Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[likelystory]

If you actually bothered to read any atmospheric science you would understand that C02 can be a feedback or a forcing.....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

Without fossil carbon injected into the atmosphere by us or by magna intrusions into carboniferous strata the normal carbon cycle magnifies changes in either direction from forcings like Milankovitch cycles.
As the world cools in the ice part of the cycle a colder ocean takes up more C02 and so the cooling trend is magnified both by lower C02 and lower water vapour.
So a small change is magnified.

In the other direction as the planet moves into a warmer part of the orbit/tilt/precession the oceans warm, C02 and companion water vapour increase and it's magnified in the direction of greater warmth until a radiative equilibrium is reached.

Again very basic atmospheric processes basically outlined and understood for a 100 years or more and warned about for 60 or more.

Without C02 earth would be tens of degrees C cooler.

Add 50% C02 from sequestered fossil stores - as is happening now and has happened in the past then the radiative balance changes as more heat is trapped by again - a process understood by theory and observation for over a 100 years,

We HAVE done that to the point where the C02 levels are higher than any point in 15 million years.....the global climate is warming as a result - the oceans and cryosphere act as dampers but they have tremendous hysteresis and once started the process is inexorable.

Where uncertainty lies is in how fast the additional energy will show up in the climate and weather systems.
Already there is substantially more water vapour load as the result of a warmer atmosphere and you get more extreme rain and snow events as a result.
Hydrology changes are leading edge as is desertification.....advancing quickly in Southern Europe.

Is the reduced radiation to space observable...yes, the boundary above the troposphere has observed cooling a result expected.

Eventually a new radiative balance will be struck if we do not continue to add GHG gases or kick off something like a methane release from clathrates.

and unlike methane carbon sticks around....in human terms....forever.....

So each year accumulates and the effect persists. Methane is more powerful but drops out.

Short of active removal of C02 what we have set in motion stays - it does not decay back to pre -industrial levels in anything short of 100k years.

That's 100,000 years in case you are math challenged.

Your descendants will curse you for being obdurate and rightfully so..

The actual physics and processes are rather simple despite your best efforts to say otherwise.

The pace and timing of the outcome is far from simple.
What to do about it even more difficult.

The start point in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it's existence.
Your denial in the face of the world science community is nothing short of

...hubris writ large.

When the fossil fuels run out,will the CO2 decrease?

 

[macdoc]

Slowly over time -
That was the opening question here

snip

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122Carbon is forever

Carbon dioxide emissions and their associated warming could linger for millennia, according to some climate scientists. Mason Inman looks at why the fallout from burning fossil fuels could last far longer than expected.

Distant future: our continued use of fossil fuels could leave a CO2legacy that lasts millennia, says climatologist David Archer
123RF.COM/PAUL MOORE

After our fossil fuel blow-out, how long will the CO2 hangover last? And what about the global fever that comes along with it? These sound like simple questions, but the answers are complex — and not well understood or appreciated outside a small group of climate scientists. Popular books on climate change — even those written by scientists — if they mention the lifetime of CO2 at all, typically say it lasts "a century or more"1 or "more than a hundred years".
"That's complete nonsense," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. It doesn't help that the summaries in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have confused the issue, allege Caldeira and colleagues in an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences2. Now he and a few other climate scientists are trying to spread the word that human-generated CO2, and the warming it brings, will linger far into the future — unless we take heroic measures to pull the gas out of the air.
University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, "The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this"3.

continues
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

If we use up all reserves and sands/shales etc without pause we are literally cooked......jelly fish soup anyone.

 

[Saggy]

Seems there are a number of posters on this thread who do understand the above.

LOL. You're joking, right?

But that is why we have experts!

Here you have to be careful. We have real experts in lots of subjects, mathematicians, physicists, engineers, who are experts in their fields, and if you ask them a question on many topics they will give unanimous answers that are documented and proved. You can trust them. Even better yet the science is implemented, televisions, computers, airplanes, etc., are all evidence of remarkable science and real experts.

But, with climate science, things are a bit different. The science is not decided or fully developed. The experts do not give unanimous answers. The results have not been proved or implemented. We to an extent flying blind here.

If the experts don't agree, then what do you do?

And you can't become an expert yourself.

You can try to understand the subject from 'first principles'. For example, how is the global US temperature drift calculated? That at first glance seems like it should be relatively straightforward, and in fact, I think it is, as we've seen the claim in this thread that it can be reduced to a few hundred lines of code. So, understanding that would be a significant step.

Which reminds me, most temperature sensors are no doubt located near inhabited areas ... yes? ... which makes them very poor candidates to be included in any measurement of long term global trends as they are influenced by their immediate surroundings which are no doubt heating up just because of increased population density.

So, maybe that's accounted for, but I'd like to see how, so I'd like to see the locations of the actual stations and see the data, which I understand is now available. (Note: I don't want to really look at it myself, I'd like to discuss the subject at this level with people who have looked at it).

Anyhow, I don't think there is too big a mystery as to the calculation of how global temperature is calculated over land.

And, I'd like to see the error analysis of the calculation.

I think most people should be able to understand this if it is clearly presented.

I'm not convinced it's over my head and I'll continue to look into it.

Interestingly that percentage is about 97% v 3% of top climate scientists who agree with AGW. Where do you place your bets with these sort of odds?

Good argument, but, that ain't the way I roll !

(In the decision analysis - what to do - I would buy the 97/3 argument as the consequences of a false negative, believing global warming is false when it is not, are global and disastrous)

 

[zooterkin]

For example, how is the global US temperature drift calculated?

What do you even mean by "global US temperature"?

 

[Pixel42]

maybe that's accounted for

Of course it's accounted for. Climatologists are not morons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Global_warming

Because some parts of some cities may be hotter than their surroundings, concerns have been raised that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. While the "heat island" warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases trends in historical temperature record. For example, urban and rural trends are very similar.[9]

The Third Assessment Report from the IPCC says:

However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant.[9]

Ground temperature measurements, like most weather observations, are logged by location. Their siting predates the massive sprawl, roadbuilding programs, and high- and medium-rise expansions which contribute to the UHI. More importantly, station logs allow sites in question to be filtered easily from data sets. Doing so, the presence of heat islands is visible, but overall trends change in magnitude, not direction.

ETA: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

 

[macdoc]

Here you have to be careful. We have real experts in lots of subjects, mathematicians, physicists, engineers, who are experts in their fields, and if you ask them a question on many topics they will give unanimous answers that are documented and proved. You can trust them. Even better yet the science is implemented, televisions, computers, airplanes, etc., are all evidence of remarkable science and real experts.

But, with climate science, things are a bit different. The science is not decided or fully developed. The experts do not give unanimous answers. The results have not been proved or implemented. We to an extent flying blind here.

If the experts don't agree, then what do you do?

That's a total crock based on your own ignorance of the science and the state of knowledge.
Why don't you actually read the science instead of making stupid proclamations about something you clearly know absolutely nothing about.

and in particular the consensus on AGW is just that .....a consensus....and it's been there for a decade or more.
It's now as fundamental as evolution is.

It's your own ignorance of the matter and the planetary physical systems that is glaring.

You are just another US centric political agenda driven trol in my view and you've said nothing to dispel that....and there's been many that have face planted here, tho fewer lately that are prepared to look utterly incompetent in a science forum, as you have so thoroughly done.
You bring up stale old arguments gleaned from denier blogs and right wing political wonks without a shred of scientific merit.

Here's an easy question to answer....

Have you read these to the end...

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm

If not? Why not??....surely you want to be informed on the subject

 

[BenBurch]

LOL. You're joking, right?
...

Some of us are working scientists, and some have the scientific backgrounds even though (as in my case) they work in some engineering discipline. It really only takes an engineer's knowledge of physics and mathematics to comprehend that...

 

[Dancing David]

Um Saggy, and who are this ovrewhelming number of climate scientists who disagree with global warming and then who disagree with anthropogenic global warming.

How many are there, what are their credentials, why , you may ask?

because there is a consensus, so we have examine what the people who disagree with teh consensus are saying, so how are tehse peopel and what are they saying?

There is a consensus that teh climate on a glabal scale is warming, there is a consensus that it seems to be correlated with CO-2 released by human activities.

So who is disagreeing, what do they say and how many of them are there?

ETA: for example Wallace Thornhill and Halton Arp are respected astrophysics people, however they have some views that are in disagreement with the consensus, and gues what the data and evidence say that they are wrong in their disagreement.

 

[lomiller]

But, with climate science, things are a bit different. The science is not decided or fully developed. The experts do not give unanimous answers. The results have not been proved or implemented. We to an extent flying blind here.

Palaeontologists who disagree wildly on where a fossil fits in the record are still nearly unanimous in their agreement the fossil record supports evolution.

Likewise climate scientists who disagree wildly on some aspects like say clouds are still unanimous in their agreement that the earth is warming due to humans burning fossil Carbon. On the question you are asking scientists have unanimously agreed for decades and the basic science goes back more than a century, there is none of the disagreement you seem to think exists.

 

[lomiller]

Which reminds me, most temperature sensors are no doubt located near inhabited areas ... yes? ... which makes them very poor candidates to be included in any measurement of long term global trends as they are influenced by their immediate surroundings which are no doubt heating up just because of increased population density.

So, maybe that's accounted for, but I'd like to see how, so I'd like to see the locations of the actual stations and see the data, which I understand is now available.

Of course they are accounted for. Furthermore the methods used to account for it are in the papers I’ve already linked for you.

So, once again we are back at the point where you think that because you don’t understand something you question it. Now we see that that lack of understanding is at least in part wilful.

 

[BillyJoe]

LOL. You're joking, right?

I don't actually know that they understand what is written in that quote, but they have said they do and I have no reason to disbelieve them. Some are long term members here and would know that if they made such a claim and it wasn't true they would soon be exposed by those who do and long remembered for their dishonesty by other posters here, to their eternal shame.

Come to think of it, it's a sort of how I view climate change as well.

Here you have to be careful. We have real experts in lots of subjects, mathematicians, physicists, engineers, who are experts in their fields, and if you ask them a question on many topics they will give unanimous answers that are documented and proved.

Leaving aside mathematics and engineering, in science generally very little, if anything, is ever proven 100% correct and, hence, unanimous answers are rare. There are always dissenters or deniers. Just look at evolution, for example. It's just about as well established as heliocentrism, but there are a small percentage of scientists who still believe in creationism.

But, with climate science, things are a bit different. The science is not decided or fully developed. The experts do not give unanimous answers. The results have not been proved or implemented. We to an extent flying blind here.

Many things have been "decided" (decided by conmsensus) in climate science. Certainly there are details that are not clear, but the evidence is almost incontrovertible that climate change is happening and that it is anthropogenic in origin. The resolution of those details which are still unclear will not alter that conclusion. It's now more a question of how quickly and by how much.

If the experts don't agree, then what do you do?

But they largely do agree. It's not unanimous, but you will never get 100% consensus. I think these graphs are pretty convincing about where I think the non expert should lay their bets:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_citations.gif

You can try to understand the subject from 'first principles'.

Well, I'm trusting that the specialsits in climate change at least have the first principles right.

Which reminds me, most temperature sensors are no doubt located near inhabited areas ... yes? ... which makes them very poor candidates to be included in any measurement of long term global trends as they are influenced by their immediate surroundings which are no doubt heating up just because of increased population density. So, maybe that's accounted for, but I'd like to see how...

It has been accounted for...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/jones_china.gif

I can't see much difference, can you?

I think most people should be able to understand this if it is clearly presented.

I would like to believe so. But you'd be surprised what degree of cognitive dissonance denialists are capable of. And some don't even want to be shown in case it upsets their preferred view.

And, in the mean time, America has gone into hibernation for at least two years because of the iunfluence of climate change denialism amongst conservative politicians who gasined prominence after the mid term elections, and here in Australia, after a close election resulting in a minority government, we are on the back foot for similar reasons.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here you have to be careful. We have real experts in lots of subjects, mathematicians, physicists, engineers, who are experts in their fields, and if you ask them a question on many topics they will give unanimous answers that are documented and proved. You can trust them. Even better yet the science is implemented, televisions, computers, airplanes, etc., are all evidence of remarkable science and real experts.

Don't forget weather-forecasting.

But, with climate science, things are a bit different. The science is not decided or fully developed. The experts do not give unanimous answers. The results have not been proved or implemented. We to an extent flying blind here.

We don't normally implement climate, any more than we implement astrophysics. We do know a great deal about it, though. For instance, we know about the (rather inaptly named) greenhouse effect. We know about absorption spectra. We know about conservation laws, fluid mechanics, latent heat, and many other things which pertain to climate.

It's true that we are to some extent flying blind (if that gives you comfort) because we haven't directly observed such an experiment before. Climate science developed as a branch of geology, in what is now a sub-field known as palaeoclimatology. It wasn't expected to have any short-term implications. And glaciology was for scientists who like a quiet life.

If the experts don't agree, then what do you do?

Experts seldom agree on every particular of a subject. However they will often agree on the main elements of a subject, which is the case in climate science. The likes of Lindzen will never stop searching for a reason why what's happened never would, but theory progresses funeral by funeral.

You can try to understand the subject from 'first principles'. For example, how is the global US temperature drift calculated?

That is not a "first principle" of climate science. (I also love the conflation of "US" and "global", which I find is rather common amongst US Americans. The world is, in fact, much larger than the US.)

That at first glance seems like it should be relatively straightforward, and in fact, I think it is, as we've seen the claim in this thread that it can be reduced to a few hundred lines of code.

You were told it's 5000 lines of Fortan, but you say "a few hundred lines". Why is that? Fifty isn't "a few" by any normal use of English.

So, understanding that would be a significant step.

If you were a programmer you'd first look at the specification, which you have been linked to. It explains how the calculation is to be made. The code is written to the specification. It's then tested and de-bugged until it's right.

If there appears to be a problem (and coming up with an answer you don't like is not a problem) the code can be checked. Where do you see the problem?

Which reminds me, most temperature sensors are no doubt located near inhabited areas ... yes? ...

No. There are satellites and ocean buoys, and most of the globe is not only not the US, it's not even land.

... which makes them very poor candidates to be included in any measurement of long term global trends as they are influenced by their immediate surroundings which are no doubt heating up just because of increased population density.

Urbanisation is not a new phaenomenon.

So, maybe that's accounted for ...

Of course.

... but I'd like to see how, so I'd like to see the locations of the actual stations and see the data, which I understand is now available.

So look at it.

(Note: I don't want to really look at it myself, I'd like to discuss the subject at this level with people who have looked at it).

So go meet them.

Anyhow, I don't think there is too big a mystery as to the calculation of how global temperature is calculated over land.

Well, no, there isn't.

And, I'd like to see the error analysis of the calculation.

So go look at it.

I think most people should be able to understand this if it is clearly presented.

I think you're sadly mistaken.

I'm not convinced it's over my head and I'll continue to look into it.

I'm yet to be convinced of that.

Good argument, but, that ain't the way I roll !

Nobody really cares how you roll.

(In the decision analysis - what to do - I would buy the 97/3 argument as the consequences of a false negative, believing global warming is false when it is not, are global and disastrous)

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, nor would it surprise me if you clung to that belief whatever happens. Wishful thinking is a hardy beast.

Which is fine by me. More room on the hill for people who do take account of reality, such as myself.

 

[OhMan]

ppp

Can anyone refute the claims made in this link?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

Read the bullet points and then click the corresponding links. He is arguing that global warming is not human-caused.

Is it human-caused? I think everyone can agree that there is a change, but some people are saying it is caused by humans use of driving cars and all that **** we are burning into the atmosphere where others are saying it is a natural cycle of the Earth.

Also even if all the ice melts that wouldn't actually increase the sea level would it? It's like an ice-cube melting in a cup of water... the level stays the same because the solidified ice and liquefied water take up the same amount.

 

[Puppycow]

Video on recent weather effects of warmer arctic regions:

 

[macdoc]

What Carbon Cycle? College Students Lack Scientific Literacy, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 7, 2011) — Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle -- an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change, according to research published in the January issue of BioScience.

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110107094904.htm

Why am I not surprised :garfield

and now we begin to document the large scale energy transport changes.....

welcome to the Anthropocene....

Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes: study
January 4, 2011 The cold northern Labrador Current may be having a declining influence on the Atlantic Ocean

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-atlantic-currents-drastic.html
A woman celebrates after participating in the annual Coney Island Polar Bear Club New Year's Day swim in New York.

Scientists have found evidence of a "drastic" shift since the 1970s in north Atlantic Ocean currents that usually influence weather in the northern hemisphere, Swiss researchers say.

Scientists have found evidence of a "drastic" shift since the 1970s in north Atlantic Ocean currents that usually influence weather in the northern hemisphere, Swiss researchers said on Tuesday.

The team of biochemists and oceanographers from Switzerland, Canada and the United States detected changes in deep sea Atlantic corals that indicated the declining influence of the cold northern Labrador Current.

They said in the US National Academy of Science journal PNAS that the change "since the early 1970s is largely unique in the context of the last approximately 1,800 years," and raised the prospect of a direct link with global warming.

The Labrador Current interacts with the warmer Gulfstream from the south.

They in turn have a complex interaction with a climate pattern, the North Atlantic Oscillation, which has a dominant impact on weather in Europe and North America.

Scientists have pointed to a disruption or shifts in the oscillation as an explanation for moist or harsh winters in Europe, or severe summer droughts such as in Russia, in recent years.

One of the five scientists, Carsten Schubert, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Acquatic Sciences and Technology (EAWAG), underlined that for nearly 2,000 years the sub polar Labrador current off northern Canada and Newfoundland was the dominant force.

However that pattern appeared to have only been repeated occasionally in recent decades.

"Now the southern current has taken over, it's really a drastic change," Schubert told AFP, pointing to the evidence of the shift towards warmer water in the northwest Atlantic.

The research was based on nitrogen isotope signatures in 700 year old coral reefs on the ocean floor, which feed on sinking organic particles.

While water pushed by the Gulfstream is salty and rich in nutrients, the colder Arctic waters carried by the Labrador current contain fewer nutrients.

Changes could be dated because of the natural growth rings seen in corals.

"The researchers suspect there is a direct connection between the changes in oceanic currents in the North Atlantic and global warming caused by human activities.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-atlantic-currents-drastic.html

 

[macdoc]

Aerodynamics is not "decided or fully developed" what ever that little sound bite happens to mean in your universe but it does not prevent us from working with what we do know.

Nuclear physics the same - we hardly are complete in our understanding there at all but we act on what we do know.

So to with this risk.

and this IS a major risk we must understand to deal with

 

[Furcifer]

So to with this risk.

and this IS a major risk we must understand to deal with

What risk? This is just an alarmist mantra. The "risk" is freezing to death because you can't afford the heating oil, or rather the carbon tax on the heating oil. The "risk" is not being able to afford food because of the transportation costs? The "risk" of even more children going without electricity because they can't afford it?

And all of this risk comes from alarmists screaming to have more money thrown at a "problem" that doesn't yet exist and ignoring the problems that do. That's the risk.

 

[DC]

What risk? This is just an alarmist mantra. The "risk" is freezing to death because you can't afford the heating oil, or rather the carbon tax on the heating oil. The "risk" is not being able to afford food because of the transportation costs? The "risk" of even more children going without electricity because they can't afford it?

And all of this risk comes from alarmists screaming to have more money thrown at a "problem" that doesn't yet exist and ignoring the problems that do. That's the risk.

lets for a second assume, AGW is not a huge hoax of 1000's of conspired scientists and politicians, lets assume for a second the climate is changing.

when do you think is the right point to do something against the problem?

when the first people leave their island and move to another place because of climate change?

 

[macdoc]

The US Military and organizations around the world would beg to differ.
Do you have some science to add or just empty rhetoric?

The US military as a very different view than you - care to argue the science of how they are wrong and you are correct??
Are they also alarmists? The Dutch in defending their low lying nation, WHO in defending world health, insurers in assessing risks to their shareholders??
All alarmists?????

U.S. Military Prepares for Climate Change
12/09/2010
0 Comment(s)

Representatives from the US military just gave a very interesting presentation on how the department of defense is preparing for climate change. High level representatives from the Navy and Marines discussed actions the military are doing today to plan for sea level rise and other consequences of climate change. There is no doubt in the military's mind that climate change is real and that their planning horizon requires them to take action now both in terms of adaptation and mitigation.
DOD is planning for the possibility for conflict in the arctic region as arctic ice disappears in summer and from conflicts due to instability arising from mass migrations due to climate change. The military also needs to recognize how climate change and sea level rise will impact US bases around the world as well as how their humanitarian missions around the world will be impacted. Both interesting and scary stuff.

Defense Experts Press for Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Climate Change
National security experts said climate forecasters often focus on averages, or the most likely scenario, without determining the probability of an extreme climate shift
By Lauren Morello and Climatewire | June 24, 2010 | 7

That's the message military and national security experts gathered here want to send to climate scientists.

While political leaders on Capitol Hill seek definitive answers about how quickly the world's climate will change, military and national security experts say they're used to making decisions with limited information

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...obabilistic-risk-assessment-of-climate-change

Climate Change Risk Management: a special report
Jim Lane | June 21, 2010
Share

By Kai Alderson, Fasken Martineau and Stephen Higgs, Perkins Coie

Introduction

The potential impact of global climate change has generated proposals for new U.S., Canadian and international laws and regulations, and it is likely that North American companies soon will incur costs to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Weather conditions, rising sea levels and changing snow and rainfall patterns may also affect operations, supply chains and profitability. Corporations may face investor claims for losses blamed on company operations, and directors and officers may face similar claims for failure to adequately anticipate the effects of climate change or greenhouse gas regulation on company prospects.

Property Damage, Business Continuity and Personal Injury

Climate change could exacerbate the physical impact of extreme weather events, alter rain and drought patterns and raise sea levels. These events can cause sudden and material damage to business assets, interrupt business operations directly or disrupt key elements in transportation or support activities. For agriculture, hospitality, energy or similar climate-dependent businesses, changes in climate, sea levels and rain and snowfall patterns can materially impair the value of long-term assets. 
Prudent risk management suggests companies should consider ways to anticipate the effect of long-term climate trends.

Unlike you, these organizations understand the need to assess the risks associated with climate change that is already underway.
Insurers have already made changes to their policies on coastal properties for instance.

The Dutch spend billions on improving their sea defence.

WHO states flat out the coming and EXISTING deleterious effects of climate change..

Climate change and health

Fact sheet N°266
January 2010

Key facts
Climate change affects the fundamental requirements for health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.

The global warming that has occurred since the 1970s was causing over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.

Many of the major killers such as diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition, malaria and dengue are highly climate-sensitive and are expected to worsen as the climate changes.

Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health.

Climate change
Over the last 50 years, human activities – particularly the burning of fossil fuels – have released sufficient quantities of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trap additional heat in the lower atmosphere and affect the global climate.

In the last 100 years, the world has warmed by approximately 0.75oC. Over the last 25 years, the rate of global warming has accelerated, at over 0.18oC per decade1.

Sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting and precipitation patterns are changing. Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/index.html

and the more understanding of the consequences the science community has through both observation of unfolding events and the underlying theory, the more informed the policy of confronting the risk.

The first step in dealing with a risk issue is to admit there is a problem. You haven't even got to that stage.
You bring no science to the science forum or the specific climate science moderated thread, only unsupported personal opinion with a self admitted background of self interest in the energy industry.

Now what possible contribution is your "argument" to the science forum?
All of the "risks" you mention are complicated by climate change - in particular hunger.

The 'hidden hunger' caused by climate change
Lewis Ziska
20 January 2010

Studies reveal a significant drop in protein content of wheat as carbon dioxide levels rise

Understanding how carbon dioxide impacts food quality is vital to tackle malnutrition effectively, says agricultural researcher Lewis Ziska.

Researchers are focusing much attention on how to adapt agriculture to ensure steady food supplies in the face of climate change. But it is equally important to preserve the quality of these supplies as well as the quantity.

Researchers, policymakers and the public are increasingly aware that climate uncertainty — characterised by shifting rainfall patterns, increased desertification and warming temperatures — threatens to decrease people's ability to grow food sustainably in many parts of the developing world. But few know that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) — the principal greenhouse gas — is also expected to affect the nutritional value of many basic food crops.

http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/the-hidden-hunger-caused-by-climate-change.html

You instead of confronting the reality, play down risks with trite comments about alarmism. Hardly a rational approach given the overwhelming body of evidence indicating there are large scale risks associated with rapid climate change.

I mentioned the Dutch...tell us once more about climate change not being a "major risk" needing to be dealt with now.

ature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 6 April 2010 | doi:10.1038/climate.2010.28
Working with water
Nations threatened by sea level rise are starting to look at how they can work with nature to defend their coastlines. Mason Inman reports.

The Netherlands has traditionally defended itself against the sea with concrete and metal structures, such as the storm-surge barrier Maeslantkering, near Rotterdam.

JOS VAN ALPHEN
No place has done battle with the sea like the Netherlands has. Since the 1400s, the nation has built dikes to protect against tides and storm surges, and has pushed out into the ocean, creating new land. Over the past century, in particular, the Dutch have fought back against storm surges blowing in from the North Sea by 'hardening' their coastline, constructing dikes covered in concrete and rock, and metal barriers that can close off deltas and estuaries.

But despite the stalwart efforts at fortification, these hard defences are under threat.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.28.html

threat.......alarmism?? No, instead it is a responsible, sensible reaction to an identified, oncoming, existing and ongoing risk to their nation.

 

[BillyJoe]

I found this on PZ Myers blog "Pharyngula":

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Isaac Asimov is seen here talking about the greenhouse effect/climate change/AGW way back in 1989 and he says in the video that he has been talking about it for twenty years and that scientists before him have known about it since 1900.