Public health infrastructure has its own role to play in combating climate change. For example, hospitals can curb solid waste by promoting breast milk over formula for infants, or simply cut down on nonessential energy use. The Taiwanese branch of a network of some 800 hospitals worldwide has set itself a target of reducing emissions by 13 percent below 2007 levels by 2020. "That's equal to reforesting 34 New York City Central Parks," says Dr. Chiou Shu-ti, director-general of Taiwan's Bureau of Health Promotion and vice chairperson of the International Network of Health Promoting Hospitals.
Ultimately, however, humanity could be on course for as much as 6 degrees C of warming by century's end. Such a temperature rise would put even larger swaths of the globe in danger of breaching high temperatures of 35 degrees C on a regular basis for extended periods of time—the point at which the human body's ability to thermally regulate itself breaks down. That may be the ultimate public health impact of climate change. "It would exceed the limits for habitability," says Sir Andy Haines of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Or, regardless of leishmaniasis and other potential human health concerns, as Campbell-Lendrum puts it: "If [the highest temperature estimate] happens, all bets are off."
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add CommentWhy is population reduction never considered as a solution to climate change? At 7 billion and counting, it would seem our species is safe from extinction. Clearly the simplest and cheapest way to reduce human effects on the climate is for the earth to have fewer humans! It'll happen one way or another anyway, so it may be a moot point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bulk of carbon emissions come from countries which are already close to -- or even below -- the replacement level. The countries with high fertility don't amount to much, as far as emissions go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.bit.ly/sQvJW1
The GHG emissions from poor countries with rapid population growth are quite small. It is the consumer based developed countries (US & EU), and rapidly developing countries (China, to a lesser degree India) that generate most of the GHG emissions. China has population control policies and population in Europe and the US is fairly stable. Just looking at numbers of people is not that useful compared to looking how people in industrial societies live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes if you go with liberal beliefs that only the western economies and only industrial nations pollute. The fact is billions of humans in Africa, parts of asia and other places you would consider as 3rd world have more people, burning entire jungles and forests, heating their huts with raw coal in asia, wood or whatever, cooking and oh by the way, they are also polluting the air with every other toxin known in their cities and they have so polluted their rivers, lakes and land with sewage, garbage, mines, the results of the use of explosive weapons and on and on. Soot from those cook fires from the 1 billion people in India and china who do not participate in the world economy reach as far as the US. Also as far as CO2 production, you warmists do not even measure it because you have decided only the schedule A countries of the Kyoto treaty are culprits, everyone else is allowed to pollute all they want. So before you spout liberal nonsense, try finding some real information or in the case of 3rd world nations and their excessive pollution, demand someone find out what they contribute to not only CO2 but everything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimply put, because it's not politically expedient. In democratic countries, telling people they're not allowed to breed is a guaranteed trip out-of-office. In non-democratic ones, it risks a popular uprising. The problems China has had since instituting it's one-child policy in 1978 - particularly the abandonment/infanticide of girl babies - has also turned many off to the idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, with the way the population's exploding, it's likely that it will soon become necessary to institute population controls across much (or all) of the globe. I don't know what form it will take, but I'd suggest some sort of "parent license", with severe penalties for those who have unlicensed children. The question of how to award the licenses would be tricky, though. Maybe some sort of UN-controlled lottery, to keep it out of the hands of eugenics-minded governments.
