A recurring theme on some of the sceptical discussions recently has been the question of whether it'd be better i) to see temperatures recommencing their rise and suffer AGW policies, or ii) continued cooling along with its problems and AGW policies scrapped?

I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously the underlying assumption is that AGW is not real, and that cooling is much worse for the world than warming, as can be seen by prolific times for humans in previous warm spells.

However warming plus AGW policies may be worse for the world and humankind than cooling.

Pingo:

A recurring theme on some of the sceptical discussions recently has been the question of whether it'd be better i) to see temperatures recommencing their rise and suffer AGW policies, or ii) continued cooling along with its problems and AGW policies scrapped?

I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously the underlying assumption is that AGW is not real, and that cooling is much worse for the world than warming, as can be seen by prolific times for humans in previous warm spells.

However warming plus AGW policies may be worse for the world and humankind than cooling.

 

Yes, I have noticed some of this. There are suggestions that 'warmer is better' and 'an atmosphere richer () in CO2 is good for plant life'.  However, this is completely at odds with James Lovelock's view, which is that the planet overall thrives best in 'cooler' conditions.

The reference to James Lovelock is relevant, I think, because his view is based around the concept of Gaia. It may well be that both statements are true, i.e. that warmer means better for human beings but worse for the entire eco-system.  As homo sapiens is dependent ultimately on the health of the eco-system and associated bio-diversity then I would view 'warmer is better' as a self-interested and short-sighted view.

The problem with cooling is really about the effect on human beings - our energy-dependent socio-economic model and the global population means that our response would be to burn more fossil fuels.  Also, given that the planet will struggle to feed the ever-growing and generally richer population, cooler would mean (I assume) less predictable and lower crop yields, leading to further problems. 

An interesting subject. 

The problem is not absolute temperature but rate of change. A rapid warming unprecedented in history would be highly damaging to ecosystems, human populations and economies, as would an equally rapid cooling. For the same reason both El Ninos and La Ninas can be disastrous for tropical economies - both are pronounced departures from equilibrium. Therefore this is really a bit of a non-issue because the 'alternative' to human interference in the climate is not (unless you're an 'ice age now' proponent) rapid cooling.

Tim S:

The problem is not absolute temperature but rate of change. A rapid warming unprecedented in history would be highly damaging to ecosystems, human populations and economies, as would an equally rapid cooling. For the same reason both El Ninos and La Ninas can be disastrous for tropical economies - both are pronounced departures from equilibrium. Therefore this is really a bit of a non-issue because the 'alternative' to human interference in the climate is not (unless you're an 'ice age now' proponent) rapid cooling.

I agree that it is the rate of change that is the real problem - for one thing it gives nature very little opportunity to respond effectively. However, I think my points are valid and support your post - it is the entire eco-system that has to be considered.

Human beings have prospered in part because of our ability to adapt to, and thrive in, differing environments (from arctic to equatorial, from lowland to mountain). many species exist in an ecological niche and rapid change is a threat to them and their eco-systems.

Without restating another thread, just one example - look at the recent stories about penguin numbers in decline due to fish stocks declining and/or moving. 

I agree cooling might be worse than warming

However I cannot see anything but benefit in implementing polices that reduce carbon emissions (maybe because I'm not as rich some of your are?) and anyway, what about anthropogenic precipitation change which very clearly is detrimental to the development of third world countries and even detrimentally affect countries like the UK and USA?

Implementing policies to combat carbon emission based global warming is a win win situation.  Implementing policies to combat other aspects of anthropogenic climate change is a win win win win win situation. 

Unless, of course, you own a Russian Gas Company or have lots of shares in Iranian Oil Fields .....

IMHO*

* I am not an omnipotent god and thus may be wrong 

Gandalf The White:

Tim S:

The problem is not absolute temperature but rate of change.

 

I agree that it is the rate of change that is the real problem - for one thing it gives nature very little opportunity to respond effectively. 

What's wrong with you people. Even just eye balling the temperature rise from the 20's to the 40's you can see that the ROC is more or less the same slope. I assume you both have IQ's of some sort, but you choose to switch them off for religious reasons. (or to annoy me)

I am beginning to think the simple economics of natural resource depletion are going to have a far greater impact than any greenhouse policy. However, we are at a very important cross-over point. We should now be putting money into the development of renewable resources and technological developments rather than looking to find new gas and oil fields in areas of natural beauty.

 I have no conviction though with the short-termist outlook of the current capitalistic approach to seek alternatives.

The alternative is a governmental-driven approach to alternatives and we know they have a lousy track record in attempting to "pick winners".

I wonder if our current crop of climate models can be programmed to create a temperature fall of eg 1c and assess what the regional effects would be, for example wrt to precipitation and early/late frosts in important agricultural areas. If they are tweakable, this should be possible...?

Waterspout:

Gandalf The White:

Tim S:

The problem is not absolute temperature but rate of change.

 

I agree that it is the rate of change that is the real problem - for one thing it gives nature very little opportunity to respond effectively. 

What's wrong with you people. Even just eye balling the temperature rise from the 20's to the 40's you can see that the ROC is more or less the same slope. I assume you both have IQ's of some sort, but you choose to switch them off for religious reasons. (or to annoy me)

Oddly enough, in a thread discussing future climate change, it's the projected rate of warming of 2 to more than 4C in less than a century that's the issue here, not current rates. That's up to 0.4C per decade. Between the coldest 5 years of the 1910s-20s and the warmest part of the 1940s the earth warmed by about 0.3C, at a rate of less than 0.15C per decade. If you cherry pick 1920 and 1940 (the years mentioned) the warming is 0.12C per decade.

Oddly enough too, rapid decadal-scale changes in regional precipitation last century were responsible for millions of deaths in the third world, in an era when population densities were far lower than they are now. We are talking about a very rapid and generalised warming. It's only relevant, of course, if you believe the model projections - clearly you do not, that's a given - but this thread is about the hypothetical situation where those projections come true. It seems your (religious) beliefs run as follows:

- The world is not warming (it stopped in 1998 presumably)

- If it is warming, it's not anthropogenic

- If it is warming and it is anthropogenic, it's not a bad thing anyway

I.e. all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Waterspout:

Gandalf The White:

Tim S:

The problem is not absolute temperature but rate of change.

 

I agree that it is the rate of change that is the real problem - for one thing it gives nature very little opportunity to respond effectively. 

What's wrong with you people. Even just eye balling the temperature rise from the 20's to the 40's you can see that the ROC is more or less the same slope. I assume you both have IQ's of some sort, but you choose to switch them off for religious reasons. (or to annoy me)

You seem to have a fairly basic problem with engaging in polite discussion, Waterspout.  I will not lower myself to your standards.

Clearly you don't get this at all.  I don't understand exactly why, unless you are so focussed on challenging the detail that you have missed the big picture.  To repeat my analogy of a couple of days ago, do feel free to argue about the colour of the paint on the lorry that is careering towards you as you stand in the road.

I don't do religion and my politics are right of centre. My IQ is perfectly adequate to debate with you.  I have always thought that the sign that someone was losing an argument was when they were reduced to being rude.

Tim S:

1 - The world is not warming (it stopped in 1998 presumably)

2 - If it is warming, it's not anthropogenic

3 - If it is warming and it is anthropogenic, it's not a bad thing anyway

I.e. all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

1 - There's no presuming about it, let's keep the facts straight.

2 - Some anthro

3 - To a point, some Warming is beneficial.

Don't fool youself into thinking the 20's and 80's Warming are the only examples of rapid change over a couple of decades. As to 'giving time species to adapt' - You'll have to be more specific. As an example, let's take Polar Bears. The Arctic Warms and so they don't need thick White Fur Coats anymore. Whether the Warming happens in 10, 20, 1000 Years, the Polar Bears won't have time to evolve without a White Fur Coat. That would take many 10,000's of Years.

I'm sure many of us have Cats. Don't know about yours, but my Cats still have Fur Coats even though in the past 20 years they probably don't even need them in the Winter, never mind the Summer. If we carried on Warming up to 4.0C, I suspect my Cats will still have Fur Coats in 200 Years time also.

Gandalf The White:

I agree that it is the rate of change that is the real problem - for one thing it gives nature very little opportunity to respond effectively. However, I think my points are valid and support your post - it is the entire eco-system that has to be considered.

Human beings have prospered in part because of our ability to adapt to, and thrive in, differing environments (from arctic to equatorial, from lowland to mountain). many species exist in an ecological niche and rapid change is a threat to them and their eco-systems.

Without restating another thread, just one example - look at the recent stories about penguin numbers in decline due to fish stocks declining and/or moving. 

Well let's go back to your original post, rather than me answer your previous post which said nothing of interest really (to do with science anyway)

Firstly, let's distinguish between hypothetical computer generated apocalyptic 4.0C rises and what we actually know as fact.

There were two period in the 20th Century which had rapid Warming events of comparable slope. The 20s to 40s and the the 80s to 90s. However, if you care to just go back to the previous Century and then the one before that, there is not much difference really in episodes that also had rapid decadal changes in either direction. You could only believe that something unsual is happening now, or had happened in the 80's and 90's, if you believe in the Hockey Team's misguided views on past Climate Change, ie Mann now dropped from any mention even by the IPCC.

So, as I said in my previous post to Tim, what exact 'evolutions' of species do you think won't be able to adapt, and more importantly would it matter if the change was 20 years, 200 years, or 2,000 years, would they actually not adapt anyway in either of these timeframes.

You seem to greatly under estimate the way Life "Finds a Way". No one thought any life could exist nearer underwater Sulphuric Volcanic Vents, but it does. In the deep Oceans the strangest of species are found. My Cats manage to get through past Summers of weeks in the 30's with big fur coats without becoming extinct. What evidence do you have that life is a fragile as you are making out? It was said the radiation contamination at Chernobyl would eradicate any life for 100's of years, but strange species have quite happily adapted and live in the radiation area. I see no signs that life, species, whether animal, mineral, or vegetable does not adapt pretty quickly to survive.

A little over 10 years ago it was thought no living bacteria could survice in the acidic environment of the human stomach. Until two scientists from Edinburgh discovered Helicobacter Pylori, and now people are routinely cured of cronic indigestion, Ulcers, and Stomach Cancer, when it wasn't so long ago they had to suffer.

Life appears to be very robust to me, and will adapt pretty sharpish if it wants to survive.

Tim S:

- The world is not warming (it stopped in 1998 presumably)

- If it is warming, it's not anthropogenic

- If it is warming and it is anthropogenic, it's not a bad thing anyway

I.e. all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Tim - surely there's a certain irony in your making this point.

Let's have a go from the other side :

- The world may have stopped warming but that's just natural variability 

- Even if the world cools the underlying trend is still up

- A warmer world is a disaster with no plus side at all

- Even if the world never warms again, the policies designed to cut CO2 emissions are just jolly good ideas anyway

Waterspout:

Well let's go back to your original post, rather than me answer your previous post which said nothing of interest really (to do with science anyway)

Again, you seem to find it quite difficult (if not impossible) to avoid insult and rudeness.  I rest my case.

Waterspout:

So, as I said in my previous post to Tim, what exact 'evolutions' of species do you think won't be able to adapt, and more importantly would it matter if the change was 20 years, 200 years, or 2,000 years, would they actually not adapt anyway in either of these timeframes.

Life appears to be very robust to me, and will adapt pretty sharpish if it wants to survive.

So if everything is so perfect why is the planet suffering such a rate of species loss?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-faces-catastrophic-loss-of-species-408605.html

This is the same issue I think, i.e. natural v impact of man.  Arguably what is happening is not as a result of natural changes.  Therefore it is reasonable to postulate that the ability of the natural world to respond will be impaired.

You need to be extraordinarily complacent or self-assured to think that meddling with the Earth's systems on the scale that we are doing is not going to have some impact(s).  How many species have to disappear, how many eco-systems must be damaged, how much must the climate change before there is acceptance of our negative impact?

Perhaps you should take a look at that first photograph taken from space of planet Earth.  A little fragile oasis of life and beauty in a hostile universe.  Are you really happy that we are slowly (OK, not so slowly any longer) trashing it?  

Gandalf The White:

So if everything is so perfect why is the planet suffering such a rate of species loss?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-faces-catastrophic-loss-of-species-408605.html

Actually this brings me onto my next topic. In your article it said 19 of the world leading biodiversity scientists. Yet, from the studies I read on biodoversity - it is at its greatest when the Climate has changed the most rapidly. Evolution has shown to be sluggish when conditions are friendly and stable, and it spurts into amazing biodoversity when pushed to do so.

But I don't see any of them mention this. Who's to say the "Greater Spotted Green Slug" of Mongolia that only lives on one variety of Tree Leaf, and hence vunerable, doesn't evolve into a multi-functioning Green Slug that can eat new varieties of leaf? To become stronger, more diverse, and made better able to survive, simply because it is forced to do so by a changing environment. We can't know really, can we.

P.S. Just incase you wonder, I made up the Green Slug as an example of the point I am making.