The Effects of Climate Change – a reality check
Thanks for checking back, we really appreciate it.
I’ve been collecting links for about 4 months to do with the effects of climate change. I have that many, I thought I’d split them into a few posts. The key thing here is that you read them. It’s really important that people actually come to grips with what we’re going on about, and about what is actually happening. And once again, YES, it’s related to snowfall (I really must stop feeling the need to explain this!).
So we’ll structure this in the following manner
- why the temperature range of the last 10,000 years is important
- why some pretty clever people think we need to act, and
- what will happen if we don’t
Got it? Good. Read on, and arm yourself with knowledge. You can also check our effects page for more info.
Ok, so take a look at the below graph. You’ll notice that for the last 10,000 years there has been a very stable climate across a very narrow temperature anomaly band (about +/- 0.5deg C). Now, I don’t (and I am still looking) have the date this is current to, but I think it’s a tiny bit old. Anyway, you can see the IPCC’s modelling, with a degree of uncertainty (incidentally, these numbers probably need revising upwards – a lot). I want you to have a think about what happens if we move out of that band, to the degree shown in the graph. You’ll notice that within the narrow confines of that graph, we have a had a mini-warming, in the Medieaval Period, and a mini ice age. My bet is that with the temperatures that the IPCC is talking about, combined with new data that shows even higher temps as well as all the predicted increased warming from feedbacks, we’re in deep trouble.
So, what do we have to look forward to? Well as much as I HATE doom and gloom, reality does need some air. I mean, it’s no use being all happy go lucky and tra-la-la everything is going to be alright, if it isn’t. We need to man up and face up to this. So here it is, what we can expect.
We can expect dustbowls in a lot of the world as well as permanent drought – read. We can expect extensive desert areas. People abandoning their land.
Environmental refugees – the Maldives is already buying land as a hedge against this, as a new location for their country. That’s right, a country is probably almost certainly going to need to relocate.
Australia’s drought is set to be permanent in the SE. One that will last a long, long time. This will affect the US, China. No one is immune. No one.
We face oceans that are significantly affected both in their ability to provide us food and one whose reefs, like the Great Barrier Reef, are killed off in part or their entirety. Meanwhile the CO2 will keep climbing as the oceans acidify and important carbon sinks and lungs of the Earth like the Amazon are virtually destroyed (for a long, long time).
Worst of all, we have mass human deaths from famine. All this as we experience a population explosion that will almost certainly cause famine. Global warming and ice melt does NOT mean we will have more arable land to farm (that moron Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun seems to think so, no I do NOT want to link to him) – see below.
No, what we’re talking about is a new age of humanity. Have a read of this. It seems hard to imagine, surrounded by iPods, TVs, cars – anything that we want, when we want – that we might have to shift our way of living. It seems surreal. Fantastical. Nope. It’s a reality – from New Scientist:
ALLIGATORS basking off the English coast; a vast Brazilian desert; the mythical lost cities of Saigon, New Orleans, Venice and Mumbai; and 90 per cent of humanity vanished. Welcome to the world warmed by 4 °C.
And:
Four degrees may not sound like much – after all, it is less than a typical temperature change between night and day. It might sound quite pleasant, like moving to Florida from Boston, say, or retiring from the UK to southern Spain. An average warming of the entire globe by 4 °C is a very different matter, however, and would render the planet unrecognisable from anything humans have ever experienced. Indeed, human activity has and will have such a great impact that some have proposed describing the time from the 18th century onward as a new geological era, marked by human activity. “It can be considered the Anthropocene,” says Nobel prizewinning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
This is why people like Bill Clinton and Steve Chu (new US Energy Secretary, Nobel Laureate) are as blunt as:
California’s major part of its water storage system is in the Sierra Mountains. It snows there, and then we have dams, but it’s the snow and the slow melting of the snow and the forests in the watershed area that helps store the water in California. And much of the Central Valley is desert. Los Angeles, San Diego — it’s all desert. Without water — right now, California spends about 20 percent of its electricity moving water. What is being predicted in climate change, there are two bracketed scenarios. The more optimistic one — that we will really control carbon emissions, that we will get a handle on this, and we’re talking the end of this century — even by mid-century, in the optimistic scenario, we will have decreased our snow pack by 20 percent on an average basis. And our forests are going to begin to die, because of parasites and such. At the end of this century, optimistic scenario, you will have decreased [snow pack] by 47 percent. In the pessimistic scenario, the snow pack will decrease by 70 to 90 percent. Well, let me tell you what California does when there’s a two-year in a row 20 percent decrease in snow pack: They water-ration.
Q: So you’re looking at a scenario of permanent water rationing?
CHU: No, you’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. When you lose 70 percent of your water in the mountains, I don’t see how agriculture can continue. California produces 20 percent of the agriculture in the United States. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.
This is not only true of California, this is true for all the Western states. Forests are dying because of parasites. The pine bark beetle is killing pine. British Columbia has already lost 40 percent of its pine … so, when there are no trees, when it rains, the soil doesn’t hold the water… The American public needs to be made aware that this is happening. This is a real economic disaster in the making for our children, for your children. If you live in California, any of the Western states, this is going to be very serious. In the Upper Midwest, water shortages, huge water shortages are being predicted. … It goes back to this fire insurance. How do we find the political will? It hopefully has to come from the people of America.
This is why we must act, or else we risk destroying everything we take for granted – like the surf and waves, the amazing forests, the amazing animals, the MAGIC you felt the first time snow fell on your cold face and bare skin, as you marvelled at the snow flake, that seemed to be made just for you.
Similar Posts:
- Climate Change: not so good for anyone (especially for snow seasons and drinking water)
- Climate change trajectory – very fast
- Think climate change won’t affect you, Snow Person? Wrong.
- Despair + Hope.
- How are sharks related to climate change?
And you spent 4 months researching this? And now you’re sure of the answers?
I think you miss the problem. Look at the above. Your entire spiel is on the possible effects of climate change – you say nothing of its causes and what we can do about it. What are you trying to do? Scare us into submission?
Heres the thing. A lot of the science underpinning these scary articles is very questionable. There are too many sensor errors and other mistakes which have only been found by mathematical methods. Too many sets of now-known-broken data has found its way into charts all over the internet. It is now very difficult to even verify most of it.
Have you checked out http://www.climateaudit.org or http://www.wattsupwiththat.com ? They have a catalog of the mistakes discovered so far.
The 3 questions that need firm answers are:
1. Is the world warming?
2. If so, is it really CO2 driving it?
3. If so, how can we reduce CO2
The skeptics are divided on these points because the science on all 3 is not solid.
I’m sure you agree that we can’t afford to make a mistake on this issue. Destroying the global economy because “maybe” the theories are right is a no go for the skeptics.
Think about this… a lot of money has been spent developing “models” to support the C02 warming theory.
Yet many times this amount was spent to develop models of the global financial system.
Which one is more complicated? The man made financial system or the non-man made climate systems?
Even after all that money its obvious the financial modelling was a dismal failure and not even close to reality.
So how close to reality do you expect the climate alarmists models to be? Enough to sacrifice the progress of the world? Enough to starve a billion or more of the worlds poorest?
The jury is still out on climate change and its causes. Pronouncing your sentence without a firm jury verdict is similar to perverting the course of justice…
If climate change is the hoax that I suspect it probably is… it’ll be people like you that demand the alarmists get a fair trial before their hanging.
Do some more research. Find some solid science before adding to the already numerous chicken little horoscopes. Thanks
Just out of curiousity… are you religious as well? Is it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorns or some deity with just as much evidence?
Hi Marty.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Firstly, I’ve spent more than 4 months reading, and reading, and reading. I see you reference Steve McIntyre/climateaudit. Hardly a scion of research (who funds him?). Secondly, the world needs scaring (I will admit I probably err a little too much on the side of scary though I make no apologies for it).
Secondly, the causes are addressed elsewhere. If I can make it clearer that man’s emmissions of GHGs are to blame, I can definitely do so -> where do you suggest I put this to obviate the point?
I detect the imprimatur of a hardened sceptic, but I’ll bite regardless.
As to your points.
1. There is ample (read: overwhelming) evidence to prove warming. If you are going to argue/debate from a position of “the world is cooling” then we should agree to disagree, and let people who know a lot more about this, keep putting out peer reviewed papers that show that the world is warming. Have you looked at the Polar Ice Year project? Ice doesn’t melt without warming.
2. Really? You need me to prove this?
3. Irrelevant – I read commentary from skeptics who admit this needs to occur (which in turn begs the question, why?)
Here are my points:
1. Big coal, Shell Oil, Chevron – they’ve all said we need to act. Shell Oil. Mull that over, if you will. Obama/Chu.
2. I agree we can’t afford to make a mistake. Not acting would be a mistake. Risk management practice.
3. Destroying the global economy: a well worn denialist proposition: I think it’s a furphy – the US coal and auto industries cried poor when catalytic converters and coal efficiency standards were mandated – jobs actually were created and profitability increased. Look at the jobs and innovation in greentech. Many jobs possible. Many. Not many in chopping trees down and burning non-renewable fuels (they run out in the end).
4. Yes, a lot of money has gone into getting models right. What is your point? The finance system especially the CDS market failed because it inadequately accounted for risk. The climate models similarly do not account for climate feedback loops. They are both complex. I would argue the climate system is very complex but is not subject to human emotion and therefore acts impassively. In time, I expect climate models to get better and better – currently they do not account for warming adequately. The changes we are saying are well in excess of any model. That does not render the models wrong in a boolean sense.
5. The jury is not still out on climate change. You might think it is, but it’s not. Refer #1 above (not for proof – there is ample observational evidence).
6. I see no similarity in regard of your assertion that pronouncing sentence without firm verdict is akin to perversion of justice. The jury bases its decision on the facts at hand. The facts are the facts. The world is warming (you can dispute this all you want – if you still maintain it is not, then we have no argument to pursue – for every piece of evidence you produce, I can produce 10 that disprove your claims, so you will shift the goalposts. I will not engage at that level). If the facts change, we can change our point of view. Until that time, and the facts point at warming, then that’s it.
7. There will be no hanging. If the world is not warming, I will be VERY happy to admit I am wrong. VERY happy. Please don’t misunderstand that.
8. I do plenty of research, thanks.
Religion has nothing to do with this, and your introduction of that into your comment debases any good points or questons you may have made/asked. By bringing religion into this, you attempt to cast the target as someone probably averse to science. I am by trade an engineer, and therefore have a very science-based mind.
Once again, thanks for the comment.
Best,
Tim
I’m not “sure” of the answers. What I am sure of is that on a risk mitigation basis alone, we should not do-nothing.
Marty you’re obviously a big fan of Andrew Bolt too.
You state: “The jury is still out on climate change and its causes. Pronouncing your sentence without a firm jury verdict is similar to perverting the course of justice…”
The “jury” is not “out”. Scientific CONSENSUS indicates that human induced climate change is real. Do you understand what science is? Consensus? In any case, being more efficient is not “perverting the course of justice”.
Some more gold: “If climate change is the hoax that I suspect it probably is… it’ll be people like you that demand the alarmists get a fair trial before their hanging.”
Why is it a hoax? What possible conspiracy in the world is committed to making it a healthier and more pleasant place? Are you smoking crack? What on earth do scientists have to gain by hoaxing the world? Did the USA fake the moon landings? Are the Russians coming? Are gays and lesbians perverting the minds of our children and causing them to have sex with goats?
And finally: “Do some more research. Find some solid science before adding to the already numerous chicken little horoscopes.”
I believe that the folks at the NASA and NOAA are in the business of “solid science”. Unless you’re a scientist yourself (which you don’t appear to be) perhaps you’ll do us a favour of finding some peer reviewed “science” that supports your “climate change is a myth” rubbish.
Alternatively what I suggest is that first you have a few kids.
Next you can just keep doing whatever the hell it is you do now.
Then when the planet’s [ed: censored] and your kids ask you what you did about you can explain it all to them.
Good luck with that. Too bad you and your Today Tonight watching ilk will be taking this magical world down the toilet with you. I bet you like to fill your pool and water your lawn despite the water restrictions too…
[Tim M: Please, no swearing, no personal attacks, keep it nice, keep it relevant, or I WILL remove comments. This is the first and final warming. I don't want flames/trolls.]
Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo
Hi !
I am Piter Kokoniz. Just want to tell, that I’v found your blog very interesting
And want to ask you: will you continue to post in this blog in future?
Sorry for my bad english:)
Thank you!
Your Piter