destroying of habitats.

Sometimes but mostly for animals that are pretty strongly tied geographicly to a small area. Mostly what will happen is habitats will change. Move a bit north or south. Get wetter or drier. Prior to about 5000 BC people were living extensivly in what is now the Sahara Desert. In that case the world warmed up and glaciers melted to where they were smaller than they are today.

2. destroying of habitats leads to dying of the creature that fills this habitat.

Destroying is not quite accurate. Habitats change frequently in most of the world. Hot, cold, rain, no rain this varies so much the present apparent change is still only apparent and could be within normal range of variation over the last 2000 years or so.

I do think the world is getting a bit warmer due to human effects but the amount is hard quanitify due to the range of normal variance. For one thing allthough we all use a lot more more fossil fuel than prior the industrial revolution we also use a heck of a lot of concrete. Concrete absorbs large amounts of CO2. The Roman concrete constructions are STILL absorbing CO2 and continuing to harden over 1400 years later.

3. Faster dying of life, leads to damaging of ecosystems.

Well faster changeing anyway. Adapatable species will be more dominant than in the past perhaps. Some of the species that are on the edge will die out. Some will do the opposite as they may be pre-adapted for future conditions and poorly adapted for present conditions. What will change most is the relative abundance and there will of course be a loss of species that are barely suviving allready.

4. Damaging ecosystems leads to desertforming.

That doesn't follow. The desert IS an ecosystem. If rain increases as some people predict and certainly the Green party is claiming for this flood then the Deserts that will decrease in size.

5. Desert forming leads to hunger and starvation.

Desert loss decreases that. Increased temperature increases evaporation which leads to increased rainfall. Increased CO2 leads to more rapid plant growth since plants need CO2.

This sort of ambiguity of the possible results of global warming is what makes debate on it more a matter of feeling than fact.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lemmy
But seriously, if global warming is real, and these people believe it to be real, then the US, as the biggest polluter, is more responsible than other countries.

I'd rather blame them for building in a flood plain.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Did a search for Bush, blame and floods:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/r...p?linkid=14352

Quote:

Many Germans believe Bush to blame for European floods

It's obvious that the general population of the Federal Republic of Germany suffers from a very low level of educational attainment, or else they'd realise that just as global warming is a process which theoretically occurs over several decades, the solution vis a vis the Kyoto protocols would require decades to take effect. They also seem to be ignorant about the pollution problem in Asia. I recommend that the FRG immediately adopt a school voucher program in the hopes that they may save their population from ignorance and despair.

[DanS]

" Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable."

Please give me numbers regarding the current cost of the situation. Please give me a probability for the "risk is so high". Then put in credible numbers for the future cost in your scenarios, by year. Lastly, give me credible numbers for the irreparable damage caused and the potential damage caused by carrying out your proposed remedies.

I think you will find that you can't back up this oft-repeated BS with any specificity.

To me, these kinds of arguments reflect a profound lack of intellectual rigor by a group of people who are not normally prone to intellectual laziness. It pains me to watch it.

[Ned]

For the more scientific, I found the following bit from recent research from Antarctica to be quite interesting:

Journal Review

"According to the authors, the proxy records displayed five prominent palaeoenvironmental intervals over the past 14,000 years: (1) a "Neoglacial" cool period beginning 3360 years ago and continuing to the present, (2) a mid-Holocene climatic optimum from 9070 to 3360 years ago, (3) a cool period beginning 11,460 years ago and ending at 9070 years ago, (4) a warm period from 13,180 to 11,460 years ago, and (5) cold glacial conditions prior to 13,180 years ago. Spectral analyses of the data revealed that, superimposed upon these broad climatic intervals, were decadal and centennial-scale temperature cycles. Throughout the current Neoglacial period, the authors report finding "very significant" (above the 99% confidence level) peaks, or oscillations, that occurred at intervals of 400, 190, 122, 85 and 70 years, which they suggest are perhaps driven by solar variability. Additionally, the authors note the presence of a "Little Ice Age" that started about 700 years before present and ended approximately 100 years ago.

What it means
The results of this study add to the mounting body of evidence that supports a global Little Ice Age event. It also highlights the inherent natural variability of climate, and suggests to us the high probability that recent 20th century warming is not of anthropogenic origin, but the result of natural variability, as the earth has recovered from the now-demonstrated global chill of the Little Ice Age."

[Ned]

Here is and editorial commenting on a climate model that includes plant aerosols. The net effect of increased CO2 is beneficial.

Biology Rules: On Land and at Sea

"For the part of the planet included in this regional assessment, i.e., the area located between approximately 35 and 48° N latitude and 96 and 110° W longitude, it was determined that the net result of the simultaneous actions of the direct and indirect effects of the doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration was a 0.715°C decrease in the area- and seasonally-averaged daily maximum air temperature and a 0.354°C increase in the similarly-averaged daily minimum air temperature. Hence, what climate alarmists typically describe as detrimental, when only the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is considered, turns out to actually be beneficial, when several of the biological effects of this phenomenon are included in the calculations. During the time of greatest heat stress (mid-afternoon), for example, temperatures are lower; while during the time of greatest cold stress (pre-sunrise), they are higher. Likewise, the 1.069°C reduction in the average daily air temperature range is indicative of a more thermally-stable environment; and a more thermally-stable environment is a less stressful environment. Last of all, the overall change in daily mean air temperature is not a dramatic warming, ..., but a slight cooling."

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
Please give me numbers regarding the current cost of the situation. Please give me a probability for the "risk is so high". Then put in credible numbers for the future cost in your scenarios, by year. Lastly, give me credible numbers for the irreparable damage caused and the potential damage caused by carrying out your proposed remedies.

I think you will find that you can't back up this oft-repeated BS with any specificity.

To me, these kinds of arguments reflect a profound lack of intellectual rigor by a group of people who are not normally prone to intellectual laziness. It pains me to watch it.

Here is a take on the insurance angle:

Key points bolded for those who don't wish to read it all.

Insurers count cost of global warming

New Scientist vol 175 issue 2353 - 27 July 2002, page 7


INSURANCE premiums against floods and other disasters are set to rocket because the world's biggest insurance companies are getting nervous about climate change. Swiss Re, a company that provides insurance for other insurers, warned in a report this week that premium hikes are inevitable.

The big fish of the insurance industry are already alarmed about the rising tide of large claims for climatic disasters such as floods, hurricanes and heatwaves, which between them have caused damage estimated at half a trillion dollars over the past decade. "The number of really big weather disasters has increased fourfold compared to the 1960s," says Thomas Loster from Munich Re, another big firm that insures insurers - a business known as reinsurance.

Now Swiss Re's risk analysts are pointing to the hidden costs of smaller changes in the weather. "A few rainy days less per year, a somewhat lower incidence of frost, a few more particularly warm days. This may sound relatively harmless, but it is not," warns the report (see www.swissre.com). Extreme weather appears much more catastrophic because it wins extensive media coverage. However, persistent but less obvious changes to climate can also cause problems.

For instance, in July 1995, a heatwave in Britain raised average temperatures by 3 degrees. This small rise caused the death rate to increase by 5 per cent. Crops failed, cattle breeding faltered and trout tanks emptied. The bill to farmers alone was £180 million. Add in factors such as emergency water supplies that had to be brought in as reservoirs dried up and the total bill goes up to £1.5 billion - much of it paid for by insurance companies.

"Losses that were previously an exception may become the rule," says Swiss Re's chief risk officer Bruno Porro. He says insurance companies need to reassess the risks for these events now and bump up premiums to offset massive payouts. If other insurance companies are too slow to adapt to the changed climate, Porro says companies such as Swiss Re "will not be prepared to share the burden", and the other companies will have to take the losses on their own. Some high-risk activities, such as insuring property on low-lying islands and providing cover against forest fires or a lack of snow at ski resorts, may prove so risky in the future that no insurance companies will cover them at all.

[Lemmy]

But the question is, does pollution cause the global warming, or is it cyclic and independant of pollution, and therefore inevitable.
If it's the latter, then Kyoto is pretty much useless

[Dauphin]

It depends on which vested interest group you talk to.

The current climate trend may be cyclical but I find it hard to believe that people refute the human impact on the trend.

Its not a one or other situation. The effects can easily be superimposed effects.

[rah]

Sagacious Dolphin, I have to chuckle a bit. Insurance companies coming up with arguements to justify to regulators the need for premium increases. STOP THE PRESSES.

The economic slowdown is what's really frightening them. Insurance companies, prior to a few years ago, were satisfied if they paid out (plus operating expenses) a few more percentage points then they took in on premium because they made all their money on investment income. Now that investment income has dramatically decreased, they must search for ways to either reduce costs or increase premiums. Most major companies cut workers/expenses dramatically in the 90's and there isn't a lot more they can do on that side. So their best chance is to increase premiums. (which a lot of companies are doing this year and it has nothing to do with GLOBAL WARMING) Some companies are even clamping down on writing new business and focusing on renewals, since most of the first year premium goes to the selling agent, thereby making renewal business more profitable. (which seems real short sighted)

I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of "the sky is falling" stories from the insurance companies in the coming year into order to justify how they're going to stick us with increased premiums.

Rich
A veteran of two seperate Major insurance companies spanning 15 years.

[DanS]

SD: Good retort. Arguably, that answers to the current costs--half a trillion dollar cost over the last decade--or roughly $50 billion per annum.

Now please divide that number into two parts: (1) those calamities that would have happened anyway; and (2) those calamities that are outside the norm. Further divide (2) into: (2a) Those calamities caused by global warming and (2b) Those calamities not caused by global warming.

From the (2a) cost base, adjust to reflect the percentage of the global warming trend attributable to human carbon dispersion. Then adjust to reflect other human factors for this cost, such as the propensity to build in a flood plain.

Is the modified cost $1, $1 billion or $1/2 trillion?

Lastly, weigh the modified (2a) against the costs of doing something and the risk that doing something would have unintended negative consequences. Further, consider the possibility that we're actually helping the situation rather than hurting it.

Please contact me when the analysis is done. Thanks.

[Ned]

Well, SG, we do know that the Earth's temperature have not followed the most global warming model's predictions heretofore. This forces the scientests to constantly refine their models. Actual data is inconsistent. City temperatures are warming, but atmosphere temperatures are cooling. Antarctica is showing remarkable cooling.

As we learn more about Earth's climate history, we know there is a lot of variabily that is "regular." This strongly suggests some sort of solar pattern, but there could also be feedback mechnisms tied to the planet - for example, it takes 50,000 years before the major glaciers in Greenland reflect a change in temperature.

What does seem to be happening with more CO2 is that growing seasons seem to be longer in the North. The forests in Canada, for example, are greening about a week earlier and losing their leaves about a week later. This, however, is a positive development.

Finally, we 13,000 years into the current interglacial period. This is the longest such period in the last million years. How much longer this will last is unknown. But we did have a mini-ice age in the last millenium. Does this portend the final descent into a real ice age?

All of this suggests caution. We really do not understand cause and effect well enough to act.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
Please contact me when the analysis is done. Thanks.

I've got my hands full with investment appraisal analyses at the moment. Do it yourself.

[Dauphin]

Sod it, see what I can do in five minutes - so don't complain if it is insufficient for your demanding needs.

Originally posted by DanS
SD: Good retort. Arguably, that answers to the current costs--half a trillion dollar cost over the last decade--or roughly $50 billion per annum.

Now please divide that number into two parts: (1) those calamities that would have happened anyway; and (2) those calamities that are outside the norm. Further divide (2) into: (2a) Those calamities caused by global warming and (2b) Those calamities not caused by global warming.

"The number of really big weather disasters has increased fourfold compared to the 1960s,"

Therefore we can say that three out of four disasters are due to climate change since the 1960s.

3/4 *$50b = $37.5 billion

From the (2a) cost base, adjust to reflect the percentage of the global warming trend attributable to human carbon dispersion.

Well, you never like figures people put up, so lets go evens - 50/50

0.5 * 37.5 billion = $18.75billion

Then adjust to reflect other human factors for this cost, such as the propensity to build in a flood plain.

The percentage of costs due to flooding alone are pretty small, from the example for the UK above it was due to a heatwave.

For want of better figures again lets use 50/50

=> ~$10 billion dollars per year.

Lastly, weigh the modified (2a) against the costs of doing something and the risk that doing something would have unintended negative consequences. Further, consider the possibility that we're actually helping the situation rather than hurting it.

Now you tell me the cost of following the Kyoto protocols - a one off cost, versus an annuity in perpetuuity of $10 billion.

Use whichever discount rate you feel appropriate.

[DanS]

"Therefore we can say that three out of four disasters are due to climate change since the 1960s. "

Recheck your math. That would mean 4/5 are due to climate change.

"Well, you never like figures people put up, so lets go evens - 50/50"

Where do you get this number? From your hairy bum?

"For want of better figures again lets use 50/50"

For want of a better figure, let's pull one out of our asses?

[Dauphin]

Edited to reduce size.

Miserly attitude to climate rubbished

New Scientist vol 174 issue 2347 - 15 June 2002, page 5


Fighting global warming would barely dent the world's economy


PEOPLE will be five times as rich in a hundred years' time. And if we are willing to postpone that prosperity by just two years, we could fix global warming into the bargain.
....
Last year's report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the economists' assessment that stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at twice pre-industrial concentrations by 2100 would cost between $1 trillion and $8 trillion. It sounds a lot, says Schneider, but the money would be all but invisible against the 2 per cent a year economic growth predicted by the same economists.
...
Without action to halt global warming, economists predict that the world as a whole will be 10 times as rich by 2100, and people on average will be five times as well off. Adding on the costs of tackling warming, says Schneider, would postpone this target by a mere two years. "To be 10 times richer in 2100 versus 2102 would hardly be noticed." Similarly, meeting the terms of the Kyoto Protocol would mean industrialised countries "get 20 per cent richer by June 2010 rather than in January 2010".

Put that way, he believes, the American public and politicians could be convinced that curbing greenhouse emissions is a necessary insurance policy against the potential dangers of climate change.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
"Therefore we can say that three out of four disasters are due to climate change since the 1960s. "

Recheck your math. That would mean 4/5 are due to climate change.

1-> 4 less the original 1 equals 3. = 3/4.

Rechecked, and I'm sticking with 3/4

Even if I didn't it only increases the cost of global warming.

"Well, you never like figures people put up, so lets go evens - 50/50"

Where do you get this number? From your hairy bum?
"For want of better figures again lets use 50/50"

For want of a better figure, let's pull one out of our asses?

They are in the order of magnitude that is bandied around, what more do you want?

Insulting a person is not the best way to make an argument, just tell me why the figures are wrong/ come up with your own.

[DanS]

You're right on the increase.

"They are in the order of magnitude that is bandied around, what more do you want?"

I want numbers that are credible.

"Insulting a person is not the best way to make an argument, just tell me why the figures are wrong."

You are putting yourself in a position that invites insult.

How can I prove that your numbers are wrong when I have no basis for judging myself?

[Dauphin]

"They are in the order of magnitude that is bandied around, what more do you want?"

I want numbers that are credible.

They are credible, but the point moreover is whether you personally subscribe to the conclusion of experiments and experimentors. I will try to find something that will suit your thirst for specifics, in a notoriusly inspecific field.

My reasonong behind 50% as a figure is that estimate extremes (GW believers and naysayers) that I know of are centred around that figure. Do some variance analyses if you want to see how important the exact figures are.

"Insulting a person is not the best way to make an argument, just tell me why the figures are wrong."

You are putting yourself in a position that invites insult.

How is making a guesstimate from memory putting one up for personal insult. Deride the numbers, sure, insulting the person is not necessary. Tosspot.

How can I prove that your numbers are wrong when I have no basis for judging myself

You can surely find your own sources that show how much CO2 is due to human activity? Similarly you can find data on how much the cost of reducing emissions will be? etc.

I could find it, I just don't have the time at the moment.

[DanS]

"I will try to find something that will suit your thirst for specifics, in a notoriusly inspecific field."

Well, isn't it time we demanded specificity? Do you have an idea why this is a notoriously inspecific field? Could it be that they just don't know for sure?

"My reasonong behind 50% as a figure is that estimate extremes (GW believers and naysayers) that I know of are centred around that figure. Do some variance analyses if you want to see how important the exact figures are."

It seems that I can't believe the numbers of the naysayers either. In my view, each of the variables listed above is bound by 0% and 100%. Sure, you can split the difference, but that doesn't mean the result will in any way match reality.

"Tosspot."



OK, maybe I was trying to be forum Nazi a little too much.

I'm just a little tired of hearing non-specifics, when a great deal of specificity is required and somebody is lurching for my pocketbook. It's about like a beggar that gives you hell every time he asks for money and you don't give him any.

There's a huge cost delta based on relatively small adjustments to the variables, owing to the fact that there are lots of variables to consider.

[Dr Strangelove]

Getting back on topic, Bush's presidency hasn't been long enough to make so much as a hair's difference in the weather no matter which theory you subscribe to, so it is illogical to blame him.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Species8472

Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable.

1. There is very high reason to believe global warming exist.
2. The effects of global warming are catastrophic to life on earth.
1 + 2 Global warming is so dangerous, that we can not allow it to take place. The chance that it does not exist is neglectable in comparison to the severness of the problem.

By this same reasoning the government would be able to put forward a case for the forced conversion of the population to Christianity. "Even if we were able to only save one soul from hell for eternity..."

There are a lot of ideas around that make great sense, whether global warming is proved or not, such as energy conservation, nuclear power to replace coal, etc. If you are particularly worked up about the issue, then you can lead by example, just as the signatories to the Kyoto accords should do. Pointing the finger is no substitute for action, it is an excuse not to act.