• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Just how serious is Global Warming anyway?

Giz

Philosopher
G
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
8,709
Is it a chance for the UK to have decent weather, and maybe produce some decent vino? Or is it more serious than that...

The Archbishop of Canterbury has just blasted the Govt for saying it won't meet it's carbon emmission reduction target by 2010:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2107107,00.html

"unless there is a real change in attitude, we have to contemplate these very unwelcome possibilities if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions, of people not to die."

This made me think (pauses for audience reaction) - I have seen arguments for/against the amount of temperature change, whether it is caused primarily by humans etc. What I haven't seen much of is a discussion of what the magnitude of the impact would be. What are peoples ideas... is "billions of deaths" from Global Warming reasonable or just hot air?
 
According to a study commissioned by the President of the US, global warming as a result of human activity is a virtual certainty.
A scientific study commissioned by the Bush administration concluded Tuesday that the lower atmosphere was indeed growing warmer and that there was "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."
Click to expand...

Upon hearing the results, the president took immediate action to make no changes whatsoever.
But White House officials said that though the finding was important, the administration's policy remained focused on studying the remaining questions and using voluntary means to slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...
 
casebro said:
Here's a link to the official US weather/climate stuff:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Go there, and put in 'annual', and 1998-2005. The current trend is downward.

Since man has not done anything to actually lessen his impact, perhaps nature is the culprit?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's fairly noisy data, but look at the last 100 years.
graph-May315:16:475480346679.gif
 
c'mon guys - this is a thread about what would the magnitude of the effect of 2 (3?) degrees of warming would be... not whether it will happen, or who is to blame!
 
Latest I read was that some cities would need to be abandoned at coastlines, and that this may take over 300 years. Given few modern buildings last that long anymore and would thus need rebuilding every century or two, the "panic mode" of it is somewhat underwhelming.

There are upsides as well, the increased carbon dioxide in the air is a boon to farming and plant growth.

But "billions" dying from it is a bunch of fantastical nonsense. The half of humanity not living in free countries would be much better served for quality and length of life by overturning their governments, intoducing free markets and the rule of law, and doing their best to contribute to global warming via industrialization than having their elitists continuing trying to remain in power or gain wealth via kowtowing to Western leaders on this issue.

Oop. I spoke a heresy. :eye-poppi

We now return you to your regularly scheduled short-term, panic-stricken worldviews...
 
Beerina said:
than having their elitists continuing trying to remain in power or gain wealth via kowtowing to Western leaders on this issue.

Oop. I spoke a heresy. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Wow. I was actually right with you until this little bit of insanity...

I mistakenly thought that a lot of the violence was due to power-hungry dictators embroiled in civil wars with myriad motley and vicious groups, not (academic, liberal, environmental, whatever) elites kowtowing to Western leaders on climate change. :boggled:
 
Regarding the US temperature graph. Here is some data from NASA GISS

Here is something interesting. The first chart is from 2000. Look at the trend and in particular look at the 1930s relative to the late 1990s. There were a number of warmer years.

Next look at the latest chart. The 1930s are all now assessed as cooler and the 1990s have been increased and with the addition of only 5 data points, downward revision in temperatures in the 1930s and upward revision in the 1990s and the whole story has changed.

Quite strange really.
 

Attachments

  • usa-1999.gif
    usa-1999.gif
    15.6 KB · Views: 27
  • usa-2005.gif
    usa-2005.gif
    3.9 KB · Views: 578
Last edited:
Giz, I get you. I too have had treads derailed.

My take is,

if you're a proponent, you think any increase would be horrible.

I don't buy that.

I'm on the fence but leaning toward mostly good.

I think the AGW component of the temperature increase will be minor and...since there's nothing we can do about it anyway (see Koyto predictions), then the best thing to do is prepare for the reasonable worst while delighting in the actual grace of milder winters and milder summers.
 
Beerina said:
Latest I read was that some cities would need to be abandoned at coastlines, and that this may take over 300 years. Given few modern buildings last that long anymore and would thus need rebuilding every century or two, the "panic mode" of it is somewhat underwhelming.

There are upsides as well, the increased carbon dioxide in the air is a boon to farming and plant growth.

But "billions" dying from it is a bunch of fantastical nonsense. The half of humanity not living in free countries would be much better served for quality and length of life by overturning their governments, intoducing free markets and the rule of law, and doing their best to contribute to global warming via industrialization than having their elitists continuing trying to remain in power or gain wealth via kowtowing to Western leaders on this issue.

Oop. I spoke a heresy. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

No, you created a strawman.
 
casebro said:
Here's a link to the official US weather/climate stuff:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Go there, and put in 'annual', and 1998-2005. The current trend is downward.
Click to expand...
That's cute. When '97-98 was peculiarly warm denialists put it down to it being an El-Nino year and the up-swing of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Now they're taking that as a base-line to determine a trend. Of course, come the next El-Nino, which will be warmer than the last globally, they'll be back to the "It's an El-Nino year! Conspiracy to misinform!" argument. The sun-spot cycle is unlikely to feature for a few years.

Greenhouse denialism is rapidly being reduced to the status of a cult.
 
Giz said:
Is it a chance for the UK to have decent weather, and maybe produce some decent vino?
Click to expand...
Britain, wine ... That connection reeks of the denialist "there used to be vinyards in Britain, so it was warmer in the Dark Ages" argument. Why, otherwise, would the association be made?

In 1066 England was successfully invaded by the Normans. Anglo-Saxon England did indeed have vinyards in those days, producing white wines to the Germanic taste. The Normans had a taste for red wines, which many of them already produced for export from their French estates. Is that not a more likely explanation for the demise of English wine-making than climate-change? What happened to German white-wine production over the same period that reflected climate-change?
 
well....

the gulf stream will get turned off cos of all the icebergs melting and diluting it.....

the whole of europe is subsumed into an icy tundra - everyone dies.....

the whole of canda perishes.....

who cares about africa or asia - they never contribute much anyway.....

some plucky americans survive to carry the flag for humanity....

at least, that's what hollywood has led me to believe....:) :) :)
 
Giz said:
What are peoples ideas... is "billions of deaths" from Global Warming reasonable or just hot air?
Click to expand...
If the US, Russian and African populations all died at once it would barely reach a billion. I reckon you could squeeze Australia, Canada and Mexico into the difference. Perhaps even Japan as well.

That's deaths all at once, with no reference to infant mortality rates.

Were one to look for billions all at once out of the 6-and-a-bit that breathe today you have to look to the East : China, India, SE-Asia. That's where billions of people depend on rivers fed by Tibetan glaciers, and/or monsoons. Both are at risk from Greenhouse Warming. So the potential for billions of deaths (even if only applied to those already breathing) is certainly there.
 
Geckko said:
Regarding the US temperature graph. Here is some data from NASA GISS

Here is something interesting. The first chart is from 2000. Look at the trend and in particular look at the 1930s relative to the late 1990s. There were a number of warmer years.

Next look at the latest chart. The 1930s are all now assessed as cooler and the 1990s have been increased and with the addition of only 5 data points, downward revision in temperatures in the 1930s and upward revision in the 1990s and the whole story has changed.

Quite strange really.
Click to expand...
You are going to have to specify some points. I don't see it.
 
According to the graph it seems that 12:1 compression, leaded 101+ octane gas, high horsepower musclecars were cooling the earth down more and more until 1973 where catalytic converters, smog pumps, EGR valves and other emissions devices strangled out the horses and the world started heating up

strange, you think it would have been the other way around
 
pipelineaudio said:
According to the graph it seems that 12:1 compression, leaded 101+ octane gas, high horsepower musclecars were cooling the earth down more and more until 1973 where catalytic converters, smog pumps, EGR valves and other emissions devices strangled out the horses and the world started heating up

strange, you think it would have been the other way around
Click to expand...
Acid rain was the main driver back then. Sulphate aerosols, which are short-lived in the atmosphere, have a significant short-term effect on the ground. In the atmosphere they have a cooling effect. On the ground they kill trees. Save the trees, remove a mask of Greenhouse Warming.

So the "other way around" logic escapes me.
 
CapelDodger said:
Acid rain was the main driver back then. Sulphate aerosols, which are short-lived in the atmosphere, have a significant short-term effect on the ground. In the atmosphere they have a cooling effect. On the ground they kill trees. Save the trees, remove a mask of Greenhouse Warming.

So the "other way around" logic escapes me.
Click to expand...

YOUCH!!!

Thats a good explanation, I never realized that there was actual logic to it, I thought I was just misinterpreting the graph
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom