If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Scientists discover that the increase in weather disasters is linked to a change in climate. Still no cure for cancer   (usatoday.com) divider line 64
    More: Obvious, weather disasters, cure for cancer, U.S. Virgin Islands, study period, Munich Re, water content  
•       •       •

1553 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Oct 2012 at 11:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-10 10:37:40 AM  
My own theory: Greenhouse gasses are trapping more energy within the atmosphere. There is an imbalance of energy between the equator and the poles. Weather systems are nature's way of transporting energy from the equator to the poles. If there is more energy to transport, the storms, by their nature, are going to need to be both more numerous and more violent.

Or...

The report finds that weather disasters in North America are among the worst and most volatile in the world: "North America is the continent with the largest increases in disasters," says Munich Re's Peter Hoppe.

Why does God hate the United States?
 
2012-10-10 10:47:43 AM  
We cure cancer all the time.
 
2012-10-10 11:14:02 AM  
I wouldn't want to put climatologists in charge of finding the cure for cancer anyway.
 
2012-10-10 11:49:40 AM  
subby, we went over this yesterday...there is a cure for cancer. It just ain't pretty.
 
2012-10-10 11:53:15 AM  
Oh, is climate change obvious now? I thought we were still denying it.
 
2012-10-10 11:53:57 AM  
Do you know what else has been rising dramatically since the 1980's?

www.wrsc.org
 
2012-10-10 11:54:05 AM  
As long as you call it climate change and NOT global warming, I'll listen
 
2012-10-10 11:54:29 AM  
Puh-leeze! Noted scientists and members of the GOP brain trust like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly have all debunked this using a careful and intelligent argument based on what they'd prefer were happening and small amounts of anectdotal evidence. Closed subject.
 
2012-10-10 11:56:23 AM  
Nature is liberal
 
2012-10-10 11:58:13 AM  

canyoneer: Do you know what else has been rising dramatically since the 1980's?

[www.wrsc.org image 580x381]


So the earth is just trying to kill us like ants in the basement? If there's only a few, kill one or two, and move on, but when there's a bunch let's break out the raid and kill it with fire!
 
2012-10-10 11:58:18 AM  

FloydA: I wouldn't want to put climatologists in charge of finding the cure for cancer anyway.


Why not? I hope you're not trying to tell me that science in real life doesn't work the way it does in XCOM. Everyone knows that scientists are interchangeable, and are experts in everything from biology to quantum physics to materials science to astronomy. More importantly, man-hours in science add linearly - If you have a project that would take 1 scientist a year to complete, you can simply assign 52 scientists to the project and it'll be done in a week.

Please don't tell me that video games from the '90's have been lying to me....
 
2012-10-10 11:59:16 AM  

JoeyJoJo: As long as you call it climate change and NOT global warming, I'll listen


I don't like either. I prefer "Long-Term Shifting In The Trends of Weather Patterns Throughout the Planet Earth"
 
2012-10-10 11:59:29 AM  
Quick, climate change deniers, pray the weather conditions back to mild!!!
 
2012-10-10 11:59:45 AM  

canyoneer: Do you know what else has been rising dramatically since the 1980's?

[www.wrsc.org image 580x381]


This. The increase in that is the crux of the problem. Stop farking breeding
 
2012-10-10 12:00:38 PM  
The climate changed! It must be climate change!
 
2012-10-10 12:01:31 PM  
BS How many cat 3 or above hurricanes did we get last year, year before last, year before that. According to AlGore we were going to be getting 10 cat 5's a year, yeah, hasn't happened.

We have been getting warmer since the last ice age.

Now, are we adding to the problem, probably, there is 7,000,000,000+ of us, just wait, in 20 years we will be pushing 9,000,000,000.
 
2012-10-10 12:04:02 PM  
Where's GeneralJim and chuckufarlie/nicksteel to tell us all how we're just so stupid we bought into the lies, again?
 
2012-10-10 12:09:32 PM  
In other news. San Antonio Texas didn't get as much snow as it did after a blizzard in 1993 hit a lot of the U.S.
 
2012-10-10 12:13:42 PM  

washington: Nature is liberal


Didn't Nature (the magazine/website) just go over this? Didn't they just state you cannot linkn extreme weather events to climate change?

/of course nature.com website would down right now.

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-10 12:16:29 PM  
What weather disasters?
 
2012-10-10 12:30:12 PM  
The study being released today by Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance firm, sees climate change driving the increase and predicts those influences will continue in years ahead, though a number of experts question that conclusion.

Obvious vested interests at work here.
 
2012-10-10 12:33:11 PM  
Isn't the whole "Still no cure for cancer" meme usually applied to frivolous applications of the scientists' efforts, when there are more important things to consider?

If we're talking about the permanent change of the planetary system, and it's effect on disastrous weather occurances (DNRTFA) that can kill people.... well that kinda seems like something worth studying, no?
 
2012-10-10 12:36:41 PM  

SurfaceTension: My own theory: Greenhouse gasses are trapping more energy within the atmosphere. There is an imbalance of energy between the equator and the poles. Weather systems are nature's way of transporting energy from the equator to the poles. If there is more energy to transport, the storms, by their nature, are going to need to be both more numerous and more violent.


There may be something to that:

"The changes in the location and amplitude of the storm tracks in response to global warming will have significant impacts on the poleward transport of heat, momentum and moisture and on the hydrological cycle. [...] This enhanced energy imbalance in the future climate requires larger atmospheric energy transports in the midlatitudes which are partially accomplished by intensified storm tracks. Finally a sequence of cause and effect for the storm track response in the warming world is proposed that combines energy budget constraints with baroclinic instability theory."
 
2012-10-10 12:40:21 PM  

splohn: Didn't Nature (the magazine/website) just go over this?


Discussed here.

Didn't they just state you cannot linkn extreme weather events to climate change?

For some heat waves, you probably can. Other extreme events (precipitation or storms) are harder.
 
2012-10-10 12:41:08 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: More importantly, man-hours in science add linearly - If you have a project that would take 1 scientist a year to complete, you can simply assign 52 scientists to the project and it'll be done in a week.


I once made a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant.
 
2012-10-10 12:45:26 PM  
Insured losses from disasters averaged $9 billion a year in the 1980s. By the 2000s, the average soared to $36 billion per year.

So, Climate Change is responsible for the increase in the money spent by people on insurance.
 
2012-10-10 12:49:04 PM  

traylor: Insured losses from disasters averaged $9 billion a year in the 1980s. By the 2000s, the average soared to $36 billion per year.

So, Climate Change is responsible for the increase in the money spent by people on insurance.


No but climate change caused inflation over the last 30 years.
 
2012-10-10 12:59:14 PM  
 
2012-10-10 12:59:19 PM  

Ambitwistor: splohn: Didn't Nature (the magazine/website) just go over this?

Discussed here.

Didn't they just state you cannot linkn extreme weather events to climate change?

For some heat waves, you probably can. Other extreme events (precipitation or storms) are harder.


Thanks for the linkees.

Also, anyone have a good reason why does the "study" only got back to 1980?
Were we not recording temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc prior to Reagan?

lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov

stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-10 01:02:57 PM  

JoeyJoJo: As long as you call it climate change and NOT global warming, I'll listen


can i call it global warming in the summer then call it global cooling in the winter?

media.treehugger.com
 
2012-10-10 01:05:46 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Everyone knows that scientists are interchangeable, and are experts in everything from biology to quantum physics to materials science to astronomy.


and they frequently post in fark threads especially when science is being discussed
 
2012-10-10 01:07:33 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: The study being released today by Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance firm, sees climate change driving the increase and predicts those influences will continue in years ahead, though a number of experts question that conclusion.

Obvious vested interests at work here.


It's a reinsurance firm, so we can't even avoid business with it by buying insurance from another company.
 
2012-10-10 01:21:58 PM  
This is research by an insurance company. I just skimmed it, but are they taking into account inflation and larger population ( more insurees) when they give those totals for insurance claims? Also didn't see a rationale for that causal statement
 
2012-10-10 01:25:23 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-10-10 01:31:28 PM  

splohn: Also, anyone have a good reason why does the "study" only got back to 1980?


Why the scare quotes?

I haven't found the study. (Typically, the articles doesn't give a link.) It may refer to something based on the data summarized here. The report talks about economic losses, so perhaps is 1980 is when Munich Re started compiling comprehensive data on that linked to weather events. Or maybe they didn't have good databases for all the categories of disaster before 1980.
 
2012-10-10 01:33:15 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: I just skimmed it, but are they taking into account inflation and larger population ( more insurees) when they give those totals for insurance claims?


Last paragraph: "Hoppe, however, says that even if we adjust for population spread and increased property values, Munich Re still says there were significant increases in the costs of weather disasters over the past few years."
 
2012-10-10 02:08:26 PM  
WHICH scientists?
WHAT are their specialties?
HAVE they dealt with climate before?
WHO pays them their grants?
etc, etc, etc.
 
2012-10-10 02:16:12 PM  
Scientists discover increase in automobile accidents due to people crashing their cars.
 
2012-10-10 02:27:11 PM  

Shmeat: [i.chzbgr.com image 500x675]


False Dilemma

Both involve rather large conspiracies, so I'm skeptical of both.
 
2012-10-10 02:36:04 PM  

elchupacabra: Shmeat: [i.chzbgr.com image 500x675]

False Dilemma

Both involve rather large conspiracies, so I'm skeptical of both.


