Western USA drought worst in modern era

[smkettner]

Thanks Weatherman, I agree.

The whole argument that everything is worse in all cases is just absurd and takes away from the credibility of the experts IMO.
Great for fundraising though. Eventually our great grandchildern or beyond will see the emporor's new clothes.

 

[AndyH]

You three - just keep listening to Limbaugh, Drudge, and Watts - I'm sure they'll share the cash they're getting from the oil industry with you when things get rough later in your lives.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

 

[Zythryn]

Thanks Weatherman, I agree.

The whole argument that everything is worse in all cases is just absurd and takes away from the credibility of the experts IMO.
Great for fundraising though. Eventually our great grandchildern or beyond will see the emporor's new clothes.

I would agree with you that arguing that everything is worse in all cases is absurd.
That is only slightly less absurd than claiming proponents of the scientific support for AGW are holding that position.

 

[smkettner]

That is only slightly less absurd than claiming proponents of the scientific support for AGW are holding that position.

I guess I have never seen a report where GW is good news for anything.
Must have missed it.

 

[Stoaty]

I guess I have never seen a report where GW is good news for anything. Must have missed it.

Probably because the bad news is so overwhelming that any benefit from global warning will be miniscule in comparison.

 

[smkettner]

Don't forget the bad economy in Florida as retirees stay north or even start moving north to escape the heat.

 

[Weatherman]

That is only slightly less absurd than claiming proponents of the scientific support for AGW are holding that position.

I guess I have never seen a report where GW is good news for anything.
Must have missed it.

It's because good news is boring.

How about the fact that there hasn't been a major hurricane hit the US in over eight years? Certainly unusual. Must be due to global warming.

Or, how about the fact that the last hurricane season in the Atlantic was one of the quietest on record, confounding all the so-called experts, who were forecasting an above normal year? Definitely unusual. Must be due to global warming.


Really, it's no more valid to claim that the above, two anomalies are due to global warming any more than to claim a vast majority of other significant weather events over the past decade are due to global warming, but the above, two don't fit the narrative, so they are, largely, ignored.


And concerning arctic sea ice. If I ran a shipping company and wanted to ship goods from the Japan or China to Europe and back, I'd be delighted that there's less ice. Cuts weeks of time off the trip and lots of money in fuel costs to have an open shipping lane across the arctic.

 

[abasile]

I guess I have never seen a report where GW is good news for anything. Must have missed it.

Probably because the bad news is so overwhelming that any benefit from global warning will be miniscule in comparison.

+1. AGW isn't just a matter of average temperatures going up. Ocean acidification and sea level rises will not be helpful to civilization...

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

You three - just keep listening to Limbaugh, Drudge, and Watts - I'm sure they'll share the cash they're getting from the oil industry with you when things get rough later in your lives.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

You forgot Glenn Beck

A lot of people are making a good living working one side of the debate or the other. Some even get trips to Breckenridge.

25 years ago we were being told that in 25 years we were all going to die of skin cancer from freon. Predictions of doom can be counterproductive to raising awareness when they fail to materialize.

 

[klapauzius]

Even if there was some benefit for some, in a truly global economy, we will all share in the loss somehow, since the net effects will not be positive.


This logic, "not all will be bad, for some there will be good effects from AGW" is somewhat anti-social.
Even if the net effects where zero and the distribution of good and bad would be truly random, this view is ethically very questionable, even in the case where no man-made causes were involved.

I am sure some people in the dark ages benefited from the plague, looting their freshly deceased neighbors homes. So, yes, for them it was a windfall and when asked they would probably say the same..."it wasn't all that bad...".

The current, man-made climate crisis will hit the more vulnerable populations in developing countries much harder than e.g. us, so while we enjoy the longer growing seasons and warmer summers in North Dakota, others will starve...

 

[Stoaty]

Really, it's no more valid to claim that the above, two anomalies are due to global warming any more than to claim a vast majority of other significant weather events over the past decade are due to global warming, but the above, two don't fit the narrative, so they are, largely, ignored.

Yes, but some extreme events were so unlikely to have happened without AGW that we can pretty much say they were "caused" by global warming... at least according to one of the top and widely respected climatologists:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/06/399350/hansen-extreme-heat-waves-texas-oklahoma-moscow-were-caused-by-global-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[klapauzius]

A lot of people are making a good living working one side of the debate or the other. Some even get trips to Breckenridge.

25 years ago we were being told that in 25 years we were all going to die of skin cancer from freon. Predictions of doom can be counterproductive to raising awareness when they fail to materialize.

You forget to mention that the consequence of that was a global effort to protect the ozone layer, so, yes, because of that, this doomsday did not come around.

If the likes of you had had their way 25 years ago, nothing would have happened, and more people would die of skin cancer.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

"Likes of me had their way?"
I was a huge proponent of rapidly replacing the most damaging refrigerants, and avoided aerosol products whenever possible (and still do)

 

[klapauzius]

"Likes of me had their way?"
I was a huge proponent of rapidly replacing the most damaging refrigerants, and avoided aerosol products whenever possible (and still do)

I must have misunderstood you then, in which case I apologize.

25 years ago we were being told that in 25 years we were all going to die of skin cancer from freon. Predictions of doom can be counterproductive to raising awareness when they fail to materialize.

So what exactly did you want to tell us with this?
Doom was predicted (based on sound reasoning), appropriate action was taken and because of this doom was avoided. Why was this counterproductive?
If anything, that would be the success story to look up to for the current situation?

 

[Stoaty]

25 years ago we were being told that in 25 years we were all going to die of skin cancer from freon. Predictions of doom can be counterproductive to raising awareness when they fail to materialize.

No one said we were all going to die from skin cancer, just that the rates were going to shoot way up. Here is a link that describes the potential for catastrophe if nothing had been done:

http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/ozone-and-uv-where-are-we-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note: a UV index of 30 at mid-latitudes in 2060 sounds pretty serious to me.

 

[smkettner]

so while we enjoy the longer growing seasons and warmer summers in North Dakota, others will starve...

This is already happening.

Every 3.6 seconds a person dies of hunger right now.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/world-hunger-statistics/ (random website, hopefully no political or AGW slant)

If the world became carbon neutral tomorrow would the number increase or decrease?

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

So what exactly did you want to tell us with this?

Flourocarbon reduction could be held up as a success story, but that succeeded because industry was there with an alternative. Outside of some mumbling from the A/C guy about how the repair is going to cost more, most people didn't care. The point of my remark is that the sky didn't fall, regardless of whether that can be attributed to "appropriate action" (which by the way wasn't so draconian as to leave food spoiling the world over).

People certainly don't see the current conditions around them as any sort of evidence supporting AGW theories. It really is business as usually, even with the occasional polar vortex or melted water bottle at the Australian open. Proponents of AGW are attempting to validate predictions of long term doom by pointing to events like Sandy or Katrina or the CA drought that are not really outside of historical norms (aside from our own narcissistic viewpoint). While I personally am very concerned about the effects of rising CO2 levels I see making those connections as flawed logic that detracts from the credibility of the very case they are trying to make. It's classic crying wolf. Every prediction that doesn't come true (or gets subsequently replaced by a different prediction) for whatever reason is more ammunition for those telling us we're just being fed a line.

 

[WetEV]

25 years ago we were being told that in 25 years we were all going to die of skin cancer from freon. Predictions of doom can be counterproductive to raising awareness when they fail to materialize.

Amusing.

Wrong, but amusing. Like this:

Kid: I want to drink drain cleaner!

Mom: If you drink drain cleaner you are going to die.

Kid: Ok, then I'll drink apple juice.

Some time later...

Kid: You told me I was going to die.

Mom: :roll: :lol:

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Did the Apple juice have HFCS?

 

[klapauzius]

People certainly don't see the current conditions around them as any sort of evidence supporting AGW theories. It really is business as usually, even with the occasional polar vortex or melted water bottle at the Australian open. Proponents of AGW are attempting to validate predictions of long term doom by pointing to events like Sandy or Katrina or the CA drought that are not really outside of historical norms (aside from our own narcissistic viewpoint). While I personally am very concerned about the effects of rising CO2 levels I see making those connections as flawed logic that detracts from the credibility of the very case they are trying to make. It's classic crying wolf. Every prediction that doesn't come true (or gets subsequently replaced by a different prediction) for whatever reason is more ammunition for those telling us we're just being fed a line.

I think "the peoples view" doesnt matter, since the science is settled on this.
The problem is that this time around, the predictions take longer time to be noticeable than your average guys memory (< 2 years I think....).
I agree though, that singular events are difficult, especially when we talk about trends. And also , because there is observer bias, i.e. events contrary to ones per-formed hypothesis get ignored and those in favor are amplified, in ones perception.
But that does not change the scientific facts, established on trends, not single events, one bit.