Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate-Related Severe Weather Made 2011 Costliest Year on Record: Reports
2011 Disasters Make it Costliest Year on Record
Though it would be impossible to calculate the full financial cost of a rapidly warming world or asign perfect blame to the cause of any one specific weather event, that should not keep - and has not kept - some assessors of risk to try. And though private insurance companies in the United States have remained "eerily" quiet on the subject of climate change, their counterparts in Europe have been looking more closely at some of the data.
(Source: Munich RE) Live Insurance News, an online insurance industry publication, reports:
2011 has become widely recognized in the insurance industry as the costliest year in recent history in regards to natural disasters. While estimates varying regarding the total cost of disasters, Munich Re, a reinsurance and risk modeling organization, claims that 2011 generated more than $380 billion in worldwide insured losses, only a third of which was paid by insurance companies. The disasters have caused the global insurance industry to raise prices, but Munich Re suggests that the pricing surge may be due to climate change.
Though Munich RE is a German company, it maintains a US group and included US weather events in its 2011 analysis. Science News cited some of these statistics in their report yesterday:
... US statistics show that the 552 twister-related fatalities made tornados the deadliest since 1925. There were 158 deaths associated with the Joplin, Mo., twister alone. April spawned 748 tornadoes — 226 of them on just one day. Six thunderstorm events associated with twisters chalked up losses exceeding $1 billion each and the late April tornadoes in Alabama and May twister in Joplin together racked up $6 billion in damage catapulting these events into the top 10 costliest natural catastrophes in U.S. history.
The lower Mississippi River experienced the worst flooding since 1927 owing to heavy snowmelt, saturated soils and more than 20 inches of rainfall in just one month. The estimated economic damage: $2 billion, of which only one-quarter was insured.
Texans have suffered through the worst wildfire year on record, fueled by a persistent drought. Throughout the spring of 2011, more than 3 million acres of west Texas ignited, destroying more than 200 homes and businesses (insured collectively for $50 million). In September, fires near San Antonio destroyed more than 1,600 additional homes (insured for $530 million)
Overall, last year, 820 natural catastrophes occurred — 150 fewer than the year before but well above the three-decade-long average of 630. The monetary value of 2011’s losses, however, were more than twice as high as those a year earlier and about three and a third times the previous decade’s average.
Responding to Climate Change (RTCC), a Non-Governmental Organization and an official observer to the United Nations, also cited the Munich RE research in its reporting, noting that the cost of the disasters was not just a measure of intensity, but also the frequency of severe weather:
Torsten Jeworrek, from Munich RE, believes the volume of events last year was unprecedented.
“A sequence of severe natural catastrophes like last year’s is a very rare occurrence. We had to contend with events with return periods of once every 1,000 years or even higher at the locations concerned,” he said.
Last year also saw a stark warning from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who reported increased evidence of the link between climate change and weather events, predicting that these types of events were set to become more frequent.
Costs from these disasters were not only financial either. Munich RE say around 27,000 people fell victim to natural disasters in 2011, not including the thousands who died as a result of famines following the drought in the Horn of Africa.
Given some of these observations, Marc Gunther at the GreenBiz.com wonders why insurance and re-insurance companies in the US have refrained from taking any bold public stands on the financial impacts of climate change:
You'd expect insurance companies to be among the most forceful voices in corporate America calling for the regulation greenhouse gas emissions.
Uh, no. They've been eerily quiet.
And, at the least, you'd expect them to be proudly steering some of their massive investments to clean energy or energy efficiency projects aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Wrong again.
"It's surprising, in a sense, because they have so much to lose from climate change," says Sharlene Leurig, senior manager of the insurance program at Ceres, a nonprofit coalition of investor and environmental groups. But, she notes, insurance is a conservative business. The industry is all about risk, but it doesn't want to take the risk of speaking out on climate change.
122 Comments so far
Show AllEnvision a planet that is turning into a microwave oven. GLOBAL WARMING with EMFs as part of the problem.
Here is just a little bit from the omega.twoday.net site....
"...With the application of microwave technology not only the atmosphere is heated up, but also the waters of the seas. Thus new sea and air currents come into existence which become ever more noticeable and thus interfere with the climatic conditions on the earth. We must remember the ever growing typhoons and tornadoes going on new paths, the increasing floods and tidal waves, the changes of direction of the sea currents, the El Ninos, the increasing earth quakes, etc.
With this kind of heating up of the biosphere, we get exactly the same situation as in a microwave–oven except that the heating is not so intensive. The warming occurs by an unnatural process, by friction from within to without, and not by the gentle transformation of red light and conduction from without to within as happens in nature...".
This gets back to the Smart Grid/Smart Meter controversy. The increase in global EMF pollution will cause harm. The only question is - How much harm? No one knows. Let's not take the gamble. I am encouraging everyone to just OPT OUT of the Smart Meter - even if there is a monetary penalty that the corporations demand for the OPT OUT. Paying the blackmail to the corporations just might help save the planet.
Rosemarie -
There is nothing special about EMFs or microwave energy as far as global warming is concerned. Microwaves just have a longer wavelength than infra red. Energy of every kind is helping to heat the earth, but only very slightly, its contribution is very small compared with the effects of enhanced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In fact microwaves of certain wavelengths will be of less importance since they will be able to pass out through the atmosphere with little impediment - taking their energy with them, of course.
These trends will only continue, if not escalate. Certainly global warming is a key factor, but so, too, is the hidden relationship between human-engineered violence on a wide-scale, and disruption to those silent, elemental forces that hold the natural world in balance. -------------------------------------------------------------The mystic teacher Yogananda instructed an assembly at the U.N in how this dynamic operated. He made it painfully clear that if mankind continued to rely on weapons and war, that greater "dissolutions" would occur. He explained these would involve: floods, droughts, earthquakes, violent storms, tsunamis, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S., once the richest nation on earth, betrayed its oath to Life by investing in (and developing) a breath-taking assortment of weapons of mass destruction; and it leads the world in selling these to all sorts of nations. This reliance on arms, this trust in violence, this lust for war plays a HUGE role in what is tearing our beloved Gaia apart. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- And since the so-called leaders continue to plan for war, and invent more reasons for conflict, while showing a dereliction of duty when it comes to Greener Energy investments (and technology), we can be sure that Earth Mother's paroxysms of Over-Kill will continue. ------------------------------------------------------------------- And 2012 is just getting underway.
It maybe, maybe I say, could have been at least ameliorated if we realized the invasion and occupation of positions of power by psychopaths and done something about those conscienceless people and I am not talking about nicely asking them to stop what they are doing or quit their job. I find the reality of just waiting this out to be the folly of humanity when it isn't hard to see who these miscreants are and by their lies and actions you will know them.
I turned my TV on fox so that I wouldn't be so disappointed by the republicans and it worked! By the way, they said that there is no global warming or climate change, so don't worry about it. Can't wait for the presidential election, I think I will write in George Wallace.
True.
But carbon dioxide and methane are also important to global warming. At this point plumes of methane a kilometer across are rising up out of the Northern seas. This is due to permafrost melt caused by the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is important to work on relationships and EMRs of all wavelengths, but it may be overwhelmingly important at this juncture to drastically lower carbon dioxide.
James Hansen has a new article on extreme weather events, and shows that beyond a reasonable doubt - it is due to manmade global warming.
OK - but we're preparing to go to war with Iran - and the US is now a dictatorship.
Naomi Klein is entirely right - climate change is a sympton of a far greater problem.
Time to re-focus, because if you think we can make any progress on climate change or any other of the issues of the perfect storm while this is going on you are delusional.
Manysummits
========
Strange to see you write such comments ~Michael~ because of your many recent comments on another thread here, where you and four of your faithful friends downplayed the present danger of the most dangerous feedback loop to global warming,,, the Arctic's vast amounts of releasing methane gas into the atmosphere. because of a rapidly warming Arctic region.
Good to see Dr. James Hansen has a NEW article saying AGW is causing global warming... Al Gore proved that many years ago, but now Al is a corrupt liar and a theif, according to so many who comment on the issue... Whether he is or is not does not detract from the clear and now obvious warmings he presented in his film.
A paragraph from this imformative article.. > ("You'd expect insurance companies to be among the most forceful voices in corporate America calling for the regulation greenhouse gas emissions.").
Yes indeed, we should expect any honest, reasonable and sensible people to do that. But the one percenters and our 536 DC elected are not honest or reasonable and they display a great lack of common sense when it comes to the global warming issue.
In the paper Michael refers to, Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice, Hansen explains how global warming has loaded the dice - skewed the probability range of natural variability - such that hot summers are now twice as likely, while extremely hot summers are becoming common:
The increase, by more than a factor 10, of area covered by extreme hot anomalies (> +3σ ) in summer reflects the shift of the anomaly distribution in the past 30 years of global warming... One implication of this shift is that the extreme summer climate anomalies in Texas in 2011, in Moscow in 2010, and in France in 2003 almost certainly would not have occurred in the absence of global warming with its resulting shift of the anomaly distribution. In other words, we can say with a high degree of confidence that these extreme anomalies were a consequence of global warming.
Hansen is saying the statistical shift in summer heat anomalies implicates global warming as the cause of the 2011 Texas heat wave. You wouldn't see these numbers if the dice weren't loaded. He is carefully, scientifically building the case that it's no longer accurate to disclaim, as so many do, that "no single weather event can be attributed to global warming."
Joe Romm wrote up an excellent summary of Hansen's paper which you might find easier to read:
Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by Global Warming”
Piers Corbyn got the start and end of the Russian heat wave as well as the Pakistani floods to the day a month or more in advance of the events. They were caused by the same phenomenon. Based on the Sun and the Moon. Saying climate change( Caused by Mann) causes extreme weather doesn't make it so. Predicting it months in advance and then being correct? Now there you have something. Pull your head out of the IPCC's sand. Same for the Texas heat wave. The rain that ended the wave was right to the day he predicted. I am sure that facts like this will not be accepted by this crew and may not even be published but this is pretty good stuff. Sorry no one here will understand it.
Piers Corbyn is apparently a crank who predicted a "mini ice-age" in 2010, and whose website offers the following glimpses into his scientific acumen:
"I concur fully with Christopher Monckton and his conclusions."
"There is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change:"
"World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years."
Well then: "Lord" Monckton has no familiarity with the barest rudiments of a scientific approach to anything; the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 has been established since the work of Fourier and Arrhenius in the nineteenth century; and the past decade has been the warmest since the Eemian interglacial, some 125,000 years ago. (Hansen points out that the deterioration of polar ice sheets we now see is strong empirical evidence that we are now above peak Holocene temperatures.)
Corbyn is a climate-change denier of the sunspot school - maintaining that solar cycles are driving temperature changes. Skeptical Science has a good article about this argument:
Claims that solar cycle length prove the sun is causing global warming are based on a single paper published nearly 20 years ago. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975. In fact, direct measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has had a slight cooling effect on climate in recent decades while global temperatures have been rising.
What does Solar Cycle Length tell us about the sun's role in global warming?
Aleph Null -- Thanks for taking the time responding so lucidly to one of the canards of climate change denialists. However, you are not going to have much luck with Kirt Griffin, I suspect.
From personal experience in these discussions -- climate change denialism is now firmly enwrapped with religious fundamentalism and reactionary politics. It is a bit like discussing the historical record for Jesus with a Southern Baptist -- you aren't going to get much traction with rational evidence because they already know the 'truth' of the matter.
However, you do come across people who are merely confused by the 'denialism' and are interested in understanding the solidity of the science. For that reason denialists need to be confronted with the science when they venture out from underneath their rocks to mock the "great global warming conspiracy".
So thanks again.
"KIRT" I am an astrologer. In my field, the sun and the moon are studied with a passion not seen in any other area of inquiry; and I can say with certainty, the positions of the sun and moon are NOT an explanation for the vast variances of recent climate change. Now it would be rather funny, shades of a 21st century Mel Brooks comedy, if the same born again Christians (who tend to deny climate change in allegience to their idea that God is behind all of this, as proof of "End Times") who once burned those of us who studied the stars, as dangerous heretics, now attempt to BORROW from our legacy to deny the SCIENCE of climate change. You frauds want it both ways... but then, you appear to belong to that sect that inverted the teachings of Christ to those in support of war. After an ideological heist of that magnitude, what's a little climate change denial? You can always burn the heretics again, right?
Electrifying post Sioux,
And so true, SR! Some of those thumpers you refer to are some backward intellects aren't they? When I tell them that the moon drives the tides all I get are blank stares and some denials from typical "Bible belt" Christians. These people really believe the Earth is 6,000 years old since the good book tells them so.
Now I really don't have any problem with Jim Jones belief systems like this. If they want to believe in floating into the air to meet Jesus in the "Rapture", it's O.K. with me. But as you succinctly put it, they don't seem content just to peacefully worship or debate; some of them want to kill or imprison anyone who disagrees with them. And their Sects have a long history of doing exactly that. Which is one reason we seem to be locked in eternal war with Muslim nations, imho, even though that is never spoken of. Some way, we've got to return back to a secular government.
