global warming kills more than terrorism

[david16]

You seem to have some odd fixation on hurricanes which are of course significant in terms of financial consequences but don't register in terms of deaths, and which are still rather poorly understood.

If global warming means more frequent heatwaves like the one in Europe last year, it will certainly kill many. Of course, it may save more in the warmer winters.

[reality]

You seem to have some odd fixation on hurricanes which are of course significant in terms of financial consequences but don't register in terms of deaths, and which are still rather poorly understood.

LOL. No, it was an example that was in the news in the past few days, an example where dozens of people died and billions of dollars of damage was done.

If global warming means more frequent heatwaves like the one in Europe last year, it will certainly kill many. Of course, it may save more in the warmer winters.

No-one has said anything about global warming not causing more heat-waves in the future. I certainly haven't. There is a big difference between the impacts of global warming in the future and the impacts now. Again, the title of the thread is, "Global Warming KILLS...", not "Global Warming MAY KILL..." There is a huge difference between the two. Claiming that last years heat-wave in Europe was "Caused" by global warming is completely wrong. We don't know anything of the kind.

[Haanu]

Claiming that last years heat-wave in Europe was "Caused" by global warming is completely wrong. We don't know anything of the kind.

Have a look at http://eces.org/articles/000557.php

[reality]

Originally Posted by Haanu

Have a look at http://eces.org/articles/000557.php

Then the author's should have no trouble showing, from first principles, how fundamental atmospheric processes were altered leading to the development of the heat-wave. The problem with many "climate experts" is that they know next to nothing about meteorology, a rather severe limitation when attempting to discuss individual weather events. The simple fact of the matter is that individual weather events NEVER have a single cause. They have myriad ones, and the factors that produce an event today in location X are never exactly the same as those that produced an event the day before in location Y.

Increased GHG levels MAY have played a role in the heat-wave. We cannot make any statements about the magnitude of that role. We certainly cannot say that it CAUSED the event.

BTW, the article you posted offers nothing in the way of proof. All it says is that it was anomalous. That we can agree on. They have provided a lot of anecdotal evidence. That, too, is fine. It is not proof of a causal connection. All that can be said is that it might, and I stress might, have played a role. Is this the type of event that has a footprint similar to what the climate community has been stressing we should expect as GW progresses? Of course. That isn't proof either.

[debs]

Originally Posted by reality

Then the author's should have no trouble showing, from first principles, how fundamental atmospheric processes were altered leading to the development of the heat-wave. The problem with many "climate experts" is that they know next to nothing about meteorology, a rather severe limitation when attempting to discuss individual weather events. The simple fact of the matter is that individual weather events NEVER have a single cause. They have myriad ones, and the factors that produce an event today in location X are never exactly the same as those that produced an event the day before in location Y.

Increased GHG levels MAY have played a role in the heat-wave. We cannot make any statements about the magnitude of that role. We certainly cannot say that it CAUSED the event.

BTW, the article you posted offers nothing in the way of proof. All it says is that it was anomalous. That we can agree on. They have provided a lot of anecdotal evidence. That, too, is fine. It is not proof of a causal connection. All that can be said is that it might, and I stress might, have played a role. Is this the type of event that has a footprint similar to what the climate community has been stressing we should expect as GW progresses? Of course. That isn't proof either.

Don't be such a simpleton

[reality]

LOL. I'm not the one making idiotic assertions. Either offer something in the way of proof, or move on. Your choice.

[reality]

BTW, I noticed you didn't bother to respond to what I said.

Let's try again, shall we? This time, however, how about you stop posturing...

BTW, the article you posted offers nothing in the way of proof. All it says is that it was anomalous. That we can agree on. They have provided a lot of anecdotal evidence. That, too, is fine. It is not proof of a causal connection. All that can be said is that it might, and I stress might, have played a role. Is this the type of event that has a footprint similar to what the climate community has been stressing we should expect as GW progresses? Of course. That isn't proof either.

Do you actually have some proof other than the website address you posted? I hate to break this to you, but blocking patterns are a regular feature on the weather map. Sometimes, they lead to excessive warming like in the European event last year. Sometimes, they produce excessive cooling, like the coldest summer on record across most of Canada and the northern plains. Are you suggesting that this summers extreme cold weather was CAUSED by global warming? I certainly hope not. If you are, I'd like you to show me how excessive emissions of GHG led to the persistent high over low block over the eastern Pacific, one that evolved repeatedly into an omega pattern then back again, and kept a good part of the central part of North America under a long-wave trof.

