Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)

[Tim the plumber]

 

This is a copypasta from another climate change thread where you asked a question along the same lines. Ignoring the predicted and observed changes due to climate change doesn't make them go away:

 

Here's some examples of a significant impact:

1) The largest watershed in California (the San Francisco Bay Delta) is predicted to have 20% less spring thaw runoff by 2090, and the remaining runoff is predicted to be more saline - with significant impacts to the state's environment, agriculture, industry and municipal water supplies.

http://onlinelibrary...014339/abstract

2) Doubling atmospheric CO₂ is predicted to lead to a 10% increase in the average intensity of hurricanes. http://journals.amet...5/BAMS-87-5-617

3) An increase in duration and frequency of severe drought conditions is predicted in Africa, Southern Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Southeast Asia and the Americas. http://onlinelibrary...002/wcc.81/full

4) Significant coral bleaching events are already being observed and predicted to get worse. http://www.sciencema...3/6041/418.full

5) Significant changes is the distributions of infectious disease are already being observed (e.g. malaria at a 40 year high in the US http://www.cdc.gov/features/malaria/) , and expected toincrease. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440905001517

etc.

1,California. If there is an increase in temperature then surely there should be a general increase in precipitation. The previous times in Earth's history it's been warm it's been wet. If the melt water is less perhaps the rainfall will be significantly more. Also a 20% less thaw run off (very selective) seems a small price to pay for keeping the lifestyle of plenty.

 

2, 10% increase in hurricane strength! Wow, so what? That's not a significant disaster. It a trifle.

 

3, The increase in drought due to warming has yet to show any signs of actually happening. The climate models which predict such events have failed to predict anything correctlt so far so I'm not going toworry about such flimsy claims.

 

4, Coral Bleaching. This is the Great Barrier reef thing where the northern bits of it are, for soem reason, seeing this bleaching effect. That coral does nicely in warmer waters, say the Coral Sea for example, is never mentioned. The increase in intensive agriculture in the Norther Austrailian coast is also glossed over because it's spread there to supply the sugar to fuel industry which is a green project thus untouchable. So it couldn't be pesticides at all, could it?

 

5, It's less deadly to live in a warm climate than a cold one. The overall effect of a slight warming on humanity will be positive. How many people in the US die of cold each year?

 

Have you got anything which will cause anyone to lose sleep over?

[Arete]

That's one of the most comprehensively wrong posts I've seen in my time on this forum:

 

1,California. If there is an increase in temperature then surely there should be a general increase in precipitation.

 

1. Snowpack is not equatable to precipitation. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf these are the timing and phase of precipation resulting in an ecological pattern of spring thaw.

2. Most models do not predict any addtional rainfall in the Sierra Nevadas http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024465#pone-0024465-g004

 

 

2, 10% increase in hurricane strength! Wow, so what? That's not a significant disaster. It a trifle.

 

"These results are bad news because stronger storms are far more dangerous than weaker ones. A 2005 study that examined hurricane impacts from 1900 to 2005 found that Category 4 and 5 storms accounted for only 6% of U.S. landfalls, but caused 48% of all hurricane damage. Using this study as a starting point, and accounting for the projected mix of more bigger storms and fewer smaller ones, Knutson's team estimated that by 2100, the overall destructive potential of hurricanes may increase by 30%." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricanes-climate.html

 

 

3, The increase in drought due to warming has yet to show any signs of actually happening.

 

"The patterns are characterized by drying over most of Africa, southeast Asia, eastern Australia and southern Europe from 1950 to 2010" http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1633.html

 

"Using an ensemble of 35 simulations, we show a likely increase in the global severity of drought by the end of 21st century, with regional hotspots including South America and Central and Western Europe in which the frequency of drought increases by more than 20%." http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/12/1222473110.short

 

4, Coral Bleaching. This is the Great Barrier reef thing where the northern bits of it are, for soem reason, seeing this bleaching effect. That coral does nicely in warmer waters, say the Coral Sea for example, is never mentioned. The increase in intensive agriculture in the Norther Austrailian coast is also glossed over because it's spread there to supply the sugar to fuel industry which is a green project thus untouchable. So it couldn't be pesticides at all, could it?

 

"coral reefs worldwide are in serious decline" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6994/full/nature02691.html

 

Up to 43% coral die off due to heat stress induced bleaching in the Andaman Islands of Indonesia in 2005 http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9419/

 

And French Polynesia http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9419/

 

Thailand http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-012-1005-x

 

etc.

 

5, It's less deadly to live in a warm climate than a cold one. The overall effect of a slight warming on humanity will be positive. How many people in the US die of cold each year?

 

"The study indicates that the climatic changes that have occurred since the mid-1970s could already be causing over 150,000 deaths and approximately five million 'disability-adjusted life years' (DALYs) per year" http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/

 

"The summer of 2003 was probably Europe's hottest summer in over 500 years, with average temperatures 3.5 °C above normal^{6, 7, 8}. With approximately 22,000 to 45,000 heat-related deaths occurring across Europe over two weeks in August 2003 (refs 9 and 10), this is the most striking recent example of health risks directly resulting from temperature change ... heatwaves in Chicago and Paris will be 25% and 31% more frequent, respectively, by 2090 and that the average length of a heatwave in Paris will have increased from 8–13 days to 11–17 days. Large increases in heatwaves were also projected for the western and southern USA and the Mediterranean region^59"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/full/nature04188.html#B56

 

As for the hot is better than cold:

 

"A significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was observed in all regions. The elderly were most at risk. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by around 257% by the 2050s from a current annual baseline of around 2000 deaths, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2% from a baseline of around 41 000 deaths. " http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/01/08/jech-2013-202449.short

 

So, in a simulation study of the UK, 5, 140 more people die due to increades temperatures, 820 less die due to fewer cold temperatures.

 

Have you got anything which will cause anyone to lose sleep over?

 

Not if you continue with your fantastic impression of an ostrich, and make up the data that suits your point of view.

[iNow]

If there is an increase in temperature then surely there should be a general increase in precipitation. The previous times in Earth's history it's been warm it's been wet.

Some areas will experience increased drought. Other areas will experience increased precipitation. Your remedial comments here seem also to ignore the reality of the increasing drought California is actually already experiencing.

 

Also a 20% less thaw run off (very selective) seems a small price to pay for keeping the lifestyle of plenty.

This is true, of course, only until you take a brief moment to maturely consider what that 20% decrease would result in and how it would impact related systems.

 

10% increase in hurricane strength! Wow, so what? That's not a significant disaster. It a trifle.

What increase in hurricane strength would you consider meaningful? 15% 20% 50% Your choices seem entirely arbitrary, and ignore the significant devastation such minor increases in strength actual trigger... Including (but not limited to) the unnecessary loss of lives, the economic destruction and cost to rebuild, especially in areas already overwhelmed with poverty and hardship.

 

The increase in drought due to warming has yet to show any signs of actually happening. The climate models which predict such events have failed to predict anything correctlt so far so I'm not going toworry about such flimsy claims.

These comments above are representative of your larger problem on this issue. The things you claim are remedially false and easily disproven, and yet you continue to state and repeat them as if they are fact. It took me about 3 seconds to find the links below showing the fallacious nature of your comments.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1633.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20111027_drought.html

http://phys.org/news/2011-01-southwest-permanent-drought.html

 

You're certainly welcome to your own opinions, but if you are not even clear on the basic facts involved in this serious issue then, really... what's the point of even continuing discussion?

 

Coral Bleaching. This is the Great Barrier reef thing where the northern bits of it are, for soem reason, seeing this bleaching effect. That coral does nicely in warmer waters, say the Coral Sea for example, is never mentioned. The increase in intensive agriculture in the Norther Austrailian coast is also glossed over because it's spread there to supply the sugar to fuel industry which is a green project thus untouchable. So it couldn't be pesticides at all, could it?

Your position here does not explain the bleaching of coral reefs where pesticides are not being flooded into the waters. If the problem was solely found where pesticides are in the runoff waters, then sure. This might be a valid explanation. Since it's not, and since we see coral bleaching so consistently even in waters not being inundated with pesticides we are left to conclude that other explanations are more parsimonious.

 

It's less deadly to live in a warm climate than a cold one. The overall effect of a slight warming on humanity will be positive. How many people in the US die of cold each year?

It's not the slight increase in temperature that will cause the difficulties for humans, but instead the effect of that temperature increase on other systems within the ecosphere. Ignoring them, sticking your head in the sand, and pretending these downstream consequences don't exist doesn't magically make them go away.

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/health.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/

 

Have you got anything which will cause anyone to lose sleep over?

Of course, but you'd just ignore those too, so again... What's the point? Your position is based on ignorance and ideology and has no merit. Every point you've made has been either addressed, rebuked, or debunked and one of the beauties of science is that it's true whether or not you choose to accept or believe it.

[swansont]

1,California. If there is an increase in temperature then surely there should be a general increase in precipitation. The previous times in Earth's history it's been warm it's been wet. If the melt water is less perhaps the rainfall will be significantly more. Also a 20% less thaw run off (very selective) seems a small price to pay for keeping the lifestyle of plenty.

 

Claimed without supporting evidence. Perhaps you should Google what a desert is.

 

2, 10% increase in hurricane strength! Wow, so what? That's not a significant disaster. It a trifle.

 

Again, a claim with no evidence or analysis. Appeal to "meh" (a form of appeal to personal incredulity)

 

3, The increase in drought due to warming has yet to show any signs of actually happening. The climate models which predict such events have failed to predict anything correctlt so far so I'm not going toworry about such flimsy claims.

As supported by your exhaustive list of articles making these claims. Oh, I guess not.

 

5, It's less deadly to live in a warm climate than a cold one. The overall effect of a slight warming on humanity will be positive. How many people in the US die of cold each year?

BS claim. No evidence given. Also a strawman — we're talking about an increase in weather events, so it's not a matter of living in a warm area, it's living in an area that's warmer than it used to be, possibly owing to an extreme heatwave that the people are not used to dealing with, and also extreme cold-weather events that they aren't used to dealing with. This is one reason why climate change is preferred to global warming — to try and combat the mistaken notion that it's a uniform increase in temperature.

 

Have you got anything which will cause anyone to lose sleep over?

This is a false milestone to shoot for. Since facts don't seem to matter, I doubt you will lose sleep over anything.

[Phi for All]

 

It's the way the system is set up. Corporations exist to profit the corporate employees, stockholders, etc. If they profit more by prolonging the lifespan of CFLs then that is the policy they will try and support. The CEO of a corporation in this position isn't going to pick any other course of action except the one that will better the company and in turn himself, unless he wants to be replaced by someone else that will.

 

And I really have no problem with that angle. It's a market thang and should correct itself with the proper regulations.

 

What bothers me is that regulation is the best way to force change when the market system can't, and THAT'S where corporations like GE are so huge they can lobby for legislation that bypasses the regs, or give themselves special tax considerations. Slowly, the government is able to phase out certain standards, like the T12 fluorescent tube, and ban further manufacturing of it, but it's being done on a corporate schedule, NOT on a schedule that factors in climate change.

 

The lighting industry is 50 years behind TV and radio in getting rid of vacuum tube technology in favor of solid state electronics. There was much less push-back then about changing over. But in lighting, they've reached a plateau in efficiency. GE and others moved from the T12 tube to the T8 tube, and now they make a T5 tube that isn't even as efficient as the T8 (and yet they're really pushing it, and so are the utility companies, hmmm). And all the while, there is solid state technology that uses half the wattage and represents a much better cost/benefit ratio. There are banks that want to loan money to businesses to make the switch, since the payments are tailored to the utility savings, which are essentially guaranteed.

 

If corporations like GE stopped meddling in favorable legislation, the market would most likely favor technologies that removed old developmental platforms like vacuum tubes and replaced them with more efficient, more sustainable and more environmentally responsible platforms, which would increase demand and drive the price down. IOW, I shouldn't have to argue so hard about major corporations resisting something as accepted and proven as solid-state electronics. They've put some heavy brakes on technology advancement we really need, in a way I feel thwarts the spirit of the market economy. It's not simply an "Oh well, that's business!"-type issue.

[swansont]

And I really have no problem with that angle. It's a market thang and should correct itself with the proper regulations.

 

What bothers me is that regulation is the best way to force change when the market system can't

 

Or won't. There are numerous examples of corporations not playing nice, because market forces are in the opposite direction of doing so. Since it's a pretty safe bet that corporations will act in their financial best interest, that's where regulation comes into play (Of course, there are corporations that anticipate that future regulations will force their hand, so they adopt practices that don't seem to be the cheapest) Regulation is required when corporations refuse to self-regulate.

 

 

and THAT'S where corporations like GE are so huge they can lobby for legislation that bypasses the regs, or give themselves special tax considerations. Slowly, the government is able to phase out certain standards, like the T12 fluorescent tube, and ban further manufacturing of it, but it's being done on a corporate schedule, NOT on a schedule that factors in climate change.

 

The lighting industry is 50 years behind TV and radio in getting rid of vacuum tube technology in favor of solid state electronics. There was much less push-back then about changing over. But in lighting, they've reached a plateau in efficiency. GE and others moved from the T12 tube to the T8 tube, and now they make a T5 tube that isn't even as efficient as the T8 (and yet they're really pushing it, and so are the utility companies, hmmm). And all the while, there is solid state technology that uses half the wattage and represents a much better cost/benefit ratio. There are banks that want to loan money to businesses to make the switch, since the payments are tailored to the utility savings, which are essentially guaranteed.

 

If corporations like GE stopped meddling in favorable legislation, the market would most likely favor technologies that removed old developmental platforms like vacuum tubes and replaced them with more efficient, more sustainable and more environmentally responsible platforms, which would increase demand and drive the price down. IOW, I shouldn't have to argue so hard about major corporations resisting something as accepted and proven as solid-state electronics. They've put some heavy brakes on technology advancement we really need, in a way I feel thwarts the spirit of the market economy. It's not simply an "Oh well, that's business!"-type issue.

For lighting the drive wasn't there, partly because fossil-fuel generated electricity has been artificially cheap for so long, owing to there being few costs associated with the environmental impacts. If carbon-generating power were more expensive, we might have seen faster development of lighting and of alternative generation technology. British Columbia, for example, enacted a carbon tax just a few years ago, and it's worked out really well. But the US government has its collective head too far up its carbon sink to do anything like that.

[Tim the plumber]

That's one of the most comprehensively wrong posts I've seen in my time on this forum:

 

 

1. Snowpack is not equatable to precipitation. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf these are the timing and phase of precipation resulting in an ecological pattern of spring thaw.

2. Most models do not predict any addtional rainfall in the Sierra Nevadas http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024465#pone-0024465-g004

 

 

 

"These results are bad news because stronger storms are far more dangerous than weaker ones. A 2005 study that examined hurricane impacts from 1900 to 2005 found that Category 4 and 5 storms accounted for only 6% of U.S. landfalls, but caused 48% of all hurricane damage. Using this study as a starting point, and accounting for the projected mix of more bigger storms and fewer smaller ones, Knutson's team estimated that by 2100, the overall destructive potential of hurricanes may increase by 30%." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricanes-climate.html

 

 

 

"The patterns are characterized by drying over most of Africa, southeast Asia, eastern Australia and southern Europe from 1950 to 2010" http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1633.html

 

"Using an ensemble of 35 simulations, we show a likely increase in the global severity of drought by the end of 21st century, with regional hotspots including South America and Central and Western Europe in which the frequency of drought increases by more than 20%." http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/12/1222473110.short

 

 

"coral reefs worldwide are in serious decline" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6994/full/nature02691.html

 

Up to 43% coral die off due to heat stress induced bleaching in the Andaman Islands of Indonesia in 2005 http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9419/

 

And French Polynesia http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9419/

 

Thailand http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-012-1005-x

 

etc.

 

 

"The study indicates that the climatic changes that have occurred since the mid-1970s could already be causing over 150,000 deaths and approximately five million 'disability-adjusted life years' (DALYs) per year" http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/

 

"The summer of 2003 was probably Europe's hottest summer in over 500 years, with average temperatures 3.5 °C above normal^{6, 7, 8}. With approximately 22,000 to 45,000 heat-related deaths occurring across Europe over two weeks in August 2003 (refs 9 and 10), this is the most striking recent example of health risks directly resulting from temperature change ... heatwaves in Chicago and Paris will be 25% and 31% more frequent, respectively, by 2090 and that the average length of a heatwave in Paris will have increased from 8–13 days to 11–17 days. Large increases in heatwaves were also projected for the western and southern USA and the Mediterranean region^59"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/full/nature04188.html#B56

 

As for the hot is better than cold:

 

"A significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was observed in all regions. The elderly were most at risk. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by around 257% by the 2050s from a current annual baseline of around 2000 deaths, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2% from a baseline of around 41 000 deaths. " http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/01/08/jech-2013-202449.short

 

So, in a simulation study of the UK, 5, 140 more people die due to increades temperatures, 820 less die due to fewer cold temperatures.

 

 

Not if you continue with your fantastic impression of an ostrich, and make up the data that suits your point of view.

1, http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf

This page can’t be displayed

How about you explain why rainfall is not as good at being water as ice snow is.

 

1b,

2. Most models do not predict any addtional rainfall in the Sierra Nevadas

Would these models be the same ones which have failed to sucessfully predict annything so far?

 

2,

"These results are bad news because stronger storms are far more dangerous than weaker ones. A 2005 study that examined hurricane impacts from 1900 to 2005 found that Category 4 and 5 storms accounted for only 6% of U.S. landfalls, but caused 48% of all hurricane damage. Using this study as a starting point, and accounting for the projected mix of more bigger storms and fewer smaller ones, Knutson's team estimated that by 2100, the overall destructive potential of hurricanes may increase by 30%."

Garbage in garbage out. You call yourself a scientist?

 

3,"coral reefs worldwide are in serious decline" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6994/full/nature02691.html

 

Since the water temperature has not increased in most cases and obviously it's not the hottest reefs that are having problems it's 100% clear that this is not being caused by increased temperature. The pattern of localised bad spots also rules out CO2 acidification being the culprit. This obsession with CO2 is blocking all other avenues of eccological effort!

 

4,

"The study indicates that the climatic changes that have occurred since the mid-1970s could already be causing over 150,000 deaths and approximately five million 'disability-adjusted life years' (DALYs) per year" http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/

Again the link does not go to this paper. How exactly is a very slight warming causing deaths more than the slight warming is helping people not to die of cold related causes?

The summer of 2003 was probably Europe's hottest summer in over 500 years,

So what was it that caused the even hotter summer 500 years ago? Industrial polution? These extremes happen normally!

in the absence of any adaptation of the population,

But if we adapt a bit then it's fine. Easy.

So, in a simulation study of the UK, 5, 140 more people die due to increades temperatures, 820 less die due to fewer cold temperatures.

Well you said it....

 

I suggest you read the stuff you posted again;

 

As for the hot is better than cold:

 

"A significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was observed in all regions. The elderly were most at risk. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by around 257% by the 2050s from a current annual baseline of around 2000 deaths, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2% from a baseline of around 41 000 deaths. " http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/01/08/jech-2013-202449.short

 

So, in a simulation study of the UK, 5, 140 more people die due to increades temperatures, 820 less die due to fewer cold temperatures.

 

 

Not if you continue with your fantastic impression of an ostrich, and make up the data that suits your point of view.

I agree with all that it sounds about right to me. 140 more deaths with 820 less deaths. That is a 680 less deaths to me. Good thing I hope it happens!

 

Read your quotes before you post them.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Tim the plumber

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I agree with all that it sounds about right to me. 140 more deaths with 820 less deaths. That is a 680 less deaths to me. Good thing I hope it happens!

 

Read your quotes before you post them.

LOL

It didn't say 150 it said 5,150

 

"So, in a simulation study of the UK, 5, 140 more people die due to increades temperatures, 820 less die due to fewer cold temperatures."

So, what you have labeled as a good thing which you hope happens is 4330 extra deaths.

 

 

So, as you say, "Read your quotes before you post them."

[Tim the plumber]

LOL

It didn't say 150 it said 5,150

 

"So, in a simulation study of the UK, 5, 140 more people die due to increades temperatures, 820 less die due to fewer cold temperatures."

So, what you have labeled as a good thing which you hope happens is 4330 extra deaths.

 

 

So, as you say, "Read your quotes before you post them."

I just read the quote that Arete had posted which says;

So, in a simulation study of the UK, 5, 140 more people die due to increades temperatures, 820 less die due to fewer cold temperatures.

Have I misunderstood that at all????

 

+140 deaths -820 deaths ....... so 680 less deaths..... I might just be a plumber but it seems easy to me...

[swansont]

I just read the quote that Arete had posted which says;

Have I misunderstood that at all????

 

+140 deaths -820 deaths ....... so 680 less deaths..... I might just be a plumber but it seems easy to me...

 

The number is 5140. There's an inadvertent extra space in the post. (5, 140 instead of 5,140) So there are 5140-820 = 4320 more deaths.

[Tim the plumber]

Fair enough there must be a block in my seeing 5000 deaths in the UK a year for having a climate closer to the Channel Islands rather than what we have at the moment.

 

All those heat related deaths in Northern France.... Nope. That's drivel.

[dimreepr]

 

 

All those heat related deaths in Northern France.... Nope. That's drivel.

 

So nearly 15,000 people were just faking?

 

I suppose the 35,000 across Europe, in the same year (2003), also faked it?

 

A giant European wide insurance scam is far more likely.

[John Cuthber]

Fair enough there must be a block in my seeing 5000 deaths in the UK a year for having a climate closer to the Channel Islands rather than what we have at the moment.

 

All those heat related deaths in Northern France.... Nope. That's drivel.

Indeed, it seems you have a general block about seeing the truth in this discussion. Hence "All those heat related deaths in Northern France.... Nope. That's drivel."

 

 

Do you realise it looks to the rest of us like a kid with his fingers in his ears saying "I can't hear you so it's not true"?

[Arete]

1, http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf

How about you explain why rainfall is not as good at being water as ice snow is.

 

a) Link works fine for me.

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmelt

Snow accumulates, then melts when the weather gets warm. This creates the influx of spring time water known as snow-melt. Water falling as rain does not accumulate and runs off immediately, resulting in lower spring and summer flow levels, increased glacier recession, lower groundwater tables, Salmon declines and reduced hydroelectric output. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/reducedsnow_more.htm

 

Would these models be the same ones which have failed to sucessfully predict annything so far?

 

Could you please provide some form of support for this statement? As you've demonstrated an inability to do basic arithmetic, it's extraordinarily difficult to take your personal assessment of the accuracy of climate models seriously. I'd really like to see some sort of analysis to demonstrate their ineffectiveness rather than simply an anonymous person on an internet forum who said so and has since been demonstrated to be unable to math.

 

Garbage in garbage out. You call yourself a scientist?

 

While your assertion that the data is flawed goes unsupported by actual analysis, we're left with only personal incredulity and ad hominem to support your argument. As such, please provide a reference, or a specific analysis demonstrating that the model is incorrect, or I'm going to assume you are just making things up as you go along to suit your point of view.

 

Since the water temperature has not increased in most cases and obviously it's not the hottest reefs that are having problems it's 100% clear that this is not being caused by increased temperature. The pattern of localised bad spots also rules out CO2 acidification being the culprit. This obsession with CO2 is blocking all other avenues of eccological effort!

 

This statement is entirely incorrect:

a) Ocean temperatures have increased http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html

b) Coral bleaching is not localized and is increasing in ALL major coral reef systems. http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs

c) Large scale bleaching events are correlated with abnormally high ocean surface temperatures. http://www.wcs.org/news-and-features-main/aceh-coral-bleaching.aspx

d) Other causes are being investigated. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5635/929.short

 

Again the link does not go to this paper. How exactly is a very slight warming causing deaths more than the slight warming is helping people not to die of cold related causes?

 

Again the link works fine and links the WHO 2002 World Health Report, from which the excerpt is taken. If your browser is malfunctioning I'm sure Google will find it for you.

 

So what was it that caused the even hotter summer 500 years ago? Industrial polution? These extremes happen normally!

 

a)The "in the last 500 years" is indicative of that being when reliable records started, unless you can provide evidence that there was an anomalous weather event then?

b) I agree, they happen normally. No one ever said they didn't. The prediction is that they will become more frequent due to the impacts of greenhouse emissions.

c) You're the one claiming that there's nothing to worry about. There's a clear demonstration that if heat waves become more frequent, mortality due to heatwaves will increase. Either you don't care about more people dying, or there is something to worry about.

 

 

I suggest you read the stuff you posted again;

 

I suggest you revise your basic arithmetic, as you're - you guessed it, comprehensively wrong. Let's work it through like we're in primary school, shall we?

 

2,000 people currently die each year due to heat. This will increase by 257%.

41,000 people currently die each year due to cold. This will decrease 2%

 

Current total for both hot and cold combined:

2,000 + 41,000 = 43,000

 

Predicted changes:

deaths due to hot weather: 2,000 x 2.57 = 5,140

deaths due to cold weather:41,000 x 0.02 = -820

 

Predicted total of future mortality:

(2,000 + 5,140) + (41,000 - 820) = 7,140 + 40,180 = 47,320

 

Predicted total deaths - Current total deaths:

47,320 - 43,000 = an increase in mortality of 4,320 people per year.

 

When you can't do basic mathematics, it's hard to take your unsupported claims about climate models being "garbage" with even an ounce of seriousness.

 

All those heat related deaths in Northern France.... Nope. That's drivel.

 

Now you're rejecting documented events in recent history? Wow - okay.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/02/heatwave.europe/

 

You do understand how that makes your argument look right? I mean, do you really want to lower discussion of climate change to the level of holocaust denial, or the anti vaccine movement? Cause we're rapildy approaching that point.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Arete

[iNow]

You do understand how that makes your argument look right? I mean, do you really want to lower discussion of climate change to the level of holocaust denial, or the anti vaccine movement? Cause we're rapidly approaching that point.

I'm pretty sure we actually already reached that point about a decade ago. Only the willfully ignorant and agenda-driven continue to deny the obvious.

[Tim the plumber]

Indeed, it seems you have a general block about seeing the truth in this discussion. Hence "All those heat related deaths in Northern France.... Nope. That's drivel."

 

 

Do you realise it looks to the rest of us like a kid with his fingers in his ears saying "I can't hear you so it's not true"?

There was a spectacular hot spell in France once. The old were caught out and it happened in August when France is on holiday and more incapable than normal.

 

The result was that the old were at risk of death and many who were on their last legs died.

 

That a 1 degree rise in temperature is going to make that sort of thing normal in Britian is drivel. If you have not got the basic sense to understand the difference between hype and reality you are lost to reasonable argument.

 

 

Study in full here

 

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...i_2011_GRL.pdf

[swansont]

 

Here's some examples of a significant impact:

 

here's another, for NYC, but the effect has implications elsewhere

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059574/abstract

 

The 10-year storm-tide has increased by 0.28 m. Combined with a 0.44 m increase in local sea-level since 1856, the 10-year flood-level has increased by approximately 0.72 ± 0.25 m, and magnified the annual probability of overtopping the typical Manhattan seawall from less than 1% to about 20-25%.

 

 

Even with no change in storm intensity, higher water levels mean more coastal flooding, and thus damage from that flooding.

[EdEarl]

If it were threatening to our society to change our ways to assure the climate does not change, there would be a real argument for doing nothing. However, changing our ways to prevent climate change will make our society and the Earth a better place, and the expense is nominal at most, and in some cases less than not changing. Of course, one must be careful not to waste time and money, because change done the wrong way can be very expensive for little effect.

 

Today it can be less expensive to use solar and wind power than nuclear, coal, or oil. I saw that one polluted site, a super-fund cleanup waiting for funds, was used to build a solar farm to generate power, which is a winning scenario because the cleanup can be postponed indefinitely; thus, saving lots of cleanup money.

 

Many corporations convert their buildings to use solar power, and save money in the process. Similar technology can be built into new homes without making them excessively expensive, and the cost of utilities is reduced.

 

The Navy has learned to make jet fuel from CO2 in sea water, which is a carbon neutral process. They save money because they don't have to buy fuel and ship it to the far reaches of the globe. IDK if the process can be used to fuel automobiles and diesel trucks economically, but if it can be, the need for more oil wells and coal plants is reduced.

 

We have finally come to a point where green technology is cost effective, why not insist on your community being greener? Do you want to have more oil spills from trains, ships, and oil platforms? Do you want more people killed mining coal? I think not. Don't fight a greener world, embrace it. It's good for you and your progeny. The faster we do it the quicker we stop abusing the environment and humanity.

[dimreepr]

If it were threatening to our society to change our ways to assure the climate does not change, there would be a real argument for doing nothing. However, changing our ways to prevent climate change will make our society and the Earth a better place, and the expense is nominal at most, and in some cases less than not changing. Of course, one must be careful not to waste time and money, because change done the wrong way can be very expensive for little effect.

 

Today it can be less expensive to use solar and wind power than nuclear, coal, or oil. I saw that one polluted site, a super-fund cleanup waiting for funds, was used to build a solar farm to generate power, which is a winning scenario because the cleanup can be postponed indefinitely; thus, saving lots of cleanup money.

 

Many corporations convert their buildings to use solar power, and save money in the process. Similar technology can be built into new homes without making them excessively expensive, and the cost of utilities is reduced.

 

The Navy has learned to make jet fuel from CO2 in sea water, which is a carbon neutral process. They save money because they don't have to buy fuel and ship it to the far reaches of the globe. IDK if the process can be used to fuel automobiles and diesel trucks economically, but if it can be, the need for more oil wells and coal plants is reduced.

 

We have finally come to a point where green technology is cost effective, why not insist on your community being greener? Do you want to have more oil spills from trains, ships, and oil platforms? Do you want more people killed mining coal? I think not. Don't fight a greener world, embrace it. It's good for you and your progeny. The faster we do it the quicker we stop abusing the environment and humanity.

 

Indeed

[swansont]

The Navy has learned to make jet fuel from CO2 in sea water, which is a carbon neutral process. They save money because they don't have to buy fuel and ship it to the far reaches of the globe. IDK if the process can be used to fuel automobiles and diesel trucks economically, but if it can be, the need for more oil wells and coal plants is reduced.

 

Yes, the military is very interested in such technology, or other ways of reducing fossil fuel dependence, because once you ship it the overall cost much higher, e.g. for gasoline it's many tens of dollars per gallon (or even hundreds for remote combat locations). So "economical" has a much different meaning for the military vs for the general public. Remote production or reduction is "economical" even if it's equivalent to production at the price of $20 a gallon of gasoline.

 

Just so everyone's clear on this, though, the military thinks climate change is real, and they are taking steps to adapt.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/88089/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-something-most-conservatives-don-t-think-is-real

 

Titley was the Oceanographer and Navigator of the navy for a stretch of time (I worked in his chain of command when he was Commander of the Navy Meteorological and Oceanography Command), so he was the person in charge of dealing with problems in getting ships from point A to point B; i.e. this is not some random person — he was the guy.

[Arete]

That a 1 degree rise in temperature is going to make that sort of thing normal in Britian is drivel.

 

Rather than restating your own unsupported personal opinion, could you explain why these studies are "drivel", please?

 

"The 2003 heat wave, by mimicking quite closely the possible course of summers in the latter part of the 21st century, can thus be used within certain limits as an analog to what may occur with more regularity in the future. The physical processes that characterized the 2003 heat wave, such as soil moisture depletion and the positive feedback on summer temperatures, and the lack of convective rainfall in many parts of the continent that generally occur from June–September, are projected to occur with greater frequency in the future." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018857/full

 

"Using a threshold for mean summer temperature that was exceeded in 2003, but in no other year since the start of the instrumental record in 1851, we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%)⁹ that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html

 

"Model results for areas of Europe and North America, associated with the severe heat waves in Chicago in 1995 and Paris in 2003, show that future heat waves in these areas will become more intense, more frequent, and longer lasting in the second half of the 21st century." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5686/994.short

 

 

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...i_2011_GRL.pdf

 

 

Verbatim from the study you quoted:

 

"This conclusion differs somewhat from the result of a recent reconstruction of Arctic summer air temperature over the past 2000 years, which indicates that a long cooling trend over the last 2000 years ended with a pronounced warming during the twentieth century [Kaufman et al., 2009]. Possible reasons for the differences are numerous, and include at a minimum 1) our record is a mean‐annual

temperature, not a summer temperature, and variability is minimal in summer but highest in winter [box, 2002]; 2) differences between air and snow temperature may be influenced by changes in cloud cover and wind speed, which affect the strength of the near‐surface inversion; and 3) our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations."

So you may want to take a little of your own advice:

Read your quotes before you post them.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There was a spectacular hot spell in France once. The old were caught out and it happened in August when France is on holiday and more incapable than normal.

 

The result was that the old were at risk of death and many who were on their last legs died.

 

That a 1 degree rise in temperature is going to make that sort of thing normal in Britian is drivel. If you have not got the basic sense to understand the difference between hype and reality you are lost to reasonable argument.

 

Rather than restating your own unsupported personal opinion, could you explain why these studies are "drivel", please?

 

Are you seriously of the opinion that a 1 degree c temperature rise will cause a pronounced change in the climate of the UK to such an extent that heat waves which kill lots of people are common?

[swansont]

Are you seriously of the opinion that a 1 degree c temperature rise will cause a pronounced change in the climate of the UK to such an extent that heat waves which kill lots of people are common?

That's not an answer. That's an evasion.

[Arete]

Are you seriously of the opinion that a 1 degree c temperature rise will cause a pronounced change in the climate of the UK to such an extent that heat waves which kill lots of people are common?

 

Do you seriously have nothing aside from personal incredulity to support your argument?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the Plumber

 

I am posting this in all three of the ongoing Climate Change threads. Arguments from incredulity, ridicule, use of red herrings, ad hominem arguments, and false dilemmas are all logical fallacies; they are rhetorical devices that may seem on the surface to advance a case but in reality all they do is misdirect the debate and obscure the truth. The use of logical fallacies is against the rules of ScienceForums.net - Section 2 Posting: Rule 4

 

You have been cut a lot of slack so far in these debates as we wish to provide an non-partisan arena for discussion through which agreed scientific principles can be elucidated. However, we do insist on the use of a basic scientific methodology and this precludes the use of logical fallacies.

 

The dismissal of a serious scientific point backed up by peer-reviewed literature with ridicule or a simple denial of facts is just not acceptable.

 

Please do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel it was unjust.