CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The title is the problem. It should have a delta in there.
I too think its a fine graph when you grasp the meaning.
Is there an upside to global warming?
- Thread starter Cainkane1
- Start date
The title is the problem. It should have a delta in there.
I too think its a fine graph when you grasp the meaning.
A good first cut hypothesis. Currently I have it in the basket of effects that need to be better characterised.
...and the axis label.
I missed this post somehow, sorry.
I agree completely. I see it as a cyclic movement whereby warm water sort of ‘piles up’ then spreads out.
Meaningless other than the requirement to understand it for modelling purposes. Actually scratch that, we don’t need to understand it, we just need to be able to predict it with some degree of accuracy.
Oh and there’s some suggestion the cycle times are decreasing because of AGW but that’s pretty much pure speculation.
It appears quite significant in species distributions and populations however.
In this
More data is required.
I concur ...but it ain't primary driver.
Last edited:
macdoc
Philosopher
Still won't quite take the driver step eh 
Regionally maybe - not sure it matters globally - it's not a driver.
Yes now that requires some work..
Regionally maybe - not sure it matters globally - it's not a driver.
Yes now that requires some work..
Has anyone noticed the most virulent AGW proponents also propose the most doom from GW.
It’s almost like its no fun having GW unless we are doomed by it.
The simple fact that the world was a MORE hospitable place when it was considerably warmer than now is COMPLETELY ignored.
It’s a certain mindset that MUST find doom no matter what is happening.
‘IF’ GW is happening at the proposed rates it seems to me the benefits and dis-benefits seem to line up.
I have no doubt a warmer world would be MORE productive but this would be at least counterbalanced by the disruption to traditional supply and possible relocation of production and human habitation.
But don’t DARE tell the doomsayers it may not be that bad.. after all look at the disaster the Y2K bug caused.
It’s almost like its no fun having GW unless we are doomed by it.
The simple fact that the world was a MORE hospitable place when it was considerably warmer than now is COMPLETELY ignored.
It’s a certain mindset that MUST find doom no matter what is happening.
‘IF’ GW is happening at the proposed rates it seems to me the benefits and dis-benefits seem to line up.
I have no doubt a warmer world would be MORE productive but this would be at least counterbalanced by the disruption to traditional supply and possible relocation of production and human habitation.
But don’t DARE tell the doomsayers it may not be that bad.. after all look at the disaster the Y2K bug caused.
Are you sure, absolutely sure? Because the price of being wrong is high!
I suspect you might have it the wrong way around. Those who are convinced there are serious consequences are more vocal about it.
Correlation, causation...you know the drill.
The question is 'for who'? Many plants will love it. There will be organisms that will take advantage of this. But many humans will find it tough going.
Maybe you haven't really been reading the thread, but this seems to have been covered quite clearly. The downside of global warming is subjective, however for a good proportion of humans, there will need to be some significant cultural adjustment to a different climate, and in the meantime people will be suffering the consequences.
Nobody is denying that some geographical regions may have milder weather, with an increase in useful resources. Most, however, won't.
Again, you're confusing correlation with causation. I suspect that the greater somebody senses a threat, the more vocal they'll be about it.
Athon
No but it could effect our modelling in the 25-30 year time span - which is why I raised the topic in the first place. The severity of that effect is debatable. If you believe, as lomiller does, that it will be slight when compared to the AGW effect then I would find it hard to argue.
It's a logical hypothesis. A cycle that is 'pumped' by heat input will accelerate if the incoming heat is increased. There is however nothing approaching reasonable evidence that I can find - and 'logic' can be a harsh mistress when it comes to science.
I agree it requires some work.
Dogb
That sounds EXACTLY what some Christians tell me (and for that matter Pascals wager).
The simple thing is we will know in 10 years if the deniers are right as their expected natural cooling cycle will not have occurred.
The PRICE of jumping on something now that MAY be unnecessary is way greater than the price of waiting. So the price of YOU being wrong is possibly higher !
Only the very worst of the doomsayers would argue that doing nothing for another 10 years would make little or no difference to the long term outcome.
That sounds EXACTLY what some Christians tell me (and for that matter Pascals wager).
The simple thing is we will know in 10 years if the deniers are right as their expected natural cooling cycle will not have occurred.
The PRICE of jumping on something now that MAY be unnecessary is way greater than the price of waiting. So the price of YOU being wrong is possibly higher !
Only the very worst of the doomsayers would argue that doing nothing for another 10 years would make little or no difference to the long term outcome.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
If you seriously thought Bad Stuff was about to happen, and it was preventable, and you decided to say nothing at all, that would make you a sociopath, IMNSHO.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
As one of the software engineers who fixed it I see the Y2K bug story as an object lesson in how to prevent a problem by seeing it coming and doing something about it before it happens. A good lesson to apply to AGW indeed.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Exactly. Had it not been dealt with, it would have been a very bad situation.
macdoc
Philosopher
Most have no idea what we dodged with the Montreal Protocol either - if anything it's a model for C02 reduction.
The SO2 ( acid rain ) campaign was very successful and cost far less than the naysayers anticipated.
We COULD use another effort on that end with global shipping and help for developing nations.
You never hear about the successful campaigns...
The SO2 ( acid rain ) campaign was very successful and cost far less than the naysayers anticipated.
We COULD use another effort on that end with global shipping and help for developing nations.
You never hear about the successful campaigns...
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,637
"...and it was preventable..."
That seems a key point to me, especially given the nature of the human beast, I'm really not convinced that there's a whole lot that will be done to avoid some of the worst effects of conditions that are already in the pipeline, much less most or all of the "Bad Stuff." To a large degree, it is a self-correcting problem, once civilization is sufficiently disrupted and enough humans are killed through direct and indirect effects, the environment will seek a new balance of conditions.
Herzblut
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,234
I did not say that.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
The new balance of conditions might be one where human life SUCKS though. Do we want that?
macdoc
Philosopher
TS
The model for cooperation is there and the success of both is clear.
No question the climate is altered for the next thousands of years and there is at least another .6 degrees in the pipeline but at some point civilization has to go carbon neutral or low carbon and there is simply no reason not to get on with it.
The VCs know how much is to be made, Stern laid it out, China and Denmark and others are creating entire new industries to serve their own needs and to sell to others.
I don't think there is a climate scientist on the planet thinks we can hold it to 2 degrees by 2100 - but there is no harm in the effort and just maybe some technologies for actually extracting C02 and sequestering cost effectively might emerge...there are some promising ones.
No reason to make the load heavier and many reasons including ocean acidification and fossil fuel dependence to rapidly reduce fossil carbon emissions.
Fatalism serves no one.....
why was S02 and CFC dealt with ??
The model for cooperation is there and the success of both is clear.
No question the climate is altered for the next thousands of years and there is at least another .6 degrees in the pipeline but at some point civilization has to go carbon neutral or low carbon and there is simply no reason not to get on with it.
The VCs know how much is to be made, Stern laid it out, China and Denmark and others are creating entire new industries to serve their own needs and to sell to others.
I don't think there is a climate scientist on the planet thinks we can hold it to 2 degrees by 2100 - but there is no harm in the effort and just maybe some technologies for actually extracting C02 and sequestering cost effectively might emerge...there are some promising ones.
No reason to make the load heavier and many reasons including ocean acidification and fossil fuel dependence to rapidly reduce fossil carbon emissions.
Fatalism serves no one.....
Completely wrong. Like it or not generation of energy using non renewables is not sustainable in the long run. The things we need to do to fix this problem are inevitable requirements of our continued existence on this planet.
We might as well do them now while we have a little time to get it right. Every economic analysis I’ve seen indicates that the longer we take to make a decision the more it will cost.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
It's more a cycle between warm water piling up in one region and in another. It's unlike El Nino in that regard, and is probably why it doesn't have nearly as strong a global signal (if any at all).
If we understand it we may realise we can disregard it. Given that there's no strong global signal it's very likely we can disregard it. After all, nobody thought it terribly important before the usual suspects turned it up.
Given how little data we have and how little work has been done on the phaenomenon there's nothing but speculation.
How did we get here from upsides and downsides?