Slashdot Mirror
US Disaster Costs Shatter Records In 2017, the Third-Warmest Year On Record (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Major hurricanes and wildfires fueled a record year for costs related to natural disasters in the United States, according to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That report also said 2017 was the third-warmest year in 123 years of record keeping, behind only 2014 and 2012. Natural disasters in the United States cost more than $300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record of $214.8 billion set in 2005, NOAA said Monday. NOAA counted 1 drought event, 2 flooding events, 1 freeze event, 8 severe storm events, 3 tropical cyclone events, and 1 wildfire event during the year that bore losses exceeding $1 billion each. There were also 362 deaths. That would tie with 2011 for the largest number of such billion-dollar disasters, the agency said.
Why would anyone expect the cost of natural disasters to do anything but go up? The price of everything is going up, from real estate to building materials to labor. Every time there is damage the cost of repair will be greater, sometimes much greater. Every year is probably going to be the most expensive. To claim (or imply) we had larger disasters than ever before is simply false, we've had bigger hurricanes, and worse wildfires. Especially speaking of wildfires, THAT is due to Californias stupid policy on never doing controlled burns and the sky-high price of real estate there. Wildfires there are nothing but a man-made disaster, probably caused by "Raw Water" freaks smoking pot as they collect.
I also like how they casually imply the year being warm has strong ties to all the disasters - which include things like a freeze.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
comparing millions to billions... err ? :)
You actually don't know what a trend is, do you? And of course, despite that you're a super genius who is the first to think "should we enter solar output into our climate model". Despite your obvious lack of knowledge of statistics, my god, you must be so goddamned smart. You'd better right over to your nearest university, go kick in the door in the atmospheric studies department, throw them out and make it clear you expect a Nobel Prize for your brilliant, if utterly unfounded, insights.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why would anyone expect the cost of natural disasters to do anything but go up? The price of everything is going up, from real estate to building materials to labor. Every time there is damage the cost of repair will be greater, sometimes much greater. Every year is probably going to be the most expensive. To claim (or imply) we had larger disasters than ever before is simply false, we've had bigger hurricanes, and worse wildfires. Especially speaking of wildfires, THAT is due to Californias stupid policy on never doing controlled burns and the sky-high price of real estate there. Wildfires there are nothing but a man-made disaster, probably caused by "Raw Water" freaks smoking pot as they collect.
I also like how they casually imply the year being warm has strong ties to all the disasters - which include things like a freeze.
I'm not quite sure of your premise, one thing about natural disasters is that we get to learn from them.
For example, the Loma Prieta earthquake (California 6.9, 1989), worth $5.6 in damages, caused changes in building codes to make the buildings more tolerant of earthquakes. There have been further earthquakes of roughly the same magnitude, with much less damage. It's not completely comperable, the 1994 Northridge earthquake caused more damage, because earthquakes happen at different places and magnitudes.
The New Orleans Levee breaches that caused all the flooding: OK, we should have seen that coming, but have we fixed the problems there? Would another hurricane cause as much damage?
And there are near disasters that cause us to harden our defenses. The recent Oroville Dam crisis in California is getting fixed to better withstand seasonally unusual conditions, and no one wants to build nuclear reactors after Fukishima.
Historically speaking, I'm not entirely sure that the costs of disasters should keep going up.
Disasters tend to have happened before, and people tend to make plans.
I'm archiving this to use against the liars that published it in the future.
Editors?
As we all know, weather (or seasons) is/are not climate. You can't say any one particularly bad freeze is really due to climate change, because the possibility of a bad freeze was always there and as I noted, there have been worse instances in the past of all of the disasters we have seen this year.
Yes climate change could theoretically cause larger variations but the freeze this year is an example of weather, not climate, in action - as any ONE event would be, since one evert does not a trend make. Over time we can see, are things occurring more frequently? Are they truly worse than average? Then maybe we can point to climactic change being at issue, but we certainly do not have data points like that yet for freezes (or really any other large scale disasters, since recent years before the last one have been quiet for hurricanes).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sure the world's climate scientists have missed solar cycles entirely. Thank God some slashdotter is here to lay out the real truth.
These false reports are a product of Soros, Hillary, Obama, and leftist globalists who seek a one world government. It will be a world without rights. It will be a world where big brother watches your every move. What you eat, what you watch, what you think will be monitored for "correctness".
Independent thought will be forbidden, and punished under penalty of death. It is a world governed by elites behind the walls of their gated enclaves. Everything will be rationed, and your share will be based upon you compliance with their directives.
Fact: there is no global warming. It is THE BIG LIE. It is a product of Joseph Goebbels and his spiritual descendants among the leftist elite. Don't buy what they are peddling. Use your common sense and ask Cui bono?. Not the little guy. Only the privileged. Only the elite.
No,I understand it all quite well. Including the part about what noise, unmodeled physics, overfitting, and false confidence are. You, dear friend, don't seem to understand the difference between extrapolation, prior estimates, and posterior analysis, for one thing.
Holy fucken shit, no climate scientists ever in the history of the world has ever thought of "solar cycles" impacting climate change!
Motherfucker, you're the smartest person on the planet!
Oh wait, no, a few seconds in Google proves you're a moron, here's the first link I clicked on:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...
and here's the second link:
https://www.scientificamerican...
you may continue to keep clicking on the list, just Google "do solar cycles cause climate change".
Talk to an Australian. They hit just over 40 degrees last weekend... That's 40+ degrees Celsius BTW.
I know, I know, you have no idea what that means, your backyard is cold, therefore it's cold everywhere in the world.
yay for feeding the trolls! ... quick reply to his next post too!
Well then, you can show your publication history. Clearly you possess the killing critique of climatology, so go on, where have you published? I mean, you wouldn't just be lying and aping some denier site you frequent? You actually can personally demonstrate your capacity to critique and falsify AGW modeling, right?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That still doesn't give the whole picture because areas affected most by disasters (generally the coasts) have prices that go up way faster than inflation, AND a lot more construction over time to boot. Just think of how many multi-million dollar homes burnt down in the CA wildfires alone, that greatly affects the damage total compared to flooding a lot of $100-300k homes in Houston.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hot in Australia. In Summer. 40 degree summer days is hardly new.
That's why we had a 47.3C day in a Sydney suburb just a few days ago. That's 117F. It was new for Sydney.
Yes he does. He deceives on purpose.
And not just million dollar homes, but also vineyards and their buildings. Worth much more than a neighborhood in Kansas destroyed by a tornado.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The side story here is that the government is banned by Trump from considering climate change in disaster planning.... So they do it anyway and call it weather planning.
Their duty is to protect USA from disaster so they side with the majority of Americans and continue to do their jobs professionally.... But then do does Trumps golf course manager who built the floodwall. Trump does his tweeting. They do their management and he whines about how they don't follow his brain farts.
A month ago 2017 was the hottest year on record
https://futurism.com/2017-set-hottest-year-recorded-history/
A week ago 2017 was the 2nd hottest year on record
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/2017-was-second-hottest-year-on-record-after-sizzling-2016-report-idUSKBN1ET1JF
Now it's third. In the near future, it will undoubtedly drop to 4th with no fanfare or press.
GLOBAL WOOOOOOOOORMING STRIKES AGAIN
You're a moron.
Yes, comrade - let us open up the Northwest Passage to shipping from Russia by flooding all American coastal cities.
We will drown them in their own retardation for a great Russian Empire!
Engage the internet yokels to demonstrate their retardation on a variety of subjects comrade!
$214.8B in 2005 is only around $270 in 2017, depending on which month you look at. But it ended up being $300B (I presume they had a units error in TFA) which exceeds inflation.
Are there more houses in affected areas now than there were in 2009? If the answer is yes, why are you factoring in only inflation for houses that existed that whole time, instead of adding in the additional value of the extra structures built, along with the much greater than average increase in home cost in most of the affected regions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... cost more than $300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record ...
Yes but you are ignoring the savings! Don't forget that we completely ignored the devastation in Puerto Rico, thereby saving at least 100 million. As long as we can ignore the discomfort of certain classes of citizens we can manage costs effectively.
...omphaloskepsis often...
1 single volcano puts off more carbon monoxide that all the cars ever built. Yet we are still alive.
Grow up people, global warming is a giant lie.
Hey you dumb fuck carbon monoxide is not the gas at issue with the known and recorded atmospheric gas imbalance. The higher levels of CO2 created by recent human activity are causing a rapid average global atmospheric warming. To deny the science and the evidence that every reputable scientist in the field is reporting is also becoming a rather stupid platform. Anyone who claims that carbon monoxide is the problem here is a complete absolute ignorant idiot. The same as the idiots who claim that atmospheric warming does not cause weather anomalies, or about as logical as the tired old saw used by some shills posting here that "AGW does not equal weather".
More extreme weather events on average created by AGW is a sound hypothesis. And indeed we are seeing the increase in global atmospheric CO2 cause increased average temperatures and changes to the jet stream that cause more extreme anomalous weather events. Areas are becoming dryer and hotter and soon some areas adjacent to deserts that are currently inhabited may become uninhabitable. Areas of India and Southern Europe are starting to see more extreme heat events that kill. All of these things have been predicted and are being proved true.
In Canada we have seen a direct correlation between the pine beetle forest die off in British Columbia and the statistically recorded increases in average winter and summer temperatures in the pine beetles range. To deny the evidence of the destruction being caused by human caused climate change is idiotic and at worst a deliberate attempt by morons in the petro chemical industry and their shills in Washington to deflect the blame away from the causes!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
So here's some ching chong porn to straighten things up. </thread>
If this is the third warmest on record then it's getting cooler? Must be.
Of course claiming that having the third warmest on record does not mean it is getting cooler, any more than saying that greater costs from storms and wildfires proves it is getting warmer.
Want to know what would convince me that the world is in fact getting warmer? Or, more accurately, that the powers that be are convinced global warming is more than just a theory? I'd be convinced of this being a real deal if the powers that be started to act like this was a problem.
Instead of flying everywhere to meet then maybe the people in government might figure out ways to make phone calls and such to discuss issues. Maybe they don't need to take so many vacations, or appear in person on late night television. I can hear it now, "But Trump does it too!" Yes, indeed he does. The difference is that Trump isn't telling me that I can't do it too. We need leadership by example.
Also on leadership I'd like to see some action where regulations are keeping the market from reducing CO2 output on their own. Not drilling for oil and natural gas in the USA only means burning more fuel oil on ships and trains to import it. Natural gas produces half the CO2 as coal for the same energy. Drill, baby, drill!! That's not just generally good advice but it's also how we are going to reduce our carbon output almost overnight.
In the near term we'd need to see more safe, low cost, reliable, plentiful, and "green" energy. I'm sure most of you now know what I'm talking about. Nuclear power. We should be building a new nuclear power reactor every month in the USA to replace the (supposedly) old and unsafe nuclear power plants as well as the old coal plants. If the government wants to convince me I need to change my ways then they need to lead by example and change their ways. Build nuclear power plants or I'm calling this all bullshit. Not just one or two in a decade. We need 100 new nuclear power plants in a decade. There are 100 (at my last count) operating nuclear power plants in the USA and all of but a handful are operating well beyond their intended lifespan. After we build 100 new plants to replace the old then we need 100 more to replace the coal plants. Then 100 more to replace the natural gas plants. After that we'll need 100 more to replace the now old nuclear power plants from when we started and to account for growth.
We'll never really be done building nuclear power plants because they wear out. Well, the ones we built decades ago are worn out and we stopped building them. We need to start again, and build them at a rate of 10 or 12 per year like we did then. If we don't build nuclear power at this rate then, in my mind, the government is telling me that man made global warming is bullshit.
Global warming must be bullshit because the government is not allowing the building of nuclear power at the rate we need to stop it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
2005's $214.8BN is in line with 2017's $313.89BN. So without the exact number this may mean an overall tie. As for a percentage of GDP, this was 1.6% in 2005. If 2016 numbers are used, $314.89BN is almost fully 2%. This means that while it roughly is following inflation, it is outstripping GDP growth. This also means that inflation is outstripping GDP growth, which itself is very interesting.
It's probably more that the amount of building going on means more fire suppression in lots of areas that are close to houses, so vegetation amasses that would have been otherwise been culled by small natural burns... but I also think California is less prone to support burn offs because it "harms vegetation" and of course the smoke is un-asthetic. They basically need to be planning a lot more controlled burn-off in risky areas and just are not doing so.
It definitely is done in other areas, as you mention, and is really important if you want to avoid firestorms that reduce whole neighborhoods to ash.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
suck my DAMN balls
That's 117F. It was new for Sydney.
It was not new for Sydney.
They "forgot" about records for an older weather station. Would go against the message after all.
It is the highest since *1939*. But that means it was that hot almost a hundred years ago...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Basically, if it's something that tosses a wrench in the climate change narrative? It's WEATHER baby!
If it's something that can be spun to support the climate change narrative? See! That's CLIMATE CHANGE!
And I wish they'd just stop with the fucking screaming about climate change.
So far, their ONLY "solution" is austerity. Which, quite simply, is not conducive to the US maintaining cultural and economic hegemony.
I mean, if we want to cede the planet's cultural future to COMMUNIST CHINA because we're busy moving back into caves due to lack of power, it's AWESOME!
Sorry, but solar and battery STILL doesn't have energy density of fossil fuels or nuclear.
And the NIMBYs don't want us to mine the stuff OURSELVES. So we're totally reliant on Chinese industry, because they haven't given a shit about wrecking their environment.
Well, China's SLOWLY ramping that stuff down and jacking prices up, having captured the market for renewables almost completely.
So, in the long run, relying on renewables FUCKS THE US OVER.
Additionally, China is involved with surveying for fossil fuels in Asia, Africa and South America. Where as the scream-squad would have us just turn off the fossil fuel tap YESTERDAY.
So, until the global warming scream-squad is ready to get REAL about implementing an ENGINEERING SOLUTION with GLOBAL COOPERATION, the US acting alone, or even with the various pointless "climate summits" accomplishes NOTHING on a global scale..
In short, WAKE THE FUCK UP.
If you look at the costs versus GDP, they are actually declining...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
40C in a desert really isn't uncommon. And most of Australia *is* classified as a desert, or highland tropical along the coast. AKA they get really hot, and sometimes really hot and humid. On the other hand it was -49C where my sister lives. That area is considered humid continental. It only hit -29C where I live, in the same classification zone, we've also had summers where the temperature hit 39C, then the humidity was added on top of that making it feel more like that was a humidex of 60C(150F). Seriously, don't live near the great lakes or you too can experience those extremes of weather.
Om, nomnomnom...
Puerto Rico was devastated yes, and much of the country is even now without power.
But only 64 people died. And in return an ancient electrical grid that would have had massive failures in the next few decades, is being rebuilt from disaster funds, which will last them generations more than the old system would have.
A lot of other infrastructure look roads will also be rebuilt. In just two or three years tourism there should be on a major upswing with so many new facilities and infrastructure.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Doesn't Soros pay you enough to find more creative insults?
What makes you climate change religious fundies so damned petulant?
Can you try to appreciate how it makes you look like raving fools, and thereby undermines your argument?
While I watch as about a foot of global warming slowly melts after the second longest deep freeze on record slowly lifts, I will also point out that if last year was colder than. 2012 and 2014, an equally valid guess is that those two years were a peak.
Well, when you a better strategy than randomly guessing the outcomes of climate change, maybe let us know. Until then, we'll look to people who can actually produce evidence.
Wait a few more decades for a few more solar cycles to elapse and then you can do some dispassionate analysis.
Thanks for the offer, but I don't think I will.
Your assertion, to put it plainly, is that solar cycles, changing in the way it always has, is now magically (because of fairies?) causing the troposphere and ocean and land surface to warm, but not the upper atmosphere, which for magical reasons (fairies?) is cooling, and meanwhile the warming that should result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere (per Arrhenius et al) is magically being dispersed by fairies.
Is there a way to test for these fairies? Oh right, magic.
Strangely enough, it's from the humanities that we can take a lesson here: the historians have understood for quite a while that anything more recent than a few decades ago cannot be evaluated objectively.
Sure. Quantum mechanics and the Laws of Thermodynamics don't exist: because humanities.
I didn't know $300 million was more than $213 billion! You learn something new everyday!
The only reason why 2017 was notable is that hurricanes decided that the best places to mow down were wealthy US cities. Worldwide costs were up, disasters and deaths were down.
http://www.iflscience.com/envi...
Why would you compare them against GDP? GDP has nothing to do with the actual normative price of recovery services.
No right wing faggot, you are uneducated and your attempts to paint yourself otherwise are failing here before our eyes.
Hey, I just wanted to say now. Give up. I do not mean this to be on the side of climate change deniers. I say this because I've attempted to do what you do, use reason and logic with people. We cannot rely on our fellows for assistance, look around at slashdot alone, we swim in an ocean of ignorance. I would not trust most of these fools to properly fry an egg let alone trust their decision making when it comes to important global affairs requiring courage and action. After all these are the same people who rail against things like javascript even though it is enhancing us unimaginably by enhancing the web.
You must harness what you know and take action individually.
I would advise to cease arguing, and purchase a solar panel at canadian tire, a marine craft battery, a charge limiter, and a DC/AC electrical converter. This would be only the beginning, hydroponic gardens also come into play along with a wind turbine.
Personally I have the hydroponics up and going (cost about 120$ to set the whole thing up, honestly fairly affordable don't know why more people do not do it). Still pondering renewable energy but ultimately I need to learn more as I would like to create a switch to flip the main power between grid and my own battery farm which I know is considered illegal and dangerous.
True north strong and free forever
Evolution?
Uh...if you do not believe in evolution, that is FANTASTIC. I've got some uh 'holy' water to sell you, I pinky swear it isn't tap water, our majestic imaginary sky friend blessed it, I swear.
I can also sell you these sticks, jesus used them to fight off dinosaurs!
I have a hard time believing evolution deniers exist, you have got to be some kind of troll or something. It is 2017, we see mutation constantly, we in fact now create mutations as a matter of business. Did you time travel here from 1910? Do moving motion pictures give you the vapors? I bet you think your router is giving you brain damage as well, and that shots cause autism.
What I really want for christmas, is a cure for stupid. There has to be a way to wipe you jesus freaks off the map so the rest of humanity can progress into the future. In the mean time, I'll keep bilking you morons for ever penny, it does more in my pocket than yours, trust me, have faith :)
Why the rant about CO2? I said nothing about CO2. Why even bring it up in a discussion about weather vs climate? It's un-related. Talk about "do you even science" - do you even read?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Jesus freaks love confrontation. It's the lack of sex and masturbation, makes them all itchy to get their bitch on. Also watching the rest of the world live happy normal well adjusted lives just pisses them off to no end.
I think it's the frontal lobes causing the problem, they cannot bring reality in line with belief because the belief is wrong/flawed. This sets up a sort of feedback loop resulting in crazy brain. Next thing you know their protesting soldiers funerals, running people over in charlottesville, and trying to destroy net neutrality. It is an attempt at destroying reality itself because they have crazy brain.
Your post is absolutely infuriating for its lack of empathy. I hope that you are not representative of the majority, or even a large number, or Americans
CPI adjusted does not take into account many of the factors that I listed, and especially not the fact there are MANY MORE properties than there were in 2005. Also CPI-adjusted is a figure that covers the entire country, (or maybe an entire city, depending on how they adjusted) not specifically the neighborhoods most affected (rich coastal areas) which saw far higher increases in value than the average increase in CPI (even for a given city).
Read other responses as to why CPI is also not a good barometer, but even if you thought it was you should have known it was not an accurate statement after thinking through the statement carefully.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go and download CESM. You can then see the things you claim aren't modelled are, in fact, modelled. If you can improve on the areas that are parameterized, they'd love to hear from you.
I like the connection by implication of high disaster costs and warming. Not misleading at all - as if "disaster costs" were a metric with any validity whatsoever (and not utterly variable based on fundamental inflation, as well as constantly-inflating seashore property increases, as well as development of land that pushes ever-further into floodplains, marshes, etc.).
Ask yourself: the last time someone used such blatantly misleading 'statistics' to explain something, were they scientists, or snake-oil salesmen?
-Styopa
Popcorn time!
And before anyone gets their moral outrage panties in a knot, let's be honest here: The amount of hot air in this thread alone is good for another degree or two warming. From both sides. I don't even want to know how many global warming proponents here get irate over the ignorance of the deniers while at the same time burning kilowatts mining bitcoins.
Talking here won't change jack shit. Mostly because there are exactly three groups in here: Those that are convinced that global change is a fact and there is nothing to convince them otherwise, those that are convinced global change is a myth, out to get their SUVs, and nothing would convince them otherwise and the increasing number of people, like me, who just don't give a fuck because it's not going to happen during their lifetime that this planet will become uninhabitable, who don't have kids and who simply can't be assed to care about yours anymore.
If you don't want this planet to be hospitable to human life when it's your kids' time to clean up the shit you leave them, why the hell should I care?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And in 1939 Sydney had a 47.8C day when the planet was in theory 0.8ish degC colder than now. Extreme weather happens, and urban heat Island in a city that has grown to 5 million with most homes having air conditioning is a big thing.
Global warming is a myth, a very stable genius told me so.
--
Trump 2020
And TRUMP goes the hurricane.
Illegal immigrants set multiple simultaneous brush fires on Columbus Day to protest racist white people, and the left blames Donald Trump for the global warming that allowing the fires to get out of control.
Sometimes you just can't win. No matter what Donald Trump does they are going to call him racist. So might as well round up all the illegals and protect the national borders.
Every person that dies in a weather or fire related incident will be blamed on Donald Trump. So fuck it. Let's start heating the white house with old tires. That's recycling of a sort. Right?
Or it could mean that we need to stop reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so we can cool down the planet. That way white people will once again be able to out compete those silly less cold adapted brown and black people that are currently responsible for most human kinds population growth.
Whenever you want to enslave a peoples you give them a hand out or do something to help them. By the left's fixation on CO2, it is really just a back door way of ensuring the white race survives. Pretty clever if I might say so myself. It is even more clever than keeping poor people subservient to rich land lords through the process of section 8 housing, or the affordable care act that benefits billion dollar insurance companies, or guaranteed student loans, that ensure college faculty earns half a million dollar salaries providing a poor education to people who should be attending a technical school instead of college.
Democrats really are smarter than Republicans. They are much much better at making money at the expense of a dwindling middle class.
So prehistoric evidence of much higher temperatures with much lower CO2, and much lower temperatures with higher CO2, aren't "on record"? What a joke. Nobody believes this nonsense any more. The sky is not falling in. There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
...and that's why hurricanes and tornadoes and whatnot cause more damage than they used to. More "stuff" combined with a dollar not going as far, what else does one think is going to happen?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
No, he's simply representative of the majority of Republicans.
The climate models correct for the heat island effect. There is a method of guessing what the correction should be. Since the climate model is non-linear, this correction isn't very critical?
And if you read the article and looked at the data, it would be clear that $300B was spent above and beyond the norm during Republican administrations dealing with hurricanes in 2005 and 2017.
Given the poor response to Katrina, and the issues re-establishing power in Puerto Rico I wonder where the money really went?
It is bizarre how often "non-linear" is used in this thread, and for how many reasons. Is your model based on fantasies? It doesn't matter, the model is non-linear, so inaccurate corrections don't matter! Pump more energy into the system, and non-linearity makes it behave more chaotically! (Hint: Non-linear and chaotic are different concepts.) Non-linearity makes people get confused about short-term high-frequency responses versus long-term low-frequency responses, and then picks their pockets!
Natural disasters in the United States cost more than $300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record of $214.8 billion set in 2005, NOAA said Monday.
300,000,000 compared to 214,800,000,000?
I guess the USD is just as bad as bitcoin.
Fuck off asshole. You're just repeating the same fucking lies - you actually have zero evidence for any of your claims and you are no expert anyway.
In canada we just had -24 C in December.
Global warming my ass. I've never heard of that happening before.
Most days around the Great Lakes the temps range from -10C to +30C and are perfectly comfortable in the right gear.
On those relatively rare days below -10C or above +30C we generally just stay inside.
$300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record of $214.8 billion
That's ... um... editor asleep at the job much?
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Its my understanding that the massive amount of hurricanes this past year was due more to El Nino failing to form, whose wind shear normally acts as a counter to the fragile center of cyclones as they attempt to spin up. There has been no tie established between El Nino failing to form and global warming. As far as expenses related to forest fires, one reader has already pointed out that it took place in practically the most expensive real estate on the continent, outstripping Gatlinburg from the previous fire. Its highly doubtful the california fire was tied to global warming, that place was in a drought when I was stationed there in the 80s. Hence why those Oakland Hills fires were so hard to deal with in 1992. Honestly, I am really surprised that forest fires have not become a means of mass destruction by ISIS. The damage caused by some well placed and timed gasoline and matches outpaces hijacking 4 planes or using an exploding bomb vest and there is very little that can be done to defend against it. Combine a solid 4-6 weeks of drought with some march or october winds and you've got a forest fire that will rage for a good long while.
You whined about the cost of doing anything abut AGW because profits and ideology, and now you're terrified of being answered with evidence why it mattered.
The population of the earth has literally doubled in 40 years. I know that was before you were born, but a lot of these 'records' (casualties, music sales, revenues, etc.) were set when the population was much, much smaller, and we are just seeing the effect of volume. Want to make a difference? Don't have more children than can replace you and your partner. Lower fertility = less strife across the board for *everyone*. Catastrophes and diseases are no more or less catastrophic than they've ever been, WE are the x factor. Believe it or not, also before you were born, we very publicly and earnestly discussed zero population growth globally and it's time we did again.
Another pro nuke shill who fell for the propaganda.. Nuclear power has plenty of real problems especially the privately managed companies; that aside, there are bigger issues you shills do not like to address:
1) Nuclear power is EXPENSIVE; Fuel may be extremely dense but it's limited in quantity and running out; at previous growth levels worldwide, it would be a far bigger problem today if we had been building out at the rate we used to. The USA imports the stuff; the USA used to be the Saudi Arabia for uranium. Peak fuel happened before oil's peak.
2) Solar has been cheaper than Nuclear for a decade. not subsidized - hard to say because I have a hard time finding the extent of all the massive subsidizes nuclear gets. Wind has also surpassed nuclear. Every measure gave solar the lead a few years ago, consensus on wind is around the corner.
3) BUILDING nuclear is very SLOW. it needs to be slow; it has high risks... but building new anything from scratch is slow... it takes years just to put up a small scale solar farm or wind because of permits etc. From plan to finish nuclear takes at least 10 years. ALSO, it's really EXPENSIVE to build... payback on investment almost never happened without massive subsidizes and wavers.
4) Insurance can't even be bought; government subsidizes that. Private insurance won't touch it.
5) Coal is cheaper. Natural Gas is killing Coal (and cheap mountain top removal is killing coal jobs.automation has hardly started.) Plants can be built quickly for either. Biogas and trash burning also can be built cheaper and quicker. Upkeep for all 4 kinds is cheaper too... and can buy private insurance.
6) nuclear can't do baseline power. it is the slowest of all to ramp up & down. Batteries are probably cheaper already (you don't need anywhere near as much backup power as people think... depends on the grid design...which needs a redesign anyway.)
7) next generation nuclear is only 5 years away! it solves all the problems! I've heard this for 20 years. Prove it... then take 10 years just to get reasonable production capacity and costs ready and still probably take 5 years to build each one... Bet if you did it tomorrow, it'll take 15 before they are popping up all over. I'm being generous with time. By then wind/solar/battery will be going faster and cheaper than today with some grid changes beginning.
8) Solar / Wind lobby. A much more decentralized industry, it will still mature into a reasonably sized lobby group and finally provide some balance to the fight; by the time you finish your 1st nuclear plant 10 years from today they'll be screwing you out of your necessary subsidies. The 2 plants started about 8 years ago are arguably failures already and proof to anybody serious about trying that again in the USA.. Not to say that some countries couldn't pull off completing new ones in 5-10 years that are worth the cost... but the odds of that are diminishing.
Get a hand cranked, solar powered radio/flashlight/iPhone charger for when the Earth goes sideways..
What if you compared them to the value of the $US which fell 7% over the year? What currency did those figures use? How were they adjusted for every country (remember you are comparing global GDP and global disasters.) Does the US dollar decline make 2017 cheaper for disasters, or all the other countries disasters more expensive. Or was it too hard and they didn't bother to think about it.
Your meaningless data is only useful for deniers like you to point at and try to sound smart. Guess what, it isn't working.
Better economies mean more spending. That includes more spending on housing and infrastructure, which means there's more to replace later on when a storm destroys it all.
They threw out the first 10 years of data from their source so they could get the answer deniers like you are looking for.
Yes it does change things, the trend is reversed and disasters are getting more expensive. Even if you stupidly compare them with GDP for some strange reason.
They threw out the first 10 years of data from their source so they could get the answer deniers like you are looking for.
No, disasters are getting more expensive.
Just destroy all forests in California, so nothing is left that can burn, then climate change has been stopped! Article is claiming forest fires is the problem right?
No you dumb zealot. I'm telling you that you're looking at noise and drawing conclusions from it.
More than 1000 deaths from that.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Or, you know, just enjoy the fact that most of our electricity is already from renewable non-carbon-emitting sources. At least in much of Canada. Not so much Ontario or the prairies.
If you actually want to help save the world, you need to do less, of everything. Not buy more shit.
Fewer, or no kids. Much fewer car-miles. Many less vacations. Eat less meat. Buy less crap. Make sure your next car is a pure-electric, after driving your current one until it can't be fixed anymore. Live in a small, well-insulated residence, with a heat pump. Put solar on the roof if it floats your boat.
And no, I don't do many of those things. No kids, though, and I do hope my next car will be an electric. And if/when I need a new roof it will be a Tesla roof.
Also recognize that doing all those things won't actually save the world. As long as we're adding 100 million new bodies a year, this planet is going down.
Most days around the Great Lakes the temps range from -10C to +30C and are perfectly comfortable in the right gear.
It was -27C two days ago, and two yeas ago it was -20 to -30C for nearly a month. "rare days" where the count exceeds 3 weeks...
Om, nomnomnom...
Fascinating.
a. NOAA was caught manipulating the data to allow for these "warmest years" claims.... this is all lies and misinformation to push the agenda and /. mods are onboard. Look for this post to be modded down immediately if not sooner.
A single volcano does not output more carbon dioxide (that's what I assume you meant) than all the cars ever built. These are things you can look up, you know. Volcanic CO2 emissions are somewhere around 1% of man-made CO2 emissions each year (and multiple volcanoes erupt each year). The carbon we're putting into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels was buried into the ground over a period of many millions of years, and we seem to be attempting to release it all back into the atmosphere within a couple of centuries - a much higher rate than anything you could consider natural.
Sigh, you really missed the point of my comment there.
I'll spell it out: anon says bullshit it's hotter in general because it's cold where they are right now. I respond by pointing out that elsewhere in the world, it's not as cold as in the US.
Out of interest, Sydney just hit 47.3 degrees C: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/worl...
Pretty toasty, despite how cold it is in the US.
117 f in Australia.
Bats are dropping out of the sky and die of heat exhaustion.
It is 20 to 30 degrees above normal in parts of Australia now.
Juno Alaska just had the warmest December in something like 70+ years.
It was _50_ degrees above normal.
To understand, look at this map:
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9941073/gfs_world_ced_t2anom_1_day.png
As you see, almost everything is ABOVE AVERAGE, except that when that happens it pushes cold air down into north america, causing LOCAL cold air while the GLOBAL temperature is still above average.
It's like this..
It's cold in your freezer right? Does that mean that it can't be hot in your oven?
No?
Yea' that is because the two things are not the same thing.
No, insisting on proof of a negative statement while asserting that conclusions drawn from noise and amped up by politics are proof of a positive is what makes you a zealot. The asking for evidence makes you an honest skeptic. I encourage it.
If you look at their source data. You will notice that they removed the first 10 years and started with 1990 instead of 1980.
Looking at all the data it's clear that they are increasing, even compared with GDP.
That is how you and your deniers site lie with statistics.
But if you look at all the data without cherry picking a start date, they are still going up...
No, insisting on proof of a negative statement
Sounds like you tried to phrase your assertion in such a way that you wouldn't have to provide proof, but you got called on it anyway. Tough cheese.
Damn, you've got a big back yard. Mine doesn't cover any significant area of North America, let alone Asia, so, when I wonder about anything global, I've got to look at other countries too.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ah yes, someone who derives his physical science by observing the actions of politicians.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes