The Global Warming Megathread

[Tim Grindley]

Sorry, I had misunderstood OP: I had read it to be a standard issue climate change denial, whereas it seems you accept that climate change is happening, you just dispute that it is a bad thing.

 

That may be true, but what is the basis for your assumption that warmer would be wetter?

In general, the opposite is true.

 

That is generally the case with the predictions.

 

The physics is that warmer air holds more water. The deserts of the world are (generally) dry because they are next to warmer places. That the air going over them has decended from high altitude and is now warming up and picking up water rather than dropping it as it does when it get sto the equitorial regions.

 

Also history/pre-history suggests that the conditions in the early broze age were warmer and much wetter in places such as the Sahara which was grassland/woodland.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 12:39 ----------

 

That maybe the case in some areas around the world; but climate change and higher temperatures does mean more precipitation.

Has the UK been having more flash floods in recent years, some think so, Sheffield has been flooded too.

 

Yes. That's what happens when you don't clean out the rivers for a few decades.

 

And then get an exceptional cloud burst storm.

[DC89216]

Somebody mentioned the fact that it could be a good thing due to decreasing the population. Personally I regard that as one of the worst statements / pros for global warming imaginable.

 

Also, why does nobody ever correlate global warming with the attempted globalisation of the planet. Open borders. People moving freely. Some say parts of eastern Europe will be underwater yes? So surely it's logical to move those people to places like GB or Germany / Sweden.

[Obelix]

That is generally the case with the predictions.

 

The physics is that warmer air holds more water. The deserts of the world are (generally) dry because they are next to warmer places. That the air going over them has decended from high altitude and is now warming up and picking up water rather than dropping it as it does when it get sto the equitorial regions.

 

Also history/pre-history suggests that the conditions in the early broze age were warmer and much wetter in places such as the Sahara which was grassland/woodland.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 12:39 ----------

 

 

Yes. That's what happens when you don't clean out the rivers for a few decades.

 

And then get an exceptional cloud burst storm.

 

Deserts are always dry. The largest desert in the world is Antarctica. I don't think your basic premise is sound.

 

Warm air can hold more water than cooler air. Doesn't mean that it always does.

[Hairyloon]

Deserts are always dry. The largest desert in the world is Antarctica. I don't think your basic premise is sound.

 

The basic premise is sound, it simply does not stand up to the complications.

[El Cid]

 

Yes. That's what happens when you don't clean out the rivers for a few decades.

And then get an exceptional cloud burst storm.

 

If that is what you think, is that what happened in Sheffield?

[Tim Grindley]

Somebody mentioned the fact that it could be a good thing due to decreasing the population. Personally I regard that as one of the worst statements / pros for global warming imaginable.

 

Also, why does nobody ever correlate global warming with the attempted globalisation of the planet. Open borders. People moving freely. Some say parts of eastern Europe will be underwater yes? So surely it's logical to move those people to places like GB or Germany / Sweden.

 

Nowhere that anybody values will ever disappear below the waves due to a 1m sea level rise (the max prediction of the IPCC by 2100).

 

The current rate of sea level rise is for a 30cm rise by then.

 

Either way, if you live in a place that might be effected by such a change, but a shovel and do a couple of days building sea defences a year. That should do it.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 16:18 ----------

 

If that is what you think, is that what happened in Sheffield?

 

Yes, the combination of neglecting the rivers, allowing stuff to build up and clog them plus the shockingly high rainfall for 24 hours (as I remember it).

[El Cid]

Yes, the combination of neglecting the rivers, allowing stuff to build up and clog them plus the shockingly high rainfall for 24 hours (as I remember it).

 

In December 2012 Aon Benfield gave an updated estimate of the total insurance losses through flooding for the year, which could reach £1.33 billion, with claims of £280 million from the flooding of 10–11 June, £498 million from 23–24 June floods and £50 million on 24–25 September.

 

So it was quite a year, something more than a clogged up river and 48 hours of rain.

[area 51]

Somebody mentioned the fact that it could be a good thing due to decreasing the population. Personally I regard that as one of the worst statements / pros for global warming imaginable.

 

Also, why does nobody ever correlate global warming with the attempted globalisation of the planet. Open borders. People moving freely. Some say parts of eastern Europe will be underwater yes? So surely it's logical to move those people to places like GB or Germany / Sweden.

 

Its a harsh way of getting the population down which is a tad inhuman,but the population increase is putting life in danger because of a shortage of world resources.Even David Attenborough says the world population is getting out of control.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537.We do need some sort of population control but killing people off is a step too far,it reminds me of the film Logans Run.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run

[apelike]

We do need some sort of population control but killing people off is a step too far,it reminds me of the film Logans Run.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run

 

But does a natural disaster count as killing people off or is it just a natural part of life on the planet?

[area 51]

But does a natural disaster count as killing people off or is it just a natural part of life on the planet?

 

Thats a good question,climate change is a natural part of life on the planet it has been changing all the time for billions of years,but if that includes a man made climate change disaster i would say not.Involuntary manslaughter if you like.