Is global warming all that bad?

[BlackAdder]

I know I'm kicking a potential wasp's nest here, but in the UK and Ireland anyway I think a bit of warming would be very welcome. Some British people would remember the snows of last winter, which were devestating, not to mention hadn't shown up in a while.

I'm not trying to get into a debate as to whether global warming exists or not. Manmade global warming is, as far as I'm concerned, practically non-existant (and evidence supports this, as does common sense). Make of that what you will.

I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on this.

[Duckie]

A longterm trend is naturally not the same thing as a single point. The snows of last year may have been rough, but global warming isn't about last year's snow- it's about climate, not weather. Climate is a long term average and a global phenominon.

It is similar to gambling. On average, a gambler loses money if the house has designed the course well. Nobody can say "Gambling isn't all that bad, why last week I won a net profit!" because that's not the point.

[Chardok]

The implications of global warming stretch FAR beyond simply "Gee, it would be nice if it were warmer here". We're talking about a radical alteration of the fundamental functions of climate. Ocean currents being altered, delivering warm/cold water to places that are not equipped to recieve it, and also not delivering vital nutrients to the places that need it to sustain a viable ecosystem. Increased cloud cover resulting in runaway greenhouse warming, not to mention reduced sunlight penetrating said cloud cover, and the list goes on and on. Global warming at its current pace is, in every concievable way, a very, very bad thing, and to buy in to the minimalization of its effects is empowering exactly the type of people who don't want running shit.

[Spoonist]

but in the UK and Ireland anyway I think a bit of warming would be very welcome.

Sorry but if the world becomes warmer UK and Ireland will become cooler.
Heard about this thing called the Gulf stream? If not check this out:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-ear ... ation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream#Properties

[Serafina]

Don't think about it as "global warming" - think about it as "climate change".

Because the warming is really just the cause, the climate change is the effect. And that effect is very hard to predict, and what we can predict so far does not look pleasant for the world as a whole.
Keep in mind that the climate you are living in is not highly sensitive, so so far you've got at worse a few more storms or a winter that was slightly more chilly or somesuch - nothing spectacular and clearly attributable to climate change. The same is not true all over the world - for example, we can track the growth of some desert areas and it is clearly linked to global warming.

The general prediction about the results of climate change is a more volatile, less stable climate. That means more extreme temperatures in either direction, excesses in aridity or humidity and also more violent weather phenomena.
Of course this will not hit every area of the world equally bad, and some parts might profit from these changes. But remember that people generally settled mostly in areas with favorable, stable climates - that's where our large population centers tend to be. Those areas are likely to get their weather patterns destabilized and changed - most likely to something less favorable than they have now.

Of course the impact on an individual might not be that big. The impact on agriculture or water supply in some areas however will likely be significant.
So don't think "it will get too hot and we'll sweat all year" or "the gulfstream will collapse and we'll freeze to death". Think "crop failure due to drought", think "higher hurricane risk in coastal areas" - stuff like that.
Climate change won't bring about the end of the world, but it will alleviate existing problems and throw in some new ones to make things a lot more uncomfortable. The poor areas of the world will suffer the most from it.

[Zaune]

but in the UK and Ireland anyway I think a bit of warming would be very welcome.

Sorry but if the world becomes warmer UK and Ireland will become cooler.
Heard about this thing called the Gulf stream? If not check this out:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-ear ... ation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream#Properties

That's pretty much what I was going to say, only with less tact and more profanity.

[Chardok]

<snip>

I feel like you're minimizing the interconnectivity (SP? CON?) of the elements that combine to create the climate. Even small alterations in rainfall patterns magnify problems as you both move up the food chain, and what I like to think of as the climate chain. desertification of the amazon, for instance, would effectively be like removing the lungs of the earth. The Rain forests create their own climate in addition to playing a vital role in the global climate. a dry amazon means greater risk of massive fires, spewing millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming even more which results in further desertification, and so on and so forth.

Alterations in the salinity of the ocean due to melting ice caps as a result of global warming can fundamentally alter the nature and flow of the thermohaline all over the world, wrecking heat and nutrient distribution which will almost certainly cause mass extinction of many sensitive species of plants and fish and that moves right up the food chain as well, and not slowly.

Frankly, I feel that if global warming continues in the way it has been, hurricanes and harsh winters will be the least of our worries.

[Simon_Jester]

I know I'm kicking a potential wasp's nest here, but in the UK and Ireland anyway I think a bit of warming would be very welcome. Some British people would remember the snows of last winter, which were devestating, not to mention hadn't shown up in a while.

