Global Warming Policy | Climate Strategies Watch
Exposing stealth environmental advocacy by the Center for Climate Strategies and scrutinizing global warming policy in the United States.
2.How many deaths each year does the World Health Organization attribute to climate change?
3.Why will it take time for the Earth to respond to positive changes we make?
Tags: positive changes, Impacts and Indicators, climate change, deaths, United States, climate, Human InterestPrevious post: The Global-Warming Deception: How a Secret Elite Plans To
Next post: Call to Action (Climate Poem Earth Day '10)
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
1) What will increase in the environment as a result of climate change?
– Politics http://www.spicynodes.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/combating-global-warming-map.jpg
– Alarmism http://westcoastclimateequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/uk-met-office-impact-of-a-global-temperature-rise-of-4-degrees-c.jpg
2) How many deaths due to misguided Warmist policies?
– Due to the pro nuclear policy to the Warmists, the number is likely millions. Chernoble caused 4000 to 1 million deaths. http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Chernobyl-Death-Toll-4000-or-1-Million-7272.aspx
Imagine the deaths from Fukushima! 160 per year? or greater than 40 thousand?
– Due to other biofuels: 200 thousand? http://green.autoblog.com/2011/04/05/increased-biofuel-production-could-result-more-death-disease/
– Due to Economic Depression? Floods? Lack of preparation for winter storms? Guess Away!
3) The residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 7 years. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x/abstract
The time it takes to respond is almost immediate. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x/abstract
As for warming, it is interesting that it warms little in places where CO2 produced is greatest (USA and China), and most in places where it cooled between 1940 and 1970. (The Arctic)
Where it warmed since 1979 http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Trend_Map_v03_3_1979_2010.png
I’m sure there are a hundred ways of attributing a death. And frankly, if somebody wants to they could probably attribute every death to climate change, or none, depending on what you want to say. So I think it’s a meaningless statistic.
How exactly are we going to know if any change we make will be positive and how will we recognize it?
You are asking crystal ball questions with no clear cut answers. That usually means to people can answer them any way they choose. In my opinion, answers to these questions would just be guesses and really worthless.
Sorry I couldn’t be of more help other than being honest. Beware of those who think they accurate and correct answers to those questions.
can’t help with 2, but:
1. Average global temperature. The acidity of the oceans. The number and/or intensity of tropical storms. The number/frequency of record high temperatures. The depth of the ocean. Probably other things I’m not thinking of right now.
3. Because there’s already a lot of warming "in the pipeline". For example, the oceans will eventually release some or all of the excess CO2 they have absorbed, which will lead to more warming. Unless we not only stop emitting new fossil CO2, but actually remove some of the CO2 we have already emitted, the Earth will continue warming until it reaches a new equilibrium.
Edit:
I don’t know the numbers on the deaths, and didn’t feel like bothering to look up the best current estimates.
To my knowledge, the timeframe for significant removal of CO2 from the carbon cycle is something on the order of a thousand years. I think the timeframe for reaching equilibrium warming from existing carbon in the carbon cycle is on the order of 100 years. Eventually, the excess CO2 will be removed, but it will take a *long* time. Before it’s removed, it will finish causing the warming that has already started.
Son of edit:
Even if I have the exact timescales wrong, the concept still applies. I’m reasonably certain that the climate reaching equilibrium warming is on a faster timescale than excess CO2 leaving the atmosphere. Even if we entirely ceased net CO2 emissions today, which would require fairly drastic measures (either entirely ceasing fossil fuel use, or fairly massive carbon sequestration projects) the Earth would continue to warm until it reached "full" warming for the CO2 already in the system.
Chem Flunky,
So Let me get this straight, you have no idea how many deaths will occur or have occurred? So if this is the case, let me ask you how you would actually proceed. You have a trillion dollars. You can spend it on saving known lives at risk for any number of problems man faces or on reducing AGW, which do you spend it on? Listening to the scare-mongerers, it sounds like it will be billions. Is this realistic? DO you think a good risk assessment can be done, if we do not even know the risk? My answer to this question is simple. Since we do not know the risk, we go for solutions that will be beneficial outside of AGW causing deaths or not. Nuclear power is an example. We can make nuclear power cheaper than coal and it is already safer than coal. E-cars is another example. Not paying for gas would be awesome. If they can get the price of solar panels to a reasonable amount, it would be as well. Paying for half as much energy and not being totally reliant on the power companies would be great.
Note that this solution without the constant scare-mongering, both addresses your issues and does not cause people to believe the world is going to end. Without the scare-mongering, do horrific things like denying third world countries, power plants become unthinkable.
Also for your answer to Number 3, are you really suggesting that the earth will not naturally pull excess CO2 out of the air? We may disagree on the timeframe to do this, but your answer suggests that the earth will not pull excess CO2 out of the air at all.
I understand why you say a thousand years. They have given the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere at up to 200 years, meaning that taking out 97% of the CO2 would take about 1 thousand years. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for the scientists trying to determine the length of time, this is not nearly an accurate way of measuring this. Imagine a sink where the drain is pulled, but water is coming in at a faster rate then it is going out. Now in this case, if you lessen the water coming in, then the time to for the level of water to go down has to do with the rate of water going in and going out. It has nothing to do with how long one molecule of water stays in the sink. In fact, the time of a molecule of water being in the sink will likely be much longer. Because of this, it is difficult to figure out rates, but it will be far less than 1000 years.
You must log in to post a comment.