AAAS, worse than we thought it could be

[KittenKoder]

you're speaking to exceptions--not the rule. You might wanna leave you're hatred of sex out of your argument.

*grins widely* Why do you think I hate sex ... because of over population in our area the places I grew up are now housing complexes, they drained our neighborhood swamp to make room for more houses, cut down all the beautiful wild areas for even more houses, and destroyed an entire wooded area for some stupid strip mall and Fred Meyers. Also, it's not the act of sex I hate, though I do not enjoy it myself, it's the mindless breeding without thinking about the consequences that I truly hate.

Did you know they have birth control these days ?

Just because it's there doesn't mean people take the responsibility to use it. I don't like sex myself, and don't really care if other people have it, what angers me is they breed mindlessly so much, then they whine about the environment getting messed up or that welfare costs are sky rocketing without once admitting that if they would only use birth control more often none of this would happen.

 

[dilloduck]

*grins widely* Why do you think I hate sex ... because of over population in our area the places I grew up are now housing complexes, they drained our neighborhood swamp to make room for more houses, cut down all the beautiful wild areas for even more houses, and destroyed an entire wooded area for some stupid strip mall and Fred Meyers. Also, it's not the act of sex I hate, though I do not enjoy it myself, it's the mindless breeding without thinking about the consequences that I truly hate.

Did you know they have birth control these days ?

Just because it's there doesn't mean people take the responsibility to use it. I don't like sex myself, and don't really care if other people have it, what angers me is they breed mindlessly so much, then they whine about the environment getting messed up or that welfare costs are sky rocketing without once admitting that if they would only use birth control more often none of this would happen.

You're the only person I know who hates other people because they have children.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes yes, like I said lets wipe out half the worlds population, we can create giant ovens and gas chambers, they worked so well on 12 million, should work even better for 3 billion.

We elect you to convince the rest of the world to agree.

Perhaps we could sew up girls sex organ so they can not have sex except when you think it is appropriate and we can feed salt peter to all the boys and men. Sound good?

And anyone that has more than 2 and a half kids gets shot at dawn and the kids sent down the wood chipper.

That good enough for you?

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>Global warming really means climate weirding, I think.

But obviously SOME people ARE preparing for climate weirding.

For example, those insurance companies which are no longer offering homeowner protection in FLA?

They sense (perhaps fear is the better word) that the hurricanic activity might easily wipe them out should two or three hurricanes hit population centers in FLA.

Now that might happen this year or it might never happen, but those boys play the odds, and apparently they are convinced that the RISK of that happening exceeds to the POTENTIAL rewards the gain if it DOES NOT happen.

One would have to do a search and evaluate the data, but has there really been an increase of storms in Florida in the past 100 years? Storm damage is another thing entirely in population centers in FLA. If building becomes proportionally concentrated in storm prone areas, we should expect an increase in property damage proportionally. If the structures built there are structures of the most expensive types then the damage which occurs will be more costly to repair.

The incentive for State Farm and other insurance companies to leave Florida, lies not with &#8220;climate weirding&#8221; but with the concentration of new development in the storm vulnerable coastal areas in recent years. There&#8217;s not much reason to move to Florida if not for being able to live along the seashore, rather than the hot, humid, interior.

Unfortunately seashore habitation has a risk, namely hurricanes and the damage they wreak on structures built too close to the shore to have the protection of building &#8220;inland&#8221; where winds, storm surge, and flooding will naturally have abated.

In a commonsense world, there would be regulations drastically limiting building right up and onto the beach. Not only are Florida politicians not able to force that discipline on developers, but they do the reverse and don&#8217;t allow insurers to charge more for coastal development, therefore creating an incentive for more coastal development rather than less.

The cost of insuring those structures at greater risk is distributed throughout the rest of the population&#8217;s property owners by regulating insurance premiums to not take damage risk into account. This type of regulation actually acts as an incentive to build more in risky locations. That&#8217;s because those who live in the safer areas inland are forced to absorb the costs of insuring for the risks of living on the coast.

But to go further, the politicians control the premiums the insurers can charge for property damage by holding hostage their ability to insure automobiles there, or to give up insuring in the state at all. That's why insurers like State Farm finally leave. Consider the possibility of a federal government getting involved in that consideration...

Florida needs economic growth to pay for the cost of government and its services, and economic growth is determined by population growth; I.E. tourism, people moving there needing places to live, making purchases, competing for jobs, etc. Because of that&#8230; the necessary growth must be maintained by everyone there by indirectly underwriting the cost of insuring for hurricane damage along the coast line.

...

 

[Andrew2382]

I went skiing this past weekend, and I gotta say

FUCK IT WAS COLD

Where the hell is Global Warming when you need it

 

[Meister]

<SNIP>Global warming really means climate weirding, I think.

But obviously SOME people ARE preparing for climate weirding.

For example, those insurance companies which are no longer offering homeowner protection in FLA?

They sense (perhaps fear is the better word) that the hurricanic activity might easily wipe them out should two or three hurricanes hit population centers in FLA.

Now that might happen this year or it might never happen, but those boys play the odds, and apparently they are convinced that the RISK of that happening exceeds to the POTENTIAL rewards the gain if it DOES NOT happen.

One would have to do a search and evaluate the data, but has there really been an increase of storms in Florida in the past 100 years? Storm damage is another thing entirely in population centers in FLA. If building becomes proportionally concentrated in storm prone areas, we should expect an increase in property damage proportionally. If the structures built there are structures of the most expensive types then the damage which occurs will be more costly to repair.

The incentive for State Farm and other insurance companies to leave Florida, lies not with “climate weirding” but with the concentration of new development in the storm vulnerable coastal areas in recent years. There’s not much reason to move to Florida if not for being able to live along the seashore, rather than the hot, humid, interior.

Unfortunately seashore habitation has a risk, namely hurricanes and the damage they wreak on structures built too close to the shore to have the protection of building “inland” where winds, storm surge, and flooding will naturally have abated.

In a commonsense world, there would be regulations drastically limiting building right up and onto the beach. Not only are Florida politicians not able to force that discipline on developers, but they do the reverse and don’t allow insurers to charge more for coastal development, therefore creating an incentive for more coastal development rather than less.

The cost of insuring those structures at greater risk is distributed throughout the rest of the population’s property owners by regulating insurance premiums to not take damage risk into account. This type of regulation actually acts as an incentive to build more in risky locations. That’s because those who live in the safer areas inland are forced to absorb the costs of insuring for the risks of living on the coast.

But to go further, the politicians control the premiums the insurers can charge for property damage by holding hostage their ability to insure automobiles there, or to give up insuring in the state at all. That's why insurers like State Farm finally leave. Consider the possibility of a federal government getting involved in that consideration...

Florida needs economic growth to pay for the cost of government and its services, and economic growth is determined by population growth; I.E. tourism, people moving there needing places to live, making purchases, competing for jobs, etc. Because of that… the necessary growth must be maintained by everyone there by indirectly underwriting the cost of insuring for hurricane damage along the coast line.

...

Here I thought that all we needed was to get rid of george Bush, and the storms would cease. Wasn't he to blame for Tsunami's, Hurricanes, Tornado's, Forrest fires., I think it was floods, too. I'm sure it was Bush that was the cause of the global warming. He didn't join the Kyoto Agreement.
Oh, that was the left wing nuts talking....my bad. Never mind.

 

[American Horse]

One would have to do a search and evaluate the data, but has there really been an increase of storms in Florida in the past 100 years? Storm damage is another thing entirely in population centers in FLA.

Revealing DATA From the International Hurricane Research Center

 

[Old Rocks]

Recent scientific evidence suggests a link between the destructive power (or intensity) of hurricanes and higher ocean temperatures, driven in large part by global warming. With rapid population growth in coastal regions placing many more people and structures in the path of these tropical cyclones there is a much greater risk of casualties, property damage, and financial hardship when these storms make landfall. (1)
Hurricanes and Climate Change | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Old Rocks]

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity (e.g., Emanuel 2007) show a strong correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) (Figure 1). PDI is a combined measure of Atlantic hurricane frequency, intensity, and duration. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Global Warming and Hurricanes

 

[Old Rocks]

Is the intensity of hurricanes increasing?

Several peer-reviewed studies show a clear global trend toward increased intensity of the strongest hurricanes over the past two or three decades. The strongest trends are in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is &#8220;more likely than not&#8221; (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, &#8220;it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].&#8221;

Back to Top


Is global warming generating other types of severe weather?

Global temperature has increased and precipitation patterns have changed over the 20th century as a result of human-induced global warming, resulting in some increases in extremes of temperature and precipitation. According to the IPCC-AR4, &#8220;ncreases in the amount of precipitation are very likely [better than 9 to 1 odds] in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] in most subtropical land regions,&#8221; and &#8220;t is very likely [at least 9 to 1 odds] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.&#8221;

Back to Top
Hurricanes and Global Warming FAQs: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change

 

[elvis]

Nah... we should ignore it and let g-d sort it out.

I mean, why listen to scientists, after all.

The problem is that a majority of the science used isn't solid. Here's a bit of science commonly forgotten that uses other sciences: the life on the planet is never in danger of complete extinction, it is impossible according to the laws of evolution. No matter what changes occur, life forms will evolve to adapt to the new climates and environments, as they have many times in the past. No matter which theory as to the extinction of the dinosaurs (which was not even a complete extinction) it is quite easy to see that life will continue, just in different forms. The problem with the impact has little to do with life in general, but the survival of our own species. The damage we are doing will eventually wipe us out. However, the real damage is still not known, why? Simple, they are focusing too much on one particular aspect and ignoring all others, including other scientific studies and areas, which point that the problems are not what the environuts are screaming about. Why do they ignore these other sciences, why don't they utilize all the data, and why do they keep asking for money? Two reasons to answer those questions, one is the truth is uglier than the whole disaster scenario, the other is that they want to scare you into giving them handouts knowing full well that since they cannot actually fix these changes people will be scared long enough for them to really milk it.

This view is not allowed. Business is not punished enough in this scenario.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Nah... we should ignore it and let g-d sort it out.

I mean, why listen to scientists, after all.

The problem is that a majority of the science used isn't solid. Here's a bit of science commonly forgotten that uses other sciences: the life on the planet is never in danger of complete extinction, it is impossible according to the laws of evolution. No matter what changes occur, life forms will evolve to adapt to the new climates and environments, as they have many times in the past. .

I wouldn't go that far. Inevitably, conditions on this planet will become unsuitable for life. But I think there can be a distinct difference between the idea of listening to the process of "science" and listening to what we identify as "scienttists"

If the process of science ruled in this case, there would be prominent emphasis on the fact that one cannot infer cause and effect between human activity and any climate change that might be taking place. There might be some "this is what we believe" stuff. But they wouldn't be trying to create the impression that a cause and effect relationship between human activity and climate change has been firmly described and established.