Global warming

Diogenes said:
Where is the outcry against Global cooling ?

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver




I say yes ! Lets get global warming under control now, so those winter deaths can get back up there where they belong..
Click to expand...

It's another one of Lomborg's false dilemmas, of which he has an endless series. What makes you think that people who are too poor to afford winter warming will be able to afford air conditioning?

It is easier for people to survive colder climates than hotter ones. The human body can survive quite readily at temperatures well below it's nominal temperature, but temperatures above it are much more difficult to handle.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's another one of Lomborg's false dilemmas, of which he has an endless series. What makes you think that people who are too poor to afford winter warming will be able to afford air conditioning?

It is easier for people to survive colder climates than hotter ones. The human body can survive quite readily at temperatures well below it's nominal temperature, but temperatures above it are much more difficult to handle.
Click to expand...

A cold winter kills a lot more people than a hot summer.

Economists and stat guys know this stuff.

Maybe "climate scientists" don't.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's another one of Lomborg's false dilemmas, of which he has an endless series. What makes you think that people who are too poor to afford winter warming will be able to afford air conditioning?

How about "Just Read" instead of "Read the IPCC".

From the article.
It is easier for people to survive colder climates than hotter ones. The human body can survive quite readily at temperatures well below it's nominal temperature, but temperatures above it are much more difficult to handle.​
Click to expand...


For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.
​
 
mhaze said:
For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.
[/indent]
Click to expand...

There will be a lot more dying due to climate change than that. As I said, it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat. The human body is very capable of surviving temperatures below it's nominal heat, but not very good at surviving temperatures above that. The deaths in Europe from one heat wave was only a taste of what is to come.
 
a_unique_person said:
There will be a lot more dying due to climate change than that. As I said, it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat. The human body is very capable of surviving temperatures below it's nominal heat, but not very good at surviving temperatures above that. The deaths in Europe from one heat wave was only a taste of what is to come.
Click to expand...
If it's really true that it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat, then how do you explain the 200,000 vs 1.5 million numbers? Are they just incorrect? A one-time fluke?

It seems to me that most of the people living in the warmer latitudes don't need high technology to make their living spaces habitable, and they have more population density there than people living in arctic climates.
 
bokonon said:
If it's really true that it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat, then how do you explain the 200,000 vs 1.5 million numbers? Are they just incorrect? A one-time fluke?

It seems to me that most of the people living in the warmer latitudes don't need high technology to make their living spaces habitable, and they have more population density there than people living in arctic climates.
Click to expand...

Every year there is a winter, that one off heat wave is going to be more severe and more regular. At the same time, our ability to cope will be compromised due to *global* change. That is, every country in the world will be experiencing destabilising change and stress at the same time.

Already it looks like wheat is suffering from climate change, with prices rocketing up due to failed crops.
 
a_unique_person said:
Every year there is a winter, that one off heat wave is going to be more severe and more regular. At the same time, our ability to cope will be compromised due to *global* change. That is, every country in the world will be experiencing destabilising change and stress at the same time
Click to expand...

That is all debatable isn't it?

Yes certain modeling scenarios predict certain bad effects.

That is why I brought Lomberg in-he handles those effects in a completely pragmatic way. Others just shout Dire Consequences.
 
mhaze said:
That is all debatable isn't it?

Yes certain modeling scenarios predict certain bad effects.

That is why I brought Lomberg in-he handles those effects in a completely pragmatic way. Others just shout Dire Consequences.
Click to expand...

Lomborg is a goose, he has no insight into issues, just puts up a few graphs that usually completely misrepresent the case. Australia, according to Lomborg, has plenty of water. In reality, all major cities are having to install desalination plants.
 
a_unique_person said:
Lomborg is a goose, he has no insight into issues, just puts up a few graphs that usually completely misrepresent the case. Australia, according to Lomborg, has plenty of water. In reality, all major cities are having to install desalination plants.
Click to expand...

Which you will be powering with your famous dirty coal. I won't bother to elaborate the con your radical Greens have pulled. Maybe send them all out to work the varmint - rabbit fence? Then just go nuclear power.

Australia has problems with its growth and can solve theme. But not if blinded on the one side by AGW hype, on the other by anti-nuclear greenies.
 
mhaze said:
Which you will be powering with your famous dirty coal. I won't bother to elaborate the con your radical Greens have pulled. Maybe send them all out to work the varmint - rabbit fence? Then just go nuclear power.

Australia has problems with its growth and can solve theme. But not if blinded on the one side by AGW hype, on the other by anti-nuclear greenies.
Click to expand...

No, wind power is being actively installed, and there would be a lot more of it except for the current conservative government. With them about to be voted out, I think the backing of a new government will see much more development of research and investment in non-coal power.
 
a_unique_person said:
No, wind power is being actively installed, and there would be a lot more of it except for the current conservative government. With them about to be voted out, I think the backing of a new government will see much more development of research and investment in non-coal power.
Click to expand...

Nope. Wind power cannot form the backbone of any power grid. For that you need powerplants using coal, natural gas or nuclear.

You don't have natural gas, so that leaves coal or nuclear.
 
Here is a chart and cyclic smoothing that seems to show pretty easily why the temperatures of the last 150 years or so have been what they were.



1. We were coming out of a little ice age, so the trend is slightly upward.
2. Established 60-80 year cycles and they are overlaid on top of the general trend.
3. No alarming unprecedented trend in recent years.
4. No evidence in the temperature trend for an effect of CO2 on the temperature record - No relation between the temperature record and some "accelerating curve" or "exponential curve" and CO2.

If this is correct here are the conclusions.

1. The next decade will show cooling.
2. Various propagandists for AGW (eg British MET) will try to double talk their way around it
3. AGW due to CO2 is negligible (does not have anything to do with AGW due to land use, pollution, ozone, aerosols, asian brown clouds, soot, jet contrails, etc).

Here is the evidence these conclusions may be right.

1. There has been something of a cooling trend.
2. The MET is already starting the doubletalk.
3. The calculations of numerous models (NOT IPCC) repeatedly show a doubling of CO2 (which we are nowhere near) produces a temperature rise including feedbacks and forcings of perhaps 1.1 C.
 
mhaze said:
Here is a chart and cyclic smoothing that seems to show pretty easily why the temperatures of the last 150 years or so have been what they were.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8342http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446ebe79371e34.png

1. We were coming out of a little ice age, so the trend is slightly upward.
2. Established 60-80 year cycles and they are overlaid on top of the general trend.
3. No alarming unprecedented trend in recent years.
4. No evidence in the temperature trend for an effect of CO2 on the temperature record - No relation between the temperature record and some "accelerating curve" or "exponential curve" and CO2.

If this is correct here are the conclusions.

1. The next decade will show cooling.
2. Various propagandists for AGW (eg British MET) will try to double talk their way around it
3. AGW due to CO2 is negligible (does not have anything to do with AGW due to land use, pollution, ozone, aerosols, asian brown clouds, soot, jet contrails, etc).

Here is the evidence these conclusions may be right.

1. There has been something of a cooling trend.
2. The MET is already starting the doubletalk.
3. The calculations of numerous models (NOT IPCC) repeatedly show a doubling of CO2 (which we are nowhere near) produces a temperature rise including feedbacks and forcings of perhaps 1.1 C.
Click to expand...

1. There has been no cooling trend, at best a levelling off from a steady upward trend. (which your graph describes).
2. Is not evidence of anything.
3. The low calculations of climate sensitivity have been demonstrated to seriously underestimate the correct value.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Lets suppose you are a climate scientist in a position of power. ... Would you welcome that research?
Click to expand...


We're not all like you. Scientists very usually will pursue the truth no matter how inconvenient for them; scientists who cheat are an exceptionally small minority and ousted by their peers as soon as unmasked.

I kinda like the chutzpah with how you try defaming an entire scientific discipline merely because it is politically inconvenient for you; but never mind, it's not like your opinion matters in the slightest whatsoever. Will you also attack historians simply because you like to describe Russia as still communist?
:)
 
a_unique_person said:
Decentralisation of the load reduces the base load requirement. Solar hot water is an excellent way to do this.
Click to expand...

You are actually believing nonsense that the Australian government is promulgating.

The plan to require all households to buy and install an estimated $3800 solar hot water heater in 2012. Put some numbers to that and come back with the percentage reduction in baseline load requirements versus the cost expenditure.
 
mhaze said:
You are actually believing nonsense that the Australian government is promulgating.

The plan to require all households to buy and install an estimated $3800 solar hot water heater in 2012. Put some numbers to that and come back with the percentage reduction in baseline load requirements versus the cost expenditure.
Click to expand...

Victoria is on the verge of having to build another base load power station, and it doesn't have the water available to support one. The price is going to be huge. Solar hot water systems are finally becoming a well understood and efficient means of providing hot water, and pay for themselves when the true cost of base load power is factored in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom