Eaarth

[basjoos]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Disease is spreading out -- West Nile virus, malaria, Dengue fever, etc. are all spreading well beyond their "traditional" ranges.

West Nile and dengue fever are Old World diseases that recently jumped over to the New World and are currently spreading to their full potential range in the New World.

The traditional range for malaria prior to the 1900's ran north into Scandinavia and Siberia in Eurasia and into Canada in North America. Malaria was a big problem in the railroad camps that built the Trans Canadian railroad in the late 1800's.

[NeilBlanchard]

I hear you, and you all make good points. I hope that you can check the Eaarth book out from your local library and read it.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

@Arragonis: It doesn't matter whether humans have already caused detectable global warming.

It does matter. Its actually core to the debate. Most reconstructions, apart from the ones used by the IPCC, accept it has been warmer - a lot warmer - than it is now. If it isn't warmer then we aren't having an effect.

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

There's very little debate that the GHG's that we are releasing in unprecedented quantities will cause climate change if they haven't yet. Regardless of whether it has happened or will someday happen, our response should be the same: reduce GHG emissions when we can.

There isn't debate that GHGs will cause climate change. There IS debate about whether the amount we are releasing has, does and will cause it.

But above all I accept the basic point you are making

I think we are all coming here for the right basic reasons, to reduce our effect on the planet as well as personal costs and of course the politics of oil. It effects us in different ways depending on where we are in the world. We may not agree what the effect we are trying to prevent or change is but its all good.

As Neil has said maybe we can have a look at the book and see if it offers something new. I applaud and respect his effort to get people to look at something he believes in, but at the same time I don't agree with his premise.

Now, on with the FE increasing...

[gone-ot]

...with all due respect (or not) to British namesakes, mankind has not been a very good steward, but similarly, 'Mother Nature' hasn't been so 'beautiful' either!

[NeilBlanchard]

It has been warmer than this in the past -- the problem is that this *change* has occurred in a geological instant. That and we humans have had ~10,000 years of near perfect climate in which to gain as much as we have.

Our human ability to adapt will be strenuously tested. Things will be different from now on.

[pletby]

Just how much greenhouse gases was expelled from the volcano in Iceland this spring? The one that closed down European airports for days (weeks?) and that's erupted for years at a time before. That'd be just one volcano of course. Just wondering how that compares?

[roflwaffle]

The USGS on volcanoes via about dot com.

Plus an obligatory repost...

[tumnasgt]

As is summed up nicely by the picture in roflwaffle's post, there isn't really a downside to reducing emissions.

There are financial costs for some things, but a huge amount of difference can be made by simple things like putting on a warm top before turning up the thermostat and switching off the lights when you don't need them.

In my life, I have decided that until there is real proof to whether global climate change is a real problem, I'm going to play it safe. Pretty well everything I do will save me money, so even if GCC turns out to be a miscalculation, I'll be better off in the pocket.

So much media attention is focused on how much all this "being green" will cost us, but the core message (use less energy) will save money short-term as well as long-term.

[Arragonis]

There is a potential issue with the rate of increase - the data isn't exactly straightforward. For example a load of temp sites are badly placed, so actually they are recording temps that are higher than expected.

And secondly a lot of the data has been, er, 'adjusted'. Its interesting how these adjustments are always upwards and never down.

And thirdly when you look at the reconstructions, another issue is that there is a divergence between what the proxies tell us should be happening and what is happening - thats the 'hide the decline' issue - the proxies are declining yet recorded measured temp seems to be increasing.

If the proxies don't match current temps how can they be trusted to record past temp. So can we say there wasn't a warmer period or indeed a period of rapid change ? Dunno but the data needs analysing more cleanly to make sure. Like I say I'm on the fence.

The precautionary principle is a nice thing, except if you are in the 3rd world and being denied any of the developments we take for granted which may save your life or those of your children because of something which is at best a theory so far. And at the same time those same people still fly, drive, use central heating, electricity like mad.

If I was in one of those countries I would want my government to tell the IPCC to "go forth and multiply" too.

[Arragonis]

One last point then I'm going to leave this

Droughts in Australia have been the norm for quite a long time, certainly since the 19th century when records really started.

Drought in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It isn't something new or unusual. We don't know the full effects of the droughts in those years, only what people have recorded.