Global Warming - our saviour.

[SkepticLance]

Let me first say that this is not a justification for recent anthropogenic warming. The last 30 years is a bit too much and we should begin remedial measures. However, the reference below is interesting.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm

 

It suggests that the world would be entering a new glaciation period, with glaciers advancing, and the whole world cooling, if it were not for early anthropogenic global warming.

 

If this is correct, I am glad it happened. I would much rather live in our current relatively balmy conditions than in a new deep freeze.

[Reaper]

So what happens to Europe when the Gulf Stream shuts down because of Global Warming?

 

But I suppose we don't have to contemplate such issues when there's always a bright side to this, don't we.

 

 

EDIT: I finished reading the article. The information that is presented is not new, it was well known that we humans have been having a noticeable effect on the environment long before the Industrial Revolution. The difference now is that the changes are happening much too quickly. That's the point you seem to keep missing on a consistent basis.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Reaper

[SkepticLance]

Reaper

You may have read the whole article, which is good. You do not seem to have read my first paragraph, though. I would ask you, please, not to make unwarranted inferences, such as suggesting I have not taken note of current rapid changes.

 

The idea of the Gulf Stream shutting down is still theoretical. Scientists thought they saw the first signs, but that finding has now been overturned.

[Reaper]

The idea of the Gulf Stream shutting down is still theoretical.

 

I know. But again it doesn't have to literally shut down and stop completely for it to have some serious effects....

 

Besides which, the Gulf Stream shutdown is just one of many problems should AGW be allowed to take its course.

[SkepticLance]

I would prefer if we kept to the theme of my first post. What do people think of the idea that global warming so far may be a boon? Preventing a rather unpleasant cold spell and new wave of glaciation? Accepting that we need to stop the other extreme also.

[Reaper]

Excuse me? I was keeping with your theme on showing the flaws with this assumption.

 

But then, why worry about all of that, huh. You can't possibly let me rain on your parade, so why not just ignore all of the problems that it will probably cause....

 

The question then is, do you think the pros are outweighted by the cons? Given a potential ice age in Europe as a worst case scenario, me thinks not at all.

[iNow]

I would prefer if we kept to the theme of my first post. What do people think of the idea that global warming so far may be a boon?

 

I think that some warming clearly has helped mediate any cooling over the past millenium. It's an interesting piece. In the present, however, the key is balance. The amount and speed of our warming, really regardless if the natural cycle would be one of cooling, is happening much too quickly (as you yourself even seem to concede in previous posts, so really, I'm just reinforcing that point, not arguing it).

 

 

I must admit, though, I did get a chuckle out of the fact that you would open a post suggesting "boon" when much of this is speculation based on models.

 

Why not open a thread about how these models can't be trusted either (due to unknown variables)?

 

 

But gathering physical evidence, backed by powerful simulations on the world's most advanced computer climate models, is reshaping that view and lending strong support to the radical idea that human-induced climate change began not 200 years ago, but thousands of years ago with the onset of large-scale agriculture in Asia and extensive deforestation in Europe.

 

What's more, according to the same computer simulations, the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age, altering a clockwork rhythm of periodic cooling of the planet that extends back more than a million years.

 

Using three different climate models and removing the amount of greenhouse gases humans have injected into the atmosphere during the past 5,000 to 8,000 years, Vavrus and Kutzbach observed more permanent snow and ice cover in regions of Canada, Siberia, Greenland and the Rocky Mountains, all known to be seed regions for glaciers from previous ice ages. Vavrus notes: "With every feedback we've included, it seems to support the hypothesis (of a forestalled ice age) even more."

[SkepticLance]

iNow said

 

"I must admit, though, I did get a chuckle out of the fact that you would open a post suggesting "boon" when much of this is speculation based on models."

 

You may note, in my first post, I said "If this is correct ..."

I am not asserting it is correct or otherwise. Just that it is an interesting idea. If correct, do you agree it is a boon?

