Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

One problem with stating how much a particular solution could help comes from the fact that what is actually done is entirely political and is world wide. How serious will WE be? So far, one argument is that since some other country won't do much then we shouldn't do anything. So much for leadership!! Plus, that gets combined with false statements of what others actually ARE committing to.

Science doesn't control our political process, obviously.

Another point is that we will have to do extensive mitigation over time - dealing with the failed states, people movement, new border disputes, water, etc. Any amount we can reduce that problem is positive.

I don't know what your last sentence means. Are you suggesting that the earth can't heat more than 3 degrees above the 2000 temperature? Why would we go to economists for such a result? Plus, 3 degrees is HUGE.

 

Keep exposing just how intellectually bankrupt you are.
You have nothing to lose anyway at this point.

 

And it exposes the lack of results with regard to global temperature reduction resulting from the economic damage done by EU energy policies. I'm merely asking the question of what is the result of these economically damaging energy policies. And we of course see the typical inability to answer those questions and the predictable resort to personal attacks and insults.

 

Important points.

Obama has consistently looked for opportunities to cooperate, believing that we are worse off without that. In the end, it just appears as him being too soft.

Republican McCain has already started the Republican war on Clinton, stating that the GOP will confirm NO Clinton nominees for Supreme Court justices.

That's directly in line with the McConnell (Senate) and Boehner (House) direction of making the failure of the president the number one objective - as they actually stated publicly!!

That's especially concerning, as McCain has been more on the side of actually doing the job of our legislative branch, rather than consenting to the direction of making US presidents fail.

 

I find it funny how you think you somehow know better than the 27 member states and all their scientists and scientific institutions combined.
Meh.... Not really... Reality is you discard all the worlds scientists and institutions and it is not even remotely funny.

 

Scientists studying our climate totally disagree with you.

It looks like we're going to see what Clinton will do, so baseless charges make no sense at this point.

 

Economists evaluate the effects of global warming. Dr. Richard Tol has compiled a group of analyses that indicate net benefits for warming up to 3 deg C. Using the climate sensitivity of ~ 1 deg C which is derived from data predominantly from the last ~ 70 years it will take between 200 - 300 years to warm to that level. Using the technology advances from 1900 to 2000 as a guide our energy technology will be at such an advanced level that any action done today will be not be "beneficial" with regard to global average temperature and will only limit economic growth. If any politician gets into office and attempts to cut CO2 emissions significantly enough to reduce global warming (and actually China is the only country which could actually do this for two obvious reasons) those politicians would be "immediately" voted out of office because of the economic damage such policies would cause.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not correct. ^^

Clinton will accomplish nothing except what she can get away with via the EPA.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how you think I'm alone ??

 

Nonsense, 1150% increase in population with increased agriculture, use of ground water, the same problem Saudi Arabia is having. It takes centuries to replenish ground water reserves. You evidently didn't read my link. It has nothing to do with the minute decrease in precipitation. It has everything to do with population, politics like draining swamps and nonexistent water policy.

Warming brings increased precipitation worldwide. Cooling brings less. Deserts are caused by Hadley cells. Deserts shift. The world is greening according to NASA.

 

No, it's you who didn't read MY post. I pointed out that we have problems with population and politics, including the fact that our numerous water policies are not adequate.

Remember that I mentioned the city of Miami Beach?

Warming causes water to be distributed differently. Earth's politics, population density, economy, etc., do not allow the relocation and/or economic response that would solve this problem. Nations that can't support themselves (such as per the Syrian drought) end up being national security issues.

 

Syria is a mess due to the Obama foreign policy blunder (worst since Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler) where he did not leave a US security force in Iraq. This allowed the remnants of AQ in Iraq (defeated by the surge and Sunni awakening) to reconstitute in Syria as ISIS.

What is this warming water is distrubuted differently stuff ?? Droughts are a natural part of climate variability - they have nothing to do with global warming.

 

Droughts worldwide are not on the increase so anything happening in Syria is regional. On top of that Syria is arid to begin with. Blaming climate change is misdirection and purely politics.

 

That is total nonsense.

Assad was a serious problem back to when he took office in 2000.

Bush had him on our regime change list (which does not imply that he would invade).

Scientists say that how water is distributed across land masses IS affected by the climate change we see.

Suggesting the advent of this problem had to do with Obama makes no sense.


They tie the length of the Syrian drought to climate change. Also, the SE Asia area is experiencing changes in the monsoon cycle their agriculture depends upon. There are climate change related water problems in the high regions of South America. China is diverting a river that currently feeds Bangladesh, which is already in serious condition - noted by the fact that India has built a wall against their neighbor to prevent people movement.

 

You might want to rethink your post.

 

Being regional does NOT mean it is independent of anthropogenic warming.

The global aspect of warming is that the average temperature of earth is rising. That doesn't mean that all areas of the world rise in lock step.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2016/04/27/global-droughts-a-bad-year/ here it is..2016 has been a bad year for droughts worldwide. And our severe drought is not even mentioned.

 

Like much of the alarmism, increased drought is based on computer models, not real world observation.

Little change in global drought over the past 60 years

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/abs/nature11575.html

 

And the situation in Syria would never have gotten to the point it is at today without the complication of ISIS. Additionally there was no US military presence in Iraq, intelligence function in Iraq, and US governance personnel in Iraq to prevent the steps taken by Maliki to disenfranchise the Iraqi Sunni's and to provide a check on both Assad in Syria and Iran. That is crystal clear and is tied directly to the Obama administration who bragged that the democracy in Iraq would be one of their greatest achievements. The aren't saying that anymore. BTW, we now have ~ 5000 US troops in Iraq with no SOFA - curious that.

The scientists that alarmists believe in tie everything to climate change. CA has droughts every few years. One of the worst was back in the late 70's when the fear was global cooling. The drought cycle has nothing to do with global warming. It is climate variation.

 

Increased droughts are caused by lack of precipitation. We have had droughts long before we had computers.

 

OK.

OK, I take your point.

I don't post much, and can't read everything.

I find this a bit naive. Some proponents are disingenuous with their cherry-picking of data. Michael Mann is perhaps the most egregious example. I have also seen cherry-picking and disingenuous use of data from the skeptics.

Pretty much.

 

It's easily explainable ... you need a citation for your assertion. Done. See how easy that was?

Citation needed here as well

It is a telling look into your supposedly engineering-trained mind that you think that asking you for a citation equals denial. I think you need to look up the definition of skeptic. ... LOL - I crack myself up. We all know you will never do that LOL ... so here it is for you

Skeptic:
1) a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2) a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3) a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.

Well what do you know! That sounds just like what you just incorrectly defined as an 'Alarmist'. LOL - You an engineer?!? You wish.

I would say that I more than respect skepticism. I would self-identify as a skeptic

It's not my job to do any homework on anything that you assert. I have explained that over and over and over and over again to you. You have to back up your own assertions.

Let me put this another way and well see if we can get it to sink in. I am skeptical of your assertions. Therefore it falls to you to provide evidence for them. I will then, upon seeing your evidence, either accept your assertion as true and become a proponent of your position ... or I may reject your evidence as insufficient and therefore remain skeptical of your assertion. Sorry if that bar is too high for you. (Hint to Hoosier: Psst, that's the bar I was referring to. ...It's a metaphor that comes from jumping sports. ... where they jump over a bar)

 

If you are skeptical do some homework. You claim to be knowledgeable but prove that you are not and are not willing to educate yourself. I have no control over that and have no obligation to attempt to educate you. It's your responsibility to address your ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

And before we had increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration in the 20th century.

 

Like the 240 year drought in California in 850. If they had a media back then and a political class like we have today they would be making everybody try and cook their food with the sun.

 

Leading global warming scientist dies in snowmobile accident.

Entombed by ice, as it were, a leading global warming scientist died when his snowmobile went down a huge crevasse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/s...-scientist-dies-accident-antarctica.html?_r=0

 

More on the new GOES-R satellite...

U.S. weather satellite's launch promises 'quantum leap' in forecasts
November 20, 2016 - A U.S. weather satellite that will "revolutionize" forecasting blasted off from Florida's Cape Canaveral on Saturday, promising to deliver continuous high-definition views of hurricanes and other storms over the Western Hemisphere. A detailed stream of images provided by the satellite is expected to sharpen weather forecasts, provide more advanced warning of floods and better tracking of wildfires, plumes and volcanic ash clouds.