Global Warming a real threat?

[Specusci]

I have been reading up on global warming recently, and other then the rising temperatures and depleting ozone, it seems rather silly. Almost 1960's science fiction silly.

 

Rising oceans? What about them? Humans have lived on an Earth with small ice caps and larger oceans then are present now. I'm pretty sure that with our modern technology, this does not pose as serious a threat as people imagine. Maybe we'll lose a few cities. Big deal. Move inland.

 

Mass exctinctions? Maybe if the temperature was increasing even faster then it is now. Sure, whole new species take millenia to evolve, but heat tolerence is not a new species. A century is plenty of time, especially for a measly degree (which would be pretty small a change; higher temperatures have been encountered in Earths past. With life thriving at these moments. No reason for it to flounder now). And yes, it is an "extreme temperature change that is not good for current ecological systems". Pfft. If beavers can thrive in South America as pests, I'm pretty sure creatures can adapt to rapid heat changes. There was certainly less then a century for those beavers to go from the dry cold to the moist heat.

 

Now, there are more pressing problems on the horizon. Even if we reduce emissions enough to replenish the earths atmosphere, the scheduled super-nova of betelgeuse could wipe us out anyways. And it is scheduled to happen within our lifetimes. Why not prepare for this first?

 

Nuclear war would most certainly bring the whole effort into ruins. Yet, I fail to see anyone doing anything about the blatant threats of attack launched by India and Pakistan and North Korea, and about the threatening wars going on.

 

Meteors might crash into us. A solar flare might burn us all. A mutant virus is on the verge of becoming the next bubonic plague in a world where you can be on the other side of the world in mere hours. Yet our biggest concern is global warming, which holds the threat of *possibly*, *probably*, *might* cause mass exctinctions. Which may or may not effect us badly enough to limit our food supplies or technological abilites to protect ourselves. I mean, hey, if we can protect astronauts from radiation in space, I'm sure we can do the same on an atmospherless planet (which would have somewhat less radiation anyways). In a few decades, we might even be able to make food from previously inedible materials. Global warming is certainly NOT the most threatening threat to humanity, since most estimates give us a century or two anyways, as opposed to the 12-40 year figures of some other scheduled disasters (Mt. Rabaul shall blow within the next 40 years. It'll be the largest eruption in 4000 years, bigger then pompeii. Imagine the global warming caused by that!)

 

I apologize if I sound naive and stupid, which I am most of the time anyways, but it just bugs me when these obviously more dangerous events loom on our horizons and people try to put up the facade of caring about the well-being of the planet. Well, global warming will certainly be small potatoes to an atmosphere-stripping event that could take place in a matter of hours

 

Would appreciate feedback, flaming and all.

[Airmid]

Rising oceans? What about them? Humans have lived on an Earth with small ice caps and larger oceans then are present now. I'm pretty sure that with our modern technology' date=' this does not pose as serious a threat as people imagine. Maybe we'll lose a few cities. Big deal. Move inland.[/quote']

There's many many more people on earth than in the early days you're talking about. Lets consider my little country. We measure about 400x300 km, and are very densily populated. Most of our country is below sea level already, and though we have built dikes to keep the water out, we can't keep raising them indefinitely. When sea level rises, we'll have real problems. We could all migrate to Canada, of course, it's a big country, but do you really have room for an extra 16 million people?

And that's only the situation in my little corner of the world. You'll find the same situation in the rest of the world. River deltas are typically low-lying, very fertile land, and have the highest population densities. Take a look at a population density map and you can see some of the world's major river systems and deltas reflected there.

Mass exctinctions? Maybe if the temperature was increasing even faster then it is now.

That's exactly the problem. Lets take a nice simplistic view on the issue and talk about greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses block heat radiation from earth into space, but they do not block incoming sunrays. So, the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere actually makes the Earth warmer than it should be. That's not a bad thing in itself: without greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere we'd freeze to death. At the moment though, the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is about 25% higher than a century ago. This means the Eart's energy budget is unbalanced at the moment: each year we receive more heat than we can lose. So if the concentration of greenhouse gasses would stay the same for the next century, we'd still be heating up.

But on top of this we're still raising the concentration of greenhouse gasses. In another 50 years, we might easily have increased it to 150% of what it was a century ago. So in our simple model, each year Earth's energy budget will be even more unbalanced and we will heat up faster and faster.

 

Of course this model is far too simple to accurately model our atmosphere and biosphere. There's a lot being done to develop better models, but there's still a lot more work needed if we want to completely understand what's going on. What alarms me is that quite a number of the current models point out, that we might reach a point in the future where the Earth's system is so much unbalanced, that the system collapses. Of course, the models might be wrong, but I can't help feeling we're taking a big risk here.

 

And yes' date=' it is an "extreme temperature change that is not good for current ecological systems". Pfft. [/quote']

Agriculture is very much a part of the current ecological systems. We're not just talking about beavers here, we're talking about our food supply.

 

Now' date=' there are more pressing problems on the horizon. [/quote']

Of course we should address all problems that potentially threaten our existence. Global warming though, is in my eyes a special case. Suppose that in 20 years time we find out that the climate change is going to be disastrous indeed, and that we could have prevented it if we had taken action now. That would be rather sour, wouldn't it? We can't prevent solar flares, or eruptions, or meteorite impacts. But we can try to prevent nuclear wars and climate change, and I say we should do so.

 

Airmid.

[herpguy]

*possibly*, *probably*, *might*

Correction: *definetly*, *definetly*, *will*

The threat of global warming causing a major catastrophy is iminite. We have already done so much damage to Earth that even if we cut off our input of all greenhouse gases right now, the earth will continue to warm for more than 400 years.

Mass exctinctions? Maybe if the temperature was increasing even faster then it is now. Sure, whole new species take millenia to evolve, but heat tolerence is not a new species.

I am not worried about extreme temperatures because as you said, we can tolerate it. But what I am worried about is everything that will come with the warmer temperatures. For example, malaria will become a huge problem. Drought levels will increase in Africa, causing the world food supply to plummet. Gigantic hurricanes will wipe out much of the Carribean and US coast lines. The list goes on and on.

Global warming is certainly NOT the most threatening threat to humanity, since most estimates give us a century or two anyways, as opposed to the 12-40 year figures of some other scheduled disasters (Mt. Rabaul shall blow within the next 40 years. It'll be the largest eruption in 4000 years, bigger then pompeii. Imagine the global warming caused by that!)

Or it could take 200 years. Maybe everything with global warming will happen within 40 years. In fact, the sea level is already rising, and oh, There was a huge drought in Africa and South America last year, and good gosh there are already larger than normal hurricanes. And I haven't heard anything about Mt. Rabaul spewing out ash. hmm...

Nuclear war would most certainly bring the whole effort into ruins. Yet, I fail to see anyone doing anything about the blatant threats of attack launched by India and Pakistan and North Korea, and about the threatening wars going on.

You also fail to watch the news.

Rising oceans? What about them? Humans have lived on an Earth with small ice caps and larger oceans then are present now. I'm pretty sure that with our modern technology, this does not pose as serious a threat as people imagine. Maybe we'll lose a few cities. Big deal. Move inland.

Just reminding you to have a look at Airmid's map.

 

I think I covered just about everything. Oh, and sorry if I went a little hard on you, It's just that I disagree with just about everything in the OP.

[SmallIsPower]

26 tropical storms in the Western Hemisphere in 2005. Isn't this enough to convince you things are totally our of kilter? IIRC 3 or 4 were Category 5.

[bascule]

If there's one thing I hate more than global warming alarmism, it's ignoring climate vulnerability and impacts.

 

The changing climate can and will have dramatic impacts on natural resource availability, particularly in regards to water.

 

You've constructed a large strawman argument against what you perceive are potential vulnerabilities.

 

There's quite a volume of information out there on the subject of climate vulnerabilities and global warming impacts. I suggest you read those rather than making stuff up or regurgitating the distorted view you get through the press:

 

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/observedimpacts/index.cfm

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Impacts.html

[ecoli]

Rising oceans? What about them? Humans have lived on an Earth with small ice caps and larger oceans then are present now. I'm pretty sure that with our modern technology, this does not pose as serious a threat as people imagine. Maybe we'll lose a few cities. Big deal. Move inland.

 

having a bigger ocean is not the most important issue... the problem is that we don't know how the increase in ocean depth will change ocean circulation, specifically the deep water 'conveyor belts' that cool down tropical waters and warm up polar ones. If this delicate system is altetered too severely, it may radically affect the earth's climate.

 

I think global warming is such a big issue because nobody knows exactly what to expect... isn't it better to find out if things will be alright then ignore a potential problem?

[Edtharan]

Rising oceans? What about them? Humans have lived on an Earth with small ice caps and larger oceans then are present now. I'm pretty sure that with our modern technology, this does not pose as serious a threat as people imagine. Maybe we'll lose a few cities. Big deal. Move inland.

There is a country called Tuvalu (iirc spelling). If oceans rise by a few metres This country will cease to exist. There will be no "inland" for them to go to.

 

Also who will pay for the mass migration of millions of people? Some countries that have large populations that live only a few metres above sea level do not have the funds or the land to do this.

 

And modern technology can not cope with the loss of ariable land that would occure if we move these large populations. There woudl not be enough food (or drastic changes woudl need to occure to farming pracices world wide - which also costs money).

 

A century is plenty of time, especially for a measly degree (which would be pretty small a change; higher temperatures have been encountered in Earths past. With life thriving at these moments. No reason for it to flounder now). And yes, it is an "extreme temperature change that is not good for current ecological systems".

For a start they are predicting more than a degree rise in teperature. A 1 degree rise in temperature has already occured (probably more).

 

The increase in oceans will not just occure from mealting polar caps as ocean teperatures rise the water in them will also expand (http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/expansion/ ).

 

This rise in temperature is a global average. In some areas it will cool and others will get hotter. Some areas will rise more than the few degrees that the average, whil some will rise less (and some may actualy cool). But the average temperature will go up.

 

having a bigger ocean is not the most important issue... the problem is that we don't know how the increase in ocean depth will change ocean circulation, specifically the deep water 'conveyor belts' that cool down tropical waters and warm up polar ones. If this delicate system is altetered too severely, it may radically affect the earth's climate.

There is mounting evidence that this might already be happening. the North Atlantic Current (IIRC) seems to have shifted south a bit.

 

Global warming is certainly NOT the most threatening threat to humanity

True. I think the biggest threat to humanity is humanity it's self, but as global warming is caused by humans then I supose it is also incllude in this threat

[dehammer]

there is something that all of you ppl that are jumping on this with such negativity are completely overlooking. the earth is currently in an ice age. yes, an ice age. we are in the final part of it infact. out species has evolved completely in that ice age. when it ends the earth will be just like it was 2.2 million years ago. that is unless another super valcano blast us back into the deep freeze. yes it will not be good for mankind, but its the way the earth is. the earth is not a true paradise for us, but we can make it such.

 

perhaps the answer is to leave the earth.

[silkworm]

there is something that all of you ppl that are jumping on this with such negativity are completely overlooking. the earth is currently in an ice age. yes' date=' an ice age. we are in the final part of it infact. out species has evolved completely in that ice age. when it ends the earth will be just like it was 2.2 million years ago. that is unless another super valcano blast us back into the deep freeze. yes it will not be good for mankind, but its the way the earth is. the earth is not a true paradise for us, but we can make it such.

 

perhaps the answer is to leave the earth.[/quote']

 

I agree with your overall sentiment here. But I was wondering how you qualify one part of your statement. This:

 

when it ends the earth will be just like it was 2.2 million years ago.

 

What are you basing this end on?

[Prime-Evil]

Hello I am new.

 

I think we are missing the boat a little. I think most scientists agree that CO2 levels of 380ppm are high and are going to 400ppm by 2020 and 500ppm by 2100 at our current rate of deforestation and fossil fuel burning. Where I think we are missing the boat is we talk too much about its effect on global warming and sea level rise and how that will impact human life in the cities. I think we should be more concerned about the impact on biodiversity.

 

I think we can handle a certain amount of extraordinary temperature rise and sea level rise, but we can't handle temperature rise and sea level rise if it is combined with deforestation, desoilification, and desertification. What I would like to know is what the total amount of living biomass and dead organic matter is in the world today compared to 100 years ago and 500 years ago. I suspect that by 2100 humans might make up 1% of the living biomass and that is way too much for a bunch of self-destructive pyromaniacs on the top of the food chain.

[daneeka]

I not sure if climate change will have any long term effect on the integrity of life on this planet: there have been five documented mass extinctions (the most extreme of which resulted in a 95% reduction of life on this planet) and life has continued...extinction simply results in increased rates of speciation. So biotic diversity will probably decline, and part of this decline will be influenced by global warming, but this is only a problem for people...not necessarily for the planet.

 

Personally I think the inertia of human induced climate change is such that whatever we attempt to employ to retard further climate change is too little too late...we will simply have to learn to live with our mistake. Things will cool down again in another 140,000 years or so, maybe we'll get it right then...if we make it.

[ecoli]

there is something that all of you ppl that are jumping on this with such negativity are completely overlooking. the earth is currently in an ice age. yes' date=' an ice age. we are in the final part of it infact. out species has evolved completely in that ice age. when it ends the earth will be just like it was 2.2 million years ago. that is unless another super valcano blast us back into the deep freeze. yes it will not be good for mankind, but its the way the earth is. the earth is not a true paradise for us, but we can make it such.

[/quote']

 

umm... proof please.

[herme3]

Everybody should read this article from Time magazine: http://reference.aol.com/globalwarming/timemagazine?id=20060327120109990001

[SkepticLance]

Actually there is nothing strange about global warming.

In the period 900 AD to 1400 AD, Nordic peoples colonised Greenland, and survived by growing 5 different crops. Many died, and the rest had to leave after 1400 as the Earth cooled and those 5 crops would not grow any more. We now appear to be getting close to the degree of warmth felt then.

 

In Roman times, grapes were grown and wine made near the city of York. Can't be done today. It is too cold. We have a little way to go to get to the warmth felt in late Roman times. Then came the (cold) Dark Ages.

 

5000 years ago, it was even warmer, with temperatures at least 2 Deg. C. warmer than today. By comparison, total global warming in the 20th Century was 0.6 Deg. C.

 

In the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago, temperatures reached 5 Deg. C warmer than today.

 

We need to keep alarmism about global warming in perspective.

[Prime-Evil]

Give it time. You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png

[Prime-Evil]

I understand it was relatively cold ~500AD

I understand it was relatively warm ~1000AD

I understand it was relatively cold ~1500AD

I understand it was relatively warm ~2000AD

 

But extra-ordinary climate change due to extra-ordinary CO2 levels has really just begun.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[Prime-Evil]

In Roman times, grapes were grown and wine made near the city of York. Can't be done today. It is too cold.

http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html

[herpguy]

SkepticLance,

Evidence, sources! Give us something to make us know what you're saying is unquestionable!!!

[SkepticLance]

ecoli

Your query from dehammer's post.

 

umm... proof please

 

In fact, any basic book on geology will confirm the gist of that post. I don't think dehammer quite got the dates right. Last time I looked, the ice age had lasted a bit less than 1 million years, with interglacial periods about each 100,000 years. Give or take 20,000. However, he is quite correct in saying we are still in an ice age. We just happen to inhabit the latest interglacial.

[Prime-Evil]

ecoli

Your query from dehammer's post.

 

umm... proof please

 

In fact' date=' any basic book on geology will confirm the gist of that post. I don't think dehammer quite got the dates right. Last time I looked, the ice age had lasted a bit less than 1 million years, with interglacial periods about each 100,000 years. Give or take 20,000. However, he is quite correct in saying we are still in an ice age. We just happen to inhabit the latest interglacial.[/quote']Recent ice ages have lasted 100,000 years, including interglacial periods of 10,000 to 40,000 years. The decent into glaciation is relatively slower than interglacial warming. The last peak in glaciation was 23,000 years ago. This current interglacial warming period began roughly 10,000-14,000 years ago.

 

Wht is unusual about this one is that the rise of the human species has suppressed and reversed interglacial reforestation and is no causing carbon dioxide level to rise to super-interglacial levels. We are now entering a period where we will not be able to look to examples from the past to predict an already uncertain future. We should be in for a wild ride.

 

Just smile and wave boys. Smile and wave.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/iceages.htm

 

"They create a Desolation, and call it Peace"

.

[SkepticLance]

Prime Evil.

The information in the first paragraph of your last posting is excellent.

The second paragraph, however, is speculation and should be identified as such.

 

I am skeptical of the current global warming paradigm. Not because I am saying it is definitely wrong. But because I am very aware of the enormous amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding global climate change. As Dr. Augie Auer (meteorologist) recently said at a public meeting; "If we cannot predict next Wednesday's weather, how can we predict next Century's climate?"

 

I think there is a lot of arrogance surrounding the paradigm. We know that the computer models that predictions are based on are imperfect. Yet they are constantly used to predict all kinds of disasters.

[Prime-Evil]

Prime Evil.

The information in the first paragraph of your last posting is excellent.

The second paragraph' date=' however, is speculation and should be identified as such.

 

I am skeptical of the current global warming paradigm. Not because I am saying it is definitely wrong. But because I am very aware of the enormous amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding global climate change. As Dr. Augie Auer (meteorologist) recently said at a public meeting; "If we cannot predict next Wednesday's weather, how can we predict next Century's climate?"

 

I think there is a lot of arrogance surrounding the paradigm. We know that the computer models that predictions are based on are imperfect. Yet they are constantly used to predict all kinds of disasters.[/quote']Isn't that just a lot of rhetorical spin? Who is being arrogant. How should we be sceptical?

[Cthulhu]

Prime Evil.

As Dr. Augie Auer (meteorologist) recently said at a public meeting; "If we cannot predict next Wednesday's weather' date=' how can we predict next Century's climate?"[/quote']

 

Isn't that a bit like saying "if we can't predict a coin flip, how can we predict the result of 1,000 coin flips"?

 

Obviously you can predict the result of 1,000 coin flips quite a lot better than a single coin flip. The more coins your flip the more certain you can be that 50% of the coins will land heads and 50% will land tails.

 

Equally the weather on a specific day is like a single coin flip and hard to predict. But a climate prediction, say the average global temperature over a year, is more like the result of 1000 coin flips and a lot easier to predict.

[Cthulhu]

Prime Evil.

I think there is a lot of arrogance surrounding the paradigm. We know that the computer models that predictions are based on are imperfect. Yet they are constantly used to predict all kinds of disasters.

 

Computer models are wrongly dismissed by many skeptics. An often heard claim from critics is that computer models are worthless because "you can make a computer say anything" (I know you didn't make this claim or any other claims I will point out below, im just saying)

 

This is an absurd argument. Computers are essentially just a device to enable faster and more powerful calculations. Yet no skeptic would dream of arguing that climate models were useless because "you can put any numbers in an equation" yet this is essentially what the argument boils down to.

 

Of course in science the numbers have to, and are, based on measurements of reality, not plucked from thin air. If I write a computer model that simulates a ball rolling down a mountainside I cannot simply invent my own value for the gravitational constant. I have to use the measured range for the gravitational constant. That's a huge constraint on the results of the model.

 

Models are also testable against reality. They can point out what isn't known and hint at which places to look. For example if my ball falls faster down the hill than it is observed to in real life then I will have to start looking for some other factor to put in the model. I might look for something that would cause the ball to slow down, and that might lead to me discovering air friction. Add that new factor to the model the model becomes closer to reality.

[Rasori]

I have one question--not to try and debate global warming (I think we need to do something major, and it is a problem), but just out of curiousity.

 

People have been saying that there are entire countries that are under sea level and they can't all move at once... but the rising of the oceans will be a slow thing. It can't go any faster than the ice caps can melt, and I'm willing to bet that people can slowly move away, rather than in mass exodus all at once. In other words, people could move from New York City to Kansas... no need to move all of New York at once, though.