Why worry about global warming?

[USincognito]

There is only one answer to all this hype - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You criticize the "hype" with hype yourself?

It is very profitable - Just ask the likes of Al Gore

The "Algore is a fat hypcrite so Global Warming is a hoax" meme was insipid from the moment it was first concocted.

- lie after lie has been proven -

Really? Could you cite a couple instead of merely alluding to them?

yet they are still out there grabbing what they can before it is all proven a big lie.

They who?

 

[USincognito]

The IPCC says that the worst case scenario for global warming is a sea level rise of 59cm (20 inches) by 2100. That requires a temperature rise of 6.4 degrees. (That is not at all believable.) We may be on track for a 2 degree increase, if you streach the figures, maybe..

No cities or any land of any value will be lost due to this.

I'm sure the people in coastal, low lying areas and islands would disagree on the last part.

That said, sea level rise is just one of the concerns. Changing weather patterns will bring drought to areas least able to withstand them. Loss of glaciation and sea ice will increase warming in addition to the greenhouse gasses. The melting of permafrost will release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. And the buildup of carbonic acid in the oceans will cause coral bleaching and dead zones.

There's a lot more to the effects on the climate than whether there's some beach erosion in Hawaii.

 

[[serious]]

Just to get my take on this out there.

The IPCC says that the worst case scenario for global warming is a sea level rise of 59cm (20 inches) by 2100. That requires a temperature rise of 6.4 degrees. (That is not at all believable.) We may be on track for a 2 degree increase, if you streach the figures, maybe..

No cities or any land of any value will be lost due to this.

If man made global warming is real it's very small. It's interesting in an accademic sence but that's all. Don't worry.

That figure is not a worst case scenario as you claim. It's an estimate based only on the best understood factors and specifically not including less well understood contributions such as changes in ice sheets. It would function better as a lower bound than an upper bound.

 

[Jazer]

I'm sure the people in coastal, low lying areas and islands would disagree on the last part.

10% of the world population is in a low lying area that could be in danger.
In the next 50 to 100 years there are cities that need to be concerned.
New Orleans was not suppose to be a problem until 2036 and it already hit.

London has to worry about storm surges.
Vienna has to worry about high tide.
It's clearly not a problem that is going to go away.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Vienna has to worry about high tide

If the capitol of land locked Austria in the Alps has to worry we are indeed in trouble.

Changing weather patterns will bring drought to areas least able to withstand them. Loss of glaciation and sea ice will increase warming in addition to the greenhouse gasses. The melting of permafrost will release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. And the buildup of carbonic acid in the oceans will cause coral bleaching and dead zones.

The last time it was warm is was wetter. The rest have been taken into account in the models I presume. The change in CO2 levels in the ocean is not going to be much. If it was going to be a significant thing it would absorb all of the CO2 output. Coral has been around for a long time. The CO2 level has often been much higher than now and the coral has survived, indeed thrived. Plants like increased CO2.

That figure is not a worst case scenario as you claim. It's an estimate based only on the best understood factors

The figure I quote is from the various predictions and it's the worst case scenario as predicted by the IPCC. If you have additional information then please tell me.

In the next 50 to 100 years there are cities that need to be concerned.

By a 59cm sea level change in the next 90 years?

New Orleans was not suppose to be a problem until 2036 and it already hit.

Hit by bad management of the sea defences in a below sea level city.

It's clearly not a problem that is going to go away.

No sadly the hype has a band wagon of doom seekers that is costiong us lots and the poor of the world are already starving as a direct result of bad science and bad stupid alarmist politics. The AGW thing is going to kill lots more people than the Nazi's.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Chalnoth,

How much thermal forcing are you anticipating? By 2100.

What effect do you think this will have on global temperatures? (in degrees c please)

How much thermal expansion of the oceans are you expecting from this?

How much land ice melting per year are you expecting and from where?

Good to see that science is being debated all over the place. Also refreshing to discuss this kind of thing with a reasonable person.

 

[Chalnoth]

If the capitol of land locked Austria in the Alps has to worry we are indeed in trouble.

Presumably he meant venice, which periodically floods. A high tide of 140cm floods nearly the entire city. This has happened 12 times in the last century, three of those times in the last 10 years. If the seas rise even 10cm, the frequency of this flooding will increase dramatically. See more about Venice and high tides here:
VeniceOnLine - High Tides

The last time it was warm is was wetter. The rest have been taken into account in the models I presume. The change in CO2 levels in the ocean is not going to be much. If it was going to be a significant thing it would absorb all of the CO2 output. Coral has been around for a long time. The CO2 level has often been much higher than now and the coral has survived, indeed thrived. Plants like increased CO2.

It depends upon the area. Some areas become wetter. Some become drier. But any change in the average rainfall is bad: more rain means more flooding. Less means droughts.

As for the corals, those are already dying out en masse. It is unknown at present how complete the die-out will be with more temperature rises. I don't expect complete extinction, but there doesn't need to be complete extinction for there to be massive ecosystem effects.

As for plants, there are far, far more effects to global warming than simply an increase in CO2 levels, and when you take into account the other effects, plants don't do that well.

The figure I quote is from the various predictions and it's the worst case scenario as predicted by the IPCC. If you have additional information then please tell me.


By a 59cm sea level change in the next 90 years?

I already showed how this is likely to be a vast underestimate, as they not only projected only to 2095 to bring the level down somewhat, but also used a model that underestimated the current sea level rise by a whopping 50%. These factors alone easily bring you over 1m for the worst-case scenario, and a more full analysis brings 1m closer to a median scenario, with 59cm being extremely unlikely.

No sadly the hype has a band wagon of doom seekers that is costiong us lots and the poor of the world are already starving as a direct result of bad science and bad stupid alarmist politics. The AGW thing is going to kill lots more people than the Nazi's.

This is idiotic. And asinine. There is no starving associated with policy to fight AGW. AGW itself, however, is going to cause a hell of a lot of starvation.

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth,

How much thermal forcing are you anticipating? By 2100.

What effect do you think this will have on global temperatures? (in degrees c please)

Well, I'll go with the IPCC estimates for these, so about 1.8-4C by 2100.

How much thermal expansion of the oceans are you expecting from this?

How much land ice melting per year are you expecting and from where?

Good to see that science is being debated all over the place. Also refreshing to discuss this kind of thing with a reasonable person.

I'll go by the results of this paper, which seem to be much more robust than the IPCC results:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/vermeer_rahmstorf_2009.pdf

They put it at 75cm-190cm based upon the IPCC temperature estimates.

And bear in mind that the thermal expansion of the oceans only barely begins to occur over the time span of a century. So an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere of 1C takes of the order of a thousand years or so to make its way through the entire ocean volume, ultimately leading to tens of meters of sea level rise per degree increase in temperature.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Dose this show that the IPCC predictions of temperature change by 2100 are between 2.8 degrees increase and 1.3 degrees and that the satilite data shows an increase below even that? Or am I reading this wrongly?

 

[Chalnoth]

Dose this show that the IPCC predictions of temperature change by 2100 are between 2.8 degrees increase and 1.3 degrees and that the satilite data shows an increase below even that? Or am I reading this wrongly?

What you're reading is most likely a misleading graphic. I've seen this one before, but I can't recall precisely where. Could you please cite your source so I can find it again?

P.S. If you want some real information as to how well the IPCC predictions have fared, see the Copenhagen report:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport

Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many
aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC
range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving
beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary
society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators
include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean
temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme
climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will
likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible
climatic shifts.

Basically, the IPCC reports have, since the start of the new century, consistently underestimated warming and its effects.

Edit: Never mind, looks like I found it. Here is the source I found:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

It looks like this has been posted *all over* the web, however, so I'm not entirely certain if this is the original source or not. However, a few suspicious things pop up immediately:
1. The line is drawn straight from the 1990 temperature, instead of performing any sort of regression. If 1990 was an atypically-warm year (which it was), then this will bias the results towards making it appear there is less warming than has happened.
2. The expectation for temperature increase is that it is unlikely to be linear. So by fitting a line, they again bias the results towards less warming.
3. Despite this particular post being posted in 2011, they cut off the data in 2009. This should seem incredibly suspicious to you: in fact, 2010 is the warmest year yet, and that significantly changes the results.

When you correct for these three errors/lies, I'd be willing to bet that there won't be a clear distinction between the best-fit 1990 IPCC prediction and the current temperature trend.

 

[Jazer]

If the capitol of land locked Austria in the Alps has to worry we are indeed in trouble.

I guess that should be venice. Reminds me of when someone told me they were from Sweden and I asked them if that was in the Swiss Alps.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

When you correct for these three errors/lies, I'd be willing to bet that there won't be a clear distinction between the best-fit 1990 IPCC prediction and the current temperature trend.

"Best fit" is for a 2 degree increase. That would result in a 25ish cm sea level rise.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Venice;

If you build a city on mud banks in the sea don't be surprised to find it sinking into those mud banks hundreds of years later. The fact that Venice is suffering due to a small sea level increase is fair comment but the other cities of the Mediterainian are not in difficulties.

Global Warming may be real, but it's not going to cause anything drastic.... Unless you own a ski shallet. Then you have a problem. The snow line will be 200m higher. That will normally mean that the present ski resort will not have snow, the new venue will have to be up a higher mountain or further north.

 

[Chalnoth]

"Best fit" is for a 2 degree increase. That would result in a 25ish cm sea level rise.

Um, you do realize that the growth rate isn't linear, right?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Um, you do realize that the growth rate isn't linear, right?

The models predict a growth rate of 2 degrees per 100 years, or an exponential explosion of heat if they are feeling a little more alarmist. What we have is a mildly warm period of the last 15 years after a mildly cool period during the 1950's and 60's.

The present temperature of the world is below the lowest of the IPCC's predictions.

This may well be within the natural varibility of climate.

It may be the result of CO2. I don't know.

However the expected results of AGW will be slight. The guranteed result of forcing us to not use fossil fuel will be ecconomically disasterous. Us rich people will be slightly inconvienced but the poor world will suffer vastly. Their development is already being thawarted by the carbon trading scam.

The poor nations are being paid not to build power stations. Well the governing eliets of the poor are being paid to repress the development of the poor nations. Well done Greenpeace.

 

[Chalnoth]

The models predict a growth rate of 2 degrees per 100 years, or an exponential explosion of heat if they are feeling a little more alarmist. What we have is a mildly warm period of the last 15 years after a mildly cool period during the 1950's and 60's.

The present temperature of the world is below the lowest of the IPCC's predictions.

This may well be within the natural varibility of climate.

It may be the result of CO2. I don't know.

Yeah, okay, you really need to be more careful where you are getting your information from. As in, pay attention to what the scientists are saying, instead of buying, hook line and sinker, what the oil-funded conservative think tanks are pushing out by the bucketfull.

Take that 1990 IPCC prediction, for example. Even if the statement that we've undershot that prediction is accurate (I'm not sure it is), it has been over 20 years since then. We have learned quite a lot more about climate. And the 2000 IPCC predictions, which were also quite dire, have largely underestimated the effects of warming over the past 10 years.

This is what we call cherry picking (with a spattering of poisoning the well). This is one of the primary tactics of the denialists, and it is horribly dishonest. In climate science, as in all of science, to get a sense of where it is going you really have to look at the whole. This is often difficult for an outsider, but one way to gauge how the science as a whole is doing is to look at what surveys of scientists say. And those surveys demonstrate that if a scientist is working in climate science, and especially if they are actively publishing, they are extremely likely to support the statement that the Earth is warming and human activity is the case (as in well over 90% of those in the relevant field would say this).

However the expected results of AGW will be slight. The guranteed result of forcing us to not use fossil fuel will be ecconomically disasterous. Us rich people will be slightly inconvienced but the poor world will suffer vastly. Their development is already being thawarted by the carbon trading scam.

This is just a flat-out lie. It is the energy industry that will benefit massively through continued use of fossil fuels (and they are the ones funding the misinformation you are spewing).

Instead, if we actually made positive steps towards renewable energy, something we will have to do eventually no matter what, entire new industries would be created to supply the new, renewable energy. There would be a boom of economic activity just due to the transition. Now, we will probably find that a few of the things we enjoy will increase in cost slightly. But that is very, very far from an economic disaster. Cost estimates for active action against global warming put it somewhere in the range of a couple of percent GDP, which will increase the costs of various goods by a proportional amount. So instead of paying $200 for that TV, you'll end up buying what is, today, a $195 TV and pay $200 for it. That's not wonderful. But neither is it onerous. And it is certainly not remotely an economic disaster.

The poor nations are being paid not to build power stations. Well the governing eliets of the poor are being paid to repress the development of the poor nations. Well done Greenpeace.

And where, pray tell, did you get this information from?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

The ideas I have are from me. I have come up with them I have not been turned by a global oil company conspiricy.

Take that 1990 IPCC prediction, for example. Even if the statement that we've undershot that prediction is accurate (I'm not sure it is), it has been over 20 years since then. We have learned quite a lot more about climate. And the 2000 IPCC predictions, which were also quite dire, have largely underestimated the effects of warming over the past 10 years

Look at the graph!!! The estimates for warming have been very much over the the actual ammount the earth is warming!!! You are wrong.

Cost estimates for active action against global warming put it somewhere in the range of a couple of percent GDP.

So that's 2%+ less growth. That is all we are growing by if we are lucky. Progress stops here in the rich world. Well done.

The carbon trading scam is where you buy carbon credits from others who have surplus carbon credit from doing such things as planting trees or being given them as a result of how the system was set up.

If you are say Uganda you started with some and as long as you don't build a power station then you can every year sell millions of dollars worth of these credits to power companies in the rich world so they can pass some sort of carbon reduction test. The money goes to the governmet of Uganda. The money then goes to the Swis bank account of the president's friend. You don't need to read a scientific paper to understand that this is clearly a maipulation of the ecconomy of Uganda by bribing the elite to know that it will destroy the progress of Uganda.

 

[Chalnoth]

The ideas I have are from me. I have come up with them I have not been turned by a global oil company conspiricy.

Then why do you keep spouting misinformation pushed out by these think tanks?

Look at the graph!!! The estimates for warming have been very much over the the actual ammount the earth is warming!!! You are wrong.

You keep speaking as if this was the only estimate ever done of later warming, the only numbers that can possibly be checked.

You could, if you were honest, look at what has been learned since then. The fact that you haven't, that you stay fixated on this one graph as if it proves everything, just demonstrates how dishonest with yourself you are.

So that's 2%+ less growth. That is all we are growing by if we are lucky. Progress stops here in the rich world. Well done.

Um, why would you possibly think that? 2% of total production allocated into new areas in no way, shape, or form limits growth. It is simply a statement that we're doing these things instead of some other things that we do. Growth will still continue as it always has.

The carbon trading scam is where you buy carbon credits from others who have surplus carbon credit from doing such things as planting trees or being given them as a result of how the system was set up.

Cap and trade? Cap and trade, which I didn't mention, by the way, is just one possible system for placing an economic cost on CO2 emissions. It's not a terrible system, but a straight-up tax might be more fair. In any event, cap and trade has proven successful at limiting pollution in the past. In 1990, for example, the clean air act started up some sulfur dioxide emissions trading, which reduced sulfur dioxide emissions to 50% of the 1980 level by 2007 (from here). Pretty sure that the 1990's were not an economic catastrophe as a result of this bill.

If you are say Uganda you started with some and as long as you don't build a power station then you can every year sell millions of dollars worth of these credits to power companies in the rich world so they can pass some sort of carbon reduction test. The money goes to the governmet of Uganda. The money then goes to the Swis bank account of the president's friend. You don't need to read a scientific paper to understand that this is clearly a maipulation of the ecconomy of Uganda by bribing the elite to know that it will destroy the progress of Uganda.

Um, there is no international cap and trade plan. Nor are there any plans for one. I don't even see how such a plan would be workable. After all, if you're going to have a cap-and-trade plan work internationally, you're going to not only hand out money to nations that don't pollute as much, but you're also going to have to somehow force nations that pollute more into buying more carbon credits. But how are you ever going to do that?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Then why do you keep spouting misinformation pushed out by these think tanks?

Nice that you think I am a think tank but.....

You could, if you were honest, look at what has been learned since then. The fact that you haven't, that you stay fixated on this one graph as if it proves everything, just demonstrates how dishonest with yourself you are.

How about you post whatever it is that you think shows catastrophic warming over the last 15 years. Calling me dishonest is a very childish reaction to losing an argument.

 

[Chalnoth]

How about you post whatever it is that you think shows catastrophic warming over the last 15 years. Calling me dishonest is a very childish reaction to losing an argument.

What? I never said there was catastrophic warming over the past 15 years. I don't think anybody supports that position. If that is your bar for global warming being something to worry about, then, well, you're incredibly short-sighted.

The point I've been making is that our more recent warming estimates that are still early enough to be measurable, the IPCC reports released in 2000, have largely underestimated the effects of warming in the interim. And the current estimates of warming over this century are quite dire, even though we haven't taken into account a number of positive feedback mechanisms that could completely run our climate off the rails.

I find it particularly laughable that you somehow think action to mitigate climate change will hurt poor people, when it is, in reality, poor people who will suffer the most from climate change, for the simple reason that they will have less resources to use to adjust to changes in climate. Because of this, one of the primary effects of climate change is going to be mass starvation as certain rather large areas of the globe dramatically reduce their food output (poorer nations in places like Africa will be particularly hard-hit).