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

[[...]Floods in central Europe, wildfires in Russia, widespread flooding in Pakistan. The number and scale of weather-related natural catastrophe losses in the first nine months of 2010 was exceptionally high. Two months ahead of the World Climate Summit scheduled for 29 November to 10 December in Cancún, Mexico, Munich Re emphasises the probability of a link between the increasing number of weather extremes and climate change. In the run-up to the summit, Munich Re will focus attention on this issue with a series of communications on natural catastrophes, climate change and potential solutions. Research facts and findings will be available for download in an electronic press folder at www.munichre.com.

Globally, 2010 has been the warmest year since records began over 130 years ago, the ten warmest during that period all falling within the last 12 years. The warmer atmosphere and higher sea temperatures are having significant effects. Prof. Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate carbon reduction targets stay on the agenda, future generations will bear the consequences.”

[...]

Munich Re’s natural catastrophe database, the most comprehensive of its kind in the world, shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events. For instance, globally there has been a more than threefold increase in loss-related floods since 1980 and more than double the number of windstorm natural catastrophes, with particularly heavy losses as a result of Atlantic hurricanes.

The rise in natural catastrophe losses is primarily due to socio-economic factors. In many countries, populations are rising, and more and more people moving into exposed areas. At the same time, greater prosperity is leading to higher property values. Nevertheless, it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge as set out in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report.

... ... ...

If we can show to you that Chris Allen isn't a meteorologist will you stop posting from a source that is lying to you?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

402
Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac, expressed man-made climate skepticism in 2007. “I am worried about climate change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I have very little confidence that we know what is causing it,” Kling wrote in a December 21, 2007 commentary. “One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions by some drastic amount, only to discover that--oops--it turns out that climate change is being caused by something else,” Kling explained. “I am not a skeptic about the rise in average temperatures. Nor am I skeptical that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. However, I remain skeptical about the connection between the two,” he wrote. (LINK)

I found this, and cant help but wonder if the global warming crowd really thinks this is effective...

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
Emissions of Carbon from Human Activities
Several human activities release CO2 into the atmosphere (called anthropogenic, human-origin, emissions). Fossil-fuel burning is the predominant anthropogenic source of CO2, but cement production and other activities also contribute (including the “land-use” activity of deforestation). Using a combination of modern and historic data, scientists estimate that humans have sent a total of 305 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere since 1751; half of these emissions have occurred since the mid-1970s.
…
About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered “sinks” in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
He [Essenhigh] cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide ...