Climate deniers get even more ridiculous

[warpus]

All I know personally is that the glaciers are receding all over the planet. I think only some of them are growing - a very tiny amount. I know about this because I actually seek out glaciers, so I can go see them - and it's going to be harder and harder for people to do so. Which is a big shame, because they can be beautiful. That, and they are actually quite important.

 

[Gary Childress]

All I know personally is that the glaciers are receding all over the planet. I think only some of them are growing - a very tiny amount. I know about this because I actually seek out glaciers, so I can go see them - and it's going to be harder and harder for people to do so. Which is a big shame, because they can be beautiful. That, and they are actually quite important.

I have heard that receding snow lines could cause the mass extinction of many plants and creatures that will not be able to keep up with the rate of recession. So, yes, it sounds like that would be quite important to me also.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I guess for me, that is something that scientists should be determining. Does anyone happen to know what the latest consensus (if one exists) is regarding the effects of climate change?

From NASA:

Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third National Climate Assessment Report 2, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast.

Spoiler :

Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest.

Spoiler :

Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast.

Spoiler :

Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest.

Spoiler :

Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest.

Spoiler :

Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

And from National Geographic:

Some impacts from increasing temperatures are already happening.

Spoiler :

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth’s poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.
Researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.
Sea level rise became faster over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.
Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

Spoiler :

Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes.
Ecosystems will change—some species will move farther north or become more successful; others won’t be able to move and could become extinct. Wildlife research scientist Martyn Obbard has found that since the mid-1980s, with less ice on which to live and fish for food, polar bears have gotten considerably skinnier. Polar bear biologist Ian Stirling has found a similar pattern in Hudson Bay. He fears that if sea ice disappears, the polar bears will as well.

 

[luiz]

No, but it is going to cause problems, especially for countries who are ill equipped to deal with them. This will lead to other problems for everybody else.

Who's saying it's going to lead to the apocalypse? Some crazy guy on a street corner somewhere?

Maybe it will create problems in some places and alleviate problems in others?

I really see no evidence that the net result will be negative.

 

[warpus]

Maybe it will create problems in some places and alleviate problems in others?

I really see no evidence that the net result will be negative.

Really?

Don't you see that it will lead to mass migrations, the sea levels rising, ecosystems changing and driving various species out and forcing them to try to adapt to life elsewhere, how it will affect the food supply, and so on?

What good could possibly come out of it?

 

[luiz]

Really?

Don't you see that it will lead to mass migrations, the sea levels rising, ecosystems changing and driving various species out and forcing them to try to adapt to life elsewhere, how it will affect the food supply, and so on?

What good could possibly come out of it?

Mass migrations? What if there is a net increase in agricultural output? Wouldn't that lead to less migration? As for ecosystems changing, so what? Are their current form sacred or something? They'll be different, not any worse or better. Some species may suffer and others will thrive. I very much doubt there'll be any decrease in biodiversity, quite possibly the opposite will happen (warmer areas have higher biodiversity, all else being equal).

You mentioned food supply. Let's talk of food supply. Why exactly would a slightly warmer Earth compromise our food supply?

 

[warpus]

You know, what you're saying is exactly the opposite of what experts are saying. As such, I am going to have to ask for citations for your claims.

"What if" doesn't convince me either - especially since as far as the experts are concerned, most of the fallout is going to be negative.

 

[EgonSpengler]

There are hundreds of millions (billions?) of people who rely on glaciers and snowpack for fresh water. In places like the American Southwest, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia (parts that are armed with nuclear weapons).

Do you know what the spark for the Syrian civil war was? A water shortage.

From the Center for Climate and Security: Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest

Pakistan and India have literally fought multiple wars over control of the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir. Pakistan took India to The Hague a few years ago to get an injunction against a hydroelectric dam, that I think expires in 2017, iirc. These are people who think a nuclear war is winnable, like the USA and USSR circa 1960.

From The Economist magazine: South Asia’s water: Unquenchable thirst. A growing rivalry between India, Pakistan and China over the region’s great rivers may be threatening South Asia’s peace.

 

[Kaitzilla]

No, but it is going to cause problems, especially for countries who are ill equipped to deal with them. This will lead to other problems for everybody else.

Who's saying it's going to lead to the apocalypse? Some crazy guy on a street corner somewhere?

2004, the Pentagon.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism


Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York

Saturday 21 February 2004 20.33 EST

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

2007, Al Gore while accepting his Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

2000, snow was predicted to become rare in southern Britain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

 

[luiz]

You know, what you're saying is exactly the opposite of what experts are saying. As such, I am going to have to ask for citations for your claims.

"What if" doesn't convince me either - especially since as far as the experts are concerned, most of the fallout is going to be negative.

Are any experts really saying that there will be a decrease in biodiversity over a warmer Earth? Or are they saying that this and that species may disappear, but not saying anything in the aggregate?

And you're the one making claims on food supply, so corroborate them.

There are hundreds of millions (billions?) of people who rely on glaciers and snowpack for fresh water. In places like the American Southwest, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia (parts that are armed with nuclear weapons).

Do you know what the spark for the Syrian civil war was? A water shortage.

From the Center for Climate and Security: Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest

Pakistan and India have literally fought multiple wars over control of the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir. Pakistan took India to The Hague a few years ago to get an injunction against a hydroelectric dam, that I think expires in 2017, iirc. These are people who think a nuclear war is winnable, like the USA and USSR circa 1960.

From The Economist magazine: South Asia’s water: Unquenchable thirst. A growing rivalry between India, Pakistan and China over the region’s great rivers may be threatening South Asia’s peace.

The water from glaciers won't disappear. In fact the cycle of snow melting and feeding rivers is not under threat by a moderate warming. What is under threat are the permanently frozen zones. Peaks will continue to receive snow in the winter, and that snow will still melt and feed rivers. What could happen on peaks at lower latitudes is that they may start to be snowless in the summer.

 

[luiz]

From Kaitzilla's post...

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

Gotta love the Siberian Britain by 2020. Unfortunately people would be better informed on climate change if they asked a baboon then if they trusted whoever wrote this article (and this report, if the article is accurate).

Oh, and of course while some "experts" claim that Britain will be Siberian by 2020 others claim it will be completely snowless around the same year. Make up your minds!

 

[Borachio]

Well, that article is from 2004. (Let's hope no policy maker is relying on it today.)

Even so, it's not likely that the "Siberian" prediction will ever come true.

And the phrase "sunk beneath rising seas" is wishy washy phraseology that I would have thought the Guardian was above. I thought it was a reputable newspaper. Not that it makes any difference to me: I don't read any of them.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, not meaning to use this 'science' claim as a basis or anything, but plants obviously do need co2 given they are what turns it into oxygen. They are basically the reverse in that than we are.

As for the mess that the 'debate' on GW is...: the field of large-scale and non-tied to geological period swifts, global warming, is not really a science. Which doesn't mean people can't use scientific arguments here, but it does mean it is a breeding area for all sorts of trolling and half-truth, from both sides.

One should also keep in mind that media-people usually are near science-iliterates, and also that there is no such thing as 'popular/public friendly scientists' who don't come with presenting misleadingly simple soundbytey info.

 

[Borachio]

Some media people specialize in reporting on scientific matters. They may not be actual scientists themselves, but I wouldn't describe them as "science-illiterates" either.

That's not to say anything about the front pages of the tabloids, though. I'll give you those.

 

[Kyriakos]

No.

I want more than just those, sorry.

 

[Borachio]

Alright. Alex Jones and Jeremy Clarkson, then.

And that's my final offer.

 

[warpus]

And you're the one making claims on food supply, so corroborate them.

Sure:

Agriculture and fisheries are highly dependent on specific climate conditions.

Despite technological improvements that increase corn yields, extreme weather events have caused significant yield reductions in some years.

Very easy to find.

Want to share some citations that collaborate your hypothesis that climate change could lead to some good, as opposed to bad?

 

[EgonSpengler]

From Assessing the Risk of Persistent Drought Using Climate Model Simulations and Paleoclimate Data, by Toby R. Ault, Cornell University; Julia E. Cole, Jonathan T. Overpeck and David M. Meko, University of Arizona, Tucson; and Gregory T. Pederson, U.S. Geological Survey. October 2014 issue of Journal of Climate, American Meteorological Society.

Abstract

Projected changes in global rainfall patterns will likely alter water supplies and ecosystems in semiarid regions during the coming century. Instrumental and paleoclimate data indicate that natural hydroclimate fluctuations tend to be more energetic at low (multidecadal to multicentury) than at high (interannual) frequencies. State-of-the-art global climate models do not capture this characteristic of hydroclimate variability, suggesting that the models underestimate the risk of future persistent droughts. Methods are developed here for assessing the risk of such events in the coming century using climate model projections as well as observational (paleoclimate) information. Where instrumental and paleoclimate data are reliable, these methods may provide a more complete view of prolonged drought risk. In the U.S. Southwest, for instance, state-of-the-art climate model projections suggest the risk of a decade-scale megadrought in the coming century is less than 50%; the analysis herein suggests that the risk is at least 80%, and may be higher than 90% in certain areas. The likelihood of longer-lived events (>35 yr) is between 20% and 50%, and the risk of an unprecedented 50-yr megadrought is nonnegligible under the most severe warming scenario (5%–10%). These findings are important to consider as adaptation and mitigation strategies are developed to cope with regional impacts of climate change, where population growth is high and multidecadal megadrought—worse than anything seen during the last 2000 years—would pose unprecedented challenges to water resources in the region.

 

[luiz]

Sure:



Very easy to find.

Want to share some citations that collaborate your hypothesis that climate change could lead to some good, as opposed to bad?

