Climate catastrophe isn't so certain

[orogenicman]

In fact, there has been plenty of reaction by engineers. Those levees around New Orleans didn't build themselves.

The suprebly adaquate levees in Irrawaddy delta where 200,000+ people drowned in 2008 didn't built themselves, not did anyone else build them.

As to the levees in New Orlean, they didn't build themselves. But were they adaquately built, as is perfectly possible with 1950 technology, to withstand the consequences of a Katrina like storm, also amply predicted back in 1960s?

---

Also have a look at rainfall. India gets heaps and has the highest arable land.

India has at least has conquerored famine since the British left. So added rainfall and prosumably increased food production probably won't reduce the background casaulty.

But what about added casaulty? Added rain fall to India in the 21st century will comes from the monsoon in Indian ocean, and much of the monsoon rain arrives by cyclones. 5 cyclones in the drier 20th century already killed 100,000 people each. As yet there seem to be nothing like adaquate plans to protect the Northern Indian ocean basin against the sort of monsoon seen in the drier 20th century. What is additional casualty to be expected from India's more bountiful rainfall?

The issue was whether these climate events had resulted in a reaction by engineers. The claim was that there was no reaction. The evidence is to the contrary. Whether the reaction was adequate to protecting cities and farmland from these massive events is another issue. That's all I'm saying.

[popeyespappy]

Judging from your previous post you should probably read it.

Oh right, so you believe the man made climate change bollocks do ya?

I believe that overall the currently available evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is affecting the Earth’s climate. You on the other hand seem to accept evidence that confirms your prior beliefs, i.e. ACC denial, without bothering to check the validity of the claims. My evidence in support of this is your previous post in which you claim other planets are warming too, and the only thing they have in common with the Earth is the Sun. Therefore the Sun must be the cause of Earth’s increasing average surface temperature

There are a couple of things wrong with that claim. First is that the evidence other planets are warming is slim at best. What little evidence there is in support of such a claim is unconfirmed and little is available as to the factors driving those changes. Second is that recent (since 1978) records of solar activity don’t correlate with temperature changes during that timeframe. 

I believe your thought process concerning the issue of climate change is likely affected by conformation bias. I suggest you look into it. 

[Anomalocaris]

I am not claiming no reaction. I am claiming inadaquate and behind the curve reaction to be predictable behavioral trait. The trait is unlikely to go away, and is likely to result in predictably worse consequences with ACC.

[orogenicman]

I am not claiming no reaction. I am claiming inadaquate and behind the curve reaction to be predictable behavioral trait. The trait is unlikely to go away, and is likely to result in predictably worse consequences with ACC.

That is largely because organizations such as the Corp of Engineers, who are responsible for flood control in the U.S., are prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The levees in New orleans were, in fact, slated for upgrades, and they were well aware of the limited protection they provided. Unfortunately, neither the Corps nor the Bush administration were in sync with nature's timetable.

Having said that, to be honest, I don't think the expense of trying to protect New Orleans from the inevidible is worth the expense and effort. It is my opinion that the most vulernable portions of the city should be moved to higher ground. It is more cost effective, and would have a longer lasting result. Continuing to build on such disaster-prone land is irrational.

[Reforged]

Guys guys, calm down. This isn't the end of the world. The Earth has been here for countless years and has survived much. It will continue to be here for a long, long time so stop the panic because the Earth isn't going anywhere...

We are. We're going on a rather interesting journey, an adventure if you will, into the realms of extiniction and non-existance where we will be placed in museums by the new dominant race of the planet.
"Oh look at that Hzfka" the parents will say "Apparantly this "who-man" was found in a "bu-nee" costume. He was what was known as a "fury". Isn't that amazing?" Of course the morbidly obeese child will look bored and complain the whole time but at least it will kill a few minutes before the child grows hungry again and the planet they inhabit will be relatively unharmed.

The Earth will be just fine so don't worry your little heads off... :-)

[Anomalocaris]

That is largely because organizations such as the Corp of Engineers, who are responsible for flood control in the U.S., are prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The levees in New orleans were, in fact, slated for upgrades, and they were well aware of the limited protection they provided. Unfortunately, neither the Corps nor the Bush administration were in sync with nature's timetable.

Having said that, to be honest, I don't think the expense of trying to protect New Orleans from the inevidible is worth the expense and effort. It is my opinion that the most vulernable portions of the city should be moved to higher ground. It is more cost effective, and would have a longer lasting result. Continuing to build on such disaster-prone land is irrational.

Every organization in charge diseaster prevention in the world is prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The US, having a very large and rich economy, is actually far better off despite being under the same constraint.

My point is the same constraint will exist regardless of ACC, but because of ACC, the consequences of these constraints would be predictably worse. The difference can be called casaulties of ACC.

[orogenicman]

Guys guys, calm down. This isn't the end of the world. The Earth has been here for countless years and has survived much. It will continue to be here for a long, long time so stop the panic because the Earth isn't going anywhere...

We are. We're going on a rather interesting journey, an adventure if you will, into the realms of extiniction and non-existance where we will be placed in museums by the new dominant race of the planet.

Erm, and as human beings, this is not something to worry about? When did that happen?

---

That is largely because organizations such as the Corp of Engineers, who are responsible for flood control in the U.S., are prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The levees in New orleans were, in fact, slated for upgrades, and they were well aware of the limited protection they provided. Unfortunately, neither the Corps nor the Bush administration were in sync with nature's timetable.

Having said that, to be honest, I don't think the expense of trying to protect New Orleans from the inevidible is worth the expense and effort. It is my opinion that the most vulernable portions of the city should be moved to higher ground. It is more cost effective, and would have a longer lasting result. Continuing to build on such disaster-prone land is irrational.

Every organization in charge diseaster prevention in the world is prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The US, having a very large and rich economy, is actually far better off despite being under the same constraint.

My point is the same constraint will exist regardless of ACC, but because of ACC, the consequences of these constraints would be predictably worse. The difference can be called casaulties of ACC.

Or perhaps more appropriately, victims of ACC deniers.

[KichigaiNeko]

Skeptical Science is a good site. I like it because many of the articles provide references to peer reviewed publications relevant to specific topics. The discussions in the comment section are often vigorous, detailed and provide insight into both sides of the issue.

Yes it is now a permanent bookmark! Thanks Pappy! Great reading!

---

Anthropogenic Climate Change is still in doubt; Climate change is not in doubt. The economic ramifications are a concern and I fail to understand how creating a new commodity "Carbon Credits" on the world's stock exchanges is going to do anything to stop Climate Change. The 'Carbon Tax' does appear to be just another "great big tax on everything" and like the New Orleans incident..nothing will get done except maybe some CEO's will get multi-Million dollar hand-shakes

Now I spent all afternoon yesterday on that most excellent site Pappy directed me to and still came away with 'evidence inconclusive'. It appears that science has yet to refine and understand Climate fully to give any 'consensus' on just what, why, how and when our global climate operates. The actual mechanisms that regularly flood Bangladesh with monsoonal rainfall are only partly responsible for Cyclonic activity here in Northern and Western Australia. Now there are several factors that "influence" weather here in Oz and the best depiction are these The fact too that the majority of Australia is FLAT is another contributing factor to our weather; and that's just for starters. It would be a nightmare of epic proportions to plot and understand what happens over the entire globe in the 50 short years that this "Climate-Change" investigation has been operating. And yes - like Edison there are many who can and will scam a quick buck out of mis-information.

[orogenicman]

Anthropogenic Climate Change is still in doubt

Not really.

[KichigaiNeko]

As i said from that web site yes it is.

Unless of course you are referring to the potential warming as staving off an Ice age?