Replies

Storms are interesting. There is a long term downward trend in strong tornadoes (2011 season notwithstanding). There is a cyclical trend in Atlantic hurricanes independent of any sea surface warming (which is real). There is a worldwide decline in total hurricane strength (some stronger storms but fewer overall). There is the simplest model that says as the Arctic warms, there will be less stormy weather.

On the other side of the coin is the Federal insurance programs and Federal disaster relief which is getting more and more ridiculous every year. There is the Army Corps spending billions on flood control which often "saves" a couple of farms (which would be better off flooded and renewed) at the expense of higher water downstream. There are people's greed and stupidity that lets them rationalize that it is not their fault for building on a floodplain, but someone else's.

It is certainly possible that one offshoot of global warming may be higher rainfall totals. If true, it is a negative feedback (u.e. the water cycle increase causes net cooling). I don't think it is profitable to argue against the need for well engineered flood control whether floods are frequent or infrequent because floods will happen regardless of climate. But we are talking about a relatively small land area at risk. But there is absolutely no reason to jump from that need to a requirement for carbon control. That is simply ludicrous, insane, stupid and probably done with malicious intents.