As noted above, "global warming," an increase in average temperature across the entire world, does not automatically mean warming in the British Isles. If climate science were so simple, any fool would be able to do it, and then there would be fewer fools claiming that manmade global warming can't be happening, and that while we're at it, Hy-Brasil can't possibly be sinking.

I'm not trying to get into a debate as to whether global warming exists or not. Manmade global warming is, as far as I'm concerned, practically non-existant (and evidence supports this, as does common sense).

Citation requested.

Were you not trying to get into a debate, you would not speak a load of bollocks and try to pass it off as though it is common sense.

[Broomstick]

Even if you live in an area that "wins" with climate change, you can still be screwed because if you're entrenched enough in the industrial world to be posting on the internet your life is interconnected with that of hundreds of millions of others.

Let's say your area becomes warmer, which you see as a good. Well, is your local architecture suited to a warmer environment, or will you have people dropping dead from heat during the summer months? Will a warmer climate mean more intense storms? Will it alter rainfall patterns in your area, which may disrupt the local ecosystems until a new equilibrium is reached? Will a warmer environment allow different parasites and pests to affect the local flora and fauna? You personally may be more comfortable but your area could still have negative effects.

Meanwhile, beyond the horizon, there will be losers with climate change. Rising sea levels might lead to millions of refugees seeking new homes - and some might move in next to you, which may be good or may be bad, but will certainly change things. Agricultural collapses may lead to starvation, war, and disease which could have knock-on effects to your society. More intense hurricanes and typhoons may have significant economic impact, as can flooding.

At present, it seems that climate change may well result in more losers than winners, and the economic and social impact of that will extend to where the winners live. Which is why you should be concerned, other than just empathy for others.

[Surlethe]

As I recall, a study estimated that global warming would reduce world GDP by about 4% over the next century. Fixing global warming would cost a little more, about 5%. That's in terms of total aggregate wealth.

However, the effects of global warming won't be nicely distributed: we're not all going to be 4% less wealthy than we would otherwise have been. Instead, some of us will profit (I'm looking at you, Canadian plains), and some of us are going to get major shafting (I'm looking at you, Bangledesh). The third world will be hit hard. The first world has the wealth to mitigate all but the most extreme effects of global warming (hell, the Netherlands has made a country out of keeping the sea out) and is not, I believe, set to experience the most extreme changes. It also has the wealth to bid resources it wants away from the third world (which may need them more).

The point? The costs and benefits of global warming will not be distributed evenly.

[Magis]

I'm going to chime in here with full disclosure that I'm not a climate scientist. However, I do have quite a lot of education regarding similar methodologies to what is used in climate science.

I'd say that any confidence related to climate change predictions is low. The rate of global average temperature increase (which I think is currently projected to be 2 degrees C/decade) is the result of an energy balance problem. In that sense it is similar to predicting the reactivity of a nuclear reactor, which is a neutron balance problem. In these types of balancing equations, small uncertainties in input parameters tend to yield large uncertainties in what are called integral output parameters (i.e. rate of temp. increase). Something that is of critical importance to this balance are feedback mechanisms, and I've read enough papers on climate change research to know that not all the climate feedback mechanisms regarding temperature changes and CO2 concentrations are well understood. Certainly it's reasonable to conclude that Earth's climate, as a relatively stable, long-lasting system will tend to have strong negative feedback mechanisms to counter various perturbations.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is that I think any current predictions are little more than a shot in the dark. It wouldn't surprise me if the true consequences are ultimately much worse or much better than currently predicted. At the very least, local consequences have especially low confidence, because we don't really have the knowledge or computational resources to properly conduct CFD-type analysis on those types of problems.

[Surlethe]

I'd submit that even though several feedback mechanisms are not well-understood, they're understood enough to be able to estimate uncertainty. c.f. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... s10-5.html

[Shroom Man 777]

Doesn't Global Warming also correlate to rising sea levels?

Hey Bladder, I hear Britain could use higher sea levels.

[Zaune]

Doesn't Global Warming also correlate to rising sea levels?

Hey Bladder, I hear Britain could use higher sea levels.

Some people would honestly consider the complete obliteration of Norfolk a good thing, actually. Can't say I'd be sorry to see London go either.

[Fire Fly]

If you're just looking at the effects of weather, you're not thinking big picture. Changing climates is going to result in changing social/political attitudes, economic, and geopolitical dynamics. What's going to happen when major population centers start having water shortages, less viable fishing and agricultural grounds, more droughts, and more natural disasters? All of these things can be affected by climate change. Those people will start exerting more pressure on their political leaders to fix their problems and this usually translates into more aggressive foreign policies. And if said political leaders can't fix those problems, people will start migrating en masse and as we've seen, this usually creates all sorts of even more complicated problems.

[BlackAdder]

Where to start...?

Firstly, you can ignore the reference to last year's winter. I'm not sure what I had in mind when I

Doesn't Global Warming also correlate to rising sea levels?

Hey Bladder, I hear Britain could use higher sea levels.

There's no proof of that at all.

Actually, most of these posts can be replied to with "Where's the evidence?"

Now here's some more information.
Recent research at the Utrecht University suggests that the Black Death was influenced by the arrival of the Little Ice Age in c. 1500AD.
The Medieval Warm Period in c.1000AD was much warmer than today is.
Meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather two days in advance. Why should 50 or 100 years in advance change anything?

And, just for Simon_Jester:

Do you know what else contributes to climate change orders of magnitude more than human activity does?

1. Termites. Outweigh us 10 to 1 and produce methane, which is far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.
2. Anything that is alive today, thanks to respiration which has CO2 as a by-product.
3. The ocean. Produces water vapour, which is the most potent greenhouse gas, and plenty CO2 as well.
4. Volcanic eruptions. 'Nuff said.

[Broomstick]

Meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather two days in advance. Why should 50 or 100 years in advance change anything?

Actually.... yes, they can. Weather predicting has taken enormous strides within my lifetime, and 1-2 days we're pretty accurate. Not completely accurate, but yes, 1 to 2 days we really do have a pretty good idea of the weather.

[Zaune]

Firstly, you can ignore the reference to last year's winter.

And the dozen-odd increasingly severe winters before last? And the flooding, of course, let's not forget that. Oh, and the hosepipe bans of course, though even I have to admit that was mostly to do with privatised water companies cutting corners. Need I go on?

Honestly, if Erik The Viking wasn't made about thirty years too early I'd wonder if Terry Jones didn't intend that scene to be a metaphor for climate-change denial.

[SCRawl]

Meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather two days in advance. Why should 50 or 100 years in advance change anything?

I just want to cherry pick this one little ignorant point and use it to demonstrate your failure. Yes, weather reports are often wrong. No, we're not talking about weather: we're talking about climate. Your point is a bit like saying that because meteorologists can't tell you whether or not it will rain on July 10, 2011, they can't tell you that it is overwhelmingly likely that it will be much colder on December 10, 2011 than July 10. Seasonal trends are reasonably predictable, and with enough data (and sufficiently developed models) it is possible to make accurate predictions years or even centuries in advance. Again, not about whether or not it will rain on July 10, 2111, but what the global mean temperature will be.

[El Moose Monstero]

4. Volcanic eruptions. 'Nuff said.

In the short term human timescale, this isn't true. Whilst it may be true that very large and prolonged volcanic eruptions can produce large quantities of CO2, the average annual CO2 flux from persistent volcanic degassing is lower than anthropogenic emissions. If people need more than my word on that, I can dig out the exact article tomorrow when I figure out where I put it, but even a cursory trawl through the relevant papers and even wiki can tell you anthropogenic emissions being on the order of gigatons, whilst an average year of persistant volcanic degassing will be somewhere around 10's to 100's Mt of CO2.

[D.Turtle]

I love skepticalscience.com.

I know I'm kicking a potential wasp's nest here, but in the UK and Ireland anyway I think a bit of warming would be very welcome. Some British people would remember the snows of last winter, which were devestating, not to mention hadn't shown up in a while.

Congratulations - thats only the third most popular argument used. Here is the rebuttal: Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

I'm not trying to get into a debate as to whether global warming exists or not.

Of course not. Since you would lose the argument

Manmade global warming is, as far as I'm concerned, practically non-existant (and evidence supports this, as does common sense). Make of that what you will.

Look at the sentence before this one - see any problem with putting both of these sentences right after each other?

As for your "arguments":
There is a clear consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming and humans are causing it.

You'll have to do a bit better than citing "common-sense" to go against that.

Actually, most of these posts can be replied to with "Where's the evidence?"

So, human output clearly raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, a well-understood mechanism for rising CO2 levels causing global warming, and measured temperatures rising al over the globe in the predicted fashion isn't enough for you? Of course there is even more evidence beyond that: Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

Once again, 97% of all climate scientists agree that the globe is warming and we are causing it. How do you think they arrived at this conclusion?

The Medieval Warm Period in c.1000AD was much warmer than today is.

Argument Nr. 30. Answer: Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.

Meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather two days in advance. Why should 50 or 100 years in advance change anything?

Argument Nr. 58. Answer: Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.

Do you know what else contributes to climate change orders of magnitude more than human activity does?

1. Termites. Outweigh us 10 to 1 and produce methane, which is far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

Wow, congratulations on finding an argument so stupid it isn't on skeptical science.
Have you maybe thought about exactly how much methane they output? Weighing 10 times as much as the pure mass of humanity (which I generously interpret your stupid comparison to mean) is simpy irrelevant when looking at the output.
Looking at Wikipedia, I find:

Termites also contain methanogenic microorganisms in their gut. However, some of these microorganisms are so unique that they live nowhere else in the world except in the third gut of termites. These microorganisms also break down biotic components to produce ethanol, as well as methane byproduct. However, unlike ruminants who lose 20 percent of the energy from the plants they eat, termites only lose 2 percent of their energy in the process.[4] Thus comparatively, termites do not have to eat as much food as ruminants to obtain the same amount of energy, and give off proportionally less methane.

But, there is one more thing one can do: Look at the amount of methane in the atmosphere before we started spewing out gigatons of it, and compare that with the level of methane we find now:
Last 400k years (CH4=methane=green line): large image
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lation.jpg
Last 30 years:

Yes, I'm sure we had nothing at all to do with the fact that methane levels were rapidly rising and are now more than double what they were before.

2. Anything that is alive today, thanks to respiration which has CO2 as a by-product.

And this insignificant in the face of the additional CO2 we are throwing into the atmosphere.
Also fits quite well with argument Nr. 33 "Human CO2 Output is a tiny % of CO2 emmisions.
Answer: The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

3. The ocean. Produces water vapour, which is the most potent greenhouse gas, and plenty CO2 as well.

Argument Nr. 34: "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas".
Answer: Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.

4. Volcanic eruptions. 'Nuff said.

Argument Nr. 71.
Answer: Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
'Nuff said.

Anymore bullshit you have to say? But if you do, please first look if it is addressed on skeptical science - saves me a few minutes of work.

[Simon_Jester]

You'll have to do a bit better than citing "common-sense" to go against that.

I wouldn't dignify it by the term "common sense." Common sense is something a person develops over time by actually thinking about issues- like a muscle, it needs exercise. If your common sense is flabby and weak, you wind up making stupid judgments with it because you think you know things you flat out don't know.

My common sense tells me global warming is real, because I look at the state of the north polar ice pack and it's fucking obvious, and I look at my experience with large scientific communities who've spent twenty, thirty, or more years hammering shit out in peer reviewed journals and figure they usually know their shit.

[D.Turtle]

I wouldn't dignify it by the term "common sense." Common sense is something a person develops over time by actually thinking about issues- like a muscle, it needs exercise. If your common sense is flabby and weak, you wind up making stupid judgments with it because you think you know things you flat out don't know.

Which is why I put common sense in quotation marks. Citing common sense in an argument against global warming just shows the ignorance of the person making that argument. After all, what normal person has such a good grasp of the intricacies of the dynamic global climate system in order to develop a common sense feeling of what is really happening and what effects various changes will have. When people who have studied this stuff for decades still often enough see unexpected results - that should tell you something: this stuff is difficult.

My common sense tells me global warming is real, because I look at the state of the north polar ice pack and it's fucking obvious, and I look at my experience with large scientific communities who've spent twenty, thirty, or more years hammering shit out in peer reviewed journals and figure they usually know their shit.

Definitely.

The thing is that nowadays you really don't even have to look directly at peer-reviewed journals - which can be difficult sometimes if you aren't at a university. There are numerous blogs out there by the scientists themselves in which they cover the various problems, uncertainties, results, etc.

Scientists are becoming better and better at putting their stuff out there were everyone can see it and putting it out there in a format pretty much everyone can understand. This makes it possible for a layman like me to follow along with the various research projects, the results, ideas, thoughts, etc. And you can learn a lot that way. Not to mention that this stuff is often very interesting. More interesting than repetition number 306 of argument number 7 - which is what you get with deniers.

Ignorant repetitive arguments used by anthropogenic global warming deniers (they do not deserve the term skeptics) is strongly reminiscent of the tactics used by creationists.

[NecronLord]

1. Termites. Outweigh us 10 to 1 and produce methane, which is far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

Wow, congratulations on finding an argument so stupid it isn't on skeptical science.
Have you maybe thought about exactly how much methane they output? Weighing 10 times as much as the pure mass of humanity (which I generously interpret your stupid comparison to mean)

Are you certain that's what he means?

[NecronLord]

I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on this.

My first thought is... where is your climatology PhD?

What makes you think you, presumably a lay person, know more than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists in the world? Do you have any qualifications in the matter (qualifications are after all, proof of competence in a topic) or any specialist knowledge they lack?