GW skeptics - how can you say a 1 degree change is minimal?

Question

A common argument made by GW skeptics is that the planet has only warmed 1 degree C over the past century (0.6 degrees in the past 50 years), and that's not a big deal.

A study by Dr. Perry of the UK Meteorological Office found that a further 2.1 degree C rise will expose between 2.3 and 3 billion people (35-50% of the world's population) to water shortages.

2 degree warming will cause 97% of the world's coral reefs to bleach (die) which will have many negative consequences.

Researchers on 5 continents found that if temperatures rise to the average IPCC estimate (~3.6 deg. C over the century), 15-37% of the world's species will be 'committed to extinction' by 2050.

http://reference.aol.com/globalwarming/_a/scientists-approve-global-warming-report/20070406133809990001

Considering how much damage a 2 degree warming will cause, how can you argue that a 1 degree warming is trivial?

mav - the sun is not the cause:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvmcUzZN520lOjce9ebp2nLsy6IX?qid=20070623134537AAJIgTz&show=7#profile-info-7a1a4586cbdfad0a780847164818434aaa

greenhouse gases are responsible for 70-95% of global warming since 1960:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Fred - glad to hear you're more expert than the best climatologists in the world. How many PhDs do you have?

Answer 1

1 degree rise in temperature means 10% crop loss

A few centimeters rise in the sea levels means thousands of flooded hectares

The changes seem small when you read them ,but they have drastic effects

The small temperature changes means havoc in the insect world and effects their predators

And micro organism can get out of control

Answer 2

If a one degree rise is not minimal, then why are we not seeing any consequences today?

And why are you stating hypothesis as to what will happen if the earth rises 2-3 degrees?

Soon and Baliunas did a study of over 100 temperature reconstruction papers and concluded:

"Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad
perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little
Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century
surface thermometer global warming. The picture
emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice
Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and
near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Bryson
et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers
since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the
warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the
proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide.
Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century
warming means a global human impact. However, the
proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually
warm or extreme."

So if the earth survived past temperatures changes, I am sure it can survive now.

Answer 3

Do alarmists have to be consistent with their own predictions? If so, what happened to the ice sheet and glacial melting? And you yourself have pointed claimed that water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is directly proportional to temperature, and that it just comes right back down as rain.

Well then, by YOUR estimates, there will be increased water from ice melting (fresh) and into the oceans, higher temperatures will lead to higher evaporation rates, higher atmospheric concentrations, and subsequently, more rainfall (more fresh). Water shortages solved by Dana's admitted science...

We already mentioned ice sheet melting, and alarmists have told us time and again that our seas are rising (and that's some cold frickin zero degree water when it originally melts!) If you are putting another meter of cold water over coral beds during the next century, due to the specific heat of ocean water being 1000 times greater than the air, a 2 degree rise in global temperature results in an increase of the meltwater from zero to 5 degrees - still frickin cold! This leaves more than enough heat absorptive capability to protect the coral (most coral lives at a temperature a good 10-15 degrees higher than this.) Don't tell me this research was done by some SKEPTIC that doesn't believe that our ice caps are melting or sea levels rising!

And "committed to extinction"...What? Did they sign pledge cards during the last extinction telethon? Seriously though, these biologists took a look at species extinction risks due to habitat destruction - well, at least we're back to alarmists that actually believe in sea level rise, again? A couple of things: they didn't mention/research that habitat change also leads to speciation pressure - ie, increase in species diversity. Nature closes one door, and opens another. Also, every one of those researchers went into this study with a functional bias that man-made CO2 emissions produce global warming. This introduces a fundamental flaw into the scientific method - their VERY limited research of species and global habitats amounts to "cherry-picking" rather than a random sampling of species and habitats.

Answer 4

Well if the totally non-political, only there to help mother earth defend itself against us human viruses United nation report said it then it must be true. And since all scientists not paid by big oil(but are paid by proponents of global warming) have a consensus that humans cause global warming then there is just no way to deny it at all. If anyone does any research that shows it is not man caused then they should be silenced immediately. Not to mention Physics should be rewritten to also confirm that mankind has caused global warming and is destroying the earth.

Answer 5

Skeptics seem to furnish stable solutions utilizing reasoning and good judgment searching for stable techniques and searching none on the AGW area grow to be much extra skeptical of the completed factor. The promoters as in step with everyday not having something to truly convince all of us searching for information with fall returned on political sound bites and gutter communicate approximately on the comparable point as gangster rap. yet I 2nd theory possibly even rappers does not desire to affiliate with such grime. in step with danger this is yet one extra reason i'm unable to stand the pro AGW crowd, they're in order that vulgar and occasional classification i might desire to on no account see myself associating with such human beings as they seem. My grandfather used an old German term for human beings which contain those wisenheimer. for people who don't be attentive to the which potential of the term a link is blanketed!

Answer 6

If what you say is true, how do you stop it? After all the sun is the problem, climate by its nature is in constant change. I'm not even convinced that warming will change the levels of the ocean because most of the ice that is melting is floating, (ice is less dense than liquid, the displacement wouldn't cause a rise in levels). If it is true I want to know where the new beaches will be so I can buy some land, again capitalism triumphs.

Answer 7

I call a 1 degree change minimal because if you look back through history you'll see that much more changes that are bigger have taken place.tempature,and every other enviromental factor have changed.

Answer 8

A one degree change of temperature on our planet is a huge change because our temperature averages world wide change very little and our weather stability is very precise.

Answer 9

One degree IS minimal.

Considering that there's evidence that global temperature averages have varied by as much as 10 degrees...

And the "evidence" that 2 degrees would cause damage makes a lot of assumptions that are just stupid.

Answer 10

Amen!