What conspiracy? It's well known that fossil fuel companies have funded climate skeptics for years; just look on SourceWatch for, e.g., Exxon.

That being said, they've toned that way down over the last 5 years or so, and most climate skepticism today is likely "home grown" rather than bankrolled.
 
2012-10-10 02:42:49 PM  

Ambitwistor: elchupacabra: Shmeat: [i.chzbgr.com image 500x675]

False Dilemma

Both involve rather large conspiracies, so I'm skeptical of both.

What conspiracy? It's well known that fossil fuel companies have funded climate skeptics for years; just look on SourceWatch for, e.g., Exxon.

That being said, they've toned that way down over the last 5 years or so, and most climate skepticism today is likely "home grown" rather than bankrolled.


I'm more in the category of "simulators need more processing power to increase accuracy". I'm in the "Warming, but not to OMG SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING levels" camp. Need more research to prove I need to go live in a cave :)
 
2012-10-10 02:50:32 PM  

elchupacabra: I'm more in the category of "simulators need more processing power to increase accuracy".


That's true. More processing power isn't likely to change the basic picture and uncertainty range for the amount of global warming predicted. But it will certainly be needed to improve the ability to predict the kinds of localized weather disasters being discussed here.

I'm in the "Warming, but not to OMG SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING levels" camp.

Well, it's not going to wipe out human civilization. But the likely amount of eventual warming, if we reach quadrupled CO2 levels, will be comparable to the amount of cooling experienced during the last ice age. That's going to have non-trivial impacts.
 
2012-10-10 03:23:27 PM  

Ambitwistor: elchupacabra: I'm more in the category of "simulators need more processing power to increase accuracy".

That's true. More processing power isn't likely to change the basic picture and uncertainty range for the amount of global warming predicted. But it will certainly be needed to improve the ability to predict the kinds of localized weather disasters being discussed here.

I'm in the "Warming, but not to OMG SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING levels" camp.

Well, it's not going to wipe out human civilization. But the likely amount of eventual warming, if we reach quadrupled CO2 levels, will be comparable to the amount of cooling experienced during the last ice age. That's going to have non-trivial impacts.


and IF my aunt had gonads, she would be my uncle.
 
2012-10-10 03:24:51 PM  

Shmeat: [i.chzbgr.com image 500x675]


substitute the UN for those scientists and you might have something.
 
2012-10-10 04:08:27 PM  
"The number of natural disasters per year has been rising dramatically on all continents since 1980"

32 years is a rather limited sample-size, for a planet that's 4.6 billion years-old. Furthermore, how is it that scientists are just now making the connection between climate and weather patterns?
 
2012-10-10 04:11:51 PM  

splohn: Ambitwistor: splohn: Didn't Nature (the magazine/website) just go over this?

Discussed here.

Didn't they just state you cannot linkn extreme weather events to climate change?

For some heat waves, you probably can. Other extreme events (precipitation or storms) are harder.

Thanks for the linkees.

Also, anyone have a good reason why does the "study" only got back to 1980?
Were we not recording temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc prior to Reagan?


Climatological normals are based on a 30-year running mean, updated every decade. The current normals are based on the 1980-2010 time period, which is why only data from 1980 to 2010 are presented.

[lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov image 850x679]

Strong tornadoes are only a tiny subset of all damaging storms.

[stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 615x432]

LOL, literally.

Combining several decades' worth of hurricanes under increasingly high CO2 levels with a centuries-old record of storms under stable, low CO2 levels to suggest an inverse correlation between CO2 and storm count is all too typical of what passes for science among deniers.
 
2012-10-10 04:52:10 PM  
WHAT increase in severe weather?
 
2012-10-10 05:20:49 PM  

elchupacabra: Shmeat: [i.chzbgr.com image 500x675]

False Dilemma


so vote democrat
 
2012-10-10 06:12:03 PM  

authorizeduser: "The number of natural disasters per year has been rising dramatically on all continents since 1980"

32 years is a rather limited sample-size, for a planet that's 4.6 billion years-old.


The age of the planet is irrelevant. Tomorrow's weather doesn't depend on what the planet was doing a billion years ago. Neither does the climate over the next century.

Furthermore, how is it that scientists are just now making the connection between climate and weather patterns?

They're not.
 
2012-10-10 06:55:11 PM  

splohn: Ambitwistor: splohn: Didn't Nature (the magazine/website) just go over this?

Discussed here.

Didn't they just state you cannot linkn extreme weather events to climate change?

For some heat waves, you probably can. Other extreme events (precipitation or storms) are harder.

Thanks for the linkees.

Also, anyone have a good reason why does the "study" only got back to 1980?
Were we not recording temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc prior to Reagan?

[lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov image 850x679]

[stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 615x432]


What the Deuce was going on in 1974? Was abortion or homosexuality decriminalized that year?
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report