Jonger Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 This post is The rate of ice loss was pretty on par or slightly overboard until 2007, but climate-wise.... The lowest IPCC prediction came true, or slightly under the lowest prediction. Arctic Ice loss was underestimated, surface temps have been far overestimated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Taco - Total agreement. The problem as I see it is that the cooler, "bread basket" areas are being effected sooner. Without these sources of cheap wheat and corn, those places with huge populations that rely on imported - sometimes donated - food are the ones that are going to be hurt first. I also understand that a large part of the worlds rice is grown in Vietnam, and is threatened by SLR. SVT - The question I posed was hypothetical. We're all aware that people are sometimes harmed in producing things that make our life a little easier, just wondering where the line should be drawn. Terry This is a valid point, but I have to wonder how much of this might be counter-balanced by longer growing seasons in many places in Asia/Europe/North America, allowing crops that once had to be grown further south to expand their range. As I'm sure you know, there are huge expanses of Canada that are currently too cold to grow much of anything. That could change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Jong I posted the link re Hamilton almost a year ago in a conversation with you regarding climate change in the local area. You apparently didn't read it at that time of have forgotten it. I'm sure if you google for Hamilton and climate change you'll find the reference (again). Perhaps if you look it up yourself you'll remember it this time. If you insist I will spoon feed you the article again, but it would be nice if you just thought back to our previous discussion on this point and remembered the outcome. Taco The problem with Canada growing lots of food further north is that the last glaciation stripped the topsoil leaving little soil suitable for farming. I think the biggest problem for farming looking forward is going to be the lack of consistency in weather patterns. Locally we've a large number of small Mennonite farms that grow diverse crops, it one fails the others make up for it. Further west huge monoculture agribusinesses have far less flexibility, and they are the ones producing for export. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Jong I posted the link re Hamilton almost a year ago in a conversation with you regarding climate change in the local area. You apparently didn't read it at that time of have forgotten it. I'm sure if you google for Hamilton and climate change you'll find the reference (again). Perhaps if you look it up yourself you'll remember it this time. If you insist I will spoon feed you the article again, but it would be nice if you just thought back to our previous discussion on this point and remembered the outcome. Taco The problem with Canada growing lots of food further north is that the last glaciation stripped the topsoil leaving little soil suitable for farming. I think the biggest problem for farming looking forward is going to be the lack of consistency in weather patterns. Locally we've a large number of small Mennonite farms that grow diverse crops, it one fails the others make up for it. Further west huge monoculture agribusinesses have far less flexibility, and they are the ones producing for export. Terry Are you saying this year is 3.5C above normal? I'm just looking at the last 5-10 years versus the 100 year base period. There has been almost insignificant warming in SW Ontario... The warming is in the Arctic, not so much here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Are you saying this year is 3.5C above normal? I'm just looking at the last 5-10 years versus the 100 year base period. There has been almost insignificant warming in SW Ontario... The warming is in the Arctic, not so much here. I can't locate the link, and since it was incidental to the point of the post (that we aren't liable to experience any loss of life in this area), I'd rather withdraw it than prolong my search. The important thing is that crop production in traditionally fertile areas is at present, whether by drought as in Texas, or by too much rainfall as in 2011 western Canada, being effected. These areas where monoculture agribusinesses flurish have been the source for grain exports to places unable to feed their populace with locally grown foods. As production slows, prices will rise leaving those with little income in the lurch. Traditionally large surplusses that weren't being sold were provided at no or little cost to struggling peoples around the world. I'd assume that as surplusses dry up (no pun intended), the subsedized distributions will be the first to be cut. If things never get any worse than this, the resulting undernourishment in poorer 3d world countries might cause real problems. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The problem with Canada growing lots of food further north is that the last glaciation stripped the topsoil leaving little soil suitable for farming. I think the biggest problem for farming looking forward is going to be the lack of consistency in weather patterns. Locally we've a large number of small Mennonite farms that grow diverse crops, it one fails the others make up for it. Further west huge monoculture agribusinesses have far less flexibility, and they are the ones producing for export. Terry Is this true for the Prairie Provinces? I know it's the case in Ontario and PQ, but I think Man/Sask/Alb did not get scraped down to the Laurentian Shield as did farther east. Your comment on farming diversity makes good sense. Agriculture needs to better combine more diverse crops with the efficiencies of scale. Ignoring either is not wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarloaf1989 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I have read that parts of South America could face water shortages as alpine glaciers continue to melt and the winter snowline continues to rise above a level to build up a winter snowpack. I am not sure if this would cause deaths on it's own, but people do need water to survive and at the least this could cause population migration in the next 2-3 decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 This article is so outrageous it doenst deserve a comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Is this true for the Prairie Provinces? I know it's the case in Ontario and PQ, but I think Man/Sask/Alb did not get scraped down to the Laurentian Shield as did farther east. Your comment on farming diversity makes good sense. Agriculture needs to better combine more diverse crops with the efficiencies of scale. Ignoring either is not wise. You're right about the Prarie Provinces, but as far north as I've been they're already under cultivation. I intended to drive to Yellowknife last year, but the fires were going full tilt as I was making my decision in Jasper & I decided it wasn't a good time for tourism. I know that a few decades ago an attempt at agriculture was made in the clay belt in northern Ontario, and that it's failure was blamed on the shortness of the growing season as imposed by lack of sufficient sunlight. This seems to be a problem that could be overcome planting rapidly maturing crops, but I'm way out of my element discussing various crops that might be suitable. I did speak with an expert on fish aquaculture who told me that the main problem at present is finding places where the water is sufficiently cold - something to do with parasites. But again this seems to be a problem that might be overcome by growing fish normally found in more southern climes. Catfish say as opposed to trout or salmon. The difficulties may prove easily surmountable, but at some point we have to realise that a problem exists, and start working on solutions. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 This article is so outrageous it doenst deserve a comment lol keep thinking that alpha boy. But why would you care anyways, most of the deaths would prolly be beta folk, so life goes on right? Sighhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Perhaps if you had made a habit of reading relevant material, instead of asking others to explain things to you, you might have learned enough by now to make informed decisions, instead of parroting the views of others. Not likely, but a possibility. Terry Ha! I simply dont have much time to devote to reading a report that most objective people would recognize as flawed when the payoff is nothing more than being able to argue a bit more with terry "apacolyptic rain" M. I'll stick to focusing on my studies and actual climate change research. I doubt youve notice but my posting has dropped off quite a bit since the current semester started. This forum just didnt turn out to be the type of resource i had hoped it would be. With posters like you i just dont know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Ha! I simply dont have much time to devote to reading a report that most objective people would recognize as flawed when the payoff is nothing more than being able to argue a bit more with terry "apacolyptic rain" M. I'll stick to focusing on my studies and actual climate change research. I doubt youve notice but my posting has dropped off quite a bit since the current semester started. This forum just didnt turn out to be the type of resource i had hoped it would be. With posters like you i just dont know why. So your another climate doctorate in waiting who will defy mainstream science and show us the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 This article is so outrageous it doenst deserve a comment True. Sounds like it was written by one of those crazy people shouting into a microphone on a nyc street corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 True. Sounds like it was written by one of those crazy people shouting into a microphone on a nyc street corner. This article reminds me of this from Blazing Saddles in reference to a a speech given by Gabby Johnson, the town drunk: : "Now who can argue with that? Not only was it , it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age." Actually, calling it gibberish is probably being too kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Why don''t you guys break it down piece by piece and show us how no one will die from AGW. Isn't 1 life as important as 100 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Why don''t you guys break it down piece by piece and show us how no one will die from AGW. Isn't 1 life as important as 100 million? The burden of proof is on the statements made in this article. In a world that will soon have 7 billion people, there will always be countless tragedies that cost thousands or tens of thousands of lives. It is not possible to prevent all of them, so we must concentrate on the most serious and preventable. Claiming that AGW will cost 100 million people their lives is a very serious claim. However, if you read the article, it does not appear the research into this claim was taken nearly as seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Taco I'ts more educational discussing the article with those that haven't read it. Like discussing opera with a deaf mute. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Taco I'ts more educational discussing the article with those that haven't read it. Like discussing opera with a deaf mute. Terry Well, a deaf mute might have a different perspective on the opera from you. They might appreciate visual subtleties you ignore. They might provide you with some new insight on new ways to experience music. That you used this example is very fitting, in my opinion. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 So your another climate doctorate in waiting who will defy mainstream science and show us the truth? Who said anything about defying mainstream science? Why is it the moment anyone here disagrees with some of you on a subject you immediately assume they are a full blown denier? I've done nothing but embrace mainstream science with my posts in this forum. The article in the OP is anything but mainstream science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Well, a deaf mute might have a different perspective on the opera from you. They might appreciate visual subtleties you ignore. They might provide you with some new insight on new ways to experience music. That you used this example is very fitting, in my opinion. Well done. Thanks, but I'd have difficulty listening to his insights but then I probably wouldn't take Ray Charles advise on color coordination either. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Hey, after making one tasteless comment about those with disabilities double down and continue making them until you find one that makes sense! Right, Terry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Hey, after making one tasteless comment about those with disabilities double down and continue making them until you find one that makes sense! Right, Terry? Not many things more depressing than political correctness and opportunistic self-righteousness from a troll. The issue discussed by the author of the article is valid. However, the numbers are based on estimates for individual CODs that are expected to be exacerbated by AGW. As such, they are vague and pretty useless for supporting that headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 lol keep thinking that alpha boy. But why would you care anyways, most of the deaths would prolly be beta folk, so life goes on right? Sighhhh Not talking about evolution at all. Maybe i missed something in the study, but can someone point out specifically how many people will die where and from what? Because right now, it sounds like a lot of tinfoil hat bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Not talking about evolution at all. Maybe i missed something in the study, but can someone point out specifically how many people will die where and from what? Because right now, it sounds like a lot of tinfoil hat bs. There are a lot of different ways that AGW might greatly increase mortality to certain stressors, especially in the developing world. You can't attach hard numbers to these beyond order-of-magnitude estimates, but these are all well over a million additional deaths each minimum, and tens of millions maximum. Moreover, there is strong synergy potential, making the high side more likely overall. 30 million may not be directly supported by hard numbers, but is not at all unreasonable as an overall risk. Examples: Our bodies have very little intrinsic defense against extreme heat and humidity without fans and AC. Much of inland peninsular India (Deccan Plateau) suffered from prolonged heat waves this year with temps reaching 120 degrees F under relatively humid conditions. Add a few days/degrees to these and lots of elderly poor people without AC will start dying. Hundreds of millions of people live in the Deccan. Malaria and dengue already kill millions per year in the tropics and are rapidly expanding their ranges into temperate zones as the climate warms. This is potentiated by the tendency of AGW to raise low temperatures, and could account for many millions also. Drought-induced destruction of the corn crop in the USA this past summer gives a hint of what could happen with just a bit more heat and drought in prime agricultural areas worldwide. If you don't have enough food, you don't export, so this is a major hunger risk for poor people worldwide. We could get into the effects of SLR induced storm vulnerability and sociopolitical effects of climate refugees, but there is hardly a need for that to make the point. The author is correct about the scale of the problem. The fact that the actual number cannot be estimated with precision doesn't mean that there is not massive risk. Do we worry about whether nuclear war would kill 500 million or 3 billion people when deciding how to prevent it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Just would like to mention that India suffers prolonged heat waves with temperatures reaching 120F EVERY year-it is part of the pattern that leads to the establishment of the Summer monsoon. In fact similiar pre monsoon hot blasts also occur in Africa, Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and the SW US. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Just would like to mention that India suffers prolonged heat waves with temperatures reaching 120F EVERY year-it is part of the pattern that leads to the establishment of the Summer monsoon. In fact similiar pre monsoon hot blasts also occur in Africa, Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and the SW US. Steve According to the Deccan Times, this one was worse than usual. I don't have the link any more, but it should be easy to find the account. My point was that there is very little room for accommodating a further increase here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 This conversation reminds me of an earlier one we had on the same topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Quite serious. Every prognostication put out by government sponsored groups thus far has underestimated the effects of global warming to a rather alarming degree. If you can recall a multi governmental study that over estimated the risks I'd like to be reminded. Hailman I've no idea where one would start, but food production and availability of potable water could have consequences. Terry False. The most recent IPCC report has overestimated the most important variable of all which is temperature change. Also sea level rise. Probably OHC too. They predicted methane concentrations to rise much much faster than they have. They're low on sea ice and land ice loss. But all of these are probably short term fluctuations around the long-term trend and in no way invalidate the most recent report. Some of the previous intergovernmental reports (IPCC) were way too high on temperature change and other variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Who said anything about defying mainstream science? Why is it the moment anyone here disagrees with some of you on a subject you immediately assume they are a full blown denier? I've done nothing but embrace mainstream science with my posts in this forum. The article in the OP is anything but mainstream science. Actually from what I've read elsewhere it doesn't seem to be that far off from mainstream science. Mainstream science does in fact project that without action climate change will cost many lives and much lost prosperity. There are numerous estimates that climate change will cause large GDP reductions and increased loss of life. Most analyses find it is less expensive and more humane to invest 1-2% of GDP annually in carbon reductions. I get the impression here that few have actually read the full report. Sit down and take an hour to do so before you dismiss it out of hand. Or read some of the other analyses of the aggregate economic and humanitarian costs to climate change. I didn't read the entirety of this one and so will withhold final judgment on the figures it comes up with, but it didn't seem like the most scientific source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 False. The most recent IPCC report has overestimated the most important variable of all which is temperature change. Also sea level rise. Probably OHC too. They predicted methane concentrations to rise much much faster than they have. They're low on sea ice and land ice loss. But all of these are probably short term fluctuations around the long-term trend and in no way invalidate the most recent report. Some of the previous intergovernmental reports (IPCC) were way too high on temperature change and other variables. I think global warming in Terry's post means the physical stuff, and effects means studies like the one this thread is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.