UN warns of 'megadisasters' linked to climate change

Wait for it.........

GLOBAL WARMING BECAME CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT

disaster looms ahead anyway. What poppycock!

The prediction of Al Gore and the UN's IPCC was wrong, so they change the name of the predicted disaster from "Global Warming" to 'Climate Change."

Is this the same guy that was trying to sell used cars driven only by retired school teachers?

How sad that the Nobel Committee joined forces with this bunch!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/

Good work, omatumr. You'll be getting a gas coupon in the mail as a reward for spreading big oil's gospel of lies, distortions, and obfuscation.

And if the numbers of victims of natural disasters doubled it would still be less than the numbers killed in road accidents worldwide. And don't even think about the effects of tobacco.

Cyclone Nargis was a 500 year storm. Even the historical meteorolists said that it has happened before. why the alarmists make such a big deal about it is beyond me.

The reason the death tolls keep going up from cyclones is because more and more idiots keep building houses right up to the coast, especially in 3rd world countries where they still make houses out of nothing more than palm branches.

===
Articles like this irk me. We've got a 6000 degree ball of molten metal with a diameter of about 8000 miles beneath our feet, and these idiots blame an earthquake on a few factories and automobiles.

Good work, omatumr. You'll be getting a gas coupon in the mail as a reward for spreading big oil's gospel of lies, distortions, and obfuscation.

"Big Oil" is in bed with the IPCC and so-called "green" laws. Why else would Enron (remember them?) and British Petroleum try to convince Bush to support carbon credits, wind farms, etc.?

The reason the death tolls keep going up from cyclones is because more and more idiots keep building houses right up to the coast, especially in 3rd world countries where they still make houses out of nothing more than palm branches.

Even in the US the insurance companies are starting to refuse to insure homes in hurricane prone areas. Something they should have done a long time ago (it would have discouraged growth in to areas prone to flooding.

Articles like this irk me. We've got a 6000 degree ball of molten metal with a diameter of about 8000 miles beneath our feet, and these idiots blame an earthquake on a few factories and automobiles.

And we all respect the scientific credentials of the "UN humanitarian chief". Or is it just that the UN is propagandizing in lock-step?

Good work, omatumr. You'll be getting a gas coupon in the mail as a reward for spreading big oil's gospel of lies, distortions, and obfuscation.

"Big Oil" is in bed with the IPCC and so-called "green" laws. Why else would Enron (remember them?) and British Petroleum try to convince Bush to support carbon credits, wind farms, etc.?

Enron realized there was more money to be had in controlling emissions than providing energy.

It gave Enron a market controlling ability. Sure being one of the largest Natural Gas providers makes you pretty powerful, but having dominion over all Natural Gas providers makes you the master of the fiefdom.

It won't be long before we look back to now as "the good ole days" If you think it's bad now, wait a few years. You ain't seen nothing yet.

UN wants more control over humanity. Will say anything to get it.

UN wants more control over humanity. Will say anything to get it.

You can't fake global warming. The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s. This has to be the absolute worst example of "putting things off till the last minute" Amazing that hurricanes Ike, Katrina, the cyclones of the Far East in recent years, the tropical type flooding in Boston, New York and New Jersey, the Australian droughts, the declining mountian glaciers around the globe and the world surface temperature heat splat that started in the late 90s (and is still here today) has not been concidered as a "wake up call!"

What flooding in Boston? Lived and worked here my entire life, there's been no flooding other than the winter of 06 when we had so much snow we couldn't get rid of it fast enough and the environazi's wouldn't let us push it into the harbor due to "street debris".

FYI: Global warming would reduce cyclone activity, not increase it.

What flooding in Boston? Lived and worked here my entire life, there's been no flooding other than the winter of 06 when we had so much snow we couldn't get rid of it fast enough and the environazi's wouldn't let us push it into the harbor due to "street debris".

Ok just ouside Boston.
http://www.boston...s_havoc/

Then the Jersey flood a few weeks later.
http://nj.usgs.go...ood0606/

Then again the next year.
http://nj.usgs.go...ood0407/

Then more flooding in Mass. last week.
http://www.boston...looding/

FYI: Global warming would reduce cyclone activity, not increase it.

Oh great! Severe flooding followed by severe drought. Let the good times roll! *rolls eyes*

FYI: Global warming would reduce cyclone activity, not increase it.

Velanarris, again you're talking out of your keester. First of all there's many types of cyclones. Second, just about all of them would be made more likely to develop and more severe, due to the increased energy and moisture in the system that increased equatorial and global temperatures would cause. Not to mention a feedback that could be caused by cyclones putting more moisture in the atmosphere.

Cyclones are all formed by disparaity in the thermal equilibrium of either water, or the atmosphere.

Global warming would make more of the planet the same temperature as the tropics.

Explain how it would intensify cyclone activity. Be specific.

Dragontide, a flood in Merrimack valley is an annual event. It happens every year. Same thing with the Pittsfield flash floods, they happen all the time. Not new or interesting.

Cyclones are all formed by disparaity in the thermal equilibrium of either water, or the atmosphere.

Global warming would make more of the planet the same temperature as the tropics.

Your second sentence there, the one which apparently your entire argument here is based on, is unfortunately incorrect and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know it (basic meteorological principles). Unfortunate your hubris won't allow you to admit you're wrong or at least that you didn't actually have any clue what you were talking about.

Yes, extratropical cyclones form along weather fronts. Which are two masses of air, as you said, with a temperature/density/moisture disparity. Fronts are not diminished in any way because of global warming, in fact said warming only polarizes the temperature/moisture differences (energy potentials) further, as the cold air masses are not warmed more than the already warm air is warmed. Infact, the warm air is warmed substantially and significantly more than the higher latitude cold air is warmed. Additionally, warmer air holds more moisture, moisture holds energy which drives cyclones when the air masses meet.

Tropical cyclones require warm sea surface temperatures, atmospheric instability and humidity. Surface temps would be increased by warmer air, this correlation alone would increase a cyclones chance of forming. If evaporation is increased as well, as is logical, this will allow for at least proportionate humidity if not increased. The atmospheric instability is caused by the Coriolis effect and some other already existant weather disturbance (low level front, wind shear, etc.). At worst these disturbances are independent of uniform warming, at best they are increased by localized warming.

Global warming would do absolutely nothing to decrease the chances of any of the basic physical properties/phenomenon that give rise to cyclones, you are simply flat wrong.

Global warming would do absolutely nothing to decrease the chances of any of the basic physical properties/phenomenon that give rise to cyclones, you are simply flat wrong.

Incorrect, and this is why:

Fronts are not diminished in any way because of global warming, in fact said warming only polarizes the temperature/moisture differences (energy potentials) further, as the cold air masses are not warmed more than the already warm air is warmed.

As described and experimentally evidenced in multiple cases, in heterogeneous systems, warming will occur in the coldest and driest places first, until the system reaches a state of relative equilibrium at which point in time the temperature of the entire system will rise.

Your assumption that warmer air would have to warm first is incorrect, making your rebuttal false.

Vel:

Merrimack Valley does not flood to that extreme every year. The one in 2006 was the worst flooding in 70 years. And the NY NJ floods are not normal either. As the NE becomes more tropical your going to notice a LOT a major changes up there.

As described and experimentally evidenced in multiple cases, in heterogeneous systems, warming will occur in the coldest and driest places first, until the system reaches a state of relative equilibrium at which point in time the temperature of the entire system will rise.

This is really quite rich Velanarris, because I would wager that you've said yourself how invalid models and experiments are at replicating global climate systems and here you are trying to salvage your "cred" with them.

Unfortunately, your models are not what is observed or occurs in reality, what with ocean and wind currents, albedo, solar energy atmospheric absorption, geothermal radiation, etc. Your classification of the earth, and everything in it and on it, and atmosphere as a single heterogeneous system is quite puzzling really. It's many systems with many different kinds of thermodynamic and chemical reactions influencing them all in different ways, and them in turn each other. Care to try again?

Care to try again?

There is no try again, this isn't a model, it's an observation of thermodynamics.

Merrimack Valley does not flood to that extreme every year. The one in 2006 was the worst flooding in 70 years.

You're right, it was the most extreme, do you know why?

The levy system on the Merrimack river failed. Once again, this flooding is not due to AGW. The Merrimack valley was flooded due to winter meltwater and poor levy maintenance.

We're waiting for a tropical climate up here. It'll save us thousands in expense heating our homes.

DT, you like to tout the figure that 300,000 die each year from AGW. Do you know how many people die from winter each year in New England alone?

Vel:
The 300,000 per year is a first time, new study (I knew you didn't read it) And I see you really do not know the difference between climate and weather. Even as the world surface temperatures continue to rise, It will still get cold during the winter in New England. It's not the utility bill savior you seem to think it is. Your biggest concern will be massive flooding and tropical disease. (well until the west dries up and they all head east)

You're still using the "classic" heterogeneous system as a model, and that's a gross oversimplification.

You're still using the "classic" heterogeneous system as a model, and that's a gross oversimplification.

You may see it as a gross oversimplification, but scientists see it as a yard stick through which relevant theories are tested against the framework of thermodynamics which holds true by observation in millions of experiments thus far, the subject matter of which involves not only the most simple of systems but some incredibly complex systems as well. Complexity and scope are independent of this finding.

Vel:
The 300,000 per year is a first time, new study (I knew you didn't read it) And I see you really do not know the difference between climate and weather. Even as the world surface temperatures continue to rise, It will still get cold during the winter in New England.

Yes, I did read your study, which was a gross oversimplification involving figures surmized during a heat wave that killed thousands in Paris. It takes no note of the average age, corollary diseases, pulmonary health and a wide range of other factors in its findings. It is very rough at best.

As for weather and climate, keep breaking this chestnut out and see where it gets you.

Climate is weather over time. If the climate changes, guess what, the regional weather changes as well. Global warming would reduce the length of winter and in some cases make seasonal differences null. A prime example of this is the Cretaceous period at which time the average global temperature was higher by several degrees, CO2 concentration was higher, and seasonal variations were minimal.

Thank you for assuming I'm incorrect because we have differing views, DT. Just drop the weather/climate piece as you have never defined what either is from your point of view, even when asked directly.

Complexity and scope are independent of this finding.

You're simply wrong. Show us one experiment or example where the entire physicality of our planet (inner earth, earth's crust, and the many layers of atmosphere) which makes up the system responsible for the temperature distribution of the earth is described as a heterogeneous system. Be specific.

We're talking about multiple systems with too widely varying intensive parameters.

Vel:
And the climate HAS changed. And it's only the beginning.

I was looking at the temps for this year and it's obvious 2009 will also be in the top 10 of the warmest years in recorded history. So to any sceptic out there: Your story will not hold water until there is at least one (1) year in the 21th century that is below or at least at the 20th century mean. Not even remotly close so far.

Vel:

And the climate HAS changed. And it's only the beginning.
I was looking at the temps for this year and it's obvious 2009 will also be in the top 10 of the warmest years in recorded history. So to any sceptic out there: Your story will not hold water until there is at least one (1) year in the 21th century that is below or at least at the 20th century mean. Not even remotly close so far.

Then post 'em, there's not one locale in the US that's anywhere near above average.

You're simply wrong. Show us one experiment or example where the entire physicality of our planet (inner earth, earth's crust, and the many layers of atmosphere) which makes up the system responsible for the temperature distribution of the earth is described as a heterogeneous system. Be specific.

I'll have to state that there are no experiments that satisfy that claim as there are no experiements that can be performed on a system that physically large. Hence why climatologists are using models.

But the evidence is in those very models. Read the researech associated with the IPCC model systems, and the independent model systems, the warmming always starts at the coolest and driest parts of the system.

This can also be evidenced by our proxies back to the Cretaceous period, the main difference in climate for that time period was a greater band of tropical flora and fauna in addition to less seasonal variability across the globe.

This can also be evidenced by our proxies back to the Cretaceous period, the main difference in climate for that time period was a greater band of tropical flora and fauna in addition to less seasonal variability across the globe.

This larger band of tropical clime is not the same as your "warming first in the coldest and driest", indeed it is exactly what I stated, equitorial warming. If you look in another topic I've posted in http://www.physor...705.html this band is exactly what I'm talking about.

The point is, if it was as simple as you say, then the world would all be one temperature already (don't you think a few hundred-million years is enough to achieve equilibrium?). There are other mechanisms and thermodynamic interactions that are preventing it from manifesting as you say it will, like air and ocean currents and the atmosphere.

Another point is that a wider tropical band, which it sounds like this is something we both agree on, will not decrease the likely hood or severity of cyclones, it just makes a larger breeding ground for them.

I think there's a disconnect between you and I.

I'm not saying that warming won't occur in other zones, but that it will be more pronounced in cooler and drier zones.

To exemplify: Let's say Brazil warms by 0.2 degrees. Antartica would warm by a multiple of that creating a smaller disparity, not a greater one.

As for widening of the tropical band, I agree, that would change cyclonic activity, however, it would not increase cyclonic activity, it would migrate where cyclonic activity forms in a poleward manner. Storms would begin formation at a parallel further from the equator, which would have to be adapted to, however, much of this is conjecture on both our parts as the basis for cyclonic formation is under great debate.

To exemplify: Let's say Brazil warms by 0.2 degrees. Antartica would warm by a multiple of that creating a smaller disparity, not a greater one.

The effect is not that broad, Vel, and you know it. Wind and ocean currents, atmospheric density, albedo, all these things, and more, affect the reality of warming in any given locale/microclimate and it's simply not as simple as you say and never will be. To reiterate, if it was as you say, don't you think the last few hundreds of millions of years of geological and global "modernity" would be enough time for the system to reach thermal equilibrium. There's other physical and thermodynamic mechanisms preventing things from happening exactly (as broadly) as you say. It's never going to destroy microclimates, there will always be weather.

...it would not increase cyclonic activity, it would migrate where cyclonic activity forms in a poleward manner. Storms would begin formation at a parallel further from the equator...

Hate to break it to you, but cyclonic activity occurs at all latitudes already, even polar, it's a pesky characteristic of microclimates. It would certainly push the ability of tropical-type cyclones to form into higher latitudes, but it would not simply migrate them all. Can you truly not see the truth of the one applicable simple principle here? That the more energy there is in a system, the more frequent and intense it's interactions will be?

I'm done with this one. I see that, your pomposity will never allow you to admit any level of concession after you've already stated your belief, even when you're unable to present a convincing argument against the contrary.

Vel:

How can you be so clueless to cite US temperatures what we are talking about "global" warming? Sure the US has been cooler than the rest of the world but yet the US is still feeling the effects of climate change. Did you see the bees attack that San Diego Padres game? Just wait until those crop eating insects get here.

Vel:
How can you be so clueless to cite US temperatures what we are talking about "global" warming? Sure the US has been cooler than the rest of the world but yet the US is still feeling the effects of climate change. Did you see the bees attack that San Diego Padres game? Just wait until those crop eating insects get here.

Well let's talk reality. The US is the largest producer of CO2, wouldn't we be the hottest? It only stands to reason more heat would be trapped at the source of CO2 production regardless of the dissemination.

Second, crop eating insects? You've proven yourself an idiot. Without bees, you have no crops.