We're warmer than that now. And the temp will only continue to go up. All of those trends are beginning now. All of those things are steadily increasing.
The Australian lies to its readers about Climate Change
- Thread starter Arwon
- Start date
We're warmer than that now. And the temp will only continue to go up. All of those trends are beginning now. All of those things are steadily increasing.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
The incedents wouldn't immediately affect Europe because Europe is fairly isolated climate-wise. Because the medieval warmings were part of a cycle the Gulf Current never got too badly messed up and eventualy things would go back to normal. That won't happen here and eventualy Europe will suffer.
Additionaly, far, far, far, far more people live in the world now then in the Middle Ages, and most of them live in poor areas on the low-lying coast: the first target for global climate change. Additionaly, given the past destruction of extensive irrigation systems and current misuse (or lack of) of water in dry areas, the desert areas in the Middle East and Africa will be severely affected.
Many problems are caused with cooling, but that was caused either by natural cycles or volcanic eruptions, both of which have an end. The current cause of global climate change does not have a natural ending cycle. The problems will keep piling on until it would require engineering on a scale never before seen to put them back the way they were even if the cause of the changing temperatures are dealt with.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Now I've got thirty-thousand and one counterexamples.
Dissenting scientists are subjected to peer pressure, ridicule, loss of funding, and are ignored in the press (and in online chat forums). And their accusations that they're treated this way by their fellow scientists, are also ignored. Yes, dissenters are the minority (for now.....) but their opinions are still scientific opinions and need to be analyzed.
And the Paleocene epoch was even warmer than today. By TEN DEGREES CELSIUS. Yet none of the scary things attached to global warming actually happened.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
Ignored in online chat forums! They sound like real heroes.
Is there some place I can send money? www.paranoidpartisanmediafantasies.com?
I'd prefer not to just mock you, but you've offered no support to directly address. Unless one counts the petition... but I'm not so foolish as to do that.
There were no crops to be ruined, no human populations to displace, no one to complain about all the rain lately.
OTOH there were mass extinctions, spikes in weathering, and major ecological changes. In short: You're completely wrong.
At least according to the science. Is there a petition you'd like to introduce us to?
WARNING: Henceforth do NOT refer to high Paleocene temperatures. The science behind the high P. temperatures shares too much in common with the science behind AGW. To "admit into court" the P. temperatures opens the door to the Warmists. Instead you need to question the evidence behind high P. temperatures. Concentrate on the lengths of time involved, uncertainties with dating... general FUD. You know the drill - it won't get you anywhere but that seems to be the point.
Er, 'denialist' is in contrast to 'skeptic'. They're different things. What is a 'warmist', and what do we contrast it with?
Nit pick
More violent storms -> increase in number of severe storms. AGW will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events, but might not increase total number of storms. In this one, potato, po tah to.
More floods: yes, due to less winter-trapping and due to harder precipitation events.
Growth of deserts -> maybe not. It's better described as a shifting of deserts. Some will grow. Some will shrink. Importantly, they'll move.
Destruction of farmland is a secondary effect to flooding (coupled with bad land management that has nothing to do with AGW) and changing precipitation patterns. As you and I have discussed, one degree (C) of warming seems to cause a 5% reduction of farming output due to the warming. We've coming technologies to increase farming output, so warming might only cause a drain on output, not an outright reduction
Ruined water -> yes, but probably only along coasts, due to salt-water seep. Aquifers might not replenish as quickly (the math on that has not been done enough times) if precipitation intensity increases faster than total precipitation increases. I frequently ask people to be cognizant of their local aquifer, it vastly changes your understanding of local concerns.
Displacement of people will be gradual, so it's not a 'crisis'. It will just be an endemic cause of poverty and of capital destruction. It won't be noticed as an event, but as a narrative. In fact, those people are likely to increase in wealth as economies evolve, so we'll be able to look back and call them 'richer'. The drain on their wealth increases will be mostly invisible (like many externalities are).
Some of the problems can actually be ignored. For example, there's concern about malaria spreading. This is true, but the cost and rapidity of dealing with malaria is so efficient that geological issues are snails compared to it.
Other issues, like threats to coral reefs, are more serious. Their degradation will either directly cause economic drain OR will cost a lot of money to offset (repair). The temperature spike of 1998 killed 1/6th of the world's coral reefs (and devastated aquatic biodiversity in those areas). Increasing oceanic acidity coupled with increasing the likelihood of us causing a higher temperature spike, could have very serious consequences
Trev
Prince
Actually in some places of the globe it is recognized that there has been a reduction in the intensity of storms which is continuing. One noteworthy example is the SW coast of Australia where a reduction in the intensity of storms over the past three decades is seen as a problem as water runoff into water storages is decreasing resulting in water shortages in Perth.
But just as an increase in storms is a result of climate change so is a decrease. When every climate change is pronounced to be a result of global increases in temperatures and increase in carbon concentration, it is impossible to disprove the science of global climate change. Increase in storms prove it, decrease in storms prove it. Any science which cannot be disproved because every fact supportive or not supportive is made to fit is not a science.
Well, to be fair, the evidence for 'global warming' is 'global warming'. The evidence for AGW causing specific climate changes is not easy to gather. That said, once a specific climatic system shifts away from trend, we can say it has changed, but it's only regional aggregates that can be directly connected with warming causing changes. At the local level, variation will be too high to create statistical significance (and will have to be balanced with global changes (e.g., ocean current changes) to local changes (e.g., land clearing).
Remember, that part of the problem is signal to noise, and so only aggregate statistics work. We can never tell which puff of smoke causes a specific case of lung cancer, but you'd not long put up with someone claiming "smoking doesn't cause cancer".
AGW only predicts an increase in changes that can be directly related to changes in total heat. One or maybe two steps of causation. There will be many changes from AGW that will not be evidencable as so.
Remember, that part of the problem is signal to noise, and so only aggregate statistics work. We can never tell which puff of smoke causes a specific case of lung cancer, but you'd not long put up with someone claiming "smoking doesn't cause cancer".
AGW only predicts an increase in changes that can be directly related to changes in total heat. One or maybe two steps of causation. There will be many changes from AGW that will not be evidencable as so.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
It's the Fox News Defence. State something ridiculous, and when you're debunked, make that debunking proof of suppression so the ridiculousness must be true. And whatever you do, avoid discussing the content of the debunking.
First guy on the list is a Creationist by the way
I've seen that mistake made before.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Crops would have done fine during the Paleocene--most of the planet was temperate or tropical. There were no tundra zones, and almost no deserts. And humans have farmed successfully in both temperate and tropical for thousands of years.
And if there had been humans, they wouldn't have been displaced. Humans don't get displaced by temperate or tropical zones. They get displaced by deserts and tundra--which didn't exist during the Paleocene.
See, when people worry about global warming, they always worry about droughts. "Warmer weather will produce more droughts". That's the whole reason I brought up the Paleocene--it was hot as hell compared to today, and there were no droughts. The answer is no. Warmer weather doesn't cause droughts.
Does the huge drought going on right now across the whole southwest United States, and earlier in southern Russia, worry you at all? It's caused a huge increase in worldwide food prices, for one thing.
I swear you miss the point deliberately just to annoy people, BC.
Once more at the windmill, anyway: He's talking about the transition to much warmer conditions, the massive chaotic global change, occuring in decades, in a situation where we have human civilisation depending on a degree of stability and predictability which would disappear. Very much not talking about the conditions once such a warmer epoch was established and stable.
Nobody's arguing that a new ecosystem wouldn't eventually establish itself and thrive in all parts of the world (after the mass extinctions, of course), but "there won't be deserts once temperatures rise 10 degrees and we become a jungle planet!" is not much comfort to the many millions displaced or economically ruined or killed on the journey to that world.
Once more at the windmill, anyway: He's talking about the transition to much warmer conditions, the massive chaotic global change, occuring in decades, in a situation where we have human civilisation depending on a degree of stability and predictability which would disappear. Very much not talking about the conditions once such a warmer epoch was established and stable.
Nobody's arguing that a new ecosystem wouldn't eventually establish itself and thrive in all parts of the world (after the mass extinctions, of course), but "there won't be deserts once temperatures rise 10 degrees and we become a jungle planet!" is not much comfort to the many millions displaced or economically ruined or killed on the journey to that world.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Also a bummer for camels.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
He didn't post any evidence that any of his claimed disasters happened during the Paleocene. I didn't ignore his point--it was simply baseless. And also irrelevant to the point I was making:
Theory: global warming will not produce more deserts.
Evidence: the Paleocene was very warm--and there were almost no deserts.
Trev
Prince
Many drought in the world in the last 12 months are a result of the La Nina weather system that we had, not a result of climate change at all. But what has made this drought much worse in its effect on food prices is the diversion of agricultural land to the cultivation of biofuels. Much land that should be growing food is now growing biofuels instead and global strategies in the fight against carbon will result in greater diversion of land to biofuels. This will of course reduce carbon in the atmosphere as people who have died from starvation no longer exhale CO2. The fight against climate change is working as planned.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
And you base this on ....?
Trev
Prince
Facts. La Nina alters rainfall patterns causing drought in some locations and floods in others.
Facts. Land which could grow food is growing biodiesel.
Facts. Food shortages, particularly in Africa is causing people to starve to death.
Facts Dead people do not generate CO2 -> therfore less CO2.
Facts. Land which could grow food is growing biodiesel.
Facts. Food shortages, particularly in Africa is causing people to starve to death.
Facts Dead people do not generate CO2 -> therfore less CO2.
So you were responding to a point he didn't make then.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
From wiki
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...nNHPBw&usg=AFQjCNFsjhK1JxexjEpAQzkUW1MNhEAorQ
I do not think a 6°C rise in the next 100 years would be less disruptive.
A 6°C rise over 100 years is too quick for ecosystems to move leading too out of balance ecosystems.
Similar threads
- Poll
