[chiralSPO]

I have split the discussion of isotopes off into a separate thread. I would direct everyone to use this thread to discuss OP's original question, and the new thread for discussion of isotope fractionation: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70556.0

[alancalverd]

More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.

Because, as has been pointed out many times,  there is no evidence for it. Extreme weather causes more damage every year because people choose to live in more marginal environments

But

www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf supports the following conclusion with some sound statistics

In the U.S., morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events peaked decades ago.
Depending on the category of extreme weather event, average annual mortality is 59%–81% lower than at its peak, while mortality rates declined 72%–94%, despite large increases in the population at
risk. Today, extreme weather events contribute only 0.06% to global and U.S. mortality. These improvements reflect a remarkable improvement in society’s adaptive capacity, likely due to greater
wealth and better technology enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon fuels. Finally, mortality from extreme weather events has declined even as all-cause mortality has increased, indicating that humanity is coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems.

[alancalverd]

The answer to the original question has two aspects

1. It is a matter of opinion whether the ability to grow grapes in Scotland again (as has been done within recorded history) would be Good Thing

2. Human migration driven by rapid climate change in either direction is a Bad Thing. 

[Bored chemist]

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

Trying to find out what on Earth you are looking for when you ask, in the same breath for both more-, and less- science is neither  a trick, nor evasion.
Don't try to pretend that it is.

How is it anything other than self evident that putting more energy into the weather will make the weather more extreme?
Which bit don't you understand?

[alancalverd]

Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

[Bored chemist]

Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts

[jeffreyH]

So having a warmer world means a lack of cloud cover doesn't let heat escape at night? We will have a lovely continuous temperature.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Science cannot tell you that. It is subjective and open to interpretation. To be able to make that interpretation you need to analyse the data and make a judgement based on personal criteria. What might appear bad to one person might appear good to another. That is down to the vagaries of human nature.

Complete drive.

I am askinmg that the case for action against CO2 be made so I can look at it and see if there is one.

You have attempted to do this so the idea that there is some sort of philosophical block is drivel.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?

If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.

I have been very clear;

I want to see if there is any science that supports the idea that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing.

Not science about if that warmer world will happen. At least not in this thread.

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

There is no shortage of primary and secondary literature that addresses this very question. But my experience shows me that you will discount anything I put forth, so if you are as interested in answering this question as you claim to be, I suggest you do some diggin' yourself. Perhaps start here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+climate+change+bad

I will skeptically challenge anything you post,

I will not be diverted by links to tyoo long to read masses of vague drivel.

Those are exactly the tactics of the religious.

What is so hard about explaining and supporting your ideas?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

Trying to find out what on Earth you are looking for when you ask, in the same breath for both more-, and less- science is neither  a trick, nor evasion.
Don't try to pretend that it is.

How is it anything other than self evident that putting more energy into the weather will make the weather more extreme?
Which bit don't you understand?

Places with higher temperatures such as the equitorial regions have the most stable climates going.

The polar regios where the temperature is lowest have the most extreme variability, generally.

Venus which has very high energy levels in it's air has almost no variability, it is always hell. Mars with almost no energy in it's almost atmosphere has many year long sand storms.

If you cannot find any science to support your precious idea there is a reason. If there is no such science then we cannot quantify how much of a problem it is.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts

Post some facts then we can look at them.

[chiralSPO]

Tim, I don't doubt that you can find a perfectly reasonable objection to any give study I put forth.

We can't observe what hasn't happened yet, so any study will have to rely on drawing comparisons to things that have happened before (but nothing quite like this has happened), or making projections based on current and recent trends, or performing experiments in controlled laboratory settings (which makes it easy to establish causality, but must be simpler than what happens in the real world). In essence, there is no single paper I can present here that won't have apparent holes. The important thing is the body of literature. Everybody is attacking these questions using different methods, using different assumptions, using different data. And they almost all have reached the conclusion that global climate change is going to be very expensive to cope with, and poses serious threats to geopolitical and ecological stability.

But, here goes...

