Global Warming vs. Terrorism

I would think that there is no doubt that climate change is a far greater potential threat to the survival of humanity than terrorrism. In the past climate change has killed more people than all the terrorrists of all creeds put together and at least once climate change came close to snuffing out the human race (the so-called Toba event ca. 70 000 BC). It is also a fact that whereas we can combat terrorrists directly, we have but limited influence over the climate and influencing it takes the effort of a large part of the world population over a long time.
People blinded by the potential threat of terrorrists with WMDs forget that climate change is more than just rising temperatures. Climate change will influence the incidence of extreme weather such as hurricanes, it will cause droughts and flooding or conversely extreme cold, either way crops will be adversely affected. The incidence of tropical diseases will also be affected as will biodiversity. In short climate change can have a far greater effect on our world than terrorrists will ever have. Having said that, the chance that you personally will die tomorrow as a result of climate change is probably smaller than the chance that you will die as a result of a terrorrist attack, but in the longer run climate change wins hands down over terrorrism as a threat to humanity. Probably someone else has already mentioned this in this thread, but I did not manage to read through all 60 something pages.

Prove that "climate change" has killed one single person. You cannot include weather, such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, and all the rest, that is normal for climates whether they change or not. To be accurate, climate has never been static, as climates have always been cyclical. Once you have proven climate change has killed someone, which you probably can't, then prove it was man-caused, which we know is impossible because it is only a theory, not a proven fact.

I would have no trouble proving terrorism has killed many people, and was man-caused.

Who is threatening anyone, plainoldme? What is with you? By the way, you may wish to check your last sentence. I am not absolutely sure, but I do not judge it to be grammatically correct. I think there are too many commas. Also, your second sentence contains a redundancy, plus the "yours" should read without the "s."

So, you want me to prove that climate change has killed people but I cannot include climate in my response. What kind of bs is that? Climate change implies that the incidence of climatic occurences such as just hurricanes, floods, droughts, severe winters, etc. changes. It would be the same to demand that I prove that terrorism has killed people, but I cannot include terrorrists with rockets, bombs, hijackings, knives, or guns.



So you admit that climate change exists. Then you do not require me to prove that it has killed people, for everybody knows that droughts, floods, storms and related effects have killed millions of people all over the world in the past years.



I don't have to prove that climate change is influenced by human activity, for that was not part of your original premiss. For the record though, the majority of leading environmental scientists (e.g. Ruddiman et al) in the world consider the theory to be well supported by facts and their work was convincing enough to lead to the Kyoto protocol and other climate treaties.



I have nowhere denied that terrorrism has killed people. Terrorrist acts have been responsible for ten of thousands of deaths since the Second World War, but in comparison the Ethiopian drought of 1984 alone cost up to a million lives...

You can't see the difference between weather and climate change? Cyclones, floods, tornados, hurricanes, you name it, have always been a characteristic of weather. Have you visited the Grand Canyon? One heck of a bunch of water has gone down that canyon before man even appeared on the scene. In other words, lots of floods, Paaskynen. Go back a few million years and the face of this continent looked alot different. Example being Lake Bonneville in Utah, that covered a huge area much larger than Great Salt Lake. Have you ever observed marine fossils on the tops of mountains? The earth is a dynamic, changing system with a history of very extreme cycles, even long before man appeared on the scene. It is ludicrous to agree with you when you may wish to blame all or most of the weather related catastrophes in modern times on climate change or global warming. Such an assumption would be utterly ridiculous.

Plain Ol Me wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
okie -- When you learn to write consistently grammatical sentences, you may criticize me. When you learn to structure a logical argument, you may reject what I write. Try to remember how many contributors have said the same thing to yoU.
**********************************************************

Her ignorance concerning writing, English Grammar, and Literature generally is evident in her idiotic appraisal of the race carder, Toni Morrison's garbage as being superior to the greatest writer in all of English Literature....Shakespeare.
'

Furthermore, it is evident that no one ever taught her that she must use citations which refer to scientific studies when she writes on a topic like Global Warming. She cannot merely say-"John Jones said---" without giving a link in which it can be checked.

Okie- Here is something for puerile Parados to pick his teeth with--

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming

N. Scafetta

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA




B. J. West

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA




Abstract

We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.


Received 19 December 2005; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.

Index Terms: 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1626 Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928); 1650 Global Change: Solar variability (7537); 1699 Global Change: General or miscellaneous; 1739 History of Geophysics: Solar/planetary relationships.
*************************************************************

Note- Okie--done in March 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Paaskynen wrote:

I would think that there is no doubt that climate change is a far greater potential threat to the survival of humanity than terrorrism. In the past climate change has killed more people than all the terrorrists of all creeds put together and at least once climate change came close to snuffing out the human race (the so-called Toba event ca. 70 000 BC). It is also a fact that whereas we can combat terrorrists directly, we have but limited influence over the climate and influencing it takes the effort of a large part of the world population over a long time.
People blinded by the potential threat of terrorrists with WMDs forget that climate change is more than just rising temperatures. Climate change will influence the incidence of extreme weather such as hurricanes, it will cause droughts and flooding or conversely extreme cold, either way crops will be adversely affected. The incidence of tropical diseases will also be affected as will biodiversity. In short climate change can have a far greater effect on our world than terrorrists will ever have. Having said that, the chance that you personally will die tomorrow as a result of climate change is probably smaller than the chance that you will die as a result of a terrorrist attack, but in the longer run climate change wins hands down over terrorrism as a threat to humanity. Probably someone else has already mentioned this in this thread, but I did not manage to read through all 60 something pages.
************************************************************
Climate change is a FAR GREATER? POTENTIAL THREAT to the survival of
humanity than terrorism!

That is possible, but it is not probable.

Humanity has survived for five or six million years according to Richard Leakey. There have been many periods which could be labeled as Ice Age and Warming Periods since then as well as many occurrences such as the Toba event.

It is far more probable, since it is something that man can do directly, that a Nuclear Holocaust, which, as most people are aware, would cause a nuclear winter and kill most of the people on the earth, will occur.


I see NO EVIDENCE that is sufficient to persuade me that in the face of CAREFULLY PLANNED AND CAREFULLY INTRODUCED TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES DURING THE NEXT FIFTY OR SEVENTY FIVE YEARS, WE CANNOT GIVE OURSELVES AN INSURANCE POLICY AGAINST ANY POSSIBLE WARMING TRENDS.

IT MUST BE STRESSED, AND I WILL BE GLAD TO REPEAT, THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MANY OF THE PREDICTIONS OF THE GLOBAL WARMISTS ARE DOUBTFUL AND BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS WHICH MAY NOT HOLD UP!!!

Okie- Parados is pathetic. He cannot answer my questions. I have now posted six for him AGAIN! I will repost the seventh one.

In the meantime, here is some good additional evidence--

Recent Temperatures


1. Introduction
It is commonly claimed that temperatures are continuing to rise and that that Global Warming is becoming catastrophic. Such a statement is not supported by the evidence.

The graphs below use data from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU), see the link to taveg12v.dat on page http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/. (In the data the two digit number on the subsequent line indicates the percentage coverage of the earth. A cut-off point of May 2005 has been adopted in accordance with the limits of CRU data.



2. January 1996 to May 2005
Below is a graph of monthly global average temperature anomalies from January 1996 to May 2005. (The anomaly is the difference between current temperatures and the long term, 1961-90 average.) The label for each year is below the histogram bar for January of that year.





- A strong El Nino is generally accepted as the cause of the 1997-98 peak in temperature, a peak which has not yet been exceeded.

- Temperatures were high in early 2002 (due to a weak El Nino according to NASA) but no sustained and strong increase is evident since that time.

- In the 12 months to May 2005, the monthly anomaly is below 0.4 degrees C on 4 occasions and contrasts with 12 successive months, starting in May 2003, with an anomaly greater than 0.4 degrees.



3. January 2001 to May 2005
Detail of the above graph for January 2001 to May 2005.





- Only once, in February 2004, has the temperature anomaly exceeded 0.6 degrees C and come close to those of the first three months of 2002.

- The annual average temperature anomalies for 2002, 2003 and 2004 are 0.4748, 0.4746 and 0.4545 degrees C respectively. The 12 month average to March 2005 was even lower at 0.4323 degrees C but a slightly warmer April and May have raised the 12 month average to May back to 0.4545, still lower than 2002 and 2003 averages. This fact and the above graph make it clear that any claim of temperatures increasing over the last 3 years cannot be substantiated.

************************************************************

Those who need additional data are referred to the link in the body of the work above!!

Here is some key data on what happened from 1910 to 1940 BEFORE co2 was being pumped into the air by large scale industry-



Global Warming - Climate

Contact Us | Print Version Search Area:
EPA Home > Global Warming > Climate > Trends > Temperature


Trends
Atmospheric Change

Future Climate

Uncertainties

Science FAQ




Temperature
Global temperatures are rising. Observations collected over the last century suggest that the average land surface temperature has risen 0.8-1.0°F (0.45-0.6°C) in the last century. The surface of the ocean has also been warming at a similar rate. Studies that combine land and sea measurements have generally estimated that global temperatures have warmed 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) in the last century. About two-thirds of this warming took place between 1900 and 1940. Global temperatures declined slightly from the 1940s through the 1970s; but have risen more rapidly during the last 25 years than in the period before 1940.

Mr R. you are now supposing things. You say you see no evidence that technology will not help us survive climate change. In this double negation you say that you think climate change is taking place, but not that technology will help us overcome it (lack of evidence to the contrary does not imply evidence in favour).

In that case I can say with as much or far higher probability that I see no evidence that terrorrists will ever acquire a nuclear capability big enough to threathen the existence of mankind. It requires an all out exchange between nuclear superpowers for anything on that scale to occur. As a footnote, I wish to point oit that a nuclear winter constitutes a human-induced climate change, which strengthens my point that climate change is a far greater threat than terrorrism.

Finally, I hold the posioition that global warming is occurring, as the rise in mean temperatures in, for example, my country, as well as the rise in seawater temperatures prove. Those are facts that no one denies. The bone of contention is whether the change is part of a naturally ocurring cycle or whether it is caused by human activities. However, in the original premiss to which I responded there was no question of human influence, just whtehr climate change is a bigger threat than terrorrism or not.

Finally, Okie's insistence that climate change cannot be proven by referring to weather and other climatic phenomena that exist today is downright silly. In his view an ice age does not constitute a climate change, because there is ice in Antarctica today (which, incidentally, is melting at an increased rate as measurements have shown). Climate change implies a change in the incidence and/or intensity of climatic phenomena and the moving climate belts, changes in oceanic currents and the like.

Mr. P --You wrote_

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr R. you are now supposing things. You say you see no evidence that technology will not help us survive climate change. In this double negation you say that you think climate change is taking place, but not that technology will help us overcome it (lack of evidence to the contrary does not imply evidence in favour).

Please reread what I wrote---

I see NO EVIDENCE that is sufficient to persuade me that in the face of CAREFULLY PLANNED AND CAREFULLY INTRODUCED TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES DURING THE NEXT FIFTY OR SEVENTY FIVE YEARS, WE CANNOT GIVE OURSELVES AN INSURANCE POLICY AGAINST ANY POSSIBLE WARMING TRENDS.

IT MUST BE STRESSED, AND I WILL BE GLAD TO REPEAT, THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MANY OF THE PREDICTIONS OF THE GLOBAL WARMISTS ARE DOUBTFUL AND BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS WHICH MAY NOT HOLD UP!!!

************************************************************

I am afraid that you did not read my post correctly, sir..

And, I am sure that you are sincere in your claims about Global Warming but I must inform you that I cannot accept an unsourced comment about Global Warming. I respectfully ask you to refer to peer approved Scientific articles to buttress your claims AS I DID IN THE EARLY PART OF THIS THREAD.

I will be happy to attempt to answer any of your questions using Scientific Articles as sources, but I know you will understand that I cannot accept any unsourced comments.

Thank you, sir!

Bernard, have you read Page 62, wherein I related to Parados the scenario about the environmentalists causing the hauling of garbage from Kansas to Oklahoma as an example of a total waste of energy, wear and tear on highways, and an unnecessary loss of life? I think Parados has been rendered speechless, as he has no answer to the logical conclusion of that situation, wherein the tree huggers are totally documented as a total bunch of losers.

And where did Paaskynen come from, now trying to claim that normal weather events that kill people are attributed to climate change?

A wonderful article on why the RUSSIANS are not stupid with regard to the alleged global warming:














--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia's common sense on global climate change

by Paul K. Driessen
Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services
October 2003


WASHINGTON, DC, October 2003 ¾ Kudos to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Not only did he resist intense pressure from French President Jacques Chirac and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - and announce that Russia was not going to ratify the controversial Kyoto global climate change treaty anytime soon. He also demonstrated that his nation permits more robust debate on this topic than does the European Union or New York Times.



A decision will be made only after his government thoroughly studies the issue, Putin emphasized. "And, of course, it will take into account the national interests of the Russian Federation."



Global warming alarmists tried to put their best spin on the news, saying they expect Russia to ratify "within a year." But chief economic adviser Andrei Illarionov dumped Siberian ice water on that notion.



President Putin "never said that," he stressed. "What decision will be taken remains to be seen. The Russian economy is not going to stop at the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that we have today or that we shall have in 2012. That's why costs will have to be balanced against any possible gains. The United States and Australia have calculated that they cannot bear the economic consequences of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. If they aren't rich enough to deal with those consequences," how can Russia?



Putin and his advisors said the scientific evidence does not support catastrophic climate change theories. They also noted that "grain harvests would increase further," if temperatures do rise a couple degrees, and said it's "not very clear" whether the Kyoto protocol "would improve the climate, stabilize it or make it worse." The treaty's economic impacts could be severe, however.



In fact, satellite and weather balloon records demonstrate that Earth's atmosphere has not warmed over the past two decades, according to University of Alabama scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer.



Using fossils to reconstruct global temperatures, Jan Veizer and Nir Shariv concluded that 66% of temperature variability over the past half-billion years can be explained by cosmic ray changes as the Earth moves out of the Milky Way's spiral galaxy.



Another likely factor is variations in the sun's energy output. Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have documented a strong correlation between solar energy and earth temperatures over the last 1000 years and concluded that earlier periods of warming occurred long before the Industrial Revolution and slight warming of 1900-1940.



Primitive computer models - the only "evidence" alarmists can cite to support their theory - repeatedly disagree with each other, cannot account for the fact that the lower atmosphere has not warmed, and can't forecast accurately even a year in advance.



Even if the Kyoto treaty were adopted and all nations complied with it, says the National Center for Atmospheric Research, theoretical global warming would decline by only 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. Actually stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions would require 19 Kyotos.



The U.S. Energy Information Administration, Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates and others have calculated that just one Kyoto treaty would force drastic cutbacks in U.S. energy use, send energy bills skyrocketing, cost our economy up to $400 billion a year, and destroy tens of thousands of American jobs. The Fraser Institute of Vancouver says the climate treaty would cost every Canadian taxpayer $4,700 a year for the next 5 years.



Russia had sought guarantees that the European Union would compensate it - under a complicated "emissions trading" scheme - for agreeing to limit the nation's growth. None have been proffered, perhaps because economically stagnant Europe cannot afford the hefty price tag Russia will likely demand for giving up plans to double its gross domestic product by 2010.



All this raises the question: Why would any country want to shackle its economy to a bureaucracy whose goal is to regulate energy production and consumption, in the name of warding off a distant specter of climate change? This question is particularly relevant to countries like Russia, which seek economic growth and technological development, after having freed themselves from decades of totalitarian mismanagement.



But it is also relevant to the United States which, like Russia, must compete with China, India, Brazil and other emerging powerhouses that do NOT have to comply with Kyoto.



What's really going on here has nothing to do with the illusory problem of global warming, or the illusory solution of a Kyoto treaty. "This is about international relations," EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem has said. "This is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world." Kyoto, added French President Jacques Chirac, is "the first component of authentic global governance."



In other words, this is about resentment that the United States enjoys a competitive advantage because it does not impose punitive taxes that drive up energy prices for families and businesses. It is also about putting a massive EU and UN bureaucracy in control of our future.



That ought to send chills down anyone's spine.

I did not say that Okie, read (if you can) what I wrote climate change constitutes a change in the incidence and intensity of weather phenomena. If you cannot appreciate the difference of wilfully ignore it I cannot help you.

Mr Bernard, I will be glad to provide you with sources, which are abundant. Just give me a little time to look them up.

That's fine, sir. I would be happy to wait. I don't wish to direct your search but may I respectfully suggest that when you post a source, you give it in such a way that it can be checked.

If you refer back to my prolific posts on this thread, you will find that unlike Parados( who is just pathetic) I either gave a source=

eg. Science "Surface Temperatures 1900-2000" April 23, 2001 or

a link

www.http://science.temp/sci/temp/


I did not, of course respond to the mishmosh given by Plain Olo Me who is suffering under the delusion that all she has to do is to write-

eg. Dr. Stuffhead warns that we will all be cooked by 2050

That kind of allusion is useless if it has no reference so it can be checked.

I am almost certain that Plain Ol Me's level of understanding in Science is such that she probably would not be able to even copy facts correctly.

Well Mr R. I have looked through this entire thread and I think I will pass. I counted that you have posted 161 entries out of 635 in this thread (which means roughly one in four messages is yours). Out of those, 65 mention one or more sources, but 4 of those are not about the subject of global warming and climate change and 36 repeat an earlier source in part, or in its entirety, which leaves 25 messages that list new sources. So I guess this implies you cannot "accept" between 60% and 85% of your own messages.

Furthermore, I have noticed that you are not in this to create knowledge, but to create discord. You are patronising and arrogant to users who do not agree with you.

You have in the course of this thread already received many sources that demonstrate the existence of climate change and global warming, which is a fact accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. The disagreement is only about the details and the modelling, but that is normal in science. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many sources I cite to support the existence of climate change and global warming it won't make one iota difference in your comportment, it will only fuel your polemic nature.

I don't know about you, but I have a life outside of A2K. With a full time job, family and hobbies, I do not have the time or energy to spare to engage in a pointless back and forth debate with you.

Note that I do not concede any point here, I mere plead no contest because I cannot be bothered (and I kick myself, for actually having started compiling a list of scientific sources ).

Have a nice life, Mr. R.

Same difference, Paaskynen. I am fully aware of your argument, and the contentions of global warmers. If you insist, give me your very best link that has scientific proof of what you contend. By the way, where are all the hurricanes this year?

By the way, I've been around a while and have seen some pretty bad floods, tornados, you name it, decades ago. The global warmers will need alot more than anecdotal evidence to support their contention that the current warming cycle, if it is occurring, is responsible for a greater number of catastrophic weather phenomena.

By the way, Paaskynen, you write as a reasonable person, at least with the ability to reason. My background is science, and I am simply coming at this subject with a healthy dose of skepticism, which I have acquired from experience in the scientific field. I am naturally a skeptic, which reinforces that angle that I have adopted here in regard to global warming. I have simply observed much of what I would call "junk science," and now that global warming has entered the political world, I think this arena has too much politics for it to present itself in a balanced scientific manner. I am almost convinced that some warming in some parts of the globe is occurring, but I am also convinced it is probably due to several factors, not altogether man-caused at all, and I am also convinced that natural cycles are normal. The science on this subject is woefully inept and in its infancy, and many people with political axes to grind are jumping to some very rash, premature, and wrong conclusions in regard to global warming.

Mr. P. wrote:

You have in the course of this thread already received many sources that demonstrate the existence of climate change and global warming, which is a fact accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. The disagreement is only about the details and the modelling, but that is normal in science. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many sources I cite to support the existence of climate change and global warming it won't make one iota difference in your comportment, it will only fuel your polemic nature.

end of quote:

That, Mr.P. is something like my adversary said when I bloodied his nose in a fist fight.

I am sorry that you are retiring from the field, however, I will continue, and I am sure that Okie will also, in posting recent articles which show that the Global Warming Hysteria is almost completely groundless.

Good luck to you, Sir!!!!

Global warming is probably real, but humans have less than nothing to do with it. Stars like our sun simply go through hotter and colder periods and, in fact, global warming appears to be taking place on Mars and one or two other planets as well, on which humans do not live.

6000 - 8000 years ago by standard reckoning, there was an age called the hypsothermal or late holocene climate optimum which was much hotter than our own age and there was a so-called "mini ice age" in the 1600s, neither of which had anything to do with human activities any more than present climate changes do.