Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[Guest TrueMetis]

Oh ya I meant to respond to this.

The other aspect that gets ignored by alarmists is people will adapt as climate shifts so there will be few negative consequences from shift in the types of events.

A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record

The past relationship between global temperature and levels of biological diversity is of increasing concern due to anthropogenic climate warming. However, no consistent link between these variables has yet been demonstrated. We analysed the fossil record for the last 520 Myr against estimates of low latitude sea surface temperature for the same period. We found that global biodiversity (the richness of families and genera) is related to temperature and has been relatively low during warm ‘greenhouse’ phases, while during the same phases extinction and origination rates of taxonomic lineages have been relatively high. These findings are consistent for terrestrial and marine environments and are robust to a number of alternative assumptions and potential biases. Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. Our findings may have implications for extinction and biodiversity change under future climate warming.

It's not perfect but it says something about creatures ability to adapt, we might be able but what about all the other species we rely on?

[Saipan]

So what pollution killed off mammoths, sabretooth tigers, giant sloths, American wild horses, short face bears, dire wolfs........... all just recently?

[Jack Weber]

Russian Heat, Asian Floods May Be Linked

Actually that's Russian, Chinese and European cold and snowfall

and Australian floods.

Must be a Pinko plot,huh???

[Guest TrueMetis]

So what pollution killed off mammoths, sabretooth tigers, giant sloths, American wild horses, short face bears, dire wolfs........... all just recently?

As I have said before a combination of climate change and people. This one isn't even disputed slightly.

[wyly]

generalizations... depending on the board software; for example, your scenario might be detected to identify multiple accounts from the same machine/address - the capability extends to allows the administrators to contact the person(s) involved, confirm circumstances and, effectively, allow customized privileges for recognized multiple registrants.

multiple login names on most forums results in instant and permanent banishment...

[wyly]

please... I'm in reform mode!

you've refined it to an art form and set the bar very high Obi-Wan Kenobi...I must try harder

[Saipan]

As I have said before a combination of climate change and people. This one isn't even disputed slightly.

Sabretooth tiger was so delicious natives hunted it out with wooden sticks. And as they roast it the fires produced enough carbon to cause global warm up.

Of, wait..... that was global cool down.

[wyly]

As I have said before a combination of climate change and people. This one isn't even disputed slightly.

ya it is there's precious little evidence to prove humas actively hunted mega fauna...until the invention of the gun humans haven't managed to kill off much if any mega fauna...killing mammoths, woolly rhinos, cave bears, cave lions wasn't a preferred pastime...the mega fauna of the americas were in sharp decline long before humans arrived, and sapiens and neanderthals together coexisted with the same or similar mega fauna in asia/europe for 200,000k + without doing any damage, the last mammoths died out in asia and not the americas...and mega fauna exists in africa today after even longer contact with humans it was the introduction of firearms that has done recent damage...before that it was climate change/loss of environment... Edited December 10, 2010 by wyly

[Guest TrueMetis]

ya it is there's precious little evidence to prove humas actively hunted mega fauna...until the invention of the gun humans haven't managed to kill off much if any mega fauna...killing mammoths, woolly rhinos, cave bears, cave lions wasn't a preferred pastime...the mega fauna of the americas were in sharp decline long before humans arrived, and sapiens and neanderthals together coexisted with the same or similar mega fauna in asia/europe for 200,000k + without doing any damage, the last mammoths died out in asia and not the americas...and mega fauna exists in africa today after even longer contact with humans it was the introduction of firearms that has done recent damage...before that it was climate change/loss of environment...

Oh don't get me wrong when I say combination I'm talking 90% climate change 10% human, and that human component only really affects mammoths and the wild horses. People don't hunt predators for food it's crap meat and much to dangerous. Those predators died out due to climate change, which caused there food supplies to disappear as most of those predators where much to highly specialized to adapt.

[William Ashley]

It is not about what is happening.. it is about what can be done to stop the climate change issues.. climate change is not equivolent to global warming.. there are real problems that have developed, and sure it is a change.. changes can be adapted to, but we have water crisis issues developing over the mid term that is within 20 years.. countries are working around this..

we need to be aware of the issues.. of course I don't support helping other independent nations solve their own problems unless there is a fedeatrion or union involved.. or treaties for such things... but the fact is some countries don't want to do this.. or some factions within those countries... such as the conservative party in canada - as it appears to me.It isn't Canadas place to try to run the world like NATO or the UN...

Fact is we must understand one countries adapatations will effect the rest of the world.. that is why unilateral action will end up costing more down the road.

What needs to be done is create a list of priorities on a 50 year term.. then end result is though.. some people will be ignored unless an overall plan that everyone can have their needs met exists... and that may not be doable.. but it can be approached.. if this means forests in the sahara, I don't think it is undoable, but it takes a willingness of people to organize...

fact is though.. the green movement isn't conservative, so the conservatives won't support anything in that regard because it attacks their own base. The issue is pretty clear cut.

Junk products and innovation takes precendence over sustainability in the bulk of industries because they make the junk that makes junk.

They make the computerse we are communicating on right now, they are making the water many of us may drink, they are making the food we eat. They are keeping the world going, even if it is being consumed as it goes on.

The issue is "the cycle", do I personally think it matters in the overall scheme, only enough to take my own initiatives... the world would be vastly different without the destroying and polluting corporations.. it just isn't realizable on a global scale because we havn't initiated or implemented a plan that allows continuance.

Climate change isn't the issue, survival on earth in 50 years is. Not for everyone, but for those people who don't have the resources to protect themselves from the fallout... the same issue is already what exists for many people.. poverty has been an issue for as long as history has been recorded. It likely will continue to be unless private interests become subset to the public interest.. and we arn't exactly a functioning socialist state that will actually provide for everyones enjoyment in life.. afterall materialists need to have rare wealth to be happy...

I'm not concerned for me, but for you, if it matters maybe.

Edited December 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[wyly]

Oh don't get me wrong when I say combination I'm talking 90% climate change 10% human, and that human component only really affects mammoths and the wild horses. People don't hunt predators for food it's crap meat and much to dangerous. Those predators died out due to climate change, which caused there food supplies to disappear as most of those predators where much to highly specialized to adapt.

I won't claim humans had no effect, reducing the prey of mega predators would have some effect...I'm not buying mammoths or horses though, horses survived in asia even though i believe they originated in the americas(i could be wrong )...and mammoths were very big and no doubt very dangerous when annoyed, why risk hunting a mammoth when bambi and bison are plentiful? the average hunter gatherer group had between 10-25 members, half female and maybe half children so 3-8 adult males why risk a loss of even 1-3 men hunting a mammoth? it would be a catastrophe to the group, potentially a life and death situation for all...and then as I posted earlier mammoths survived until quite recently in siberia while the americas mammoths were already gone...

[wyly]

Climate change isn't the issue, survival on earth in 50 years is. Not for everyone, but for those people who don't have the resources to protect themselves from the fallout... the same issue is already what exists for many people.. poverty has been an issue for as long as history has been recorded. It likely will continue to be unless private interests become subset to the public interest.. and we arn't exactly a functioning socialist state that will actually provide for everyones enjoyment in life.. afterall materialists need to have rare wealth to be happy...

I'm not concerned for me, but for you, if it matters maybe.

personally I'm not very optimistic civilization will survive this, I've heard of a few scientists claim it's too late, the window of opportunity has slipped by...I hope for my kids sake that they're wrong, I don't tell them what I really think...

[Guest TrueMetis]

I won't claim humans had no effect, reducing the prey of mega predators would have some effect...I'm not buying mammoths or horses though, horses survived in asia even though i believe they originated in the americas(i could be wrong )...and mammoths were very big and no doubt very dangerous when annoyed, why risk hunting a mammoth when bambi and bison are plentiful? the average hunter gatherer group had between 10-25 members, half female and maybe half children so 3-8 adult males why risk a loss of even 1-3 men hunting a mammoth? it would be a catastrophe to the group, potentially a life and death situation for all...and then as I posted earlier mammoths survived until quite recently in siberia while the americas mammoths were already gone...

Yes horses evolved in the Americas and my personnel hypothesis is their fall also had something to do with competing with the Bison (It's not for nothing there herds got to be in the millions). The Bison may have been able to adapt easier than the Horse. As for mammoths your a bit of in the way they were hunted. It wasn't a bunch of guys with spears trying to take them out, it was dig a pit, line it with spears, cover it with snow, and wait. As for there survival in Siberia (and that Island even more recently whatever it was called) as I said mostly climate, Siberia actually remained fairly stable IIRC.

personally I'm not very optimistic civilization will survive this, I've heard of a few scientists claim it's too late, the window of opportunity has slipped by...I hope for my kids sake that they're wrong, I don't tell them what I really think...

I think we've got a pretty good chance of fixing this, or we would if people like tim didn't keep c@ckblocking everything that may help.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

Yes horses evolved in the Americas and my personnel hypothesis is there fall also had something to do with competing with the Bison (It's not for nothing there heards got to be in the millions). The Bison may have been able to adapt easier than the Horse. As for mammoths your a bit of in the way they were hunted. It wasn't a bunch of guys with spears trying to take them out, it was dig a pit, line it with spears, cover it with snow, and wait.

hmmm, good point on the horses and bison, I'll have to ponder that one awhile...first thought would be bison were also in asia with the horses as well, bisons were almost wiped out but horses did well....

the truth is we have no way of knowing how mammoths would be hunted there is no evidence...there are butcher marks(disputed) on mammoth bones but that does not verify hunting occured...no doubt the occasional stray baby would be killed but that would have no impact on the species...

As for there survival in Siberia (and that Island even more recently whatever it was called) as I said mostly climate, Siberia actually remained fairly stable IIRC

ya it probably was more stable again no clear evidence that humans killed them off or ever encountered them, there is some speculation that a lack of genetic diversity was the final killer...Wrangel Island if I recall correctly and I think they were pygmy mammoths...

I think we've got a pretty good chance of fixing this, or we would if people like tim didn't keep c@ckblocking everything that may help.

good for you optimism is good, I hope you're right...

[Guest TrueMetis]

hmmm, good point on the horses and bison, I'll have to ponder that one awhile...first thought would be bison were also in asia with the horses as well, bisons were almost wiped out but horses did well....

Weren't those different species of bison? That and the flora was different, it may have suited the Horse more in Asia and the Bison more in North America.

the truth is we have no way of knowing how mammoths would be hunted there is no evidence...there are butcher marks(disputed) on mammoth bones but that does not verify hunting occured...no doubt the occasional stray baby would be killed but that would have no impact on the species...

Well once the species was already in decline it would have. Though just how much is questionable, my ten percent number was just a guess.

ya it probably was more stable again no clear evidence that humans killed them off or ever encountered them, there is some speculation that a lack of genetic diversity was the final killer...Wrangel Island if I recall correctly and I think they were pygmy mammoths...

That was the name and yes they were dwarf mammoths. The effect Islands have on species is crazy, my favorite example are Sauropods, in some case you have species the size of buses reduced to the size of horses.

good for you optimism is good, I hope you're right...

So do I.

[waldo]

You are desperate. Let's make it simple.

1) I made the claim that there is no evidence of a link between the russian heatwave/flooding and climate change.

2) I provided links from credible sources that show these are events were caused by a well known blocking phenomena.

3) I provided a reference that claims blocking events should decrease in a warming world according to the models. This implies that the blocking event was not 'predicted' by the climate models.

I think 2) & 3) unambiguously show that 1) is true.

The only counter argument you have is some FUTURE study might find a link but even if it did it would not invalidate my claim 1) which is based on the information that is available now.

The bottom line: alarmists are lying when they say there is a link between AGW and those events.

no - I believe it is your desperation shining through. Neither of your sources are definitive scientific analysis... they are preliminary assessments. Your first linked reference doesn't even mention the Pakistan monsoon/flooding... your second linked reference suggests, "And the heaviest monsoon downpours in Pakistan’s history, causing floods that have displaced more than 10 million people, may be due in part to this same blocking event.

on the other hand, I provided an alternative, prefaced with the scientists acknowledgment that scientific research/analysis of this past summer's record extreme events is required... you simply can't/won't accept Trenberth's plausible alternative.

further to your accusatory rant against "alarmists" and your desperate claim that a simple and well recognized "weather blocking" phenomena is the definitive "cause" of this summer's recent extreme weather events in Russia & Pakistan... a quote from your own provided link:

Also, the global climate models used for simulating continued global warming generally don’t have high enough of resolution to simulate blocking events realistically, Barriopedro says. In these models, there are fewer blocking events, and they’re shorter, than in real life. “There haven’t been too many studies on blocking and climate change because of this problem,” he adds.

The preliminary results suggest that there may be little change, or perhaps a small drop in blocking events in a warmer world.

However, blocking events could have stronger effects. “In a warmer world, the consequence of [summer blocking] is much stronger,” because the higher average temperatures raise the bar.

so... it's a significant area of ongoing study, particularly in terms of climate model refinements. For example, the U.S. Midwest floods were particularly severe in themselves this past 2010 summer... there is an active ongoing collaboration between Missouri and Russian scientists:

Whether it’s never-ending heat waves or winter storms, atmospheric blocking can have a significant impact on local agriculture, business and the environment. Although these stagnant weather patterns are often difficult to predict, University of Missouri researchers are now studying whether increasing planet temperatures and carbon dioxide levels could lead to atmospheric blocking and when this blocking might occur, leading to more accurate forecasts.

“In this research, we’re trying to see if increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting atmospheric warming will affect the onset and duration of future blocking events,” said Tony Lupo, professor and chair of the atmospheric science department at the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. “We’re hoping that the research will add cues that could help fellow forecasters better predict blocking and warn people in cases of long-lasting, severe weather.”

Atmospheric blocking occurs between 20-40 times each year and usually lasts between 8-11 days, Lupo said. Although they are one of the rarest weather events, blocking can trigger dangerous conditions, such as a 2003 European heat wave that caused 40,000 deaths. Blocking usually results when a powerful, high-pressure area gets stuck in one place and, because they cover a large area, fronts behind them are blocked. Lupo believes that heat sources, such as radiation, condensation, and surface heating and cooling, have a significant role in a blocking’s onset and duration. Therefore, planetary warming could increase the frequency and impact of atmospheric blocking.

“It is anticipated that in a warmer world, blocking events will be more numerous, weaker and longer-lived,” Lupo said. “This could result in an environment with more storms. We also anticipate the variability of weather patterns will change dramatically over some parts of the world, such as North America, Europe and Asia, but not in others.”

Lupo, in collaboration with Russian researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, will simulate atmospheric blocking using computer models that mirror known blocking events, then introduce differing carbon dioxide environments into the models to study how the dynamics of blocking events are changed by increased atmospheric temperatures. The project is funded by the US Civilian Research and Development Foundation – one of only 16 grants awarded by the group this year. He is partnering with Russian meteorologists whose research is being supported by the Russian Federation for Basic Research.

bottom line is your "definitive" substantiation isn't... definitive. Notwithstanding, of course, the alternate plausible explanation offered in the link I provided, one offering a more direct relationship between this past summer's extreme events and AGW - but, equally one requiring additional study, as acknowledged by the scientist (Trenberth) fronting the alternative causal link.

[TimG]

It's not perfect but it says something about creatures ability to adapt, we might be able but what about all the other species we rely on?

One study does not represent the truth. Especially when other studies say a different story:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a920087373&fulltext=713240928#references

Here is a quote that ahows that rapid climate change HAS occurred in the past (this effectly debunks claims the current warming is unusually rapid):

Evidence from many fossil records, but in particular from ice-cores, indicate that two rapid increases in temperature occurred in mid-latitude environments at approximately 14 700 years ago and 11 600 years ago at the end of the last glacial with associated sharp increases in precipitation and atmospheric CO2 and CH4. The rapidity and magnitude of this temperature increase have only become properly understood in the past few years. Estimates from the Greenland ice-cores suggest an increase in air temperatures by as much as 10 °C in mid- to high-latitudes within 3-5 years for the first abrupt shift at 14 700 cal. yr BP, and ∼60 years at 11 600 cal. BP (Steffensen et al., 2008).

Here is quote that debunks your claim that large or rapid climate shifts lead to large scale extinctions:

Given that this temperature increase was greater in magnitude and rate to anything predicted for the next century, it is an extremely useful time interval to examine possible biotic responses to 4 °C and beyond. Biotic responses to this interval of rapid climate warming throughout Europe and North America therefore include evidence for (i) rapid expansion of in situ populations, (ii) large-scale species range shifts (Birks & Willis, 2008), (iii) community turnover (Birks & Birks, 2008) and (iv) the formation of novel community assemblages (Williams & Jackson, 2007). However, at no site yet studied, anywhere in the world, is there evidence in the fossil record for large-scale climate-driven extinction during this interval of rapid climate change (Botkin et al., 2007). In some regions there was local or regional extinction, as is apparent throughout the cold-stages of the Quaternary when increasing numbers of tropical species went locally or regionally extinct in Europe (Tallis, 1991; Svenning, 2003; Willis & Niklas, 2004). There is evidence in the fossil record for the total extinction of only one species, the east North American spruce Picea critchfieldii (Jackson & Weng, 1999), but evidence for widespread global extinction of plants in this interval of very rapid climate warming has yet to be demonstrated.

Here is quote that debunks your claim that the mega fauna extictions are related to climate change:

It had been argued previously that the large-scale megafaunal extinction that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene was climatically driven, but a large number of studies now suggests that this was a predominantly human-driven extinction event that spanned thousands of years (Koch & Barnosky, 2006; Johnson, 2009) rather than a rapid response to the large temperature increase at the late-glacial/post-glacial transition.

I realize that you will insist on ignoring studies that cast doubt on your 'end of the world' claims but at some point you need to recognize that the science is much less certain than you claim and there is good reason to believe that the biosphere will have no problems dealing with warming within the ranges predicted by the IPCC.

As far as I am concerned, AGW is a human economic problem - not an environmental problem. This means the decision on what to do must be driven by economics.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Your a moron you know that? First off in the future try linking to a study not a news report.

The graph is right out the paper referenced by the news item. The only moron is the person who expects to be spoon fed links.

I was talking events like rain, droughts, and hurricanes.

And I used temperature to show how a shift in the average does not result in a increase in extreme events. It only causes a change in the type events.

When it comes to rainfall there is complex balancing act between rain and evoporation. How that balancing act plays out depends on the location but most places will see a reduction in droughts but an increase in rainfall. This means there will be no net increase in the number of extreme events.

"Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years"

A theoretical study about the future yet there is not one shred of evidence that the 1 degC rise since 1800 has caused any increase hurricaine damages. This suggests that the theorectial effect not likely to be large enough to be noticeable. This is largely because other facts like population density and wealth have a much greater impact on hurricaine damages.

Here is the rebuttal to the Emmanual paper:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landseanaturepublished.pdf

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

One study does not represent the truth. Especially when other studies say a different story:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a920087373&fulltext=713240928#references

What goes for my study goes for yours, of course my study covers the entire fossil record, yours covers the last few thousand years. And with them making idiotic statements like this.

It had been argued previously that the large-scale megafaunal extinction that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene was climatically driven, but a large number of studies now suggests that this was a predominantly human-driven extinction event that spanned thousands of years (Koch & Barnosky, 2006; Johnson, 2009) rather than a rapid response to the large temperature increase at the late-glacial/post-glacial transition.

I find it hard to trust them, we didn't hunt any of the megafauna at that level. If you had been paying attention to this thread me and wyly had been talking about exactly that. And of course the fact that it lies doesn't help either.

Between fifty and ten thousand years ago, most large mammals became extinct everywhere except Africa. Slow-breeding animals also were hard hit, regardless of size. This unusual extinction of large and slow-breeding animals provides some of the strongest support for a human contribution to their extinction and is consistent with various human hunting models, but it is difficult to explain by models relying solely on environmental change. It is an oversimplification, however, to say that a wave of hunting-induced extinctions swept continents immediately after first human contact. Results from recent studies suggest that humans precipitated extinction in many parts of the globe through combined direct (hunting) and perhaps indirect (competition, habitat alteration) impacts, but that the timing and geography of extinction might have been different and the worldwide magnitude less, had not climatic change coincided with human impacts in many places.

Koch, P. L. and Barnosky, A. D. (2006) Late Quaternary extinctions: state of the debate. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37 , pp. 215-250. *One of the references they cited)

Timmy it's time to give up.

[TimG]

I provided, one offering a more direct relationship between this past summer's extreme events and AGW - but, equally one requiring additional study, as acknowledged by the scientist (Trenberth) fronting the alternative causal link.

IOW - you have no evidence supporting the link between AGW and the heatwave. All you have is off the cuff speculation by a alarmist scientist with a vested interest in promoting the AGW scare. In fact, Trenberth's unsubstantiated speculations about hurricane-AGW links led to the resignation frpom the IPCC of respected hurricane scientist Chris Landsea. Trenberth is not a credible source when it comes to such things. Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

A theoretical study about the future yet there is not one shred of evidence that the 1 degC rise since 1800 has caused any increase hurricaine damages. This suggests that the theorectial effect not likely to be large enough to be noticeable. This is largely because other facts like population density and wealth have a much greater impact on hurricaine damages.

Here is the rebuttal to the Emmanual paper:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landseanaturepublished.pdf

Thanks for the self debunking link mate, read Emanuel's reply.

[TimG]

What goes for my study goes for yours, of course my study covers the entire fossil record, yours covers the last few thousand years.

So what? These kinds of studies are extremely subject to confirmation bias because the data is so unreliable. The further you go back in time the less reliable the data. I have more confidence in studies that cover the last 10,000 years for that reason.

Koch, P. L. and Barnosky, A. D. (2006) Late Quaternary extinctions: state of the debate.

The text you quoted says humans were the primary cause of the extinctions which mean my reference did not misrepresent the paper. The only difference is the paper also acknowledges that climate change was a secondary factor.

You can ignore this paper but you just prove my point: you are committed to the 'end of the world' and you reject information that does not conform to that narrative.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Thanks for the self debunking link mate, read Emanuel's reply.

So what? Journals do not allow reply to replies so authors can throw in whatever nonsense they want to defend themselves with no fear of being called on it.

In this case, Pielke work has been replicated by others since 2005.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=NHREFO000009000001000029000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VFV-51H009Y-1/2/80b427fe8ed1a77cfed562862fcc94db

Applying, therefore, both methods to the most comprehensive existing global dataset of natural disaster loss, in general we find no significant upward trends in normalized disaster damage over the period 1980–2009 globally, regionally, for specific disasters or for specific disasters in specific regions.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Your a moron you know that? First off in the future try linking to a study not a news report. News reports suck for this kind of thing.

I realized this is not fair as I have used news reports in the past as a link, so disregard it.

So what? These kinds of studies are extremely subject to confirmation bias because the data is so unreliable. The further you go back in time the less reliable the data. I have more confidence in studies that cover the last 10,000 years for that reason.

Your opinion.

The text you quoted says humans were the primary cause of the extinctions which mean my reference did not misrepresent the paper. The only difference is the paper also acknowledges that climate change was a secondary factor.

Your reference completely disregard climate change as a factor, ignoring that a paper it cited includes it, that is entirely dishonest. Of course the paper it cited also highly overestimates people effect on megafauna in that past.

You can ignore this paper but you just prove my point: you are committed to the 'end of the world' and you reject information that does not conform to that narrative.

Here's the problem with that, I don't think the world is going to end I do think that people are at a serious risk due to this and that many animals won't be able to cope at all. I'm really tired of your hyperbolic BS.

So what? Journals do not allow reply to replies so authors can throw in whatever nonsense they want to defend themselves with no fear of being called on it.

In this case, Pielke work has been replicated by others since 2005.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=NHREFO000009000001000029000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VFV-51H009Y-1/2/80b427fe8ed1a77cfed562862fcc94db

It's like you don't even read what you post.

The entire abstract reads.

Climate change is likely to lead to an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of certain types of natural hazards, if not globally, then at least in certain regions. All other things equal, this should lead to an increase in the economic toll from natural disasters over time. Yet, all other things are not equal since affected areas become wealthier over time and rational individuals and governments undertake defensive mitigation measures, which requires normalizing economic losses if one wishes to analyze trends in economic loss from natural disasters for detecting a potential climate change signal. In this article, we argue that the conventional methodology for normalizing economic loss is problematic since it normalizes for changes in wealth over time, but fails to normalize for differences in wealth across space at any given point of time. We introduce an alternative methodology that overcomes this problem in theory, but faces many more problems in its empirical application. Applying, therefore, both methods to the most comprehensive existing global dataset of natural disaster loss, in general we find no significant upward trends in normalized disaster damage over the period 1980–2009 globally, regionally, for specific disasters or for specific disasters in specific regions. Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already. Moreover, it may still be far too early to detect a trend if human-induced climate change has only just started and will gain momentum over time.

I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty, welcome to the ignored list.

[Moonbox]

I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty, welcome to the ignored list.

Truemetis you do realize that last wall of text you quoted completely supported Tim's argument, right? You've just shown us exactly why climate change research is so poorly regarded and not taken seriously.

The science is not exact, it's not reliable and we don't have enough accurate measurements over a long enough time period to really say anything one way or the other. That abstract supports that claim.

What makes everyone so sick of the climate alarmists is how fanatical you get about it. Wild Bill was right. It's faith for you guys. It's religion. If someone disagrees with you, you start frothing at the mouth and getting upset. If you're going to put TimG on ignore, you might as well put me there too. He was being perfectly civil. You took exception to him disagreeing with you. lololololol.