Register to Comment
Page 865 of 6575 FirstFirst ... 36576581585586386486586686787591596513651865 ... LastLast
Results 8,641 to 8,650 of 65749
Like Tree13925Likes
  1. #8641
    Tombo Tombo is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    7,251

    Quote Originally Posted by CptSternn View Post
    The Year of Billion-Dollar Weather - Yahoo! News

    I thought this was a pretty good article. The bottom line is this - even sceptics have to admit there has been a marked increase in extreme weather. Unless something is done, it could carry some dire business consequences.

    First off, people won't be able to build homes near the sea, as you won't be able to get insurance. Then there is the issue with living in flood prone areas - again, no insurance. This could mean some currently thriving resort areas would become ghost towns over night. Only the uber rich who can afford to rebuild from scratch without insurance will be able to live in these areas. Or loads of travellers.
    You would benefit from reading the leading authorities in this field. Start with Roger Pielke (Jnr). All the literature is unambiguous in this regard:

    There is no trend in weather related disasters or dissaster losses. Munich Re has established a notorious reputation for trying to boost insurance and reinsurance premiums by making the types of "forecasts" and "predictions" cited in your link.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #8642
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #8643
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669



    Steaming Toad interview Hayden Washington, author (with John Cook) of Climate Change Denial.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #8644
    imokyrok imokyrok is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10,744

    Hope those Streaming Toad presenters have unlisted their email addresses and phone numbers. Deniers in Oz are in a bit of a frenzy!

    Change of attitude needed as debate overheats - Opinion - Editorial - General - The Canberra Times

    Just over a week ago, The Canberra Times published a story revealing Australia's climate scientists are being targeted by ''a vicious unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats''. It's been interesting to watch, and read, the reaction.........

    Various bloggers have accused us of ''beating up'' our front-page story from a handful of complaints. Not so. We spoke to more than 30 scientists, in all states and territories, to ascertain if threats were confined to pockets of high-profile scientists regularly quoted by the media. They were not. It seems anyone speaking up on climate change - however briefly - is fair game in this trolling campaign.......

    Two of the most shocking cases involved young women who have had little media experience or exposure. One was invited to speak on climate change at a suburban library. Her brief was simple - talk about everyday things people can do to cut their carbon footprint, talk about climate books available at the library (list provided), leave time for questions, and mingle afterwards. The other woman was asked by a local newspaper to pose with her young children for a photograph to illustrate an article promoting a community tree-planting event. She was briefly quoted as saying planting trees could help mitigate climate change. Two days after the article appeared, she received emails containing threats of sexual assault and violence against her children.

    As for the woman speaking at the library, her car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter? - and the words ''climate turd'' written (also in excrement) across the car bonnet. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development.....

    The unpleasant reality is several universities across Australia have been forced to upgrade security to protect scientists. This has ranged from deleting phone numbers from websites and removing names from faculty notice boards, to installing multiple card-swipe entries, office doors protected by punch-in codes, and moving researchers to areas with secure lifts.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #8645
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post

    The lecture from Palmer is well worth viewing for those interested. To junxtapose an actual science talk where climate and the limits of understanding of said are openly discussed, against the games people like our "dear" OwedtoJoy, like to play, and see them for what they actually are; ignorance, and propaganda shrouded in a cloak of sophistry.
    I encourage anyone who has the time to listen to this lecture by Professor Tim Palmer on the uncertainties of climate modelling, recommended by Iarmuid. It is a brilliant example of how the science of climate change is NOT settled, BUT the gaps in our knowledge are being worked upon diligently by first-class scientists like Palmer himself.

    A42A

    Palmer does not throw up his hands and say ... "There is still uncertainty, therefore we should do nothing". He takes the view that we know sufficient to take action, but still need to hone and refine the science.

    Here is an article he wrote in the Guardian, and its concluding paragraphs.

    The scientific method is sometimes described as "organised scepticism", and this, rather than some logical progression from one certainty to the next, characterises the inherently uncertain path of scientific progress. As one leading climate scientist put it: "In truth, we are all climate sceptics." However, despite the climate scientists' best efforts at scepticism, it simply has not been possible to rule out the risk of the sort of climate changes discussed above.

    Handling uncertainty is key to the scientific method, but, conversely, the existence of uncertainty is not itself cause for inaction.
    He adds:

    We don't have to believe that our house will burn down in the coming year to take out insurance. Similarly we don't have to believe that dangerous climate change will occur to take action to cut emissions. A key question that everyone concerned by the climate change issue should ask, particularly those who are sceptical, is this. How large does the probability of serious climate change have to be before we should start cutting emissions? To be specific, how large does the probability have to be that by the end of this century, large parts of Bangladesh will under water because of sea level rise and a substantially more intense monsoon system? Or that the Amazonian rainforest will die because of shifts in rainfall patterns over South America? Or that the type of drought that plagued sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s will become a quasi-permanent feature? 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50%? Considered this way, it's clear that the dichotomy between the "climate believers" vs "climate sceptics" is indeed a false one.
    Climate change uncertainty is no reason for inaction since we can't rule out risk | Tim Palmer | Environment | guardian.co.uk

    As Iarmuid points out, this guy is a Professor at Oxford AND Cambridge.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #8646
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669

    Tropical Storm Lee lashed the USA's Gulf Coast over the weekend, unfortunately all Texas got was dry winds fanning massive bushfires. Even Rick Perry has returned to the state to assist.



    John Nielsen-Gammon on the static electricity produced by the dust storms, not seen since the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s.

    The Electric Dust Storm | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #8647
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Verbose and derivative, yobo, and utter nonsense dredged from anywhere that tries to manufacture Red Herrings.

    Death by temperature is not a measure and it will change dramatically (and is changing. Renewable costs are dropping like stones while conventional is increasing.

    Subsidies for fossil fuels were greater than those for renewables. The hidden subsidies for fossil fuels are enormous.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8648
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669



    Arctic Ice pretty much entering its last week of decline.

    Now at 4.61m km^2, second only to 2007 record 4.27m km^2.

    Rate is something like 40,000 km^2 decline per day but that will also diminish so there is unlikely to be a record this year, but it is still possible. That is still a pretty high rate of decline for so late in the season.

    Data: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 6th September 2011 at 07:57 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #8649
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669

    Sage advice from the US Navy Oceanographer, Admiral David Titley, on how to respond to "skeptics".



    "There is not much you can say to people who believe it is a vast conspiracy". There is still hope for the open-minded.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #8650
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669

    It has fallen to Andy Dessler to refute the Spencer and Braswell paper that led to Wolfgang Wagner's resignation, in protest at denialist "spin" of a flawed publication.

    Here Dessler gives a quick overview:



    The refutation is here: http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

    More comment here: Rabett Run: GRL doi:10.1029/2011GL049236 Andy Dessler does not like Spencer and Braswell very much
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment