quote:

Originally posted by Black n Green:

That's why a lot of people are starting to refer to it as climate chaos instead of global warming - so that people get the point.

The only point people are getting is that the mode of our impending anhiliation changes so rapidly that to begin to plan the solution or understand the argument is a pointless waste of life.

Now you say Europe going to be covered under massive Icecaps? Cripes last week I thought Malaria was going to become endemic because of warming across Europe.

So I bought the Quinnine for no reason?

It is true that media hype is particularly unhelpful in addressing global warming.

Everything that I have seen points towards gradual (100's years) but relentless changes. The ice caps are not going to disappear tomorrow, places will not become unhabitable overnight, we won't be growing cocunuts in Cumbria next week...but all of things may well happen, almost without anyone noticing.

Why is it the case that people were happy to trust the science behind oxzone depletion, but are skeptical about global warming. Perhaps ozone depletion had obvious knock-on effects on skin cancer (i.e. knock-on effects to you). The science (and uncertainty) behind both ozone and AGW is very similar.

The main issue is that if global warming is happening (man made or natural - I stick my vote in man-made) then plans need to be made now as the rate of change will be so slow it will probably be difficult to convince anyone until enough data is collected and by then of course it's far too late.

If you don't believe its happneing, then it still won't hurt to save a bit of energy (lower bills), just to be on the safe side.

BTW - for the record last ditch technologies like sulfur aerosols, mirrors in space, articial trees, cloud forming devices, etc - should be exactly that - last ditch!

A good idea would be to sell up in the UK now - while you can, and move to Spain, before everyone notices the permafrost spreading down from Scotland. Or is that what everyone else has been doing, and I'm the last one to realise. You could keep your house in the UK as a winter / summer retreat - depending on which way the climate goes! :-)

The reality is, if manmade C02 isn't causing warming, I think no-one knows what to do. Just have to grin and bear it. Even if Europe really does Ice over, it hasn't prevented the Eskimos or people in Alaska from staying Alive. It might even mean we get used to winter driving and the planes keep running. The other scenario that worries me is interruptions to the food chain, but I think C02 has to get really high for that to hit. Likewise I think humans can tolerate C02 concentrations higher than they are now, so we won't all drop dead as if it were carbon monoxide.

I think anything considered will be in the realms of science fiction, like space mirrors, huge scale sequestration plants.

Still stick energy saving bulbs in though. I've just done the maths and each one should save at £25 over it's life.

quote:

Originally posted by Black n Green:
... Even if Europe really does Ice over, it hasn't prevented the Eskimos or people in Alaska from staying Alive. It might even mean we get used to winter driving and the planes keep running.....

Exactly. To think that humans are so frail that we can't handle a few degrees extra heat or stupid enough to believe we are smart enough to change long term climate is just ludicrous

Humanity as a whole will survive, of course.

You personally might not be so lucky.

Those poor guys in Bangladesh? Oh well, no one really cares about them, do they.

Arguments of the pro AGW lobby here is usually quite poor but it is at its most low level when they start talking about the 'poor guys in Bangladesh'. Ofcourse the fact is that punitive tariffs on carbon emission is going to hit the developing countries the most as they are the ones 'developing' and going to the major producers of carbon.

'Poor guys in Bangladesh' needs to get out of poverty and that is more important than you saving your back garden

What is with you?

I was responding to phlipper who seems to think that it doesn't matter what happens to most of us as long as humanity as a whole goes on.

I didn't say anything about poverty or make any kind of statement about whether climate change is more or less important to those people.

It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion round here without getting jumped on by people assuming they can know what you are thinking without actually reading your posts.

Well 'the poor guys in Bangladesh' comment makes sense only if you are implying that we don't control our carbon emission, potentially the temperature will rise leading to rise in sea level leading to flooding of Bangladesh which is in a low lying area.

Of course we don't know for sure if the science of CO2 is correct or not (huge uncertainties inspite you lot claiming that the case is closed), but even if we take the CO2 theory at the face value we don't have any mechanism to control CO2 emissions as the developing countries like India and China are not under any compulsion to reduce CO2 emission (and they definitely should not control CO2 emission as it will mean couple of billion people spending another couple of decades in poverty) So according to your science, Bangladesh is doomed anyway, indeed as your science suggest we may well beyond the tipping point. So the question is what we should do? Here is a suggestion why don't we campaign to our politician who are out to save the world that they should make immigration of Bangladeshis free of control to EU in case Bangladesh gets flooded. Now that will be a sure way of showing that we really care. In the mean time let Bangladesh get on with emiiting as much CO2 they want to get their folks out of poverty

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Ofcourse the fact is that punitive tariffs on carbon emission is going to hit the developing countries the most as they are the ones 'developing' and going to the major producers of carbon.

'Poor guys in Bangladesh' needs to get out of poverty and that is more important than you saving your back garden

Is it not possible that we are intelligent and enlightened enough in the developed world to see that it would be totally unjusitifiable for us as the 'haves' to deny the develping world the 'havenots' their right to develop and enjoy a decent level of living. Why is that the anti AGW lobby insists on uisng this argument.

We have to work with the developing world to enable them to develop whilst also ensuring that the world as we know it remains. This shouldnt be impossible. If it is then, bang.

'Intelligent and enlightened' politicians of the developed world is all out implement Carbon trading in a big way. Every day you see our politicians talking about threats from India and China and how we must counter this threat. Now we are all for giving charity to the third world but when it comes to economic interests we are all for carbon trading

WIYM: I would contend that poverty is not a function of industrial emissions - however the title of this thread is "If global warming is natural what are the consequences?" I don't see how your comments relate to this (or my posts) in any way. Please start a new thread so that we can discuss this in the proper place.

Well let's continue in this thread. Are you suggesting that India and China can get out poverty without ever more increasing carbon emission?

Well here you go . . .
How do we fight poverty?
be my guest

Hi all,

This does appear to be veering off topic dramatically...however, here is my opinion.

Global warming, natural or not, will particularly hit certian areas hard. This has been shown with hot years in the past - places with low rainfall get less. Equally it's quite easy to predict where sea level rises will worst effect - low lying countries.

I'm not, and I'm sure others are not suggesting that to combat man-made global warming carbon emissions must be reduced equally in all countries. All the models I have seen indicate that developed countries will be responsible for the lions share of cuts thus allowing developing countries to continue to develop. In addition developed countries should be taking the lead in developing low carbon technologies so that developing countries can install them without a financial hit (i.e. we, the historic pollutors, should bear the cost for developing these technologies since in many ways we are the major culprits).

Now if global warming is natural, and I am yet to hear from anyone in the anti-AGW camp how long and hot it is predicted to be - then the same pattern of who gets hit worst is repeated - what would happen in this situation...?

It is difficult to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions, but not impossible. Check out the work of Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) for some interesting and sensible pointers...

This is simple and I thought widely known.

Roman warm period about 200bc to 400
Dark ages cooling 400 to 900
Medieval warm period 900 to 1400
Little ice age 1400 to 1850
New warm period 1850 to ?? dunno but I would say 2300 at least.

Temperatures have sought of leveled off now but expect the NMP to be at least as warm as the MWP - hey the extra CO2 may warm things up slighty but insignificantly.

In the NWP expect a golden age for civilisation as it is subject to fewer storms and extremes of climate. Also increased CO2 will help crops and feed the 7 billion population come 2050 providing we ditch the organic fad.

quote:

Originally posted by jjeh102:
Now if global warming is natural, and I am yet to hear from anyone in the anti-AGW camp how long and hot it is predicted to be...?

Hi Jeff,

It depends who you ask, but most of the anti-AGW camp tend to avoid making short-to-medium term predictions which directly conflict with those made by mainstream scientists... Call me a cynic, but I suspect this is because they realise such predictions have a good chance of being proved wrong!

However, if the current warming trend is just a natural cycle, like the Mediaeval Warm Period, then there's no reason whatsoever to think that it'll get much hotter. It's already at least as hot as the MWP -- indeed, all the recent reconstructions suggest it's already hotter... nevertheless, there have been many such warm phases since the past ice age; if this is just another one, it's probably peaked already.

The most popular anti-AGW explanation for recent warming is that it's been driven by variations in solar activity and/or cosmic ray flux. As I understand it, however, these variables are currently falling... and while they do fluctuate quite a lot, we have no reason whatsoever to think that these variables are likely to rise dramatically over the next few decades, in any highly abnormal or unprecedented way.

So in short, if global warming is natural, the anti-AGW crowd will be proved right fairly soon and we can all stop worrying about global warming. If AGW is true, on the other hand, they'll be proved wrong -- although of course, as far as I'm concerned, they already have been! In another 5-10 years it'll just be a whole lot more obvious, even to non-scientists...

Don't expect such an outcome to change skeptics mind's though. I suspect that the one thing that will finally make most skeptics reconsider their views is when something happens to them which makes them realise that they, themselves could actually be in danger as a result of growing climate chaos.