Anybody want to argue global warming?

[MikeH]

In my opinion as well, but this is still open to debate.

It's still 'open to debate' whether evolution can produce a complex structure like an eye. Doesn't mean that people on one side of the 'debate' aren't wrong.

[dannubis]

Mike, I am on your side here. But a lot of other people aren't. I just gave my peronal viewpoint that we have bigger fish to fry and by doing so, we will solve the man made global warming problem as a nice bonus.

[MikeH]

I know. But this thread was about how those other people were wrong, and could be comprehensively proved wrong.

[ricketyclik]

I don't think there's a serious question about whether anthropogenic global warming is happening or not. It's clear that there is a very small increase in temperatures, and that increase has been linked to the increase in CO2 concentrations.

The question is whether we should do anything about it. Global Warming is not a catastrophic event, like being hit by a giant meteor or world-wide nuclear war. Climate change would likely hurt some areas and benefit others. Some islands and low lying areas may get snuffed out, but they would be compensated by the opening up of arctic and subarctic regions that are currently inhospitable. Higher temperatures and increased CO2 concentrations would be generally good for plant life, especially since the bulk of the temperature increases are expected to occur in the polar regions. Rainfall is difficult to predict, but warm air can hold more moisture than cold air, so I'd expect overall rainfall to increase.

The real policy question with AGW is whether it's worth it to do anything about it. Since it's likely to result in a mixed blessing, and given that we have limited resources, should we really commit trillions of dollars to preventing it?

That's the big gap in most people's appreciation of the danger. Change of the magnitude forecast in the timeframe forecast (ie, very, very fast by historic climate change standards) is likely to, if history repeats, result in a massive reduction in biomass.

That is, most of humanity starves.

[MikeH]

We get thinner?! WOO!

[Felch]

That's the big gap in most people's appreciation of the danger. Change of the magnitude forecast in the timeframe forecast (ie, very, very fast by historic climate change standards) is likely to, if history repeats, result in a massive reduction in biomass.

That is, most of humanity starves.

Previous instances where climate change occurred so quickly didn't have humans. We don't hunt and gather for much of our food anymore. I don't think that climate will change so fast that the agriculture industry wouldn't be able to adapt and develop properly.

[dannubis]

All it takes is 1 harvest to go bad on a global scale. 1. Do you want to take the risk ?

[Felch]

Harvests go bad all the time. Who's saying that the entire globe would have bad harvests one year? Anybody? That sounds a lot more like a weather issue than a climate one. Frankly I don't think it's likely. I think that it's more likely that some areas will be hurt and some will be helped by climate change. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

[Al B. Sure!]

Orange farms in New Jersey

Or take this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/16/highereducation.climatechange

Global warming could significantly increase rainfall in Saharan Africa within a few decades, potentially ending the severe droughts that have devastated the region, a new study suggests.

The discovery was made by climate experts at the Royal Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the Netherlands, who used a computer model to predict changes in the Sahel region - a wide belt stretching from the Atlantic to the horn of Africa that includes Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti.

Global warming will heat the land more than the sea, leading to changes in air pressure and weather. When the Netherlands team simulated this effect and combined it with warming caused by the expected rises in greenhouse gas emissions between 1980 and 2080, they found Sahel rainfall in the July to September period jumped 1-2mm a day.

Some scientists suspected that global warming might increase rainfall in the region, causing the so-called greening of the Sahara, but these are the biggest predicted increases so far.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists say the increased rainfall could "strongly reduce the probability of prolonged droughts".

Considering that the entire Sahel is notorious for famines, if these models are true, global warming could be a boon to the region.

[ricketyclik]

Well, if you guys are confident that human agricultural systems will withstand a collapse of the rest of the ecosphere, I guess we'll be fine.

Ecosystems, including soils, evolve over (at least) thousands of years of relatively consistent patterns of rainfall and temperature. If a location's rainfall amounts and temperatures change too quickly do all of the species that make up a system just scout around the world to set up shop elsewhere, simultaneously, packing up all of their interdependencies and taking them with them?

Terrain evolves to rainfall patterns too. Increases in rainfall in some areas will result in loss of fertile top soil, and leaching of nutrients through soils and in to water tables, particularly if the flora in and on them has been devastated. This can be difficult to understand for residents of North America and Europe, with their abundant fertile top soil.

[Felch]

Temperatures change all the time. I think you're selling the ecosystem short here. Besides, the point is that there's an opportunity cost. "Fixing" global warming means that you can't do countless other things.

[BlackCat]

Temperatures change all the time.

No, they are stable and don't wriggle more than a tenth or so - haven't you listened to MikeH ? Nature is STABLE and only humans can change temperatures

[Al B. Sure!]

I thought it was established that the world was a few degrees warmer during Roman times up until the late medieval period... Greenland really was 'Green' at one point... grapes grew in Vinland, not to mention throughout Germany, etc. Then there was the 'little ice age', the period lasting until the 20th century from whence we have accumulated most of our historical knowledge of temperatures. I do wonder how much of this global warming is natural.

[notyoueither]

Really? The consensus re AGW among scientists who study climate and related fields is as strong as that among biologists, etc about evolution?

Yep!

I'm skeptical of this claim.

[BlackCat]

Al, don't listen to rumors. There are no findings of roman relicts under retreating glaciers they have been there forever and only AGW are to blame for glaciers retreating - trust MikeH while he speaks the thruth !!