As far as we can tell, climate change will lead to:
• A higher sea level (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014032;jsessionid=B15B29DE88D582FE6F136534540F0AE9.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org) , which will damage costal cities and habitats, in extreme cases leading to displacement of people and other organisms (especially at risk are islands and wetlands).
• Shifted weather patterns (http://www.nature.com/news/climate-zones-will-shift-faster-as-world-warms-1.12838), transforming previously wet and fertile lands into deserts, and vice versa. (So if you own a soy farm in Iowa now, you might have to decide in 20 years, whether to change crops or move a few hundred miles one way or the other to be in the new breadbasket region) Ultimately this will also lead to displacement of people and other organisms.
• More dangerous weather (see sea-level rise reference above, and also http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/abs/nature16467.html ) Meteorology is very complex, so there is no simple, "x causes y causes z, QED!" But it has been shown that drought damage to crops has bee increasing over the last century, commensurate with climate change. As sea levels rise, costal cities will be at greater risk of flooding from storm surges (which cause more damage than wind in hurricanes). Also, with a warmer atmosphere, more water evaporates each day (globally), increasing the movement of water vapor around in the atmosphere, and providing more rain in places where the rain does fall.
• Increase the spread of diseases and blights ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/514 ) Essentially the warmer temperatures will generally be great for insects and the like. More mosquitos, more ticks, more disease. This also means more damage to crops and forrests from herbivorous insects such as locusts, beetles, and ants.

[jeffreyH]

Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.

[chiralSPO]

Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.

This is sarcasm, right?

[Bored chemist]

Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts

Post some facts then we can look at them.

You don't seem to recognise them.
For example
Here's a fact
This assertion "Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. " is not always true- as witnessed by the counter example.

However weather is essentially driven by temperature gradients.


So, here's another fact for you.
For any given object, the higher the flux of heat through it, the larger the temperature gradient will be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier.27s_law
(It's more complex with the other 3 forms of heat transport, but the basic idea's still the same.

Increasing the  energy trapped by the air (By increasing CO2)  will increase the temperature gradients between where ever the sun's shining and where it's not.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Tim, I don't doubt that you can find a perfectly reasonable objection to any give study I put forth.

Well, then they are all crap then.

Come on! Try to be scientific about this!!!

Find one issue, not many so we can look at the detail, rigor, you know science like, and then explain how that thing will cause trouble, then cite a paper or basic science that supports it, then we can see if it is more or less costly than traffic lights.

Simple.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. If global temperatures rise and the ice sheets retreat, there is less cold air available, so the frequency or intensity of extreme events will decrease. This has already been observed in the case of hurricanes.

What I don't understand is why warming-alarmists ignore the facts and thus turn their forrm of climatology into a religion instead of a science.

Thanks for clarifying what you don't understand.
"Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. "
Or not.
A drought, for example, isn't caused by that.


So, What I don't understand is why warming deniers ignore the facts

Post some facts then we can look at them.

You don't seem to recognise them.
For example
Here's a fact
This assertion "Extreme weather is a result of temperature differences, more specifically, the confluence of hot and cold air. " is not always true- as witnessed by the counter example.

However weather is essentially driven by temperature gradients.


So, here's another fact for you.
For any given object, the higher the flux of heat through it, the larger the temperature gradient will be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier.27s_law
(It's more complex with the other 3 forms of heat transport, but the basic idea's still the same.

Increasing the  energy trapped by the air (By increasing CO2)  will increase the temperature gradients between where ever the sun's shining and where it's not.

Dear God! The rate of heat flow, flux if you prefer, is proportional to the temperature gradient across the object.

Yes.

The warming is expected to be most at the cold places and weakest at the hot places. Thus less flux.

If it is sooooooo accepted then there must be loads of papers looking at the specific details of this. Assesing the degree of the effects.

Meanwhile, millions of people die per year from not eating the food that is diverted to use as fuel.

[alancalverd]

Where are these millions dying? Mass starvation is principally an African problem, but according to http://biofuel.org.uk/major-producers-by-region.html the continent produces very little biofuel, mostly from animal poo. If anything, the solution would be to farm fewer animals.

[alancalverd]

I've never met a "warming denier", so I can't comment on BC's posts. Everyone knows that the climate is changing and currently, in the inhabited parts at least, it is getting warmer. The unresolved questions are why, and what are we going to do in response to it?

[jeffreyH]

Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.

This is sarcasm, right?

Tim thinks biofuel is the worlds number one problem. So he won't let anything get in the way of his prejudice. So I am making him happy by agreeing with him.