Higher CO2 levels will increase crop yields for many types of foods and in general flip back as the world greens to soak it up.
While some will correctly identify deforestation, animal farming, and fossil fuel usage, most over look the costs in making concrete and the building boom as more of the world gets richer won't help that come down.
> The name change from "global warming" to "climate change" was, to my mind, less about science and more about a marketing effort to deal with the fact the temperatures had plateaued over the last 10-20
Someone that can say that the term have changed from global warming to climate change is because has an agenda because it is false.
Never. The issue with climate change is it's not going to harm wealthy people, so it's not a problem for them. In other words bad shit might happen to 75% of the worlds population, but so what.
During the Irish potato famine, Ireland exported food. Think about that for a little bit. Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food. Cormac O'Grada points out that, in Ireland before and after the famine, "Although the potato crop failed, the country was still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the population. But that was a 'money crop' and not a 'food crop' and could not be interfered with."[80] Net result, 1 million people died.
Yes, large numbers of people really are that evil.
Climate change is already harming wealthy people in the UK who bought nice houses on flood plains or near the Thames.
It's no longer possible to buy insurance in some areas - the insurance companies are ahead of the game on modelling climate change impacts - and many people are trying to move away from those areas, with varying degrees of success.
Parts of the country are literally becoming uninhabitable.
I had to drive through a flash flood today, and it made me wonder just how much worse the weather can get. At some point in the next few decades we'll probably start having tropical hurricanes - which will be immense fun in a country that's completely unprepared for them.
Also, London is a climate disaster waiting to happen. The Thames Barrier protects London from tidal flood water, but it won't do anything at all to prevent the kind of storms that hit France and Germany last week.
As a total percentage of the world's land a very small percentage will become "uninhabitable", though right?
And much more currently uninhabited land will now become usable. There is tons of land in Canada and Russia that is currently way too cold to do anything with.
TBH, the world would be a better place if it was a couple degrees warmer.
It is amazing that the people making money from burning carbon are denying anything is going on while the companies that have to take on the risk won't insure against it. I have always wondered if we could just merge Exxon and AIG and let them fight it out internally.
Excellent point. It will affect different places differently, and those with means to work around it will suffer less than those without.
For example, Arctic shipping may become a year-round possibility, opening up the shortest routes between the east coast of Asia and either side of the northern Atlantic. Parts of Arctic countries may open up for intensive agriculture.
Meanwhile, the Maldives will be underwater, desertification will claim certain glasslands... this stuff is complex.
Yea, not everyone has that luxury. If you said something along the lines of "I've been contacting my state representative to push for more reform, donating to 'X' to aid in public awareness, etc", I would have given you the pat on the back you so obviously crave. And what about recycling, or purchasing avenues which ensure re-population? Plenty we can all do other than the current popular hipster "in" thing.
Now whilst its true the sun is heating up before it goes super nova millions of years in the future, which is what alot of the global warming fear is based on, and yes man has contributed a small % of CO2 by releasing CO2 from fossil fuels and cut down trees, the biggest threat facing mankind in the next 30 years is the Grand Solar Minimum.
A Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) is where the sunspots in the 11 year solar cycle reduce in frequency and strength and extreme weather becomes common place.
Sun spots reduce extreme weather events.
The last GSM was seen during the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum, which are now classed as mini ice ages. When this occurred we had things like increased volcanic activity which lead to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer but extreme cold weather with temperatures seen in the UK of -37 Degrees C, sea ports and the English channel freezing over, extreme winds which did things like blow copious amounts of sand inland, leading to houses being buried in places like Santon Downham, massive inland sand dunes which is what Thetford Forest is planeted on in a bid to return the soil back to some use, but most importantly estimates suggest around 25% of the global population died due to cold and famine due to crop failures.
Today we have increased crop yields so whilst more land has been turned over to agriculture with modern farming practices, the risk is still very much a major threat in the next few decades as a hectare will feed more mouths today than it did during the medieval ice age and the global population has ballooned since the introduction of oil.
There are steps you can take yourself though to reduce your risk, like buying suitable farm land whilst also investing in solar which can power air source heat pumps in case energy supplies & communication become disrupted due to extreme weather events.
1 Watt of solar power can provide upto 3 Watts of heat energy from air source heat pumps. These are just like air con units working in reverse.
Now whilst no one wants to create a panic, looking at the facts in context is important and these points we need to bear in mind.
Firstly there were no meteorological offices during the medieval ice ages, so the evidence amassed by Professor Brian Fagan which you can read about in his book
"The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850" explains how man was affected and were very likely the drivers of political events that led to the French Revolution, the Irish Potatoe famine and more.
Its also worth pointing out that differences in the scientific community means no one really knows whether our manmade CO2 is going to benefit us or not when considering plants grow better with more CO2.
So there you go, a brief introduction of what TPTB are currently capitalizing on, if you fancy capitalizing on it yourself in innovative ways yourself.
"Now whilst its true the sun is heating up before it goes super nova millions of years in the future, which is what alot of the global warming fear is based on...."
This is absolute nonsense and I sincerely hope you're trolling and don't actually believe this. The Sun is too small to go supernova, and the gradual heating it experiences happens on timescales far too long for most people to care about. The Sun's evolution will eventually render Earth uninhabitable unless something is done, but that's in something like half a billion years. The consequences of global warming due to increased greenhouse gas emissions are being felt now, and will become acute within decades or centuries.
> Its nice picking your time scales and models to convey a message
Yeah, they're totally cherry-picking by only looking at the last four million years. Shocking.
You're right that if we go back, say, 100 million years, we find CO2 levels somewhat higher than today. Other things we find: temperatures 20-40 degrees C higher at the poles than today; something like half of Europe and the US under water.
> When this occurred we had things like increased volcanic activity
So far as I know, there is no reason to think that solar minima cause volcanic activity. It is true that there was a big eruption during the Dalton minimum, which is probably the main actual reason for the "year without a summer".
> estimates suggest around 25% of the global population died
Whose estimates?
> whilst no one wants to create a panic
It looks very much as if you do.
> no one really knows whether our manmade CO2 is going to benefit us or not
No one really knows anything about anything. But you can look in the IPCC reports to see what a bunch of smart well-informed people think are the likely impacts. Or you can throw up your hands and say "no one really knows". Your call.
I get the impression that because you have not heard of this you deny it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005xgcj
"As the Sun ages, it will gradually become a red giant as its hydrogen fuel begins to run out. Its surface will expand to approximately 100 times its current size as its core shrinks, and the inner Solar System will be engulfed."
>So far as I know, there is no reason to think that solar minima cause volcanic activity
Apart from the fact volcanic activity stepped up during the last event.
>Whose estimates?
Read the book by Professor Fagan. Its a long read but worth it.
>It looks very much as if you do.
Far from it, unless you believe in not informing the public.
The IPCC were hacked and exposed.
Worth understanding Milgram's obedience to authority. Just whose data do you trust?
It might have been better if you'd supplied some of those words, because that picture doesn't appear to me to indicate anything on the way as major as the Dalton, let alone the Maunder, minimum.
> As the Sun ages [...]
Yeah, oddly enough that isn't what I was questioning. You made two claims that are just flatly wrong. (1) That the sun is going to go supernova. Nope, not happening. Wrong sort of star. (2) That increases in the sun's temperature on its way to this alleged supernova are "what alot of the global warming fear is based on". The sun's temperature and luminosity aren't going to change appreciably on a timescale shorter than many million years.
> The IPCC were hacked and exposed.
What?
(Are you mixing up the IPCC with the UEA CRU? The two are entirely different, and the hacks didn't "expose" anything to speak of.)
> "As the Sun ages, it will gradually become a red giant as its hydrogen fuel begins to run out. Its surface will expand to approximately 100 times its current size as its core shrinks, and the inner Solar System will be engulfed."
Apart that the Sun won't become a supernova, are you aware of the timeframe involved?
It will happen in 5 BILLION years. If you say that global warming alarmism is related to that you're very disillusional.
> Apart from the fact volcanic activity stepped up during the last event.
Correlation is not causation. If you're so sure, you can provide any paper studying it.
> Read the book by Professor Fagan. Its a long read but worth it.
So, no single source, you're made it up.
> The IPCC were hacked and exposed.
Do you really know anything about what you talk? Apart that the IPCC has never been hacked, the ones hacked were the University of East Anglia and nothing was exposed.
For the great majority of the earth's history there were no humans either, but I personally would be upset at the prospect of that situation recurring.
Of course we would claim that higher oxygen levels were pollution. Oxygen is a toxin, albeit a necessary one. If you breathe PPO2 > 0.5 atm for a few days it will wreck your lungs. And any increase in atmospheric oxygen would cause a proportional increase in fires.
Sure the planet is warming up as the sun slowly goes super nova in millions of years time, but the biggest short term risk we face in the next 30 years which could last 500 years is the Grand Solar Minimum (GSM)
A GSM is where sunspots drop off and the planet experiences extreme weather patterns which are now seeing now. To a limited degree we see this at the start and end of each 11 yr solar cycle anyway.
This last occurred during the Dalton and Maunder minimum, when 25% of the planets population died due to famine and cold.
It triggered political events like the French Revolution, the Irish Potatoe famine and more.
In the UK temps as low as -37 Degrees C were seen, with sea ports frozen, the English Channel froze keeping ships locked in port or stuck out in open water. Extreme winds lead to massive inland sand dunes which is what Thetford Forest is now planted on in bid to return the soil slowly back to use, the village of Santon Downham had so much sand deposited on it that a few houses were buried. The forest was only planted in the early 1900's.
To re-evalute the history of geo-political events during the medieval ice age and what you may have been taught in history, I would suggest reading the book by Professor Brian Fagan on the mini age, written in the 00's.
Now whilst we had no meteorological offices during the medieval ice age, we can still get valuable insight by learning from history like what Professor Fagan has hilighted in his book, plus depending on what scientific models you listen to, we really dont know how the CO2 released by man from oil and cutting down trees is going to do. Plants grow better in CO2 as seen with dinosaurs and plants during the time when CO2 was in the thousands ppm so our actions may actually be a blessing in disguise, but bear in mind whilst we have higher crop yields today due to modern farming methods, the risk is now greater as one hectare of farm land now feeds more mouths today than ever before.
With that in mind, you can take steps to minimise any impact on yourself, by taking up gardening, and investing in things like air source heat pumps with solar. 1 W of solar energy can create upto 3W of heat energy which is useful should you ever be cut off from the mains.
Air source heat pumps are just over priced air con units working in reverse.
By being forewarned is to be forearmed, so whilst the TPTB like to treat people like idiots because you then get dependent idiots, I feel its better to tell the truth so that people can think and innovate their way out of problems which you may be able to capitalise in lucrative ways.
No no, that just won't do. Math and modeling doesn't allow us to draw conclusions about things we can't directly observe. Someone had to be there and directly count the co2 molecules with their own eyes or it doesn't count as evidence.
There are specific mineral records that covary strongly with CO2 levels over that 400,000 year period. However, these mineral records go back millions of years - therefore, we can use the known relationship to predict how CO2 levels have changed in the past. These are known as "proxies" in paleoclimatology, and can be used to estimate past CO2 levels, O2 levels, temperature, and other attributes of Earth's climate. When multiple independent proxy estimates agree with each other, we can somewhat safely assume we are not too off-target. This field is constantly getting updated, but these proxies are usually in decently good agreement with each other. I think that the paper below is a good overview of the science involved. I'm not an expert in the field but this paper is from 2006 and likely now the field has added some more accurate proxy paleo-CO2 reconstructions.
If you knew they used proxy measures then why didn't you simply explain that to the OP rather than pretend you didn't understand? However, I am glad you asked because it caused me to investigate and learn something new.
Nice catch! It doesn't... the ice core measurements do show that it was waaay lower 800,000 yrs ago at 185ppm. To go beyond that they use other methods that are less accurate, but still good enough to at least get in the ballpark. Its admittedly a huge ballpark... 4M yrs is the conservative estimate while 25M yrs is the upper limit of what makes sense.
I was initially dubious of the "4 million year" quote, but the quick searching I did doesn't turn up anything credible that would contradict it, and did turn up many estimates that concur.
Assuming the fossil record and all of our measurements and assumptions about our measurements are correct. It's not like anyone was there, writing this stuff down at the time.