But the Moon, even today, is a mysterious body, is it not? You are correct, it does not drive catastrophic weather, as the thumper claims, but rather, influences, in concert with many other influences, many other things in the world due to it's passing gravitational force. It pulls the Oceans to high and low tide with its gravity, affects 28 day Menstrual Cycles? Is that right? It controls the mating habits of the whole reef at low tide where I used to live. While it does not solely cause platetechtonic earthquakes, The probability increases of having one when it passes close by. There is nothing worse for an Oceanic pilot than to be flying on a long dark, dead of night flight with no Moon (Especially Eastbound for some reason.) It is close to living in hell, with no horizon, and nothing except an artificial horizon generated only by an instrument. Staying awake in that void without moonlight is impossible and all pilots fall into what NASA calls microsleeps. (your eyes are open, but your brain has nodded off.)
I tried to respond to you a while back but my posts where removed, since I've been followed around lately, I think, by trolls I've been arguing with on the Nuke threads. They cite minor CD posting policy as reasons to remove my posts. It's a pro-nuke boiler room curse that I need a Amulet for!
I wish you'd write a stormy book on the modern day dark ages we seem to be sliding into, including the subject you just raised in your post.
Cheers,
TJ
"Life is Magical. It just seems normal to us because we are used to it." - Shaman in the movie "Wolf".
Although most deniers have dropped out (now that Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban have come and gone and there is really nothing that is of immediate concern to the fossil fuel industry), I suppose there are these part-timers (?). Anyway, the name Corbyn reminded me that I had replied to someone last year, and it turns out that it was exactly one year ago!
From
"Peak Oil and a Changing Climate" (CD - January 8, 2011), Alcyon - Jan 9 2011 - 2:25pm
>>... it turns out Piers Corbyn's fellow AGW deniers have "denounced him on the movement's well known Climate Sceptic mailing list" as harming their "credibility",...
"Who The Heck Is Piers Corbyn, Or: Why Has The Denialist Movement Turned On One Of Its Own?": (blog post from March 12, 2008)
"On Piers Corbyn: Crazy People Occasionally Get Stuff Right By Accident": (blog posted on December 28, 2010):
According to SourceWatch,
"He keeps the details of his methodology for making predictions a secret, and has been criticized for making unfounded claims about the power of his predictions, even after they turned out to be inaccurate. He has never published accuracy figures for his weather forecasts."
But I can guarantee that the denial industry will never run out of a supply of fakes and frauds - from Fred Singer to "Lord" Monckton to Piers Corbyn, there'll be more names mushrooming as we go forward.<<
I cannot believe the title of this article. It begins "Climate-related severe weather...." Is there such a thing as non climate related weather? Is there any kind of weather not related to climate? Is not climate just a cumulative statement of long term weather patterns in an area? It is a complete non-meaningful title. The article did not say anything meaningful either, other than Common Dreams would rather continue the scare tactics rather than look objectively at the science.
Let me help you to understand that headline. Climate-related severe weather is an abbreviated way of saying severe weather attributable to human-caused climate-change. Objective scientists (and even actuaries) are attributing severe weather events to global warming.
2011 was the most extraordinary year yet for extreme weather events, according to seasoned observers. Jeff Masters has said that if only the tornadoes, or only the fires, or only the floods of 2011 had occurred in a single year, it would be phenomenal - to have had all three is off the charts. What would it take to get your attention, jerrymat? Does the great drought, or dust storm, or super-cell, or flood, or conflagration need to visit your doorstep before you develop any empathy?
I applaud your patience, Aleph... but let's remember one thing, whether these clowns are funded by Koch Brothers "Think" Tanks, or otherwise, their thought process also includes the following:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. That giving "free" enterprise the right to derail all government regulatory agencies will benefit humanity-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. That there's nothing wrong with immense pork barrel spending aimed at the MIC--------------------------------------------
3. That Acorn and the very poor are responsible for the global financial crisis---------------------------------------------------------------
4. That Saddam Hussein was behind 911 (or oops, it was really Iran!)--------------------------------------------------------------------
5. That the torture practiced at Quantanimo (and elsewhere) was little more than fraternity pranks-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. That birth control is a campaign that kills The Fetus--------------------------------------------------
ETC.----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASON is irrelevant to True Believers. They are a scary bunch, and that's why Chris Hedges wrote the telling expose, "American Fascists."
After reading a lot of your posts, I've developed a lot of respect for you. The scholar.google tip is invaluable. Sometimes even, a person with a "little head", gets some respect.
hue_sir_name,
I am most grateful for your gracious words. My nastiness toward you in a previous thread was out of line, and I'd like to take a moment to apologize to you. I was mad at myself for having screwed up like that, because I know you're the one with relatives in Joplin, and I'm sure you're sincere.
That Google Scholar is the best thing since sliced bread. Scientific writing can sometimes be tough sledding, but my default attitude toward science journalism is distrust. With Google Scholar, I can bypass inept interpretations, go straight to the papers in question, and make up my own mind.
Our government has already approved a carbon tax effective 1st July 2012 here's the official explanation: http://www.carbontax.net.au/
I'm not really in favour of it, as our economy is also tanking - just not so spectacularly as our USA and European cousins. A lot of Aussies are seriously struggling to pay mortgages and credit card debts, the salaries are at mid '90s levels and really very few jobs are secure. So, yes, I do agree that our planet is in danger, but carbon tax? Despite the government's assurances that it won't be passed on, I'm convinced it'll be. So, it'll just mean more misery for most people.
As for feeling the effects of climate change: I live in Tropical North Queensland, Port Douglas. Just about a year ago we had the biggest cyclone in our history. It was catergory 5, wind gusts of 290km/hr, etc. And yes, it effected me personally too...
I'm a bit confused as what to do: less people? Less consumption? Vegetarianism? Alternative energy? Yes, all of them, but when and how should we start to implement something?
A carbon tax is a good start. In my opinion. It has the unfortunate effect of making energy a bit more expensive for everybody, in the short term ... along with everything we consume that requires inputs of supplemental energy. But, in the long term, it hastens the end of our fossil fuel addiction and provides a sustainable future for all of us.
Mankind has already burned through most of the cheaply-available fossil fuel that made possible the last 150 years of unprecedented industrial growth. The increasing cost of acquiring the same BTUs -- global petroleum production is likely to begin its slow and inevitable decline within ten years or so -- will have energy repercussions globally. Especially as there are now 3 times as many of us on the planet as there were just three generations ago. Three times! Scary.
The whole energy-intensive economy of this planet will need to change. We might as well adapt ourselves to less energy-consumptive lifestyle as soon as possible. Because things will start getting VERY expensive and ugly when Peak Oil hits the fan, unless we have alternate strategies in place.
If anyone tries to tell you that adaptation is going to be painless, they are lying, or are fools. No politician dares to say it, but we're in for tough years ahead -- even if we make all the wisest choices. Because we're in overshoot.
We did install solar panels on our roof a couple of years ago - for us it makes sense, as we live in the tropics, with virtually non stop sunshine. We are supporting our local farmers, we mostly shop at local farmers markets and we have quite a lot of fruit trees on our property. We have our own bore water. A lot of our friends are doing similar things.
However, we do realise that we need to use cars, have to fly, so we'll make a fossil fuel footprint. It'd be nice to be able to be self sufficient, but it's very hard.
As for peak oil, yes, it's coming and it'll be scary. I however hope by then we'll have alternative energy sources
If you look it up, you'll find the carbon emissions of the aviation you find necessary will negate any possible emission reduction from your solar panels, many times over.
OK, then your military should stop flying all over the world, drive their vehicles, stop their boats - that'd help!!
I'll buy that. My belief is that US military activities are responsible for a huge portion of national emissions - a fact which is seldom considered. I've been on the lookout for hard numbers on military emissions for years, to no avail. Apparently, the people of this "democracy" are not allowed to know about military pollution.
But on the personal level, the carbon footprint of two activities in particular tends to be grossly underestimated:
Eating meat.
Flying in airplanes.
1. Yes, agreed. I've been a vegetarian for quite a while now, although sometimes I do slip.
2. Don't want to be glib about this, but try to live in regional Australia and visit your close family and friends in France, Hungary, Argentina, Israel and Shanghai.
All in all, I do agree that we all have to do our bit, we just have to choose which bit. We've gone solar, try to drive as little as possible, I'm trialling riding my bike (pushbike) everywhere possible - although the distances here are considerable. We also have a water tank, where we gather rainwater, try to recycle, compost and not to waste much, try to buy as much local produce as possible and probably this is the big one: we only have one child.
While scientists are typically cowards, Hanson does support a carbon tax that pays dividends DIRECTLY from the rich to the poor. The idea will work because of its simple brilliance. This is why it will never fly. The only thing that will fly are next year's climate negotiators on their way to COP18 as they stay in luxury hotels and try to figure out a way to get their hands on all that lovely carbon tax money from corrupt carbon credit trading markets. The poor know this is a scam and won't support it. The current carbon credit market in Europe is rife with corruption and totally ineffectual. We are facing a mass extinction event and all we can come up with is another get rich scheme. This is why we are too stupid and greedy to live.
Hello as usual to the low-paid climate change boiler room bloggers, sponsored by a couple of brothers worth $50 billion who have a lot of cash to lose.
I think that we're in the early stages of a big atmospheric methane buildup on this planet. Our hot January following a pre-Halloween snowstorm might be one more oddity.
Although a hot January doesn't seem too bad right now, it may someday prove fatal to some of the dominant tree species in our local forests. Our autumns aren't orange anymore. An orange maple is a healthy maple, but they're not doing well these years.
Our electric monopoly gets paid to reduce its total load. Why not insurance companies.
Folks, science would dictate that there be a link between cause and effect, The link here is not clear. The entire theory rests on GCM's that Phil Jones says don't work. He is head of the CRU. All of the referenced extreme weather was predicted well in advance of standard meteorology quite correctly, to the day, based on the Sun modulated by lunar effects. You can choose to continue to believe in the absence of any facts but I will go with the Sun and the Moon. Next weekend's snow storm in the USA NE was predicted in October. Hurricane Irene was predicted to form on the day and where it formed as well as the path and strength at each position 3 months in advance. Checkmate.
The claim that CRU head Phil Jones says the climate models don't work is sheer rubbish. Fossil-fuel sponsored disinformation.
The claim that the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on modeling is more rubbish. The radiative properties of greenhouse gases have been known for more than 100 years. Paleoclimate and observational evidence of forcing from atmospheric carbon is compelling, and completely independent of forecasts from modeling.
You probably HAVE to resort to more than one screen name, so that when you're discredited under one, you toss it and repeat the same crap under another. The statistics are OBVIOUS, and I'm not talking about any computer model. Even in this article, the elaboration on VERY REAL events, all coming with great frequency requires little more than opening your eyes to what's going on. It doesn't matter if a hurricane is predicted, what matters is scaling down the atmospheric temperature to make less hurricanes the likely reality! How does an idiot like you live with himself? Maybe the idiot part works like psychic protection... to make it possible.
Predicting events such as storms based on the motions of the moon and planets would make sense if those events occurred every time the moon and planets were in a particular configuration - which happens regularly, thanks to the shapes of their orbits around the sun and earth.
In 1990 Iben Browning, a biologist, predicted that a devastating earthquake in the Midwest, along the New Madrid fault zone, would occur on, I believe, the first weekend in December of that year, His prediction was based on the fact that the moon would be nearly over the zone and in its closest position to the earth.
The event did not happen, of course, because the prediction was based on nonsense. The moon is in that position regularly, and earthquakes have not happened, so why in 1990?
Anyone who says the locations of the sun, moon and planets are indicative of things that will happen on earth knows little to nothing about physics, biology, geology, etc., etc.
I've noticed an uptick in major climate events LIKE earthquakes on the approach of full moons. That doesn't mean that EVERY full moon brings one on. Unless one seriously studies astrology, they have no idea how the various planets interact, much in the way a variety of instruments summon specific notes to make a full symphony possible. I have long-studied these influences; and their complex nature must also be coupled with the charts for each location. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's tak the example of Puerto Rico. Does the astrologer use its discovery date? Or when it became an official U.S. commonwealth?------------------------------------------------------
With modern national entities like Israel, we have a firm date of inception to use, and one can chart trends on that basis.
Other variables include: the chart of the president or leader of that nation, or the chart of an offending company, like say B. P. Oil as per the casualty to the U.S. Gulf.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there are many variablest consider; and while astrology takes in the orbital relationship (via a series of geometric angles, which we term "aspects") of at least TEN simultaneous variables, the overall analysis calls for much complexity. Therefore few astrologers focus on natural disasters.--------------------------------------------------------------
I've put together some chart data on some of the world's most calamitous climate events like Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Katrina, and the eruption of Krakatoa and apart from some dominance from Pluto (the agent of destruction and eventual repair) I did not find any influence that was EXACTLY the same as that which precipated the other devastating events. In other words, we're not talking cake-bake recipe here.-------------------------------------------------------------
So I can say with certainty, that while full moons may present ONE variable, it acts as a catalyst, and is far from the not only factor to influence these types of events.
This comment is probably too late - I was busy at work this afternoon - but I will post it anyway.
Everything in your comment regarding the "charts" represents after-the-fact observations, and "hindcasting rarely provides anything useful.
I am a scientist, so I believe things supported by evidence. Sometimes, I repeat, sometimes, correlations are useful - witness the relationship between smoking and disease - but most of the time, correlations merely suggest topics which need an explanatory theory. Kepler showed that the planets revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits, but Newton explained why by solving what today we call the Central Force Problem.
Astrology consists of correlations which lack any physical basis. To say that the configuration of the planets on the day I was born explains my personality says nothing. There is no explanatory theory behind such statements, and there is no imagineable mechanism to explain such beliefs.
When you explain how the configurations of the planets do what you claim they do, and explain it in terms scientists understand (forces, reactions to the forces, some sort of field theory, etc., etc.) people will listen to you. Until then scientists will not take you seriously. Remember, hindcasting is not sufficient.
The subject of solar influence originally came up in this thread in the context of global warming. To be clear: varying levels of insolation (solar radiation reaching the Earth) do make a difference - but not nearly a big enough difference to account for recent global warming.
The most dramatic dynamic in insolation is the sunspot cycle, which results in 0.18°C of warming from trough to crest. This goes up and down every eleven years (right now it's on the upswing). By comparison, the Earth experienced warming of 0.75°C over the past century.
A more subtle insolation dynamic arises from wobbles in Earth's orbit, forming the basis of the Milankovic theory to explain the 100,000 year ice-age cycles of the Pleistocene (the past 2.5 million years).
Current temperatures have nearly reached the Pleistocene maximum. With continuing carbon emissions, we're on track to turn back the climate clock anywhere from 5 to 55 million years.
Athropocene climate change will not be corrected until the mental illness called civilization is cured.
You mean start dealing with the population explosion? If done with intelligence and humanely, that is the way. If not more people means more people will face the rigors of the weather that experienced it in 2011.
Population is only on small part of the problem (OK, a large part.)
But who says it has to be done 'humanely'?
Sit back, do nothing.
Let the wars and genocides rage. Let the plagues and famines happen. Let the storms take their toll.
If such methods and natural systems are good enough for every other living thing on the planet that exceeds their local environmental carrying capacity, they are sure as hell good enough for a bunch of insane ape descendants.
You're right. As that is exactly what is happening. Just like the availability of a product when it is proliferate lowers the price, then human life becomes cheap. Hell, the british empire proved that back in the Victorian Age in India and china. And other empires even longer ago.
There is no carbon tax, none, which will slow down burning coal to fire electrical power plants... It is estimated that burning coal will have increases by 35% since the Kyoto Conference by the year 2020... So we can easily see what the four climate conferences have not accomlished.
Until we stop burning coal world wide we will have accellerating global warming and dramatic record setting natural weather related disaters... What we have witnessed so far in the past two years is just the beginning... Btw; the key words are (record setting).
Another issue many are not yet aware of is, global warming will cause more frequent and more severe earthquakes.... And it is not the (sun and or the moon) which is causing global warming,,, it is an excessive amount of greenhouse gases in parts per million in the upper atmosphere, primarily Co2 and CH4, methane.
If we are going to control global warming we must reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and the easiest and quickest way to accomplish that in a (major way) is to stop burning coal world wide and also address the other important issues in a reasonable and sensible manner,,, instead of having sensless geo-political enticed wars for control of oil.
We (could) replace coal fired power plants with clean energy and by clean I do not mean nuclear power.
There is no argument that nuclear is a hell of a lot cleaner than burning coal, but there are far better, less costly and a hell of a lot safer alternatives than nuclear... We have the technology and scientific expertise available to make solar, geothermal, tidal very viable and very affordable alternatives.
We either do it,,, or we WILL soon have (*runaway irreversible*) global warming and that will most certainly lead to another mass extintion of life on Earth event.
So that is how it is, reduce our carbon output world wide by near 50% and do that very soon or suffer the (*irreversible*) consequences,,, and we do not have 20, 30 or more years to do it... We have to act now with a world wide effort... But don't hold your breath expecting to see any sensible action taken in time... The one percenters are in total control.
Link for a Scientific American article about global warming can cause earthquakes and strong volcanic activity.... We should also keep in mind, that 160 nuclear reactors around the globe are located near earthquake fault lines and some sit right on top of dangerous earthquake fault lines.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=no-link-now-between-eyjafjallajando-2010-04-21
Some of the California reactors doing a jig would sure get the Hollywood types all hot and ... well, hot. As in "I'm sorry Paris, but you are so goddamn radioactive we will have to bury your skinny privileged ass in a lead coffin."
"it is not the (sun and or the moon) which is causing global warming,,, it is an excessive amount of greenhouse gases in parts per million in the upper atmosphere, primarily Co2 and CH4, methane"
Perhaps you meant to say lower atmosphere - which would be correct. The greenhouse effect causes warming in the troposphere, where molecules such as CO2 effectively bounce infrared radiation downward. One of the lesser-known consequences of the greenhouse effect is cooling in the upper atmosphere - the stratosphere - because the infrared is blocked lower down. (This is a "fingerprint" of AGW, distinguishing greenhouse warming from, say, an increase in solar radiation - which would heat the stratosphere rather than cool it.)
A further consequence of stratospheric cooling, in turn, is the new ozone hole opening up over the Arctic.
You're absolutely right, of course, that the Sun and Moon do not cause global warming. As a matter of fact, I had never heard anyone mention the Moon as a source of warming prior to today's illustrious insights from our friend (the lunatic) in this thread.
Hi Aleph !
Kudos on "maintaining an even strain" responding to "the lobby."
The threat of war with Iran has me spooked. I'm reading an article from 1994 by Robert Kaplan, which appeared in "The Atlantic"...
"The Coming Anarchy"
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/02/the-coming-anarchy/4670/
...along with Huntington's "Clash..."
A test of a scientific hypothesis or of a geopolitical paradigm (The Clash of Civilizations) is predictive ability - and a useful and meaningful way of viewing the world.
Jim Hansen scores brilliantly on science, and Kaplan and Huntington appear equally prescient in simplifying and predicting the current state of affairs.
I am seeing the same denial mechanism at work as regards science and geopolitics - self-identity trumps facts - at least initially.
Any human characteristic this prevalent must in a sense be normal and in some way advantageous??
Mike
========
PS
I'll understand if you wish to stick to AGW here.
==
Mike,
Thanks for the link, I'll check that out. Anyone who understands what global warming holds in store for us has to be very worried about social disintegration. Rebecca Solnit has argued (in A Paradise Built In Hell) that disasters bring out the best in humanity.
Even if the demise of mankind is inevitable (everything in life is impermanent, after all), it remains a useful goal to at least go down with dignity and mutual respect - with an eye to preserving as much of life as possible. On the other hand, if a future for mankind is possible, it could only be through the ascendance of justice.
The ongoing "clash of civilizations" generated in Washington, now veering toward Iran, is very much part of the same big picture - part of our collective death wish.
Aleph: You make perfect sense until your last sentence. Is it just sloppy writing? To suggest that "it's part of OUR collective death wish" allots volition to that which a small segment of humanity is guilty of orchestrating. If you would hold that the individual (in this case Toad Goddess or MedeaBenjamin) is as guilty of wishing for world annihilation (for the mere need to occasionally get on a plane) as the designers of death who work in the upper echelons of the MIC, that is a serious moral failing. I am very skeptical towards anyone who paints with such deliberately wide brush strokes. The entire basis of the 99% OWS movement and its global equivalents is to decouple the decisions made on the part of elites, from the wll of the various Peoples. Do you have a death wish? I don't, nor does any mother that I know. We are far more concerned with the PRESERVATION of life and this beloved sphere, Gaia. Whenever a poster conflates what is done by elites with the public's will, they reinforce the ILLUSION of both representation (democratic) and consensus. Bah fucking humbug!
Siouxrose - you are upset!
OWS = ~ .000?1 %
Saying you represent the 99% don't make it so -
I like OWS - don't get me wrong
The elites are running things -
But WE are not innocent
Manipulated - yes; abused - yes; complicit - all too often;
but innocent - hard to buy
"Public sentiment is everything" - that I believe -
Where is the public on climate change?
Why are WE still working for the ELITE?
Because we are afraid -
But not innocent
afraid to die = death wish
you must die to yourself to help others
= life wish
Mike
=
Siouxrose,
Your point about sloppy identification with the PTB, conflating the machinations of power with the public will, is well taken. Still, we may have a genuine disagreement where popular responsibility is concerned. We have previously taken issue with each other over the question of intergenerational injustice - which implies a debt from all older people to all younger people in my view, simply because older people have enjoyed the fruits of exploiting the future, consciously or not.
You ask if I have a death wish. I am a person who was addicted to nicotine for many years. That experience leaves me unable to plead innocence to the charge of having a death wish. But I overgeneralize, assuming that my own flaws are general characteristics. This is the sense in which your point is well taken.
I'm convinced that the nub of the global warming problem is psychological or sociological, not technical. If people overwhelmingly insisted on it, the suicidal level of carbon emissions called "business as usual" could be reversed, and the Earth could heal. All it takes is enlightened consciousness. I wish I knew how to get to there from here, short of massive suffering.
~Siouxrose~, Never, ever disagree with ~Aleph NULL~.
Unless you want to have a lecture from NULL and or his faithful sidekick, the yodeling hill climber, ex-oilman ~Mike~.
I remember my time on the BBC. I became "noticed" by "the lobby."
Their tactics degenerated to personal attacks - almost identical to yours.
No arguments - just personal attacks and hand-waving.
The yodeling hill climber
==========