The Global Warming Thread

[Sidhe]

Um, no. We know a good deal about the fourteenth-century climate change and reactions thereto. People migrated, had fewer children (yes there was birth control of a sort in the middle ages) or planted other crops. They did not "just die."

You must be reading different history texts from me, they migrated because people were dying, not because they were a tad chilly or a tad warm, in the ice age when ice sheets were moving south and would bringing incredibly cold winters to the areas in front of them, if you didn't move you died, extreme example so here's another: if your crops failed because of no rain consistently you died, the Maya and the Almecs were thought to have moved back into the jungles of central America because they had no food to support there civilisation. Evidence of canabilism tends to support this as does evidence that tends to confirm the lack of rainfall in said periods.

The aztecs when their crops consistently failed sacrificed 40,000 people in a single day, seriosuly climate change has always caused death it's just we don't hear about this very often.

 

[Atropos]

You must be reading different history texts from me, they migrated because people were dying, not because they were a tad chilly or a tad warm, in the ice age when ice sheets were moving south and would bringing incredibly cold winters to the areas in front of them, if you didn't move you died, extreme example so here's another: if your crops failed because of no rain consistently you died, the Maya and the Almecs were thought to have moved back into the jungles of central America because they had no food to support there civilisation. Evidence of canabilism tends to support this as does evidence that tends to confirm the lack of rainfall in said periods.

The aztecs when their crops consistently failed sacrificed 40,000 people in a single day, seriosuly climate change has always caused death it's just we don't hear about this very often.

What history books are you reading? Take a look at Leroy Ladurie's study of Montaillou. It shows that there were economic problems caused by the climate change, but hardly widespread death and desolation.

Western Europe was not suddenly depopulated in the early fourteenth century. It was suddenly depopulated immediately thereafter, but that was the consequence of the Black Death.

 

[Sims2789]

The fact that the Earth goes through natural warming and cooling phases does not mean that humans cannot change the climate, especially when the Earth is supposed to be going through a cooling phase yet its ice caps have melted significantly since industrialization.

 

[Atropos]

The fact that the Earth goes through natural warming and cooling phases does not mean that humans cannot change the climate, especially when the Earth is supposed to be going through a cooling phase yet its ice caps have melted significantly since industrialization.

If that was addressed to me, I'm not questioning the existance of man-made climate change. I just think it's unlikely to create major problems.

 

[Xenocrates]

i think Atropos is looking at history and concluding that as people have survived climate changes before then we shall again. However our lifestyles are somewhat different now and so are our societies. Some/most people may well survive but not without major changes in the ways that we do everything.

So if climate change will necessitate behaviour changes, why not change voluntarily now?

PS I don't understand Lord Oleus's points. There can be no question that climate change results from human activity as the climate depends upon the very things that we are adding to the atmosphere. It's true that we don't know enough about this complex system to predict the effects. It's also true that human activity may counteract a natural change as well as amplify one or cause one.

The whole thing is a gamble - simplistic examples:

Reduce CO2 - suffer a natural ice age
Increase CO2 - cause a hot phase
Do nothing - impossible

As stands we'll never know (even after the event) what effect our activity has on a specific change, this can't be expected in this kind of science. I made my argument about lifestyle change already and it does not depend solely upon fear of climate change.

 

[Atropos]

i think Atropos is looking at history and concluding that as people have survived climat changes before then we shall again. However our lifestyles are somewhat different now and so are our societies. Some/most people may well survive but not without major changes in the ways that we do everything.

So if climate change will necessitate behaviour changes, why not change voluntarily now?

Huh? Would you mind mentioning some of the ways that fourteenth-century society was better prepared for temperature changes than our own? Because I've studied the period, and that's definitely a new one to me.

 

[Sidhe]

What history books are you reading? Take a look at Leroy Ladurie's study of Montaillou. It shows that there were economic problems caused by the climate change, but hardly widespread death and desolation.

Western Europe was not suddenly depopulated in the early fourteenth century. It was suddenly depopulated immediately thereafter, but that was the consequence of the Black Death.

My examples where world wide, I don't think taking examples from Europe is particularly apt when looking at global climate change, it's a narrow focus and ignores non developed countries.

Also history is anecdotal and devoid of real scientific significance, it's also often very innacurate on what it is actually happened, glossing over deaths of people and affiriming that the failure of humans to cope existed.

@Olleus thanks for that it's a pleasure to learn something new, you don't go on to discuss whether you believe that human influence isn't even a factor or that human influence is indeed misguided in any real detail? I hope the concencus of opinion on climatic change isn't all just hot air but without seeing evidence to the contrary I can only conclude that the opinion of the day is relevant.

Climate modelling is almost impossible to do with any accuracy but they do tend to take on board issues about the statistical modelling your kind of assuming science doesn't evolve and introduce new variables here.

As far as I know it's 1 to 5 degrees above GMT of today in 50 years under a business as usual scenario. Perhaps the models are better than you think?

