I’m finding this post difficult. The main reason I think is that the most focuses on controlling the temperature change rather than focusing on the results of temperature change and identifying the resulting problem.
Both provided links are nearly mute on that question, providing a short paragraph without further discussion or support.
NASA:
The impact of global warming is far greater than just increasing temperatures. Warming modifies rainfall patterns, amplifies coastal erosion, lengthens the growing season in some regions, melts ice caps and glaciers, and alters the ranges of some infectious diseases. Some of these changes are already occurring.
Tomorrow:
A couple of degrees change in the average yearly temperature is far from a minor event. When Earth”s temperature was 5°C lower, the sea level was 120m lower and all of Northern Europe and Canada were covered by a gigantic ice cap (one could hike from Vermont to Greenland). Furthermore, average temperatures do not tell the whole story. As average temperatures increase, the likelihood of extreme temperature events might increase as well.
A change of a couple of degrees over the surface of the Earth first causes the oceans to absorb the extra heat. In the process, they expand (raising the sea level) and cause increased evaporation, which leads to perturbed air and water currents. This yields an increased likelihood of extreme weather events, such as drought, hurricanes or floods. This is already observed as e.g. coral reefs are starting to die.
Longer term effects are harder to quantify as a temperature change this sudden has never been witnessed in the past. To get an rough idea, this map shows what the world will look like 4° warmer while this article shows how sensitive birds and bees are to climate change. Furthermore, higher temperatures and more extreme weather causes crops to fail which will force refugees to flee inhabitable regions.That’s ultimately bad for the economy.
The NASA statement seem, in most cases ambiguous. Changing rain patterns may be good, may be bad and the assessment probably depends on where you are. Lengthening growing seasons seems like a good thing—we can feed more people, food maybe gets cheaper to produce and so cheaper to buy? I would like to know more about the affects of coastal erosion—I don’t believe it is one sided and always detrimental.
Tomorrow offers more but also includes more “weasel” terms—might be, hard to quantify....
Additionally, another NASA link (found when looking for how temperatures are estimated for the past when we don’t have recorded data) indicated 65 million years back temperatures were 10 − 15 degrees C higher. Life certainly seems to have been flourishing back them.
So, what specifics should be be looking at here. Seems like we’re jumping on the “stop the warming” train without considering the benefits to warming and then considering the better approach might well be to accept higher temperatures (so it doesn’t matter the cause really) and develop the technologies that are consistent with the evolving environment. Or more likely, some middle ground—there are lots of reasons to limit emissions unrelated to temperature rising.
I just don’t get why I really need to care about the average temperature as the main focus of either problem or solution. This is much more complicated than that and all the specifics here seem to cast as much shadow as light.
This post focuses on greenhouse gas concentrations. Since the causal model is (greenhouse gas concentrations) → (temperature plus the other stuff you mention), I figure the highest-leverage way to solve climate change is to lower greenhouse gas concentrations.
I’m finding this post difficult. The main reason I think is that the most focuses on controlling the temperature change rather than focusing on the results of temperature change and identifying the resulting problem.
Both provided links are nearly mute on that question, providing a short paragraph without further discussion or support.
NASA:
Tomorrow:
The NASA statement seem, in most cases ambiguous. Changing rain patterns may be good, may be bad and the assessment probably depends on where you are. Lengthening growing seasons seems like a good thing—we can feed more people, food maybe gets cheaper to produce and so cheaper to buy? I would like to know more about the affects of coastal erosion—I don’t believe it is one sided and always detrimental.
Tomorrow offers more but also includes more “weasel” terms—might be, hard to quantify....
Additionally, another NASA link (found when looking for how temperatures are estimated for the past when we don’t have recorded data) indicated 65 million years back temperatures were 10 − 15 degrees C higher. Life certainly seems to have been flourishing back them.
So, what specifics should be be looking at here. Seems like we’re jumping on the “stop the warming” train without considering the benefits to warming and then considering the better approach might well be to accept higher temperatures (so it doesn’t matter the cause really) and develop the technologies that are consistent with the evolving environment. Or more likely, some middle ground—there are lots of reasons to limit emissions unrelated to temperature rising.
I just don’t get why I really need to care about the average temperature as the main focus of either problem or solution. This is much more complicated than that and all the specifics here seem to cast as much shadow as light.
This post focuses on greenhouse gas concentrations. Since the causal model is (greenhouse gas concentrations) → (temperature plus the other stuff you mention), I figure the highest-leverage way to solve climate change is to lower greenhouse gas concentrations.