[jeffreyH]

A thread on a forum wouldn't make a dent.

[Bored chemist]

A thread on a forum wouldn't make a dent.

It might make just as big a dent as an off topic post in a thread.

[jeffreyH]

Famine is caused by politics, war and cli.ate change in that order. It is pointless debating the effects of climate change and what to do about it when it is far less of a problem than the other two. Sorting the divisive issues out will go a long way to resolving all our problems. However human nature flies in the face of resolutions. There are no grown ups in charge.

[alancalverd]

Bihar 1966, Maharashtra 1973, Iceland 1783, Sahel every so often since time began....one could list hundreds of really lethal famines caused by climate change in relatively stable political conditions.

War is not a particularly efficient killer compared with disease and hunger.

Politics and religion are a definite menace to humanity, however. The political imperative to "grow the economy" and religious demands to outbreed the worshippers of a lesser god, ensure that various bits of the world from time to time cannot sustain their human population. The zero-cost, zero-effort solution, of course, is to make fewer babies, but there's no industrial or political profit in that, so it won't happen.

[Tim the Plumber]

We are in an era of almost instantly redundant technology where marketeers promote the latest model incessantly. How long do you think it will be before the over consumption of resources wrecks the planet?

The price of almost all materials is lower now than ever. This in spite of all that drivel a few years ago about peak oil.

The reserves of extractable resources are also still going up as they have been ever since humans found the first rock that would split and leave a sharp edge.

Soon we, humans, will start bringing asteroids into earth orbit where they will be mined for the materials they have in them in abbundance which are often scarce down here.

This will lead to heavy industry being located in space where energy is plentiful and polution not a problem.

The availibility of resources is going to be massively more than today for ever.

[Tim the Plumber]

Famine is caused by politics, war and cli.ate change in that order. It is pointless debating the effects of climate change and what to do about it when it is far less of a problem than the other two. Sorting the divisive issues out will go a long way to resolving all our problems. However human nature flies in the face of resolutions. There are no grown ups in charge.

800 million people live in cronic malnourishment today.

This is largely a result of the increased prices of basic food stuff due to the use of food as fuel. This has raised prices by 30% to 70%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve#/media/File:PrestonCurve2005.JPG

How much would a rise in income of $130 a year make to those on the left of this graph who currently have a life expectancy of just over 40 years? I think that's excluding infant mortality.

[Bored chemist]

Bihar 1966, Maharashtra 1973, Iceland 1783, Sahel every so often since time began....one could list hundreds of really lethal famines caused by climate change in relatively stable political conditions.

War is not a particularly efficient killer compared with disease and hunger.

Politics and religion are a definite menace to humanity, however. The political imperative to "grow the economy" and religious demands to outbreed the worshippers of a lesser god, ensure that various bits of the world from time to time cannot sustain their human population. The zero-cost, zero-effort solution, of course, is to make fewer babies, but there's no industrial or political profit in that, so it won't happen.

If it happened in a particular year it's called "weather" not "climate".- it's a very common mistake among those who seek to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
But otherwise you have a good point.

[PhysBang]

We are in an era of almost instantly redundant technology where marketeers promote the latest model incessantly. How long do you think it will be before the over consumption of resources wrecks the planet?

The price of almost all materials is lower now than ever. This in spite of all that drivel a few years ago about peak oil.

The reserves of extractable resources are also still going up as they have been ever since humans found the first rock that would split and leave a sharp edge.

Soon we, humans, will start bringing asteroids into earth orbit where they will be mined for the materials they have in them in abbundance which are often scarce down here.

This will lead to heavy industry being located in space where energy is plentiful and polution not a problem.

The availibility of resources is going to be massively more than today for ever.

That's a nice fantasy. How are we supposed to find petrochemicals in asteroids?

[alancalverd]

If it happened in a particular year it's called "weather" not "climate".- it's a very common mistake among those who seek to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
But otherwise you have a good point.

The Icelandic famine lasted several years and significantly altered the agronomy of Iceland. It was precipitated by a volcanic eruption whose effects were noticeable all over northern Europe. Now, being British, I consider weather to be a day-to-day variable phenomenon, but a trend that spans more than a season looks like something else. If it isn't climate, perhaps you'd care to suggest another name?     

I was hoping to add some reference to the ecological consequences of the PETM global warming event, but it seems that the warming spike preceded the increase in CO2 level by some 2000 years, so I won't mention it here in case it upsets the faithful!

[PhysBang]

I was hoping to add some reference to the ecological consequences of the PETM global warming event, but it seems that the warming spike preceded the increase in CO2 level by some 2000 years, so I won't mention it here in case it upsets the faithful!

The only thing disturbing is your commitment to cherry-picking scientific results in the service of denying the science as a whole. Well, OK, your commitment to accepting mythology that seems to superficially support your claims is also disturbing. And your bigotry.

So, yeah, a lot of things disturbing.

[jeffreyH]

Bihar 1966, Maharashtra 1973, Iceland 1783, Sahel every so often since time began....one could list hundreds of really lethal famines caused by climate change in relatively stable political conditions.

War is not a particularly efficient killer compared with disease and hunger.

Politics and religion are a definite menace to humanity, however. The political imperative to "grow the economy" and religious demands to outbreed the worshippers of a lesser god, ensure that various bits of the world from time to time cannot sustain their human population. The zero-cost, zero-effort solution, of course, is to make fewer babies, but there's no industrial or political profit in that, so it won't happen.

When war displaces populations into refugee camps it becomes an indirect but still efficient killer. Especially when coupled with famine.

[alancalverd]

I forgot to mention the US Dust Bowl. Again arguably not a climate change problem buit a failure to moderate agriculture to a sustainable level. And there's the semantic problem: anything that can be correlated with carbon dioxide is "climate" except when the correlation is anomalous, when it becomes "cherrypicking", and anything else is "weather" because it  is heresy to think otherwise. So the American Dust Bowl was due to a failure  to anticipate 3 years'  weather 20 years ahead.

[Tim the Plumber]

We are in an era of almost instantly redundant technology where marketeers promote the latest model incessantly. How long do you think it will be before the over consumption of resources wrecks the planet?

The price of almost all materials is lower now than ever. This in spite of all that drivel a few years ago about peak oil.

The reserves of extractable resources are also still going up as they have been ever since humans found the first rock that would split and leave a sharp edge.

Soon we, humans, will start bringing asteroids into earth orbit where they will be mined for the materials they have in them in abbundance which are often scarce down here.

This will lead to heavy industry being located in space where energy is plentiful and polution not a problem.

The availibility of resources is going to be massively more than today for ever.

That's a nice fantasy. How are we supposed to find petrochemicals in asteroids?

Well there is lots of carbon in them so processing it into petrol and plastic should not not be tricky given the free power of continious sunshine.

Although why would we want to ship in stuff from space that is hugely abundant down here?

[PhysBang]

Well there is lots of carbon in them so processing it into petrol and plastic should not not be tricky given the free power of continious sunshine.

Although why would we want to ship in stuff from space that is hugely abundant down here?

Why do so many people have so much faith in the assumptions of simple economics model and so little knowledge of physics?

[Bored chemist]

If it happened in a particular year it's called "weather" not "climate".- it's a very common mistake among those who seek to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
But otherwise you have a good point.

The Icelandic famine lasted several years and significantly altered the agronomy of Iceland. It was precipitated by a volcanic eruption whose effects were noticeable all over northern Europe. Now, being British, I consider weather to be a day-to-day variable phenomenon, but a trend that spans more than a season looks like something else. If it isn't climate, perhaps you'd care to suggest another name?     

I was hoping to add some reference to the ecological consequences of the PETM global warming event, but it seems that the warming spike preceded the increase in CO2 level by some 2000 years, so I won't mention it here in case it upsets the faithful!

So, you don't think sunshine in July and snow at Christmas are weather (n the North, at any rate).
Others may disagree.
It's a moot point whether volcanic ash clouds are weather or climate, but they are irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not you can discount CO2 levels.

[alancalverd]

Sushine in July and snow at Christmas are climate. Snow in July is weather, and the recent disappearance of winter snow is climate change.

Vocanic ash clouds are in fact relevant because they may or may not be cognate with very large historic releases of CO2.

[Bored chemist]

Sushine in July and snow at Christmas are climate. Snow in July is weather, and the recent disappearance of winter snow is climate change.

Vocanic ash clouds are in fact relevant because they may or may not be cognate with very large historic releases of CO2.

So, it's only most of the stuff that you introduced that's irrelevant.
Nobody has claimed that CO2 is the only factor in climate change.

[Tim the Plumber]

Sushine in July and snow at Christmas are climate. Snow in July is weather, and the recent disappearance of winter snow is climate change.

Vocanic ash clouds are in fact relevant because they may or may not be cognate with very large historic releases of CO2.

So, it's only most of the stuff that you introduced that's irrelevant.
Nobody has claimed that CO2 is the only factor in climate change.

Actually the IPCC uses all the observed warming during the period, which ever period they choose, to justify the very high projections the spew out.

If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all. The temperatures being within the normal range for this interglacial.

[Bored chemist]

If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.

Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.

[Tim the Plumber]

If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.

Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.

Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.

I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?