Global Warming Death Rate

[Solanum]

Originally Posted by GrampianStars

What a load
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

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 (David)]

Originally Posted by JohnH

... complete baloney...

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

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 (David)]

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 (David)]

Originally Posted by Ian Robinson

Well , this could be estimated from :

- deaths due to global warming caused famines and regional droughts ....

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

A frail person with a high fever dies on a hot, dry day of heat exhaustion....

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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 he knows everything

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

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 (William)]

Originally Posted by Solanum

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 -

This is patent drivel.

What climate change???

The temperature record over the last 30 years 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. This is unadulterated by the UHI.

The 10 year data 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".

Originally Posted by Solanum

If you go to http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm you will have access to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report.

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!

Originally Posted by Argonavis

This is patent drivel.

What climate change???

The temperature record over the last 30 years 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. This is unadulterated by the UHI.

The 10 year data show global cooling.

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 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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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".

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.

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

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 (William)]

Originally Posted by Solanum

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.

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:

"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, 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 (William)]

Originally Posted by Solanum

One more thing. Freeman Dyson doesn't actually deny climate change - he certainly doesn't deny that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures.

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]

Originally Posted by 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:

"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, 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (David)]

Originally Posted by Solanum

And despite your accusation of ad hominem attacks I don't believe I have made any personal abuse

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

[Hammer (Andrew)]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.