Being a simpleton, means that one lacks common sense. If common sense is so common, why do so few people have any? Yourself for example. The simple fact is, weather and climate are exceedingly complex. Hand-waving arguments are simply insufficient to prove much of anything. I know it's certainly easier to view things simplistically. Then you can have people making statements like increased CO2 improves plant growth (without having to deal with the pesky details of its effects on the hydrological cycle). You can have people claim that every weather event is CAUSED by global warming, when that is patently absurd. You can even call someone a simpleton when it is you who can't understand cause and effect.

[Haanu]

Originally Posted by reality

BTW, I noticed you didn't bother to respond to what I said.

Let's try again, shall we? This time, however, how about you stop posturing...

BTW, the article you posted offers nothing in the way of proof. All it says is that it was anomalous. That we can agree on. They have provided a lot of anecdotal evidence. That, too, is fine. It is not proof of a causal connection. All that can be said is that it might, and I stress might, have played a role. Is this the type of event that has a footprint similar to what the climate community has been stressing we should expect as GW progresses? Of course. That isn't proof either.

Do you actually have some proof other than the website address you posted? I hate to break this to you, but blocking patterns are a regular feature on the weather map. Sometimes, they lead to excessive warming like in the European event last year. Sometimes, they produce excessive cooling, like the coldest summer on record across most of Canada and the northern plains. Are you suggesting that this summers extreme cold weather was CAUSED by global warming? I certainly hope not. If you are, I'd like you to show me how excessive emissions of GHG led to the persistent high over low block over the eastern Pacific, one that evolved repeatedly into an omega pattern then back again, and kept a good part of the central part of North America under a long-wave trof.

Being a simpleton, means that one lacks common sense. If common sense is so common, why do so few people have any? Yourself for example. The simple fact is, weather and climate are exceedingly complex. Hand-waving arguments are simply insufficient to prove much of anything. I know it's certainly easier to view things simplistically. Then you can have people making statements like increased CO2 improves plant growth (without having to deal with the pesky details of its effects on the hydrological cycle). You can have people claim that every weather event is CAUSED by global warming, when that is patently absurd. You can even call someone a simpleton when it is you who can't understand cause and effect.

Your frothing proves nothing more than your invincible ignorance, and it is notable how you duck and weave whenever the discussion looks like it might stray into vaguely scientific territory.

Your argument about "proving" that an event is due to global warming is analogous to asking someone to "prove" that a coin came up heads due to a bias rather than just due to chance.

If the coin is tossed each day, and a H leads to a death, then increasing the bias towards H _does_ cause deaths, and the number of extra deaths can be easily calculated, if the bias is known.

Are you going to dispute this, on the grounds that each individual coin toss is a random event, the results of which are due to chance?

[reality]

Your frothing proves nothing more than your invincible ignorance, and it is notable how you duck and weave whenever the discussion looks like it might stray into vaguely scientific territory.

Perjorative verbiage noted. It's interesting to note that once again you didn't bother to address the point raised, preferring instead to resort to ad-hominem. I hate to break this to you, but the only one "frothing" as you so quaintly put it, is you.

Your argument about "proving" that an event is due to global warming is analogous to asking someone to "prove" that a coin came up heads due to a bias rather than just due to chance.

If the coin is tossed each day, and a H leads to a death, then increasing the bias towards H _does_ cause deaths, and the number of extra deaths can be easily calculated, if the bias is known.

Are you going to dispute this, on the grounds that each individual coin toss is a random event, the results of which are due to chance?

Let me ask you a couple of questions and see if you can address them without name calling...

1. Why doesn't the global temperature go up year after year in lock-step with CO2 and other GHG increases?

2. Why haven't trends in severe weather occurrence - hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, ... - been observed?

3. Assume that the temperature your area of the world got to 25C yesterday. Why? What caused the daily maximum temperature to reach that point?

Give it some thought and get back to me.

[Haanu]

1. Why doesn't the global temperature go up year after year in lock-step with CO2 and other GHG increases?

Because there is random variability on top of the anthropogenic influence. I hope you already knew that.

2. Why haven't trends in severe weather occurrence - hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, ... - been observed?

Because there is a lot of interannual variability. Again I'm sure you knew that, and I don't think I have given you reason to think me quite so stupid as to not know it myself. Why do you always return to your odd fixation on storms?

3. Assume that the temperature your area of the world got to 25C yesterday. Why? What caused the daily maximum temperature to reach that point?

You could say it is the result of integrating the previous day's weather conditions, but that's not exactly helpful in trying to understand the system.

If the temperature had never before reached 25C in that region, then it would be reasonable to suspect that anthropogenic influences could have played a part.

Now I have repeated my analogy to you, including the question you ducked. I'd be grateful if you could give a reply this time.