Global warming to global drying?

[Urederra]

@ Urederra ~ If you don't beleive in humans causing global warming then what do You suggest is?

This question denotes a mistake many people commit. Climate is driven by multiple factors, not only one. It is not whether A or B causes global warming, it is rather how much % of the global warming is caused by A and how much is caused by B. (add more letters to have a better picture).

I have never said that I don't believe humans are causing global warming, I always said that we don't know how much of the global warming is caused by us. What I don't believe is that we are causing 100 % of the global warming, mainly because there have been many other periods on Earth hotter than the actual one. Climate has never been static. And the thing that annoyed me the most is that some scientists, Mann in particular, tried to convince us that the climate (in the northern hemisphere) from the year 1000 to the year 1850 has been stable when everybody in the field knew that there was a medieval warm period and a little ice age during that period.

I have yet to see an argument written by the other camp of this issue

Maybe because you haven't searched enough.

I personally didn't say global warming either, and I probably wouldn't have unless I was specifically referring to the net global temperature effect. The thread title said global warming NEXT to global drying in order to emphasize the fact that warming wasn't the only aspect to consider. Then, when you open the thread, it cleverly adds that it is getting wetter in some parts too. The whole thing was crafted in a way to show that there is more to climate change than temperature increases. So to the OP.

Then in another part of the thread, another poster says global warming as that is the aspect of climate change that is most related to the melting of the glaciers.

Then, suddenly, the troll crawls out from under his bridge to criticize the language used without even considering its context. So no, I won't apologize for your trolling of a perfectly good thread.

The context is the most appropriate since you guys are considering global warming and global drying, so I ask the question again and I let the mods decide if it is trolling or not.

Why you guys only use the term Climate Change when you have a problem with some facts, such as the snowing in Buenos Aires?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I don't! I almost always use the climate change term unless specifically talking about the net global warming effects as a subset of climate change. Sheesh. I can't speak for everyone, but in the context of this thread, I answered why global warming was used as a term, which was to say that global warming isn't the only effect, but that changes in precipitation were expected too. Drying in some latitudes as well as wetting in others. You should reread the opening line of the OP.

God you are stubborn.

 

[Urederra]

The term hadn't been used here until I mentioned it, unlike in the Buenos Aires thread where the term promptly arose in the thread.

And sorry, you are wrong, I am not God, I am not even Morgan Freeman.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Well, perhaps I will take you step by step through the thread and show you why you are grasping at air.

...well, drying and wetting, depending on where you are living...
link!

An interesting study, and a smart way to look at things: we aren't losing or gaining rainfall, just displacing it to different latitudes...

Wow look at that, no use of the term global warming, except in the thread title, which is used as a seg wey into the first line of the thread. I have explained why this is appropriate. It wouldn't make sense to say "there is climate change and things are drying and wetting too". Drying and wetting are part of climate change, so the statement makes no sense.

Wow, talk about unfair for the developing world.

Shoot, look at that. Didn't even touch the word warming. Perhaps I actually read the OP and know why it is written that way. I did not need to correct the OP and therefore moved onto what I thought was an ironic observation.

If India wasn't so burdened with population, wouldn't a bit of drying make it a nicer place? IIRC, it's hot and wet there.
China, too, might be able to use some drying. IIRC (again), their paddy fields aren't ammenable to industrialised farming techniques.

Hmm... there is some constructive convo about the effects of this precipitation change on some of the poorer places implied in my statement.

True, but I'm not sure a dried up rice paddy would be much good for anything.

Besides, a good part of chinese agriculture is dedicated to drier grains, like wheat, millet and oats in the north and interior. I think those places would likely be the worst hit (given the dry climate there already) and could lead to some serious problems.

A good point from Che about agriculture... still no talk of global warming.

India's problem is that it is extremely seasonal. A really heavy, wet monsoon is necessary to counterbalance the dry season.

Northern China is desertifying, and that is not sustainable for feeding 500 million northern Chinese.

Maybe I am right, maybe I am talking out of my arse, but this is what I remember from some geography class way back when. Still no global warming talk.

I really showed some stereotyping when I think of the Chinese as eating a lot of rice. I should really cut that out, and maybe learn more about their agriculture.

{moseys off}

El_Machinae always shows class! No global warming.

Well, you aren't completely wrong. Southern China grows LOTS of rice, while northern China grows LOTS of wheat.

I think.

Yes! Our war on poverty is going as planned. Let's kill those bastards!

I did laugh at this one. More like John HSOS

Central California is pretty dry right now. I was surprised to see all the hills I remembered as green now ugly & yellow. I'm aware this is usually the dry season here but supposedly it's worse than usual this year.

Good anecdote.. no warming talk.

Take that mold spores!

The greatest effect of global warming (I think) is the melting of glaciers which is the source of fresh water for most of the people around the world. Already places like Bolivia are losing glaciers fast and is facing a disaster. Glaciers in Tibet feeds the Huang He, Chang Jiang, Indus, Ganges, Mekong etc and if they're gone that means water for half the world's population are gone as well. Combined that with messed up weather pattern and you got a disaster of biblical proportions.

Now this guy does talk about global warming, but it is again warranted, as he is pointing out that the net global warming is responsible for changes in precipitation. Saying climate change is responsible for changes in precipitation is not correct, as climate change is an umbrella description that includes precipitation change as a subset. It is not the cause of said precipitation change, but rather a result of.

So, Do you guys only use the term "climate change' when discussing about snowing in Buenos Aires?

WTH? Did you even read what came before you?

 

[Urederra]

Thanks for helping to make my point clear.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Thanks for helping to make my point clear.

That you don't understand the difference between global warming and climate change?

 

[Urederra]

No, that you guys don't use the term Climate Change unless there is a problem with the facts.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Not, that you haven't used the term Climate Change.

Is it necessary to say "NOTE: This is a subtopic of the wider phenomenon of climate change. It is stupid to have to point out this obvious fact, but Urederra will get his panties in a bunch if we don't.... for some reason" at the beginning of the thread?

No, that you guys don't use the term Climate Change unless there is a problem with the facts.

EDIT: Look at Mr. Quickedit. This is entirely untrue. I almost always use climate change, because it is the appropriate term for most of the wider climate change discussions on these boards. However, in this particular thread, we weren't talking about climate change in general, but rather specific parts of it. As I have shown, it would not make sense to use the term climate change in replace of global warming in this thread as they are different things.

Your suggesting that we should use the term climate change in a nonsensical context makes you look like a fool. Or at least a troll.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, Do you guys only use the term "climate change' when discussing about snowing in Buenos Aires?

No I still use the term global warming. Global warming does not mean every place on earth will face the exact same climate changes. That's what the 'Global' is there for. It indicates a rise in the average temperature, not a rise in temperatures all over the world.

You're both arguing a useless point. The important thing is that the global climate is changing. We need to find out why it is changing and what the future holds for our planet. If that future is not going to be good for us, then we need to figure out a way to slow down this effect or adapt to it, if we can.

The snag with this is that eviromental science is one of probability and statistics. If you are waiting for certainty, you will only get it when the damage is being done.

We have seen the large majority scientist say that gw is caused by humans with 90% certainty. The counter argument to this is: it's still not certain what causes it, and these other scientists disagree. Well, if you are waiting for a absolute concensus on any subject you have quite a lot of waiting to do. The way I see the gw-issue lately, is one of risk assesment. Why do we have insurances? Why do we pay an x amount every month just in case something bad happens. The chance of something bad happening is usually so small that you might not ever use the insurance, still we don't think twice and pay our monthly due. Merely to protect ourselves and our close relatives.

Now a problem arises that affects every human on the planet with 90% certainty, or at least some chance of happening. And instead of paying our montly insurance, we shrug it off. I have difficulty following the reasoning of people who at the least agree there is a chance that gw is caused by humans emitting more CO2 and are waiting untill it's proven. The theory of gravity has been proven to have holes in it, doesn't stop us from flying planes. Economy is far from an exact science. But for some reason in political debates about taxes everyone knows exacly what is best for the country.

It sometimes boggles my mind

After all this rambling, yeah I totally agree (since you said nothing about certainty).