DougC - Yup, silly you.I said Syria, your articles were all about someplace other than Syria. Therefore, your quotes are a strawman argument.
DougC - “We’re not saying the drought caused the war,"Your own source says drought did not cause the war.
dusty, you're just engaged in rhetorical masturbation. Hungry bellies are a government's worst enemy - droughts cause hunger. . . but considering you've probably never been hungry and I suspect you have the empathy of a rock, so why would something so basic make any sense to you?DougC - “We’re not saying the drought caused the war,"Your own source says drought did not cause the war.
Full Access Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria Peter H. Gleick Pacific Institute, Oakland, California http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1 Abstract The devastating civil war that began in Syria in March 2011 is the result of complex interrelated factors. The focus of the conflict is regime change, but the triggers include a broad set of religious and sociopolitical factors, the erosion of the economic health of the country, a wave of political reform sweeping over the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Levant region, and challenges associated with climate variability and change and the availability and use of freshwater. As described here, water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions. There is a long history of conflicts over water in these regions because of the natural water scarcity, the early development of irrigated agriculture, and complex religious and ethnic diversity. In recent years, there has been an increase in incidences of water-related violence around the world at the subnational level attributable to the role that water plays in development disputes and economic activities. Because conflicts are rarely, if ever, attributable to single causes, conflict analysis and concomitant efforts at reducing the risks of conflict must consider a multitude of complex relationships and contributing factors. This paper assesses the complicated connections between water and conflict in Syria, looks more broadly at future climate-related risks for water systems, and offers some water management strategies for reducing those risks.
Your own source says drought did not cause the war.
That includes extreme weather events that are devastating and wars like Darfur and Syria that have a climate change component at their heart.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/
Drying and drought in Syria from 2006 to 2011—the worst on record there—destroyed agriculture, causing many farm families to migrate to cities. The influx added to social stresses already created by refugees pouring in from the war in Iraq, explains Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who co-authored the study. The drought also pushed up food prices, aggravating poverty. “We’re not saying the drought caused the war," Seager said. “We’re saying that added to all the other stressors, it helped kick things over the threshold into open conflict. And a drought of that severity was made much more likely by the ongoing human-driven drying of that region."Idiot...
CC - There is a long history of conflicts over waterSo, Syria is a water war. Assad, al Qaeda, rebels, Kurds, and the Islamic State are all just thirsty and looking for water to irrigate their crops. Mind bogglingly stupid.
DougC - it helped kick things over the threshold into open conflictRight, because Assad, the Kurds, al Qaeda, rebels, and the Islamic state were going to be all nice and peaceful and live in harmony and la la la...but then came the big bad global warming drought and these nice folks just naturally took to fighting!!! Gee, I don't suppose the desire to overthrow a dictator had anything to do with it, nah, that never happens. The desire of the Kurds to have autonomous rule, nope, couldn't be a factor. The desire of Islamic fundamentalists to build a caliphate, nope, surly not. World powers meddling in other countries, nope, never happens. The real cause was global warming!!! Ha, Ha, Ha!!!
You have a remarkable ability to focus on one detail and ignore the larger picture. What part of "We’re not saying the drought caused the war," Seager said. "We’re saying that added to all the other stressors, it helped kick things over the threshold into open conflict" confuses you so much? And Mike Yohe, hey! Where's that citation for the IPCC making a distinction between Climate Change and Global Warming?CC - There is a long history of conflicts over waterSo, Syria is a water war. Assad, al Qaeda, rebels, Kurds, and the Islamic State are all just thirsty and looking for water to irrigate their crops. Mind bogglingly stupid.
You guys have got way too much time on your hands to be debating about books based upon guess work. Climate Change is nothing more than observation science until the computer models can establish a baseline allowing true scientific measurements. Guessing what the observations will be in the future is what a lot of people call gambling. All Richard Seager is saying is this could have been one of the straws that broke the camels’ back in getting the war going. But it most likely could have been any one of thousands of different straws.
What’s it going to take to move your energy from trying to carry out the Book of Revelation to backing and talking about the heroes who are working with the IPCC on programs to help save the earth? That’s the book I want to read. We are going to still be here for the next decade if you keep moving to every item that someone is writing a book about or claims to be an expert on the subject.
On second thought as the foundations and regulations are going to be hammered out by the IPCC’s efforts. Maybe it’s best if you guys keep chasing your tails and stay out of the way. And we will see you after all the work is done in the protest lines - whining.
You guys have got way too much time on your hands to be debating about books based upon guess work... We are going to still be here for the next decade if you keep moving to every item that someone is writing a book about or claims to be an expert on the subject.This coming from the guy who cannot provide a simple citation for his assertion that the IPCC makes a distinction between Climate Change and Global Warming. We must have way too much time on our hands if we bother debating your lies and Dusty's intentional ignorance.
Right, because Assad, the Kurds, al Qaeda, rebels, and the Islamic state were going to be all nice and peaceful and live in harmony and la la la...but then came the big bad global warming drought and these nice folks just naturally took to fighting!!! Gee, I don't suppose the desire to overthrow a dictator had anything to do with it, nah, that never happens. The desire of the Kurds to have autonomous rule, nope, couldn't be a factor. The desire of Islamic fundamentalists to build a caliphate, nope, surly not. World powers meddling in other countries, nope, never happens.Of course that the USA is directly responsible because of its passion for solving everything by giving money and weapons of mass destruction to war lords and expecting them to do our dirty work for us. And when that blows up in our faces (as every sane person that thought about it knew it would - yeah tragedy there weren't more sane people in our government and among the Fourth Estate, hell or among chicken hawk war profiteer supporters - to think about the consequences of our actions*), malicious idiots want to make believe it's all their doing. * Actually, I think they did think about it, and did know the consequence would be an endless devolution into increased divisiveness, strife, violence, weapons use, that ensures more weapons need to be produced and distributed. Since they are protected in their gated communities and protected work and play places, why should they care what we've (that includes a docile dogmatists citizenry) done to disrupt civil life and sane interaction between peoples.
You guys have got way too much time on your hands to be debating about books based upon guess work... We are going to still be here for the next decade if you keep moving to every item that someone is writing a book about or claims to be an expert on the subject.This coming from the guy who cannot provide a simple citation for his assertion that the IPCC makes a distinction between Climate Change and Global Warming. We must have way too much time on our hands if we bother debating your lies and Dusty's intentional ignorance. Just hold on to your horses. I wanted to add a posting I did on this web site a few years back about the White House not using the Global Warming term in the White House’s Global Warming reports. They changed to Climate Change. The IPCC does not even recognize “Global Warming" on their web site any more in the IPCC glossary. The term is being buried into the passage of time. The Climate Change is still defined as anthropogenic change in weather by the IPCC. The key is in the definitions, compare the definitions by UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE in 1992 to definitions use by the Climate Change 2007: Working Group III of the IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-2.html
Right, because Assad, the Kurds, al Qaeda, rebels, and the Islamic state were going to be all nice and peaceful and live in harmony and la la la...but then came the big bad global warming drought and these nice folks just naturally took to fighting!!! Gee, I don't suppose the desire to overthrow a dictator had anything to do with it, nah, that never happens. The desire of the Kurds to have autonomous rule, nope, couldn't be a factor. The desire of Islamic fundamentalists to build a caliphate, nope, surly not. World powers meddling in other countries, nope, never happens.Of course that the USA is directly responsible because of its passion for solving everything by giving money and weapons of mass destruction to war lords and expecting them to do our dirty work for us. And when that blows up in our faces (as every sane person that thought about it knew it would - yeah tragedy there weren't more sane people in our government and among the Fourth Estate, hell or among chicken hawk war profiteer supporters - to think about the consequences of our actions*), malicious idiots want to make believe it's all their doing. * Actually, I think they did think about it, and did know the consequence would be an endless devolution into increased divisiveness, strife, violence, weapons use, that ensures more weapons need to be produced and distributed. Since they are protected in their gated communities and protected work and play places, why should they care what we've (that includes a docile dogmatists citizenry) done to disrupt civil life and sane interaction between peoples. Sounds like you are in agreement.
You guys have got way too much time on your hands to be debating about books based upon guess work... We are going to still be here for the next decade if you keep moving to every item that someone is writing a book about or claims to be an expert on the subject.This coming from the guy who cannot provide a simple citation for his assertion that the IPCC makes a distinction between Climate Change and Global Warming. We must have way too much time on our hands if we bother debating your lies and Dusty's intentional ignorance. Just hold on to your horses. I wanted to add a posting I did on this web site a few years back about the White House not using the Global Warming term in the White House’s Global Warming reports. There you go moving the goalposts again. I challenged you to provide a citation for the IPCC making a distinction between Climate Change and Global Warming. You have not done so.
They changed to Climate Change. The IPCC does not even recognize “Global Warming" on their web site any more in the IPCC glossary. The term is being buried into the passage of time.Yeah, so?
The Climate Change is still defined as anthropogenic change in weather by the IPCC. The key is in the definitions, compare the definitions by UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE in 1992 to definitions use by the Climate Change 2007: Working Group III of the IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-2.htmlAgain, this does not back your statement that the IPCC distinguishes between Climate Change and Global Warming. I have provided evidence the terms are used interchangeably. You cannot provide evidence there is a distinction, yet you keep saying it. Until you provide evidence to back your assertion I am operating under the assumption you have fooled yourself into believing something with no basis in facts.
Some items are hard to clarify. Take Global Warming and Climate Change for example. What is going on here is......is politically (or should that be profit driven?) motivated PR crazy-making! Global Warming is the physical thing that is happening to this planet and it's climate system. Climate Change is the result of our GHG emissions driven global warming. It really is that simple, clear cut even. But then the only job of the Republican/libertarian PR machine is to confuse and misdirect, such as all this endless diarrhea of the mouth over a non-issue rhetoric game.
Some items are hard to clarify. Take Global Warming and Climate Change for example. What is going on here is......is politically (or should that be profit driven?) motivated PR crazy-making! Global Warming is the physical thing that is happening to this planet and it's climate system. Climate Change is the result of our GHG emissions driven global warming. It really is that simple, clear cut even. But then the only job of the Republican/libertarian PR machine is to confuse and misdirect, such as all this endless diarrhea of the mouth over a non-issue rhetoric game. GHG are greenhouse gases. GHG’s come from natural and human sources. The IPCC use the term anthropogenic, which basically mean originating in human activity. Therefore in the IPCC terms Climate Change are only the human GHG’s or anthropogenic GHG's. Does that make sense to you? And that has been the big problem trying to measure the human vs. the natural causes of warming. And it has not be done yet. If I understand what you are stating is that Global Warming in natural or what I call mother nature. Note that UNFCCC, in its Article 1, defines “climate change" as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods". The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change" attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability" attributable to natural causes. The IPCC now uses the term (GWP) "global warming potential" in the IPCC glossary and doesn't even have the term "Global Warming" anymore. I got to agree that your terms works for a better all around understanding.
Glaciers are not essential.A fully justified statement with respect to continued supply of water for human consumption.
SAY WHAT?Idle skepticism for which no significant evidence has been presented here or anyplace else. Glaciers form the headwaters of a relative few rivers, but most of the mass flow in these rivers is from precipitation over the whole drainage basin. Glaciers form a winter storage/summer release system of tiny worldwide proportions for human consumption. Even if the glaciers disappeared there would still be snowpack melt, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwater storage plus summer precipitation to provide summer water. The assistance from glaciers in these few rivers is not even remotely essential to human consumption needs. Still waiting for a shred of evidence to the contrary. Tic Tock guys.
Sure, if you continue ignoring the details, your blissful self-certain ignorance will continue unabated. And you have certainly ignored plenty of serious information. Oh, and you have yet to provide one shred of anything serious to support your blabber. - tic tockGlaciers are not essential.A fully justified statement with respect to continued supply of water for human consumption.SAY WHAT?Idle skepticism for which no significant evidence has been presented here or anyplace else. Glaciers form the headwaters of a relative few rivers, but most of the mass flow in these rivers is from precipitation over the whole drainage basin. Glaciers form a winter storage/summer release system of tiny worldwide proportions for human consumption. Even if the glaciers disappeared there would still be snowpack melt, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwater storage plus summer precipitation to provide summer water. The assistance from glaciers in these few rivers is not even remotely essential to human consumption needs. Still waiting for a shred of evidence to the contrary. Tic Tock guys.
cc - Oh, and you have yet to provide one shred of anything serious to support your blabberActually I did, for example the Mekong, which I described and linked. You guys are so worried about the glaciers in the Himalayas, and there was that nice map of rivers coming out of the Himalayas including the Mekong. Turns out that glaciers are not a factor of any significance to Mekong mass flow in the summer. Summer precipitation leads to flooding, not shortages. Oh, and then the 70% of fresh water in ice figure was trotted out. How stupid. Nobody is getting water from Antarctic ice. What, do you need some scientific study to tell you this? And one of the quotes tried to say that if glaciers disappeared the water resources would be gone. How ridiculous, as though it would stop snowing and raining because the glacier melts. You guys post nothing but irrelevancies and shallow pseudo science on the subject of glaciers as somehow essential for human water consumption, which clearly they are not. Your posts are like those of a Muslim claiming a scientific miracle in the Qur'an. When you actually read the link it turns out to be endless drivel that in no way supports the point at hand. Global warming is real. The greenhouse effect is real physics. Melting of land ice really raises sea levels. Rising sea levels will devastate coastal cities and lands. These are basic scientific facts. Anybody who denies them has their head in the sand or up their ass or wherever.
Global warming is real. The greenhouse effect is real physics. Melting of land ice really raises sea levels. Rising sea levels will devastate coastal cities and lands. These are basic scientific facts. Anybody who denies them has their head in the sand or up their ass or wherever.As does anyone who tries to write off our mountain glaciers as irrelevant to great swaths of humanity.
As does anyone who tries to write off our mountain glaciers as irrelevant to great swaths of humanity.Ha Ha Ha!!! Great swaths of humanity are just going to die a wretched death without mountain glaciers!!! Why do you guys just sit up at night with your head pounding full of imagined problems? I mean, there are lots of real problems in this world, why do you go out of your way to make up this pseudo science scare mongering bullshit?