Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Foxfyre wrote:

So obviously lessened damage does not support Gore's theory of either increased activity or severity of hurricans does it?

What lessened damage? There is NO such thing as lessened damage. It is MADE UP CRAP that you are posting. You have no source.

Increased Hurricane Losses Due To More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms

The processes that control the formation, intensity and track of hurricanes are poorly understood1. It has been proposed that an increase in sea surface temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change has led to an increase in the frequency of intense tropical cyclones2, 3, but this proposal has been challenged on the basis that the instrumental record is too short and unreliable to reveal trends in intense tropical cyclone activity4. Storm-induced deposits preserved in the sediments of coastal lagoons offer the opportunity to study the links between climatic conditions and hurricane activity on longer timescales, because they provide centennial- to millennial-scale records of past hurricane landfalls5, 6, 7, 8. Here we present a record of intense hurricane activity in the western North Atlantic Ocean over the past 5,000 years based on sediment cores from a Caribbean lagoon that contain coarse-grained deposits associated with intense hurricane landfalls. The record indicates that the frequency of intense hurricane landfalls has varied on centennial to millennial scales over this interval. Comparison of the sediment record with palaeo-climate records indicates that this variability was probably modulated by atmospheric dynamics associated with variations in the El Niñño/Southern Oscillation and the strength of the West African monsoon, and suggests that sea surface temperatures as high as at present are not necessary to support intervals of frequent intense hurricanes. To accurately predict changes in intense hurricane activity, it is therefore important to understand how the El Niñño/Southern Oscillation and the West African monsoon will respond to future climate change.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7143/full/nature05834.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

103.

What hurricanes are most likely to cause damage to people or property?

Foxfyre wrote:

What hurricanes are most likely to cause damage to people or property?

Countries where communist dictators run them and don't care about the people. They don't warn them, they don't accept supplies or only grudgingly after a time, and when supplies do arrive, they don't deliver them.

Contrast that with America, namely New Orleans, where the Democratic mayor and governor did nothing, while the media and the administration was projecting landfall for days and telling the people to flee, until finally Bush told the governor to do something. Even after the people were warned 2 days ahead of time, many made the decision to stay. Meanwhile, scores of school buses sat idle because the mayor did not know where the people should be taken. One suggestion to the mayor, inland would help. Still, less than 1 percent of people perished as compared to Burma.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

104.
Harvard-educated Physicist Arthur E. Lemay, a renowned computer systems specialist, declared his climate skepticism in 2007. "Recent studies show that there are far better explanations for the earth's warming before 1998. The variations in the sun's radiant energy and production of cosmic rays are far more persuasive than the greenhouse gas theory," Lemay wrote on December 5, 2007 in the Jakarta Post during the UN Climate Conference in Bali. "The solar theory explains it, the greenhouse gas theory does not. In science, when observations do not support a theory, it is the theory which needs to be discarded. So, all this blather about reducing CO2, the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali conference are all a waste of money," Lemay explained. "Of course, the global warming alarmists cannot tolerate the solar theory because we cannot do anything about it, and no government wants to spend billions of dollars for nothing," he wrote. "It's time for Indonesia and other developing countries to demand an explanation as to why CO2 reduction is being mandated when it is not the problem," he concluded.

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

What hurricanes are most likely to cause damage to people or property?

Countries where communist dictators run them and don't care about the people. They don't warn them, they don't accept supplies or only grudgingly after a time, and when supplies do arrive, they don't deliver them.

Contrast that with America, namely New Orleans, where the Democratic mayor and governor did nothing, while the media and the administration was projecting landfall for days and telling the people to flee, until finally Bush told the governor to do something. Even after the people were warned 2 days ahead of time, many made the decision to stay. Meanwhile, scores of school buses sat idle because the mayor did not know where the people should be taken. One suggestion to the mayor, inland would help. Still, less than 1 percent of people perished as compared to Burma.

Amen to that.

Oh.. so damage has now equated to "deaths". Rolling Eyes

For that matter look at the deaths listed by ican..
All the major typhoon and hurricane deaths of 100,000 or more have occurred since 1970. It doesn't mean the hurricanes are stronger. It only means they have been more deadly. Technology hasn't prevented there from being more deaths from hurricanes.

parados wrote:

Oh.. so damage has now equated to "deaths". Rolling Eyes

Of course damage may and should be assessed in "deaths". Otherwise, if you compare a 1900's to 2000's car or house without a decent normalization operation, you'll be comparing apples to orange.

parados wrote:

For that matter look at the deaths listed by ican..
All the major typhoon and hurricane deaths of 100,000 or more have occurred since 1970. It doesn't mean the hurricanes are stronger. It only means they have been more deadly. Technology hasn't prevented there from being more deaths from hurricanes.

What the hell are you talking about parados ???
The deadliest hurricanes or tropical cyclones or typhoons, whatever, all happened before 1975 when the media was still peddling the global COOLING scare and when the world population was 2, 3, 4x lower than now. Saying "technology hasn't prevented more death from hurricanes" is utterly absurd ! Now, are you being a denier ?

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp

Rank: Name / Areas of Largest Loss: Year: Ocean Area: Deaths:

1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 Bay of Bengal 550,000
2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 350,000
3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000
3. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000
5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000
6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000
7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000
8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 West Pacific 171,000
9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 Bay of Bengal 140,000
10. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000
11. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000
12. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000
13. Swatlow, China 1922 West Pacific 60,000
14. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000
15. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000
16. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000
17. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000
18. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000
19. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000
20. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000
21. Devi Taluk, SE India 1977 Bay of Bengal 20,000
21. Great Coringa Cyclone, India 1789 Bay of Bengal 20,000

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

105.
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top Geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books, and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting, "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" and mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about man-made global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great." Allegre mocked former Vice President Al Gore's Nobel Prize in 2007, calling it "a political gimmick." Allegre said on October 14, 2007, "The amount of nonsense in Al Gore's film! It's all politics; it's designed to intervene in American politics. It's scandalous."

Damage does not mean death alone by any definition I have ever seen. The orginal statement made by High seas using the graph is still not supported.

By the way mini - your source lists 2008 in Myanmar as the 6th deadliest in history. So your statement of them all being "before 1975" is wrong. It was wrong befor they added Myanmar, 1975 is NOT before 1975.

parados wrote:

Damage does not mean death alone by any definition I have ever seen. The orginal statement made by High seas using the graph is still not supported.

By the way mini - your source lists 2008 in Myanmar as the 6th deadliest in history. So your statement of them all being "before 1975" is wrong. It was wrong befor they added Myanmar, 1975 is NOT before 1975.

Parados, I didn't say damage means death alone.

I said that comparing material damage in different periods is irrelevant if you don't normalize damage (buying a car in the 1900s would cost years of a mean salary instead of months now so losing a car in the 1900 is not like losing a car now). And I said a more significant comparison would have been the number of deaths.

Besides, my list was not meant to show a trend in deadliest hurricanes but to falsify the claim that "technology doesn't help making less deaths".

The example of 2008 in Myanmar is exactly that: the hurricane had been identified days before it reached land and its trajectory estimated thanks to technology. And it is precisely the NON use of technology by the Birman authorities and the lack of technology like good transportation & communication and solid shelters that have caused so many deaths and devastation when and after the hurricane struck.
I don't think those facts are of any controversy, except to Al Gore who must find a candidate in any event to fuel his GW alarm machine.

parados wrote:

Damage does not mean death alone by any definition I have ever seen. The orginal statement made by High seas using the graph is still not supported.

By the way mini - your source lists 2008 in Myanmar as the 6th deadliest in history. So your statement of them all being "before 1975" is wrong. It was wrong befor they added Myanmar, 1975 is NOT before 1975.

Parados, I didn't say damage means death alone.
I said that comparing material damage in different periods is irrelevant if you don't normalize damage (buying a car in the 1900s would cost years of a mean salary instead of months now so losing a car in the 1900 is not like losing a car now). And I said a more significant comparison would have been the number of deaths.

Which claim were you attempting to falsify? I made no claim about techology prior to your list.

If Myanmar is supposed to be part of the way you falsified a claim I never made then why didn't you include Myanmar in your list? Your argument makes no sense miniTax. You have made numerous statements trying to clarify what you said but your clarifications make no sense compared to what you said at the time.