Climate Change To Drive Weather Disasters, Say UN Experts

mdsolar writes "Climate change is amplifying risks from drought, floods, storms and rising seas, threatening all countries, but small island states, poor nations and arid regions in particular, UN experts warned on Tuesday. In its first-ever report on the question, the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said man-made global-warming gases are already affecting some types of extreme weather. And, despite gaps in knowledge, weather events once deemed a freak are likely to become more frequent or more vicious, inflicting a potentially high toll in deaths, economic damage and misery, it said."

Re:Yeah yeah

[repapetilto]

I wonder how the worlds scientists who are all in consensus about the fact that climate change exists and it's causing weather patterns to be unpredictable

Is there consensus on that second part? What is your source? Because that is not what is said on the first page of the report the IPCC just released.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1..

[na1led]

This country cares for the planet like their diet. They deny any bad doing till it's too late, and then look for other excuses as to why it happend.

Re:Yeah yeah

[SuricouRaven]

Or, in plain english: "Climate is changing, we screwed it up, now we're going to get more flooding. Not sure about the cyclones though."

Re:More, less, anything is caused by AGW

[ArcherB]

You can find studies that show more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more sever hurricanes all due to global warming. It's getting old attributing every possible outcome to Advance Global Warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html [nationalgeographic.com] http://www.science20.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes [science20.com] http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm [sciencedaily.com]

Can someone explain why this was modded down? He made a point and backed it up links. If you don't agree, that's fine. Reply and tell him why he's wrong.

Modding a comment down simply because you disagree with it against the moderation guidelines.

Always the wrong angle

[AdrianKemp]

I'm still pretty skeptical about AGW (though not global warming itself, the temperature records unquestionably and unsurprisingly show a warming trend).

But here's the thing: it doesn't fucking matter.

We are spewing toxins into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. Air advisories are more common by the year and I can barely stand being in big cities for an hour before the saturated odor of pollution gets to me (no not physically, I'm not a whiner about such things... it just... gets to me... I want away from it).

So why the fuck are we even discussing this in light of what might possibly happen if the data isn't as bogus as it seems at times and the models that have never been right might possibly be right this time?

All of the same things that allegedly contribute to AGW are polluting the air and water in real, tangible, short term ways. How about we focus on that right now and keep an eye on the still unanswered question of exactly what it means to the climate.

Re:Yeah yeah

[semi-extrinsic]

There are even worse examples than that. "Silent Spring" caused huge reduction in the use of DDT as a pesticide, as it reported environmental consequences along with some studies linking it to cancer. Of those studies, one had design errors and the others people haven't been able to reproduce. Meanwhile, the reduced use of DDT in Africa and South America caused a huge increase in deaths from malaria, projected to be in the tens of thousands. Countries where malaria is a problem are now starting to use DDT again, and are seing malaria infection rates drop dramatically. Meanwhile, Americans are happy because the population of their national bird has increased.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1..

[characterZer0]

Are you willing to tell all of the people below the poverty line that they can no longer afford to drive to work, pay for the food and afford to heat their house?

Either we tell them now and help them deal with it, or we give our great-grandchildren a messed up planet.

there are many places in this country where such means of transportation are absolutely not available.

I know. That is what we need to fix. But it is available for a huge number of people.

Wind is not a viable alternative energy source yet, and won't be for some time, if ever.

No, but wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear together is viable.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas

[Kidbro]

I think it's rather a "factually incorrect is not a mod option, so I use troll instead". Which is fair, tbh.
Deliberately posting incorrect numbers is trolling. Doing so unintentionally - well, then you shouldn't really be part of the discussion anyway.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1..

[repapetilto]

Ok, and who has said that an anoxic event is likely to occur? I'm not being snarky, it is an honest question.

Re:Yeah yeah

[repapetilto]

The actuaries have the same data available to us... honestly I have no idea why actuaries are suddenly an authority on climate science but whatever.

There is no scam necessary. If the insurance company can make more money by justifying higher premiums (for any reason), they should be expected to do so up to the point it loses them business.

Really, this is a very convoluted argument with regards to AGW. It unnecessarily adds all sorts of business, regulatory, and social factors. It makes much more sense to simply look at what the IPCC has said and discuss that.