No, you posted a blog by some guy on the Conversation whose credentials or affiliations we don't know and I gave it the benefit of the doubt because I don't know how he did his calculations. You are making the claim that this proves there is no monetary value increase when the insurance industry data show that there is even over the last decade for which inflation has been negligible. And I showed you that your own cite disagreed with you and that there was a "significant positive trend" in rainfall all over the globe. I even posted charts from your cite that proved you wrong. I am not diverting anything and I never made any claim about the Houston Hurricane - the link I posted did. If you have issue take it up with the scientists. Every article I posted is discussing or refers to actual scientific studies or data. I claimed natural disasters due to climate are occuring more often and they are by any measure. I' m on a phone so can't link any more but I've linked actual research data all through this thread. You're the one using diversion tactics. I'm perfectly willing to discuss how inflation overstates damage estimates but you are trying to claim that this means insurance costs arn't rising over period of a decade for which inflation would be negligable ir that extreme rainfall events are not increasin which thet are. [Qoute] You have taken a tiny set of data from the last 100 years, and you're trying to convince us that this is somehow majorly different than the last 1.5 million years....for which you have no actual data and the data that does exist refutes you. [/qoute] But I've shown miltiple studies that show this is different, that it's accelerating and that it's caused by humans. I've shown all kinds of data and none of it refutes any of the claims climate scientists are making. Don't forget, it is not just me you are arguing with it is the vast majority of the world's scientists as well. Typically what the blogs and websites you hang out at do is puck any discrepancy or uncertainty in the data and take it out of context or magnify that to mean you can ignore the whole body of scientific research supporting climate change. [quot] At that point, you reverted to telling us we're all gonna die again.[/QUOTE] Hate to tell you but we are all going to die. The question is, what type of planet we are going to leave for our children and grandchildren.
You thought you showed me until I showed you how much the "vast increases" measured in millimeters actually was. Yeah you just used the Houston hurricane to try and bolster your argument, which didn't work out too well. Natural disasters aren't occurring more often. They're just affecting more people as global population has increased 5 fold in the last 100 years. 100 years ago how did they document global occurrences of natural disasters? How accurate were their measurements? Poorly, and not at all, are the respective answers.
I've taken time to answer all your questions and brought up study after study which you deny all of and keep coming back to a couple of talking pounts which I've already addressed. In fact, you don't even read the articles I've posted or any of the arguments I've made. Here's a thought. What are the uncertainties about data from 300 million years ago? That was about the time of the Permo Triassic extinction eas it not? What other factors may have been influencing climate back the.? See what happens when you make grand sweeping claims of absolute certainty. The trouble with you guys is you start from the political posture that all the world's climate scientists are so stoopid they haven't thought about all the talking points you are throwing out, and then you bend any evidence presented to fit that conclusion and disregard completely any evidence that does not fit that conclusion.
Cost of natural disasters to 2018 in adjusted rates From the National Centre for Environmental Information: Extreme weather events to 2014: Extreme weather events to 2020: Extreme rainfall in the US: increasing rainfall events to 2015: Dramatically rising risk of heatwaves from a study in Nature: Our analysis benefits from the availability of new observations and data from several new models. Using a previously employed temperature threshold to define extremely hot summers, we find that events that would occur twice a century in the early 2000s are now expected to occur twice a decade. For the more extreme threshold observed in 2003, the return time reduces from thousands of years in the late twentieth century to about a hundred years in little over a decade. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2468 Stoopid scientists!
And I showed you that millimeters count and that even your own cite did not support your conclusion, here remember: No, natural disasters such as extreme rainfall events and drastic heatwaves are actually happening more often. See post above. Actually, as your own link showed, our ability to get relief and aid to disaster zones is meaning we are able to mitigate deaths better and our infrastructure is better adapted to controlling extreme events so your response that they're affecting more people is wrong. They really are on the increase. 100 year events like extreme heat and rain are far more likely to occur a couple of times a decade or even more frequently: And we don't have to go back 100 years although our record of disasters was pretty good back then. This data is for just over a decade and is consistent with other charts I've shown that go back to the 50's
IPCC tends to the conservative side because they are always under attack from fossil fuel funded climate deniers. Note all graphs are sourced as to agency such as the international disaster database.
All the pretty graphs, wow, I can see why you folks get suckered in. Lets take it by the numbers. How many observation points were there globally in 1900, reporting to sources that would later disseminate the information to others around the world? How many were there in 2000? If that number is NOT the same, your 'data' is flawed, in fact completely incomparable. No matter how many graphs you show, if the data on those graphs can't be point by point compared it is junk data and shows nothing...
Conservative side. You cannot be serious. Those agencies are shills for alarmists and are funded by alarmists. The real world data shows the opposite.
No, what should be done is to finally stop trying to convince the deniers and instead ignore them as we push forward in spite of them. They are, after all, irrelevant and of no consequence.
I don't think you're following. I asked how many of those 99% of dead species died off because their descendants had evolved into other species? Some--probably most--species die out as a natural product of evolution or other natural causes (e.g., meteor). So to say that the species that are going extinct today due to unnatural causes is no big deal because 99% of species that ever ever lived are now dead is simply idiotic.
What is going on in the above post is the selective use of cherry picked papers. Prior to ~ 2000 there were practically zero scientific papers on ocean “acidification”. Since that time with millions of federal funding paying for it > 3000 peer reviewed (which lately has become meaningless) papers have been published on the speculative costs of CO2 absorption by the oceans. All of the ignore natural history but rely on models. Global warming alarmists then use a few of these papers to make their case.
That's alright. Please stop trying convince us the world is coming to an end because there's no way in hell we are going to join your stupid man made Global Warming conspiracy cult.
I don't think you're following. Scientists have no idea how many species are on the earth in 2019, let alone 2.5 million BC. They don't know how many species there are, or were, period. If you don't know, you can't compare.
Yes, you've given us a lot of data comparing 1900 to 2019. The problem is that your data for the first 75+ years is largely worthless, as there was no comprehensive effort in 1900 to record, collect, or analyze such data. It doesn't really exist. You cannot compare 1900 data collection to data collection in 2019. It's ridiculous to even try. I have an idea. Let's take it down to it's most basic level. I'll just ask one question. How exactly is man making the Earth hotter than it was 100 years ago.
The vast majority of weather related data since the 1900 were compiled in ports or near airfield, once they began to appear, with no standard methods or validations. As such they are worthless for any comparaison. If a country had neither of those than the chance of having a well kept record is nil or at the level of the farmers almanach.
While I don't dispute there have been some extreme weather events in the last decade or so, you are citing a record spanning at most 69 years, not even an eye blink in recorded history let alone the entire paleontological history. So there is good reason to believe that recent weather events are not all that unusual in the grand scheme of things. Also the world population in 1950 was roughly 2.5 billion. It is now 7.5 billion with the largest majority of the increase located on flood plains, coastal areas, and other places prone to severe weather so extreme weather events take a far larger toll in both physical structure and human life than they did in the 1950's. And finally, most weather records are taken at airports and there are hundreds of airports now that did not exist in 1950 and that likely affects the real averages in these things. Your post deserves to be in the national discussion, but it by no means is the only factor(s) that should be considered for us to get an accurate representation of the actual facts.
Several points. 1) We do have serious problems concerning mismanagement of our natural resources and the resulting loss of plant and animal biodiversity and habitat, and I can say I'm seeing them first hand. Some time ago I moved onto an old homestead in an area where much of the biodiversity and habitat had been wiped out by various agricultural interests and we're currently trying to re-establish that on the land we own. However, our small-scale efforts are no different than what it's going to take on a large scale, which is a lot of time, effort and money. In the process, you also have to employ practices that don't undermine your efforts to re-establish biodiversity and habitat, such as reducing the use of pesticides, which only makes things more difficult. However, we've made great progress over the past 50 years and I think we can continue to do better. Whether it will be enough is an open question. 2) I don't know that we have the capability and political will to reverse these problems. The core of our problem, which others have correctly pointed out, is that mankind's population keeps growing and growing, which puts ever more strain on our natural resources and demands on our land management and urban planning. What are we going to do about that??? Right now, we don't have any realistic and practical answers to the question of overpopulation, and the experiments we've seen in places like China have been both horrifying and ineffective. The brutal truth of the matter is that the only answer to that question may come in the form of mass depopulation once our natural resources reach the point where they are no longer able to sustain our numbers. In other words, Mother Nature may wind up solving the problem of overpopulation and overstretched natural resources for us. Then, after enough of us have starved to death and otherwise perished, our natural resources might recover, but there's no guarantee that will happen. 3) All of this talk about transforming our economic and political systems, which is a mantra we've heard from eco-socialists everywhere, indicates that the real agenda here has nothing to do with the environment, which is terribly disappointing because it means our environmental problems are not going to get properly addressed and resolved. That makes people like Robert Watson, Christiana Figureres and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez part of the problem not the solution. Environmental leadership is never going to come from people who are driven by power, ideology and politics.
Kudos on a competent and well thought out argument. I think anybody with any intellectual honesty has to consider it as relative to the debate. And I am and will consider it, but my gut tells me there is a lot more to the story. Consider the Texas Panhandle that enjoyed a bit of a localized oil boom in the last 50 years or so. The area around Borger (population a little over 13,000) northeast of Amarillo was just a scrubby little town with a really REALLY dirty carbon black plant, minimal farming, some ranching and that was about it. There was so minimal wildlife that the few birds and cotton tail rabbits had the whole area pretty much to itself. Well the EPA made them clean up the carbon black plant that still operates (I think) but puts out no more bad emissions, and after a LOT of fights with environmentalists, gave the go ahead for oil exploration and production. Now the area is dotted with pump jacks, oil storage tanks, and roads the oil companies built to get to them. And the area is now teeming with wild life--coyotes, foxes, many species of birds that once did not make that area their habitat, and so many deer they have become a significant traffic hazard. And long timers say there are more different kinds of shrubs and wild flowers all over the place that once didn't exist. I don't pretend to understand the reason for all of that, but it has been fun to watch. The Alaska pipeline, fervently protested and fought by ardent environmentalists, has turned out to be a boon to wildlife there. For every habitat we humans mess up building homes, businesses, and infrastructure to support them, we have also willingly approved protected areas, water sheds, game preserves, bird sanctuaries, etc. and go to extreme lengths at time to save and protect endangered species. And we humans are the only species to care about others of our own species and all species rather than protect only those in our own immediate family or group. I read that the world population reached one billion in 1804 and it took it some 6,000 years of recorded history to reach that landmark. It has taken it only 200 years to reach 7.5 billion and counting. Some say that population will double again by 2100 though I personally think that is a bit exaggerated, but maybe it isn't. Considering the tremendous impact that an increasing human population has had on Planet Earth so far, imagine how much impact twice as many people will have. But it is a reality the next generation(s) will have to deal with. Nothing in nature stays as it was forever. The huge majority of species known to have existed have gone extinct without any help from us. And unless there is divine intervention, the probability seems to be that so too will we become extinct in time. Until then, we all will just have to do the best we can. We'll make mistakes and we will be splendid from time to time. Let's hope there is more of the latter than the former.
Why does it matter what the selection pressures are? Other species have contributed to their own extinction. Some only survive in small niche environments. It will work itself out. Let’s not pretend we are any more special than Homo habilis or Ambulocetus.
