The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[VillagePlank]

I'm hugely amused by the 20,000+ a year in the UK dying from cold. I assume you're confusing 'having a cold' with 'being cold' since I for one cannot remember the last time when it was remotely cold enough in the UK for anyone to die.

The fact of the matter is, that the risk of hypothermia starts at around a relatively warm 4.5C (40F) especially for the vulnerable (old and young) and especially for those exposed to wind or who are wet. Out of 60m people in the UK, the proportion of 20k seems entirely realistic, no matter how amused you might be.

EDIT: 4.5C might even be a little too low.

Edited February 15, 2008 by VillagePlank

[stewfox]

The fact of the matter is, that the risk of hypothermia starts at around a relatively warm 4.5C (40F) especially for the vulnerable (old and young) and especially for those exposed to wind or who are wet. Out of 60m people in the UK, the proportion of 20k seems entirely realistic, no matter how amused you might be.

EDIT: 4.5C might even be a little too low.

Yes im afraid I dont find its 'amusing' to

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I dont think Stratos was saying that deaths were amusing.

The thing is, I remain myself quite separate to the GW debate, as i'm not 100% convinced (although to be fair, I am probably about 90% there). However, what I constantly read from those who do not believe GW is man-made, is that the science behind the evidence is government funded, and thus is some sort of conspiracy.

Taking the BBC story, surely a report from Age Concern, regarding the death of over 65's with cold-related illnesses also would fall under the same hypothesis of theories?

Also, I dont find the story sitting that well. First of all because of what I have written above, but also, "Cold-Related Illnesses". What does that entail exactly. Its just a little bit too ambiguous for me.

[Red Raven]

Unfortunately more will die from the heat in a warmer world. Look at France and the Balkans in 2006 (think that was the year) many died - much more than in cold period.

As with all these figures they are reported out of context and in isolation.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

In terms of deaths, and put crudely, surely it's easier for society to cope with the effects of cold than it is to cope with the effects of heat?

[Bobby]

More people dying from heat will be the least of our problems in a warming world. Starvation, disease, dehydration, refugees, poverty etc will be bigger concerns. The reduced deaths from hyopthermia will also be far outweighed by these other problems too.

Global warming will certainly bring benefits, especially in the long term, but there will be lots of problems too due to people being unable to adapt quickly enough. I'd imagine it's the rate of the change in the future that will be the big problem, rather than it being warmer in itself. If it was slow enough, even if the world was 10c warmer we could all function well I'm sure. Ok, some places could be essentially abandonned due to the heat, but others will open up. But I feel the rate of the change will be too fast to avoid coping with it without severe problems. Quite how bad things will be nobody knows.

[VillagePlank]

More people dying from heat will be the least of our problems in a warming world. Starvation, disease, dehydration, refugees, poverty etc will be bigger concerns. The reduced deaths from hyopthermia will also be far outweighed by these other problems too.

Global warming will certainly bring benefits, especially in the long term, but there will be lots of problems too due to people being unable to adapt quickly enough. I'd imagine it's the rate of the change in the future that will be the big problem, rather than it being warmer in itself. If it was slow enough, even if the world was 10c warmer we could all function well I'm sure. Ok, some places could be essentially abandonned due to the heat, but others will open up. But I feel the rate of the change will be too fast to avoid coping with it without severe problems. Quite how bad things will be nobody knows.

In temperate climates, like the UK, the effects, I imagine, will largely be economic after a short period of adaptation and education - which may take up to a generation. After all, human beings cope very well with average temperatures much higher than the UK elsewhere in planet.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Stew, John is the last person on N-w to take a too didactic view of anything.

I'm hugely amused by the 20,000+ a year in the UK dying from cold. I assume you're confusing 'having a cold' with 'being cold' since I for one cannot remember the last time when it was remotely cold enough in the UK for anyone to die.

I'm sure the Department of Health find it hugely amusing as well - amused enough to talk about it in their recent report, which can be downloaded in .pdf format from here:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandsta...dance/DH_080702

The relevant statistics are on pages 82 and 83.

CB

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Ok. There's an element of sarcasm (irony?) creeping in from many contributors that doesn't do anyone any favours. Let's all make a real effort to simply debate this without any of the problems previous threads have had.

If you'd like to comment, feel free to send me a PM.

[stewfox]

More people dying from heat will be the least of our problems in a warming world. Starvation, disease, dehydration, refugees, poverty etc will be bigger concerns. The reduced deaths from hyopthermia will also be far outweighed by these other problems too.

Starvation is caused by lack of food

Disease lack of sanitation

Dehydration lack of water etc

So whats that got to do with a warming world ?

Edited February 15, 2008 by stewfox

[Red Raven]

Starvation is caused by lack of food

Disease lack of sanitation

Dehydration lack of water etc

So whats that got to do with a warming world ?

..erm everything!

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

They're all interlinked Stewfox.

Warming World = Global Warming = Climate Change.

Climate change will bring about extreme weather conditions.

One extreme being increased water deposits in certain areas = Flooding = Sanitation issues.

Another extreme would be periods of drought = No Water = Dehydration

Taking the above, you would also get flooding and dehydrated crops, leading to ruined crops, leading to lack of supply, leading to a decline of food availability.

[stewfox]

They're all interlinked Stewfox.

Warming World = Global Warming = Climate Change.

Climate change will bring about extreme weather conditions.

One extreme being increased water deposits in certain areas = Flooding = Sanitation issues.

Another extreme would be periods of drought = No Water = Dehydration

Taking the above, you would also get flooding and dehydrated crops, leading to ruined crops, leading to lack of supply, leading to a decline of food availability.

It's a bit like Noah's ark

Do you spend trillions building an ark, what happens if you don't need the ark but just a paddle?

I think we need realism rather then panic. We have some light drizzle so buy a mac don't build a storm shelter capable of with standing 200mph blizzards just yet

If Hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin last year was double the forecast it would be on every front page

When it's below forecast its a 'blip'.

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/st...View/sid/25912/

Edited February 15, 2008 by Osbourne One-Nil

[PersianPaladin]

My own view is pretty clear to most on the forum wrt impacts of AGW. Although I feel that midlatitude maritime climates and tropical maritime climates will see increases in rain-events and tropical storms; however much of the continental masses and subtropical zones will see increased and more prolonged droughts in the coming years as the energy is concentrated and increased in smaller geographic regions....e.g. the subpolar belt and northward movement of the PFJ and changes in the STJ.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Osbourne One-Nil

[Red Raven]

It's a bit like Noah's ark

Do you spend trillions building an ark, what happens if you don't need the ark but just a paddle?

I think we need realism rather then panic. We have some light drizzle so buy a mac don't build a storm shelter capable of with standing 200mph blizzards just yet

If Hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin last year was double the forecast it would be on every front page

When it's below forecast its a 'blip'.

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/st...View/sid/25912/

Its more stark than that - watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

[stewfox]

Its more stark than that - watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Build the Ark now incase we are right , interesting

[johnholmes]

interesting that RR, quite well explained I thought even though it may annoy the anti GW/AGW believers.

worth watching everyone and make your own minds up as to what you as an individual do, bin it or spread it?

[stewfox]

interesting that RR, quite well explained I thought even though it may annoy the anti GW/AGW believers.

worth watching everyone and make your own minds up as to what you as an individual do, bin it or spread it?

You cant argue with the logic but again its where do you spend the money

Those 'lines' are not as clear has he makes out

I dont suggest you do nothing, its what you do and when and how

what if you spend all your money on preventing global warming and it turns out its natural, you still have the potential disasters

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I think the position of money is one of perhaps the wrong thinking.

I guess, as a world, we could work together to overcome the need for money to be spent, but hand-in-hand working to create such defenses?

But I guess, if we cant work together to reduce emissions, perhaps my above suggestion is a bit of an unrealistic (or idealistic) situation.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Its more stark than that - watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

I've seen this video before and I've found an error in his logic. He claims to be taking worst case scenarios into account, but his worst case scenario for "Act Now/No AGW" is simply Global Economic Recession. He ignores the knock-on effects of such a recession, such as the potential inability to provide sanitation, healthcare, food and so on (and since he claims it's a worst case scenario then he really should take these things into account). So in fact if one compares the "Act Now/AGW" with the "Act Now/No AGW" scenarios then the difference is negligible - either way we run the risk of global recession and all the associated illnesses, catastrophe and devestation that result. The picture is far less black and white than he makes out.

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

The above points show that his point is perhaps exaggerated, but they don't invalidate it.

In the "Act Now/No AGW" scenario, we have all of the consequences of the recession, but we don't have the additional consequences of climate chaos, increased climatic disasters, vastly inflated sea levels, droughts in areas that used to have reliable rainfall etc, that we have in the "No Action/AGW" scenario. In essence, it's recession, vs. climate-induced trouble plus recession. It's a smaller difference perhaps, but far from being a negligible one.

[Admiral_Bobski]

The above points show that his point is perhaps exaggerated, but they don't invalidate it.

In the "Act Now/No AGW" scenario, we have all of the consequences of the recession, but we don't have the additional consequences of climate chaos, increased climatic disasters, vastly inflated sea levels, droughts in areas that used to have reliable rainfall etc, that we have in the "No Action/AGW" scenario. In essence, it's recession, vs. climate-induced trouble plus recession. It's a smaller difference perhaps, but far from being a negligible one.

I would consider it negligible simply because the Human Race ends up pretty stuffed either way - AGW would merely exacerbate an already intolerable predicament. (Ooh, that sounded quite pretentious didn't it?! Sorry :blush: ) The way it is presented in the video is that a global economic recession really isn't much to worry about when it clearly is a serious problem.

CB

EDIT - sorry, I made a mistake above (having a Senior Moment, I think!). What I meant was to compare the "Act Now/No AGW" with the "Don't Act Now/AGW". The difference is that if we were to not act now then we could possibly prevent the global worldwide recession, thereby increasing the chances of us being able to cope with the effects of AGW. The effects of Not Acting with AGW are very similar to the effects of Acting without AGW, even though the causes are different.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[noggin]

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press.../pr_808_en.html

This is more like it. Some common sense.

[Thundery wintry showers]

...

EDIT - sorry, I made a mistake above (having a Senior Moment, I think!). What I meant was to compare the "Act Now/No AGW" with the "Don't Act Now/AGW". The difference is that if we were to not act now then we could possibly prevent the global worldwide recession, thereby increasing the chances of us being able to cope with the effects of AGW. The effects of Not Acting with AGW are very similar to the effects of Acting without AGW, even though the causes are different.

I assumed those were the two you were comparing- otherwise the post would have made a lot less sense!

The problem with that argument for negligible difference is that it assumes that we'd have no hope of recovering from a global recession. When the recession occurred, naturally we'd be in deep trouble, but I'd say that in the long term, we'd have far more chance of recovering from the recession further down the line if it was caused by spending money on emissions cuts (which is to some extent within our control) than if it was caused by climatic catastrophes (which would be largely beyond our control).

Also, even if AGW is generally overestimated as an issue, 'no action' probably won't prevent a recession, it will probably just delay it, and increase the chances of it being severe once it does happen. This is because fossil fuels- the resource we're dependent on- are finite, and already passing peak production. Thus, if we continue as we are now, the fossil fuels will become scarce, forcing prices through the roof, and thus forcing a move to cleaner, more efficient energy resources. If we've taken 'no action', that implies less effort to develop clean alternatives in the meantime- and expensive fossil fuels, plus poorly developed alternatives, equals extreme draconianism being necessary, and a sharp recession being very probable.

And the above paragraph is assuming that AGW is overestimated- if it isn't, the 'no action' option looks even bleaker.

[wysiwyg]

Its more stark than that - watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

It's a nice argument but as stated already - it may just be a little too simplistic.

One aspect not mentioned yet is "Take action now/GW true AND the action is fruitless" The bottom right hand box wouldn't have such a smiley face in it then. What it means to me is that if the argument is valid and we do take action now, it would seem to make a lot of sense to prepare against the effects of GW and not just try to reduce 'human' contributions to it.

Wysi