Considering the drought conditions we are having for such a long time as indicated by crop yield decreases, and the ecomonic impact that the environmentalists and vote currying democrats have had for the last 12 years. Has anyone considered that deferred maintenance due to municipal declining economics could have any impact on the amount of flood devastation? I think it is just a cycle of planetary evolutionary process as part of a solar system cycle.
Global warming my fanning. if you have a brain and study the earth’s climate you will notice that the prior 20 years the earth core temp has only increase 1 – 2 degrees. The past 3 years the earth core temp is now DECREASING as it has done for millions of years. The two air masses – EL Nino and La Nina are now colliding which is cause a more active weather climate as it as done over over through the years. The Global warming alarmest’s have made millions off the earth’s natural climate changes. To think man made emmissions could change what has been happening for the past 100 years is just dumb.
I am not sure where any of you live, but I would assume it isn’t anywhere near the Midwest…
Posted By: Snatty
Looking back in recent history, Iowa has had major flooding approximately every fifteen years. And, this goes back to the early 1900’s before “global warming” was the buzz word of the media. Get real!”
1. I experienced both floods. The 93 and the 08 floods in Iowa City, Iowa. To say that these occur, “every 15 years or so” is ludicrous. Please cite your sources for that assertion and don’t assume you know anything about this area by watching FOX/CNN.
Posted By: chicken little
Just because someone thinks it, it doesn’t necessarily have any validity. Moreover, just because some so called expert says it, it doesn’t necessarily deserve to be aired, published or restated.
Most times random thoughts should stay in the Al Gore chicken little coop.
2. I don’t get the point of this post, but here goes. Do you go to a brain surgeon when you need surgery, or does the hospital janitor work fine as a stand – in? Do you call a lawn care service when you have a leaky pipe?? I think not. Please don’t assume you know more than the scientists in the particular fields which you are bashing. You obviously don’t.
3. We all know Al Gore is the singular cause of global warming. There I said it, can we move on now?
Posted By: Patriot
Who is this idiot, Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation…
If we had not encroached into the Might MISSISSIPI’S wet lands there would be no flooding..
I wonder how she got her degree? Must have known the professor, quite well I suspect…
4. Patriot – a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriot
I am sorry that you aren’t living up to your name. I hope someday will you someday love your country and its limited resources, help protect its current and future citizens, and support this countries future.
I think you are correct. We are seeing the results of layers of asphalt over the prairie land.
5. Have you been to Iowa? We kind of have a lot of cornfields
Posted By: Dirty Work
Could this PERHAPS have something to do with the unusual amount of winter precipitation we had? Funny they didn’t mention global warming when we had record snow which saturated the ground. Saturated ground led to flooding with spring rain. I don’t claim to be a genius or have any sort of degree in a science (other than actuarial science) but even I can put that together. But what do I know, I am just a claims adjuster, and everyone knows that claims adjusters are not rational!
6. Interesting ideas, Dirty Work. I imagine you don’t consider snow precipitation. Global warming will cause more relocation of water than is part of any natural cycle. If you remember, throughout the Midwest’s extremely heavy snow season, the southeast was having a major drought. I am sure you are a great claims adjuster. You should stick to what you know and let scientists explain phenomenon beyond our limited understanding.
Posted By: anon the mouse
Considering the drought conditions we are having for such a long time as indicated by crop yield decreases, and the ecomonic impact that the environmentalists and vote currying democrats have had for the last 12 years. Has anyone considered that deferred maintenance due to municipal declining economics could have any impact on the amount of flood devastation? I think it is just a cycle of planetary evolutionary process as part of a solar system cycle.
7. Please cite any of the words/phrases/sentences/ideas you just wrote. What do you mean by “deferred maintenance due to municipal ecomonic (sic) impact…” Please inform me of what specific (I assume Midwest) area you speak so eloquently about.
Who is this idiot, Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation…
If we had not encroached into the Might MISSISSIPI’S wet lands there would be no flooding..
I wonder how she got her degree? Must have known the professor, quite well I suspect…
Looking back in recent history, Iowa has had major flooding approximately every fifteen years. And, this goes back to the early 1900’s before “global warming” was the buzz word of the media. Get real!
I bet uncle Al just ordered the construction of a new wing on his mansion which will be paid for with the re-release of his movie with some new footage to include some flooding.
Amazing that these “scientists” and “statistitionists” can come up with such a serious – but utterly specious – reason for the floods, and using only 1993 to 2008, or 35 years, out of the millions of years of the history of this planet. Al Gore and environmentalists will pick up anything at all to try to prop up their failed theories. Too much freedom of irresponsible speech in the US.
Just because someone thinks it, it doesn’t necessarily have any validity. Moreover, just because some so called expert says it, it doesn’t necessarily deserve to be aired, published or restated.
Most times random thoughts should stay in the Al Gore chicken little coop.
Could this PERHAPS have something to do with the unusual amount of winter precipitation we had? Funny they didn’t mention global warming when we had record snow which saturated the ground. Saturated ground led to flooding with spring rain. I don’t claim to be a genius or have any sort of degree in a science (other than actuarial science) but even I can put that together. But what do I know, I am just a claims adjuster, and everyone knows that claims adjusters are not rational!
“Floods like those that inundated the U.S. Midwest are supposed to occur once every 500 years.”
What ingenious source is the above quote attributable to?
If it do not come from the Scriptures, then it is a compilation of speculative nothings by some self-appointed human “expert.” Definition of an EXPERT: “ex” is a has-been, and “spert” is a drip, under pressure.
Is the world wide web giving off too much heat and affecting the temperature of the earth? The earth is 1 degree cooler than was officially recorded 125 years ago. Get a real life, folks.
Why should I believe anything Brian wrote when he’s obviously not intelligent enough to use proper grammar, punctuation, spelling or typing ?
Fanning – did he mean Fanny ? if s/be cap.
s/be earth’s core temp (possessive), increased i/of increase, forgot the second dash after Nina to set apart that phrase,
I think he meant “alarmists” not “alarmest’s” just to note a few.
Brian you are the one who is, to quote your phrase “just dumb.”
It is a common misconception that the phrase “500-year flood” means a major flood is only supposed to happen once every 500 years. It actually means that it has a 1 in 500 chance of happening during ANY year.
What kind of conservationists don’t understand the terminology they use?
If you will look at the history of flooding in Iowa over the past 100 years, you will see that there has been major flooding in Iowa approximately fifteen years or so apart in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, etc. The Des Moines Register had a series of photos showing past floods in Iowa, and the occurrance was roughly every fifteen years. Yes, I have been in Iowa, and was in Cedar Rapids just before the flood. The area was still saturated from the record snowfall of the past winter and there was nowhere for the heavy rains to go, hence the floods. I guess you attribute the very cold, snowy winter to global warming?
Everything is a result of global warming. If the it rains more – Global Warming. If it rains less – Global Warming. If a cow farts – Global Warming. If it snows more – Global warming. If a tree falls in the woods – Global Warming. If a bear poops in the woods – Global Warming. GET THE PICTURE. We should all move into Alf Gore’s Mansion to conserve energy.
POST sponsored by Fox News LOL
Living in Iowa as I have all my life, I am having a hard time understanding this global warming theory. When I was a kid we had several days each year where the temperature exceeded 100 degrees. Now we barely spend much time above 90.
It must be difficult always being the smartest person in the room around us dumb hicks in the midwest, so I have a few questions I think you should be able to answer.
1) Since floods and droughts have always occurred, what is the exact number that is normal and what number above (or below) normal is attributable to Global Warming?
2) What is the optimum global temperature, and what year(s) did it occur? (I prefer 68F, but my wife likes 74F)
3) What is your carbon footprint? What should mine be? To help, I am 5’11” 190 lbs.
I look forward to your responses, your commrade, Vlad.
Rick, you said “The Yankees lost to the Red Sox last night due to global warming.”
Liar. It Was George Bush’s fault.
On this article and similar articles, why do they use the term 500 year flood when Christopher Columbus didn’t even discover America until 1492? That wasn’t even 500 years, so where do they get their statistics from. With only a small number of years to work with, they (the experts) will continue to exhibit how little they really know by spouting off what will happen in the future.
As far as building along waterways, we need water to survive. That would include farming. Waterways provide a means of transporting goods. Along the gulf coast, there is oil production, as important to us as water. I am not an expert, but I would suggest the good that comes from being near water far exceeds the bad.
Perhaps these 500-yr floods are really 50-yr floods. The science of flooding uses both probabilistic as well as historic information projected on today
s topography to determine flood elevations. This country does not have enough history for statistically significant information. The science of flooding is connected to the sciences of weather, geology, and hydraulics. Only those who are involved in these professions can give us a reasonably good answer to the connection between global warming and increased flooding. However, the fact is that warmer air globally does result in more moisture in the atmosphere. It is not a far fetched notion that this would set us up for more rainfall where cold air masses meet warm ones. The best solution – stay away from flood plains; lower greenhouse gases; and pray there’s enough time.
I UNDERSTAND AL’S HOME USES A GREAT AMOUNT OF ENERGY AND CONTRIBUTES TO GOREBAL WARMING, BUT OF COURSE HE IS ONLY DOING THIS TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT WE ARE ALL DOING WRONG—RIGHT?
I have never claimed to be the smartest person in any room, and am quite certain I usually am not. Thanks for the compliment, though.
1. I don’t believe this question can be answered in the absolute. Obviously, many things affect our cyclical weather patterns. I believe there is a proven direct correlation between increased carbon in the atmosphere and increased aggregate temperature increases in earth temperature. This happens when rays from the sun reflect off the earth and instead of a certain amount bouncing back into space, more are trapped based on the increased amount of carbon introduced by humans into the atmosphere. Carbon has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in roughly 150 years. This is an unprecedented increase and will have a ripple affect on areas that we can’t even imagine.
2. I agree that individual humans, animals, species, ecosystems, etc. all probably have specific temperatures that would suit them best individually. Unfortunately, it isn’t as simple as someone moving to a preferred climate or turning the air conditioner to a lower setting. A common misconception about global warming is that it will only cause average temperatures to rise. There are too many different areas that will be affected to list here, but without too much trouble I bet you can find a few on the www.
3.I pollute more than I should. I have been making as many changes as possible, including the following:
a.Riding my bike to work
b.Eating out less, (fast food extremely infrequently)
c.Buying more food produced and grown locally
d.Buying mostly organic vegetables
e.Replacing incandescent with compact fluorescent light bulbs
f.Trying to consume less in general
Vlad, a couple of questions for you…
1. Do you believe that humans were significantly impacting ozone, and have you changed your mind?
2. Do you mistrust or are you suspicious of any other sciences, or just ones you disagree with/ don’t believe.
3. What if you are wrong? Do you care about any future generations?
4. Please cite the three best sources that you can find that claim there is no evidence of human induced climate change.
I look forward to your response of my response, your friend, John.
John, it’s difficult to prove that this doesn’t exist since there is no actual proof it does exist. Computer simulations based on limited information do not give justification for crashing the world economy. I hate to insult your belief system, but your opinion on this is nothing but a belief, not fact. We all need to change how we treat the world and reduce the damage we do, I just don’t choose to swollow the whole package of the Church of Global Warming.
Don’t worry, Nobody Important. Your opinion doesn’t insult me or my belief system. I recognize that it is a difficult concept to swallow, and human arrogance, pride, ignorance and greed are extremely hard things to combat. In fact, contrary to your statements there is a mountain of evidence that global warming is occurring. I see you didn’t refute my 35% increase in carbon argument (higher than any other recorded time, including records pulled from ice samples)for one. I would be happy to post a few links for reference.
John,
I believe it is appropriate we are on an insurance blog as our business is to manage risk.
1) If my question cannot be answered in the absolute, then why is the global warming community giving me an absloute answer, ie. the reduction of CO2? CO2 emmissions have increased, however, as you indicated many factors determine the climate ie. water vapor, sunspots, volcanic eruptions, to name just a few. The arguement that reducing CO2 will bring the “earth into balance” is specious at best. CO2 is but one of many gases that can cause the greenhouse effect. The limited historical data suggests that CO2 increases AFTER a warming trend. This would suggest that an increase in CO2 is the result, NOT the cause of warming.
2) Hurricanes, floods and droughts have always been in existence. To say the changes to the climate are “too numerous” is not a logical argument. Mr. Gore making a movie showing Florida flood on a computer generated map is not good enough for me. The last significant temperature rise during mans existence was about 1500ad. During this time growing seasons were extended and the renaissance brought us out of the dark ages.
3) I prefer the market over the government. If you prefer flouresecent bulbs to incandescent, I really do not care. If Al Gore wants to fly around in a private jet, again, I really don’t care. However, I want both you and I to make our own choices, not the government. With gasoline at 4.00 a gallon, I beleive we are all conserving. What’s your thought on nuclear eneregy? Domestic drilling? Coal fired plants?
1) Yes, I beleive there was a time when our actions significantly affected the ozone layer. A minor change, the reduction of the emititng of chlorine (a very hazardous chemical) into the atmosphere eliminated the problem. Where is the hole now?
2) Since the last Cub World Series there have been amazing discoveries and inventions, not the least of which have happened in medicine. I love my blackjack phone, my car with its heated seats and gps. I am very suspicious of people like Green Peace, Peta, Code Pink and the rest of these liberal nut jobs. I am also suspicious of the United Nations. I want Americans deciding what is best for America.
3) Sorry John, I don’t like the argument, what if you are wrong. The cure (reduction of the use of fossil fuels) will do greater harm to our life style and economy. One recent number thrown out was 43,000,000,000,000. That would be the cost to implement the changes some in the “climate change” world want to spend. Sounds like a lot of money for a maybe.
4) Some scientists and their response:
Israel:
Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth’s climatic history. There’s nothing special about the recent rise!”
Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,”
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
For Mr. Gore to call the discussion over is arrogant. Let him debate any one of the above cited.
Thanks, for the opportunity to reply, your commrade, Vlad.
‘In a remarkable speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, Coleman was very serious about global warming as the consummate fraud. He began by saying that we should give credit where credit is due. There is, he said, an intrinsic connection between Al Gore’s campaign for global warming and $4 per gallon gasoline. “It comes down to . . . the claim that carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks of our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.”
“Here,” said Coleman, “is my rebuttal. There is no significant man-made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future.” Coleman went on to say that the climate of Earth is changing. It always has changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.”
…
“My mission,” Coleman ended, “in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this global warming silliness and let us all get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.”‘
John,
Please provide the source of the data that backs your statement “Carbon has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in roughly 150 years”. It is a little interesting to me that 150 years ago most people were still crapping outside and somehow we had the equipment to calculate 280 ppm.
Considering the drought conditions we are having for such a long time as indicated by crop yield decreases, and the ecomonic impact that the environmentalists and vote currying democrats have had for the last 12 years. Has anyone considered that deferred maintenance due to municipal declining economics could have any impact on the amount of flood devastation? I think it is just a cycle of planetary evolutionary process as part of a solar system cycle.
Global warming my fanning. if you have a brain and study the earth’s climate you will notice that the prior 20 years the earth core temp has only increase 1 – 2 degrees. The past 3 years the earth core temp is now DECREASING as it has done for millions of years. The two air masses – EL Nino and La Nina are now colliding which is cause a more active weather climate as it as done over over through the years. The Global warming alarmest’s have made millions off the earth’s natural climate changes. To think man made emmissions could change what has been happening for the past 100 years is just dumb.
Oh Jeez! Here we go again!
I am not sure where any of you live, but I would assume it isn’t anywhere near the Midwest…
Posted By: Snatty
Looking back in recent history, Iowa has had major flooding approximately every fifteen years. And, this goes back to the early 1900’s before “global warming” was the buzz word of the media. Get real!”
1. I experienced both floods. The 93 and the 08 floods in Iowa City, Iowa. To say that these occur, “every 15 years or so” is ludicrous. Please cite your sources for that assertion and don’t assume you know anything about this area by watching FOX/CNN.
Posted By: chicken little
Just because someone thinks it, it doesn’t necessarily have any validity. Moreover, just because some so called expert says it, it doesn’t necessarily deserve to be aired, published or restated.
Most times random thoughts should stay in the Al Gore chicken little coop.
2. I don’t get the point of this post, but here goes. Do you go to a brain surgeon when you need surgery, or does the hospital janitor work fine as a stand – in? Do you call a lawn care service when you have a leaky pipe?? I think not. Please don’t assume you know more than the scientists in the particular fields which you are bashing. You obviously don’t.
3. We all know Al Gore is the singular cause of global warming. There I said it, can we move on now?
Posted By: Patriot
Who is this idiot, Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation…
If we had not encroached into the Might MISSISSIPI’S wet lands there would be no flooding..
I wonder how she got her degree? Must have known the professor, quite well I suspect…
4. Patriot – a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriot
I am sorry that you aren’t living up to your name. I hope someday will you someday love your country and its limited resources, help protect its current and future citizens, and support this countries future.
I think you are correct. We are seeing the results of layers of asphalt over the prairie land.
5. Have you been to Iowa? We kind of have a lot of cornfields
Posted By: Dirty Work
Could this PERHAPS have something to do with the unusual amount of winter precipitation we had? Funny they didn’t mention global warming when we had record snow which saturated the ground. Saturated ground led to flooding with spring rain. I don’t claim to be a genius or have any sort of degree in a science (other than actuarial science) but even I can put that together. But what do I know, I am just a claims adjuster, and everyone knows that claims adjusters are not rational!
6. Interesting ideas, Dirty Work. I imagine you don’t consider snow precipitation. Global warming will cause more relocation of water than is part of any natural cycle. If you remember, throughout the Midwest’s extremely heavy snow season, the southeast was having a major drought. I am sure you are a great claims adjuster. You should stick to what you know and let scientists explain phenomenon beyond our limited understanding.
Posted By: anon the mouse
Considering the drought conditions we are having for such a long time as indicated by crop yield decreases, and the ecomonic impact that the environmentalists and vote currying democrats have had for the last 12 years. Has anyone considered that deferred maintenance due to municipal declining economics could have any impact on the amount of flood devastation? I think it is just a cycle of planetary evolutionary process as part of a solar system cycle.
7. Please cite any of the words/phrases/sentences/ideas you just wrote. What do you mean by “deferred maintenance due to municipal ecomonic (sic) impact…” Please inform me of what specific (I assume Midwest) area you speak so eloquently about.
Who is this idiot, Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation…
If we had not encroached into the Might MISSISSIPI’S wet lands there would be no flooding..
I wonder how she got her degree? Must have known the professor, quite well I suspect…
I think she is wanting to run for V.P. with Prsident Obama or have a chance to be Al Gore’s campaign manager.
I think you are correct. We are seeing the results of layers of asphalt over the prairie land.
Looking back in recent history, Iowa has had major flooding approximately every fifteen years. And, this goes back to the early 1900’s before “global warming” was the buzz word of the media. Get real!
I bet uncle Al just ordered the construction of a new wing on his mansion which will be paid for with the re-release of his movie with some new footage to include some flooding.
Amazing that these “scientists” and “statistitionists” can come up with such a serious – but utterly specious – reason for the floods, and using only 1993 to 2008, or 35 years, out of the millions of years of the history of this planet. Al Gore and environmentalists will pick up anything at all to try to prop up their failed theories. Too much freedom of irresponsible speech in the US.
Just because someone thinks it, it doesn’t necessarily have any validity. Moreover, just because some so called expert says it, it doesn’t necessarily deserve to be aired, published or restated.
Most times random thoughts should stay in the Al Gore chicken little coop.
Could this PERHAPS have something to do with the unusual amount of winter precipitation we had? Funny they didn’t mention global warming when we had record snow which saturated the ground. Saturated ground led to flooding with spring rain. I don’t claim to be a genius or have any sort of degree in a science (other than actuarial science) but even I can put that together. But what do I know, I am just a claims adjuster, and everyone knows that claims adjusters are not rational!
I’m surprised it took this long for a ‘global warming’ story to come out.
“Floods like those that inundated the U.S. Midwest are supposed to occur once every 500 years.”
What ingenious source is the above quote attributable to?
If it do not come from the Scriptures, then it is a compilation of speculative nothings by some self-appointed human “expert.” Definition of an EXPERT: “ex” is a has-been, and “spert” is a drip, under pressure.
Is the world wide web giving off too much heat and affecting the temperature of the earth? The earth is 1 degree cooler than was officially recorded 125 years ago. Get a real life, folks.
Why should I believe anything Brian wrote when he’s obviously not intelligent enough to use proper grammar, punctuation, spelling or typing ?
Fanning – did he mean Fanny ? if s/be cap.
s/be earth’s core temp (possessive), increased i/of increase, forgot the second dash after Nina to set apart that phrase,
I think he meant “alarmists” not “alarmest’s” just to note a few.
Brian you are the one who is, to quote your phrase “just dumb.”
Republicans
It is a common misconception that the phrase “500-year flood” means a major flood is only supposed to happen once every 500 years. It actually means that it has a 1 in 500 chance of happening during ANY year.
What kind of conservationists don’t understand the terminology they use?
The Yankees lost to the Red Sox last night due to global warming.
John:
If you will look at the history of flooding in Iowa over the past 100 years, you will see that there has been major flooding in Iowa approximately fifteen years or so apart in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, etc. The Des Moines Register had a series of photos showing past floods in Iowa, and the occurrance was roughly every fifteen years. Yes, I have been in Iowa, and was in Cedar Rapids just before the flood. The area was still saturated from the record snowfall of the past winter and there was nowhere for the heavy rains to go, hence the floods. I guess you attribute the very cold, snowy winter to global warming?
Everything is a result of global warming. If the it rains more – Global Warming. If it rains less – Global Warming. If a cow farts – Global Warming. If it snows more – Global warming. If a tree falls in the woods – Global Warming. If a bear poops in the woods – Global Warming. GET THE PICTURE. We should all move into Alf Gore’s Mansion to conserve energy.
POST sponsored by Fox News LOL
Living in Iowa as I have all my life, I am having a hard time understanding this global warming theory. When I was a kid we had several days each year where the temperature exceeded 100 degrees. Now we barely spend much time above 90.
It must be difficult always being the smartest person in the room around us dumb hicks in the midwest, so I have a few questions I think you should be able to answer.
1) Since floods and droughts have always occurred, what is the exact number that is normal and what number above (or below) normal is attributable to Global Warming?
2) What is the optimum global temperature, and what year(s) did it occur? (I prefer 68F, but my wife likes 74F)
3) What is your carbon footprint? What should mine be? To help, I am 5’11” 190 lbs.
I look forward to your responses, your commrade, Vlad.
Rick, you said “The Yankees lost to the Red Sox last night due to global warming.”
Liar. It Was George Bush’s fault.
On this article and similar articles, why do they use the term 500 year flood when Christopher Columbus didn’t even discover America until 1492? That wasn’t even 500 years, so where do they get their statistics from. With only a small number of years to work with, they (the experts) will continue to exhibit how little they really know by spouting off what will happen in the future.
As far as building along waterways, we need water to survive. That would include farming. Waterways provide a means of transporting goods. Along the gulf coast, there is oil production, as important to us as water. I am not an expert, but I would suggest the good that comes from being near water far exceeds the bad.
Perhaps these 500-yr floods are really 50-yr floods. The science of flooding uses both probabilistic as well as historic information projected on today
s topography to determine flood elevations. This country does not have enough history for statistically significant information. The science of flooding is connected to the sciences of weather, geology, and hydraulics. Only those who are involved in these professions can give us a reasonably good answer to the connection between global warming and increased flooding. However, the fact is that warmer air globally does result in more moisture in the atmosphere. It is not a far fetched notion that this would set us up for more rainfall where cold air masses meet warm ones. The best solution – stay away from flood plains; lower greenhouse gases; and pray there’s enough time.
I UNDERSTAND AL’S HOME USES A GREAT AMOUNT OF ENERGY AND CONTRIBUTES TO GOREBAL WARMING, BUT OF COURSE HE IS ONLY DOING THIS TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT WE ARE ALL DOING WRONG—RIGHT?
I have never claimed to be the smartest person in any room, and am quite certain I usually am not. Thanks for the compliment, though.
1. I don’t believe this question can be answered in the absolute. Obviously, many things affect our cyclical weather patterns. I believe there is a proven direct correlation between increased carbon in the atmosphere and increased aggregate temperature increases in earth temperature. This happens when rays from the sun reflect off the earth and instead of a certain amount bouncing back into space, more are trapped based on the increased amount of carbon introduced by humans into the atmosphere. Carbon has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in roughly 150 years. This is an unprecedented increase and will have a ripple affect on areas that we can’t even imagine.
2. I agree that individual humans, animals, species, ecosystems, etc. all probably have specific temperatures that would suit them best individually. Unfortunately, it isn’t as simple as someone moving to a preferred climate or turning the air conditioner to a lower setting. A common misconception about global warming is that it will only cause average temperatures to rise. There are too many different areas that will be affected to list here, but without too much trouble I bet you can find a few on the www.
3.I pollute more than I should. I have been making as many changes as possible, including the following:
a.Riding my bike to work
b.Eating out less, (fast food extremely infrequently)
c.Buying more food produced and grown locally
d.Buying mostly organic vegetables
e.Replacing incandescent with compact fluorescent light bulbs
f.Trying to consume less in general
Vlad, a couple of questions for you…
1. Do you believe that humans were significantly impacting ozone, and have you changed your mind?
2. Do you mistrust or are you suspicious of any other sciences, or just ones you disagree with/ don’t believe.
3. What if you are wrong? Do you care about any future generations?
4. Please cite the three best sources that you can find that claim there is no evidence of human induced climate change.
I look forward to your response of my response, your friend, John.
John, it’s difficult to prove that this doesn’t exist since there is no actual proof it does exist. Computer simulations based on limited information do not give justification for crashing the world economy. I hate to insult your belief system, but your opinion on this is nothing but a belief, not fact. We all need to change how we treat the world and reduce the damage we do, I just don’t choose to swollow the whole package of the Church of Global Warming.
As I await Vlad’s response…
Don’t worry, Nobody Important. Your opinion doesn’t insult me or my belief system. I recognize that it is a difficult concept to swallow, and human arrogance, pride, ignorance and greed are extremely hard things to combat. In fact, contrary to your statements there is a mountain of evidence that global warming is occurring. I see you didn’t refute my 35% increase in carbon argument (higher than any other recorded time, including records pulled from ice samples)for one. I would be happy to post a few links for reference.
Good luck…
Please post the links……
John,
I believe it is appropriate we are on an insurance blog as our business is to manage risk.
1) If my question cannot be answered in the absolute, then why is the global warming community giving me an absloute answer, ie. the reduction of CO2? CO2 emmissions have increased, however, as you indicated many factors determine the climate ie. water vapor, sunspots, volcanic eruptions, to name just a few. The arguement that reducing CO2 will bring the “earth into balance” is specious at best. CO2 is but one of many gases that can cause the greenhouse effect. The limited historical data suggests that CO2 increases AFTER a warming trend. This would suggest that an increase in CO2 is the result, NOT the cause of warming.
2) Hurricanes, floods and droughts have always been in existence. To say the changes to the climate are “too numerous” is not a logical argument. Mr. Gore making a movie showing Florida flood on a computer generated map is not good enough for me. The last significant temperature rise during mans existence was about 1500ad. During this time growing seasons were extended and the renaissance brought us out of the dark ages.
3) I prefer the market over the government. If you prefer flouresecent bulbs to incandescent, I really do not care. If Al Gore wants to fly around in a private jet, again, I really don’t care. However, I want both you and I to make our own choices, not the government. With gasoline at 4.00 a gallon, I beleive we are all conserving. What’s your thought on nuclear eneregy? Domestic drilling? Coal fired plants?
1) Yes, I beleive there was a time when our actions significantly affected the ozone layer. A minor change, the reduction of the emititng of chlorine (a very hazardous chemical) into the atmosphere eliminated the problem. Where is the hole now?
2) Since the last Cub World Series there have been amazing discoveries and inventions, not the least of which have happened in medicine. I love my blackjack phone, my car with its heated seats and gps. I am very suspicious of people like Green Peace, Peta, Code Pink and the rest of these liberal nut jobs. I am also suspicious of the United Nations. I want Americans deciding what is best for America.
3) Sorry John, I don’t like the argument, what if you are wrong. The cure (reduction of the use of fossil fuels) will do greater harm to our life style and economy. One recent number thrown out was 43,000,000,000,000. That would be the cost to implement the changes some in the “climate change” world want to spend. Sounds like a lot of money for a maybe.
4) Some scientists and their response:
Israel:
Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth’s climatic history. There’s nothing special about the recent rise!”
Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,”
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
For Mr. Gore to call the discussion over is arrogant. Let him debate any one of the above cited.
Thanks, for the opportunity to reply, your commrade, Vlad.
http://www.newsmax.com/weyrich/al_gore_global_warming/2008/07/10/111671.html
‘In a remarkable speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, Coleman was very serious about global warming as the consummate fraud. He began by saying that we should give credit where credit is due. There is, he said, an intrinsic connection between Al Gore’s campaign for global warming and $4 per gallon gasoline. “It comes down to . . . the claim that carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks of our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.”
“Here,” said Coleman, “is my rebuttal. There is no significant man-made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future.” Coleman went on to say that the climate of Earth is changing. It always has changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.”
…
“My mission,” Coleman ended, “in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this global warming silliness and let us all get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.”‘
John,
Please provide the source of the data that backs your statement “Carbon has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in roughly 150 years”. It is a little interesting to me that 150 years ago most people were still crapping outside and somehow we had the equipment to calculate 280 ppm.