By this logic we could blame the Thirty Years War on the Little Ice Age

Hmmm. Sudan is experiencing a drought? Has that ever happened before? What are we to do? I know, lets send money! It hasn't worked before but I have a funny feeling that this time lots of money will do the trick. You know that the Sahara was once a forest? Yep, all the way up until those nasty humans showed up. I'll bet money can grow trees there if we just had the heart to send enough.

I have a headache, climate change. A car just turned left, climate change. Millions of spoiled Americans are experiencing hyper-anxiety over a myth, climate change. Whine whine whine whine whine.

Is there anything today that is not attributed to climate change?

I don't disagree that climate change is occurring, it is always occurring. I do however disagree that it is caused by man. More evidence that THE SUN is the culprit has been found. I would not expect AGW'ers to find this interesting since actual tests were performed to draw these conclusions. Who needs science when you have consensus?

I predict that the folks that are whining about AGW today will be whining about some other nonsense when it starts to cool. I find it fascinating that so many adults allow themselves to be so affected by fantasy. I need to invest in companies that produce anxiety and depression medications because there seems to be a pandemic occurring.

Mark, Brookline, Steve Bloom, are y'all going to pony up and show some evidence that AGW is real or just keep whining? Not encouraging you, just asking, I get a good laugh out of many of your "theories" :)

Oh Good Grief! Now I have heard it all. Leave it to the United Nutjobs to try and pin this one on Global Warming, thus trying to pin it on the western world's consumptions and use of CO2 (a.k.a. pinning it on the U.S.A. and George W. Bush). The reason for the slaughter in Darfur is because of the Sudanese Government backed figthers know as the Janjaweed who are leading the charge against the non-Arab Muslim Sudanese population of the region in a land struggle. Translation: Blame the slaughter in Darfur where it belongs. On yet another oppressive radical Islamic regime. But the United Nutjobs won't do anything about that, now, will they? Darfur conflict caused by a Global Warming induced drought? We were born at night, but it wasn't last night!

Brett;

It may be best if you familarize yourself with the with the IPCC report on Global Warming. I understand it's 1400 or so pages long. There is obviously a lot of information in it and I'm sure it contains enough detail to determine if global warming has been shown to have contributed to a particular drought area as well as what's to come.

Of course, I should probably follow my own advice and have a copy availble for review too. Off hand, I know that the NE US and Easter Canada are expected to see an increase. However, it's mostly in the winter.

I thought I had seen something about this research and here is an article published in 1997. Apparently, the Sahel desert in western Sudan has been in a drought since the early 60's. This has caused many of our beloved AGW supporters, including Secretary Moon, to deduce that only global warming could have caused this. Specifically, human induced global warming caused by that malicious pollutant, carbon dioxide emitted from the exhausts of our SUVs. What I'd like to know is which of your ancestors were driving their SUVs back around the year 500? The author's research shows that droughts similar to the present drought in severity are a regularly occurring phenomena. Seems that these droughts occur with a periodocity of around 1500 years.

Why does that number sound familiar?

Holmes, J.A., Street-Perrott, F.A., Allen, M.J., Fothergill, P.A., Harkness, D.D., Kroon, D. and Perrott, R.A. 1997. Holocene palaeolimnology of Kajemarum Oasis, Northern Nigeria: An isotopic study of ostracodes, bulk carbonate and organic carbon. Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 311-319.

The authors of this study conducted a high-resolution palaeolimnological study of a 5500-year lake sediment sequence extracted from Kajemarum Oasis in the Manga Grasslands of northeast Nigeria, focusing on stable oxygen and carbon isotope ratios in the carbonate-carbon and the organic-carbon fractions of the lake sediments.

The authors state that their results "show convincingly that the present drought is not unique and that drought has recurred on a centennial to interdecadal timescale during the last 1500 years."

The authors conclude that this worst drought of the modern meteorological record "is not likely to be purely anthropogenic in origin." And if it is no different from what has been occurring over and over again for the past 1500 years, it is surely not the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

From CO2 Science.

Oh, yeah. BT.

You seriously need to consider answer those questions found a few threads back. Thanks.

Of course this is an absurd claim but it is part of a much larger problem involving fraud and dishonesty. Policy makers, like the UN Sec'y Gen'l, appear to be on an intense sales campaign to convince the world of the evils of a warming climate. Anything that's bad therefore must be caused by GW while the benefits of GW are ignored.

I ran across an intersting article which looks at the phony science used to convince the EPA to ban DDT. It also addresses the fact that much of the so-called proof of GW is scientific malpractice, like Mann's hockey stick. It's well worth a look:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?568ed3ba-8a08-49b0-9f13-e3e7ecae8c4c

You seriously need to consider answer those questions found a few threads back. Thanks.

Paul, I seriously invite you to learn what the web community means when it says "don't feed the troll."

BT,

That's what I thought. No answer. When you don't have an answer, obfuscate.

I'll answer the question for you, BT. You don't have any evidence that an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations has caused any perceived warming above and beyond that caused by natural forcings. You know perfectly well that the "correlation" between rising carbon dioxide and world temperatures is only good between the 70's and the late 90's. Before the 70's, temperatures were coming down from a high back in the 40's, yet carbon dioxide concentrations were just beginning their increasing trend during this period. Yet, the only actual "proof" you have is from computer models with artificial forcings which "predict" temperature increases in the future, while at the same time fail to calibrate against empirical data. Sheesh!! Just answer the questions.

As larger populations fight over the same or diminishing resources there will be more violent squabbles.
It is widely accepted that the Middle East will run desperately short of water in a decade. As if we need another example of how a shortage of a resource can cause conflict.
Melting of glacial fresh water storage in Asia and Europe threaten billions with water restrictions while droughts here are the worst in living memory, even if its not AGW, GW has had the same effect on rainfall.
Aside from just drinking water the natural resource supplies irrigation for crops and water for live stock and in recent times electricity from hydroelectric dams and water that supplies industry in developing nations.
We can appreciate that entire economies are now dependant on unrestricted water flows across borders. These arrangements will be stressed if rainfall fails to fill catchments at which time an army may be needed to secure a national interests.
I remember the 6 day war starting because of water, is this so different?
AGW has contributed significantly to bring about war in Darfur, just as the demand for oil played its part in the Iraq. There will always be people who will deny the link. Nevertheless a lack of resources and an excess in world populations presents a significant threat to world peace and I�m surprised there is any argument.

"don't feed the troll."

BT,

This is a discussion forum where people exchange ideas and ask each other questions. If you are not interested in doing that and prefer to just insult people, you really shouldn't participate.

Maybe you should give yourself a "yellow card?"

I was under the impression that the massacre in Darfur was due to religious and ethnic hatred. I'm so glad the secretary cleared that up.

I am also quite certain that the demise of the Anasazi in the 13th century to drought was the direct result of Republicans driving their SUVs. Droughts never occurred prior to GWB being elected president, and electing Obama will make the rain come back.

We must give lots of money to the UN to prevent the drought from getting worse! Where is Kofi Annans's nepotist son when you need him?

BT:

Explain "Don't feed the troll" Just don't get it.

Say, the shuttle is getting ready to land. Hope they can make it through all of the CO2 on the way down. From what I get out of the hype, it seems it may be enough to cause all sorts of problems.

Brings up a point, are AGWers against the space program? Just think of the damage that a launch and landing does. I mean the launch has to be the equivalent of at least the fumes expelled by a few SUVs, right? Horrible.

So maybe all this AGW stuff is really all due to JFK and his silly dream.

Guys you�re so funny. I�d like to know how many tons of co2 come off the launch of just one space shuttle, but as the emissions are offset by half in re-entry anyway, its not that bad. Once its done for joy flights it will be worse.

What silly dream started the space program?
Will mankind travel to distant galaxies, to invade, occupy slaughter lock up and torture, all while establishing intergalactic democracy in return for much needed resources.
Good plan how�s the dummy run going?

No political party has solutions to global warming peace or depleting resources; the only real job of government is to establish an environment fit for business, not for us to live in.

Have you noticed industrial areas are not exactly healthy?
Therefore nothing but floss will be achieved by any hopeful government. Saving the world is no-good for business and is disastrous for governments.

The issue will not be solved by politics or indeed human activity, so you are just as safe with either one of the Consumer focused political parties.

Have you not realised yet that institutions derive strength from economic growth which relies upon the burning of fossil fuels.
There is a huge profit to be made in alternative energy and greater profits are guaranteed by using all available energy, so what have we got to lose?

Harnessing all available energy will improve the economy and developing a carbon offset program will establish new markets that make more cash while the burning continues at a constant rate.

Have you noticed the only nations on earth that enjoy peace today also have adequate access to resources?

You can blame the guy who throws the first punch but had they not been incapacitated to start with, the fight may not have occurred.

BTW science fans, it�s not exact. There is always room to argue, but global warming is still occuring despite the cooling effect of global dimming.
Why is this so?

Simon,

Right, so predictions call for the Middle East to run out of drinking water. Could that be due to anything other than AGW? How about population growth in what is, vastly, desert? This chart http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRH/Resources/population.pdf
shows that the Middle East and North Africa populations more than doubled between 1965 and 2002. That's a lot of new throats drinking something that I'm pretty sure was not all that abundant in the first place. I don't have any facts on it but I would speculate that with the increase in population they are also doing more irrigation.

I'd be a bit skeptical about rain predictions due to the recent predictions that Australia was going to shrivel up like a prune, this as recently as early may.

