Global warming discussion III

[logger]

It depends, logger.
In general warmer is not better because it provides more energy for weather leading to more extreme weather events. For example hurricanes are bad, stronger hurricanes are worse. What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

Likewise increasing sea levels are bad.

As far as agriculture is concerned, warming is slightly bad. The growing season changes, droughts and floods are more frequent, unknown pests and diseases can move in. So as todays conditions move north it is expensive for farmers to adjust to the new conditions but hopefully not ruinous.

Isn't cold much worse?

Don't more die of cold than heat?

 

[uke2se]

Isn't cold much worse?

Don't more die of cold than heat?

It's not the heat directly that will kill people. Lack of food will be a bitch though, as will the social upheaval when people become refugees.

 

[ehcks]

Isn't cold much worse?

Don't more die of cold than heat?

Creating heat is easy.

Creating cold is impossible.

So a colder climate in an industrialized world is simply safer.

 

[Olowkow]

Denial that the planet is warming is so 90s. It's an established fact. Conservatives in general are now denying instead that the warming is caused by humans, because god and all that which eventually comes back to "it's going to cost a lot to fix". I think you need to ask yourself what and who are informing this meme that there is no problem with climate change. I have not met anyone who has a convincing argument that global climate change is anything but a huge dilemma for the next century.

Why does anyone consciously or inadvertantly try to make things look worse than they really are?

Why don't you advance your own hypothesis for this claim? I don't believe those who understand the problem are trying to "make things look worse than they really are." Who told you this? What evidence do you have? What are the motives of the President, and a huge number of experts in the field of climatology for attempting to raise the alarm and to increase awareness of the already disastrous effects, if "things" are not bad?

 

[uke2se]

Can we merge this thread with the other one, please? Let's not have denial spill over and infect the rest of the forum.

ETA: I'll agree that the comments on the linked article are silly, though. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[logger]

It's not the heat directly that will kill people. Lack of food will be a bitch though, as will the social upheaval when people become refugees.

More heat means more food.

More cold means more energy to survive. Can you imagine going into another little ice age, I'd rather have the heat.

 

[uke2se]

More heat means more food.

No, the other way around.

More cold means more energy to survive. Can you imagine going into another little ice age, I'd rather have the heat.

There's no risk of us going into an ice age, little or otherwise. So, this is not an either ice age or global warming scenario. This is a "how much warmer are we going to let it get" scenario.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

More heat means more food.

More cold means more energy to survive. Can you imagine going into another little ice age, I'd rather have the heat.

If it were that simple! Hardly so. The bottom line is that the agricultural soil carbon levels worldwide are at all time lows, while the carbon in the atmosphere reaches all time highs. This combination is especially troublesome for agriculture, and they are related.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's interesting, good for some, not for others. Isn't that what we have currently?

Certainly. But we should be working to improve the overall situation, not make it worse.

 

[a_unique_person]

Bit pattern are you getting this?

Sorry its so dry in Australia, it seems we got the rain you're supposed to. Thanks.

That is a non answer.

 

[a_unique_person]

Isn't cold much worse?

Don't more die of cold than heat?

The biggest killer from natural disasters in Australia is extreme heat.

 

[Reality Check]

Isn't cold much worse?

Colder would be just as worse for environments - it is changes in climate that cause changes in ecosystems.

Don't more die of cold than heat?

Why do you think the current numbers of deaths due to cold and heat have anything to do with climate change in the future?

But as I pointed out - global warming causes more extreme weather events. More people will die from cold. More people will die from heat.

 

[logger]

Certainly. But we should be working to improve the overall situation, not make it worse.

Agree, allow the technology to advance in the time that it needs. All will be fine.

 

[logger]

That is a non answer.

What would you like me to say? Change my whole standard of living on a theory it will give you more rain and less heat?

 

[logger]

Colder would be just as worse for environments - it is changes in climate that cause changes in ecosystems.

Agreed, except we have zero control over it.

 

[uke2se]

Agreed, except we have zero control over it.

Argument by bare assertion, and contrary to known physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Agreed, except we have zero control over it.

Not agreed, logger - the evidence is that lately we do have control over climate change. 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists.
In fact anyone who can understand physics understands that we have caused the majority of global warming since 1850. The greenhouse effect is taught at high schools (higher CO2 = higher temperatures). CO2 has increased, We predict and measure high temperatures. This is the greenhouse effect.

 

[Reality Check]

Change my whole standard of living on a theory it will give you more rain and less heat?

No, logger. We expect you to try to learn about the theory, think about its predictions and realize that you are not the only person in the world that the predictions would effect .
Global warming will give everyone more extreme rain and more extreme heat events.
It is up to you whether you want to reduce your standard of living by a small bit in order to benefit the world.
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.

or the intermediate version

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Agree, allow the technology to advance in the time that it needs. All will be fine.

Technology doesn't advance on its own.

 

[Mikemcc]

What would you like me to say? Change my whole standard of living on a theory it will give you more rain and less heat?

So who is asking you to do any such thing? British Columbia and Sweden have both shown that there are ways to use market forces and regulation to changed their fuel use. No one has suggested that we stop using energy, just that we do so more efficiently and in a cleaner manner. One of the complaints that some folk have is the 3rd world energy use per capita is increasing significantly. Quite rightly, if they are able to raise conditions towards western levels it should help reduce the birth rates in those countries as their medical facilities improve. One of the first uses of solar PV in the 3rd world has been to power fridges in remote clinics to preserve vaccines and other temperature sensitive medicines.