 

[Atropos]

My examples where world wide, I don't think taking examples from Europe is particularly apt when looking at global climate change, it's a narrow focus and ignores non developed countries.

Believe me, you would have to search long and hard to find an area less "non developed" than Europe in the fourteenth century. Tanzania now has the GDP per capita of England in theeighteenth century.

I take my examples from Europe because it's something I know about and have studied in some detail, and because it shows how a not very advanced society can nonetheless deal with major levels of climate change.

 

[Atropos]

Also history is anecdotal and devoid of real scientific significance, it's also often very innacurate on what it is actually happened, glossing over deaths of people and affiriming that the failure of humans to cope existed.

How fascinating. How does this disprove the fact that all our sources indicate that they did cope?

And I'm not quite sure why you think that historians tend to gloss over deaths. Frankly, as a historian, I find that a bit offensive. Deaths did occur in the fourteenth century due to localised climate-related harvest failure, but that was the consequence of the inefficiency of transport which meant that supplies could not be provided from other areas, something which clearly is not applicable to the modern scenario.

I have no doubt that you have great expertise in your own field, but your response shows that you have very little knowledge of history or understanding of how it is written.

 

[Sidhe]

Well thanks for being patronising but I've never had any great support for people who just include a minority of the Earths population and then extrapolate significance from that. Sorry but that's ignoring the majority of the Earth and it's not significant. It's also devoid of anything I can accept as scientific.

 

[Atropos]

Well thanks for being patronising but I've never had any great support for people who just include a minority of the Earths population and then extrapolate significance from that. Sorry but that's ignoring the majority of the Earth and it's not significant. It's also devoid of anything I can accept as scientific.

Once again, the reason why I am including a minority of the earth's population is that it is history, not science. It is not supposed to be universally applicable for everyone at a given time. Rather, it suggests a possibility that fairly simple behavioral changes can overcome the effects of climate change.

By the way, I apologize if you found my previous post patronising. That was not its intent. But please understand that I am annoyed when people try to treat my discipline as a sort of junior branch of the physical sciences.

 

[Sidhe]

No let me apologise, I perhaps took your meaning wrongly. It's just history isn't a good means to analyse modern events and I'm not sure of the relevance to current issues of global warming.

And historically that may be relevant but only to Europe, that's the crux of the issue, it has a modern significance in that today modern society can cope albeit badly, how do you cope with a category 5 hurricane caused by global warming when it may of been a category 4. But anyway undeveloped countries cope less well and that is my point.

 

[Xenocrates]

Huh? Would you mind mentioning some of the ways that fourteenth-century society was better prepared for temperature changes than our own? Because I've studied the period, and that's definitely a new one to me.

There were less complex societies with simpler supply chains, less urbanisation, simpler forms of government and, as the population was smaller, more mobility. Simple structures can adapt quicker than complex ones!

I am not arguing that everyone will die. I'm arguing that climate change (man-made or not) will force upon us the kind of behaviour changes that we could make voluntarily now. To adapt to a severe climate we would have to change the way we construct our buildings, our diet, our transport and our lifestyles. I am merely proposing that we do these things anyway on our own terms.

Since these changes have many postive effects that are still valid even if climate change doesn't happen there's nothing to lose except for those with vested interests in crap technology.

 

[Atropos]

No let me apologise, I perhaps took your meaning wrongly. It's just history isn't a good means to analyse modern events and I'm not of the relevance to current issues of global warming.

No need to apologize. Re-reading my post, I can see why you found it offensive, although, once again, that was certainly not its intent.

In general, I would tend to agree that history is not the best tool for analysing current events because it is usually open to a wide variety of interpretations. In this case, however, I would say that it is extremely relevant when analysing climate change to understand how people have found solutions to the problem in the past.

Someone wrote a few posts back that, since we will have to live differently in future, we might as well start now. The problem is that it is not intuitively obvious exactly how we will have to live differently. That is where history comes in. There is very little use in devising scenarios for behavioural change without knowing how people have actually reacted to similar scenarios.

Also, please stop saying that the European example is irrelevant to undeveloped countries. Europe in the early fourteenth century was an undeveloped country.

 

[Xenocrates]

The problem is that it is not intuitively obvious exactly how we will have to live differently.

There's a very good book called 'ecobuild 2' that outlines many of the construction methods that we'll need in colder or hotter climates. It may be of interest to a historian because many of the ideas aren't new, but from traditional buildings.

 

[Sidhe]

@Atrapos: I was talking about in comparison to the countries I mentioned. But I agree history is very relevant in developing strategies to cope, but I've always believed in cure rather than prevention( as far as that goes in this case) Simply developing strategies without a will to tackle the inherent problem is simplistic; tackle the root and the symptoms will be mitigated.

 

[Atropos]

There were less complex societies with simpler supply chains, less urbanisation, simpler forms of government and, as the population was smaller, more mobility. Simple structures can adapt quicker than complex ones!

Once again, have you actually studied European society on the eve of the Little Ice Age? If so, you would know that everything in Europe was highly conducive to disaster. The area was dependant upon a monoculture (wheat). The inferior modes of transport made it impossible to move food to areas which had suffered local harvest failures. There was an incredible degree of overcrowding on the land due the population boom of the preceding three centuries. Nonetheless, no disaster occurred until the Black Death, although there was certainly an economic slowdown.

The areas which created problems in the fourteenth century have improved, not deteriorated.

 

[Atropos]

There's a very good book called 'ecobuild 2' that outlines many of the construction methods that we'll need in colder or hotter climates. It may be of interest to a historian because many of the ideas aren't new, but from traditional buildings.

I've already studied European architecture/ archeology from the relevant period, but thanks. There was in fact very little change in how houses were built, although they began to grow after the economic impact of the climate change and Black Death had worn off, due to increasing wealth. The second story really comes into its own in the fifteenth century.

 

[Pokurcz]

From what I have read global CO2 levels haven't been this high for over 40 milion years, from coresamples from Anthartica dating back 650 thousand years they have not found CO2 levels this high and the increase is directly proportionate to industrialisation. Check Wiki...

There is more proof than needed that CO2 levels have skyrocketed the past 150 years.

"So why have the global temperatures not folowed suit?" You ask yourself. I have asked the same question myself, they just don't seem large enough.

A cuple of months ago I happened to see a TV program about something called "Global cooling" wich explained things quite clearly.

The one of the oldest most thourough mesurements made on a global scale is made on water evaporation. It is made by puoring water in to a open recepticle and then regularily mesuring th loss of water due to evaporation, it gives a measurment for the amount of energy that reaches the surface of the planet through the atmosphere. And that has showed a large decrease of energy reaching the surface over a several hundred year period.

Apparently As CO2 and methane and the likes raise global temperature by letting light in and bouncing IR back down to the planet dust in the air and airplaine vapor trails reflect light before it reaches the earths surface.

This is supported by two tests made recently.

The vapor trails theory was possible to test after 9/11 when all airplanes were grounded, apparently local difference on testsites all over the USA showed as much as 5-6 degrees centigrade warmer compared to the regular temperature.

The dust theory was tested in the Maldives south of India, where a large dustfilled aircurrent passes over the northern part of the islands carrying dust from the dry agriculture and factories of India, but where a clean aircurrent passes over the southern islands arriving from Anthartica. If I remember correctly the northern part of the islands recieved over ten percent less sunlight energy on the ground than the southern ones.

Calculations made on these facts and others indicate that Global cooling just barely balances global warming and is the reason for the global temperature not having rised with five degrees already.

 

[Xenocrates]

The area was dependant upon a monoculture (wheat). The inferior modes of transport made it impossible to move food to areas which had suffered local harvest failures. There was an incredible degree of overcrowding on the land due the population boom of the preceding three centuries. Nonetheless, no disaster occurred until the Black Death, although there was certainly an economic slowdown.

The areas which created problems in the fourteenth century have improved, not deteriorated.

That depends how you look at it. Right now the UK grows little of it's food so there isn't even a monoculture. Our transport is inferior because it relies of fossil fuels. After the collapse of our currency, which is inevitable if we get hit hard or our trading partners get hit hard, we'd be unable to buy automobiles or fuel. At the time that you are talking about the countryside provided the building materials, the transport fuel (oats) and the food. Now it provides more or less only food. We are dependent upon energy for all of our income and the energy supply will be interupted by weather changes. If wind speeds increase we can kiss goodbye to lorries. If sea weather deteriorates we can kiss goodbye to mass import and export. Same with air transport. Other things are produced by PLC's that are likely to need restructuring if the finance system collapses. A breakdown of trust in these organisations will cause the failure of companies completely. I don't know about the overcrowding, but relatively speaking we can't spread our popluation because of the small matter of land ownership. That would need to be changed.

The black death may have been spread with human migration. Climate change will necessitate migration and, therefore another black death will occur.

We won't have any government as it derives it's power from taxation and people won't pay it when there's an imperative to hoard money and goods. I don't see how democracy can survive and maybe it shouldn't.

There'd be wars over water. The Americans really covet Canadian water for example even now. Not all wars will be country v country as people from the harder hit regions (maybe Scotland for example) may migrate on masse and be shot at, or filthy southerners may demand our water. Wars would have to be taken into consideration and the likelyhood of WMD's being used and of course nuclear accidents. What happens when heavy snow and wind cuts off a nuclear power station for weeks? Would the staff be able to cope?

There's lots of problems that could come out of climate change. Sure we may be able to solve them but not easily.

PS some of this may be BS because I'm overtaken by tiredness, what I'm saying is that climate change will affect everything and I think we are less able to cope than simpler societies for these reasons.