Boy, I say boy...scary excuses and warnings translates into much higher increases than fair weather.
Too bad Canada didn't have a big nasty active volcano somewhere. Keep people really edgy and stuff. They'd pay thru the nose.
Insurance industry: Canada’s economy battered by climate change catastrophes in 2013
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Boy, I say boy...scary excuses and warnings translates into much higher increases than fair weather.
Too bad Canada didn't have a big nasty active volcano somewhere. Keep people really edgy and stuff. They'd pay thru the nose.
Not just 'weather' man, but extreme weather. Like winter storms, floods and such. Rare, once in a million year events these.
extreme
I better buy an extreme umbrella. A parabolic extreme weather diversion system or PEWDS for short.
Or, just stay in your bunker and watch some toob. Steve Harvey is on at 1.
Good one btw. :lol:
Good one btw. :lol:
To an unsuspecting visitor, the website for the deceptively named Nongovernmental International Panel for Climate Change (NIPCC) looks clean and professional. They purport to be an independent association of scientists that wish to understand factors influencing climate change and the consequences of such changes. They claim that they, unlike the IPCC, look at the full range of evidence regarding the climate and are unfettered by political ideology and bias. However, beneath the surface everything is not what it appeared to be at first sight. NIPCC is a group with overt ties to the conservative anti-science organization known as the Heartland Institute, an organization that has spent a lot of effort trying to spread pseudoscientific uncertainty and doubt regarding the link between second-hand smoke and negative health consequences. They are also one of the most vocal defenders of climate change denialism in the U. S.
Recently, the NIPCC released a report called Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, calling it an “independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science”. In reality, it is a book-length regurgitation of the same stale myths that climate change denialists have been deploying for the past decade in a desperate effort to spread misinformation regarding global warming and the role of human contributing factors. This article examines all of the core claims made by NIPCC in their summary for policymakers. Their list contains thirteen claims, but many of the claims are repeated in different ways (presumably to artificially inflate their position).
NIPCC and Climate Change Denialism | Debunking Denialism
Since when did I say the insurance industry is a definitive source for global warming models?
They maintain the same credentials as 'climate scientists'.
Besides, it really doesn't matter. For every study that confirms AGW, there is one (or more) that debunk it.
I just get a kick out of the claims that there is a 99% (or thereabouts) consensus on AGW... Fact is, I believe in comparison to other contentious issues, this one seems to represent the biggest divide among folks.
Funny thing about consensus. It don't stop objects from accelerating toward the center of the Earth at 9.8m/sec/sec.
So here are some of the revealing items from the 'debunking' report posted by cap..
Carbon dioxide is not saturated
One of the most persistent myths about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that it is either saturated or at the verge of becoming saturated. However, this is based on the false notion that the atmosphere is a single unit instead of being layered.
Feedback effects are crucial for understanding climate change and cannot be dismissed
In an attempt to minimize the impact of global warming on global average temperatures in the future, the climate change denialists at the NIPCC dismiss feedback effects and claim that the only relevant warming is the direct warming by carbon dioxide and that this warming (which they think is “a few tenths of a degree”) is negligible.
In reality, there is plenty of scientific evidence for positive feedback effects. These include more water vapor in the atmosphere, more carbon dioxide release from the oceans, methane release from the Siberian arctic, drying out of rainforests, decomposition, forest fires, desertification, some cloud feedback, replacement of ice with water and so on. There are also negative feedback effects, such as other kinds of cloud feedbacks, the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans, more primary production (i.e. more carbon sinks in photosynthetic organisms) and so on.
However, researchers consider positive feedback process to be stronger than negative feedbacks, so they cannot be minimized or dismissed by climate change denialists.
Global warming has not taken a break
One of the most deceptive techniques used by climate change denialists is to construct trend lines that appear to show that there has been no global warming since 1998 by cherry-picking the start and end points. The following animated graph illustrates this technique:
1998 was an especially warm year due to short-term noise provided by a strong El Niño. If you filter out a lot of the short-term noise, such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation, solar and volcanic activity, there have been no halt in warming since 1998:
This denialist approach also abuses statistical significance tests by asserting that “no statistically significant” warming has occurred since 1998. However, statistical significance relates to how probable the observe data, or more extreme data, are on the null hypothesis, not the practical significance of the observed trend. This alleged “lack of statistical significance” only because of not controlling for the short-term noise.
The carbon dioxide fertilization effect is more complex and variable than NIPCC thinks
It is true that carbon dioxide is the limiting reagent in some areas of the world. More carbon dioxide would therefore mean more plant growth. This could be beneficial by producing more food and more plants to act as sinks for atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, the situation is more complex than that for several reasons. Nitrogen will quickly become a limiting reactant because the proportion of nitrogen per biomass unit produced will decrease. This means that photosynthesis will be down-regulated because a key enzyme in the carbon fixation cycle called Rubisco has a high nitrogen content. Furthermore, plants with different forms of metabolism (C3, C4 and CAM) will react differently and for some this fertilization effect is not as large as previously thought.
Most enzymes have an optimal temperature for which their activity is greatest. Lower temperatures reduces the number of interactions that has sufficient energy to overcome the activation energy required for reaction. Too high temperatures over the optimum and they start to lose their three-dimensional structure that is often vital for their proper function. Some plants may currently grow in a climate were the temperature is below the optimal temperature, and so an increase in temperature will lead to a higher enzyme activity. But there are probably also those plants that grow in areas were the temperature is above the optimal temperature, and an increase in temperature will lead to an even lower enzyme activity. This means that there are places around the world were global warming will lead to less crop success and yield, even when taking into account the carbon dioxide fertilization effect.
There are also related issues surrounding agriculture that needs to be taken into account, such as water supply and large-scale fires. There is no guarantee that water supplies will not be affected by droughts and floods and a higher frequency of wildfires could be devastating for agriculture.
Conclusion
The Heartland Institute is ramping up their attempt to spread misinformation about climate change and global warming by having their deceptively named organization NIPCC putting out pseudoscientific and denialist “reports” that amount to little else than the mindless repetition of denialist myths that have been refuted many times previously.
NIPCC and Climate Change Denialism | Debunking Denialism
Carbon dioxide is not saturated
One of the most persistent myths about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that it is either saturated or at the verge of becoming saturated. However, this is based on the false notion that the atmosphere is a single unit instead of being layered.
Feedback effects are crucial for understanding climate change and cannot be dismissed
In an attempt to minimize the impact of global warming on global average temperatures in the future, the climate change denialists at the NIPCC dismiss feedback effects and claim that the only relevant warming is the direct warming by carbon dioxide and that this warming (which they think is “a few tenths of a degree”) is negligible.
In reality, there is plenty of scientific evidence for positive feedback effects. These include more water vapor in the atmosphere, more carbon dioxide release from the oceans, methane release from the Siberian arctic, drying out of rainforests, decomposition, forest fires, desertification, some cloud feedback, replacement of ice with water and so on. There are also negative feedback effects, such as other kinds of cloud feedbacks, the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans, more primary production (i.e. more carbon sinks in photosynthetic organisms) and so on.
However, researchers consider positive feedback process to be stronger than negative feedbacks, so they cannot be minimized or dismissed by climate change denialists.
Global warming has not taken a break
One of the most deceptive techniques used by climate change denialists is to construct trend lines that appear to show that there has been no global warming since 1998 by cherry-picking the start and end points. The following animated graph illustrates this technique:
1998 was an especially warm year due to short-term noise provided by a strong El Niño. If you filter out a lot of the short-term noise, such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation, solar and volcanic activity, there have been no halt in warming since 1998:
This denialist approach also abuses statistical significance tests by asserting that “no statistically significant” warming has occurred since 1998. However, statistical significance relates to how probable the observe data, or more extreme data, are on the null hypothesis, not the practical significance of the observed trend. This alleged “lack of statistical significance” only because of not controlling for the short-term noise.
The carbon dioxide fertilization effect is more complex and variable than NIPCC thinks
It is true that carbon dioxide is the limiting reagent in some areas of the world. More carbon dioxide would therefore mean more plant growth. This could be beneficial by producing more food and more plants to act as sinks for atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, the situation is more complex than that for several reasons. Nitrogen will quickly become a limiting reactant because the proportion of nitrogen per biomass unit produced will decrease. This means that photosynthesis will be down-regulated because a key enzyme in the carbon fixation cycle called Rubisco has a high nitrogen content. Furthermore, plants with different forms of metabolism (C3, C4 and CAM) will react differently and for some this fertilization effect is not as large as previously thought.
Most enzymes have an optimal temperature for which their activity is greatest. Lower temperatures reduces the number of interactions that has sufficient energy to overcome the activation energy required for reaction. Too high temperatures over the optimum and they start to lose their three-dimensional structure that is often vital for their proper function. Some plants may currently grow in a climate were the temperature is below the optimal temperature, and so an increase in temperature will lead to a higher enzyme activity. But there are probably also those plants that grow in areas were the temperature is above the optimal temperature, and an increase in temperature will lead to an even lower enzyme activity. This means that there are places around the world were global warming will lead to less crop success and yield, even when taking into account the carbon dioxide fertilization effect.
There are also related issues surrounding agriculture that needs to be taken into account, such as water supply and large-scale fires. There is no guarantee that water supplies will not be affected by droughts and floods and a higher frequency of wildfires could be devastating for agriculture.
Conclusion
The Heartland Institute is ramping up their attempt to spread misinformation about climate change and global warming by having their deceptively named organization NIPCC putting out pseudoscientific and denialist “reports” that amount to little else than the mindless repetition of denialist myths that have been refuted many times previously.
NIPCC and Climate Change Denialism | Debunking Denialism
So you advocate bleeding the people of course. That's an old idea you know. Are you actually daft enough to believe humans can adjust planetary physics, electrical potential, the oceans, the SUN?
Shouldn't be too long before the truthers declare that global warming will be responsible for the acceleration (or possibly deceleration) of gravity
What do the good folks have to say about the many instances of glaciation ('climate change') and later warming ([anthropogenic] global warming) that has plagued the Earth long before humanity was around?
Lemme guess, it'll be something like a retroeffect with the assistance of a time machine, right?
So you advocate bleeding the people of course. That's an old idea you know. Are you actually daft enough to believe humans can adjust planetary physics, electrical potential, the oceans, the SUN?
Maybe you misunderstand how insurance works.
Higher risk means higher premiums. Insurance companies actually don't want to charge higher premiums because it means less business and represents higher costs when a claim arises. So believe it or not, if there is a lower chance of these events happening, it actually reduced costs to consumers as well.
Natural factors exist but not to the same degree as human caused ones at this stage.
Ok...
Then use post this completely unbiased source.
Debunking Denialism....Too funny.
We could slow the revolution of the planet with HUGH electric brakes drawing all the power from Niagra Falls generating stations that would start the down shift and give us time to build millions of expensive wind turbines hook into the planetary grid this would further reduce the revolution time of the glob light exposure to the planet thereby adjusting the temperature of the planet to it's proper natural ideal. I almost forgot the best part, the days would be longer more sun more food longer working hours, productivity would soar and we could finally develop off planet markets.
see attached sketch and bill
see attached sketch and bill
Last edited:
You are daft. You misunderstand how a multinational corporation works, they unerringly 24/7 seek to maximize there take at all costs. Believe it or not there's absolutely no chance that your explanation is the truth. Will you do the math, The only sustained damage we puny humans will ever do to this planet is to remove ourselves from the food chain, and guess how long the planet will miss us. Of course we should take good care of it, by getting rid of bankers and thieves first.
How funky strong is their fight?
my debunker can beat your debunker.
they're going to their green graves, their hands clenched in fists of rage.
goddamn insane.
:lol:
Actually it pretty much is up to chance. Humans are no more capable of altering the future than rocks. Or yeast cells. And yeast cells, when they start to suffocate ion the CO2/alcohol engvironment they've created in a beer vat, don't band together to solve the problem. They adapt or die. Hopefully the latter, because then you get beer.