 

I have suggested in other threads that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have increased in the years prior to the 20th Century by amounts too small to be likely to change climate very much. Current CO2 increase runs at about 2 ppm per year, while 30 years ago it was 1 ppm per year. From 1800 AD to 1900, CO2 increased from 280 ppm to 300 ppm. That is : 0.2 ppm per year.

 

If the piece I referenced is correct, it must involve climatic effects that are rather small.

[iNow]

If the piece I referenced is correct, it must involve climatic effects that are rather small.

Yeah, I hadn't considered that point. Good insight. It may only take tiny bits to effect great change.

[JohnB]

I think it would be very interesting to see exactly how they worked out their figures.

Using three different climate models and removing the amount of greenhouse gases humans have injected into the atmosphere during the past 5,000 to 8,000 years,

Exactly how would you work out the GHG emissions 7,000 years ago? Methinks there may be a bit of fudging going on.

 

I would also take issue with;

Between 5,000 and 8,000 years ago, both methane and carbon dioxide started an upward trend, unlike during previous interglacial periods

While I will grant the CH4, as the Vostok core shows a decline and then a recovery, saying the same for CO2 might be reaching a bit far. Previous interglacials peaked at around the 290 ppmv mark before falling off into the glacial phase. You could only claim a decrease and recovery if you can show that the current interglacial was going to peak at around 265ppmv. As none of the previous 4 interglacials peaked at less than 280 ppmv this may be difficult.

 

There is no denying that the Holocene is unusual however. Previous interglacial temps peaked sharply and then dropped, whereas the Holocene has remained remarkably constant. At, it can be noted some 2⁰ C below the peaks of previous interglacials.

 

You would also require a phenomenally high sensitivity to CO2 for this result. After peaking, previous interglacials typically dropped 2⁰+ in the next 10,000 year. So by their logic (it would appear) that the increase from 265ppmv to 285 ppmv cancelled more than 2⁰C of cooling.

 

I would very much like to see their ideas presented in a peer reviewed journal, it would be an interesting read. I did come across this paper from 2004 where they are essentially arguing the same point and am still working through it.

 

Frankly I'm having trouble with the concept that the model agrees with a 2.5⁰C increase with the doubling of CO2 from 280ppmv- 560ppmv yet shows a temp drop of circa 2⁰ if CO2 is dropped to 240ppmv. That just doesn't seem right somehow.

 

(All my references to the Vostok core are based on the graph found here.)

Edited December 20, 2008 by JohnB

[bascule]

If this is correct, I am glad it happened. I would much rather live in our current relatively balmy conditions than in a new deep freeze.

 

Do you think the millions of people who are about to lose access to safe drinking water feel the same way?

 

You know SkepticLance, real skeptics tend to look at all sides of an argument. Your posts don't seem to do that and instead have a particular pattern of anti-GW FUD.

[SkepticLance]

bascule

Safe drinking water has nothing at all to do with global warming or cooling. It is determined by the way we use resources. We have the technology to provide safe drinking water, and safe sanitation, to every man, woman and child on the planet. It is denied so many because of corrupt politicians, and economic policy mismanaged.

 

Do you disagree with my statement? Would you rather live during a new glaciation period, rather than the current warmer times? After all, that is what the original reference was about. It has nothing to do with my personal bias, or yours.

[iNow]

Safe drinking water has nothing at all to do with global warming or cooling. It is determined by the way we use resources. We have the technology to provide safe drinking water, and safe sanitation, to every man, woman and child on the planet. It is denied so many because of corrupt politicians, and economic policy mismanaged.

 

Do you disagree with my statement?

 

This is not a fair statement. IF we have technology to provide safe drinking water, THEN yes, global climate has little to do with this issue. However, considering the people who rely most on glaciers for safe drinking water tend not to have access to technology of any modernity, and since global climate change is removing those glaciers, making them far less available to these populations which continue to reproduce and increase in number, the issue of safe drinking water is enormously impacted by climate change.

 

Your point seems to be more about available desalination technology and distribution of fresh water, whereas Bascule's point is that fresh water supplies are dwindling rapidly and impacting millions (and that these people would quite disagree with your flip reaction to the issue of warming).

 

 

Wars in the future won't be fought over oil, they'll be fought over water (unless, we are able to push forward with technology such as that to which you alluded).

[SkepticLance]

iNow

There are literally hundreds of technologies related to providing safe drinking water. This is a different issue to simply providing water, of which most is needed for irrigation rather than drinking, and I suspect that this separate issue is what you are talking about. Some are low tech, such as filters using natural rocks and other cheap easily available materials. Some are high tech such as ultrafiltration.

 

As long as water can be obtained, there are ways of making it safe for drinking. I have a home that is somewhat isolated, and not connected to municipal water. I collect rainwater into tanks and filter a small part of it via activated charcoal filters for drinking. I also have a home sewage treatment system that is supposed to purify our waste to the point where it is drinkable - though I am not prepared to try it!

 

Global warming will have local effects on total water supply, with the main need being for irrigation. Some local effects mean more water. Some mean less. As an overall global average, there has been an increase in precipitation over the past few decades, which many ascribe to global warming.

[npts2020]

I wonder how the citizens of Tuvalu or many other Micronesian countries feel about melting enough ice to put their entire country below sea level?

[bascule]

Safe drinking water has nothing at all to do with global warming or cooling.

 

I guess all those scientists researching the impact climate change will have on water vulnerabilities are completely retarded then. SkepticLance has spoken.

 

It is determined by the way we use resources. We have the technology to provide safe drinking water, and safe sanitation, to every man, woman and child on the planet.

 

We have the technology to feed everyone too, yet millions starve or go malnourished. Having the technology means little unless someone invests the money to actually develop, manufacture, and deploy the technology.

 

Let's get back to reality for a second here: 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, and 2.6 billion do not have adequate sanitation.

 

I've never heard someone completely downplay the water crisis the way you have. Worse, you seem to think there's no connection between climate change and water vulnerability, which is simply ignorant.

 

Nobody is going to wave a magic wand and suddenly get the existing 1.1 billion people on earth the safe drinking water they need. The situation is only going to get worse, and climate change is going to be the primary factor involved.

 

Would you rather live during a new glaciation period, rather than the current warmer times?

 

My city has some of the best tasting water in the state, which comes from Arapaho Glacier. However, Arapaho Glacier is quickly disappearing (it's recently been downgraded from a glacier to a snowfield) and the city is presently without a contingency plan for providing an alternative source of drinking water.

 

Some glaciation would be rather helpful in my situation, and the situations of many others.

[SkepticLance]

bascule

It would help if you did not keep putting words in my mouth.

I said safe drinking water has nothing to do with global warming, which is true. Total water supply may be a different story, but is not the same issue. As I pointed out to iNow, providing safe drinking water is simply a case of applying appropriate technology. It is not dependent on water quality. We now have the technology to produce safe drinking water from human sewage, or pretty much any other water source, including the sea.

 

I did not downplay the water crisis. Instead you confused the issue of safe drinking water with total fresh water availability, which is a quite separate issue. Of all the water humans use, the amount we drink is a very small part. The vast bulk of the water crisis is a lack of water for irrigation and growing food - not for drinking.

 

In this case, the ignorance you accuse me of is your own.

[Reaper]

I like how SkepticLance just continues to hand wave away all of the rather obvious problems inherent with global warming. Just like all the other times when he hand waved all of the problems of the positions he tends to side with in general.

 

But then, I guess he doesn't want anybody here to crap all over his parade, given the number of failures before this thread...

[bascule]

I said safe drinking water has nothing to do with global warming, which is true.

 

No, it's not, and there are thousands upon thousands of scientists studying water vulnerability as it relates to climate change.

 

Do you think these scientists are wasting their time? Do you think they don't exist? It's very hard for me, actually having worked with a research group, to comprehend the fantasy land in which you live, but since you want to keep on repeating this statement perhaps you could give me some insight as to what you make of how real scientists are reacting to the reality of the situation.

 

The vast bulk of the water crisis is a lack of water for irrigation and growing food - not for drinking.

 

These are both water vulnerabilities. I'm not going to make claims as to which one is more important. Both are threatened by climate change and both have the potential to lead to human suffering and death.

[Reaper]

but since you want to keep on repeating this statement perhaps you could give me some insight as to what you make of how real scientists are reacting to the reality of the situation.

 

Oh, but bascule, surely you are aware of proof by repetition, aren't you ? Certainly if you repeat it enough times some truth might come out of it!

[iNow]

To be fair, what Lance is saying is accurate, it's just (IMO) displaced (tangential) to the topic actually under discusion... Basically, arguing something which nobody is talking about anyway.

[SkepticLance]

bascule

Let me put it in very simple words, so you can understand.

 

Most water use is for irrigation, not drinking. The amount of water needed for drinking is relatively very small. Apart from living in the Sahara or Gobi or other deserts, that small amount of water is pretty much always available. The problem is that it is not always safe. The problem then, is not how to get hold of water for drinking. The problem is how to make that water safe for drinking. Have I made that simple enough.

 

Lack of water as a global problem is mostly related to lack of water for irrigation. Not lack of safe drinking water. This is a quite different problem. Try hard, and use your little grey cells. Maybe if you work at it, you can see the difference.

 

iNow is correct that this is a side issue. However, if bascule suggests by implication that I do not know what I am talking about, when he simply confuses two quite separate issues, then I feel that I have to defend myself.

[bascule]

Let me put it in very simple words, so you can understand.

 

Translation: complete red herring ahead!

 

Sorry SkepticLance, I'm not going to play that game. I asked you several questions and you just ignored them, then went off on a totally unrelated tangent. Since you didn't answer my questions I'm going to answer them before you: you are thoroughly and completely ignorant about scientific research into the relationship between climate change and water vulnerability. Perhaps if you did some research into this area you wouldn't have such a rosy outlook on global warming, but given your history of climate change denial it's not unexpected that you are once again ignorantly bucking the present scientific outlook.

 

Water vulnerability encompasses any and all human needs. Drinking. Sanitation. Irrigation. I'm not going to argue the relative threat posed by each because that's tangential to the question of whether climate change is causing water vulnerability.

 

The amount of water needed for drinking is relatively very small. Apart from living in the Sahara or Gobi or other deserts, that small amount of water is pretty much always available.

 

There are approximately 1,100,000,000 people worldwide who do not have access to safe drinking water. Ever heard of a country called India?

 

So sorry, no, it isn't "pretty much always available" and it's only going to get worse.

 

To be fair, what Lance is saying is accurate, it's just (IMO) displaced (tangential) to the topic actually under discusion... Basically, arguing something which nobody is talking about anyway.

 

What Lance is saying is both wrong and a red herring. My point was about water vulnerability as a whole using drinking water as an example of a water vulnerability.

 

Lance has decided he doesn't want to discuss the relationship between climate change and water vulnerability, and in his traditional style has decided to pursue a red herring rather than the topic at hand.

[iNow]

My point was about water vulnerability as a whole using drinking water as an example of a water vulnerability.

 

Lance has decided he doesn't want to discuss the relationship between climate change and water vulnerability, and in his traditional style has decided to pursue a red herring rather than the topic at hand.

 

I understand, and also agree. I was trying to say so myself above, but in a softer way.

[mooeypoo]

Guys, there's no need to go into personal insults or mutual disrespect.

 

However controversial this issue is, I am sure the debate can continue using better logical, scientific and less emotional arguments than these.