Your response is inane. Climate warming isn't just occurring in "...countries which are already close to -- or even below -- the replacement level." It's happening, um, globally! Rapid global expansion of human technology is driving the production of carbonates in the atmosphere. Climate warming has nothing to do whatsoever with the politics of developed nations vs. developing nations. More humans = more demand for the products of technology = more atmospheric pollution = higher average temperatures. It's so sad that the leading proponents of climate change control are so myopic that they've become engaged in a political debate about rich nations vs. poor nations. Think globally! Climate change is happening everywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I agree that we don't have a complete picture of the "developing" & "underdeveloped" nations' polution contribution, your hostile "warmist"-bashing rhetoric isn't going to gain you any friends, or help you win the debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is always a cost to everything..." That was my first thought as well. Then I read the article. Didn't quite make it that far, did you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is global warming a "developed" vs. "undeveloped/underdeveloped" nation debate? For heaven's sake, we all live on one polluted planet! It doesn't matter WHO is doing the polluting. The bottom line is that we, as a species, are endangering our own existence - in much the same way the arms race of the 20th century put our ability to survive in jeopardy. If there has ever been a time to forget our differences and act as a unified species, it is now. If we don't change our demands on earth's resources, and continue to convert them into luxuries that have a negative effect on our environment, we will fail as a species. We are presently "eating ourselves out of house and home." Quite literally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina & India have populations of 1.3 billion and 1.2 billion, respectively. Combined they account for over 1/3 of the world population and they're among the fastest growing GHG emitters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile China does have pop. controls in place, their pop. is growing at a rate of 0.5% (6.5 million people) per year. India's is growing at 1.4% (16.8 million) per year.
Also, while the rapidly growing countries may not be adding much to the GHG output, the deforestation necessary to create arable land to feed their expeanding populace is significantly hampering the ecosystem's ability to re-sequester that carbon.
At this point, the world has gone to far for even zero-population-growth controls to be effective we NEED global population reduction.
"Why is global warming a 'developed' vs. 'undeveloped/underdeveloped' nation debate?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first step in solving a problem is identifying the source(s) of the problem; before you can cut back on GHGs, you need to know where they're coming from. But you've missed the point of that post. It was a criticism of the way priddersen was presenting his/her argumentss. The developed/underdeveloped thing was simply to clarify that I WASN'T addressing the content of those arguments.
"If there has ever been a time to forget our differences and act as a unified species, it is now."
Good luck with that. The "us-v.-them" mentality is hardwired into the species & the only thing that will get us to come together will be to find someone even more "not-us" (think aliens) to take over the role of "them".
For most other species, "don't crap where you eat" is instinctual. As humans have evolved, we have lost many of the basic instincts that promote a clean environment for subsequent generations of the species. Those instincts were replaced with the ability to think and reason. Instincts are the same for every individual within a species. Thinking and reasoning vary wildly within humans. What we're facing, collectively, is whether or not this evolutionary change will promote or extinguish humanity. Perhaps the hardwired "us-v.-them" mentality you mentioned is a fatal flaw in nature's logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why the Green Climate Fund agreed to at the Durban conference is so important. With a relatively modest investment, we can take a huge and cost-effective bite out of our climate problem by aiding developing countries in the transition to a cleaner economy. Lowering soot, especially in Southern Asia, could go a long way in lowering the positive forcing mankind is imposing on the climate system. Since the governments of the world seem to be incapable of putting their differences aside to deal with this pressing issue until 2020, attacking this problem from different angles is what's most possible right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to popular belief, these changes will REDUCE population growth rates as families won't need to have enough children to take care of them in their old age. If the infant mortality rate goes down due to cleaner and healthier living conditions, birth rates fall soon after. This has been demonstrated again and again in every country that transitioned from poor to developing. If you add women's education and empowerment to the mix, the birthrate falls even more sharply. There's no need to issue "parent licenses" or anything like that. Merely educate girls so their time is more valuable working than having children (which are merely a Social Security policy for their parents where there is no social safety net) and empower them to make their own decisions about their body instead of being forced into having children.
In addition, having a smaller base to the age pyramid and a more balanced population as far as age demographics go (instead of the wide base and tiny top that most poor countries have) means more stability and less violence generally. You have to take all these potential costs into account when you pronounce judgments on the Green Climate Fund agreed at Durban.
As usually, warmists carefully avoid any question of cost-efficency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMalaria was present in southern half of Europe until 19. century. Europe is kept malaria free not by cold climate but health programs. Diarrheal diseases are prevented by clean drinking water. Money must be spent on providing clean water to every person very independently of global warming.
