Slim

Out of curiosity, where do you get the 2-10% increase in intensity? And what is 'intensity' a measure of? Wind speed, minimum barometric pressure? Anyway, the study I looked at stated that damages increase in very non-linear fashion as the strength of the storm increases, so a small increase in the intensity (of a stronger storm) will cause far more damages than several lesser storms. Here's the study, if you're interested. I have glanced through a couple others, as well. While I find your first statement there dubious, I agree there is no certainty. And we cannot wait for it, either, I fear. Also, one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that funding CO2 mitigation will help to combat all the negative aspects of AGW, not just the potential for stronger storms. So it would be hard to argue that spending more on storm protection at the detriment of CO2 mitigation is a cost-effective solution, when reducing emissions would help prevent AGW and all the other crappy stuff that comes with it, too. Well, I don't know how I can argue further on this with you if you cannot accept the consensus of the experts in the field. I'm not trying to be rude... I just don't know how we could continue the conversation if you dismiss their findings. You've touched upon a major obstacle: fossil fuels are just too damn cheap and easy to use for us to STOP burning them. That's the great thing about 'em. And you're right, alternative energies cannot easily replace fossil fuels yet. So we can wait for the technology to catch up (which is your position, yes?) or we push the process by introducing policies that encourage alt. energy developement and/or tax traditional fossil fuel use making them less cost effective (which will likely drive up energy prices, hurt the economy a bit, etc). But we can't wait, as the scientists have told us. We have to start making some serious policy changes right away if we want to avoid the worst of the worst. And yes, in the short term, we'll probably take an economic hit. But it beats the alternative. Based on the information available to us, strong shifts in policy to cut emissions is the best option. How is this illogical?

Possible, but it sure sounds unlikely. A lot of these studies are warning that any increase in temperatures will most likely dramatically worsen the high-intensity tropical storms. So yeah, you could argue that it's not certain... but that doesn't change the fact that it's very likely. According to who? What study has determined this? I find it very troubling that you can so easily dismiss EVERY possible strategy to combat AGW. Are you saying that the science is wrong on this? Is the IPCC totally misguided?

Which begs the question: which is better - more low-intesity storms that we are used to and prepared (sorta) for, or high-intesity storms that were not planned for when infrastructure was built. I would be inclined to believe that fewer storms that are more powerful would cause more damage. Of course, I don't know of any studies that have compared estimated storm damages without AGW forcing with estimated storm damages that take into account AGW forcing. Out of curiousity, doesn anyone know of any studies like that? In any case, I would imagine that the high-intensity lower-frequency storms are more damaging overall. That still doesn't mean you can't divert funds from other projects to combat both issues we've discussed. I strongly disagree with that, if only because of scientific estimates on positive feedbacks. That's not the only reason I disagree with you, though. I'll elaborate later.

Seems there are several studies done that support the idea of more intense tropical storms (as waldo provided) and the IPCC has this to say: So I don't think we can discount it or trivialize this problem. We should probably be preparing for these more powerful storms. The IPCC disagrees with you. While you can claim otherwise, fact of the matter is you and I aren't climate scientists, and I'm going to believe the experts on this. The problem I see with this argument is that you seem to assume we can't both prepare for worse natural disasters AND fight to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time. Why can't we?

I've been idly scanning this thread a bit... Tim, just to clarify: Are you making the claim that there is no scientific consensus that extreme weather will be exacerbated? Also, are you asking for specific empirical evidence of how much worse a tropical storm has become due to AGW?

I would think that would be pretty darn swell. Hell, cut off all the foreign aid to the middle east (including Israel).

When was a scientific organization proclaiming this?

I disagree. Contrary evidence needs to stand up to criticism and review. Otherwise you could make up ANY argument you wanted, no matter how outlandish or baseless. Do you have a better solution to vetting scientific findings? Because peer-review sounds like the best way (albeit ponderous) to do it. Well... I hate to sound rude... but (to borrow your Flat-Earth reference) if I was to argue with someone that the earth was, in fact, round and they refused to accept it... it doesn't matter that I didn't convince them. Didn't make the earth any flatter, just proved they were stubborn. In the same way, if people keep referencing the global cooling myth from a few years back... yeah we can dismiss it, because it doesn't do anything to disprove AGW. It doesn't make the earth any flatter. This is a pretty strong accusation, and I would like some proof to support it. I can't just take you on your word that the reason we have an AGW theory is because it's 'politically popular'. Even that premise is flawed. 'Politically popular'? Seems there would be a lot more push from, well, EVERY industry to suppress AGW theory. Lobbyists for industry hardly want more regulation and control on pollution/emissions. And please, no more 'GW-religion' tripe, please. I hardly consider myself a AGW crusader. I'm just trying to follow this issue logically, 'cause it sounds like it's going to affect myself and my kids a lot.

But, could you not simply attribute that to... well... capitalism???

Okay, so your proof of this conspiracy is the fact that there are businesses out there that plan to profit on global warming-based initiatives?

I'm... sorry, but that doesn't really respond to my point. I can't very well go expecting some evil scheme based on a wink and knowing look from some random internet forumgoer, no offense.

But it may be too early to get enough information from weather trends, right? I was under the impression that while AGW is expected to alter weather patterns in a noticeable way, in order to be definitive about it we would have to wait to gather enough data... by which point, it would be too late. Basically, we can't really take a weather event happening right now and say "A-ha! Global warming strikes again!" But we could in a decade or two say, "A-ha! Those increasingly longer and harsher droughts across the globe are most likely a direct result of global warming!" Granted, one isn't as fun to say. IOW, we can't really use weather patterns to judge the progress of climate change (yet). Or am I off base?

See this is where you folks start to lose me... you're implying a massive conspiracy on a global scale amongst the scientific community (that's been going on for decades). You're implying that nearly every major scientific organisation around the globe is in on it. This is really really really hard for me to take seriously. If my options are basically: a ) The consensus of the majority of climate science experts or b ) An international conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen before Well, it's kind of a no-brainer.

Okay, I'm going to try and examine your reasoning here. You say that evidence presented by those trying to disprove AGW is usually dismissed as 'anecdotal' or 'not peer-reviewed', correct? Your opinion is that those reasons are insufficient to legitimately dismiss the evidence, I gather? Now I'm not a scientist, but I would say that if someone presented evidence that they claimed challenged a well-established and overwhelming accepted theory (such as AGW) and their evidence IS actually anecdotal that's a pretty damn big problem. In the same vein, if a study comes out that challenges the main theory of AGW, and it isn't peer-reviewed, that's a pretty damn big problem too. From what I understand, if a study isn't peer-reviewed than it loses a lot of credibility (it may not be wrong per se, but it needs to stand up to a review before we can seriously consider it). That seems to be how science works... you can't just say that your study doesn't have to be peer-reviewed in order to be legitimate.

Yeah, that's what puts me off the discussion sometimes as well.

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, you want intelligent and logical debate, but on the other you don't want to get drawn into the 'feed the troll' syndrome. Sometimes it's tough to draw the line, especially when the person you are discussing the issue with has formed an opinion, regardless of the established facts. This is sounding really elitist, but bear with me. I first started wondering about this 'debate vs. trolling' problem when I initially got interested in AGW a few years back. I had brought up climate change with my dad, who I respect, and got his opinion. He definitely falls into the 'denier' camp; he vehemently refuses to believe that there's AGW. Now he's not an idiot or paid off by the oil lobby (har) but he would rather believe that there's a borderline global conspiracy amongst scientists to push AGW in order to secure easy funding. So what do you do in this situation? Do you give up on any hope of debate? He's got his opinion, and its not worth the effort to try and change his mind?

Per Bonam's concern about wasting the $100 Billion: Oversight is a legitimate worry, and I'm hoping that it will be well-regulated by the World Bank. But to automatically dismiss the fund as useless, or 'money down the drain' may be a little harsh. We're not throwing it all in at once, either. So, if there was obvious squandering and waste of assets, you can bet that developed countries will protest and refuse to continue to pay. The possibility of losing most or all of the $100 B seems remote, to me at least. Now, your other argument is that this money should go towards research and developement of next-gen green tech. That's a good point, and possibly it would do more good in the long run. My counter-argument is the fact that we need to help developing nations work to curb emissions in the short-term, rather than let them industrialize the old, dirty way. See, we can't very well tell the developing world they CAN'T try to achieve our standard of living. But we can't have them burn fossil fuels the same way we did - the atmosphere can't take it. Hopefully, the $100 B will help to solve this problem. Will some of the money be wasted? Probably. But we have to do SOMETHING to mitigate emissions in the developing world, and starting sooner is better than later.

Thanks for the link, waldo. Better summary of the deal than what I put up. So anyway, the cynic in me is of course knowing this is hardly sufficient and will not be enough to come close to solving the coming crisis. BUT this is hardly the pinnacle of international agreements concerning climate change. It's a start. Get the ball rolling, and start working towards some solutions. But I'm not naive enough to think it won't be a bit of a painful process!

So apparently we got ourselves a climate change deal! From the BBC: Non-binding, not robust, but at least it's a deal. Baby steps are still progress, albeit not a lot Thoughts, folks?

Interesting. Hopefully this will help the US gov't (specifically Republicans) to come around to serious discussion about CC policies. Depends on what the more... 'extreme' members of the GOP decide to do on the matter. If we could get some actual bipartisan talks going about this issue perhaps that would legitimize it, and curb some of the knee-jerk rhetoric. Should I hold my breath, though? I think not

I really doubt there's going to be anything more that comes of this (other than maybe China quietly leaning on NK to smarten up) because an all-out war would be, well, silly. What would the North have to gain if it invaded? Their air force is woefully inadequate against the South's modern fleet. So there would be no air cover for their infantry/ground forces. And we all know what happens when your troops on the ground are easy pickins for a powerful air force. They could concievably try using biological/chemical weapons on the South; but that would hardly collapse their defense. Modern armies are equipped to protect themselves against such systems. And, worse case scenario, NK has weaponized nuclear weapons (artillery or SCUD delivered, pretty small warheads) and fires them over. It would cause some serious damage (especially civilian) but they can't have enough to disable all US and SK forces in the region. Plus the retaliation would be swift and overpowering from the US. NK's leadership may be a little on the nutbar side, but I doubt they are into wholesale suicide. So basically... yeah, likely not much will happen.

Troubling. I'm not holding any high hopes about the Cancun talks, either... but you never know. Figure they'll make any headway, waldo?

I wonder if the decision of NK to open fire was a higher-up decision, or a particularly overeager local commander responding to the military excercizes... Probably never know, though.

From a political point of view, I'm curious as to why Harper would even bring up the possibility of staying longer in Afghanistan... I was under the impression that the majority of Canadians wanted out? Has public opinion changed?

RE: The original post The only thing that makes my head hurt more than Canadian politics... is American politics.