What I see is a constantly increasing yield, even as the Earth got warmer in the last decades. That yields don't like extreme conditions is rather obvious. But the trend is clearly positive (no, I'm not saying the warming was beneficial for production - though it might have been marginally beneficial. I'm saying it wasn't detrimental, and I don't think it will be in the future either).

As for the positives, here are some:

Opening of shipping lanes in the Artic:

Spoiler :

The change here is quite striking. Right now, no commercial shipping goes through the Northwest Passage that hugs northern Canada. Yet by mid-century, those routes could potentially be clear for open-water vessels every other summer. Likewise, the Northern Sea Route that hugs Russia is projected to be open in late summer 90 percent of the time, up from 40 percent today.

That could transform shipping, at least during those summer months. As a news release from UCLA points out, it's 40 percent quicker to ship goods from Rotterdam, Netherlands to Yokohama, Japan along the Northern Sea Route than it is to take conventional shipping routes through the Suez Canal. That's still far from a given—it depends on how the economics evolve, since Arctic shipping will remain risky. But global warming will remove a key physical barrier here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...pen-up-surprising-new-arctic-shipping-routes/

Increase in agricultural production on vast landmasses in places like Russia. Decrease in heating costs in those places, and of the cost of living in general. Opening up of new areas for resource exploitation. More frost-free harbors. Some benefits of GW for Russia (it is argued they're already benefiting from it):

Spoiler :

In addition to these efficiency costs, it is also expensive to live in the cold climates; for example, there are high heating and snow and ice removal costs. These costs affect Russia more so than other areas because communist planners have populated cities and built industries that are too big to be economically viable in the relative coldness of their locations.6 Thus, there is economic pressure because of the cold for many Russian cities to shrink (which has been difficult given the existing infrastructure of these cities). Russia’s increasing temperatures (which are probably the result of global warming) could relieve some the economic pressures that result from the cold climate. Warming will directly reduce the effects of cold on work efficiency in Russia and reduce adaptation costs. In fact, this is already happening. Rosgidromet (Russia’s Hydro-meteorology agency) stated in 2008 that average annual temperature in Russia has risen by 1.3 °C over the past 30 years and that winter temperatures in Siberia have increased 2-3 °C over the past 120-150 years.7 This is reflected in the agency’s estimate that there will be five fewer days that require heat in 2015 than in 2000. The agency also estimates that Russians could reduce heating costs by as much as 10 % by 2050.

Russia will further gain from the warming of the ground and water in and around its territory. The UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2001 that if average air temperature increased by 2-3.5 degrees, a quarter of the earth’s permafrost would melt.8 This is already happening; Greenpeace’s 2009 report on Russia states that over the past 35 years the southern boundary of permafrost has moved north by 18-25 miles in European Russia and 50 miles near the Urals. Rosgidromet predicts that by 2050 the permafrost boundary would shift north by another 95-125 miles. The retreat of permafrost will make extraction of raw materials easier; Victor Mote wrote; “In Siberia standard mining and excavation machinery may be used for only three to four months a year in northern Siberian tin and gold operations.9 In addition, most of Russia’s gas and oil comes from Arctic regions, as well as “considerable quantities of the world’s nickel, cobalt, copper and diamonds.” Observers are tracking additional warming trends like the spread of trees and shrubs northward, which implies an increase of habitable land. Warming will also allow agriculture to spread north, extend the growing seasons, and perhaps increase overall agricultural yields—Russia has recently marked yield records.

In addition, Russia’s chief forecaster, Alexander Frolov, said that the North Pole may be completely ice-free in the summer within a few decades. The retreat of Arctic ice will reduce the cost of extracting natural resources from Arctic waters, which contain large reserves of oil, gas, gold, diamonds, nickel and tungsten. One concern for such extraction has been icebergs. A reduction in Arctic ice is also opening up a trade route which would be an alternative to the Suez Canal; the distance between Rotterdam and Yokohama is about one-third shorter via the Northern Sea Route—along Russia’s north coast and then south through the Bering Strait. Rosgidromet has stated that Russia is close to opening “almost the entire Northern Sea Route to icebreaker-free shipping [from August to September].” In fact, representatives of the eight Arctic powers are already discussing the development of the route. The Northern Sea Route’s freight consisted of about 110,000 tons this year. By 2020, some predict freight will increase to 64 million tons. Additionally, Siberia contains eleven of the world’s fifty longest rivers—all of them flowing into the Arctic Ocean, except the Amur that flows to the Sea of Okhotsk (to a port that is unusable for five months out of the year because of the ice). As the Arctic sea-ice retreats, the settlements along these rivers will no longer be on waterways that essentially come to a dead end. It will become possible to transport cargo from these rivers to ports around the globe, which could lead to a decrease in transport costs and an increase in trade volume from the interior of Siberia. David Lempert and Hue Nhu Nguyen write in The Ecologist that “the biggest winner from global warming is going to be Russia.”

http://csis.org/blog/might-russia-welcome-global-warming

 

[Kyriakos]

Alright. Alex Jones and Jeremy Clarkson, then.

And that's my final offer.

At least you included some heavyweights