What global warming will mean to you

[billvon 3,070]

Over the past fifteen years I've heard the anti-global-warming crowd gradually shift their position:

-There's no such thing as global warming! It's absurd.

-The earth is getting warmer, but that has _nothing_ to do with CO2 emissions.

-Well, OK, maybe it does, but those changes are natural and gradual and might even be good.

Now we seem to be at the "OK, the changes might be bad, but fixing the problem is expensive." But how expensive? If it costs the US trillions in lost crops, disease, damage due to storms etc at some point it will actually be cheaper to switch energy sources than pay for all the damage.

Until now, it's been hard to quantify how much damage there will be. At first it was only scientists who could measure and predict the changes. Now it's insurance companies, whose payouts for storm, flood and drought related damages are going up exponentially. Within 10 years we could be losing $150 billion a year to global warming. And that's assuming we don't reach a climactic tipping point, a point where (for example) the Gulf Stream shuts down and turns Europe and the northeast coast of the US into Alaskan tundras.

So what will it mean to the average US person? It will mean more storms to some, storms that might destroy your home. It will mean droughts to some and floods to others as climate patterns change. It will mean less reliable power as power distribution systems try to handle weather they were not designed for. It will mean more deaths from extreme weather, weather-related transportation accidents, mudslides, floods, heat and cold extremes. It will mean massive increases in insurance premiums for any property. It will mean more expensive (and potentially more dangerous) food, as farms dry up or get soaked and as farm animals try to adapt to new weather patterns.

It's all avoidable, of course, but avoiding it would require planning past four or five years ahead, and we as a country are simply incapable of doing that.

---------------------------------------

GENEVA (Reuters) - The world's second-largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, warned on Wednesday that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened to spiral out of control, forcing the human race into a catastrophe of its own making.

In a report revealing how climate change is rising on the corporate agenda, Swiss Re said the economic costs of such disasters threatened to double to $150 billion (82 billion pounds) a year in 10 years, hitting insurers with $30-40 billion in claims, or the equivalent of one World Trade Centre attack annually.

"There is a danger that human intervention will accelerate and intensify natural climate changes to such a point that it will become impossible to adapt our socio-economic systems in time," Swiss Re said in the report.

"The human race can lead itself into this climatic catastrophe -- or it can avert it."

The report comes as a growing number of policy experts warn that the environment is emerging as the security threat of the 21st century, eclipsing terrorism.

Scientists expect global warming to trigger increasingly frequent and violent storms, heat waves, flooding, tornadoes, and cyclones while other areas slip into cold or drought.

"Sea levels will continue to rise, glaciers retreat and snow cover decline," the insurer wrote.

EXPONENTIAL RISE Losses to insurers from environmental events have risen exponentially over the past 30 years, and are expected to rise even more rapidly still, said Swiss Re climate expert Pamela Heck.

"Scientists tell us that certain extreme events are going to increase in intensity and frequency in the future," Heck told Reuters by telephone. "Climate change is very much in the mind of the insurance industry."

Over the past century, the average global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Centigrade, the largest rise for the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years, Swiss Re said.

In the short- and medium-term, simply knowing that the planet is warming will allow society to adapt, for example, through infrastructure to cope with more-frequent floods or by instructing farmers to use drought-resistant cereals.

In other cases, governments need to restrict risk-taking, such as approving housing developments in low-lying areas, and improve catastrophe management capabilities.

In the long term, Swiss Re said, greenhouse gases widely thought to trigger global warming will need to be reduced, the use of fossil fuels cut and new energy technologies developed.

"The role of the insurance industry is through establishing risk adequate tariffs and to give the risk taker the opportunity to implement appropriate measures to reduce the chance of possible losses," Heck said.

[Gawain 0]

Wasn't there just a discussion about how the hot air is going to suck the cool air from the poles and start the next ice age?

This does nothing but perpetuate the argument...geez...

Quote

Over the past fifteen years I've heard the anti-global-warming crowd gradually shift their position:

-There's no such thing as global warming! It's absurd.
-The earth is getting warmer, but that has _nothing_ to do with CO2 emissions.
-Well, OK, maybe it does, but those changes are natural and gradual and might even be good.

I've heard nothing like that. I've not shifted my position.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Bill:

I've got a couple of foundational questions:

1) Exactly what temperature should the earth be?

2) How do we know what the temperature is supposed to be?

3) If the answer is anything above or below what we have now, are we simply trying to manipulate the natural climate to humankinds own preferences, thus causing ecological harm?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jumper03 0]

give me a tanker full of iron ore and I'll create another ice age....



Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Exactly what temperature should the earth be?

42

But, you get to pick the units;
degrees Fahrenheit
degrees Celsius
degrees Rankine
Kelvin
other

I like mint chocolate chip

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,070]

>1) Exactly what temperature should the earth be?

There is no temperature it should be; the temperature has been all over the map over the past 5 billion years. We just want it to not change too rapidly. A gradual climate change over 1000 years we can deal with; a metastable change forced by greenhouse gases within 10 years would be a catastrophe that would make World War II seem like a nice time to live.

>2) How do we know what the temperature is supposed to be?

See above.

>3) If the answer is anything above or below what we have now, are
> we simply trying to manipulate the natural climate to humankinds
> own preferences, thus causing ecological harm?

Climate change, even natural change, is both good and bad for the biosphere. One such change killed most of the dinosaurs (bad) but set up conditions for mammals to thrive in (good.) Similarly, a change now might be bad for mammals and good for insects. I think we would dislike that.

We are currently doing our level best to warm the planet. The question is not should we change the climate; we're doing that now. The question is - is it a good idea to try to change it as fast as we possibly can?

Let's take an analogy. You have a dialysis machine that you depend on. It should outlast you with no maintenance, but of course you never know for sure. What's your best approach?

1. Take care of it

2. Take it apart and mess with it as much as possible, figuring that any changes you make will either make it better or not affect it

[jumper03 0]

Quote

There is no temperature it should be; the temperature has been all over the map over the past 5 billion years. We just want it to not change too rapidly. A gradual climate change over 1000 years we can deal with

I'm not so sure we know what the rate of climatic change has been in the geologic past. Sure we see markers and people are working on this, but the tempo has yet to be determined unless something has been put out in the past year or so since I last looked at this.


Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[billvon 3,070]

>I'm not so sure we know what the rate of climatic change has been in the geologic past.

We have a good idea. There have been long periods of stability punctured by rapid changes, often associated by CO2 level changes. The last two thousand years have seen a relatively stable climate (within a degree) until around the 1900's. Interestingly, a decrease of only 1C between 1600 and 1900 produced what was called "the little ice age," a period of time where most of the glaciers we see today formed. Between 1000-1400, temperatures were a few tenths of a degree higher than average; this gave rise to the Medieval Warm Period, a time when grapes could be grown in England. The interesting part about that is that average temperatures changed very little, yet the change had significant effects.

Other changes have happened more quickly. Around 2300 BC, a rapid climate change destroyed several massive empires in the Middle East; it is suspected that the gulf stream shut down and plunged that part of the world into a 300-year drought. Ice cores indicate that rapid changes in snowfall amounts can happen in as little as 2-3 years, from minimal snowfall to massive amounts that last for hundreds of years.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with you on so much, bill. My point is that there is a movement to pigeonhole the earth's temperature into the current temperature and prevent any change, plus or minus.

You correctly state that the earth's temperature has swung wildly over the ages. How quickly is an issue, though. The 1400's found winemaking in England. Several centuries ago, the Yosemite Valley was under ice. We've had several ice ages in the past several thousand years for which human activity had nothin to do with.

And yet, the earth manages to regulate itself somewhat. What would we do about a metastable change caused by other than greenhouse gases?

As you said, a change might be bad for humans and insects. But what if the change is the earth's fault? Are we merely changing the natural course of things to suit our human needs and desires?

I do not have a problem with that. But it is anathema to the environmental cause to do so. Or, at the very least, to their publicly stated goals.

edited to add: I viewed your post. The shut down of the gulf stream appears natural if it happened in the past without human cause. So, should we stop it because it would make us uncomfortable? Or suck it up like the rest of nature's creatures?

I say stop natural progress. Environmetalists, if true to their dogma, would let it go.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Salamander 0]

Quote

Over the past fifteen years I've heard the anti-global-warming crowd gradually shift their position:

I have also seen the adamant global warming "specialists" look foolish time and time again.

Quote

Until now, it's been hard to quantify how much damage there will be.

No insurance company is capable of doing an unbiased and complete study to determine if this so called "global warming" has a direct affect.

First off... give me a definition of a global temperature that doesn't make me want to throw a 6 inch thick statistics book at you and then we can discuss global warming.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

1) Exactly what temperature should the earth be?

2) How do we know what the temperature is supposed to be?

3) If the answer is anything above or below what we have now, are we simply trying to manipulate the natural climate to humankinds own preferences, thus causing ecological harm?

Personally, I care very little about what temperature the earth SHOULD be. I have no doubt the temperature has changed wildly between the extreemes of ice-ages and near total drought. I don't think any scientists presume to even contemplate what point between these extremes is the "correct" one.

I do know that there's a range of temperatures where humans have the ability to lead cost-effective productive lives. This is what we should be putting our brain power towards, ensuring that our environment is supportive of US.

A lot of environmentalists make the mistake by framing the discussion in the attitude of "saving the world". This is a mistake, the world does not need us to save it. The planet known as earth will far outlast humans no matter what we do, even considering nuclear holocaust - the world will do just fine. What is threatened is the ability of humans to prosper. We don't need to save the planet, we need to save ourselves.

Humans are pretty much the only species on earth that have the ability to change the macro-environment to fit our needs. The problem is that for the last few centuries we've been doing it accidentally, and the changes we've been making are only hurting us. We need to identify what we need to live thrive and survive, and make sure thats what gets done.

The problem is that the changes we've been making ar accidental, and are not in our best interests.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[jumper03 0]

You're talking only the last few seconds there though. Hell, at one point, we think the entire planet was covered with ice with no open ocean around 1.8 billion years ago (I think that's the number). Some people disagree, but we agree there is plenty of evidence that extensive sea ice was present. How fast did it cool? we dunno. How fast did it go away? (it did cause we don't see sea ice at the equater anymore) we dunno.

