respected ; )
My comments were not meant to trivialize this, which has been the effect. My apologies.
Looking at the utter devastation on TV tonight, jimmmaaay, I hope you'll soon hear from your friends there.
No communications, no water, no electricity, no food, roads cut so aid can't get to the people. Hard to know where the aid agencies will even start. Many more will die in the aftermath.
Looking at the utter devastation on TV tonight, jimmmaaay, I hope you'll soon hear from your friends there.
No communications, no water, no electricity, no food, roads cut so aid can't get to the people. Hard to know where the aid agencies will even start. Many more will die in the aftermath.
Interesting article in The Aus today . In part -
It is not that the warmist theories have no validity. It is that the bulk of people who advocate for them deny any validity for those who disagree with them. Science does not, and should not, work like this.
Interestingly, a version of Lysenko's non-Mendelian theories - epigenetics - is now an accepted paradigm. This is a result of non-ideological scientific research. The Guardian should desist from using "denier" when describing those people who disagree with the current scientific paradigm as broadcast by itself, the IPCC and other media outlets. The word denier is clearly associated with denial of the Holocaust in the minds of many of us familiar with 20th-century history.
The Guardian should be leading discussion, not playing the censorship card. There are many qualified climate scientists whose views are in synch with the IPCC. There are also many persons with some knowledge in the area and many more persons with no ability in the area who agree with it.
There are many reputable climate scientists, however, who do not agree with the IPCC paradigm. These include, but are certainly not limited to, Freeman Dyson, Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Nigel Calder, James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis), Roy Spencer, Stephen McIntyre, Richard Lindzen (meteorologist, lead author IPCC AR3) and Ivar Giaever (Nobel laureate in chemistry).
There are some questions that should be asked by any thoughtful person who is interested in AGW climate change. Thoughtful persons can appreciate what are key questions, even if they do not possess a specialist scientific knowledge.
In the same way, persons such as myself who help judge the awarding of scarce competitively allocated funds for scientific projects cannot possibly have a specialised knowledge in all of the subjects they are adjudicating. However, such persons are able to logically reason their way around the key issues.
Frustratingly, it appears that the key questions on AGW climate science are not being asked by thoughtful non-specialist people because the same people have been encouraged to believe that the science is too complicated for them, and because they have been told that all expert climate scientists agree with the IPCC's position of certainty as regards AGW climate change.
Here are four key linked questions:
1. Is the rate of climate change increasing? Change is what climate does, so one does not need to be a climate scientist to deduce that it is important to address the question of whether the rate of change has increased. The IPCC has little to say on this scientifically, but continues to use phrases such as "unprecedented" global warming in its executive summaries.
2. Is a significant portion of climate change determined by human activity? Although our human footprint is heavy, it is not the only influence on climate. Scientists in the field of climate research refer to these influences as "forcings". Forcings can be terrestrial or extraterrestrial. The CO2 greenhouse effect is an example of a terrestrial forcing.
3. Is climate change significantly affected by human CO2 output, which nearly all warmists and sceptics agree is increasing? The IPCC modelling for the CO2 forcing effect has consistently grossly overestimated its effect on global warming.
4. If CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, then what should be done to combat it?
It is important for alternative views to be heard because an uncritical adherence to the AGW climate change paradigm could be siphoning off squillions that would be better spent on more important research and actions for the good of humanity and our Earth. A blinkered adherence to combating "the evils of CO2" can lead to solutions that do no good and may cause harm.
Tim Florin is professor of medicine at the University of Queensland.
- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frgd0x-1226756896514#sthash.UEenGyxP.dpuf
Is it just me? ...
To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of you armchair.
I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water becomes scarce.
Not to forget the massive hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of North America.
And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now.
... “The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.”
“What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw.”
“…future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100.
Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre…” – Tropical cyclones and climate change, Nature Geoscience 3, 157 – 163 (2010)
Great humanitarium effort ... Vietnam next victim. Thank God the storm has weakened. Climate change issue. Not the worst storm ever. Slow News week as Abbott is off the front page. Weather is a happening thing. Philli's get 5 hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones/depressions every season. This one is the biggest in 30 years. Previous to this one was not newsworthy as not enough infrastructure had been wrecked. I see lotsa cheap boats and pain for the insurance companies as well as banks who have underwritten the financier. Risk factor is starting to underpin the markets. Lets hope the hedge funds are full this time.
30 yeas ago the Phillipines were mud huts and fledgling business. Not newsworthy at all.
Philippines was not mud huts and fledgling business. Again, don't be quick to jump to a conclusion if you don't know. Philippines was the wealthiest country in Asia during the 30's 40's and 50's. Even more so than Australia. I would even hazard a guess that it still is. Go there and you'll see how wealthy the wealthy are. Only problem is that they control all of the wealth, backed up by american politics and military money launderers etc
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Australia was worth 1520.60 billion US dollars in 2012. In 2004 it was 466 billion.
Mayor Mike Bloomberg, aware of the urgent need for housing, has encouraged the development of New York’s waterfront neighborhoods. After Sandy, the Bloomberg administration created the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, which produced a massive report, released in June. The report found that the next hurricane could be even worse: “With greater winds and more rain, Sandy could have had an even more serious impact on the areas of Staten Island, Southern Brooklyn, and South Queens that experienced the most devastation during the storm. And while Sandy brought the full force of its impact at high tide for these southernmost areas of the city, it hit the area around western Long Island Sound almost exactly at low tide. As a consequence, parts of the Bronx, Northern Queens, and East Harlem were not as affected as they could have been.”
But Sandy was plenty bad and its effects will last for years to come. On Monday, The New York Times reported that the Metropolitan Transit Authority will be forced to continue cutting back service and spending billions of dollars for years to come to deal with the damage Sandy wrought. While the MTA got the subways running again within days, it has recently had to shut down stretches of the R and G lines to repair tunnels that were flooded. There will be an estimated $3 billion worth of repair work for each of the next two years, about double what would otherwise have been needed.
New York cannot afford to be unprepared for climate change. As Bloomberg’s report lays out, the city must invest in a wide array of both hard and soft anti-flooding infrastructure improvements. Buildings must be elevated, shorelines must be regraded, beachfront boardwalks must be rebuilt with gradual rises in elevation. Buildings must move their power supplies upward, while neighborhoods must move their power lines downward, wrapping them in water-resistant materials. Sidewalks will have to be made permeable, to wick floodwater back out to sea. Meanwhile, the city must continue its efforts to be a global leader in reducing its own carbon footprint.
According to the FIES (Family Income and Expenditure Survey) conducted from 1965 to 1985, poverty incidence in the Philippines rose from 41 percent in 1965 to 58.9 percent in 1985. This can be attributed to lower real agricultural wages and lesser real wages for unskilled and skilled laborers. Real agricultural wages fell about 25 percent from their 1962 level, while real wages for unskilled and skilled laborers decreased by about one-third of their 1962 level.
Not the first typhoon to smash the Philli's either ...
http://www.typhoon2000.ph/stormstats/StrongestPhilippineTyphoons.htm
Ferdinand Marcos didn't take much out of the country in the 80's now did he?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Philippines_(1973–1986)
Soooo 30 years ago when a cyclone hit poverty stricken Phillipines it did not make the news so much as it was not newsworthy. Yes yes yes there are wealthy people there as well who at a minority of less than 10% control over 40% of the wealth.
Back to resisting climate hysteria.
I know its not, I mentioned just a bit further back that i lived in Philippines for a fair length of time, and I am very well aware of its history. However quoting GDP figures for Philippines is in no way indicative of what is floating around there. I know that it doesn't produce much, but its really very difficult to compare it with Australia's output since accountability stands for much more here. There's billions of hidden (stolen) wealth in that country.
Anyway, moving right along, resisting climate hysteria is exactly the point I was getting at with my first couple of posts. I have seen and experienced first hand what these storms do and how regularly they inundate large areas. It is a normal fluctuation between La Nina and El Niño in this particular location that creates such violent storms. But using it as a political angle for 'climate change' as happened in question time today I find completely abhorrent.
I agree and find it abhorrent that as soon as people are dying or suffering from a natural disaster AGW extremists are on their bandwagons scaremongering their political view point. And then we get so caught up in telling them how stupid they are when such natural disasters have happened many times before that the human suffering hardly gets a mention anymore on these types of threads.
I agree and find it abhorrent that as soon as people are dying or suffering from a natural disaster AGW extremists are on their bandwagons scaremongering their political view point. And then we get so caught up in telling them how stupid they are when such natural disasters have happened many times before that the human suffering hardly gets a mention anymore on these types of threads.
The chief meteorologist for the Weather Channel in the US, Paul Walsh, asked to summarise the effect of climate change on Haiyan, told CNBC: ''I wouldn't say that climate change is a direct contributor to this. That's something that's still being discussed.
''But one of the things that makes these storms, particularly for the US east coast, more potentially damaging is that sea levels are rising and continuing to rise and even smaller storms can have a devastating impact.''
In other words, climate change is working to make ordinary weather patterns more dangerous. It doesn't seem to be happening through any direct causal link to cyclones. But it doesn't need to. A rising sea level will intensify the power of cyclonic winds to create bigger storm surges, according to the IPCC.
Man-made climate change is real and dangerous. Is it causing more or bigger cyclones? There's no evidence that it is. But, again, it's a distinction without a difference. Because it's making normal cyclones more damaging. Rising sea levels will supercharge them.
There is no need for exaggeration and there is no excuse for inaction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?