New study published today - global warming has not slowed at all

[tacoman25]

Where might that be?

I thought that would be evident from previous comments I've made.

Basically, AGW was adopted by environmental activists a long time ago. The AGW awareness movement or whatever you want to call it has been a cog in their cause, a means to an end. This association quickly led to a politicization of the movement. Certain advocates have always pushed the extreme scenarios (regardless of uncertainties) because they know that sometimes the only way to get attention or action is to scare people.

And then you have people like Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Aside from that, there is a certain segment of the population that is always drawn to doomsday scenerios and the associated hype. It's exciting, it provides an urgent cause, etc. Catastrophic AGW possibilities are right up their alley, and besides that, hype and fear-mongering sells books and magazines.

Is there solid science behind AGW theory? Yes. Are we most likely warming the climate to a certain extent due to increased GHG? Yes. Are we well on our way to destroying civilization and Mother Earth? Very unlikely.

[WeatherRusty]

I thought that would be evident from previous comments I've made.

Basically, AGW was adopted by environmental activists a long time ago. The AGW awareness movement or whatever you want to call it has been a cog in their cause, a means to an end. This association quickly led to a politicization of the movement. Certain advocates have always pushed the extreme scenarios (regardless of uncertainties) because they know that sometimes the only way to get attention or action is to scare people.

And then you have people like Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Aside from that, there is a certain segment of the population that is always drawn to doomsday scenerios and the associated hype. It's exciting, it provides an urgent cause, etc. Catastrophic AGW possibilities are right up their alley, and besides that, hype and fear-mongering sells books and magazines.

Is there solid science behind AGW theory? Yes. Are we most likely warming the climate to a certain extent due to increased GHG? Yes. Are we well on our way to destroying civilization and Mother Earth? Very unlikely.

Are you saying global average temperature is very unlikely to reach to 3C or more higher than the average temperature of the Holocene Period where CO2 levels have not exceeded 280ppm until the past 150 years? If the temperature rises another 2C or greater do you not expect sea levels to rise measured in feet?

Do you not expect agriculture to be severely pressured by a 2C or greater increase, as optimal precipitation patterns shift to other areas.

In general do you downplay the consequences to climate, the biosphere and the human enterprise if temps exceed 2C of warming over the current average?

[SVT450R]

Are you saying global average temperature is very unlikely to reach to 3C or more higher than the average temperature of the Holocene Period where CO2 levels have not exceeded 280ppm until the past 150 years? If the temperature rises another 2C or greater do you not expect sea levels to rise measured in feet?

Do you not expect agriculture to be severely pressured by a 2C or greater increase, as optimal precipitation patterns shift to other areas.

In general do you downplay the consequences to climate, the biosphere and the human enterprise if temps exceed 2C of warming over the current average?

Who says we cannot adapt to changes.

[WeatherRusty]

Who says we cannot adapt to changes.

That depends on who exactly is the we. Affluent populations will find adaptation much more possible than poorer ones, but that adaptation will not come cheaply. Prevention should be much more economical than the adapting to a moving target.

And those poor populations, they have always been susceptible to environmental disruptions such as flooding and drought. More and more poorer peoples will likely come under the influence of disruptive climate change.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I suspect that most unproven theories do not have it all right. I am not saying AGW theory is wrong, but to assume that just because it reflect the current scientific consensus it has "everything but the details" right is presumptuous.

As I have said before, the physics behind AGW theory are sound. The modeled results for the globe however, could be, and probably are, wrong to some degree or another. It's not like we are plugging these physical equations into a simple system that scientists had already figured out exactly how it works. Not by a long shot.

So you either think that we can not conclusively call AGW scientific fact or you think that AGW is really a theory.

This has nothing to do with models or projections, Hansen, Al gore, IPCC, Jaxa, Bremen, or the Sisters of the Poor.

This is only about the posters who make it a point to call AGW a theory.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

THEORY:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

CONJECTURAL:

based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence; "theories about the extinction of dinosaurs are still highly conjectural"; "the supposed reason for his absence"; "suppositious reconstructions of dead languages"; "hypothetical situation"

It is my theory that many on this board say "AGW Theory" to cast doubt or create skepticism. Pun very much intended.

If you call it the Theory of AGW or AGW theory that means you believe that it could all be completely wrong and made up, completely un factual.

This is not a matter of how much it will warm, this is a matter if any warming has occurred in direct or indirect result of human activity.

So you either believe it is a fact that humans have caused the Earth to warm, even if it is +0.000001C or you believe that humans have possible caused zero warming and it is 100% natural....

So which is it?

[LakeEffectKing]

So you either think that we can not conclusively call AGW scientific fact or you think that AGW is really a theory.

This has nothing to do with models or projections, Hansen, Al gore, IPCC, Jaxa, Bremen, or the Sisters of the Poor.

This is only about the posters who make it a point to call AGW a theory.

It is my theory that many on this board say "AGW Theory" to cast doubt or create skepticism. Pun very much intended.

If you call it the Theory of AGW or AGW theory that means you believe that it could all be completely wrong and made up, completely un factual.

This is not a matter of how much it will warm, this is a matter if any warming has occurred in direct or indirect result of human activity.

So you either believe it is a fact that humans have caused the Earth to warm, even if it is +0.000001C or you believe that humans have possible caused zero warming and it is 100% natural....

So which is it?

Friv, it depends on WHAT "theory" (it's actually not even a "theory" it's still a hypothesis) is being talked about.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.....THAT IS A FACT! CO2 is a FORCING in the positive direction when increased, THAT IS A FACT.

But the AGW hypotheses encompasses more that those facts. AGW (and to a more direct point that is argued on these boards, CAGW) cannot be tested, measured, or quantified with certainty, and we know this through the emails as "scientists being scientists" discussions. Feedbacks, actual temperature reconstructions and many other subtle factors are still VERY uncertain, and untestable via the "method of Science".

Rusty in 3...2....1......

[WeatherRusty]

Friv, it depends on WHAT "theory" (it's actually not even a "theory" it's still a hypothesis) is being talked about.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.....THAT IS A FACT! CO2 is a FORCING in the positive direction when increased, THAT IS A FACT.

But the AGW hypotheses encompasses more that those facts. AGW (and to a more direct point that is argued on these boards, CAGW) cannot be tested, measured, or quantified with certainty, and we know this through the emails as "scientists being scientists" discussions. Feedbacks, actual temperature reconstructions and many other subtle factors are still VERY uncertain, and untestable via the "method of Science".

Rusty in 3...2....1......

LOL LEK

Friv,

I hear what you are saying with regard to the impact of calling AGW a theory rather than fact. Opponents of biological evolution do the same thing in an attempt to demote the concept.

However, AGW is a theory. I must agree with LEK here.

Theories attempt to explain observational fact. Theories can never be promoted to fact, there is alway the possibility that something is not quite right with a theory. This is why theories are superior to dogma, they are malleable and can better explain observational fact as new information comes in. The temperature record provides us with factual data which indicates that the world has been warming. So we can say that global warming is a measured fact.

Explaining global warming with AGW theory is analogous to explaining the observed fact of biological evolution with the theory of "natural selection".

Where I disagree with LEK is that in both cases, the evidence for biological evolution by natural selection and the evidence for AGW is very strong. They are both very solid theories.

Gravity is a fact. Which theory is more correct, Newton's or Einstein's?

[tacoman25]

Are you saying global average temperature is very unlikely to reach to 3C or more higher than the average temperature of the Holocene Period where CO2 levels have not exceeded 280ppm until the past 150 years? If the temperature rises another 2C or greater do you not expect sea levels to rise measured in feet?

Do you not expect agriculture to be severely pressured by a 2C or greater increase, as optimal precipitation patterns shift to other areas.

In general do you downplay the consequences to climate, the biosphere and the human enterprise if temps exceed 2C of warming over the current average?

I think the most likely scenario is warming on the lower end of estimates, and probably taking longer than expected, mainly because of ocean absorption. I do not think the changes will happen rapidly enough to cause widespread catastrophe.

[WeatherRusty]

I think the most likely scenario is warming on the lower end of estimates, and probably taking longer than expected, mainly because of ocean absorption. I do not think the changes will happen rapidly enough to cause widespread catastrophe.

You are very close to what I believe skier would expect also. What would that do to sea level in your opinion? Weather patterns, if say temps rose only another 1C?

I tend to go somewhat higher, around the middle of the estimated range of climate sensitivity, or near the peak of the bell curve which represents the statistically most likely average of all estimates . I also suspect this will take more than just a few decades to occur. I don't have a clue as to what the end point will bring, because it is very difficult to estimate what the final forcing will be.

[tacoman25]

You are very close to what I believe skier would expect also. What would that do to sea level in your opinion? Weather patterns, if say temps rose only another 1C?

I tend to go somewhat higher, around the middle of the estimated range of climate sensitivity, or near the peak of the bell curve which represents the statistically most likely average of all estimates . I also suspect this will take more than just a few decades to occur. I don't have a clue as to what the end point will bring, because it is very difficult to estimate what the final forcing will be.

I think there is already evidence that it's not going to effect sea level nearly as quickly as AGW propenents/alarmists originally feared. There is no conclusive sign of acceleration in sea level rise or temperatures. Yet GHGs have continued to as fast or faster than ever.

[TerryM]

I think there is already evidence that it's not going to effect sea level nearly as quickly as AGW propenents/alarmists originally feared. There is no conclusive sign of acceleration in sea level rise or temperatures. Yet GHGs have continued to as fast or faster than ever.

You previously stated

Is there solid science behind AGW theory? Yes. Are we most likely warming the climate to a certain extent due to increased GHG? Yes.

Now you say

Yet GHGs have continued to as fast or faster than ever.

Does it not follow that temperatures must continue to climb as fast or faster than ever?

[tacoman25]

You previously stated

Is there solid science behind AGW theory? Yes. Are we most likely warming the climate to a certain extent due to increased GHG? Yes.

Now you say

Yet GHGs have continued to as fast or faster than ever.

Does it not follow that temperatures must continue to climb as fast or faster than ever?

Yes, I believe temperatures will most likely continue to warm over the next 50 years as fast or maybe a little faster than the last 50 years, depending on other factors. Same with sea level rise.

But that wouldn't lead to widespread catastrophe.

[TerryM]

Yes, I believe temperatures will most likely continue to warm over the next 50 years as fast or maybe a little faster than the last 50 years, depending on other factors. Same with sea level rise.

But that wouldn't lead to widespread catastrophe.

I'm sure you are aware of the BEST studies. Are you saying that another 50 years along this path would not be catastrophic?

[WeatherRusty]

I'm sure you are aware of the BEST studies. Are you saying that another 50 years along this path would not be catastrophic?

Another 50 years at near the same rate would tack on about another 0.9C to the already experienced 0.8C. 1.7C above the average temperature when CO2 levels were at their ~stable 280ppmv of the Holocene.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration will also have doubled to ~560ppm by about that time. There will remain heating in the pipeline since the temperature will not have yet reached equilibrium with the continued forcing. At that point temp would be 1.0C below best estimated climate sensitivity or 2.7C per doubling of CO2, and it will continue to warm. Another 50 years at the same rate (100 year total) gets us to 2.7C.

None of that takes into account any additional contribution from methane, nitrous oxide, continued deforestation, ocean and forest carbon saturation (reduced carbon sink efficiency) etc.

[tacoman25]

Another 50 years at near the same rate would tack on about another 0.9C to the already experienced 0.8C. 1.7C above the average temperature when CO2 levels were at their ~stable 280ppmv of the Holocene.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration will also have doubled to ~560ppm by about that time. There will remain heating in the pipeline since the temperature will not have yet reached equilibrium with the continued forcing. At that point temp would be 1.0C below best estimated climate sensitivity or 2.7C per doubling of CO2, and it will continue to warm. Another 50 years at the same rate (100 year total) gets us to 2.7C.

None of that takes into account any additional contribution from methane, nitrous oxide, continued deforestation, ocean and forest carbon saturation (reduced carbon sink efficiency) etc.

Adding .9C over the next 50 years would be more than doubling the warming rate seen so far.

[tacoman25]

I'm sure you are aware of the BEST studies. Are you saying that another 50 years along this path would not be catastrophic?

There are a very wide range of speculative results. I'm betting on the lower end of the spectrum, as I've already said. And again, no I do not think that would be catastrophic.

Isn't it interesing how believing in AGW isn't enough, but you also have to believe in catastrophic AGW? Why is that?

[dabize]

There are a very wide range of speculative results. I'm betting on the lower end of the spectrum, as I've already said. And again, no I do not think that would be catastrophic.

Isn't it interesing how believing in AGW isn't enough, but you also have to believe in catastrophic AGW? Why is that?

Because some of the frogs in the pot want to shut off the stove.

The ones who are adjusting themselves to the nice toasty water aren't helping to solve the problem.

[salbers]

It was interesting to see a Jim Hansen talk at the AGU conference last week as he suggests the 3C per CO2 doubling is only a shorter term sensitivity (centuries time scale for ocean mixing). He makes a case for higher sensitivities in the longer term as feedbacks such as ice albedo and methane kick in.

[TerryM]

It was interesting to see a Jim Hansen talk at the AGU conference last week as he suggests the 3C per CO2 doubling is only a shorter term sensitivity (centuries time scale for ocean mixing). He makes a case for higher sensitivities in the longer term as feedbacks such as ice albedo and methane kick in.

Did Hansen offer any thoughts as to when he expected methane to become a major issue? I've been considering it as a short term feedback as Semiletov's studies seem to indicate.

[salbers]

I'm having a tough time recalling his specifics on methane. However other aspects of what he talked about (including some figures) are covered in this online paper of his here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

[dabize]

I'm having a tough time recalling his specifics on methane. However other aspects of what he talked about (including some figures) are covered in this online paper of his here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

Just read the paper at that link and I'm struck by one thing that Hansen didn't mention about the effect of interglacial melting on ice sheet altitude......that is, isostatic uplift of Greenland in particular as the melting in the Eemian and Holsteinian interglacial periods.

He mentions the compensatory effect that increased snowfall in a warmer climate would have in stabilizing ice volume by compensating for lost altitude, but ignores the fact that isostasy would have contributed significantly to maintaining altitude as well - and the attendant fact that the current AGW is occurring so quickly that isostatic uplift is negligeable.

In other words, Greenland is likely to shed altitude (and ice) to a greater extent than was true in the E and H interglacials due to the loss of this stabilizing factor.

Just goes to show that Hansen doesn't always pick the gloomiest possible outcome, despite what some say here.

[TerryM]

Just read the paper at that link and I'm struck by one thing that Hansen didn't mention about the effect of interglacial melting on ice sheet altitude......that is, isostatic uplift of Greenland in particular as the melting in the Eemian and Holsteinian interglacial periods.

He mentions the compensatory effect that increased snowfall in a warmer climate would have in stabilizing ice volume by compensating for lost altitude, but ignores the fact that isostasy would have contributed significantly to maintaining altitude as well - and the attendant fact that the current AGW is occurring so quickly that isostatic uplift is negligeable.

In other words, Greenland is likely to shed altitude (and ice) to a greater extent than was true in the E and H interglacials due to the loss of this stabilizing factor.

Just goes to show that Hansen doesn't always pick the gloomiest possible outcome, despite what some say here.

Very good point - and one I missed completely.

Rapid onset temperature change may be much more devastating than an equal change over a more protracted period.

[tacoman25]

Because some of the frogs in the pot want to shut off the stove.

The ones who are adjusting themselves to the nice toasty water aren't helping to solve the problem.

Sorry, but humanity has always had to make adjustments, both to thrive and survive.

Again, I am not advocating no action. I am simply not convinced that many of the catastrophic scenarios painted by AGW alarmists are going to turn out to be accurate.

[dabize]

Sorry, but humanity has always had to make adjustments, both to thrive and survive.

Again, I am not advocating no action. I am simply not convinced that many of the catastrophic scenarios painted by AGW alarmists are going to turn out to be accurate.

Why not? Bovine indifference Intellectual stolidity?

How many species do you know have radically altered their ecological niches over a period of, say 200 years, and survived?

I can imagine highly irradiated bacteria doing that, but vertebrates?

Remember, most of us (the 99.999%) cannot perpetually hide from their environment behind barricades, AC and space suits.

Or do you really subscribe to Louis XVII's (I think) dictum: Apres moi, le deluge. (He might have been literally right here, if you live on the coast)

[PhillipS]

Sorry, but humanity has always had to make adjustments, both to thrive and survive.

Again, I am not advocating no action. I am simply not convinced that many of the catastrophic scenarios painted by AGW alarmists are going to turn out to be accurate.

Tacoman, I don't mean to single you out with this post because you have a lot of company. There is a recurring mantra in these threads from the skeptics and pseudo-skeptics that Technology (with a capital 'T') will be available when needed for adaptation and mitigation if the worst-case scenarios come true. As if Technology were some pervasive, all powerful force that will rescue humanity from the consequences of our collective short-sightedness. Increased drought? No problem, Technology will handle that. Sea-level rise? No problem,Technology will handle that. Higher global temperatures? No problem, Technology will handle that. I've even seen nonsense statements like "technology doubles every ten years". I'll call this faith that the future will always be better, richer, more 'Gee-whiz', the George Jetson philosophy. As an enginer with over thirty years of developing and implementing technology I find it very naive and child-like.

Technology and, more importantly, technological capability, doesn't exist on its own or spontaneously come into existence. It requires a tremendous investment in research, development, and creation of the needed infrastructure to implement. And once a technology is available it requires a continual investment to keep viable or it dissipates. If you don't use it, you lose it.

A good example of a technology lifecycle is the US manned space program. In 1969, over 40 years ago, the US landed astronauts on the Moon, and we continued to launch Moon missions until 1972. So now, 40 years of tehnological development later, we can go to the Moon anytime we want, right? No, we can't. Why not? We have all of the plans for the rockets and capsules and landers, we have the technology, so how hard could it be to build more Saturn 5s, and Apollo spacecraft? It only took nine years the first time so it shouldn't take more than a few months to do it again since we're much more technologically savvy now, right? We still have the technology but we've lost the technological capability.

Well, some people would say that we really haven't lost anything, we've just refocused the US manned space program on Low Earth Orbit (LEO) programs such as the Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). Well, okay. So now that we've finshed the construction of the ISS (with the help of our international partners) we can build a second one much cheaper since the expensive engineering design work is done, right? Again the answer is no, we can't. Now that we've retired the essential infrastructure for bulding a space station, i.e. the Space Shuttle, we can't build another one. We've lost that technological capability, too. Heck, today we have to buy rides to the ISS from Russia.

But we still have a manned space program, don't we? Astronauts are working in the ISS as I type this so clearly we still could build spacecraft if we really needed to, couldn't we? The honest answer is 'Maybe'. With the end of the Shuttle program many of the companies that built, operated, and maintained manned space technology have closed down those operations and many of the personnel, who had the essential training and expertise, have retired or been moved to other programs. The techological capability is dissipating, and pulling together a new infrastructure wouldn't be quick or inexpensive.

I don't mean to say, or imply, that techology can't help us deal with the consequences of AGW. All I'm try to make clear is that technology is not a quick fix or magical. If we foresee the need for a particular technological capability to deal with AGW then we had better get busy developing it today. There is an old saying that the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. That same perspective is relevant to developing technology, too.

[tacoman25]

Phillip, you make some good points.

However, let me clarify. I am not among the "don't worry, technology will save us" camp. My point was more along the lines that regardless of climate change we are seeing now, the idea that humanity will have to find ways to adapt to changing conditions in the future is not new. Rather, the climate of the earth has always undergone changes, sometimes rapidly and severely (for regionalized areas), and people have always had to adapt to these changes.

Now, some people believe that AGW will cause more rapid and severe (and widespread) climate change than humanity has ever had to deal with before (except perhaps ice ages). I personally do not think we will see the warming accelerate much from what we've seen over the past 50 years or so. There may be some largescale adaptions required (some cities may eventually need to be abandoned/moved), but while some places eventually become uninhabitable, others will become more habitable.

Overpopulation remains a higher global concern to me than AGW, though I do not think either is likely to lead to widespread catastrophe.

[SVT450R]

Tacoman, I don't mean to single you out with this post because you have a lot of company. There is a recurring mantra in these threads from the skeptics and pseudo-skeptics that Technology (with a capital 'T') will be available when needed for adaptation and mitigation if the worst-case scenarios come true. As if Technology were some pervasive, all powerful force that will rescue humanity from the consequences of our collective short-sightedness. Increased drought? No problem, Technology will handle that. Sea-level rise? No problem,Technology will handle that. Higher global temperatures? No problem, Technology will handle that. I've even seen nonsense statements like "technology doubles every ten years". I'll call this faith that the future will always be better, richer, more 'Gee-whiz', the George Jetson philosophy. As an enginer with over thirty years of developing and implementing technology I find it very naive and child-like.

Technology and, more importantly, technological capability, doesn't exist on its own or spontaneously come into existence. It requires a tremendous investment in research, development, and creation of the needed infrastructure to implement. And once a technology is available it requires a continual investment to keep viable or it dissipates. If you don't use it, you lose it.

A good example of a technology lifecycle is the US manned space program. In 1969, over 40 years ago, the US landed astronauts on the Moon, and we continued to launch Moon missions until 1972. So now, 40 years of tehnological development later, we can go to the Moon anytime we want, right? No, we can't. Why not? We have all of the plans for the rockets and capsules and landers, we have the technology, so how hard could it be to build more Saturn 5s, and Apollo spacecraft? It only took nine years the first time so it shouldn't take more than a few months to do it again since we're much more technologically savvy now, right? We still have the technology but we've lost the technological capability.

Well, some people would say that we really haven't lost anything, we've just refocused the US manned space program on Low Earth Orbit (LEO) programs such as the Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). Well, okay. So now that we've finshed the construction of the ISS (with the help of our international partners) we can build a second one much cheaper since the expensive engineering design work is done, right? Again the answer is no, we can't. Now that we've retired the essential infrastructure for bulding a space station, i.e. the Space Shuttle, we can't build another one. We've lost that technological capability, too. Heck, today we have to buy rides to the ISS from Russia.

But we still have a manned space program, don't we? Astronauts are working in the ISS as I type this so clearly we still could build spacecraft if we really needed to, couldn't we? The honest answer is 'Maybe'. With the end of the Shuttle program many of the companies that built, operated, and maintained manned space technology have closed down those operations and many of the personnel, who had the essential training and expertise, have retired or been moved to other programs. The techological capability is dissipating, and pulling together a new infrastructure wouldn't be quick or inexpensive.

I don't mean to say, or imply, that techology can't help us deal with the consequences of AGW. All I'm try to make clear is that technology is not a quick fix or magical. If we foresee the need for a particular technological capability to deal with AGW then we had better get busy developing it today. There is an old saying that the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. That same perspective is relevant to developing technology, too.

I'm not saying that technology is the answer to everything but no one can deny that it won't help in the future. Example they already are making seeds for crops that are more hardy for drought conditions who knows how that will progress in future. The whole space thing really comes down to money if it was there anything could be done. Sea level rises like taco pointed out people who are affected by it will need to move and relocate it would not be the end of the world. I just don't agree with all the doom and gloom from some like it's the end of the world there are bigger problems that humanity needs to worry about then some warmer temps sea level rise's etc.

[skierinvermont]

I agree Phillip .. the 'don't worry technology will save us' argument is naive and child-like.

Technology can't save the billions of people who have died from natural weather disasters and starvation and poverty and disease just in the last several decades. Climate change (and population growth) will only exacerbate these problems so instead of 1 billion dying, 10 billion will die from the above problems over the course of the latter half of the 21st century.

Technology can't even solve the problems of today to sustain a reasonable standard of living for much of the world's population. A rapidly changing climate, rising sea levels etc. will make all of these problems MUCH MUCH worse. Throw in some geo-political instability which goes hand-in-hand with poverty, hunger, refugees, and resource scarcity and it's not hard to see where the doom and gloom scenarios come from.

[tacoman25]

I agree Phillip .. the 'don't worry technology will save us' argument is naive and child-like.

Technology can't save the billions of people who have died from natural weather disasters and starvation and poverty and disease just in the last several decades. Climate change (and population growth) will only exacerbate these problems so instead of 1 billion dying, 10 billion will die from the above problems over the course of the latter half of the 21st century.

Technology can't even solve the problems of today to sustain a reasonable standard of living for much of the world's population. A rapidly changing climate, rising sea levels etc. will make all of these problems MUCH MUCH worse. Throw in some geo-political instability which goes hand-in-hand with poverty, hunger, refugees, and resource scarcity and it's not hard to see where the doom and gloom scenarios come from.

According to many, we have already seen a rapidly changing climate over the past century - unprecedented warming. And yet, technology advances have far outpaced climate change. It is not climate change and it is not lack of technology that has led to all the deaths you allude to. It is mainly corrupt political systems, economic failure and lack of access to technology/medicine in many third world countries. However, actual weather disasters represent only a small fraction of those deaths, most come from diseases and starvation. Which again, are mostly due to corrupt political systems and wars.

Trying to lump climate change in with these greater problems which have been around forever is much too broad a stroke, in my opinion.

[SVT450R]

I agree Phillip .. the 'don't worry technology will save us' argument is naive and child-like.

Technology can't save the billions of people who have died from natural weather disasters and starvation and poverty and disease just in the last several decades. Climate change (and population growth) will only exacerbate these problems so instead of 1 billion dying, 10 billion will die from the above problems over the course of the latter half of the 21st century.

Technology can't even solve the problems of today to sustain a reasonable standard of living for much of the world's population. A rapidly changing climate, rising sea levels etc. will make all of these problems MUCH MUCH worse. Throw in some geo-political instability which goes hand-in-hand with poverty, hunger, refugees, and resource scarcity and it's not hard to see where the doom and gloom scenarios come from.

There will always be poverty stricken nations that is up to there government or country to take care of them. We can only do so much to help them out but there is only so much we can do considering we have our own people to worry about. Most are dieing from starvation and are children it's more about the political/economy of the nations then natural disasters or climate change.