I think the crux of the debate however isn't on what the Earth's temp should be or how the climate is changing - it is more along the lines of "How do we keep the climate so humans benefit the most and stay happy and don't feel guilty" at least that is how I see the entire debate.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Zenister 0]

weren't sudden climate changes also responsible for the decline of the south american empires?

according to their 'calendar' we are due for another in the near future

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"How do we keep the climate so humans benefit the most and stay happy and don't feel guilty" at least that is how I see the entire debate.

EXACTLY! This is the key fallacy of the environmentalist movement! Whether human made or natural, any changes to the earth's climate should be stopped to most benefit humans.

Environmentalists should simply admit that the goal is to make the climate the way they want to make it - in other words, fight nature.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Malfunction 0]

Quote

Exactly what temperature should the earth be?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


42

YES!!!! Someone else has read Douglass Adams!!!

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[Keith 0]

Quote

It will mean more expensive (and potentially more dangerous) food, as farms dry up or get soaked and as farm animals try to adapt to new weather patterns.

Soilent Green anyone?

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Soilent Green anyone?

mmmmm, processed dead old people....yum.

[Keith 0]

Quote

Environmentalists should simply admit that the goal is to make the climate the way they want to make it - in other words, fight nature.

How are the environmentalists trying to "fight nature" by attempting to prevent humans from altering our atmosphere?

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Soilent Green anyone?

SOYLENT GREEN..................................IS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It will not take all that much change to totally destabilize the food supply of the BILLIONS of mouths that prefer something to put in their bellys on a daily basis. Hungry people can be a very bad thing when they want your food.


The times they are a chan....ging.

I would think the climate that we as a species has gotten used to would be far better than an unkown climate that may not support all of us on this planet.

[elfanie 0]

Quote

Quote

Environmentalists should simply admit that the goal is to make the climate the way they want to make it - in other words, fight nature.

How are the environmentalists trying to "fight nature" by attempting to prevent humans from altering our atmosphere?

Humans are part of nature..
if we do something, it's no different than any other animal doing it.

If the cows fart enough to cause a problem - that is nature.

Humans are part of the evolutionary path - and only time will tell if we will last or not...but we are part of nature and evolution of this planet.

--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings

[Keith 0]

Quote

Humans are part of nature..
if we do something, it's no different than any other animal doing it.

Humans, as far as I know, are the only animals on earth that have caused change in climate. Cows farting isn't exactly the same, although I do get your point.

edited to add: As far as I'm concerned, the kindest thing we can do for mother earth is allow humans to bring about our own extinction.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Environmentalists should simply admit that the goal is to make the climate the way they want to make it - in other words, fight nature.

How are the environmentalists trying to "fight nature" by attempting to prevent humans from altering our atmosphere?

Humans are part of nature..
if we do something, it's no different than any other animal doing it.

If the cows fart enough to cause a problem - that is nature.

Humans are part of the evolutionary path - and only time will tell if we will last or not...but we are part of nature and evolution of this planet.

That doesn't answer the question though. Ok, assume we're part of nature and anything we do is natural. Than how is making the choice to not pollute the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels fighting nature?

[meltdown 0]

Spoken like a true liberal. Religion, only without the God part.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Environmentalists should simply admit that the goal is to make the climate the way they want to make it - in other words, fight nature.

How are the environmentalists trying to "fight nature" by attempting to prevent humans from altering our atmosphere?

Here's how. Global warming is natural. Environmentalists typically argue that it must be stopped at all costs. Why? Because of the "Earth in Balance." In reality, they wish to keep the status quo. Therefore, blame humans for a phenomenon that occurs naturally.

I agree there is a definite correlation between human activity since 1900 and a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since 1900. I also agree that there is a correlation between the AAD and the injury rate from low turns. After all, low turn injuries really skyrocketed after the FXC came out, and especially after the CYPRES debuted. Before the AAD, low turn injuries were almost unheard of.

Correlaton DOES NOT equal causation. This is especially true considering that billvon has pointed out that warming and ice ages and shutting down of the gulf stream and extinctions and rises in CO2 and drops in CO2 have occurred throughout history, and well before the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

If it were demonstrated that this warming phenomenon, shutting down of the gulf stream, and increasing CO2 have not bee seen before, then I'll say, "Hey. Something is happeneing that we haven't seen before. Maybe it's human activity that caused it."

But when the historical record demonstrates that this happens time and time again for time immemorial, I say, "Why is this any different from what we had no control over in the past? It's happened countless times before."

In other words, global warming is natural. By trying to stop it, we are fighting with nature. Why? Because nature might have plans for the world that we do not like.

Kinda reminds me of ecotourism. People want to experience nature, and do so via immunizations, water purifiers and insect repellant, all the while destroying the natural habitat.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Keith 0]

Quote

In other words, global warming is natural. By trying to stop it, we are fighting with nature.

I don't think there's a big debate that global warming is natural. I think the debate is how much are humans exacerbating it.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville