Global Warming Death Rate

[xelasnave]

I have been quiet for a while because I have limited net access and limited time but an important question needs to be raised:D.

I ask does anyone know what the daily death rate is, as it relates to global warming or as now called Climate change or as I like to call it Historic Climate Change, and indicate a figure for us to be appauled by.

I know we have figures for starvation, war, aids, and a multitude of other evils but I simply dont know how many die each day from global warming or as it is now rightfullt called climate change and could be more correctly called "historic climate change"...

I have a nasty feeling it will out rank war famine and aids;)

So what is the current death rate due to climate change or global warming...any ideas?

I know millions will die in the future but I thought we could get folk to better recognise the severity of the climate change problem if we can quantify the current death rate.

If you have views on the future projected death rate by all means put it here.

Given some have died in neuclear power plant failures and given NP seems to be one of the things we can do to save the planet do more die via NP or by GW????
alex:):):):)
alex

[AstralTraveller]

I really doubt the death rate has been calculated and I doubt it could be done to any sort of accuracy. One major problem would be to disentangle climate change fatalities from other factors such as desertification, soil degradation etc due to over-use. Then there is the problems of unequal distribution of food, medical care etc solely due to our economic 'system'.

Nuclear power is no panacea. While it is true that reactors don't produce CO2 during operation they produce a huge amount during construction because of the amount of cement they require - far more than a conventional power station. The production of cement from limestone is CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2. So for every 56g of cement there is 44g of CO2 plus whatever is generated by the heating process. I haven't looked at the figures but someone I trust told me that, compared to a coal-fired power station, it takes a nuclear plant 15 years to pay off the CO2 'debt' from construction. That is a very substantial fraction of the operational life of the plant. Then there is a whole lot of dangerous waste that will need guarding for millenia. I think we have to look at energy efficiency and green power of various types.

[mick pinner]

you have got to be kidding, although l suspect probably not. how many pie in the sky figures do we need to scare people towards a certain point of view? l mean no offence but l find this one of the more out there questions l have read for a while.

[Rick Petrie]

I suppose it won't be long before (or is already happening)the soothsayers start to blame a lot of natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, drought, crop failures, volcanic eruptions and such on climate change.
The subjective thing is, how do they relate what actually occurs naturally to what would be directly attributable to climate change.
As for a figure -hard to evaluate I guess, but somebody may have verifiable records to associate them.
Good luck Alex that someone can give you the facts, but I honestly think it will be inexplicable.
Cheers:)

[Geoff45]

A frail person with a high fever dies on a hot, dry day of heat exhaustion. If the day had been cooler he might have lived. If he didn't have the fever, he might have lived. What killed him, the fever or the weather?

[Ian Robinson]

Well , this could be estimated from :

- deaths due to global warming caused famines and regional droughts
- deaths due to global warming causing more people to catch deadly deceases (ie malaria and other tropical desease , cholera , bird flu and the like)
- deaths due to global warming incited warfare and forced population displacements
- deaths due to more frequent and more powerful storm events.

These are all significant numbers and may be available from NGO's and the UN and Aid and Relief organisations.

These are all likely to become worse over the next few decades and much of the world will be a horrible place by the mid of this century.

[Ian Robinson]

Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have NOTHING to with global warming.

[Rick Petrie]

Thanks Ian. I agree with what you are saying but extremists and alarmists will blame anything on global warming as a cause of disasters.

[rally]

I vaguely recall the increased malarial type death rates being quoted in the millions pa due to the increased breeding habitat due to global warning.
No idea over what time scale that was.

The cost in life due to increased seasonal inundation in low lying areas such as Bangladesh due to slight ocean level increases was equally tragic.

Cheers
Rally

[Ian Robinson]

A slight rephrase is called for , my response meant to say :

Earthquakes have NOTHING to with global warming. They are not caused by global warming.

Volcanic eruptions do indeed influence global and regkinal climates

...I'm surprised no one picked me up on OBVIOUS error.

[Solanum]

Thought I'd chip my two penneth worth in here as I've been working on climate change effects on plants for the last ten years and although not a climatologist have obviously read a fair bit around the subject.

Firstly, if you don't think that climate change is a reality and is going to have a major impact on both the natural environment and our own civilisation then you are either deluding yourself or haven't read the evidence (probably both). It truly is over-whelming, the vast majority of scientists involved (I'm talking thousands here) agree on the general thrust, those that don't are very few and are generally in the pay of special interest groups (e.g. the oil industry - though I have to say that in my experience the oil industry are starting to accept what's going on and beginning to look to the future, moreso than most climate change sceptics).

Secondly, to the question in hand. I think that predicting what the impact of climate change on man and the natural environment is one hell of a lot harder than proving it is occurring. This is where I do think there are some alarmists and some wild extrapolations, though we don't know that they won't come to pass! Personally, and taking a longer term view, we aren't able to wipe out life on earth (not without physically breaking up the planet and I don't think we have enough nuclear weapons to do that), and it is very unlikely that man made climate change will cause species extinctions on a scale with the great extinctions of the past where over 95% of all species on earth have been wiped out. Also, whilst I think we should be looking to preserve biodiversity and our natural environment I think we should be honest and say that this is for our own benefit and not some mystical 'mother nature'. So given that, I think the most important impact of climate change is on mankind and in that respect Alex's question is an important one (if difficult to answer). As mentioned already increased flooding does result in large numbers of deaths in Bangladesh, heat waves do finish off the old and frail, not to mention crop failures lead to starvation. Though it is impossible to say that any one event is due to climate change.

If you go to http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm you will have access to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. This is the condensed knowledge that mankind has on climate change and it's likely effects, put together by an international group of scientists numbering in their thousands under the auspices of the UN. The working group one report details the science involved and the predictions that that science makes, the working group two report details the likely impacts of those changes on the world (and man). There is a synthesis report of the whole thing, there are technical summaries of each report and there are executive summaries for the really hard of understanding (e.g. politicians).

[xelasnave]

Hi all

Mick you can not offend me... no one can... so folks always be blunt...

I was being cute I though the answer would be a big no deaths..and so I thought I would focus attention on to matters that were causing deaths today...

But I have learnt something that there may be deaths due to climate.

anyways great comments.

alex:):):):)

[NQLD_Newby]

Well, i agree that climate change is happenning. Where I have trouble is believing that climate change causes everything they say it causes. I could be wrong but I think people need something to blame. If they can possibly find a link, (no matter how thin), between a theory and a problem then they run with it. Now I'm not saying the attached story isn't true, who am i to discount it when my knowledge in this area is fairly limited, but this is just one example that highlights my coments above.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn15000-climate-change-is-driving-increase-in-tiger-attacks.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn15000

[JohnH]

I am not a fan of Nuclear power generation (for other reasons) but that is complete baloney, consider this...

1 kWh of electricity produced from a coal powered station emits 0.97kg of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Nuclear power produces close to zero

So for a 150MW station run for 15 years coal will produce appox 150 tonnes of CO2 per hour, 24hrs per day, 365 days per year.

Total 19,710,000 Tonnes of CO2

Thus your statement if true means a nuclear station must use (56/44)*19,710,000 tonnes of additional cement. (Note most of the construction would not be pur cement either).

Use of the 2/3 (area to cubic volume) rule means the nuclear power plant would have an area of 85,692 times that of the coal fired plant....

Another apporach is here:

http://timjervis.blogspot.com/2007/05/co2-pollution-from-nuclear-construction.html

:lol::lol::lol:

[xelasnave]

I personally think irrespective of why it is getting warmer we humans wont be able to fix the problem:eyepop:.

I think the uranium lobby have a vested interest in generating the fear of global warming as they can offer co2 free energy....and so NP seems like a safe clean option...and it may be that NP is not as bad as the various problems with past accidents are addressed and accidents will never happen again. But that is the nature of an accident really ..no one expect them and so that is why they are called accidents... maybe it is all good for NP but I wonder.


The waste of NP plants is a worry of course and one wonders if future generations may be in a hole because of the shortsightedness of the long term solution that is safe...at the moment.

I did hear that there is a mine somewhere in the Northern hemisphere stacked with neuclear waste in drums (medical or power station stuff I have no idea) and originally thought to be secure that now is getting water in the mine and the drums therefore are in danger of corrosion and the waste leaking into the system...I may be that they are already corroded but as it was in the North why should I worry..it will never effect us right:shrug: I dont know more than that maybe someone else does:shrug:.

That story could be a rumour circulated by anti NP folk or it could be a real concern.

Fear and concern will sell newspapers of that there is no doubt so one must regard everything as suspect if you can not nail it down.

There seems little question things are warming up be it man made or not that fact seems to be backed up by many observations.

I was talking to a chap today where they have ice fishing (Finland) and he said where he is the ice is getting a little more thin (or should that be less thin:D no that must mean it is getting thicker I guess:P) each year.

Al Gore has some evidence as well...that if you can take it that he has not been selective with the material for his movie...the inconvenient truth.
AND he does not really practice what he preaches when you think of how he gets around and how his home burns $30,000 odd a year in energy...


AND so maybe we just have to work at adjusting to a new hotter world where the seas are higher, the deserts are of greater extent the polar bears have to be kept in a fridge and some cities become skin diver attractions:D.

One would think as I have said many times if the problem is so great that city lights could be turned off and fridges in those blocks declared illegal:whistle:.
Maybe car racing could be eliminated and in place cars on electricity powered by batteries charged by solar panels could be the go:shrug:.

We can tax carbon and Governments love that but for us mugs at the bottom of the heap we all know up top tax is something to be avoided and even evaded...and those paying the tax pass it down to the mugs at the bottom..so we each pay more tax and polution goes on I would think.

Anyways as I said I was trying to be a little cute with my question and looking outside one may as well babble here as look at TV because no astronomy tonight.

Sorry this is rushed but I must go
alex:):):)

[BerrieK]

My personal opinion is that We are but blips on the face of the history of our great planet. The industrial revolution cannot be reversed - it is not in human nature. Whether it be thru global warming killing us directly or indirectly, us killing ourselves with our lazy overindulgent lifestyles leading to our obese population straining the health system in a plethora of health worries , or polluting our planet with plastics and other polymers that end up in our bodies causing sterility and congenital defects for ourselves and our animal neighbours, we will one day not be here! Green seems the safest way to go but as someone famous once said for every action there is an opposite reaction..we need to minimise our effects not only in the global warming stakes. One day our history will be ancient history, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist...perhaps accretion will be reversed and our planet will return to the nebula from where it condensed...and someone 'out there' will be able to watch the whole process from giant scopes developed in their polar ice caps!

[xelasnave]

Happily evolution is the exception and extinction is the rule:D

the fact is even if we dont wipe ourselves out something from space will..a comet, an astroid or we could find ourselves within the danger zone of a super nova (now that is global warming that man wont fix)...so it is all good:P

And if will mange to hang on we will be swallowed by our Sun when it goes to a red giant:eyepop:... now that is not that far off maybe:shrug: so a tax the proceeds thereof can fund ships to take us elsewhere...

Well specualtion can be fun:D.


So in some future a long way from here our species may find itself gone and the planet will bounce back to support the next privledged species.....

Bored as here:whistle:

alex:):):):)

[Harpspitfire]

from what i see in the US, the greedy economists wont do anything about -it will eventually have drastic consequences, hopefully it can be controlled (though non reversable) before the point of no return- but in the meantine, i think infected food, tainted water supply (namely chemicals and radioactive waste)- along with hazardous air pollution, diseases, will do in the human race, not considered is even nuclear warfare (terrorists) which have closer access day X day to mass destruction- really- i think humanity is near its peak now and in less then 50 years will start its own downfall and destruction, it may take 100 years-- 500 years, who knows, but the fact is habitability is currently on a dowmward slide

[NQLD_Newby]

Alex I found a story about the ways they are thinking of to fix that problem. Sounds a bit far out, but they are thinking of ways to alter Earths orbit. They have basically said that we will need to be in an orbit similar to Mars when our sun is a red giant, to capture similar heat/energy to what we have now. Seems a bit far fetched to me, but who knows. You can view the thread here: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=37111

[GrampianStars]

What a load :eyepop:
the US has the capability to wipe out 95% of the human population alone fallout from that will kill the rest of us with cancers etc over a relatively short time scale.
As for the bio-diversety of plants & animals they're being wiped out bloody fast estimates are around 95% GONE within 20 - 30 years
and that's without nuclear fallout intervention

back to your mythical studies

The only way in the short term is science develop a human "Calici" type virus to switch off the majority of us humans :whistle:

[Solanum]

Rubbish. Show me the scientific studies that have made that prediction. You clearly have no concept of the number of species on earth and probably have the rather common obsession that large mammals are the most important species. Certain 'environmental' groups have claimed we are wiping out species at a faster rate than the great extinctions, but that is a fatuous claim as we can't judge the great extinctions on this time scale - we're looking at fossil rocks where long periods of time are compressed into a few mm! My point was that even given those extinctions our world developed to the level of biodiversity it had before we started degrading it and it can do it again. Here is my prediction and I'll put any money you like on it, in 30 years 95% of the currently extant species will NOT be extinct.

As for nuclear war, I'd like to see how you make those calculations. Certainly, it could potentially wipe out the majority of the population of the developed world (a minority of mankind) and result in significant disease in a large part of the rest, but it would only wipe out humanity completely if everyone laid down and gave up on life. We aren't the dinosaurs, we got where we are today using our brains (some of the time...). Humans are all over the world and not all parts would be equally affected. How many people died as a result of Chernobyl? A lot less than was expected. It is quite possible we aren't as susceptible to radiation as we thought. In case you think I am a nuclear apologist, I say this as a someone with a long history as an anti-nuclear campaigner. I've been on CND marches to US bases, a UK nuclear warfare establishment, not to mention marches in capital cities.

[AstralTraveller]

Hmmm ... OK, those figures look convincing. I pass them on to my 'trusted' friend. Perhaps he has some more smallgoods for me. :whistle:

Another point with nuclear power I wonder about is the production of the fuel. Of course coal and uranium are both mined but that is about the end of the similarities. Coal is needed in vast amounts but there is virtually no processing after mining because coal seams are nearly 100% coal and coal 'washing' is simple. Uranium is needed in much smaller amounts but it requires considerable processing to go from ore to fuel rods. The best ore is 70% uranium oxide but commercial-grade ores can be as low as 0.1% uranium oxide. Processing can involve leaching with acids or alkalies, or electrolysis, or heating (or a combination of those). So for each technology, how much of the energy extracted and recovered is required to produce and transport the fuel?

[AstralTraveller]

Solanum,

I agree with the thrust of everything you have said. However I am unaware of any extinction event where 95% of species went extinct. Even the 'Great Dying' at the P-T boundary did not do this. The figures I've seen are about 95% of marine species, 70% of terrestrial vertebrates and a smaller number of invertebrates.

As far as extinctions from possible anthropogenic warming _alone_ is concerned I find it hard to believe there will be much impact. Temperatures may rise to what they were during the last interglacial (120,000 years ago - virtually yesterday) or a bit higher and I've never heard any palaeoscientist suggest that extinction occurred due to that. Of course, warming has to be added to the other changes we are causing and so increase somewhat the number of extinctions we are causing. But I agree, in 30 years time >95% of presently extant spp will still be here.

[AstralTraveller]

I am bemused by the predictions that global warming will make the global climate drier. It is well known that the climate during glacials was cold and dry. During interglacials (like now) the climate is warm and wet. The mechanism is pretty simple. Hotter winds blowing over warmer oceans cause more evaporation, and what goes up will come down. That is a vast simplification (and, yes, some places were wetter when the climate was cooler) but it should hold true at the global scale.

Can anyone comment on whether the climate change models really do predict a global drying, or is it just a common misconception? If they do predict a general drying by what mechanism is that supposed to be achieved?

[Solanum]

Sure, 95% of marine spp., though I suspect marine spp are over-represented in the fossil record due to the nature of it (though I am a long way from a paleo- anything!) In reality these numbers are based on what disappears from the fossil record, which is surely only a fraction of the spp extant at that time. Doesn't really matter in regards to my point, but I accept your correction!! :)

I think temperatures are expected to exceed the last few interglacials (120 kyears was the last but one BTW), certainly CO2 is way above anything seen in the last 600 kyears already - not that CO2 is the only driver of global temps of course.



You can go to the IPCC link in my first post. Some places are expected to by drier, some wetter. Looking at the global figures, more places will be wetter than drier. Southern Australia is expected to be slightly drier, but not by much.

[Jen]

just ask google :whistle: he knows everything :whistle::D

:google::google::google:
:bowdown:

[Glenhuon]

Taking only the human case with regard to climate change, I can forsee great disruptions and deaths in the future due to the migration of populations from areas where the climate has changed to the detriment of the the indiginents to more fertile places. The present inhabitants may object, leading to strife and wars. This has already begun in some parts of the world.
Its not only the economic disasters that we face (although our "political representatives" seem to be mainly focused on that) it's the social changes that will effect us more as individuals.
We all live in our little corners of the planet, with our ancestral customs and social order taught to us from the cradle, the influx of large numbers of those of a different mindset causes friction eventually.
The climate is changing of that there can now be no doubt, whether it be from natural cycles or mankinds polution of the planet or a combination of both (the most likely scenario). Gird your loins brothers and sisters interesting times are upon us.

Bill

[Argonavis]

This is patent drivel.

What climate change???

The temperature record over the last 30 years (http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/temp-data.jpg) shows virtually no global warming, when the hysteria and IPCC projections predict massive increases of over 2 deg C.

The satellite temp trend is here (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG). This is unadulterated by the UHI.

The 10 year data (http://bp3.blogger.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SFs25eMZegI/AAAAAAAAAC8/pDT5GEKQTUA/s1600-h/11+Year+Temp+Data.bmp) show global cooling.

The IPCC GCM's have been a total failure in predicting temperature trends. The hypothesis that increasing CO2 is a temperature forcer has been totally falsifed.

The ice isn't melting - it is back to normal in the north after a lower than average period. The southern hemisphere never displayed any ice loss events.

The mantra of "thousands of scientists" is propoganda. Please name them. After Hansen and Mann, and about 30 others on the inside of this scam, you luck out.

Perhaps you could look up the Manhattan Declaration for hundreds of names of publically declared scientists, including Freeman Dyson, IMHO the most brilliant scientist alive today. They have publically trashed this hypothesis.

The suggestion that anyone skeptical of this nonsense, for which there is zero evidence, being "in the pay of special interest groups" is a sick smear. Many scientists like Bob Carter and Ian Pilmer would love to be in the pay of "special interest groups".




If you only get your information from the IPCC, that's very sad.

[Solanum]

I couldn't decide whether to reply to this or not, as it is pretty clear you aren't going to be persuaded by actual evidence. However, for the record I am, call me an egotist if you like! :)



Firstly, a 30 year temp record is too short to determine anything with confidence. The evidence for global warming is based on records over the last 150 years. Secondly, the figure you show for air temp, does seem to show a warming trend, is from a blog of all places, and is based on three sites! How can that compare with many thousands of records from around the globe? What is the point in showing that data?

The IPCC doesn't have any GCMs it uses the data from over twenty GCMs published by other groups, including all of the worlds major metereological organisations that are used for our weather prediction.

CO2 cannot be anything other than a temperature forcer. It absorbs infra-red, that is how we measure it. How large a forcer it is is of course open to question. To deny it is a temperature forcer is to deny it's spectra and coincidentally, almost all of astronomical science.

And your evidence is? The history of satellite photography doesn't support your claims. Obviously that is rescent history, so if the ice is returning to 'normal' whatever that may be, can you tell me why the north-west passage was never navigable and now is for part of the year?

It isn't hard, look at the contributors to the IPCC assessments, there are several thousand authors cited there. They vastly outnumber the actual scientists (mostly commenting ourtside their area of expertese) cited on the websites you quote.

They have not publically trashed the hypothesis. A scientist, no matter how brilliant, outside of his or her field is little better than a layman. Who would you listen to if you wanted to understand plant biology, Einstein or me? I am a plant biologist and I can guarantee you I know more about the subject than Einstein did. Freeman Dyson has neither the background nor training in this area. Fred Hoyle, was a brilliant scientist, but he never accepted the big bang theory and that was in his field!

That isn't quite what I said. Firstly, I was talking about scientists, secondly most of the websites you clearly peruse ARE funded by businesses with an interest in the area (follow the money), and there is little actual research funded or otherwise.



On the whole I don't get it from the IPCC, I read the original research as that is my job (I am a scientist and I have been working in this field science 1998 - although I've only vaguely been in this area for the last couple of years). But the original research isn't available to most people. But the IPCC synthesis of that research is.

[Solanum]

Sorry I could't resist. I looked up the 'Manhatten Declaration' as I admit I have never heard of it. It runs out that the declaration originated at a conference organised by a right-wing free-market think-tank in the US called the 'Heartland Institue', one of who's major contributors just happens to be Exxon. This what the 'Heartland Institute' have to say on the declaration:

"The "Manhattan Declaration" was proposed from the floor of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change and was not endorsed by The Heartland Institute, the host of the conference, or by the 50 cosponsors, and does not necessarily express the views of most or all of the people attending the conference. It is being circulated by the International Climate Science Coalition."

The "International Climate Science Coalition" define their endorsers as general public or:

"QUALIFIED ENDORSERS NOT AT CONFERENCE The following individuals, all well-trained in science and technology or climate change-related economics and policy, have allowed their names to be listed as endorsing the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change:"

They list the endorsers to the declaration, their affiliations and qualifications. There are 116 who were at the conference and 604 who were not, but have endorsed later. Of that 720 people there are surprisingly few there with a PhD(less than half at a rough guess), surprisingly many people involved with the mining industry and surprisingly few climatologists. In fact just 18 claim to have any backgrouhnd in climatology. Of those 18, seven are paleoclimatologists, most are retired and a couple work for consultancies. In fact there are NO currently employed climatologists on that list (discounting the couple in consultancies).

[Solanum]

One more thing. Freeman Dyson doesn't actually deny climate change - he certainly doesn't deny that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures. What he says is that the models whilst working well for the atmosphere and oceans are poor in regards to the biosphere. In that he isn't far off the mark, I can give you one example from my own work and that is that the temperature response of plant respiration is generally poorly modelled (I have peer reviewed publications in this area).

What he suggests is that as we don't understand the biosphere all that well it could be that by changing land management we can suck all that CO2 up into the soil. he shows insight in understanding that it is the soil not the vegetation that is important here and it is possible that this could be the case. However, almost all the experiments in this area have little had success and it seems very unlikely that we can shift the CO2 into soil carbon on a timescale that is helpful to us. In fact, generally we are releasing CO2 from the soil due to our land management and of course there is the risk that melting tundra permafrost will make this vastly worse. It should always be bourne in mind that in the last 150 years we have released the CO2 fixed by plants over several millions of years and that those millions of years were more inducive to plant growth than the current climate.

In all, I am not sure Freeman Dyson would enjoy your portrayal of his views.

[Argonavis]

and you really think that a 150 year record is reliable? You clearly have no understanding of the data. In fact with your appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks you appear to be a political activist who believes this stuff totally.

A more mature perspective is given in a recent paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf):

"The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years...These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing..."


And the ice is still there. It has rebounded, (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/nansen_area_102208.png) just like it has done every winter in recent geological history.

Quoting "thousands" of IPCC authors is a total joke. The actual AR4 would have been produced by a handful, and only one chapter deals with the actual science, the rest of the document deals with the effects of "global warming" or "climate change" assuming that the IPCC models are correct, when they have failed dismally. Like Stern and Garnet, it just assumes that the science is correct, when it is actually junk.

[Argonavis]

Neither do I. It is just that CO2 is a very minor forcer.

There is no science behind blaming industrial civilisation for the increase in atmospheric CO2 when absolutely no-one understands the carbon cycle.

The behaviour of climate and the main forcers are simply unknown. The science is immature. The data is ambiguous, the science is uncertain and no-one really understands Earths climate.

Future generations will look back on this as the age of stupid.

[JohnH]

Hmm.

No matter what you believe is the cause of climate change or it's magnitude it is simply not possible to argue that polluting the atmosphere is a "good thing".

Simple prudence dictates we should minimise emissions, the issue is then by how much and on what timescale.

[Solanum]

This is just willfull misinterpretation and falsehood now. No climatologist worth their salt would conclude anything from ten years data. Also papers on arxiv.org are not peer reviewed. Anyone can put anything they like on there.

Polar ice increases in winter decreases in summer. Anyone can tell you that. The extent of the ice each winter and summer is of vital importance in determining the annual total/average which of course affect the earth's albedo as well as other aspects of our environment. That extent is changing. Rapidly.

You have clearly never looked at AR4 or you would know what you say is absolutely false. The AR4 is split into three sections, all of which are based on science. The first working group report, is the one we are referring too and covers the science of the earth's past and current and future climate. That report alone is 987 pages long, and has over 800 authors. That is contributors, not cited scientists, which of course number far more. Clearly size is no judge of scientific quality, but I leave other readers of this thread to judge for themselves.

I find your attitude interesting though. You clearly have a fervent belief in the falsehood of this science, yet appear to have never even looked at the evidence, let alone read any of it.

And despite your accusation of ad hominem attacks I don't believe I have made any personal abuse (if you discount the previous sentence perhaps!) .

[Solanum]

This is simply not true, we have a very good understanding of the carbon cycle. We also have very good estimates of the amount of CO2 going into the air by our industrial activities. Where our knowledge is limited (but by no means non-existant) is in the area of whole ecosystem responses to the these changes.

I have to say I getting very tired of this argument. If anyone would like to actually give reasons or evidence for disputing what we know (and neither I nor any other scientist involved would claim to have all the answers), I will be happy to respond. otherwise au revoir.

[AstralTraveller]

I didn't notice any. Quite the reverse I would say.

[Hammer]

i think i sum it all up like this

population increasing

available land for agriculture decreasing

natural biospheres components decreasing ie. being converted to unstainable agriculture.

all planetary biospheres moving well into stress due to over use and/or poor managment.

Climate change believe it or not. I know we are seeing rain fall patern changes, sea temperature rises in east coast australia and coral seas.

Rapid depleation of global oil stocks means easy food production and distribution becomes more expensive.

This adds up to one thing in the long run less humans by a large factor.

Obi won is our only hope, sorry couldnt help that light attempt of humor.

So we are starting to see several facotrs that will lead to produce the perfect storm begining to mount.
our survival in our current political socio and economic arrangements will be based on how well we can develop solutions to these vectors.

Sitting and doing nothing means planetary populaiton decreases by several billion people in the next 100 years.

:help:

[fairway68]

My understsanding of the scientific method was as follows; propose a hypothesis and devise an experiment to prove or disprove same.

Seems to me that the problem with the IPCC is that they have devised a lovely set of models to prove that their theories are correct. Now that might be good fun but it is not good science.

I get very suspicious when scientists start out their statements by simply agreeing with the models; I don't think that you can prove a theory by creating a model which contains many of your theories.


Yours sceptically

[Solanum]

I'm sorry, but yet again this is completely wrong, your statements are just made up. The IPCC does NOT do any science. They synthesise the results of published data from around the world. They do NOT 'have' any models, they use many models from many groups, and as I said before some are the same models used for weather forecasting (obvious jokes aside, weather forecasting is generally pretty good these days). If you or any other sceptic cares to produce a mechanistic validated model then it can be included too.

On the other hand the IPCC do have a range of scenarios, which obviously have different outcomes and they report all of these, something people seem to ignore when it suits them.

Your last paragraph makes no sense, but if it means what I think it does then it is quite simply wrong too. All the models used are based on experimental science. All of the outputs are compared to actual observations. No one just makes these things up. What amazes me is how I have yet to have a discussion with a climate change sceptic who has a) actually read any of the science and/or b) produced any data that disproves the consensus (as far as it goes) on the likely effects of climate change.

I suspect that the primary problem is that science education in schools just doesn't give enough grasp of how science works and how it is validated. In fact if you compare the various assessment reports (from AR1-4), you can see how science works because you'll see that the conclusions and predictions have changed as more information has been gathered over the years.

[Argonavis]

The IPCC projections of scary increased temperatures have decreased markedly over the years. So some reality is intruding into the models. But they are models, based on hypothesis that still need to be tested.

Considering you are so big on the scientific method, perhaps you could advise what tests the AGW hypothsis has passed, and what tests have failed to falsify it.

And if you think skeptics are so ignorant, perhaps you could hold you discussions with Bob Carter or Ian Pilmer. Bob has a number of videos available on youtube.

Once again it is all ad homeniem attacks. It shows how poor the evidence is for this scam.

[Argonavis]

For ten years or more, professor David Deming has taught a course in environmental geology at the University of Oklahoma.

Professor Deming is well-known to be a global-warming skeptic. In 2006, he testified before the US Senate:

“In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

“There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. "

This hysteria is still apparent, even as global temperatures show a pronounced cooling trend. If CO2 is the prime forcer, rather than being insignificant, then there should be evidence.

http://www.nocarbontaxes.org/whatglobalwarming.html

[Whizgig]

Ok I put this to you If there is such a thing how come when I was a boy summers were longer and warmer then they are now, I used to go swimming everyday now even in the mids of or summer we would be lucky to get into the 30deg mark 3-4 days in the hole of summer, But back it the 70's we had 30+ days nearly every day all summer long. Now on the other hand also our winter is getting longer and colder so if anything we are in a global cooling not a warming, also if it is happening it not us that is doing it it is industry and governments that are at fault and it is on their heads not ours they made it this way due to their pollicies not ours.

Thats what I think anyway. :)

[Solanum]

Once, again that isn't correct. As our understanding of the climate and the changes we are generating has improved the predictions have got tighter and the most likely scenario worse. Also we are tracking the worst case scenario of the ones proposed by the IPCC.

Without meaning to be rude (and adding to your unfounded accusations of personal attacks), and I mean that sincerely, your questions really just demonstrate that you have little understanding of the what is or isn't known, how we do or don't know it and what the likely outcome is.

I suggest you and anyone else who is interested read this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

It is the summary of the 4th Assessment report for policymakers and is the simplest way of expressing what we do and don't know and how uncertain we are or aren't. It is only 18 pages and has plenty of figures.

If you have specific questions you can then refer to the main report, or I am happy to point you at the correct bit. If you want clarification I'll do my best, though I am a plant biologist not a climatologist so clearly my direct knowledge is very much greater of plant responses than climate responses.

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol: well i like your way of thinking :lol::lol:
:thumbsup:

[avandonk]

I would just like to say all you people that do not believe the computer models. Just explain to me how you would apply a second order partial differential equation to a real world model and then I will even begin to argue with you about climate change.This is your entry into the debate.

If you then pass this simple test you then may explain to me how elliptical integrals can be applied to real world problems.

If you cannot, you can not nay say climate models as you do not have a clue!

Climate change unfortunately is very real. The real world evidence is irrefutable. I keep seeing falsehoods promulgated by the fossil fuel industries.

Weather change is not climate change! Personally I don't really care as I am nearly sixty. But our children and grandchildren etc to infinitum might.

Bert

[Whizgig]

Sorry but computer models are fallible, they can not predict future events they only go by what they are programmed to say and by what is written in their program by the programmer who wants a specific result that is determinant only by the relevant data that he or she puts in but that data is wrong as no day is the same so therefore it can not work, also the program can be written to give whatever answer the programmer want regardless of the information received by the computer, as in rigged just ask the State of California voters in the last election as it is all done by computer and it spat out the winner before the election votes were at 10% so work that one out, and guess what it was right but only according to its programming and what the programmer was told to make it do by the government to get the desired result that they wanted.

[PeterM]

My answer the original question posed by xenaslave - what is the death rate likely to be from GW theory – none, well not directly.
How about the pensioner(s), sick, disabled etc barely surviving the week on a meagre pension who will suffer ill health and yes maybe even death when they can’t afford the extra $20 or $50 etc etc increase in their power bills etc, that will come about from proposed insane carbon taxes that the government are considering. Who will take that responsibility? Won’t happen? I just found my electricity supplier has been charging me 100% green power (at a premium) and $1 per week for the past year to reduce my carbon footprint. I had never asked for this. So yes, deaths may certainly occur .
Thank goodness credible scientists are now getting equal (and more) media attention and with real facts and figures. This is obviousy a concern to the GW theory / alarmists. Reputations must be at stake.
Quick story I remembered – 100 years or so years ago, public warned that increased horse transportation / traffic would have the streets feet deep in horse poo….
PeterM