[Francis Tapon]

Francis Tapon  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Most of your reporting on global climate change is one-sided.

CHANGE implies WINNERS and LOSERS. You (and most media) only report on the losers.

It would be a breath of fresh (perhaps warm) air, to hear about the millions of species that will BENEFIT from climate change (whether it means warmer, colder, wetter, or drier).

I propose dedicating a program's theme on all the species who are celebrating climate change.

(Many humans will also benefit from climate change, but you don't need to mention them.)

Thanks for the great show!

Francis Tapon

What do you think?

[litespeed]

Frank,

Thoughout human history warm has been good, and cold has been bad. For instance, warm weather such as was experience during the Midieval warming resulted in excess agricultural production and perhaps even the renaisance.  Cooler weather favors both reduced agricultural production, and the spread of various vermin such as bubonic plaque flees.

The rise and fall of Rome has even been attributed to, first, the excess agricultural production after the Pre-Roman cooling, and, later, the move south by northern barbarians who were fleeing failing, marginal, agricultural land.

The Cult Like GWistas, seem to not have a clue warmer weather improves food production.  Well, you know, they don't worry about agricultural production because they employ catterers,

[litespeed]

Hey Frank,

I lived in Chicago for more then a decade, and would routinely drive extra around the block to help warm the climate. At that time I KNEW warmer was better, but did not yet understand the Carbonistas were nothing more then a druid cult of darkness.

The entire GW ediface is collapsing as the sunspot cycle fails to responded to solstice sacrifice.  But mostly, these folks have never really needed to buy coal or cut wood to keep warm. The think warm is the result of Honeywell Thermostats.  Entirely missing the point those thermostates keep their sorry asses out of the local pneumonia wards.

[litespeed]

Frank,

Gobal Climate Change has mostly been bad for humanity. The recent escape from the last ice age is the clincher. The entirety of human civilization is totally and completely the result of WARMER weather.

Many of the Carbonistas have ideas how to cool the climate. I tell them to forget it and just move to the North Slope of Alaska.  I remind them Polar Bears LIKE crunching down on both harp seals and leftists. They want more Polar Bears, and so I do not protest.

[Karsten]

If you are concerned about an ecosystem you are concerned about any dramatic changes. I don't think it is smart to look away from the mayhem (may it be looming or not) and focus attention on the pretty picture. That is like enjoying the scenery while careening towards the abyss.

Nice lion - pretty fur.

[Bored chemist]

One possible effect of global warming is the shut down (or at least major reduction) of the Gulf stream.
This has the advantage that much of the UK will have colder Winters and wetter Summers.  This, in turn will give the surviving residents more opportunity to complain about the weather.
Of course it makes a mockey of the talk about thinking Honeywell thermostats have anything to do with the issue.
In much of the world however the effects will be that the climate warms up. Of course, as litespeed has pointed out, this will dramatically increase food production. There's a clear correlation between areas of sustained high temperature and food production. The areas are called deserts and the correlation is negative.


Earth to Litespeed
Please note that about 95% of the world's population does not live in the USA.

[frethack]

One possible effect of global warming is the shut down (or at least major reduction) of the Gulf stream.

If global temperatures were to rise at a runaway pace and a significant portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt very rapidly, then it is possible to slow the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation), but it would take an immense melt water pulse to do so.  So far, at relatively moderate temperature increases (+0.6 ^oC global average), the effect has been to *increase* Gulf Stream transport by 3-7 Sverdrup (10⁶ m³/s) depending on the season, which supplies a very large amount of heat to the northern latitudes.  The complete AMOC shutdown hypothesis operates on the basis that the AMOC (and by extension global temperatures) operates mainly by salt-oscillation, but this is increasingly being shown untrue (it does contribute, but latitudinal position of the ITCZ appears to be the major driver).

There's a clear correlation between areas of sustained high temperature and food production. The areas are called deserts and the correlation is negative.

Heat has very little to do with the creation of deserts.  A desert is a region that recieves less than 250 ml of effective precipitation per year...both cold and warm (Antarctica is a desert).  Atmospheric pressure belts and topography (rain shadow effect) create deserts for the most part.  Notice that there are very few deserts at the equator where the lionshare of incoming heat is concentrated.

I agree with you that to say "Warm is good, Cold is bad" is a gross oversimplification and that his version of the science is VERY seriously flawed, but litespeed is (surprisingly) correct in his assessment that warming/cooling climate had much to do with the rise/fall of Roman civilization (and for that matter, rise/fall of Chinese dynasties and the Mayan downfall).  During the height of the Roman Empire (from the reign of Septimus Severus and into the 5th century AD if memory serves correctly), an overwhelming portion of the Roman grain trade was from N. Africa (evidence from amphora mounds).  This is also in part from excellent irrigation techniques and that Septimus was N. African, but climate played a pivotal role. 

That being said...be careful with your "science" litespeed.  Speaking in absolutes on a science that is in its infancy is a good way to ensure that you are incorrect.  
     

[Bored chemist]

"A desert is a region that recieves less than 250 ml of effective precipitation per year"
What's your second guess?

[Karsten]

"A desert is a region that recieves less than 250 ml of effective precipitation per year"
What's your second guess?

Your quote is a sentence fragment and is torn out of context which makes its author sound silly without addressing what was intended to be communicated.

[frethack]

"A desert is a region that recieves less than 250 ml of effective precipitation per year"
What's your second guess?

No guess needed.  From source to source the exact precipitation measurement varies somewhat, but that is the geologic definition of a desert...no heat needed

[litespeed]

Bored chemist - You wrote:

"There's a clear correlation between areas of sustained high temperature and food production. The areas are called deserts and the correlation is negative."

One era with very high level of CO2 is the Jurrasic. I believe it was 3000 ppm and the temperature was maybe 20 degrees warmer. Pretty much the entire planet was something of tropical paradise.

You also wrote: "Earth to Litespeed Please note that about 95% of the world's population does not live in the USA."  This is a nonsequitor that deserves the same. One way we keep such a low percentage is by thumping, banging, and cattle prodding all those grasping hands that are always climbing over the stern to get on board.

[litespeed]

Fret

Thanks for your contribution. I have always believed historians have never adequately produced, or even planned to produce, a global history of excess agricultural production that is the ENTIRE basis of pre-industrial civilizations. 

[Bored chemist]

"A desert is a region that recieves less than 250 ml of effective precipitation per year"
What's your second guess?

Your quote is a sentence fragment and is torn out of context which makes its author sound silly without addressing what was intended to be communicated.

I intended to communicate that the assertion made was so wrong as to be silly.
Incidentally that quote is a perfectly valid sentence- it's just wrong.

If you think that an area's annual rainfall can sensibly be about half a pint either you are talking about such a small area that it doesn't matter or you are talking about somewhere a lot drier than any desert on earth.
I think the moon might get more precipitation that that from minor comets etc.

Anyway, there are a sufficient number of hot deserts to make it clear that really hot places don't generally grow much food.

[Karsten]

"A desert is a region that recieves less than 250 ml of effective precipitation per year"
What's your second guess?

Your quote is a sentence fragment and is torn out of context which makes its author sound silly without addressing what was intended to be communicated.

I intended to communicate that the assertion made was so wrong as to be silly.
Incidentally that quote is a perfectly valid sentence- it's just wrong.

If you think that an area's annual rainfall can sensibly be about half a pint either you are talking about such a small area that it doesn't matter or you are talking about somewhere a lot drier than any desert on earth.
I think the moon might get more precipitation that that from minor comets etc.

Anyway, there are a sufficient number of hot deserts to make it clear that really hot places don't generally grow much food.

Got it. Good point. I was not looking at the numbers, just questioning the style of answer. Anyhow, I looked it up. It should probably say 250 mm, not ml. According to the link below, it also depends on evaporation and rain fall alone is not enough. Anyhow, mm makes sense, ml does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert (see the number in "Definition")

[frethack]

And mm is what was meant...I didnt see that I had written ml, and I do apologize for the glaring mistake.

Anyway, there are a sufficient number of hot deserts to make it clear that really hot places don't generally grow much food.

There is still a fundamental problem with this assertion, though.  You are correct in that deserts are not conducive to food growth, but not because of the heat...its lack of water.  Move the high pressure belt just above the tropics toward the equator and you increase the amount of solar radiation it receives (which would increase the temperature in a world without water), but that also greatly increases the amount of rainfall, which then has an ameliorating effect on temperature.  Historically, mass desertification has occurred during cooling events when the atmospheres ability to carry moisture is reduced, not warming events.  There are differences from region to region, but I am speaking on the climate system as a whole.

The Roman Warming, Medieval Warming, and Holocene Optimum are all periods in the past 10ka when temperatures were near to or warmer than current (Holocene Optimum was warmer and evidence suggests the Medieval Warming may have been warmer in some regions) and life and agriculture flourished during these times.  The Little Ice Age, Dark Ages, and the Pre Roman cooling were cooler periods (some downright frozen) with fairly severe climatic instability, much of which coincided with political, cultural, and agricultural turmoil.

A paper as an example:
Zhang et al. 2008
A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture: Relationships from an 1810-Year Chinese Cave Record

If you are interested in reading it but cant obtain it, let me know and I would be glad to send it to you.

[litespeed]

fret

I think you will be interested in a documentary I watched last night. It investigated the collapse of Old Kingdom Egypt. Long story short, it was caused by draught famine during cooling period that lasted one or two centuries.

There was no discussion of what caused the cooling, but they did associate it with a known 1,500 temperature cycle discovered in either an ice or ocean core sample from the North Atlantic area. The planetary nature of that cool spell is demonstrated by ice and ocean bottom core samples using a variety of proxy data. As I generally say, warm is good, cold is bad []

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml

[frethack]

fret

I think you will be interested in a documentary I watched last night. It investigated the collapse of Old Kingdom Egypt. Long story short, it was caused by draught famine during cooling period that lasted one or two centuries.

The time period is around 2100 BC, or about 4100 years before present.  Solar radiation is really beginning to decline in the Northern Hemisphere around this time due to Precessional and Obliquity orbital variations.  The climate over most of the earth is extremely variable and unstable.  I love studying this period.

[litespeed]

Fret

As you are a resident of The Republic Of Texas (no joke here) I would like your assesment of wind power production in the Lone Star State.  I lived in the Windy City of
Chicago, but was entirely unprpared for the continuous wind speed over the windmill farms in West Texas.  They made me think of a new sort of gusher.

However, I have heard the actual availability of installed capacity could be as little as 10%.  I am interested in your assessment of the potential of this industry.

         

[frethack]

Fret

As you are a resident of The Republic Of Texas (no joke here) I would like your assesment of wind power production in the Lone Star State.  I lived in the Windy City of
Chicago, but was entirely unprpared for the continuous wind speed over the windmill farms in West Texas.  They made me think of a new sort of gusher.

However, I have heard the actual availability of installed capacity could be as little as 10%.  I am interested in your assessment of the potential of this industry.

Unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise.  I do know that Texas has been debating (and I think even has passed) subsidies that would create a massive power grid for all of the windfarms in West Texas.  If you drive down I10 you are constantly passing (and being passed by) wind turbine parts being hauled by massive trucks.  Its quite a site to see.  One thing I have heard is that after the grid is in place, Texas will produce more wind power than the next 14 states beneath them, but this is something that would need to be verified.

Im in the midst of studying for two tests next week, but I will research this a bit more to see if I can find a more satisfactory answer.