Here are two quotes from Australian Eco-idiot Tim Flannery:

"Even a year ago this would have been unthinkable, Flannery told AFP. I think it�s the most extreme and the most dangerous situation arising from climate change facing any country in the world right now."

By mid-June it wasn't quite that important:

I believe the first thing Australians need to do is stop worrying about the drought - which is transient - and start talking about the new climate."

How perfect. The AGW crowd truly pounces on any remote evidence that backs up their theories. As soon as they are shattered they look for anything else to grasp onto. Hence; It's not global warming, it's climate change. You guys covered the entire spectrum with that one.

The argument, AGW versus GW is about absolutes, but what will it achieve?. Singular symptoms of the same problem are teased out in these threads to support a certain point of view for both sides of the argument without the contributors realising that the overall cause stems from the same threat.
rbnyc contends the population is the cause of water shortages in the ME. He will get no argument from me, shortages will occur and more people will fight more violently over the rapidly depleting resources. The water has been put to more uses and at the same time rainfalls have decreased over the region, which is an AGW effect and has already had an impact on population.
However the drought in Australia has just one root cause which is not due to larger populations its fault only lies in AGW and has caused climate change. Australia�s on going drought (into its eighth year) is currently experiencing a normal seasonal reprieve, it happens every winter, when its inhabited regions receive winter rainfalls. Nevertheless overall drought continues as climate change trends have established a new rainfall pattern over the entire continent where rain now falls on mainly coastal regions, far away from traditional catchments areas so the natural network remains dry.
This is the example of climate change at its worse that we were all looking for. Australia s climate change has hit a small wealthy technologically advanced population that is unable to secure sufficient water because it no longer rains where it once did.
Tim Flannery has hit the nail on the head. "Even a year ago this would have been unthinkable, Flannery told AFP. I think it�s the most extreme and the most dangerous situation arising from climate change facing any country in the world right now."
By June winter rains had arrived dampening the panic, newspapers carried pictures of farmers dancing in puddles and people forgot that the rivers were still dry.
The global drought now affects 2/3rds of the planets population, for some it means death and for others it stops us washing the car. In Africa a great deal of water evaporates from hydroelectric dams and in China the water is too polluted to drink, There is still lots of water but the natural systems have been affected. Southeast Asia and Europe are is losing glacier fresh water storage to melting, America is losing aquifers and lakes to high temperatures and low rainfall and Australia is losing its traditional catchments because its raining on the beach.
Therefore we must plan to cope with the change, but first we have to accept that we are the threat and we are the ones threatened.

You have it there Simon. I'm sure none of these cataclysmic events have ever happened before.

You have it there Simon. I'm sure none of these cataclysmic events have ever happened before.

Perhaps some of us are comforted by an observation that similar episodes happened before the dawn of written history.

Others of us are not.

Perhaps some of us are comforted by an observation that the United States survived the Dust Bowl, and even dispute the role that human activity played in creating that ecological catastrophe.

Others of us disagree.

Perhaps some of us are comforted by an observation that the United States survived the Dust Bowl, and even dispute the role that human activity played in creating that ecological catastrophe.

REPLY: Oh, I can't wait to hear the answer to this one! Tell me, just how prey tell did we "evil" humans cause the dust bowl? Did it have something to do with drilling for that "evil" oil or something?.....LOL!

NOT GUILTY!

rbnyc:

AGW adds power to the severity of natrually occuring hazardous weather.
We always had droughts & the bush fires that dry weather causes, hurricanes even have seasons they are so common, and floods, tornadoes etc are not new events bought on by AGW
In fact there are no new weather effects that come with AGW, all the dangers existed before, but these natural weather events were not as powerful severe or as bad as they are now.

This is how AGW affects us now, by turbo charging and supplying more energy to adverse weather conditions.

This causes more harm to more people and would even if the population were the same as it was in 1930.

Floods always affected Britain but were not as severe or as frequent as they have been in recent years.
Heat waves always occurred in Europe, but never as severe or as frequent causeing deaths of thousands.
Drought in Australia were always common but were not as severe or as frequent and never continuous, lasting more than a few years.

Dust bowl conditions happened before in the US but well before aquifers were tapped, dams were built and river systems were altered to provide City & irrigation water.
This drought is therefore far worse than those in 1930. We have lost a far greater volume of water and compared with 1930 availble sources, a greater area of agricultural land has been affected which is causing greater financial losses and is affecting a greater number of people.

In Darfur AGW exacerbates the effects of drought in much the same way and so AGW has caused greater hardships to a greater population which has led to conflict.
Now the goal of opposing forces is the control over Oil rather than water, because there is no longer enough water to fight about or a surviving agricultural economy to gain control over.
Now all there is are different cultures fighting over a fossil fuel that caused GW.
I wonder if we can make future wars carbon neutral when future wars will be fought to control energy.
The brutal fight over water has now joined the global battle for control over oil.