I understand that climate scientists and green energy manufacturers want a cake in enormous government programs on opaque "combating climate change". But this cake would come from taxpayer money and from public health programs.
@vernongoins
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why is population reduction never considered as a solution to climate change?"
Two explantations: general and practical.
General:
Fertility is dropping, but people live long, so people on Earth will still need more resources into the whole 21. century and well into 22. century. Population reduction is not like light switch.
Practical:
Money on population reduction goes to contraceptive makers and educating poor farmers, but money on climate change goes for conferences and subsidies. Much better opportunities for big bussiness and personal gain.
Anyway, because result of combating global warming is absence of catastrophe, taxpayers will never notice if their money is well spent.
"Europe is kept malaria free not by cold climate but health programs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecent evidence actually suggests that warmer temperatures are actually SLOWING the spread of malaria:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-wilts-malaria
(I noticed that you've already read/commented on that article, but I thought those who haven't seen it would benefit from the heads-up.)
"Thank you for injecting your conspiracy theories into this debate with no proof."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know hwere you're seeing conspiracy theories in Jerzy New's comments. Big Business investing its $$ where the greatest profit potential lies isn't conspiracy, it's standard business strategy.
"Population reduction is not like light switch."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDepends on how extreme you want to get with it.
"For most other species, 'don't crap where you eat' is instinctual. As humans have evolved, we have lost many of the basic instincts that promote a clean environment for subsequent generations of the species."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed. Maybe that's why we get along so well with dogs & pigs.
Perhaps the hardwired "us-v.-them" mentality you mentioned is a fatal flaw in nature's logic.
Perhaps it's not nature's logic, but our mating habits that are to blame. If so, we'll have no one but ourselves to blame. ("Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding" - Harvey Danger "Flagpole Sitta")
"I understand that climate scientists and green energy manufacturers want a cake in enormous government programs on opaque "combating climate change". But this cake would come from taxpayer money and from public health programs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerzy is suggesting that climate change is all a sham just to funnel money into green energy. They present no proof of this accusation. Therefore, it is a conspiracy theory with no proof. How is this hard to understand?
"Money on population reduction goes to contraceptive makers and educating poor farmers, but money on climate change goes for conferences and subsidies. Much better opportunities for big bussiness and personal gain."
More of the same. It seems that Jerzy doesn't like sustainability measures for some reason. They never provide any proof of the nefarious reasons why "green energy" backers would do this. I mean, he's making them out to be greedy scum that takes money away from things that could effectively decrease suffering in the developing world. That's called demonization, but Jerzy doesn't have the intellectual guts to back up those accusations. Therefore, it is a conspiracy theory with no proof. Again, how hard is this to understand?
Our house is on fire, and we are haggling over how much it is going to cost to put it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerzy New's statments may be cynical, but calling them conspiracy theory is a MAJOR stretch. The climate science/green energy community, like all other special interest groups, DOES want a slice of the government's money-pie and Big Business DOES put profitability ahead of all other concerns. No conspiracies, just simple fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, contrary to what many prominent climate scienists would have us believe, the current warming trend is NOT unprecedented and thus the characterization of it as anthropogenic is NOT certain. Have you ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period? Archaelogical data indicates that temperatures during the period of 1000-1300AD were at least 1oC warmer than today. This indicates that paleoclimate models based on ice-core samples are using underestimated temperature values and makes a royal mess of Dr. Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" model. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/ for more info.
Sorry, but calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact. You have to have a thing called EVIDENCE to convince people. Well, that is unless they're the type of people that don't need evidence and make up their minds based on their beliefs. I'm not one of those people however. Are you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got to be kidding me...10C warmer than today? Do you have evidence of crocodiles hanging out with the Vikings over in Greenland as well? Where do you people get this stuff...oh, right...wattsupwiththat? dot com...
You mean the guy who has been so wrong on so many climate issues it's not even funny?
