/cont

DDT was a boon to mankind. It saved enormous numbers of lives by wiping out the lice problems for soldiers in WW2, and by eradicating malaria in most first world nations. But once the problem of malaria was no longer an issue for the first world, suddenly it was decided that it was too dangerous for others to use. Eagle eggs were much more important than brown babies.

There is some evidence that DDT is particularly effective against the creatures that transmit Zika. If Zika takes off in a big way in the USA and other first world countries and if its found that DDT is the best defence, just watch how quickly the safety of white babies trumps eagle eggs.

Wow, how long did it take to write that piece of emotional garbage mhaze?
Still no data I see, how disappointing.

Not only was DDT not generally banned for public health use, no semantics needed, it has been in various public health programs worldwide for many years. When it hasn’t been used, alternative effective pesticides, such as synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates have been used to replace it. In many cases replacement was due to a reduction in DDT effectiveness due to the evolution of resistance in target species. DDT’s only claim to fame is that is a bit cheaper, as it is more residual that the others, another reason why resistance can build up faster. Countries like the USA can afford more expensive measures for mosquito control.

The statement you make about “little to no detrimental affects on humans and most other species”, is hyperbolic and unsupported, like many of your statements. DDT is an insecticide and affects a lot of arthropod species, and since it is highly persistent in the environment, builds up in the food chain. It is also highly toxic to fish and other aquatic species.

There have been many cases where chemicals, such as pesticides, CFCs, lead in petrol etc. have been exceptionally useful and described as a 'boon' to humanity. However overuse, combined with accumulating detrimental effects and clear alternatives, have seen that that 'boon' subject to diminishing returns that reduce that chemicals' benefit over time. They are replaced by other chemicals that also work.

There was no 'holocaust'. That didn't happen.

You really should look up some of this stuff, rather than regurgitating emotive opinion pieces with no basis in fact.

mhaze

The original estimation of costs for the Louisianna floods had been $1.5 billion; a closer review has significantly upped the costs. Investigations suggest the cost will be $8.7 billion.

The other 7 floods mentioned earlier were also extremely costly being in the once in 500 year statistical range. Some time ago I wrote about how in areas during the South Carolina floods there were spots where flood waters were higher than the flood marker poles.

The Mississippi/Misouri flood had been completely out of season and was suggested as the second biggest flood recorded. Out of season meaning normally they received snow during the particular time of year, not rain. Rain not snow, has something to do with temperature.

Your previous comment:

"Even more idiotic is the notion that water vapour levels can't be declining because there are floods as though floods are a new phenomena. "

http://klfy.com/2016/09/09/led-estimates-august-flooding-caused-8-7b-in-damages-to-louisiana/

First sentences from reference:

"Louisiana Economic Development estimates the August 2016 Louisiana Flood caused $8.7 billion in damage to Louisiana residential and commercial properties, with damage to businesses in the state exceeding $2 billion. Those figures do not include damage to the state’s public infrastructure."

Note the costs do not take into account the state's public infrastructure.

The referenced Insurance Journal article in relation to the summer of 2016 adds credence to previous comments; extreme weather is deadly, and creates huge costs.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/09/23/427368.htm

Quote:

Flooding in China’s Yangtze Basin from May through August killed at least 475 people and caused $28 billion in losses.
A drought in India that started earlier in the year and stretched through June caused about $5 billion in damage.
Flooding in West Virginia and the mid-Atlantic in June killed 23 people and damaged more than 5,500 buildings.
Typhoon Nepartak hit the Phillipines, Taiwan and China in July, killing 111 people and causing at least $1.5 billion in damage.
Flooding in northeast China in July killed 289 people and caused about $5 billion in damage.
Temperatures reached 129 degrees (54 degrees Celsius) in Kuwait and Iraq in July.
Flooding in Louisiana in August killed 13 people and caused around $15 billion in damage.
Flooding in Sudan and South Sudan in July and August killed 129 people and damaged more than 41,000 buildings.
A long heat wave coupled with high humidity afflicted the U.S. South and East. Savannah, Georgia, had 69 straight days when the temperature hit 90 or higher.
Typhoon Lionrock hit Japan, China and Korea in August and killed 77 people while damaging more than 20,000 buildings.
Spain set a record for the hottest September temperature recorded in Europe, with marks of 114 and 115 degrees.
Localities in the United States broke nearly 15,000 daily records for hot nighttime minimum temperatures from May into September.

You are always remarking on the Arctic ice flea, without any current knowledge of the topic.
Here is an update:
”since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate.
Already it is greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015. Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/record-arctic-sea-ice-growth-in-september/
Were you lying again, flea, or just ignorant? Also, you have not been able to supply one instance of what you termed my “constant comment”, so you were certainly lying there, weren’t you, flea?.
In your usual pig ignorant manner you will not reply, so we will take that as an admission of what I have put to you. I cannot be fairer than that. You have the opportunity to reply if you consider that you are not lying.

Leo

Your comment made me laugh in relation to sea ice, there is variation from day to day in sea ice extent. What sea ice extent does not take into account is thickness and volume.
The official PIOMASS figures for volume have not come in yet; but, the provisional volume for 2016 is 4,400 km3 ( rounded up ), in 1979 the volume had been 16,700km3. The average ice thickness for 2016 provisionally is fractionally over one metre.

Last winter the Barents Sea had no sea ice. Sea ice extent is measured on a daily basis, what your comment amounts to is: because it is cold today the climate is cooling; or alternatively, because it is warm today the Earth is warming. There can be a change up or down, of 100,000 km2 from one day to the next, the reason why maximum and minimum sea ice extent are the meaningful numbers.
Last winter the sea ice extent was the lowest maximum extent ever recorded; the minimum extent was the second lowest ever recorded in 2016. If the maximum and minimum sea ice extent values are computed together; then, 2016 displayed the lowest sea ice extent ever recorded.

Not long ago (2016) a British yatch completed both routes of the fabled North West passage.

Trend lines for volume, area, and extent of sea ice have been consistently been going down.

Back to volume of sea ice, in 1979 PIOMASS found the volume to be 16,700 km3, in 2015 the volume had been 5,700 km3. Much of the stabilising multi year sea ice has been lost over the years.
Since 1979 about 12,000 km3 of sea ice has been lost.