European left blames bush for floods

[Solly]

Yep, too much building in the flood plains.

[Lemmy]

This is one reason why many people in the United States do not take the ignorant rantings of some of our more 'enlightened' European brothers seriously.

Where did you get the idea that the Germans where 'enlightened' ?
But seriously, if global warming is real, and these people believe it to be real, then the US, as the biggest polluter, is more responsible than other countries. So you can go around calling these people ignorant, but that all depends if global warming is real or not, and there is evidence for both arguments, whether you choose to dismiss that evidence or not.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Species8472


Spray paint contains arrosols, which damage the Ozon Layer. A very important environmental problem, but different from the Green house effect that we are talking about here.

Depends on the paint. All spray paints in the Southern California Air Quality Management District must be water based with no other volitile compounds as a solvent. Most use either CO2 or Nitrogen as a propellent.

I like the AQMD. The air is much cleaner in Southern California then when I was a kid. It used to hurt to breath way too often.

Spray paints with Ozone damaging chemicals have been ilegal for a long time in the US. Cloro-flouro carbons were outlawed here quite a while ago and they are not only an ozone layer hazzard they are also very strong green house gases.

[Species8472]

Those sprays are only a very small part of the USA emissions of greenhouse gasses. The main emissions are from industrialization. The burning of fosil fuels in cars or to generate electricity.

[Species8472]

But seriously, if global warming is real, and these people believe it to be real, then the US, as the biggest polluter, is more responsible than other countries. So you can go around calling these people ignorant, but that all depends if global warming is real or not, and there is evidence for both arguments, whether you choose to dismiss that evidence or not.

Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable.

1. There is very high reason to believe global warming exist.
2. The effects of global warming are catastrophic to life on earth.
1 + 2 Global warming is so dangerous, that we can not allow it to take place. The chance that it does not exist is neglectable in comparison to the severness of the problem.

[Ethelred]

I am aware of that. The comment I made was specific to spray paints. Cloro-flouro carbons are many times stronger than CO2. Even methane has 40 times more heat trapping power than CO2 and CFCs are stronger yet. As a consequence of the power of methane Australia is trying to figure out how to decrease sheep and cattle flatulence.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Species8472


Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable.

Oddly enough that is not certain. For one thing the Earth is still colder now than it was prior to the Little Ice Age. If the place warms up a bit (not a lot of course) we will be back to the weather that existed prior to about 1200 AD. Greenland for instance was a much more pleasant place when it was colonized by Eric the Red. I wonder just how many bad floods happen then. Hundred year floods do happen occasionaly. About once per hundred years.

[Species8472]

this may all be true, but if the world warms up just a little bit, already many habitats for many plants and animals disappear, and these creatures will die if they cannot adapt or move.

Ofcourse this is also a natural phenomenon, but if humans are responsible to fasten this process, life on earth will decrease more rapidly then ecosystems can have. If that happens, and entire ecosystems will be harmed or even destroyed (dessert forming), this will also damage our own food supplies.

the reasoning is like this:
1. Increased Global warming leads to destroying of habitats.
2. destroying of habitats leads to dying of the creature that fills this habitat.
3. Faster dying of life, leads to damaging of ecosystems.
4. Damaging ecosystems leads to desertforming.
5. Desert forming leads to hunger and starvation.

[Ethelred]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Species8472

the reasoning is like this:
1. Increased Global warming leads to destroying of habitats.

Sometimes but mostly for animals that are pretty strongly tied geographicly to a small area. Mostly what will happen is habitats will change. Move a bit north or south. Get wetter or drier. Prior to about 5000 BC people were living extensivly in what is now the Sahara Desert. In that case the world warmed up and glaciers melted to where they were smaller than they are today.

2. destroying of habitats leads to dying of the creature that fills this habitat.

Destroying is not quite accurate. Habitats change frequently in most of the world. Hot, cold, rain, no rain this varies so much the present apparent change is still only apparent and could be within normal range of variation over the last 2000 years or so.

I do think the world is getting a bit warmer due to human effects but the amount is hard quanitify due to the range of normal variance. For one thing allthough we all use a lot more more fossil fuel than prior the industrial revolution we also use a heck of a lot of concrete. Concrete absorbs large amounts of CO2. The Roman concrete constructions are STILL absorbing CO2 and continuing to harden over 1400 years later.

3. Faster dying of life, leads to damaging of ecosystems.

Well faster changeing anyway. Adapatable species will be more dominant than in the past perhaps. Some of the species that are on the edge will die out. Some will do the opposite as they may be pre-adapted for future conditions and poorly adapted for present conditions. What will change most is the relative abundance and there will of course be a loss of species that are barely suviving allready.

4. Damaging ecosystems leads to desertforming.

That doesn't follow. The desert IS an ecosystem. If rain increases as some people predict and certainly the Green party is claiming for this flood then the Deserts that will decrease in size.

5. Desert forming leads to hunger and starvation.

Desert loss decreases that. Increased temperature increases evaporation which leads to increased rainfall. Increased CO2 leads to more rapid plant growth since plants need CO2.

This sort of ambiguity of the possible results of global warming is what makes debate on it more a matter of feeling than fact.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lemmy
But seriously, if global warming is real, and these people believe it to be real, then the US, as the biggest polluter, is more responsible than other countries.

I'd rather blame them for building in a flood plain.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Did a search for Bush, blame and floods:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=14352

Many Germans believe Bush to blame for European floods

It's obvious that the general population of the Federal Republic of Germany suffers from a very low level of educational attainment, or else they'd realise that just as global warming is a process which theoretically occurs over several decades, the solution vis a vis the Kyoto protocols would require decades to take effect. They also seem to be ignorant about the pollution problem in Asia. I recommend that the FRG immediately adopt a school voucher program in the hopes that they may save their population from ignorance and despair.

[DanS]

" Given the severness of the problem, questioning wheather it is 100% proven to be correct is irresponsible behaviour. The risk of the problem is so high, that we can not afford ourselfs the luxery to wait another 30 years (= 1 climate calculation) to be absolutely sure the problem exist. By then, the damage done may very likely be unrepairable."

Please give me numbers regarding the current cost of the situation. Please give me a probability for the "risk is so high". Then put in credible numbers for the future cost in your scenarios, by year. Lastly, give me credible numbers for the irreparable damage caused and the potential damage caused by carrying out your proposed remedies.

I think you will find that you can't back up this oft-repeated BS with any specificity.

To me, these kinds of arguments reflect a profound lack of intellectual rigor by a group of people who are not normally prone to intellectual laziness. It pains me to watch it.

[Ned]

For the more scientific, I found the following bit from recent research from Antarctica to be quite interesting:

Journal Review

"According to the authors, the proxy records displayed five prominent palaeoenvironmental intervals over the past 14,000 years: (1) a "Neoglacial" cool period beginning 3360 years ago and continuing to the present, (2) a mid-Holocene climatic optimum from 9070 to 3360 years ago, (3) a cool period beginning 11,460 years ago and ending at 9070 years ago, (4) a warm period from 13,180 to 11,460 years ago, and (5) cold glacial conditions prior to 13,180 years ago. Spectral analyses of the data revealed that, superimposed upon these broad climatic intervals, were decadal and centennial-scale temperature cycles. Throughout the current Neoglacial period, the authors report finding "very significant" (above the 99% confidence level) peaks, or oscillations, that occurred at intervals of 400, 190, 122, 85 and 70 years, which they suggest are perhaps driven by solar variability. Additionally, the authors note the presence of a "Little Ice Age" that started about 700 years before present and ended approximately 100 years ago.

What it means
The results of this study add to the mounting body of evidence that supports a global Little Ice Age event. It also highlights the inherent natural variability of climate, and suggests to us the high probability that recent 20th century warming is not of anthropogenic origin, but the result of natural variability, as the earth has recovered from the now-demonstrated global chill of the Little Ice Age."

[Ned]

Here is and editorial commenting on a climate model that includes plant aerosols. The net effect of increased CO2 is beneficial.

Biology Rules: On Land and at Sea

"For the part of the planet included in this regional assessment, i.e., the area located between approximately 35 and 48° N latitude and 96 and 110° W longitude, it was determined that the net result of the simultaneous actions of the direct and indirect effects of the doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration was a 0.715°C decrease in the area- and seasonally-averaged daily maximum air temperature and a 0.354°C increase in the similarly-averaged daily minimum air temperature. Hence, what climate alarmists typically describe as detrimental, when only the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is considered, turns out to actually be beneficial, when several of the biological effects of this phenomenon are included in the calculations. During the time of greatest heat stress (mid-afternoon), for example, temperatures are lower; while during the time of greatest cold stress (pre-sunrise), they are higher. Likewise, the 1.069°C reduction in the average daily air temperature range is indicative of a more thermally-stable environment; and a more thermally-stable environment is a less stressful environment. Last of all, the overall change in daily mean air temperature is not a dramatic warming, ..., but a slight cooling."

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
Please give me numbers regarding the current cost of the situation. Please give me a probability for the "risk is so high". Then put in credible numbers for the future cost in your scenarios, by year. Lastly, give me credible numbers for the irreparable damage caused and the potential damage caused by carrying out your proposed remedies.

I think you will find that you can't back up this oft-repeated BS with any specificity.

To me, these kinds of arguments reflect a profound lack of intellectual rigor by a group of people who are not normally prone to intellectual laziness. It pains me to watch it.

Here is a take on the insurance angle:

Key points bolded for those who don't wish to read it all.

Insurers count cost of global warming

New Scientist vol 175 issue 2353 - 27 July 2002, page 7


INSURANCE premiums against floods and other disasters are set to rocket because the world's biggest insurance companies are getting nervous about climate change. Swiss Re, a company that provides insurance for other insurers, warned in a report this week that premium hikes are inevitable.

The big fish of the insurance industry are already alarmed about the rising tide of large claims for climatic disasters such as floods, hurricanes and heatwaves, which between them have caused damage estimated at half a trillion dollars over the past decade. "The number of really big weather disasters has increased fourfold compared to the 1960s," says Thomas Loster from Munich Re, another big firm that insures insurers - a business known as reinsurance.

Now Swiss Re's risk analysts are pointing to the hidden costs of smaller changes in the weather. "A few rainy days less per year, a somewhat lower incidence of frost, a few more particularly warm days. This may sound relatively harmless, but it is not," warns the report (see www.swissre.com). Extreme weather appears much more catastrophic because it wins extensive media coverage. However, persistent but less obvious changes to climate can also cause problems.

For instance, in July 1995, a heatwave in Britain raised average temperatures by 3 degrees. This small rise caused the death rate to increase by 5 per cent. Crops failed, cattle breeding faltered and trout tanks emptied. The bill to farmers alone was £180 million. Add in factors such as emergency water supplies that had to be brought in as reservoirs dried up and the total bill goes up to £1.5 billion - much of it paid for by insurance companies.

"Losses that were previously an exception may become the rule," says Swiss Re's chief risk officer Bruno Porro. He says insurance companies need to reassess the risks for these events now and bump up premiums to offset massive payouts. If other insurance companies are too slow to adapt to the changed climate, Porro says companies such as Swiss Re "will not be prepared to share the burden", and the other companies will have to take the losses on their own. Some high-risk activities, such as insuring property on low-lying islands and providing cover against forest fires or a lack of snow at ski resorts, may prove so risky in the future that no insurance companies will cover them at all.