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/ghcn-high-alt-high-lat-rural/
Look, CO2 traps heat and we've caused it to increase by 40% in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. CO2's OBSERVED PROPERTIES agree with the warming we're seeing, as well as the fact that nights are warming faster than days, the poles are warming faster than the tropics and we're seeing less longwave radiation escaping from the Earth as CO2 concentrations increase. This is settled science, man! EVERY major scientific body / establishment / whatever agrees that humans are jacking with the climate via carbon emissions. The only scientists in disagreement are a bunch of armchair climatologists that get funded by the fossil fuel companies (or their "think" tanks).
Oh, and that "hockey stick" is actually a hockey league:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/30/377844/arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick/
Are you seriously denying there have been past times when the earth's temperature was much warmer than now - and much warmer than it will be in the year 2100? If so, you're as bad as the "...armchair climatologists that get funded by the fossil fuel companies..." you rail against.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the earth is warming and yes, humans are having an increasing effect on how fast it's warming. Yes, the glaciers and polar caps and Greenland's ice cover are melting. However, they've melted before. The difference today is that they're not likely to refreeze as long as humans are having an effect on the amount of carbonates in the atmosphere. Ocean levels will rise and less land will be available for earth's burgeoning population of humans.
It amazes me how polarized humans are over this issue. Some deny earth is warming while others deny it's ever been this warm in the past.
"Sorry, but calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact. You have to have a thing called EVIDENCE to convince people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wasn't aware there was any debate over the idea that businesses & special interest groups like money. There's evidence of that every day in the news.
"You've got to be kidding me...10C warmer than today? Do you have evidence of crocodiles hanging out with the Vikings over in Greenland as well?"
That was one degree C, not ten. SciAm's posting format doesn't allow symbols, so i used a lower-case O.
"Where do you people get this stuff...oh, right...wattsupwiththat? dot com..."
Obviously you didn't bother to read the article very closely, or actually lok at the big graphic in the middle. If you had, you would have seen that everything is clearly sourced and includes numerous peer-reviewed journals, such as Climactic Change, Paleooceanorgaphy, Climate Dynamics and Nature, to name a few.
"You mean the guy who has been so wrong on so many climate issues it's not even funny?"
What about the guy who clings to AGW with such quasi-religious zealotry that it IS funny?
"http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/ghcn-high-alt-high-lat-rural/"
I don't see anything in that link that has relevant to anything in this conversation.
"This is settled science, man! EVERY major scientific body / establishment / whatever agrees that humans are jacking with the climate via carbon emissions."
There seems to be an awful lot of argument going on for something that allegedly so "settled" & that everyone supposedly agrees on. Its only through ultra-narrowly focusing that a post-industrial "pattern" appears to emerge. If you look at the long-term paleo-climate data (link below), you'll see that the warming during the last 150-ish years are just a tiny blip in a greater overall warming trend that's been occurring for 15,000 years!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/&h=380&w=750&sz=16&tbnid=ZGU2Pnf9DeQpQM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=141&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dco2%2Btemperature%2Bplot%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=co2+temperature+plot&usg=__BEwsnRd2jPueeFljPDkChJ5wIZ4=&sa=X&ei=m-T0TqvfCKmuiQf85pTJAQ&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAw
That "hockey league" is looking a lot more like a "hokey league" to me.
21st century globalization brings the global boundary condition -- frontiers of growth/"progress" have banged into each other from the four corners of the Earth. Perhaps the most in-your-face sign of transitioning from an approximately open system to a fully closed one, is the rise in importance of parasitic/destabilizing nonlinearities and cross-couplings within and between manmade and natural systems. Systemic inbalances call for correction, and its "nicer" if we do it than if Nature does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to playoff "lifestyle" -- calling a spade a spade, the wasteful ways of spoiled children, against true overpopulation. Realistically, all indications are that we could take care of the present world population, possibly a good deal more -- but we shouldn't push this further. On the other hand, we need to take a cold, sober look at the "progress" of artificial obsolescence, needless duplication, and in general needless "needs" produced by the psychological and mass-media tools of advertising. And then, the grand bureaucracies and legions of lawyers, police, armies, etc., necessary to maintain order and flow in society. If brought down to brass tack real needs and basic joie d'vie creature comforts -- how much would civilization really need to produce and use?
Immediate reaction: "This is crazy talk!" -- and per the status quo, the reasons for this are too obvious to state. But there are two game changers: The first is if we are motivated to introspection, and to start setting up education concerning our interdependence and that I will mirror your happiness and sorrow, sooner or later -- you start getting different type of people populating this world. And you find it to be a whole lot roomier than you thought. But if this is too hard, too impossible a dream -- well, Nature may convince us by breaking our kneecaps. Forgetting climate and the rest, just in economics alone: Money flows East, we impoverish and live more by necessities. Markets for luxuries/needless new bells and whistles, collapse. Competing brands of non-necessities merge to survive. Unemployment grows, further collapse of nonessentials (save "gourmet" coffee perhaps :-) ) -- and no one to tax for public order-related services without causing even more unrest to be "ordered." Of course, this all effects the East's markets, similar patterns. People see no aid or survival in having more children -- the immediate risks are more to survive to old age than survive in it.
Lifestyle and population will become globally balanced. Lets do it the nice way.
Our age old population control has always been STARVATION, DISEASE, and WAR. We have made inroads against disease, but are now running into antibiotic resistant bacteria. Great strides have been made in growing food. Now we are having problems fertilizer runoff and water pollution. Also problems with storage and distribution, We waste Fuel by use of single occupant cars instead of mass transportation. We insist on cheap oil so we can drive to the corner to pick up a quart of milk or a six pack of beer. We pack the roads morning and might driving great distances to work. Yet we still think in is the starving masses in Africa burning cow dung to kill the germs in there food that is the problem? We believe this crap that we must extract every last drop of oil, ounce of coal, and molicule of Uranium as fast as possible. GIVE ME A BREAK! Wake up. The safest place for all of that carbon & radioactive waste is in the ground. You think it is expensive to extract? It will be 10 times as expensive to put back. That is what it will take to counter the climate change. Perhaps after the oil is gone we can use the pipe lines to bring water to the vast Texas desert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur age old population control has always been STARVATION, DISEASE, and WAR. We have made inroads against disease, but are now running into antibiotic resistant bacteria. Great strides have been made in growing food. Now we are having problems fertilizer runoff and water pollution. Also problems with storage and distribution, We waste Fuel by use of single occupant cars instead of mass transportation. We insist on cheap oil so we can drive to the corner to pick up a quart of milk or a six pack of beer. We pack the roads morning and might driving great distances to work. Yet we still think in is the starving masses in Africa burning cow dung to kill the germs in there food that is the problem? We believe this crap that we must extract every last drop of oil, ounce of coal, and molicule of Uranium as fast as possible. GIVE ME A BREAK! Wake up. The safest place for all of that carbon & radioactive waste is in the ground. You think it is expensive to extract? It will be 10 times as expensive to put back. That is what it will take to counter the climate change. Perhaps after the oil is gone we can use the pipe lines to bring water to the vast Texas desert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1: The majority of the earth's CO2 is stored in the oceans, not the ground or in plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2: When temperatures rise, solubility of CO2 in water goes down releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Temperature change drives CO2 levels, not vice-versa as we've been tol.
3: The primary cause of climate change is changes in cycles of solar activity. We're currently headed into a period of cooling, all talk of dangerous global warming is absurd. Extreme cooling is the only kind of climate change that's dangerous to man as it makes it harder for crops to grow. Mankind has always thrived during the earth's warm periods.
4: CO2 is not carbon. The alarmists want us to think that CO2 is the same as the black dust we've seen on pictures of the faces of early coal miners. Coal dust is graphite. CO2 is a clear beneficial trace gas. It's plant food. Without CO2 NOTHING would be green.
5: Deforestation causes cooling, not warming. Fields of light colored grain like wheat reflect heat back into space, whereas dark colored forests absorb the sun's heat, and cause warming.
6. While it's true that there are areas in the tropics that would become uncomfortably warm during the summer months if a substantial amount of natural global warming were to occur, very few people live in those areas. What the alarmists don't talk about is that were this to happen, vast areas of land in the northern latitudes would become highly productive farming regions, the net result of which would be hugely beneficial to man.
7: During the Medieval Warm Period, there were lush vineyards in Northern Scotland. A few centuries later, during the Little Ice Age, people worldwide were suffering from the cold and dying of starvation. There's nothing even remotely unusual or dangerous about our current climate. While we've gotten warmer since the Little Ice Age, we're still relatively cool by the standards of the Medieval Warm Period.
8: This entire thing is a scam that's been going on since the dawn of man, when witch doctors and shamans told their flocks that the storms or the droughts or the floods were god's way of expressing displeasure with their sinful ways, and that if they didn't follow his orders, god would make things even worse. Nothing has changed. This is the 4th case of climate alarmism in the last hundred or so years. It's NEVER about the climate or the environment. It's ALWAYS been about power, and the sociopathic needs of some twisted individuals to wield power over their fellow man.
Our planet is doing OK, and we have the largest energy reserves in the world.
fs
Please show me where I said that the Earth hasn't been this warm or warmer in the past. I'll wait...Couldn't find it, right? That's what happens when you put words into other people's mouths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that the Earth has been warmer in the past is not relevant. All those climactic changes were before humans had developed agriculture, infrastructure or nuclear weapons. Our current systems are based on certain climactic assumptions like sea level, rainfall patterns and storm frequency / intensity. When our emissions go and change those parameters then those assumptions become invalid. The money and resources required to adapt to a changing climate will be much more expensive and cumbersome than cutting our emissions right now.
Nice fact-free rant you got going on there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou still haven't presented any evidence to make your point. The article on Watts' site is a bunch of loaded words and accusations, as per the usual for him. SciAm didn't let me provide as many links as I wanted, so here's more proof that Watts is wrong:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/30/377844/arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick/
And the Medieval Warm Period was NOT warmer than today:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
FYI, just because there's a lot of disagreement about climate change outside of the scientific community doesn't really mean anything. The fact that the sun was the center of the solar system was basically settled science a CENTURY before the general public had accepted it. It doesn't help matters that there's still TRILLION$$$ to be made in dirty energy if our environment is allowed to be treated like an open sewer for free. Most of this "disagreement" over climate change is manufactured by dirty energy companies to keep their gravy train running as long as possible:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon
Again, this website is blocking my comments because I link to too much outside information to back up my points. It thinks I'm just a spambot and it doesn't know I'm a human. Let's see if it works now...
" Do you have evidence of crocodiles hanging out with the Vikings over in Greenland as well? Where do you people get this stuff...oh, right...wattsupwiththat? dot com..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is that air pollution is just one facet of mankind's continuing destruction of his habitat, the earth. The simple solution to this problem is to reduce the number of humans to the point where use of earth's resources doesn't have a negative global effect; and where a negative local effect can be repaired. Either we as a species take this step in reducing our numbers or our escalating situation will do it for us.
Instead of just focusing on the main emitters of pollution, efforts should be included that educate and persuade all nations to begin control of population growth. For economies of all types, sustainability is dependent on growth. How can we convince the world's people that economic decline is not a bad thing when it's coupled with a decline in population numbers and a positive effect on our environment?
"1: The majority of the earth's CO2 is stored in the oceans, not the ground or in plants."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe majority of carbon, however, is stored in fossil fuels and other compounds. When these compounds are used by humans, CO2 is a by-product and is routinely emitted into the atmosphere. Other pollutants such as methane, ground-level ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, and many more chemicals produced by humans are having a significant effect on the air we breathe. Methane and CO2 most effectively cause retention of the sun's heat and the atmosphere to rise in temperature.
"2: When temperatures rise, solubility of CO2 in water goes down releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Temperature change drives CO2 levels, not vice-versa as we've been tol."
I can only say that this is pseudo-science.
"3: The primary cause of climate change is changes in cycles of solar activity. We're currently headed into a period of cooling, all talk of dangerous global warming is absurd. Extreme cooling is the only kind of climate change that's dangerous to man as it makes it harder for crops to grow. Mankind has always thrived during the earth's warm periods."
It's actually more accurate to say we're currently nearing the end of an 11-15,000-year warming cycle. With no human effects, we could expect a cooler cycle to begin but it's obvious that the exploding world-wide industrialization is pumping alarming amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.
"4: CO2 is not carbon. The alarmists want us to think that CO2 is the same as the black dust we've seen on pictures of the faces of early coal miners. Coal dust is graphite. CO2 is a clear beneficial trace gas. It's plant food. Without CO2 NOTHING would be green."
CO2 is a molecule consisting of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. It's a beneficial gas in quantities that aid plant growth, but harmful when it exists at levels that trap too much solar heat. With too much CO2 nothing would be green.
"5: Deforestation causes cooling, not warming. Fields of light colored grain like wheat reflect heat back into space, whereas dark colored forests absorb the sun's heat, and cause warming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrees are the most reliable and efficient manufacturers of oxygen. The Amazon Basin is called the "lungs of the earth" for a reason.
"6. While it's true that there are areas in the tropics that would become uncomfortably warm during the summer months if a substantial amount of natural global warming were to occur, very few people live in those areas. What the alarmists don't talk about is that were this to happen, vast areas of land in the northern latitudes would become highly productive farming regions, the net result of which would be hugely beneficial to man."
The vast majority of humanity inhabits the tropical and sub-tropical zones: http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/map-192.html
"7: During the Medieval Warm Period, there were lush vineyards in Northern Scotland. A few centuries later, during the Little Ice Age, people worldwide were suffering from the cold and dying of starvation. There's nothing even remotely unusual or dangerous about our current climate. While we've gotten warmer since the Little Ice Age, we're still relatively cool by the standards of the Medieval Warm Period."
It's what's coming that's dangerous. The clues to a disaster are, by themselves, not dangerous. It is very unusual for a species to have the global effect we are currently seeing because of humans.
"8: This entire thing is a scam that's been going on since the dawn of man, when witch doctors and shamans told their flocks that the storms or the droughts or the floods were god's way of expressing displeasure with their sinful ways, and that if they didn't follow his orders, god would make things even worse. Nothing has changed. This is the 4th case of climate alarmism in the last hundred or so years. It's NEVER about the climate or the environment. It's ALWAYS been about power, and the sociopathic needs of some twisted individuals to wield power over their fellow man."
While I agree that too many people are using this issue to seek power over others, I cannot call the obvious effects we're having on planet earth a scam.
"Our planet is doing OK, and we have the largest energy reserves in the world."
Yes. The U. S. (to which I presume you are referring) has an incredible coal reserve. However, coal is a carbon-rich compound. Burning it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The more it's burned, the more CO2 is released. We are currently selling coal to China, the number one polluter on earth. We are now number two.
"The fact that the Earth has been warmer in the past is not relevant. All those climactic changes were before humans had developed agriculture, infrastructure or nuclear weapons."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are entierly relevant. The prove that natural forces are entirely capable of creating the degree of climate change we're currently observing without any input from us.
"Our current systems are based on certain climactic assumptions"
That's exaclty where the problem lies - with your ASSUMPTIONS.
"here's more proof that Watts is wrong:"
An blog post from an anonyomus "Climate Guest Blogger"? That's your idea of proof? Like the majority of the pro-AGW faction, this post uses estimates derived from "Arctic ice core, tree-ring and lake sediments" as a proxy for actual temperature measurements, despite there being NO way to verify the accuracy of these estimates.
"And the Medieval Warm Period was NOT warmer than today"
Again an anonymous blogger, who also uses "tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records" to estimate temperatures. On the other hand, there is hard tangible evidence to back up the assertion that the MWP was warmer than today: Viking burials in what is currently permafrost (indicates that the area was not permafrozen at that time - only a complete idiot tries to dig into permafrost), medieval plant remains being exposed by retreating glaciers (indicates exposed ground during the MWP), warm-climate plants/animals found well outside their current ranges (indicates climate in those areas could support such temperature-sensitive species) and data from numerous sources (see http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html) that indicates that the MWP was a GLOBAL phenomenon, not a localized one.
I think I'm starting to see the source of the disconnect between the AGW skeptics and the AGW believers - one has a higher standard for proof, the other apparently has none.
"The fact that the sun was the center of the solar system was basically settled science a CENTURY before the general public had accepted it."
I think a better analogy would be that of the round-v.-flat earth. Eratosthenes of Cyrene demonstrated that the earth was round c. 230BC - he even calculated its circumference to within 2%. However, this didn't stop the "learned minds" of the 4th-6th centuries AD from considering the idea of a flat earth to be "settled science". Eventually, though, rationality re-asserted itself and the flat earth was discarded as no more than religious/superstitious blather.
Regarding sourcewatch, that's like trying to use wikipedia as a scientific source - it's anonymously (again!) editied, usually by people with a vested interest in the topic at hand (or at least an axe to grind regarding it). To highlight this, compare the entry about Dr. Soon - in which his funding sources are a major element - to the one about AGW crusader Dr. Maichael Mann (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Mann) - in which funding sources aren't mentioned AT ALL).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Again, this website is blocking my comments because I link to too much outside information to back up my points."
So I guess SciAm is now part of the vast government-industry conspiracy to block knowledge of AGW? This brings up a question - if Big Oil lobbyists were really paying off government to cover up AGW, do you really think pro-AGW researchers would still be able to get government grants?
This article claims that "climate change threatens human health, therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions may help our medical well-being, too." But we should realize that CO2 does not affect climate. Dr. Hertzberg has a file about the lynching of carbon dioxide, which can be viewed at http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no free lunch. The costs of shifting to a carbon-neutral energy base (Estimates vary depending on if you are talking to a green or someone from the fossil fuel industry, let's say 2-3% of GDP over a couple of decades.) should be weighed against the cost of not shifting (Probable collapse of civilization as we know it, and a 10-90% reduction in human population within 50-100 years.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlakey,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo let us know when Hertzberg wins a Nobel for overturning the last 150 years of progress in radiative physics.
It is not correct to say that 'the point at which the human body's ability to thermally regulate itself breaks down when temperatures of 35 degrees C are exceeded on a regular basis for extended periods of time'.This is a misquote of what I said. I was referring to the Sherwood and Huber PNAS paper of 2010
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhich concerns the Wet Bulb temperature Tw. The physiological adaptation limit is a Tw of 35 degrees C which is not exceeded anywhere in the world at present but their paper shows that it would be attained in some regions once the global average mean temperature rise reaches around 7 degrees C. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/26/0913352107.full.pdf+html
Andy Haines
Another attempt by the leftist press to demonize any remnant of rational dialogue. I have a sudden urge to join a cult and abandon all healthy inquiry. The sad state of this leftist garbage verifies the hijacking of reason and the abandonment of logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2011 was the 12th warmest year on record. The 11th warmest was 1997. In a period of 14 years, during which mankind has continued to pump out billions of tonnes of CO2, which global warming theory suggests is a strong warming agent, the planet today is cooler not warmer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJdey, that statistic you cited is often repeated but is misleading. That statistic comes from satellite atmospheric temperature measurements. Satellite atmospheric measurements only go back thirty years. These were the warmest years for the thirty years that satellite atmospheric temperature records exists. If these were in fact the warmest years ever it would be alarming. If they are simply the warmest out of the last thirty they don't mean much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTemperature measurements going back further are mainly based on measurements from cities that experienced the heat island effect, or from tree rings and coral that were influenced by nitrogen fertilizer run-off from expanded agriculture. They have to treated cautiously.