• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
3bodyproblem said:
It's called "the line of best fit". It's a mathematical technique.
Click to expand...


I asked you to defend your decision to use a line to fit the data points. Simply saying you did it because it was a line doesn't really cut it, so again what is your justification for choosing a linear fit?
 
This is what was actually asked (my bold):

TShaitanaku said:
Please provide the scientific support for your assertion (that temp rises are linear).
Click to expand...

Even if the forcing (the rise in CO2 levels) is and remains linear, neither of which appears likely to be the case, would it necessarily mean that temperature rise will also be linear? Surely that depends on the net effect of the various positive and negative feedbacks that kick in as a result of any forcing.
 
Climate Change Analysis Predicts Increased Fatalities from Heat Waves

ScienceDaily (May 3, 2011) — Global climate change is anticipated to bring more extreme weather phenomena such as heat waves that could impact human health in the coming decades. An analysis led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health calculated that the city of Chicago could experience between 166 and 2,217 excess deaths per year attributable to heat waves using three different climate change scenarios for the final decades of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503133046.htm
 
macdoc said:
more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503133046.htm
Click to expand...

This is typical of alarmist reporting. They fail to mention that every year 10 times as many people die from extreme cold. It's very easy to see in a warming world the net effect would be less deaths due to exposure.

At the very least reports like this should suggest that we aren't doing enough to protect current generations let alone spending money to protect future generations. I remember 2 years ago Venezuela donated a bunch of heating oil to the US so people wouldn't freeze to death because they couldn't afford to heat their homes. Something's seriously wrong with the current system and 1 sided alarmist reports about hypothetical people dieing in future heat waves is just a detraction from what's really going on in the world today.
 
lomiller said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
Page 8.

Currently, about twice as many people die per year from extreme cold (680) as from extreme heat (358). So for the high end of the estimate, the increase in deaths from heat would result in more deaths overall even if all deaths from cold were eliminated. At the low end, it would depend entirely on how many deaths from cold might be prevented whether there would be a decrease or increase in deaths.

Edit: Wait, my mistake. The study posted by Macdoc is only for Chicago, while the figures I quote are for the US as a whole. In which case, 3bodyproblem is absolutely wrong and the excess deaths from heat across the US would certainly increase overall deaths even if all deaths from cold were completely eliminated.

Of course, as usual for deniers, 3bodyproblem imagines that global warming means everywhere is hotter all the time. In reality, it has always been predicted to cause greater extremes in many places, with higher yearly average temperatures but including lower lows in the winter. So assuming that global warming would mean less people dying in the winter is extremely simplistic, since it could well result in more people dying from cold in the winter in addition to those dying from the heat in the summer.
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
Page 8.

Currently, about twice as many people die per year from extreme cold (680) as from extreme heat (358)..
Click to expand...
Well his claim was 10X, so it seems he made up the number.

Cuddles said:
Currently, about twice as many people die per year from extreme cold (680) as from extreme heat (358). So for the high end of the estimate, the increase in deaths from heat would result in more deaths overall even if all deaths from cold were eliminated. At the low end, it would depend entirely on how many deaths from cold might be prevented whether there would be a decrease or increase in deaths.

Edit: Wait, my mistake. The study posted by Macdoc is only for Chicago, while the figures I quote are for the US as a whole. In which case, 3bodyproblem is absolutely wrong and the excess deaths from heat across the US would certainly increase overall deaths even if all deaths from cold were completely eliminated.

Of course, as usual for deniers, 3bodyproblem imagines that global warming means everywhere is hotter all the time. In reality, it has always been predicted to cause greater extremes in many places, with higher yearly average temperatures but including lower lows in the winter. So assuming that global warming would mean less people dying in the winter is extremely simplistic, since it could well result in more people dying from cold in the winter in addition to those dying from the heat in the summer.
Click to expand...

Yes, it’s important to remember that deaths from cold events are not just dependant on the cold they also tend to be associated with snowfall. When someone gets trapped in their car during a blizzard and dies isn’t just the cold at play it’s the fact that the snow prevented them from getting someplace warm. In many cases snowfall can be expected to rise as the planet warms giving us warmer cold events that have more snow. It isn’t clear whether this would increase ort decrease death rates in cold events but where I live I expect it would be the former.
 
Yeah = the world is rapidly urbanizing and heat in an urban setting is particularly devastating in what is now a rapidly aging population in many nations.

Extended heatwaves not only affect people but infrastructure suffers......the urban rail system in one of the Australian systems buckled to the point of not being usable during a record breaking heat wave.

The greater risk is tropical diseases like malaria moving into populations that have little resistance.
This will kill far more than the direct impact of heat....and already does.....


Climate Change and Neglected Tropical Disease An Overlooked issue




Climate change is increasingly being implicated in species' range shifts throughout the world, including those of important vector and reservoir species for infectious diseases. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the mean global temperature would increase by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100. Recent investigations attribute more than 150,000 deaths per year and a global disease burden of approximately 5 million DALYs annually to climate change.
Click to expand...

more
http://researchcooperative.org/profiles/blogs/climate-change-and-neglected

despite the nasty thought an outbreak of virulent malaria in Washington DC might be a good wake up call.
It is after all built on a swamp.
 
Cuddles said:
Currently, about twice as many people die per year from extreme cold (680) as from extreme heat (358). So for the high end of the estimate, the increase in deaths from heat would result in more deaths overall even if all deaths from cold were eliminated. At the low end, it would depend entirely on how many deaths from cold might be prevented whether there would be a decrease or increase in deaths.
Click to expand...

Even if we're just talking about the US you're wrong:

"the United States, the National Climatic Data Center's Storm Data statistics of temperature- related deaths are skewed heavily toward heat-related deaths, while the National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database indicates the reverse—4 times more people die of “excessive cold” conditions in a given year than of “excessive heat.” "

source: AMS

I thought the 10 times figure came from the IPCC but I can't find it. It may have been just for Europe, I can't remember.

It comes as no surprise to me that the alarmists wouldn't have any idea how many people actually die from extreme cold vs. extreme heat. It doesn't serve the AGW agenda so it's of no consequence. And that's my point really.
 
lomiller said:
The reported accurately the contents of the paper they were reporting on. What is your reasoning for expecting them to add their own speculation and why do you think adding their own speculation would make the reporting less “alarmist”?
Click to expand...

Balanced reporting so that the true net effect of climate change can be evaluated.
 
lomiller said:
Yes, it’s important to remember that deaths from cold events are not just dependant on the cold they also tend to be associated with snowfall. When someone gets trapped in their car during a blizzard and dies isn’t just the cold at play it’s the fact that the snow prevented them from getting someplace warm. In many cases snowfall can be expected to rise as the planet warms giving us warmer cold events that have more snow. It isn’t clear whether this would increase ort decrease death rates in cold events but where I live I expect it would be the former.
Click to expand...

It's important to remember most of these deaths preventable.

You also neglect to mention that if it's warmer the snow will melt faster and less people will attempt to shovel it, thereby reducing the number of associated heart attacks.

See what I did there?

We don't know what the mitigating circumstances will be. We can go back and forth all day on what might happen. So let's stick with what we do know: more heat means more deaths due to heat exposure and less deaths due to cold. Period.
 
Crop yields fall as temperatures rise

* 19:00 05 May 2011 by Michael Marshall

Global warming is taking its toll on our food, according to the first study to demonstrate a link between global crop yields and climate change. It concludes that the steep rise in temperatures since 1980 has cut into yields of staple crops, offsetting gains from improved farming practices – although not all climate researchers are convinced.

"Yields went up, but they didn't go up as much as they might have," says Wolfram Schlenker of Columbia University in New York City. With David Lobell and Justin Costa-Roberts of Stanford University in California, he calculated the annual yields of maize, wheat, rice and soybeans for every country in the world between 1980 and 2008. Together those crops supply roughly 75 per cent of the energy in our food.

The team then studied long-term data on the average temperatures and rainfalls for each agricultural region during the growing season. In 65 per cent of countries, the growing season has become warmer since 1980 – although trends in rainfall over the same time frame are less pronounced. For the 20 years before 1980 there were no large-scale trends in either temperature or rainfall.

The researchers then turned to statistical models that predict yield in a given year based on known factors like local soil quality, farming technology and weather. The models allowed them to calculate what the yields would have been for each year since 1980 as farming technology improved – if temperature and precipitation had remained at 1980 levels.

Maize and wheat down

The real world yields of maize were 5.5 per cent lower and wheat 3.8 per cent lower than the team's models suggested they should have been if temperature and precipitation had stayed at 1980 levels. Rice and soybean yields held steady, because losses in some countries were balanced by gains elsewhere.

"In most places we see temperature trends, and they have significantly reduced yield growth," Schlenker says.
Click to expand...

more

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20449-crop-yields-fall-as-temperatures-rise.html

So much for the C02 is good for crops nonsense circling in the deniosphere.. :rolleyes:
 
3bodyproblem said:
Balanced reporting so that the true net effect of climate change can be evaluated.
Click to expand...

The paper they were reporting on says what it says. You saying they should make up stuff it doesn’t say and insert it just to accommodate your biased version of “balance”. IOW their reporting it fine, your idea of “good reporting” is seriously flawed.
 
lomiller said:
What is your objection to letting the market place the dollar value on CO2?
Click to expand...

None. We were talking about translating the effects of CO2 reduction on the environment to dollars and cents so people know what their money is buying environmentally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom