[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Is it a sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or something else? Please be clear as to the mechanism of destruction that is so scary.

[jeffreyH]

Not being able to continue to feed all 7 billion people in the world. Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War.

[Bored chemist]

OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Not being able to continue to feed all 7 billion people in the world. Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War.

Actual mechanism required not "we are all doomed!!!!".

[PhysBang]

OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Is it a sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or something else? Please be clear as to the mechanism of destruction that is so scary.

I can think of some examples off the top of my head.

Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops. In some cases, land suitable for food crops may coincide with suitable climate for the first time. Even if this is a washout, people and businesses will still need to relocate. This will, at best, make food production less efficient.

The increase in temperature will increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This will mean an increase in ocean acidity, which in turn will change fishing habitat. This means, at best, food production from fisheries will be less efficient.

As we have already seen, the increase in temperature can create less of a discrepancy between the temperature of arctic air and the air at lower latitudes that results in more mixing of arctic air with the air at lower latitudes which results in periods of more intense cold in lower latitudes. This results in higher demands for energy for heat and, likely, in more injuries and deaths due to the cold.

As we have already seen, increases in temperature have lead to increased demand for energy to cool human spaces as well as increased injury and death due to heat.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

Well, I see 3.4c over today by 2100 as slight.

Obviously the world has stubornly refused to warm up at the rate needed to get there since the science was settled but....

What level of warming do you see as a problem and what the hell would you see as the problem?

.....like pulling teeth....

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Is it a sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or something else? Please be clear as to the mechanism of destruction that is so scary.

I can think of some examples off the top of my head.

Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops. In some cases, land suitable for food crops may coincide with suitable climate for the first time. Even if this is a washout, people and businesses will still need to relocate. This will, at best, make food production less efficient.

The increase in temperature will increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This will mean an increase in ocean acidity, which in turn will change fishing habitat. This means, at best, food production from fisheries will be less efficient.

As we have already seen, the increase in temperature can create less of a discrepancy between the temperature of arctic air and the air at lower latitudes that results in more mixing of arctic air with the air at lower latitudes which results in periods of more intense cold in lower latitudes. This results in higher demands for energy for heat and, likely, in more injuries and deaths due to the cold.

As we have already seen, increases in temperature have lead to increased demand for energy to cool human spaces as well as increased injury and death due to heat.

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea of vast changes to the pattern of how the earth's climate zones will change.

When I did O level geography we did questions where you were given a place on the world and had to describe the climate and natural vegitation. There are fixed reasons why the climate is how it is over much of the world. The great grasslands of America and Asia are there due to them being in rain shadows and far inland. The more coastal fertile areas are such due to more rainfall and less extremes of temperature.

Do you think that warmer areas grow less food? We are after all talking about the climate 300 miles closer to the equator that what you have today. Is that really so bad?

The energy required to cool with AC is a lot less than that required to warm in the winter in most of the world.

[Bored chemist]

OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

Well, I see 3.4c over today by 2100 as slight.

Obviously the world has stubornly refused to warm up at the rate needed to get there since the science was settled but....

What level of warming do you see as a problem and what the hell would you see as the problem?

.....like pulling teeth....

It certainly is- because I answered essentially the same question from you in post 563 here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg486696#msg486696
So did others.
If you don't pay attention to the answers there's no point asking questions
Pretending that  you can't get an answer isn't very honest, is it?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

OK, I have been told that I have not asked this question clearly enough so here goes;

What exactly do you see as the trouble witha slightly warmer world?

Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

Well, I see 3.4c over today by 2100 as slight.

Obviously the world has stubornly refused to warm up at the rate needed to get there since the science was settled but....

What level of warming do you see as a problem and what the hell would you see as the problem?

.....like pulling teeth....

It certainly is- because I answered essentially the same question from you in post 563 here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg486696#msg486696
So did others.
If you don't pay attention to the answers there's no point asking questions
Pretending that  you can't get an answer isn't very honest, is it?

So you think that the weather will become more variable if it is a little warmer over all?

Do you have any science which would support this?

Again I don't see it a a bog panic as I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt. As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument.

[jeffreyH]

Tim read this all the way through. Don't just skim it. It is a complex issue that you can't make glib statements about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

[Bored chemist]

So you think that the weather will become more variable if it is a little warmer over all?

Do you have any science which would support this?

Again I don't see it a a bog panic as I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt. As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument.

Since you don't know that reality (and thus science) support  the view that the weather gets worse you don't understand why it's a problem
Perhaps you should learn.
Also
re" I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt."
In the real world a fairly large  fraction of crops are already spoiled by bad whether. but you come from a world where the supermarket shelves are full so you don't understand he real world.

"As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument. "
But, as demonstrated by a lot of starving people, we don't have that ability.
So yours is the stupid argument.

[PhysBang]

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea of vast changes to the pattern of how the earth's climate zones will change.

You could try newspapers, television, or the actual IPCC reports.

Do you think that warmer areas grow less food? We are after all talking about the climate 300 miles closer to the equator that what you have today. Is that really so bad?

Warmer climates grow different food, if they can. Changing the agriculture of a region requires work to effect that change.

The energy required to cool with AC is a lot less than that required to warm in the winter in most of the world.

You might want to think about some basic thermodynamics on that one. Plus, are you recommending that people move in order to accommodate global warming? Are you going to pay for them to move?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Tim read this all the way through. Don't just skim it. It is a complex issue that you can't make glib statements about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

Given that during the holocene optimal the Sahara was a land of woods and grasslands and that the increase in CO2 has caused a general greening of such areas as the Sahel zone in Africa whilst the locals have been using pumps to acess the deep aquifiers which would have furthered the desertification of the area I think you  may have it wrong.

The TED video is one of the best, well worth a watch.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

So you think that the weather will become more variable if it is a little warmer over all?

Do you have any science which would support this?

Again I don't see it a a bog panic as I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt. As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument.

Since you don't know that reality (and thus science) support  the view that the weather gets worse you don't understand why it's a problem
Perhaps you should learn.
Also
re" I know that even if it should be true only a tiny percentage of crops per year would be spoilt."
In the real world a fairly large  fraction of crops are already spoiled by bad whether. but you come from a world where the supermarket shelves are full so you don't understand he real world.

"As long as we have the ability to transport and trade food areound the globe this is a silly argument. "
But, as demonstrated by a lot of starving people, we don't have that ability.
So yours is the stupid argument.

We clearly do have the ability to transport lots of food around the world it's that loads of it is used to make biofuel that causes the present mass starvation of the world's poor. 800 milliom people with cronic medical undernorishment. 40% of US grain used to make biofuel. Crime against humanity.

Given this thread is about the lack of any support you provide for your view that we should panic about the possibility of a slightly warmer world your lack of providing such support for your claim that the weather will get worse says it all agian. Come on!! Show why the weather is going to be worse in a world where the temperature has risen by a lot less than the normal year to year variance of nature. A warm year in Euope does not cause mass catastrophy!!

Yes lots of food is spoilt be bad weather. That's farming for you. The increase in such events will not be much if any. Show some actual science that says otherwise!!!

[PhysBang]

We clearly do have the ability to transport lots of food around the world it's that loads of it is used to make biofuel that causes the present mass starvation of the world's poor. 800 milliom people with cronic medical undernorishment. 40% of US grain used to make biofuel. Crime against humanity.

First, we currently have enough food to feed everyone, even with making biofuel, which is almost a complete waste of resources. The problem is that food has to be distributed and that s the problem. If we are going to rely on growing food in one area and shipping it to other areas, then we need to use either fossil fuels or biofuels. If we use the former, the problem gets worse. If we use the latter, then we have to come up with an as of yet unknown way to produce biofules that doesn't use a lot of fossil fuels.

Given this thread is about the lack of any support you provide for your view that we should panic about the possibility of a slightly warmer world your lack of providing such support for your claim that the weather will get worse says it all agian.

There is a lot of evidence out there. You just seem to refuse to read any of it.

 

Come on!! Show why the weather is going to be worse in a world where the temperature has risen by a lot less than the normal year to year variance of nature. A warm year in Euope does not cause mass catastrophy!!

Apparently, you are fine with all the people who died from heat related causes in Europe in the past few years.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

We clearly do have the ability to transport lots of food around the world it's that loads of it is used to make biofuel that causes the present mass starvation of the world's poor. 800 milliom people with cronic medical undernorishment. 40% of US grain used to make biofuel. Crime against humanity.

First, we currently have enough food to feed everyone, even with making biofuel, which is almost a complete waste of resources. The problem is that food has to be distributed and that s the problem. If we are going to rely on growing food in one area and shipping it to other areas, then we need to use either fossil fuels or biofuels. If we use the former, the problem gets worse. If we use the latter, then we have to come up with an as of yet unknown way to produce biofules that doesn't use a lot of fossil fuels.

Actually saying, with evidence to back it up, what this huge problem is would sort of be the point of this thread....

Given this thread is about the lack of any support you provide for your view that we should panic about the possibility of a slightly warmer world your lack of providing such support for your claim that the weather will get worse says it all agian.

There is a lot of evidence out there. You just seem to refuse to read any of it.

And you refuse to actully explain it. The classic tactic of refering to a vast text that the bible bashers use...

 

Come on!! Show why the weather is going to be worse in a world where the temperature has risen by a lot less than the normal year to year variance of nature. A warm year in Euope does not cause mass catastrophy!!

Apparently, you are fine with all the people who died from heat related causes in Europe in the past few years.

And apparently you are very very happy with the much larger number of people who died of cold last year and all those who live in fuel poverty as well.

We are a tropical species. Cold places are the one we have trouble with, mostly.

I seem to have not managed to get this link on. i don't know why.

http://oecdinsights.org/2010/01/25/biofuel/

It’s not that there isn’t enough food. A new study by the Earth Policy Institute  shows that the grain grown by US farmers in 2009 to make biofuels was enough to feed 330 million people at average world consumption rates.

[Bored chemist]

...
And apparently you are very very happy with the much larger number of people who died of cold last year and all those who live in fuel poverty as well.
We are a tropical species. Cold places are the one we have trouble with, mostly.
...

Nope, We aren't happy about people dying of cold. That's why we  worry about things like the disruption of the gulf stream and the cooling effect which that would have on the North West of Europe.

Once again, it's as if you believe that a simple "everywhere gets a little cooler"  model is reasonable.
It isn't.
The thermodynamics don't work that way.

[mrsmith2211]

Gee, like the barrier reef, it is dying, see it now, like lobsters and sea fish, go hunt farther north, Like flooding, see the islands and new york city before the water levels rise, like the glaciers? see them now, like the polar bears, see them now, sure what do you care about any of these things. Climate change does not effect me YOU SAY, but  you cannot even accept the contribution of Co2 changes the world? If it was permissible I would be calling you by all the names you deserve

[alancalverd]

Not being able to continue to feed all 7 billion people in the world. Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War.

There's the answer. We have total control over the only important variable. Make fewer babies. The "do nothing" option is always best, and this one is bound to work.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

...
And apparently you are very very happy with the much larger number of people who died of cold last year and all those who live in fuel poverty as well.
We are a tropical species. Cold places are the one we have trouble with, mostly.
...

Nope, We aren't happy about people dying of cold. That's why we  worry about things like the disruption of the gulf stream and the cooling effect which that would have on the North West of Europe.

Once again, it's as if you believe that a simple "everywhere gets a little cooler"  model is reasonable.
It isn't.
The thermodynamics don't work that way.

Given that the North Atlantic convayor/gulf stream is wind driven I do not see any trouble from a very tiny amount of fresh water being added to the system.

Picture a 1m wide path from Barbados to Scotland, say 10,000km, picture holding a 1m x 1m piece of cloth out horizontally just above the water anywhere along the course of the gulf stream. It will flap about in the wind of the North Atlantic.

If you can hold onto it with a force of the weight of 10kg it is a calm day. 10kg weight is 100N.

5,000km x 1,000 (to get to m) x 100N is enough force to push up a colum of water 50km high. That is why the current is the biggest other than the Southern ocean.

A slight alteration in the salinity of the water it is mixing with to the North will do nothing at all.

Once again I do not need high level physics about IR absorption to understand the bleeding obvious.