Question to all climate skeptics

[*****]

Sounds apocalyptic. Does it bother anybody else that the scientists who get funding are the ones working to avert the apocalypse, and not the ones inventing hover cars?

I've heard a lot of people in my life telling me that this next thing around the corner is going to kill me. I know that you take this seriously, but to me global warming is no more of a concern than the Rapture or the Ragnarok. I don't put much stock in far reaching models, since I've never heard of a model that actually predicted the future with any accuracy. Do we know that these models actually work? The ones that predict devastating consequences? Have they been publicly tested against climate conditions after their development?

 

[Cutlass]

Sounds apocalyptic. Does it bother anybody else that the scientists who get funding are the ones working to avert the apocalypse, and not the ones inventing hover cars?

I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make there.

I've heard a lot of people in my life telling me that this next thing around the corner is going to kill me. I know that you take this seriously, but to me global warming is no more of a concern than the Rapture or the Ragnarok. I don't put much stock in far reaching models, since I've never heard of a model that actually predicted the future with any accuracy. Do we know that these models actually work? The ones that predict devastating consequences? Have they been publicly tested against climate conditions after their development?

First, no one is predicting the end of the world or the extinction of the human race. Those arguments are strawmen by the people trying to discredit the theory, not things the theory predict.

What the theory predicts is that sea levels will rise. With sea level rise comes the destruction of coasts. Those coasts are often heavily developed. It's not just beach front cottages. It's cities. It's New York City. Which could have it's whole underground flooded. Sea level rise will also contaminate and ruin coastal aquifers. That means no more well water near the coasts. Global warming will melt the glaciers. What that means is that everywhere rivers are dependent on glaciers, those rivers will no longer be reliable for human use. Reduced hydro power, reduced irrigation, reduced drinking water. What it all means is that it will be much more difficult to feed the world's people. Not easier, more difficult. And it will restrict economic growth.

So, not the end of the world, a poorer world for everyone.

 

[*****]

I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make there.

A stab at humor from the new guy. Don't worry about it. I'll be sure and keep it out of anything I say to you again.

First, no one is predicting the end of the world or the extinction of the human race. Those arguments are strawmen by the people trying to discredit the theory, not things the theory predict.

What the theory predicts is that sea levels will rise. With sea level rise comes the destruction of coasts. Those coasts are often heavily developed. It's not just beach front cottages. It's cities. It's New York City. Which could have it's whole underground flooded. Sea level rise will also contaminate and ruin coastal aquifers. That means no more well water near the coasts. Global warming will melt the glaciers. What that means is that everywhere rivers are dependent on glaciers, those rivers will no longer be reliable for human use. Reduced hydro power, reduced irrigation, reduced drinking water. What it all means is that it will be much more difficult to feed the world's people. Not easier, more difficult. And it will restrict economic growth.

So, not the end of the world, a poorer world for everyone.

Here's my view of the future.

Increased mean temperatures melt glaciers, and increase the atmosphere's ability to retain moisture. This introduces a huge amount of fresh water into the water cycle. Cities like New York are protected by elaborate sea walls. Less wealthy and developed coastal areas are abandoned to the slowly rising sea. Coastal aquifers are lost, but new ones crop up. Life goes on, and we all thank coal for averting any future ice ages.

You know what? I'm happier with my view than with yours. Your view is supported by science, but the science is unproven. It's based on models made by very smart people who are doing their best to keep grant money coming in. Similarly smart people making similarly sophisticated models just caused a serious credit crisis a couple years ago.

I don't give models the benefit of the doubt. You do. That's cool. People are free to believe what they want, and are well advised to believe science over superstition. I'll trust the models once somebody shows me that they work, by taking a model and showing me how it tracks the changes in climate that have occurred since the model was created. That's not an irrational request. Its exactly what a reasonable person should do.

Does anybody know of a public test of the IPCC models? One that tests them against climate change going forward? I am genuinely interested in seeing how they match up. It matters to me.

