Slashdot Mirror
'Half' of 2012's Extreme Weather Impacted By Climate Change
sciencehabit writes "2012 was a year of extreme weather: Superstorm Sandy, drought and heat waves in the United States; record rainfall in the United Kingdom; unusually heavy rains in Kenya, Somalia, Japan, and Australia; drought in Spain; floods in China. One of the first questions asked in the wake of such extreme weather is: 'Could this due to climate change?' In a report (huge PDF) published online today, NOAA scientists tackled this question head-on. The overall message of the report: It varies. 'About half of the events reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor,' said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl. In addition, climate scientist Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office noted that these studies show that in many cases, human influence on climate has increased the risks associated with extreme events."
Here's some food for thought.
One of the biggest problems with the AGW proponents is that much of their basic data is inconclusive because of flawed measuring methodology. Do a bit of googling about the sea level measurements used to claim that sea level is rising.
Another problem is that the amount of CO2 produced by humanity is less than the margin of error of the measurement of how much CO2 the oceans produce. The amount we produce is laughably small compared to what the oceans produce. We're probably not as impactful on the global climate as we seem to think.
Another problem is that CO2 levels and temperature do not always rise in unison. Sometimes it is opposite than what one would expect for the greenhouse effect. And this is one of the fundamental arguments for AGW.
Another issue is that simple logic shows that we cannot scientifically know for certain what the climate was like thousands or millions of years ago, regardless of what kinds of ice core measurements you take, because it's not reproducible. The timescale is simply enormous, practically beyond human comprehension, even if we can run the numbers. Educated guesses are still guesses. What if they are wrong? What if we were to cripple ourselves economically by imposing unnecessary restrictions on ourselves? Think of all the suffering that would cause. How would history judge us then?
Another issue is the enormous complexity of the planetary systems. For example, we don't even know half of what's in the ocean. New species are discovered every day. In my opinion it's ludicrous to think that we puny humans can comprehend the complexity of this planet, its ecosystems and its climates, and that we could understand them well enough to know what the wisest course of action truly is. How arrogant are we? Historically, very.
Another issue is simple history. We've only been running machines for a few hundred years. The earth has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now, long, long before we were making a noticable amount of CO2 (which we may still not be doing). Simple logic applied to this fact indicates to me that we can't possibly know whether we are impacting the climates as much as we think, or whether the earth is simply going through natural cycles which we can hardly affect. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying it's very unwise to make drastic, forced changes upon humanity, because we don't truly know what we are talking about.
Finally, while this is political, it's also true: it's a simple fact that at least as far back as the 1970s, "global warming" and "climate change" were being actively promoted as "vehicles" to effect political policies, to manipulate entire populations. This doesn't affect whether AGW is actually happening, but any reasonable person must seriously consider the possibility that what we are seeing is less AGW and more political manipulation on a massive scale. A few minutes of googling will show that the "panels" that have put out "studies" about climate change have been strongly influenced by politics, have fudged numbers, ripped out facts before going public, used flawed methodologies--yet these are the same studies that so many AGW proponents point to as "consensus" and "settled fact" and "evidence."
The only fact that I'm absolutely sure of is that AGW and climate change are hugely political issues with massive corporations and organizations spending billions on both the pro and con sides trying to get their way by manipulating governments and gullible masses into foaming at the mouth and demanding action. No one is truly unbiased. You want the truth? Follow the money.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"Did you even notice that it was the tobacco companies that were the "organizations with an agenda" spreading misinformation in the media, in conflict with the science?"
I'm not going to be baited into this bullshit by you again. You have persistently implied baseless personal insults whenever you have "argued" with me, and it just isn't worth my time to bother with you.