Economists want uncarbonated...

We could call it The Great Carbon Tax Leap Forward.

 

At least you admit it.

Ad hominem is also a fallacy. But FYI, governments have spent billions drumming up anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

 

Which is because there's more people.

Duh.

 

Please explain how a 1.4 degree F in advertised temperature increase between today's instrumentation and the just as accurate 100 year old devices they're being compared to result in spontaneous forest fires.

 

"The past three years (2016-201 have been historic, with the annual average number of billion-dollar disasters being more than double the long-term average. The number and cost of disasters are increasing over time due to a combination of increased exposure, vulnerability, and the fact that climate change is increasing the frequency of some types of extremes that lead to billion-dollar disasters.

(Did the population double in 3 years??)

This is a 3-year average of 15 disaster events / year, the highest on record, and well above the annual inflation-adjusted average of 6.2 events per year (1980-201. In addition, this 3-year average even exceeds the annual inflation-adjusted average of 12.6 events per year over the last 5-years (2014-201.

The total U.S. wildfire costs for the last two years is roughly equal the costs of the previous 37 years combined (1980-2016)

(wait til they add the cost of this year!)

Climate change is also paying a role in the increasing frequency of some types of extreme weather that lead to billion-dollar disasters—most notably the rise in vulnerability to drought, lengthening wildfire seasons in the Western states, and the potential for extremely heavy rainfall becoming more common in the eastern states. Each of these changes in extremes are becoming more visible in relation to the influence of climate change"

Duh...

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2018s-billion-dollar-disasters-context

 

You couldn't even comprehend what the first paragraph said.

Let's get past that one first before we proceed with the rest.

Try reading it again slower this time.

You also didn't answer my question. I'll try again.

How does a 1.4 F increase in 100 years cause spontaneous fires.

 

Why do you guys fall flat on your face when confronted with something relevant??

Population is a part of it, but it's just a small part...

 

No, it's the only part.

First of all, you didn't even understand the first paragraph you linked.

The 3 years in question (2016 to 2018 ) were compared to the long term average.

You asked if the "population doubled in 3 years" which shows you don't even understand that small part of what you read.

The long term average from your link goes back to the 80's.

Houston population in 1980: 1.6 million

Houston population in 2020: 2.4 million

Your own link's FIRST SENTENCE:

NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) tracks U.S. weather and climate events that have great economic and societal impacts.

I.E., just like in the past, the only natural disasters that are tracked as damage are those that impact an area that impacts the people living there.

 

You are the one falling flat on your face, because what you posted was laughably shallow and silly.

The other parts are inflation, real increase in standard of living, and increasing expansion of development into vulnerable areas.

 

I wonder if he looked at the graphs showing 2005 being the 2nd worst year.

Doubtful.

 

Climatology is a multi-disciplinary effort these days, there are thousands of scientists working on it.

If any of you could slam dunk climatology, you would be at the top of the short list for the next Nobel.

For that very same reason, you wouldn't be doing it here.

This is sad and hilarious in roughly equal proportions... there are only 3 reasons why you keep shoveling propaganda. The Mods don't like me to say them, but it's not exactly hard to work out.

Besides, why you are trolling is unimportant.

 

AGW is the perfect leftist binky, as by the time you can prove anything one way or the other, we'll have been dead for several thousand years.

Here's what I do know: the left has been telling us the climate was going to kill everyone "in 10 years" for the last 70 years.

I don't have to slam dunk it, I'm doing my part by slam dunking the gaping holes in what you're saying.

Would you like to attempt to address what I said, or was that too hard?

I'm sure throwing out words like "propaganda" and "trolling" is much easier, and we all know how Democrats are like electricity: they always take the path of least resistance.

For example....let me show you how thought is performed.

The "long term average from the 80's" is almost $50 billion a year.

Current average for the 3 years in question? $100 billion.

US Population in 1980: 203 million
US population in 2020: 330+ million Don't have census yet

So you have an almost doubling of the US population....and a doubling of the damage per year.

Maybe you could get a scientist on that.

 

DARPA and one of the big oil companies were the first to scientifically find warming, back in the 1970s. DARPA was a government defense agency, and the idea it was Left wing is funny.

"The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is a research and development agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military.

Originally known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), the agency was created in February 7, 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in response to the Soviet launching of Sputnik 1 in 1957. By collaborating with academic, industry, and government partners, DARPA formulates and executes research and development projects to expand the frontiers of technology and science, often beyond immediate U.S. military requirements.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

What most have said is that we need to work the problem.

But I understand the need for hyperbole. Having lost the science decades ago, all that's left is BS.

 

Oh they found warming.

What did they compare it to.

Oh I've dealt with plenty of horror. That's what makes me detest communists and the willfully stupid so much.

 

They didn't.

As I remember, DARPA was more cautious, and the oil company researcher thought it could be anthropogenic.

I see that your motivation is political...

 

There's a convincing argument.

 

It's not an argument, it's the history.

 

Y'ok.

 

And all of them know they will not get jobs or funding for saying, "There's nothing to be concerned about."

No one will ever get a Nobel for saying, "There's nothing to be concerned about."

OTC, this is a place where one can say, "There's nothing to be concerned about," and not be worried about keeping their job/grant/status/friends.

This is sad and hilarious in roughly equal proportions... there are only 3 reasons why you keep shoveling propaganda. The Mods don't like me to say them, but it's not exactly hard to work out.

Besides, why you are trolling is unimportant.

 

You get a Nobel for outstanding work.

Leaves you out.

 

Nope. Not if that outstanding work just confirms what was known for over a century, like the fact that CO2 does not control the earth's temperature. There are no Nobels for debunking pseudoscience like anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering.

Oh, and here I was getting my hopes up....

 

We've known about the properties of CO2 since the 1800s.

"In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming.

It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future."
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/why-we-know-about-the-greenhouse-gas-effect/

As I've said many times, DARPA and an oil company found global warming in the 1970s, and the oil thought it might be anthropgenic. Both of these projects were secret.

But in the 1980s, other scientists started seeing the same thing, which set off a long and brutal fight among scientists. That is was caused by humans survived many assaults by actual scientists, and in the late 1990s, climatology reached consensus. This doesn't mean 100%, you can't get 100% of scientists to agree on what time it is. But there is a process, and it was done. A few years later, the larger scientific community added their support. Now it's a massive multidisciplinary research effort that involves most countries and pretty much everywhere on the planet, in the oceans and above in Space.

All of which is to say that the Deniers are barking mad.

 

You do know the earth is not a 120 years old, correct?

 

First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging.

 

Just to chime in, you should have been in Australia last summer. I was. Beyond belief.

And you might want to talk to someone who's been living in Denver, Colorado recently. Ask them if they have ever seen the likes of it before.

This isn't a future problem, it's already here now.