

US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ... - newacc
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/17/17climatewire-us-study-projects-how-unequivocal-warming-wi-29186.html

======
pragmatic
Just in time for one of the coldest summers on record.

It's hard for people to fathom the thought of global warming while their local
weather is in fact colder.

Jared Diamond's Collapse is a good reference.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)>

What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree and doom the island
think as he used his stone axe?

While I remain skeptical about global climate change, I can also appreciate
the fact that polluting less and taking care of the environment is a good
thing.

The problem is that even as America becomes cleaner, China, India and the rest
of the third world are burning trees and coal like crazy.

~~~
lilsis
I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is
never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this?

We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's
tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after
all, we're on a giant ball of water.

I subscribe to the theory of giant ball of nuclear fire leads to warmer
temperatures -> increase in ocean temperatures -> release of dissolved CO2 &
increase in water vapor -> greater greenhouse effect

I don't hate the environment and obviously we should be reducing our impact,
but cleaner air and water should be cause enough.

If anyone can explain to me why my reasoning is flawed I'll be happy to
champion the idea that global warming is primarily driven by man... it would
actually make my life easier to embrace it as fact. However, as it stands now,
it seems to me a rather arrogant proposition.

~~~
lutorm
It doesn't matter if 99.9% of greenhouse effect is not caused by humans, if
the extra 0.1% is. The gross heat fluxes in and out are enormous, but because
they precisely balance they're not noticeable. An extra 0.1%, while very small
compared to the total heat flux, is a purely net flux because it's not
canceled out (until the Earth has warmed). It's simple conservation of energy.

Think of it this way: If you have a gallon of water and you pour it back and
forth between two containers, you will eventually run out of water even if you
lose only a few drops each time.

Another example: If you trade your assets back and forth between different
stocks (and they don't change value), it doesn't matter how much money you
start with, if you do it for long enough you will eventually run out of money
due to the transaction cost.

A small effect can have a big impact if it's allowed to accumulate over time,
and that's precisely what's happening with the greenhouse effect.

~~~
lilsis
This is a good argument assuming that the Earth's heat fluxes are in balance,
but I don't believe this to be the case, what with ice ages, etc.

------
anon-e-moose
On the other hand, a lot more people die from cold, so if you decrease that,
it could be a net win...

[http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-
grea...](http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-
lifesaver)

Let me be even more sarcastic and snide... maybe people who are afraid of
global warming are close minded and afraid of change...

~~~
jshen
Wanting to avoid death, disease, and destruction is not the same as a general
fear of change.

~~~
pj
I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads
to death and destruction. We could move the cities inland. We could optimize
buildings to keep people cooler. We could find more efficient forms of energy
to enable more indoor climate control.

The current stress right now is to _stop_ climate control. We humans believe
we can stop climate control, but what if we can't? What if it actually _is_
due to sun spots and beyond our control? It seems like it would make sense to
_adapt_ to the change rather than try to stop the change.

~~~
jshen
Sorry, had to reply again.

"I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change
leads to death and destruction."

What I was saying is that global warming will lead to death and destruction.

"We could move the cities inland. "

I love how people say this like it's no biggie. Let's hire some contractors
and bam, city moved. LOL. I'm guessing it's a lot easier to reduce are use of
fossil fuels than it is to move a few major cities. what do you think?

~~~
pj
China moved hundreds of millions of people away from the lake formed behind
the three gorges dam. That's ultimately what _will_ happen. Either we'll build
levies around the whole continent to protect coastal areas or the people will
move. It'll probably be a combination of both.

~~~
jshen
China doesn't have the same level of infrastructure as we do. Imagine trying
to move large chunks of Los Angeles. That's a completely different animal
isn't it? Doesn't it seem easier and cheaper to reduce our energy use than to
move multiple cities like Los Angeles?

I personally think it's a better idea to avoid serious problems than to accept
the enormous pain that will come with ideas like "hey, change is normal".

~~~
pj
I don't believe reducing our energy consumption is going to have much effect
on global warming. I think the sun is way more powerful an influence on our
climate than humans.

~~~
jshen
I don't understand your point of view. The sun certainly can affect climate in
large ways, but that does not mean that all climate change is due to the sun
or that human activity can't cause climate change.

"But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate
suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar
activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is
the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall
over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .

Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet
output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct,
reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been
no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity."

source: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-
gl...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-
warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html)

------
anamax
I measure how serious someone is about CO2 and global warming by their
enthusiasm for nuclear power.

A govt that claims to be concerned about CO2 that isn't pouring concrete for
dozens of reactors isn't worried about CO2, it's worried about something else.

It's porkulus II, bigger and badder.

------
mildweed
Ask YC: How will 'Unequivocal Warming' provide new opportunities? Technology
is our hammer, so what can we start making now?

A weather aggregator and tracker (and projector)?

Information services that decrease carbon emissions? Ex:
<http://neighborhoodfruit.com>

Let's brainstorm right here.

------
gabeybaby
Let Carl Zimmer sort it out for you:
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/27/unchecked-...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/27/unchecked-
ice-a-saga-in-five-chapters/)

------
swombat
Please fix the URL to the NYTimes URL, since this is a NYTimes article...

------
TrevorJ
I still haven't heard convincing arguments for global warming as fact. Climate
change, yes, but warming as a result of human activity on a global scale no.
Chief among my concerns is the fact that Mars seems to be warming as well.
[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-
resp...](http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-
for-planet-warming/)

------
mynameishere
Not sure why it would lower crop production.

Also not sure why maple syrup is worth mentioning.

~~~
Alex3917
"Not sure why it would lower crop production."

The conditions that crops need aren't based on average temperature, but rather
they're based on the minimum temperature, the maximum temperature, and how
long it takes to go from very cold to very warm and vice versa. With global
warming the climate zones don't just shift north, but rather you get these
situations where certain crops just won't grow at all. For example, grape
vines have certain mechanisms to protect the buds during winter, but these
mechanisms get disabled as soon as you get the first warm snap. The problem is
that if it then gets cold again you lose all the buds, so no grapes.

With global warming what happens is you still have very low minimum
temperatures in winter, but the average temperature is warmer and so you have
these temporary warm snaps disable all the natural protection mechanisms that
have evolved over thousands of years. So if you just move the vines north then
they all die because their cold protection mechanisms get disabled and the
buds freeze, and you can't keep them where they are because it's too hot in
the summer so they die also. So what happens is that you just can't
successfully grow good wine grapes anymore. Now obviously this is a pretty
trivial example, but there are similar things going on for a lot of our major
food crops. You can't just move them north, so we're just going to have major
food shortages.

Another good example is wheat rusts. Every winter our top scientists go down
to Mexico and create new types of wheat based on whatever rust is currently
spreading. The only reason they have time to do this is because the wheat
sprouts later in the US than it does in Mexico. But with global warming all
the wheat will come up much closer together, so what may happen is that we
just don't have wheat anymore.

(And believe me, wheat rust is pretty much the scariest shit you can imagine.
There's a reason it was one of the biblical plagues.)

~~~
randallsquared
_For example, grape vines have certain mechanisms to protect the buds during
winter, but these mechanisms get disabled as soon as you get the first warm
snap. The problem is that if it then gets cold again you lose all the buds, so
no grapes._

But in fact, we know that grapes were grown at more northerly areas in the
British Isles in warmer historical times. If it has been done, it's too late
to suggest it's impossible.

~~~
Alex3917
"But in fact, we know that grapes were grown at more northerly areas in the
British Isles in warmer historical times. If it has been done, it's too late
to suggest it's impossible."

That's vitis labrusca, I was talking about vitis vinifera. I have no doubt it
can be done to some extent, but there's a large difference between being able
to do something in theory and having large quantities of good wine for
relatively cheap.