 

[Merkinball]

You should have read the thread. Warming will destroy vast areas of cropland. It will cause deserts to expand in places that are currently being farmed. Other areas will experience heavy flooding. Places that have glacial fed rivers will have much less, and less reliable water flows much of the time, and devastating flooding the rest of the time. Fresh water aquifers near the cost will be contaminated with salt, and permanently ruined. Aquifers inland will be drained to the point that they'll be effectively exhausted.

In other words, vastly devastating consequences for trivial benefits. And we may not even get those trivial benefits. Because warming of the whole world can possibly cause cooling of the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere by disrupting the ocean currents.

Yes, the temperature of the earth in 1860 was absolutely perfect. Cooling or warming will inevitably cause nothing but negative things to happen. Cold will get colder. Hot will get hotter. The deserts will grow. The places we go food will be destroyed. And thus, we must do everything we can to keep the temperatures just exactly how they are right now.

This type of speak makes my head hurt.

 

[Cutlass]

A stab at humor from the new guy. Don't worry about it. I'll be sure and keep it out of anything I say to you again.



Here's my view of the future.

Increased mean temperatures melt glaciers, and increase the atmosphere's ability to retain moisture. This introduces a huge amount of fresh water into the water cycle. Cities like New York are protected by elaborate sea walls. Less wealthy and developed coastal areas are abandoned to the slowly rising sea. Coastal aquifers are lost, but new ones crop up. Life goes on, and we all thank coal for averting any future ice ages.

More water in the hydro cycle does not equate to more water available to human use. When water falls as flood, that water is not saved for use in dry times. That water is channeled out to sea as rapidly as possible to dry out and recover. No benefit to people. There is no risk of an ice age. So that's no worry. It's thousands of years off. Why destroy all that territory for no benefit?

Glaciers are reservoirs. They naturally collect water in cool and wet times, and time release it in hot and dry times. Glaciers drastically increase the amount of water available to humans because of that. Otherwise water is lost to the floods in cool and wet times, and there is none at all during the hot and dry times.

You know what? I'm happier with my view than with yours. Your view is supported by science, but the science is unproven. It's based on models made by very smart people who are doing their best to keep grant money coming in. Similarly smart people making similarly sophisticated models just caused a serious credit crisis a couple years ago.

I don't give models the benefit of the doubt. You do. That's cool. People are free to believe what they want, and are well advised to believe science over superstition. I'll trust the models once somebody shows me that they work, by taking a model and showing me how it tracks the changes in climate that have occurred since the model was created. That's not an irrational request. Its exactly what a reasonable person should do.

Does anybody know of a public test of the IPCC models? One that tests them against climate change going forward? I am genuinely interested in seeing how they match up. It matters to me.

Other people can discuss the models better than I can. What I can say is that the idea of climate scientists saying what they say for the money they make for saying it makes no sense at all. Because any of them who are caught saying something false lose their credibility, and their whole careers.

 

[Merkinball]

Man, is it any wonder why so many people ended up starving to death from those famines in the little ice age! I mean, man, you'd think the cooler weather would have been much more ideal for farming back then seeing as how a little bit of warming disrupts everything so negatively. It sure is a good thing that right this very moment that our temperature is optimal for everything.

 

[*****]

More water in the hydro cycle does not equate to more water available to human use. When water falls as flood, that water is not saved for use in dry times. That water is channeled out to sea as rapidly as possible to dry out and recover. No benefit to people. There is no risk of an ice age. So that's no worry. It's thousands of years off. Why destroy all that territory for no benefit?

Glaciers are reservoirs. They naturally collect water in cool and wet times, and time release it in hot and dry times. Glaciers drastically increase the amount of water available to humans because of that. Otherwise water is lost to the floods in cool and wet times, and there is none at all during the hot and dry times.

I don't see why floods have to be the result of more rainfall. Is there some study made that confirms this?

Other people can discuss the models better than I can. What I can say is that the idea of climate scientists saying what they say for the money they make for saying it makes no sense at all. Because any of them who are caught saying something false lose their credibility, and their whole careers.

People are people, and some people will tweak the truth to get ahead. I don't think that anybody is really fabricating data, I just think that they probably emphasize the spectacular stuff, and disregard results that aren't as sexy.

After all, all anybody is doing at this stage is essentially made up anyways. Researchers have a lot of individual power to craft whatever models they want, as long as they can make the models match up with historical data. If I were doing this, I'd make say a 100 models, cut that down to five that best match with historical data, and then pick the one of those that I think will best help my career. Nobody is going to call you on it so long as you can make a decent justification, and as long as that one does a decent job of matching past data you're pretty secure.

Maybe that happens, maybe I'm just overly cynical. I don't know, and I don't know if anybody else knows either.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't see why floods have to be the result of more rainfall. Is there some study made that confirms this?

Less water in dry areas and more water overall suggests floods.

CLIMATE CHANGE: FLOODING OCCURRENCES REVIEW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
1. During the present century it is anticipated that Scotland’s climate will become wetter
and more stormy and sea levels will rise. This will result in an increased flood risk both
inland (adjacent to rivers and smaller water courses) and along low-lying coasts. Such an
increase in flood risk will be damaging to Scotland’s economy and society. Economic assets
thought to be especially vulnerable include transport links, residential properties, public
services related to water supply and treatment and commercial premises. The responsibility
for protecting land and property from flooding in Scotland lies primarily with land owners,
although local authorities, government agencies and central government are responsible for
flood warnings and grant-aiding flood protection schemes.
2. The study comprises five parts:
· historic overview of past flooding in Scotland
· predicted future flooding under climate change scenarios
· the economic impact of current and future flooding
· public awareness and concern about flooding
· recommendations and priorities for further research

...

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156664/0042098.pdf

800,000 homes face flood risk, warns climate change report
Twice as many British homes will be at risk of flooding than previously thought because of the impact of climate change on sea levels, according to a report by government-appointed experts.



By Alastair Jamieson
Published: 8:57AM BST 18 Jun 2009

Average summer temperatures in the south of England will rise by 2C by 2040 and up to 6.4C by 2080, the experts predict, also increasing the risk of skin cancers and insect-borne diseases.

A report published later on Thursday by the UK Climate Impact Programme (UKCIP) says the estimated number of homes at risk of flooding is likely to double to about 800,000 within 25 years because of rising sea levels.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-flood-risk-warns-climate-change-report.html

Ground Water: Climate Change Could Flood Subways
By Beth Fertig

NEW YORK, NY April 14, 2007 —The Second Avenue Subway is at the forefront of a new boom in transit construction. Over the next decade, the MTA also plans to build a new Fulton Street transit center, a tunnel bringing the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal, and an extension of the 7 line. Those new underground projects are being built just as scientists are predicting more floods due to global warming. As part of our ongoing series on climate change, WNYC’s Beth Fertig looks at whether the MTA is prepared.

...

http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/77243

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise

Coastal zones are particularly vulnerable to climate variability and change. Key concerns include sea level rise, land loss, changes in maritime storms and flooding, responses to sea level rise and implications for water resources.
Sea Level Rise

Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast, and around the world. In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.6 and 2 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2007).

The range reflects uncertainty about global temperature projections and how rapidly ice sheets will melt or slide into the ocean in response to the warmer temperatures. Furthermore, some processes affecting sea level have long (centuries and longer) time-scales, so that current sea level change is also related to past climate change, and some relevant processes are not determined solely by climate. Climate models, satellite data and hydrographic observations demonstrate that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. Depending on the region, sea level has risen several times the global mean rise, or has actually fallen (IPCC, 2007). While current model projections indicate substantial variability in future sea level rise at regional and local scales, the IPCC has concluded that the impacts are “virtually certain to be overwhelmingly negative” (IPCC, 2007).

Rising sea levels inundate wetlands and other low-lying lands, erode beaches, intensify flooding, and increase the salinity of rivers, bays, and groundwater tables. Some of these effects may be further compounded by other effects of a changing climate. Additionally, measures that people take to protect private property from rising sea level may have adverse effects on the environment and on public uses of beaches and waterways. Some property owners and state and local governments are already starting to take measures to prepare for the consequences of rising sea level.

...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html

California Climate Change, Hydrologic Response, and Flood Forecasting
Norman L. Miller
Earth Sciences Division, Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA
Introduction
California has ecological, cultural, and geographical diversity with 10 natural bioregions (Northern Coastal, Central Coastal, Southern Coastal, Great Central Valley, Cascade Mountains, Sierra Nevada Mountains, East of Sierra Nevada, Mojave Desert, and Sonoran Desert), and several urban centers. Its population exceeds 33 million, with the largest concentrations in the Los Angeles Basin, San Francisco Bay Area, and within the Central Valley. It has an area of approximately 420,000 km2, with over 2000 km of coastline, and 3000 km2 of lakes, bays, and deltas. Areas within the San Francisco Bay Delta are below sea level and have levees, retaining walls, and drainage ponds, which along with the California coastal areas, are vulnerable to storm-generated tidal surges, flooding, erosion, and loss of property.
California has experienced long dry and unusually wet periods. Oxygen-18 isotope analyses (Ingram et al. 1996) of San Francisco Bay sediments dating back to about 1200 A.D have indicated changes in salinity, which are indicators of fresh water inflow to the San Francisco Bay. Periods of very high fresh water inflow to the San Francisco Bay (i.e. increased precipitation and low salinity) alternate with periods of low fresh water inflow (i.e. decreased precipitation and high salinity). During the 1500s, there appears to have been a drought that lasted more than 50 years (Fig. 1). Since the beginning of the 1900s, California has been wetter than average, and large engineering projects for water storage and conveyance of Sierra Nevada snowmelt runoff have contributed to the economic growth of California. The sustainability of this region is closely aligned with the availability of fresh water, the storage of this water during dry periods, and the reduction or adaptation to major floods that can potentially damage vital infrastructure.

...

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cov...30CBF2C3588EF1D94?purl=/820274-R49cYy/native/

Floods and drought: Lloyd's assesses climate change

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lloyd's of London, the world's oldest insurer, offered a gloomy forecast of floods, droughts and disastrous storms over the next 50 years in a recently published report on impending climate changes.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0737930020070507

USGS Science at AGU Climate Change, Floods, Northern Forests, Coral Reefs, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Mercury and More
Released: 12/12/2008 8:00:00 A

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2088&from=rss

Climate change impact on flood hazard in Europe: An assessment based on high-resolution climate simulations

Global warming is generally expected to increase the magnitude and frequency of extreme precipitation events, which may lead to more intense and frequent river flooding. This work assesses the implications of climate change for future flood hazard in Europe. Regional climate simulations from the HIRHAM model with 12-km horizontal resolution were used to drive the hydrological model LISFLOOD, and extreme value techniques were applied to the results to estimate the probability of extreme discharges. It was found that by the end of this century under the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A2 emissions scenario in many European rivers extreme discharge levels may increase in magnitude and frequency. In several rivers, most notably in the west and parts of eastern Europe, the return period of what is currently a 100-year flood may in the future decrease to 50 years or less. A considerable decrease in flood hazard was found in the northeast, where warmer winters and a shorter snow season reduce the magnitude of the spring snowmelt peak. Also in other rivers in central and southern Europe a decrease in extreme river flows was simulated. The results were compared with those obtained with two HIRHAM experiments at 50-km resolution for the SRES A2 and B2 scenarios. Disagreements between the various model experiments indicate that the effect of the horizontal resolution of the regional climate model is comparable in magnitude to the greenhouse gas scenario. Also, the choice of extreme value distribution to estimate discharge extremes influences the results, especially for events with higher return periods.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009719.shtml

South India floods a result of climate change: Red Cross
October 6th, 2009 - 2:08 pm ICT by IANSBy Joydeep Gupta
Bangkok, Oct 6 (IANS) The floods in south India that have killed at least 350 people and made millions homeless are a result of climate change, said an expert in the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre.

The sudden shift from “extreme drought” to “extreme floods” in the region was in consonance with the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), head of the climate centre Madeleen Helmer said here Tuesday.

In its 2007 fourth assessment report, the IPCC had said that one of the consequences of global warming would be more extreme weather events - droughts, floods and storms would become more frequent and more severe.

Experts shadowing the Sep 28-Oct 9 talks here between 177 countries in preparation for the Copenhagen climate summit this December have pointed out that these predictions have been borne out by a series of disasters in Asia in recent weeks - floods in India and typhoons in the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand.

...

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...lt-of-climate-change-red-cross_100256671.html

Devastation in Zambia as climate change brings early flooding

The Red Cross warns that global warming will lead to more disasters along the Zambezi river basin

The ceremony is called Kuomboka, meaning "moving out of the water". Every year the king of the Lozi people journeys from the flooded plains to higher ground. Thousands gather to dance, feast and watch the royal barge rowed by dozens of oarsmen beneath a giant replica elephant.

The Kuomboka is traditionally the cue for local people to follow the king in escaping the rising waters, but the reality of climate change is catching up with this colourful ritual. The most recent flood came too soon and too strong, killing at least 31 people in Zambia's impoverished western province. The devastating aftermath has left people starving and homeless.

"Flooding here is an annual event, but it came earlier than expected and people were caught off guard," said Raphael Mutiku, a public health engineer for Oxfam in Mongu.

The Red Cross recently warned that global warming will lead to more disasters and suffering along the entire Zambezi river basin, where floods have increased dramatically in recent years.

The Zambezi once flooded the plains as predictably as the changing seasons, in late March or early April. But now the great river is less regular and more extreme. The volatile climate – annual rainfall has risen in recent years from 900mm to 1,300mm – is disrupting rhythms that have sustained generations. Crops that should have been harvested in January or February this year were destroyed by flooding that began in November. Even on higher ground, cassava crops were no longer safe.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/06/zambia-flood-climate-change

FEMA Launches Effort to Measure Impact of Climate Change on Flood Insurance
By EVAN LEHMANN and CLIMATEWIRE
Published: June 11, 2009

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Federal officials are struggling to calculate the fiscal impact that climate change could have on the nation's troubled public flood insurance program, amid predictions of intensifying downpours and more potent hurricanes. The mission is proving extremely difficult, according to one researcher, who said the effort so far has failed to reveal even "squishy assumptions."

The study, undertaken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the insurance program, aims to determine how seawater will surge onto shorelines around the United States as warming oceans expand and rise. It also seeks to establish how warming temperatures will affect inland flooding nationwide, potentially revealing the likelihood of more damage in some riverine areas.

The results might raise policy premiums and mark a need to redraw flood lines that may place more homes in the riskiest parts of valleys and flatlands. Those changes are politically tricky, and the study could press lawmakers to make unpopular decisions that have an economic impact on their states.

Mark Crowell, a FEMA geologist who is overseeing the study, said it may be "one of the most important" analyses undertaken by the agency over the next several years. "It is imperative to understand how climate change can impact the National Flood Insurance Program," he said.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/0...hes-effort-to-measure-impact-of-cli-7828.html

Floods and Droughts: How Climate Change Is Impacting Africa
By CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON / KALOTUM Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009

When one enters the northern Kenyan village of Kalotum, the overwhelming impression is one of things missing. There are a dozen conical thatched huts and a clutch of spindly thorn trees. But there are no crops, animals or water. A quick look around reveals no men, either. "They all left," says villager Mary Atabo. She says just three of her family's 100 goats have survived a decade-long drought. With no animals to look after, the men have migrated to cities to look for work or sell what remaining possessions they have. "The weather comes and goes now," Atabo says. "We are left with nothing."

If the world's leaders need more inspiration before heading to the climate change summit in Copenhagen next month, they need look no further than East Africa. Here climate change is no longer a future threat — it is displacing and killing people today. In 2006, the United Nations said it expected Africa to be the continent most affected by climate change, not because it produces a large amount of greenhouse gases — quite the opposite — but because, as the world's poorest and most badly governed continent, it is the least equipped to cope with change. Around 90 million Africans were "at risk," it said, and that's not counting those impacted by wars and tribal conflicts, many of which are linked to extreme weather phenomena such as droughts and floods. (Read "Is There any Hope for Agreement at Copenhagen?")

The U.N.'s predictions are already coming true. This year, around 23 million people in seven East African countries are being fed by aid agencies after a decade of poor rains have decimated crops. One of the worst-affected areas is the Turkana region in northern Kenya where Kalotum is located. In some communities here, up to 35% of the population is suffering from malnutrition, more than double the World Food Program's crisis threshold of 15%.

It's impossible to quantify how much of the change in rainfall is caused by man and how much is due to the cyclical patterns in nature. But it is clear that a significant change is afoot: a succession of productive growing seasons with predictable sun and rain has been replaced in recent years by a series of extreme weather events, leaving places like Turkana with little time to recover from one disaster to the next.

For example, severe storms over the past five weeks have dumped as much rain on parts of East Africa in one day as they normally see in a month, causing torrential floods. Part of the blame can be placed on the El Nino phenomenon, which is increasing in frequency due to global warming from once every seven years a few decades ago to every other year today. The Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also said in a 2007 report that these types of droughts, storms and floods would become more common in the future, following one after another in rapid succession.

...

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1936772,00.html

Tornados, Flooding May Warn Of Climate Change

ScienceDaily (June 4, 2008) — Record-keeping meteorologists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration say this year’s tornado season is one of the deadliest in a decade and may be on pace to set a record for the most tornadoes. And flooding in the Midwest has been at 100-year levels this spring.

“There is considerable concern that climate change due to greenhouse gases species increasing will lead to the enhancement of strong, large storms occurrences, such as hurricanes that also spawn tornadoes when they occur. Increased storm strengths also bring flooding events,” he said.

Gaffney and co-researcher Nancy A. Marley are currently involved in a three-year investigation of aerosols – tiny particles suspended in the air – and their role in climate change.*

Tornadoes are short-lived events and, until recently, scientists had to depend on limited ground observations to study them. Satellites and radar systems are now enhancing researchers’ ability to see their number and strength in detail. But short lived tornadoes are hard to tie directly to climate change due to the limited climatology of tornadoes.

Weather forecasters have examined El Niño and La Niña, important temperature fluctuations in surface waters of the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, as a potential for past tornado activities in the U.S.

“The data available from NOAA do not support a strong statistical significance to data for direct effects of El Niño or La Niña on frequency or strength of tornadoes,” Gaffney said. “Although, there is considerable concern that climate change due to greenhouse species will lead to significant changes in weather patterns, these currently available data are not conclusive.”

He said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on severe weather events discusses the topics backed up by NOAA data.

“Basic thought is there’s more energy in the atmosphere, more water vapor evaporating and greater likelihood for stronger heating events that lead to stronger thunderstorms - super cells, that can lead to tornado production,” Gaffney said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602231312.htm

Floods, Droughts, and Climate Change
Michael Collier; Robert H. Webb

No one in America would deny that the weather has changed drastically in our lifetime. We read about El Niño and La Niña, but how many of us really understand the big picture beyond our own
Need a basic introduction to climate? Collier and Webb, both of the United States Geological Service, survey the subject with estimable economy and clarity. . . . Packed with illustrations and balanced between general and specific information, Collier and Webb's work superbly outlines and makes accessible a subject that is complex even for experts in the field.

front windows or even the headlines on the Weather Channel? Hydrologists and climatologists have long been aware of the role of regional climate in predicting floods and understanding droughts. But with our growing sense of a variable climate, it is important to reassess these natural disasters not as isolated events but as related phenomena. This book shows that floods and droughts don't happen by accident but are the products of patterns of wind, temperature, and precipitation that produce meteorologic extremes. It introduces the mechanics of global weather, puts these processes into the longer-term framework of climate, and then explores the evolution of climatic patterns through time to show that floods and droughts, once considered isolated "acts of God," are often related events driven by the same forces that shape the entire atmosphere. Michael Collier and Robert Webb offer a fresh, insightful look at what we know about floods, droughts, and climate variability—and their impact on people—in an easy-to-read text, with dramatic photos, that assumes no previous understanding of climate processes. They emphasize natural, long-term mechanisms of climate change, explaining how floods and droughts relate to climate variability over years and decades. They also show the human side of some of the most destructive weather disasters in history. As Collier and Webb ably demonstrate, "climate" may not be the smooth continuum of meteorologic possibilities we supposed but rather the sum of multiple processes operating both regionally and globally on different time scales. Amid the highly politicized discussion of our changing environment, Floods, Droughts, and Climate Change offers a straightforward scientific account of weather crises that can help students and general readers better understand the causes of climate variability and the consequences for their lives.

...

http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/BOOKS/bid1455.htm

Climate change: Floods, drought, mosquito disease aim at Europe

(AFP) – Sep 29, 2008

PARIS (AFP) — Climate change will amplify the risk of flooding in northwestern Europe, water scarcity and forest fires on the northern Mediterranean rim and bring milder winters to Scandinavia, the European Environment Agency (EAA) said on Monday.

Higher temperatures will also extend the habitat range of virus-carrying mosquitoes, including the Asian tiger mosquito which carries the chikungunya virus and other pathogens, it said.

"Many regions and sectors across Europe are vulnerable to climate change impacts," Jacqueline McGlade, executive director of the Copenhagen-based EAA, said in a press release.

"Implementation of adaptation actions has only just started. We need to intensify such actions and improve information exchange on data, effectiveness and costs."

The report is an update of a 2004 assessment on Europe's exposure to climate change. It is an overview of data drawn mainly from the EAA's own resources and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The EAA said the warming trend in Europe was above the global average.

Since pre-industrial times, Europe's landmass has warmed by 1.0 degrees Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and the seas around it by 1.2 C (2.16 F), compared with a global mean of 0.8 C (1.44 F) and 1.0 C (1.8 F) respectively, it said.

"Projections suggest further temperature increases in Europe between 1.0 and 5.5 C (1/8-9.9 F) by the end of the century," said the report.

"More frequent and more intense hot extremes and a decreasing number of cold extremes have occurred the past 50 years, and this trend is projected to continue."

...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7FTdie9-szNGtszhxIR0uUfYG6Q

Climate Studies Point to More Floods in This Century
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
January 30, 2002

Two separate teams of scientists are predicting more extreme rainfall and greater flooding in this century.

According to their projections, it will be particularly striking at northern latitudes—across Canada, Alaska, northern Europe, and northern Asia, regions that already receive the most precipitation. But the equatorial tropics and Southeast Asia are also likely to have increased rainfall and flooding.

Both teams, one from the United States and the other from Europe, attribute the expected pattern to global warming accelerated by human activities.

Although people may adapt to gradual climate change, the effects of extreme rain and flooding are often broad, devastating, and costly to society. Landslides, avalanches, and flooding damage infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and buildings, and hurt agricultural productivity because of lost crops and soil erosion. Disaster relief often requires enormous funding, and the loss of human life may also be high.

The two new studies, published in the January 31 issue of the journal Nature, point to trends and probabilities, not specific events. But they emphasize the need for more sophisticated climate models to help decision makers.

...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0130_020130_greatfloods.html

With Climate Change Comes Floods
by Anna Vigra
January 14, 2008

Climate change is disturbing the delicate balancing act that people have with water. Water is critical to life — for drinking and irrigation, and as a source of food, transportation and recreation. But too much water — or water that comes at an unexpected time, or in unexpected places — can be a big problem.

As global temperatures rise, many places are threatened by flooding. A recent study looking at who is at risk shows many coastal cities could be hit hard, particularly heavily populated cities in Asia. But in terms of economic loss, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that the top 10 cities at risk are all in three industrialized countries: the United States, Japan and the Netherlands.

Warming water can cause rises in sea levels and strong storms, with the potential to impact people around the globe.

...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18022014

 

[ainwood]

For a more complete list, look here.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've certainly seen discussion of areas that will benefit. Models that predict crop changes due to temperature & rainfall changes have regions that get increased rainfall. The Northern countries certainly should benefit. Other regions will have to change their main crops in order to continue to thrive, but that's something that 'the market' will handle just fine. Many of these instances will require shifting from one profitable crop to another.

The models are being generated mostly in a democratic fashion right now. People can submit models (according to some protocol) and then scenarios are run against all the models in order to make predictions. Obviously, some models are going to be favoured and some will be disfavoured as time goes on. However, right now the 'future scenarios' tend to be run and results that conform to the majority of models are used to make predictions.

As far as I know, none of the models factor in ecological tipping points. It would be nice to delay any inevitable ones while those models are created.

