Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By adelady

Thread: Drought??

  1. #1 Drought?? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    In the latest New Scientist (17 November page 9), there is an item which shows that past estimates of the effect of global warming on drought have been overstated. In fact, the wrong method of calculating evaporation was used. The new results indicate that a warmer world is not a dryer world, and that the future may include extra rainfall.

    A warmer and wetter world could well be described as one that is more benign.
    Study: Drought Trends, Estimates Possibly Overstated Due To Inaccurate Science « CBS DC


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The new results indicate that a warmer world is not a dryer world, and that the future may include extra rainfall.
    It doesn't go that far. It merely says that observations so far don't validate the model's mild level of drought increase so far using that one index. It says little about the future veracity of the models which predict deeper and more frequent droughts as global warming really kicks into gear.

    --
    This reminds me a little of the challenges with other past observational data, such as weather balloons with typically didn't have firm instrument standards and thus sometimes no thermometers solar shields until the 1980s; the result was very messy analysis of tropical troposphere/lower stratosphere temperature changes.

    --
    It's also a good example of how even the most basic analysis can't be done without models in the natural sciences. In this case the
    Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), which is really a simple model, is found wanting.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Sheffield's analysis has been given a bit of a drubbing by Trenberth and Dai. See Climate Change Is Already Worsening Droughts In Many Ways: Nature Gets It Wrong--And Right | ThinkProgress . (Personal note: This blog often has good stuff but I find the style a bit annoying. I know it's good to provide links within the text so you don't finish up with lots of footnotes and so on. But somehow, the way it finishes up often grates with me. I'm starting to think it's because there are more guest writers recently. The contrast between their writing and the blogger, Joe Romm, may be more obvious. Or I'm grumpy-old-ladying again.)

    And the World Bank would not be likely to get on board either.
    One affected region is the Mediterranean, which experienced 10 of the 12 driest winters since 1902 in just the last 20 years (Hoerling et al. 2012).
    Biggish extract from Trenberth's comment.

    The Sheffield et al Figs. S12-S14 suggest that the “little drying” conclusion is likely due to the use of the CRU precipitation data, which has fewer than 1500 raingauges for the recent years and which differs substantially from the GPCC and GPCP precipitation products that have many more gauge data for the last 10-20 years. The authors make a big deal of their findings, but in fact van der Schrier et al. have made similar conclusions in their previously published papers using the same CRU data set as the forcing. There are also major concerns about the reconstruction of the solar radiation data, which depends a lot on how clouds have changed.Another key point is that while our previous results with PDSI have been compared with other related but independent records, such as soil moisture, streamflow, and GRACE satellite data, Sheffield et al. made only a detailed comparison of various forcing data for the PDSI calculations.

    Another important factor not considered, is that precipitation on land is controlled to a large degree by ENSO: in general with La Niña, as experienced in recent years, there is more rain on land and so the past 2 years have been the wettest on record. That says nothing about whether the extent and intensity of drought is greater or not when it occurs, and so the ENSO signal should be removed before looking at trends associated with climate change.

    Sheffield et al have uncovered some minor problems with Dai (2011) but none that explain the differences in the results. It is evident from all this that there are major issues with the “forcing” data for the more complex form of PDSI, .....
    The biggest problem of all with Deser, Sheffield et al's paper is that there are apparently 38 pages, thirty eight pages, of supplementary material. I think it's a bit sloppy of the journal and/or the reviewers not to have asked for a bit of pruning or restructuring.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Lynx

    Perhaps. But the last sentence of the New Scientist article is interesting. It quotes Steve Running at the University of Montana saying :

    "If global drought is not increasing, if warmer temperatures are accompanied by more rainfall and lower evaporation rates, then a warmer wetter world would mean a more benign climate."

    Remember that global warming means more evaporation from the oceans, and thus more water in the atmosphere. That extra moisture means more rain. If evaporation is less than previously estimated, that means a wetter world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Following this around the place I found several discussions. This one from John Nielsen-Gammon would probably be the pick of the bunch so far. He's the Texas State Climatologist so he's got a very real, very current interest in drought considering what's been happening there.

    I tried to pick out a couple of extracts, but the whole thing is worth reading. Counting Drought | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Remember that global warming means more evaporation from the oceans, and thus more water in the atmosphere. That extra moisture means more rain. If evaporation is less than previously estimated, that means a wetter world.


    While you are correct to point out that most rain comes from water evaporated on the oceans, the problematic drought Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) in the paper has nothing do with with evaporation over the oceans--it has to do with modeled assumptions about evaporation over land.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    My comment about evaporation from the ocean has nothing to do with the PDSI. It is the simple fact, from basic physics, that warmer air holds more water vapour. Warm dry air crossing the surface of the sea will pick up lots of water. When it cools, such as crossing hills or mountains, that water will fall as rain. The basics of this observation are very simple. A warmer world should be a wetter world.

    Of course, there will be local areas where this is not the case. An overall global average means nothing in relation to specific geographic areas. Nor does it mean that the rain will fall evenly . We can expect more monsoonal patterns, with lots of rain in the wet season and little in the dry. But the net, over 12 months, over the whole world, should be more rain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Fair enough, missing the switch in topic.

    Much of the model drought results are from the increasing size of the Hadley cells.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    I suppose it really depends on where one lives whether the effects will be felt as benign.

    Cook and colleagues used a high-resolution climate model developed at GISS to run simulations that compared how patterns of vegetation cover during pre-Columbian (before 1492 C.E.) and post-Columbian periods affected precipitation and drought in Central America. The pre-Columbian era saw widespread deforestation on the Yucatán Peninsula and throughout southern and central Mexico. During the post-Columbian period, forests regenerated as native populations declined and farmlands and pastures were abandoned.

    Cook's simulations include input from a newly published land-cover reconstruction that is one of the most complete and accurate records of human vegetation changes available. The results are unmistakable: Precipitation levels declined by a considerable amount -- generally 10 to 20 percent -- when deforestation was widespread. Precipitation records from stalagmites, a type of cave formation affected by moisture levels that paleoclimatologists use to deduce past climate trends, in the Yucatán agree well with Cook's model results.
    However, the model shows reductions in precipitation and increases in evaporative demand are projected to increase the frequency of short-term droughts. They also found that the area across sub-Saharan Africa experiencing drought will rise by as much as twofold by mid-21st century and threefold by the end of the century.
    NASA - Ancient Dry Spells Offer Clues About the Future of Drought
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Much of the model drought results are from the increasing size of the Hadley cells.
    Which doesn't look too bright and shiny for Perth.




























    And they didn't get any benefit from those Queensland floods - the water only gets as far as the centre of South Australia. Nowhere near the south west corner of the continent.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    Isn't Perth investigating a large scale desalination plant?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    They've already got one. Water Corporation

    Average desalinated water production
    Daily: 130 megalitres (130 million litres)
    Yearly: 45 gigalitres (17% of IWSS water supply)

    45 gigalitres output is probably not much different from the output from the old water storages nowadays, now down to 64 gigalitres input from runoff and rivers. Good thing they have the 3 extra dams, but I doubt very much they'll ever get back to the pre-1976 rates of once every 10 years or so getting inflows of over 500 GL hence the average of 338 GL.

    Of course, Australian cities are overly fussy about using recycled water. (Seeing as anything from rivers and dams has already had ample exposure to ducks and other animals' excreta.) I'd understand if the concern was about the chemical wastes that companies illegally dispose of in the sewage system, bit it's silly yuk! factor stuff that gets all the public comment.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    718
    A better metric for drought is a good thing but I don't agree that Steve Running's optimistic conclusion that a warmer world will have a more benign climate is supported. I believe that even assessed using these methods there are large regions that have been experiencing trends of more severe drought, greater than the global average. And projections in climate models of changes in rainfall and temperature patterns have not been changed or invalidated. The authors certainly make it clear that their work does not justify any complacency about climate change and scientist's comments in light of this paper tend to be cautious about making too much of it. CSIRO Fellow Michael Raupach for example says -

    “Our own backyard is not the same as the globe on average,” Raupach said.

    “We’ve experienced a major drought from before 2000 to 2009, and it was a hot drought compared with previous droughts.

    “There is evidence from work we’re doing right now that there has been an increase in water loss from plants due to these raised temperatures.”

    “Statements that a particular thing such as drought is not being observed at a global scale as a result of climate change can be picked up and misconstrued by people as meaning climate change is not happening,” he warned.

    “There’s no way the paper is saying that and no way that it’s a logical conclusion.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    No one is suggesting complacency is appropriate.

    However, there is something I have long pondered. Global warming literature tends to be unremittingly pessimistic, with predictions of disaster throughout. Yet the world has been warm before. In a number of different geological periods we have seen average temperatures anything from 5 to 10 C warmer than the present. In those periods, life was abundant.

    This makes me wonder what we do not yet appreciate, and what we are not being told. That is : what is the upside of global warming?
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    predictions of disaster


    Just taking the case for humans, disaster is related to unexpected weather events that human infrastructure, agriculture and horticulture is designed and built to withstand based on past climate. So if you put ten million people and a major center of your economy in a presumably "safe" place based on centuries of past climate but that climate changes so there's a Sandy every decade or so...well that's a disaster. Or the example could be Western Kansas wheat fields as it turns to desert; that Perth dam; the fading Columbia river salmon industry and many more.

    It's not about the end state, it's about the painful journey getting their.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    I don't have that much concern about future Sandy sized storms in western nations. I already live in a home that has seen off several storms that big without damage. I live on the coast at a latitude closer to the equator than New York, and we get the tail ends of hurricanes at least each year. Sometimes the winds are ferocious. But my home is modern, and built to take it.

    The real problem with Sandy was the lack of preparedness. With modern homes and apartment/office buildings designed and built to stand up to those conditions, it is no longer a problem. If we have lots of Sandy's in the future, people will simply have to strengthen their homes, or build new homes to cope.

    Sea level rise is more of a long term problem, and we can adapt to that, also. Either coastal communities build sea walls, or communities will have to relocate. Either one will be very expensive.

    Kansas turning to desert? Sounds bad, but I do not think we can say with confidence that will happen.

    But the point I was making is : why is it all disaster mongering? A warmer world must have benefits. What are they?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    A warmer world must have benefits.
    Must have?

    And those benefits must be for agricultural plants and animals?

    And for the places and built objects that humans have built in those places?

    I can see that on a geological time scale future scientists might be able to see benefits for some organisms or processes or ecologies. I can't see any good reason to presume that whatever benefits occur, if they do, will be in favour of humans and their preferred environments and support mechanisms. What we know about human civilisation is that it has occurred in an unusually stable 10000 year climate - the Holocene. Nobody thinks that we can't adapt to change. The big problem with this climate change is not that it's changing, but that the change is much faster than anything seen in any previous geological age. And the quickest ones that we know of were devastating to the life forms and ecologies of that time.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    I am not sure that the recent geological period can be called that climatically stable. There have been at least 10 glaciation and interglacial periods. 10,000 years is just the recent interglacial. Even in terms of the period of time humans have existed, 10,000 years is not a long time.

    Global warming might even be ushering in a period of proper climatic stability, avoiding those crippling glaciation periods.

    I can think of potential benefits to global warming. The world's largest land masses are all cold. Canada, Siberia, and even Antarctica. A warming will make them much more habitable, and we will be able to grow crops there. The loss of land area to sea level rise will be of the order of 5%. The extra arable land is likely to be a lot more than that.

    Already vegetables are being grown, on a limited scale, in parts (sheltered valleys) of southern Greenland. This was not possible in the past due to colder climates. Can you not see a time coming in which much more can be done in the previously frigid land masses?

    Yet the news releases on global warming are inevitably stories of catastrophe. I am not sure that this is an accurate way of portraying the future. Especially not if the new world will be wetter as well as warmer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Even in terms of the period of time humans have existed, 10,000 years is not a long time.
    Exactly. But that's the time in which we've developed agriculture, in all its forms, and the civilisations that rely on agriculture.

    Global warming might even be ushering in a period of proper climatic stability, avoiding those crippling glaciation periods.
    Well. we've already knocked the next glaciation completely off the calendar. Unless we get a process going for mass extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere we're on course to skip a couple more. Milankovitch cycles only "work" when you get CO2 concentrations down below 200ppm, 185ppm seems to be the marker. Time history of atmospheric CO2 - YouTube

    And remember there are all kinds of benefits of glaciation - but in geological terms only, I'm pretty sure Canada wouldn't like the idea of going out of existence for a few hundred, or thousands of, years just so the ground up rock from its centre can be redeposited to fertilise and extend the Great Plains further down the continent when the ice melts.

