I am not sure where you got all that from, yobo, or what you think is the relevance. It has nothing to do with the ozone layer and the industrial possibilities of ozone (controlled) do not alter the deadly effects of ground ozone.

The claim that deaths will be increased to match those prevented deaths by added heating costs is nothing but absurd. Heating costs can be dealt with easily and there is likely no additional cost anyway. Indeed, in the very near future, conventional sources will be far more expensive than the replacements that are beginning to come on stream.

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

I am not sure where you got all that from, yobo, or what you think is the relevance. It has nothing to do with the ozone layer and the industrial possibilities of ozone (controlled) do not alter the deadly effects of ground ozone.

The claim that deaths will be increased to match those prevented deaths by added heating costs is nothing but absurd. Heating costs can be dealt with easily and there is likely no additional cost anyway. Indeed, in the very near future, conventional sources will be far more expensive than the replacements that are beginning to come on stream.

Replacements cheaper? Dear mother of Deity, put down the kool aid. Not only are they not cheaper but they wouldn't exist without govt subsidy that would make a whore blush. In addition, the great State of Texas is enduring the mother of all droughts, with temps through the roof er top end of the thermometer and guess what, the wind farm is worthless, or very nearly so, since in Texas in heat in the summer, the wind ain't blowing, so they've had to ask people to not use so much electricity since with wind farm a limp dick that just can't rise to the occasion, they're short some for the grid.

Next, why I want the planet to warm just a tad:

Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.

Maybe if we warm up the place, some humans who might have died will survive. Otherwise a numbers game, meaning that if deaths from cold rather outweigh deaths from heat, and they do, you'll have more surviving humans if we can make it warmer for some. Some is everybody outside the tropics, and we in the tropics, well, we here in Honolulu don't know what global warming means since the weather is pretty much same as it ever was.

Next: "Absurd". If it's so absurd then please tell me why the old folk are dying from cold and heat? Can't keep them cool and can't keep them warm. The absurd is denying our reality for all our human history.

For one more, from your good friends at the BBC:

Britain's cold weather: deaths soar as winter takes its toll - Telegraph

So spare me the absurd, truly.

More humans will die from heat than now if the planet warms but an even greater number of humans will live because they won't die of cold during the winter. That's a +. And kindly note the discussion about some not having the money to pay. So, please, have the doubtful grace to at least be honest with yourself. And it shouldn't be hard, since end goal is to have more living and less dying. And for more of your taking notes, note this from that BBC piece as well: Last year 36,700 more people died during the winter months than in the summer the worst level for almost a decade. That's not a direct measure of death from exposure, but it ought to give you some idea. As I said, not even close. And that's just in your one country. And as you can also observe, the solution isn't close to what you proposed but instead some taking the occasion of the early demise of our old folk to score political points.

For yet one more:

Cold weather is especially risky for the elderly. Hypothermia is defined as the unintentional lowering of the core body temperature below 95 degree F or 35 degrees C. Hypothermia is a medical emergency that requires immediate attention. Exposure to excessively cold temperatures slow the actions of enzymes throughout the body. As a result, the individual who is hypothermic is at risk of potentially fatal coagulation disorders, renal failure, and cardiac dysrhythmias.

Approximately 600 elderly people die in the USA each year from hypothermia. Unfortunately, the prevalence of deaths from hypothermia tracks the cost of energy. Elderly people on a fixed income may cut back on heating during winter months if they feel they cannot afford heating bills.

As I said, time for some doubtful grace... The math works out to, here in the US, around 700 each year from cold and 370 or so from heat. You do the math. And, friend, this is the heart of the debate (from the US EPA):

Given the complexity of factors that influence human health, assessing health impacts related to climate change poses a difficult challenge. Furthermore, climate change is expected to bring a few benefits to health, including fewer deaths due to exposure to cold. Nonetheless, the IPCC has concluded that, overall (globally), negative climate-related health impacts are expected to outweigh positive health impacts during this century (IPCC, 2007).

And now a brief interruption for ozone:

Smog - ChemWiki

Note the next section on photochemical smog and the section following (with the formulas). Note that the VOCs are well and truly the concern. And perhaps we might pump our gas at night (as suggested).

Now back to where we were, I read somewhere that exposure to cold is estimated to cause 650 deaths a year in Ireland, representing 44% of excess winter deaths. Also read that 12% of your people are fuel poor. Those are the numbers. Being numbers, they cannot possibly be "absurd". To deny them is insanity. Do you know how many died from heat exposure?

And you're not alone in your insanity, as we've lost about 8,000 or so to excess heat over the last 20 years. We lose 7,000 a year from food borne illness. Some wrongful allocation of govt funds? And it doesn't spare our little ones either:

Diarrhea, caused mainly by food and water borne diseases, is the second leading cause of death in young children. According to the CDC each year an estimated 4 billion cases of diarrhea cause 2 million deaths.

Global warming won't kill 2 million. But we have 2 mil last year, this year, next year and so. Back to wrongful allocation of govt funds.

Global warming's contribution to the messy pants:

The WHO reported that in 2000 climate change was responsible for approximately 2.4% of worldwide diarrhea.

How they figured that out is anyone's guess. Here's the line for our (US) heat dead:

According to the CDC, from 1979-2003, excessive heat exposure caused 8,015 deaths in the United States. During this period, more people in this country died from extreme heat than from hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined.

So that's 24 years = 8,015. I'll be generous and reduce cold deaths to an even 600 x 24 = 14,400. If we up the number closer to its true mark, 700, that's another 100 x 24 = 2,400, so cold deaths double heat deaths.

Lastly, from a skeptic's site (the stats for dear ole Eire are included):

Follow up to Questions on Deaths from Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat | Watts Up With That?

This clinches the debate:

"A highly significant regression coefficient of 0.27 is found (p<0.001) with regard to environmental temperature.”

And you're going to need to insulate and/or upgrade your homes. Can put some of your unemployed back to work.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

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.

Steaming Toad interview Hayden Washington, author (with John Cook) of Climate Change Denial.

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.

Originally Posted by Iarmuid

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.

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

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.

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