The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[stewfox]

I take it that the hundred's of millions that would die in Africa and the Asian sub continent would just be classified as unlucky. But's thats OK because the UK, Canada and Russia gain.

I don't think anyone suggest a warmer planet wouldn't be a bad thing (1/2 c) its our inability to 'adapt' to change that's concern most people

I was recently in Egypt where it was a 100f and a desert enviromnet and I was bloody freezing (inside air conditioning)

People live get on etc

This hundreds of millions will die type of approach is just nonsense, why not round it to a billion ?? A billion people will die if world temps rise by 2c ? sounds pithy

Ps 8 billion will be born

[Thundery wintry showers]

People are used to the environment in Egypt because the natives have conditioned to such heat and developed accordingly. Did I just "get on" when I had a holiday in France in August 2003 when it was 40C on most days? No I didn't, in fact the holiday was even cut short because of the heat. Did the tens of thousands of excess deaths across Europe as a whole, linked to that heatwave, indicate getting on? I don't think so.

Plus, while people "get on", Egypt is hardly anywhere near as socially or economically developed as north-west Europe! I suggest that there may be climate-related reasons that hinder their development as well as cultural and financial reasons.

And will it be a 1/2C warming? There's a risk it could be as high as 4 to 6C.

[SP1986]

I think I could happily adapt to a 2-3C rise, and more especially if it was a wet rise. However if that was anymore than 2-3 rise and involved extreme summer heatwaves, I fear it would be very very difficult to adapt to such conditions, so I can sympathise with Ian's experience.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think I could happily adapt to a 2-3C rise, and more especially if it was a wet rise. However if that was anymore than 2-3 rise and involved extreme summer heat waves, I fear it would be very very difficult to adapt to such conditions, so I can sympathise with Ian's experience.

Again folk seem to be talking 'flat line' increases and these appear rare in nature. Last year and this year saw, to my mind, extreme rainfall through the summer months but ,over the year, a few drier than normal months makes the event appear less dramatic in a yearly plot. If winter temps (night-time) tended towards cooler due to reduced cloud cover and extra radiation out then a couple of extreme heat waves through the summer months, and their impacts, may look rather paltry on the yearly plot.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

There's a risk it could be as high as 4 to 6C.

Absolutely no chance and I'll put my mortgage on it :lol:

BFTP

[SP1986]

Absolutely no chance and I'll put my mortgage on it :lol:

BFTP

Go on then

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5-11949,00.html

So now have have the Australians 'on-side'.

The paper seems to go much further than Stern ,but then we have progressed further in our knowledge and understanding through the months separating the papers.........though I'm sure we'll have the same dissenters throwing the same muck :lol:

[If Wishes made Weather]

Many thanks for the answers on here. In particular I sort of liked Chris' point about 'taking ourselves out of the system completely'.

It raises two important points that I admit expand the arguments on this thread, but nevertheless could put the cat amongst the pigeons. Firstly, a biologist relative of mine enjoys pointing out quite often that "life is an accident" and that in evolutionary terms we are a strange leap from our nearest realtives in that we have overridden of our evolution.

Certainly we are no longer subject to climatic influences in our evolution (for example, we wear clothes). This view of course implies a degree of pre-determinism in the universe which is hard to accept as objective, but quite acceptable as subjective (the God not out there puling the strings: rather it is in us [tofind]).

This though leads to the second perhaps more interesting point largely classed as anthropic argument: namely that the universe is the way it is because were it to be any different then we would not be here to see it.

That means (to simplify horribly) that if we take a 'narrow' anthropic view, climate change is inevitable. A sort of virtue of our nature. To put a 'wide' view in : were climate change not man-influenced then we would not be here.

Could have possibilities this line of thought?

Tim

[Chris Knight]

Many thanks for the answers on here. In particular I sort of liked Chris' point about 'taking ourselves out of the system completely'.

It raises two important points that I admit expand the arguments on this thread, but nevertheless could put the cat amongst the pigeons. Firstly, a biologist relative of mine enjoys pointing out quite often that "life is an accident" and that in evolutionary terms we are a strange leap from our nearest realtives in that we have overridden of our evolution.

Certainly we are no longer subject to climatic influences in our evolution (for example, we wear clothes). This view of course implies a degree of pre-determinism in the universe which is hard to accept as objective, but quite acceptable as subjective (the God not out there puling the strings: rather it is in us [tofind]).

This though leads to the second perhaps more interesting point largely classed as anthropic argument: namely that the universe is the way it is because were it to be any different then we would not be here to see it.

That means (to simplify horribly) that if we take a 'narrow' anthropic view, climate change is inevitable. A sort of virtue of our nature. To put a 'wide' view in : were climate change not man-influenced then we would not be here.

Could have possibilities this line of thought?

Tim

Hi Tim,

Accidents happen! Chance is a major driver in this universe we inhabit. That's why we use (or invented) statistics. I will now break a grammatical rule:

But for man, nobody would be interested in planet Earth.

Without man, would there be climate change?

I doubt that but a few on this forum would disagree that the Earth's climate is it's own master, and it's direction and intensity is not absolutely predictable.

I am not sure that just enough clothes are the answer though. The reason that the Greenland settlers could not survive through the 14th century, like the Easter Islanders a century or so later, was that they ran out of fuel (for them, in the form of trees). No amount of clothes can save you from food poisoning or malnutrition.

21st century man faces a similar fate, as fossil fuel ceases to be available in the quantities required to heat and (prepare the raw materials that) feed all of us.

Chris

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sure from the first stromatolites the inhabitants of the planet have impacted upon climate. The first time we see enough free oxygen in the atmosphere (the first 'red beds' of oxidised iron) we can safely assume that life has impacted upon the composition of the atmosphere. The toxicity of O2 has meant special adaptations in the organisms that have evolved here so even evolution responded to the first atmospheric tinkering of an organism.

The impact of Rainforest's on regional weather patterns (compared to the deserts that would exist there) cannot be overstated either.Then we have the oceanic mixing by the flagellations of the little critters living there, how big an impact on SST's do they have and how much does this influence climate?

The sad thing is that one organism, over the span of a couple of human lifetimes, through both deforestation and oceanic acidification, is now impacting upon these climatic influences that have evolved over geological time.

The whole debate is not about climatic influence by earths planetary life forms but the rapid destruction of the 'status quo' by one organism, so rapid and intense an interference that the normal planetary safeguards look to be over-ridden by the changes.

[noggin]

Whoa there, chaps. It's all getting a bit heavy for me, but my innate modesty has always lead me to belive that mankind's time on Earth is only temporary. Once upon a time the dinosaurs ruled and now it just happens to be our turn to rule. Whether or not we are making a good job of it is a different matter! Mankind will have his day and then another species, perhaps not yet evolved, will take over. Or maybe there will be no animal life at all. Maybe vegetation will take over.......look how quickly a non-tended garden goes wild and the plants therein rampant. Mind you, I saw a programme on the television, years ago, where the expectation of the time was that insects would take over. Who really knows?

Usual caveat applies to this post i.e. I am not saying that we don't need to clean-up our act.

[osmposm]

Of course, Noggin, that goes without saying. But taking a slightly shorter time view, and being a member (along with my loved ones) of the species that's temporarily the dominant tenant (landlord?) of the premises - and which unquestionably has the power to affect our own environment and climate one way or another - I'd rather delay our eviction/extinction for as long as possible.

Ossie

[stewfox]

People are used to the environment in Egypt because the natives have conditioned to such heat and developed accordingly. Did I just "get on" when I had a holiday in France in August 2003 when it was 40C on most days? No I didn't, in fact the holiday was even cut short because of the heat. Did the tens of thousands of excess deaths across Europe as a whole, linked to that heatwave, indicate getting on? I don't think so.

Plus, while people "get on", Egypt is hardly anywhere near as socially or economically developed as north-west Europe! I suggest that there may be climate-related reasons that hinder their development as well as cultural and financial reasons.

And will it be a 1/2C warming? There's a risk it could be as high as 4 to 6C.

I don't get your point? I used Egypt such as example and if you think the 16.2 million people living in Cario alone are a bit too Third world. I see no correlation between heat and development in the World

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo

Ill say Las Vegas or USA South West where 100f + is reached for weeks on end. I've been there many times too. It's a hot dry desert as well

Clearly if we had in the UK 100f + for weeks on end we would have to adapt (Air conditioning etc to start)

My main point is hundered of millions wouldn't die

[0000]

Of course, Noggin, that goes without saying. But taking a slightly shorter time view, and being a member (along with my loved ones) of the species that's temporarily the dominant tenant (landlord?) of the premises - and which unquestionably has the power to affect our own environment and climate one way or another - I'd rather delay our eviction/extinction for as long as possible.

Ossie

On/off topic but this essay (probably been seen before) gives us 100yrs.....it's been said children who are being born now may expect to live long enough to witness this

http://mindprod.com/environment/extinction.html

[stewfox]

Many thanks for the answers on here. In particular I sort of liked Chris' point about 'taking ourselves out of the system completely'.

It raises two important points that I admit expand the arguments on this thread, but nevertheless could put the cat amongst the pigeons. Firstly, a biologist relative of mine enjoys pointing out quite often that "life is an accident" and that in evolutionary terms we are a strange leap from our nearest realtives in that we have overridden of our evolution.

Certainly we are no longer subject to climatic influences in our evolution (for example, we wear clothes). This view of course implies a degree of pre-determinism in the universe which is hard to accept as objective, but quite acceptable as subjective (the God not out there puling the strings: rather it is in us [tofind]).

This though leads to the second perhaps more interesting point largely classed as anthropic argument: namely that the universe is the way it is because were it to be any different then we would not be here to see it.

That means (to simplify horribly) that if we take a 'narrow' anthropic view, climate change is inevitable. A sort of virtue of our nature. To put a 'wide' view in : were climate change not man-influenced then we would not be here.

Could have possibilities this line of thought?

Tim

Not sure why wearing clothes would have an impact on an objective / subjective stance re pre determination?

Many animals wear 'clothes' and/or can seek shelter. I think with a better example you're asking who determines mans future, man or God?? The second point requires a good book with circular debate

Bit like think of a colour that has never existed, one cant, does that mean it doesn't exist??

ps if God does exit this post will be removed for being off topic

Edited October 1, 2008 by stewfox

[LadyPakal]

Interesting read about some of the natural causes of warming - the LIA & MDO:

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/r...tle_ice_age.pdf

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't get your point? I used Egypt such as example and if you think the 16.2 million people living in Cario alone are a bit too Third world. I see no correlation between heat and development in the World

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo

Ill say Las Vegas or USA South West where 100f + is reached for weeks on end. I've been there many times too. It's a hot dry desert as well

Clearly if we had in the UK 100f + for weeks on end we would have to adapt (Air conditioning etc to start)

My main point is hundered of millions wouldn't die

Again, adaptation would take time if it was a sudden change, with plenty of deaths in the intervening period. Just as it would with cold- the people in Moscow survive far colder snowier winters than the most severe of British winters- but if we had a few repeats of 1963 or 1979, we'd be likely to see many excess deaths due to the sudden change and lack of time to adapt.

You also need to take into account deaths caused by flooding, rising sea levels,

You also need to take into account quality of life. It may well be that net quality of life benefits across the Western world, but developing countries in particular stand to lose out from warming, especially if it's a large amount of warming.

I also completely agree with Osmposm's post above. It does annoy me when we have a problem that can't be totally avoided, so the automatic reaction to it is "that's life" (in this case, humans are bound to die out sometime, and we can't do anything about it). But we can act to delay the inevitable.

[stewfox]

Again, adaptation would take time if it was a sudden change, with plenty of deaths in the intervening period. Just as it would with cold- the people in Moscow survive far colder snowier winters than the most severe of British winters- but if we had a few repeats of 1963 or 1979, we'd be likely to see many excess deaths due to the sudden change and lack of time to adapt.

You also need to take into account deaths caused by flooding, rising sea levels,

You also need to take into account quality of life. It may well be that net quality of life benefits across the Western world, but developing countries in particular stand to lose out from warming, especially if it's a large amount of warming.

I also completely agree with Osmposm's post above. It does annoy me when we have a problem that can't be totally avoided, so the automatic reaction to it is "that's life" (in this case, humans are bound to die out sometime, and we can't do anything about it). But we can act to delay the inevitable.

Whether more people die in a colder or a warmer world is a mute point so ill leave that

People will die with changing weather

With regard nothing being done , well of course there is but again it depends on whether we start with cut CO2 by 1000% or we all die to something like the humble plastic bag

I found this article from 2002 re plastic bags

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1974750.stm

Charge for a bag how many Billions can be stopped going into the environment

Still have a long way to go but spend billions reducing CO2 to help reduce flood or stop /reduce plastic bag use ??

-----------------------

In March, Bangladesh slapped an outright ban on all polythene bags after they were found to have been the main culprit during the 1988 and 1998 floods that submerged two-thirds of the country. The problem was that discarded bags were choking the drainage system

------------------------

Edited October 1, 2008 by stewfox

[Thundery wintry showers]

I actually think focusing just on CO2 is over-simplistic as well, especially as cutting down various wasteful forms of consumption, and reducing dependency on fossil fuels, will cause reductions in CO2 anyway.

But what's this obsession with spending "billions" on "reducing CO2"? What about the billions we'll lose if we keep producing the current amounts of CO2 only to find in a few decades' time that the sources of producing CO2 have largely been used up?

Reducing plastic bag use is indeed going to help, but on its own it's only going to scrape the surface- even more so than "reducing CO2". A reduction in bag disposal is also unlikely to alleviate anywhere near as much flooding as, say, reducing a sea level rise from 2m to just 30cm.

[Optimus Prime]

This graph explains a lot to me;

[If Wishes made Weather]

Not sure why wearing clothes would have an impact on an objective / subjective stance re pre determination?

Many animals wear 'clothes' and/or can seek shelter. I think with a better example you're asking who determines mans future, man or God?? The second point requires a good book with circular debate

Bit like think of a colour that has never existed, one cant, does that mean it doesn't exist??

ps if God does exit this post will be removed for being off topic

Sorry about this Stewfox - i think I wasn't expressing myself very clearly. I was using God as a metaphore for pre-determination becuase its always hard to express things as 'accidental', or 'not correct' when there isn't a pre existing benchmark of 'correctness' against which you can measure. it often seems to me that it's one thing to suggest that climate change is substantially inconvenient for us, but once commentators break into the language of it being 'wrong' then they are crossing a boundary towards pre-determinism.

I'm sure from the first stromatolites the inhabitants of the planet have impacted upon climate. The first time we see enough free oxygen in the atmosphere (the first 'red beds' of oxidised iron) we can safely assume that life has impacted upon the composition of the atmosphere. The toxicity of O2 has meant special adaptations in the organisms that have evolved here so even evolution responded to the first atmospheric tinkering of an organism.

The impact of Rainforest's on regional weather patterns (compared to the deserts that would exist there) cannot be overstated either.Then we have the oceanic mixing by the flagellations of the little critters living there, how big an impact on SST's do they have and how much does this influence climate?

The sad thing is that one organism, over the span of a couple of human lifetimes, through both deforestation and oceanic acidification, is now impacting upon these climatic influences that have evolved over geological time.

The whole debate is not about climatic influence by earths planetary life forms but the rapid destruction of the 'status quo' by one organism, so rapid and intense an interference that the normal planetary safeguards look to be over-ridden by the changes.

I think this must be largely correct we are not really the first here (although some seem to think we are) - although to speak of safeguards is to speak, again, of a natural order that is pre-determined, correct, and that the system has an inherent interest in returing to the status quo. I see that Giya (spelling?) theory moves down this path - but is not without its critics.

T

Hi Tim,

Accidents happen! Chance is a major driver in this universe we inhabit. That's why we use (or invented) statistics. I will now break a grammatical rule:

But for man, nobody would be interested in planet Earth.

Without man, would there be climate change?

I doubt that but a few on this forum would disagree that the Earth's climate is it's own master, and it's direction and intensity is not absolutely predictable.

I am not sure that just enough clothes are the answer though. The reason that the Greenland settlers could not survive through the 14th century, like the Easter Islanders a century or so later, was that they ran out of fuel (for them, in the form of trees). No amount of clothes can save you from food poisoning or malnutrition.

21st century man faces a similar fate, as fossil fuel ceases to be available in the quantities required to heat and (prepare the raw materials that) feed all of us.

Chris

Hello Chris - on the bit of your mail that I have italicised - I think I'm approaching the view that without climate change (as is happening now), there would not be man.

Correctly, this may be thought to be a little Bronte in its inevitability of doom.

Tim

[Gray-Wolf]

Absolutely no chance and I'll put my mortgage on it

BFTP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...carbonemissions

Ms Pope seems to be of the opinion that if we do not reduce emmisions ,and in fact increase them at 1% per year (the past couple of years have been 2% rises) then we can look forward to 7C or more of warming over the next century (and methane releases do not figure in the models but at the higher end of change we have to factor in permafrost melt to further add to the rises).

I've oft mooted, and will do so again, that carbon 'reductions' ,though possible, will not occur and will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.If the majority of science is correct in it's 'understanding' of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere then we are now pushing well beyond the IPCC worse case scenaio's (and remember, due to lack of 'evidence', Antarctica's contibutions to sea level rise were scaled down in the report).

Edited October 2, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

Reducing plastic bag use is indeed going to help, but on its own it's only going to scrape the surface- even more so than "reducing CO2". A reduction in bag disposal is also unlikely to alleviate anywhere near as much flooding as, say, reducing a sea level rise from 2m to just 30cm.

Its costs a lot less

It would be a lot cheaper moving the people from the Maldives to Sri Lanki then other measures to hold back a 1 meter sea level rise (assuming all to do with rising CO2 etc) but that gets into Ethics

Sorry about this Stewfox - i think I wasn't expressing myself very clearly. I was using God as a metaphore for pre-determination becuase its always hard to express things as 'accidental', or 'not correct' when there isn't a pre existing benchmark of 'correctness' against which you can measure. it often seems to me that it's one thing to suggest that climate change is substantially inconvenient for us, but once commentators break into the language of it being 'wrong' then they are crossing a boundary towards pre-determinism.

Agree with that

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we are getting lost in the language a bit here. To knowingly place many species into danger of population collapse ,endangerment and finally extinction is wrong. In my understanding of 'right and wrong' I can view it no other way.

Very 'Newtonian' I know but if you leave a system alone it'll trundle on doing what it does. If you add external influences to the system then you force it's responses to change. If you are aware those changes will cause 'harm' then to continue on with the 'changes' regardless is 'wrong' as understand things.

I see free choice here and not a hint of 'pre-determinism'. I see moral choices based around basic concepts of 'right and wrong' and no hint of supernatural intervention.

Pre-determinism hints at no choice and we do have a choice in climate change.

[stewfox]

Any link to what the global CET for this year is so far

From memory I think there was a dip in Jan but Feb – April fairly usual ?