Well that's not the question I asked, but yes.

Again, what sorts of temperatures and weather patterns would you expect this time of year? Let's narrow that down to the month of August. What would you consistently be able to expect?

Texans should of course be helped ... BB wasn't saying this - he was making a point about hypocrisy if you are against providing aid to others and against global warming.

@ND, if you are wrong? What happens? Should we stop insuring our homes because the natural cycles of the planet's climate are good?

Should we not be investing in alternative energy sources which are cleaner (less air pollution than coal/oil), renewable (ie they don't run out, at least until the sun does, but we've a few billion years on that count), and more opportunity for energy independence (ie you don't have to connect to a government run grid to get your energy if you can produce locally - in your house).

If people in need deserve help, why should the US not spend money saving lives abroad, investing in infrastructure, education, and healthcare for the poorest humans, so they can A) pay for their own needs in the future, B) contribute to the global economy, and C) return the favour if the US ever needs it?

Global warming: describes the increase in average temperature we've seen since the 70s. Long term trends don't lie, but while we have records going back to the 1880s, the measurements have gotten better since we've had satellites (so we could measure the whole globe with one sensor multiple times per day). We have to piece together all the other data, which is harder. That doesn't mean warming isn't happening.

Global cooling: the myth that in the 60s and 70s scientists were more worried about global cooling is based on lies. The fact was at the time many scientists were worried about cooling, and others were worried about warming. Over time they worked out the differences and came to a conclusion. But here you can see that there was still a larger number of papers published predicting warming: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43 .

Climate change: As the globe warms, on average, we will see more energy in the climate allowing for more extreme positions to be explored. This could mean freezing snow storms in may, or 'tropical' storms outside of the typical storm season or region... It better describes the effect or rising temperatures. Of course i'm talking about Human Cause Global Warming. Which is real and will have a devastating effect.

But i'm not talking about the US redistributing money to other countries. That is an agreement between countries, those who choose to make decisions based on the science. No climate scientist has been paid off by poor countries to help redistribute the US's wealth, the suggestion is ridiculous. If that is the outcome of international agreements, then so be it.

If the US refuses to join international agreements, then the international community should boycott US trade. It is a simple mechanism to reduce the US emissions by crippling her economy.

http://abc7news.com/archive/7946821/

Six years ago, signs showing storm surge areas were removed to keep from scaring off new home owners and businesses from moving into these areas. People get convinced to move into risky areas because it hasn't happened recently.

For the record, bb, disaster relief organizations are not affected by government shutdowns, iirc.

Texas: Don't Mess with Texas
US of A: OK. You're on your own.

Yall are aware that people who claim that climate change is a hoax deny the data on the basis that it's a hoax, right? Presenting them with facts doesn't constitute a valid argument for them because facts are a hoax. It's called stupid.

Gold is right about essential personnel remaining on duty, but the resources aren't necessarily as widely available as they could be if the government was actually working. It has its effects.

For those that aren't aware, the hurricane made landfall as a Category 4. Honestly, though, that doesn't really matter. What matters is the flooding, which is still estimated to reach near or beyond 50 inches in spots over the next few days. Right now, the hurricane is just sitting absolutely still and dropping torrents of rain, spinning but not going anywhere. Here's the most recent radar loop off my Radarscope.

https://streamable.com/lq057

Is this the thread where we talk about man eating Congolese?

If you give 'em a quick, short shock, they don't do it again; dig it? I mean good manners don't cost nuthin' do they? Hey!

We're just two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl.

There is a major problem with not politicizing disasters that implicate or result in disaster. People basically won't take steps to prevent the next disaster unless they do it immediately following a disaster. If you "don't politicize" these things by pointing out bad policies that contributed to the disaster, those policies don't get corrected and then the disaster repeats. The people who complain about politicizing events are invariably those who favor the policies that made things worse. I don't think we should be listening to those folks.

Here people need a sharp reminder what is at stake here, especially in the south. It is the part of the country that will be hardest hit and is most intransigent about taking action. It is worth pointing out loudly how much Texans helped make this disaster as bad as it will be Maybe they'll learn something. It's more likely than just twiddling ones thumbs.

@"Presenting them with facts doesn't constitute a valid argument for them because facts are a hoax. It's called stupid."

Fair point

The idea that thousands of climate scientist are all conspiring to produce a hoax is at best. This would not be a hard group to infiltrate and expose. Basically anyone could do it.

@ND.. Y'all don't need global warming to redistribute wealth out of the USA. Continual budget deficits, spending beyond tax revenues is doing it quite well

There's a good way to find disaster relief for all natural disasters to come for years, split Welfare 50% to people who actually need it and not lazy bums who won't get jobs and 50% to disaster relief there problem solved.

Lol you're funny

just move them all to detroit. they have a lot of empty houses there

It's obviously a stunt by Al Gore to generate publicity for his latest film.

It's a damned shame that those trying to convince others that climate change is a major issue had a prat like Gore on their side. I watched him give an interview a couple of weeks ago in which he talked complete bollocks for 20 minutes. Truth doesn't seem to matter with him.

Anyway, I guess I should make a comment about the issues of the thread.

Climate change is real
This storm is not evidence of it
People hit by disasters should be helped

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

@Octavious - this one storm in isolation is not evidence of climate change. That is entirely true. But one of the predictions of climate change is that we will have more regular and more extreme weather events, which this storm is an example of.

The cost of not doing anything to minimise climate chanhe will be borne out in recoving from incidents like this.

@ ora

It's true that a prediction of climate change is that there will be more extreme weather events more often. However the evidence that we're actually having more extreme weather events more often just isn't there. This particular storm would fit into a non climate change scenario just as easily as a climate change scenario.

I'm not saying that over time the prediction of more extreme weather events more often won't come true. Indeed, the prediction makes a lot of sense and I'd be very surprised if it didn't happen. However if we're being led by evidence, which we should be, we simply cannot claim to have experienced this phenomenon so far.

@Octavius " This particular storm would fit into a non climate change scenario just as easily as a climate change scenario. "

But it could easily fit in a climate change one, as well. So, you're right that we cannot claim to have experienced the phenomenon in question, just based in this storm, but I'm not sure htat we cannot make that claim at all. Do you have collected any data about these phenomena last century? How could we deny a claim, if we don't look at the data, at least?

This storm alone, is not evidence, but this storm should be part of data you must look at

@ND, east anglia mail scandal? you mean this 5 out of context mails https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis?

"Did you know that Oklahoma used to be under a salt water sea? I guess humans caused that to happen too"

Your guess is wrong, so what?

Did you know that the Aralkum desert used tobe under a salt water sea? It's called the 'Aral Sea', only a small fraction of which survives, and most of the rest has became desert in just 40 years. And guess what, this actually has been caused by human actitvity.

@Octavious, i talking about using this example, and the costs associated with helping people, as what we will have to contend with should we fail to prevet climate change.

I'm not saying this is proof of climate change.

I explicitally said as much.

So we can try to estimate to cost to the economy of *not* taking action. And Exxon mobile's own research is being used by the company to prepare for these eventual disasterous consequences.

The estimates are going to be pretty wild in terms of error. Modelling sea level rises is something you can do with some degree of confidence. With less confidence you can model temperature increases. Regarding the consequences of said temperature increases in terms of increased intensity of precipitation events is very much the finger in the air school of prediction.

To give you the climate change adjustments for the UK flood risk management models as an example. Pre-2010 models add 10% to current flow rates. That was changed to a standard of 20%. The model used in Bristol 2012 opted for 25%, and it's common now for 30% to be used. Frankly it's a confused mess, and there has been no actual evidence of flows in flood events showing any increase so far.

All trying to put a monetary value on climate change costs will achieve is invite criticism and prompt calls, with some justification, of scaremongering.

Yikes. Go to scholar, google.com and search for paper on the increase in extreme weather events. Not only is the evidence of increasing weather events there but the signal is so damn strong that even conservatives ought to be able to see it

There now scads of paper documenting increased frequency and more importantly intensity of extremes. The data record is thin going back, but there is definitely evidence iPod increasing extremes.

Also, there have been a number of reasonable efforts to quantify economic impacts. Sure there will be criticism. The conservatives will follow the direction of their witchdoctors to deny everything. Meanwhile rational people will ciritique and find improvements. That's what scientists do, after all.

Still the costs of carbon run around $40-100 a ton under reasonable analyses. One recent paper got the result that the biggest impacts are in the south and will roughly result in a loss of economic activity greater than that of the 2008 collapse but permanently. (Guess who is going to be footing the bill to pay for that?)

Also, regional analyses have trouble getting enough data. Looking at a tiny are like the U.K. Isn't going to typically be enough to pull out a signal.

For example, Trenberths group looked at how the dynamics of particular events were influence by contributing factors to identify signals that warming has been enough to drive increases in severity, even of particular events

http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/40583/1/Attribution%20climate%20extreme%20events_R9_ss.pdf


Temperature extremes have a lot of data behind them and that signal is dead easy to pull out. We know that warm waters drive stronger himurricanes, and that the temperatures in the Gulf are a full five degrees above normal now. Do the math.

And for your "no evidence of increased flows in the U.K." What part of "significant increases in trends over the last forty years do you now comprehended exactly?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/joc.1643/asset/1643_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=j6uuvmyk&s=f4b0723046e83a0a4738da065293d76963510fca

Well Australia used to be a lot wetter, and before that, presumably much colder when it was joined to Antarctica. There seems to be an absurd assumption on the part of the deniers of "current climate changes being profoundly linked to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity mainly in the last 200 years such as the rapid growth in fossil fuel use,& deforestation, etc etc" that climate change scientists are somehow saying there has been no earlier significant climate changes. It's as if they think that by saying..hey there's been massive changes in climate, Sea levels etc etc before mankind arose from the African continent and sat down to watch TV, then that somehow makes what is now occurring OK and that it invalidates current research. What do they think, that the human species is somehow invulnerable to possible extinction ?