19 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzHot summers usually kill people in Europe because you don't have enough air conditioning for the old folks. You think global warming made 2003 5-10 degrees C warmer than it should have been? Now, if environmentalists could prove that (i.e. not just claim it), they might have a case. One way you can do that is by telling me how hot it will be in Europe NEXT year.
Except the 30,000 people in Europe in 2003. And the people of New Orleans. But apart from them, you're absolutely right.
New Orleans was a victim of corrupt local politicians. Statistically, a category 5 would one day hit the city -- global warming or not. At that point, the dikes would give because they weren't built to handle it.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by spruce112358That's right, they used all of their federal money for fixing and maintaining the levies to lure the gambling interests to their city through tax abatements and graft. In effect, New Orleans would rather let the good times role than be friendly to business and work on mundane projects like levies, infrastructure and disaster planning. If you compare the decline of New Orleans to the rise of Houston (another city on the Gulf) over the last 100 or so years, and their responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, then the outcomes must be due to leadership: Houston works, New Orleans partys.
Hot summers usually kill people in Europe because you don't have enough air conditioning for the old folks. You think global warming made 2003 5-10 degrees C warmer than it should have been? Now, if environmentalists could prove that (i.e. not just claim it), they might have a case. One way you can do that is by telling me how hot it will be in Europe N ...[text shortened]... l warming or not. At that point, the dikes would give because they weren't built to handle it.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd how many winter deaths has it saved? (more people die of cold than heat.)
Except the 30,000 people in Europe in 2003. And the people of New Orleans. But apart from them, you're absolutely right.
The New Orleans disaster was caused by poor management not global warming. A huricane of that strength was expected to occur at some point even though global warming has increased the frequency.
If we are to deal with climate change from a scientific point of view then bad statistics and scare tactics are the wrong way to go about it. In the short term some people will benefit and some people will suffer as a result of climate change. Initially it will be change and not the heat that will do the most damage (colder could be just as harmfull). It is the long term that is worrying as we do not know what catastrophic effects it could cause.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeNot at all (to your edit). If there is no change in weather conditions (i.e. no long term alteration caused by climate change), then the year on year temperatures should fluctuate around the long term mean stochastically. If, as you say, there is year on year buffering effects, you would not get the stochasticity in the graphs that I presented earlier.
El Nino-Southern Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation are just some of the world's large-scale atmospheric systems that fluctuate over time-scales greater than one year.
Edit: to say that a year is independent from a previous year is to disregard the notion of 'climate', something which you acknowledge exists in your other posts.
Deary me, you people need some better maths tutors.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf the water in the Gulf of Mexico were less warm then Katerina would not have been a problem. It was only a cat 1 when it passed over Florida. Bad management is one part of it, I'll admit that, but the fact that the sea temperature was higher than normal also had an effect (i.e. upgrading the storm - remember 05 was the worst storm season on record, and the warmest year ever recorded, now think back to that EPICA graph I provided a link to - remember the correlations between CO2 conc and sea temp?).
And how many winter deaths has it saved? (more people die of cold than heat.)
The New Orleans disaster was caused by poor management not global warming. A huricane of that strength was expected to occur at some point even though global warming has increased the frequency.
If we are to deal with climate change from a scientific point of view then bad ...[text shortened]... It is the long term that is worrying as we do not know what catastrophic effects it could cause.
19 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf there is no change in weather conditions (i.e. no long term alteration caused by climate change), then the year on year temperatures should fluctuate around the long term mean stochastically.
No - there are processes that occur with periods greater than a year, as I mentioned in my previous post, so year to year temperatures are therefore not independent. In any case to pick a time period of a year is somewhat arbitrary. By that notion why don't you say one week's weather is not related to that of the previous, or even one hour is unrelated to the next? Would you say such a thing?
If, as you say, there is year on year buffering effects, you would not get the stochasticity in the graphs that I presented earlier.
Your graphs do not show true stochasticity, they show short period oscillations around longer term oscillations, consistent with atmospheric processes acting over periods greater than one year.
Deary me, you people need some better maths tutors.
Don't bother with the condescending remarks, especially when you present an argument full of holes.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeehttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/artwork/globalwarming/globaltempchange.gif
If there is no change in weather conditions (i.e. no long term alteration caused by climate change), then the year on year temperatures should fluctuate around the long term mean stochastically.
No - there [b]are processes that occur with periods greater than a year, as I mentioned in my previous post, so year to year temperatures are there ...[text shortened]... bother with the condescending remarks, especially when you present an argument full of holes.[/b]
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the year on year data in this graph is not stochastic (taking the long term global warming trend out).
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI'll tell you what. I was thinking about this over lunch. Let's say there is a 20% chance years are independant, okay? That still gives us a 800,000 - 1 chance of 23 consecutive years being warmer. Happy now?
If there is no change in weather conditions (i.e. no long term alteration caused by climate change), then the year on year temperatures should fluctuate around the long term mean stochastically.
No - there [b]are processes that occur with periods greater than a year, as I mentioned in my previous post, so year to year temperatures are there ...[text shortened]... bother with the condescending remarks, especially when you present an argument full of holes.[/b]
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by spruce112358out of recs. 🙁
Hot summers usually kill people in Europe because you don't have enough air conditioning for the old folks. You think global warming made 2003 5-10 degrees C warmer than it should have been? Now, if environmentalists could prove that (i.e. not just claim it), they might have a case. One way you can do that is by telling me how hot it will be in Europe N ...[text shortened]... l warming or not. At that point, the dikes would give because they weren't built to handle it.
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut that's just the point, you can't separate high frequency weather from low frequency processes just like you can't separate the atmosphere from the ocean - they are interlinked. You can quite clearly see this global warming linear trend is not the only frequency occuring with a period greater than a year also. In any case, like I said, the choice of a year is arbitrary - if you took frquencies with greater than a year out of your graph, sure you would get a stochastic-looking time series, but only because you are showing no other higher frequencies. What if you added monthly mean values on top? You'd get annual cycles appearing, which would again destroy the illusion of stochasticity.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/artwork/globalwarming/globaltempchange.gif
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the year on year data in this graph is not stochastic (taking the long term global warming trend out).
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhere did this 20% value come from? Is it a peer-reviewed scientific fact?
I'll tell you what. I was thinking about this over lunch. Let's say there is a 20% chance years are independant, okay? That still gives us a 800,000 - 1 chance of 23 consecutive years being warmer. Happy now?
Anyway it's irrelevant - your statistic is misleading (as other people on the thread have noted) for a simple reason. You are comparing all 23 years to a mean value taken from previous years. If the first few of those 23 years were generally warming, this changes the background mean. Therefore the chances of a following year jumping all the way back down to below the old mean are huge - your own graph shows an approximate maximum magnitude of 0.2C of change of global mean temperature from one year to the next. Therefore the chances of the temperature from 1990, for example, jumping all the way down to below the 0 level on your graph are negligible, not the 50:50 you originally proposed.
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by RagnorakHow about an update on Canadas position, regarding Kyoto? I dare you.
How can you declare something a waste of time when it has only been in operation for just about a year and a half.
Do you not think that if the first set of targets aren't met, and governments have to pay fines, that they'll instead invest in actually getting the problem solved.
Just one small experience I've had. I own a business and we've recently ...[text shortened]... .S), then it can be the stepping stone to the sustainable industries which we require.
D
As for the water, I am a big fan of user pays, water meters are a great way of making precisely that happen, a step towards privatisation or at least a privatised style system. Good for you Raggy.
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAh, the scatter gun approach. No bother that you call me a conservative. This shows I know what a Libertarian is...and you don't.
No no. Be honest, as a self-serving conservative you would never put in place practices which allow some measure of relief to be brought to the poorest and weakest members of society. You would never invest, communally (because, let's face it, neither individuals nor any but the biggest companies are able to have their own R&D departments), in develop ...[text shortened]... rrent account.
I think it just got a few degrees warmer again - must be that Global warming.
One of the things that seperates us (those that love liberty) and you lot (control freaks) is you have a low opinion of your fellow man and his ability to run his own life. He needs to be pushed, prodded, helped along or held back, controlled and regulated by????...you've got it...other people. These other people, who are they, naturally you see yourself as being one of them that knows best.
The number of truly poor, weak and helpless is very small, there are people with severe physical disabilities who lead ten times more productive lives then what you do. Again the low opinion shows through.
Then there's a lot of blather about what I wouldn't do, all water off the ducks back because you don't have a clue who I am or what volunteer work I do.
If you had any scientific integrity you'd at least set Raggy and Xanthos straight on how much CO2 in the atmosphere is really needed to be harmful (besides the global warming thing) to humans. You might like to mention that they're getting a good dose if they inhale as they're about to take a sip of soda. Maybe there's been a scientific study (government grant of course) on the amout of CO2 released from fizzy drinks?
20 Oct 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeD'oh - I didn't mean huge I meant very small.
Where did this 20% value come from? Is it a peer-reviewed scientific fact?
Anyway it's irrelevant - your statistic is misleading (as other people on the thread have noted) for a simple reason. You are comparing all 23 years to a mean value taken from previous years. If the first few of those 23 years were generally warming, this changes the background ...[text shortened]... down to below the 0 level on your graph are negligible, not the 50:50 you originally proposed.
20 Oct 06
In case you were napping:
Peat bogs helped start global warming 11,000 years ago: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=38507
Glaciers will stave off global warming:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-10/16/content_709364.htm
France's leading climatologist breaks rank with the Chicken Little crowd:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835