And to answer Felch's scenario: I think that it's inevitable that New York will create sea walls & people have to abandon beachfront property. That's a given under any reasonable emissions scenario going forward. It's obvious (to me) that building walls 'costs' New Yorkers money. And losing property 'costs' the people whose property is lost. The environmental economics questions kick in with "if New Yorkers caused the sea rise, and the coast dwellers didn't, is it fair?" and "If New Yorkers had a net profit from the sea rise (i.e., fossil fuel generated more wealth than it cost to build sea walls), but the coast dwellers didn't, is that fair?"

Finally, I don't know of any economic model that pretends that warming & acidification aren't externalities

 

[Cutlass]

For a more complete list, look here.

You see, that's just the kind of casual dismissivness that discredits all your technical skepticism. If you are going to post that, how is anything else that you post worth taking seriously?

 

[Merkinball]

How is it possible to take anything that you post seriously when all you do is assert that nothing good will come from Climate Change and that anything bad that happens on earth is because of Climate Change? But then again, that was Ainwood's point.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Instead of a sun shield, maybe stratospheric sulfate aerosols are a good stop-gap measure. The side effects are nastier, I suppose, but it's cheap and low-tech.

Doesn't help ocean acidification, obviously.

 

[Cutlass]

Why not dust? Reduce sand to the consistency of talcum powder and boost it to the outer stratosphere.

 

[*****]

Yes, let's destroy the planet in order to save it.

I've always been a fan of the "napalm the village" solution.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, let's destroy the planet in order to save it.

I've always been a fan of the "napalm the village" solution.

The only people advocating destroying to save are those who think warming will be "wonderful".

 

[Orange Seeds]

Human civilization's entire industrial and agricultural economy is based on the climate of the last century and a half. Even if net cropland, freshwater, et cetera increased substantially it would likely not cover the economic costs of massive migration from less fortunate areas, particularly if this migration was forced into a constant due to ever-increasing emissions. What a silly argument. I don't know how anyone would pretend to be impartial on the subject and actually contend that theoretically perpetual warming would be over-all beneficial.

I swear by the end of this decade people will be citing Thomas Nagel's 'on the Absurd' to counter claims about moral responsibility regarding AGW.

 

[warpus]

Major changes to the climate of any kind are going to result in a lot of headaches for a lot of people. Obviously we are not going to be able to keep the climate stable no matter what we do - but polluting the environment can't be a good thing no matter what

 

[*****]

The only people advocating destroying to save are those who think warming will be "wonderful".

Yes, because when I have nightmares, my dreams are filled with the horrors of the Eocene epoch

From that article:

Marking the start of the Eocene, Earth heated up in one of the most rapid (in geologic terms) and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM or IETM). This was an episode of rapid and intense warming (up to 7 °C at high latitudes) that lasted less than 100,000 years. The Thermal Maximum provoked a sharp extinction event that distinguishes Eocene fauna from the ecosystems of the Paleocene.

The Eocene global climate was perhaps the most homogeneous of the Cenozoic; the temperature gradient from equator to pole was only half that of today's, and deep ocean currents were exceptionally warm. The polar regions were much warmer than today, perhaps as mild as the modern-day Pacific Northwest; temperate forests extended right to the poles, while rainy tropical climates extended as far north as 45°. The difference was greatest in the temperate latitudes; the climate in the tropics however, was probably similar to today's. The recent discovery of a giant snake (estimated length 13 m) in Colombia that may have lived during the Eocene suggests, on the contrary, that the tropics were much warmer than today, a conclusion in accord with numerical simulations of the climate during the Eocene.

At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.

Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. The preserved remains are not fossils, but actual pieces preserved in oxygen-poor water in the swampy forests of the time and then buried before they had the chance to decompose. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as the Pacific Northwest and Europe.

Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well.

The horror

Even though it's not a perfect model for the planet right now, the Eocene proves that the planet has been warmer, and that it was actually quite pleasant.

 

[Verbose]

Yes, because when I have nightmares, my dreams are filled with the horrors of the Eocene epoch

Right, but the real Green-House-Effect-In-Overdrive-Nightmare-Scenario is probably rather Venus.