    Can you not see a time coming in which much more can be done in the previously frigid land masses?
    But a lot of them aren't 'land' masses. They're either rock or frozen bog / swampland. There are already problems with forests and roads and buildings subsiding because their 'bedrock' was really frozen swampy stuff - as it thaws it destabilises everything above it. As for the sheltered valley stuff, I can see no reason why people in those regions shouldn't be using modern technology to grow a much wider range of vegetables, small fruits and small animals indoors in enclosures that are artificially lit and ventilated - why bother with the outside?

    Yet the news releases on global warming are inevitably stories of catastrophe. I am not sure that this is an accurate way of portraying the future. Especially not if the new world will be wetter as well as warmer.
    Wetter - mainly in places that are already wet. Drier - in places that are already dry.

    We're back to the "feet in the oven, head in the fridge, on average you're comfortable" argument.

    I can see that many people would think that getting water into Lake Eyre every year is a 'better' climate - for pelicans and a few species of migratory birds from Russia - than once every 10 or 20 years. Seeing as the cost of that better water is major flooding every year, instead of every now and again, in vast areas of Queensland I'm not convinced.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I am not convinced, Adelady.

    Sure there are big downsides to global warming, but no upsides? That seems less than likely to me.

    On the frozen footing in the far north - certainly change brings problems. It always does. But humans can adapt to change and thrive in the changes. If frozen swamp thaws out, we may have a period in which we will have to use special tactics for anchoring structures. But in time, that thawed out land becomes arable and valuable.

    In the mean time, we get a North West passage for shipping. New resources like oil and minerals are made available. Surely the global warming changes can be seen in both lights - positive and negative? Why be unremittingly negative?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Lynx

    I don't have that much concern about future Sandy sized storms in western nations. I already live in a home that has seen off several storms that big without damage. I live on the coast at a latitude closer to the equator than New York, and we get the tail ends of hurricanes at least each year. Sometimes the winds are ferocious. But my home is modern, and built to take it.


    And you make my point for me. Sandy in many places would have been relatively minor consequences...but those are places used to cat-2/3 storms. It was completely unprecedented for New York--one completely off the scale by historical measures.

    Something similar can be said for just about every other extreme weather event...the damage they do depends on whether the places they hit are prepared (as you point out), but preparation is usually based on past storms as evidence of what can be expected. Climate changes completely change those expectations, the relative level of preparation and thus the events destructive capabilities.



    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; November 25th, 2012 at 07:21 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    New resources like oil and minerals


    Why bother? Oil and coal are not many decades away from acquiring the same status as asbestos. Still in the ground. Still plenty of it. Still the same properties. Totally unsuitable for routine human use and rejected because of that. I'd be more interested in developing technologies for extracting minerals from sea water than helping the Arctic along the path to wrack and ruin.

    But in time, that thawed out land becomes arable and valuable.
    How much time? One century? Three hundred years? Arable land is a pretty specific, special commodity and it needs suitable seasonal climates.

    Why be unremittingly negative?
    Well, I'm not. I think we can do it - 'it' being to stop ourselves from inadvertently destroying all the advantages we get from the world as it is. Some people see it as trying to stop a runaway train - which leads to turning away, covering the eyes or cowering in fear. I see it more as stopping a headstrong toddler or teen from doing themselves harm by not seeing or understanding the consequences of their own actions. Smack the little chubby fingers heading for the fire or the oven, for the umpteenth time. Don't touch! Take the alcohol away from the foolish fifteen year old. Wait until you're older!

    I see us as having a bonanza of technologies that will finally get us out of the caveman obsession with burning stuff. It doesn't matter how big and shiny and sophisticated the engineering might be on a 'modern' coal or nuclear plant. It's still the old-fashioned, dig-stuff-up-and-burn-it mentality of prehistoric cutting peat through to Victorian industrialists spreading smog and 1960's "too-cheap-to-meter" nuclear power enthusiasts and 1990s USA car industry saying we want to burn as much stuff as possible in our grossly inefficient vehicles.

    We can run modern societies by burning absolutely nothing for any routine purposes - except a few specialty industrial or transport applications and for the human indulgences of bonfires or BBQs or traditional bread/pizza ovens.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    How much time? One century? Three hundred years? Arable land is a pretty specific, special commodity and it needs suitable seasonal climates.
    I think you will find that the term 'arable' is pretty damn variable in definition. Anywhere in the world where sufficient liquid water is available, land gets cultivated, and it is highly variable. Different soils and different agricultural methods. Once Arctic tundra warms enough, the land will be arable, even if non conventional methods are used in farming.

    I disagree with you on nuclear. I regard nuclear as essentially similar to renewable power, simply because the resource is so vast, when you include thorium. Nuclear, even though it is so much out of favour politically, still provides 14% of the world's power, while wind and solar together provide less than 3%. There is a reason for this. Quite simply, nuclear is cheaper and more practical.

    I agree that we need to take measures to minimise global warming, and moving away from fossil fuels is critical. However, accepting that there may be positive upsides to global warming does not mean we give up on mitigating strategies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    renewable power, simply because the resource is so vast, when you include thorium.
    Only when you include thorium, if I recall correctly. (Yet another reference vanished into nowhere with my last computer. I lack the enthusiasm to redo the collection on purpose. It was assembled casually over months and years and only parts were on memory sticks.)

    Whatever the positives might be, they'd have to be spectacularly good just to counterbalance the costs of sea level rise. Replacing, and these are straight out guesses, 500 trading and fishing ports, 30 or 40 sizeable airports (Adelaide among them), many 1000s of sewage processing facilities - and that's before we get to the major cities of the world that are based on ports. These are the 20 largest, if we take out the inland ones - will we be able to afford to save every single one of the others?

    1. Tokyo, Japan - 32,450,000
    2. Seóul, South Korea - 20,550,000
    3. Mexico City, Mexico - 20,450,000
    4. New York City, USA - 19,750,000
    5. Mumbai, India - 19,200,000
    6. Jakarta, Indonesia - 18,900,000
    7. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 18,850,000
    8. Delhi, India - 18,680,000
    9. Õsaka/Kobe, Japan - 17,350,000
    10. Shanghai, China - 16,650,00011. Manila, Philippines - 16,300,000
    12. Los Angeles, USA - 15,250,000
    13. Calcutta, India - 15,100,000
    14. Moscow, Russian Fed. - 15,000,000
    15. Cairo, Egypt - 14,450,000
    16. Lagos, Nigeria - 13,488,000
    17. Buenos Aires, Argentina - 13,170,000
    18. London, United Kingdom - 12,875,000
    19. Beijing, China - 12,500,000
    20. Karachi, Pakistan - 11,800,000


    Whatever benefits someone can identify from warming, I'd like to see it expressed in $$$ for comparison with the cost of protecting and/or relocating (some, part, all) of 10 big port cities.
    London, Shanghai, Karachi, Manila, Bangkok (only 7 million), New York, Mumbai, Buenos Aires, Los Angeles, Tokyo. No special reason for those, but the thought of adding up the value of just these cities harbourside facilities, businesses, infrastructure, residences is enough for many people's nightmares.

    The idea that extra farmland near the Arctic or mining within it, which may or may not equal the productivity of agricultural products lost elsewhere, might begin to compensate for the economic losses of just these cities needs some serious economic justification. And if these cities are in trouble, what does that say about the Nile, Mekong and Ganges deltas and their productivity?

    I'm happy to talk possible benefits. But they need to be quantified, and the circumstances in which they arise lead to costs which also need to be quantified. I know that changes already in course mean that Australia might make money out of chocolate production which will be lost from Africa at least and maybe South America as well if they continue on the same path. I'm not sure those gains and losses will even cancel out. I'm very sceptical about unquantified benefits offsetting obvious losses. We can do it when talking about industrial or urban reconstruction, we should be able to do it for global reconstruction.

    Only numbers will do it for me in this sort of weighing of costs and benefits.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    what's it gonna cost?
    this is your baseline?

    jeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    The norm for this planet is about 10 degrees F. warmer than it is now.
    We are in an ice age.
    Warm interglacials like the one we live in ain't the norm in an ice age (usually a bit over 10% of the time)
    and
    Ice ages ain't the norm for our planet (usually about 10-20% of the time)
    sans ice ages, the norm was for no polar ice caps and warmer global temperatures.

    so we are living in an abnormally warm(less cold) spell within an abnormally cold spell

    How can you fear what has been the norm for this planet that bore your ancestors and bred you and still flourishes as a green and verdant cornucopia.

    I am amazed by people who think that everything which is not well understood should be the result of coincidence.
    There are patterns within nature, and we are of nature, should we not fit into the greater patterns?
    Are we really that special?
    God's chosen ones?
    Or, are we just a cog in the evolutionary gears of this marvelous living biom?

    Skeptic has it right in asking: "Why be unremittingly negative?"
    May I add my voice to the query?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    "Why be unremittingly negative?"
    I'm not. You talk about our climate being unusual. That gives us cause to pause.

    What if human agriculture and civilisation flourishes in this particular kind of climate - and didn't flourish in other climates, hotter, colder, more predictable, less predictable, ..... and the didn't really means couldn't? Perhaps it really is a Goldilocks "just right" for humanity - not too hot, not too cold, not too hard, not too soft - but just right. It's a question worth considering.

    It really matters not a bit to the earth or to a geological view of its history or its future what happens to us. Life is just a thin skin of activity which is a small part of very long term geological processes. The earth could do just fine without us. It would do just as well with no mammals, no animals of any kind, no plants or algae.

    Our interest is in keeping things, as far as possible, in as congenial a climate as possible - to suit us and the food sources we rely on. That means we need the "air conditioners" at the poles. We need enough CO2 to keep plant life ticking over but not so much that the seas won't support the fish we eat. We need predictable seasons for growing crops.

    The only thing we know for absolute certain is that at times when the earth was much hotter or much colder than it is now, there was no human civilisation as we know it. And we know that, at least in the hotter times, we couldn't have had the living arrangements we now have had we been there at the time - because most of us live in places that would have been more than a few metres under water. Airily waving away the idea of relocating a few billion people away from coasts or affected rivers won't cut the mustard - even less if you ignore the industry, agriculture and infrastructure cost that goes with those people.

    Put some $$$ on it. Then put the $$$ for avoiding some, most, all, of it.
    scheherazade likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    "Why be unremittingly negative?"
    Might I turn the question around?

    Why are so many people so unremittingly negative about the capacity of individual people and their communities to face a problem squarely and deal with it effectively? Let's face it, most people don't give a fig about where their power comes from, they just want the lights and the oven to work when they hit the switch. Why the negativity about saying it's a good idea, a better idea, to get that power from a cleaner source? (doesn't matter which kind for the purposes of this question.)

    Why be so negative about newer, better power sources when all existing burning-stuff power plants have to be replaced sooner or later? Why do so many people argue against improving efficiency of conventional car engines? I find this a real mystery.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    I am happy to admit that we need to deal with global warming as best we can and apply the best mitigation methods we have. Global change will create problems and cost a lot of money, especially if we do not act.

    I would like to comment on your remark about humans and our optimum conditions. Humans do not actually have optimum conditions, because we are the most flexible, adaptable of all mammals. As I said before, we thrive as Inuits in the Arctic and as Tuaregs in the desert, even with only stone tools. With today's technologies, we can thrive pretty much anywhere. I bet a self sustaining community could be set up at the South Pole, if we chose to do so. Nuclear power, artificial heating and daylight lamps to grow fresh vegetables.

    There is a long term trend towards urbanisation. 100 years ago, only a few percent of people lived in cities. Today, it is over 50%, even taking into account poor third world nations. Inside this urbanisation trend is a second trend. We are moving more and more into high rise apartment dwellings. We create our own optimal climates inside those residential buildings. My guess is that, by the time global warming is at its peak, most humans will be living in artificial climates, with purified filtered air, in hurricane proof apartment buildings. Note that people living in apartments have a relatively low ecological footprint.

    To put it simply, whether the world is warmer or cooler will make damn all difference to human welfare. Global warming will create problems, but none that humanity cannot learn to live with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    North Texas is prone to drought...just look at this image from google street view....it not only captures my dad sweeping...but the poor state of my yard and bushes:

    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Romanian Drought
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 16th, 2011, 05:26 PM
  2. Drought
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 16th, 2011, 06:20 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •