14 month streak of Record Breaking temperatures

[Mike Sales]

I, too am wary of the simplistic use of data, too.

However, not being an expert at the analysis of prehistoric weather data, I have to trust that the scientists who coalate these things have half a clue.

Furthermore, I tend to look at data and analyses from multiple sources.

I think that it is clear that humans are affecting our environment. I'm not sure that it is clear that what we are doing is to our doom. I'm also not sure that it is wholly irreversible.

However, I am afraid that by the time it is clear, we might not be able to do anything about it.

I do think that we urgently need to protect our environment. But this is something that absolutely has to come from legislation, and not just in the UK or Europe, but around the world.

It will hardly matter that I (or we) ride bikes everywhere, if everyone else is driving 4X4s 30000 miles per year.

Looking at data from multiple sources and correlating it is what the IPCC does too.

Do you have any particular reason, or evidence, for your doubts about the unpleasantness of the consequences of climate change? Do you have anything more than a hunch that it is not, in terms of the human lifespan, or even in terms of the lifespan of human civilisations, irreversible?

I ask, because the forecasts for sea level rise alone, let alone the consequences for agriculture, made by the IPCC, amount to something some might call "doom", whatever it is you mean by it.

[Vorpal]

Did I say I didn't think it would be unpleasant? (sorry about the double negative)

I'm certain that it will be unpleasant. And I am equally certain--despite that fact that coastal properties are currently among the world's most expensive and most desireable--that it will be those who are already poor and downtrodden who suffer the most from climate change.

Doom? I was responding to

I see no reason to hope. I am glad I will be dead before too long.

My imagination can see really awful things for the future. But at the same time, whilst we live and breath, there is hope. We humans are an amazingly clever and innovative bunch, and I am confident that we will find ways to deal with climate change. I don't know, any more than you do, what that will look like, but if we can live in space, we can live on Earth, even with some pretty extreme changes in climate. Our planet has survived through eons of change; it will survive us, and we will survive the response, one way or another.

[irc]

I ask, because the forecasts for sea level rise alone, let alone the consequences for agriculture, made by the IPCC, amount to something some might call "doom", whatever it is you mean by it.

Actual measured sea levels though are on a long term rising trend with no recent acceleration.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... the-facts/

As for crop yields in what way is higher CO2 levels (which aid plant growth) and longer growing seasons bad for agriculture.

Climate change has been shrinking the Sahara it seems.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ahara.html

Climate is changing. It always has. It is to some extent (the amount debatable) due to man. It isn't all bad.

[kwackers]

As for crop yields in what way is higher CO2 levels (which aid plant growth) and longer growing seasons bad for agriculture.

Depends on whether you prefer the simplistic 'CO2 is plant food' view or the actual science behind it.
Like everything, it's a mixed bag. Depends on levels, available nutrients, temperature, crop etc etc. Some crops do badly if you increase CO2. The cellular mechanisms in plants are far from simple in the way they balance things in times of plenty. Often rapid growth doesn't even result in better quality food.

It's a bit like claiming we'd all grow better in high oxygen levels.
At the moment whether it's overall good or bad seems to be highly debatable. I guess we'll find out soon enough though.

[roubaixtuesday]

Climate is changing. It always has. It is to some extent (the amount debatable) due to man. It isn't all bad.

1. Climate has always changed, but is now changing extraordinarily quickly. That's what is different, and dangerous.

NASA:

When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feat ... /page3.php

2. Amount debatable- yes, it could be more than all of it! Best estimate of the human-induced element of recent temperature change is just over all of it, ie the earth would have cooled slightly without our influence. It is 95% certain that more than half is down to us. Source: IPCC AR5 WGI

3. It isn't all bad. No, but most of it is, mainly because of that rate of change which doesn't allow time for adaptation. List of risks from IPCC AR5 WGII is not pretty:

i) Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea level rise. 37 [RFC 1-5]
ii) Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions. 38 [RFC 2 and 3]
iii) Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services. 39 [RFC 2-4]
iv) ) Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas. 40 [RFC 2 and 3]
v) Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings. 41 [RFC 2-4]
vi) Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions. 42 [RFC 2 and 3]
vii) Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic. 43 [RFC 1, 2, and 4]
viii) Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods. 44 [RFC 1, 3, and 4]

Many key risks constitute particular challenges for the least developed countries and vulnerable communities, given their limited ability to cope.

[53x13]

It's true that CO2 has had fluctuations and variations over the eons, and well recorded in ice sampling, but it's rate of change that's completely unprecedented. Basically we're seeing a similar rate of change that would have take c. 5000 years to occur, in less than 100 years.

That's not something easily dismissed as a 'climatic anomoly'.