Quote from: MoonShadow on December 08, 2011, 10:22:16 PM

Quote from: JA37 on December 08, 2011, 07:49:02 PM

Magazines like Nature or New Scientist are fairly respected publications and neither of them are sceptical of climate change, even though the do publish cock-ups by scientists when they're found. Are you saying that they too have a political agenda, and goes against good science to push it?

Real scientists are always sceptics, but nor am I very sceptical that climate change exists. The climate is always changing. The part that is sceptical is the role of human activity in the matter. Is humanity to blame for the catastrophy that has been known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'? What about the 'Littile Ice Age'? As a professional meterologist, certainly you studied these historic periods of relatively rapid changes in worldwide climate? In either case, it took about a century to change at the inflection points. We're beyond a century since the dawn of the Industrial Age (age of oil), and the most credible of negative 'worst case' models take another century to rise global temps to a point that the poles actually do melt. The melting of said poles doesn't even necessarily imply a net negative impact upon humanity or life in general, since this also implies the associated expansion of agricultural land in the northern latitides, the increase in growing seasons in all lower latitudes and the productive increases that can be expected from increases in ambiant CO2 available to agricultural plantlife. That's not even considering the vast energy savings in winter heating among the entire population beyond the 75th parrallel. The official records concerning the MWP imply that we crossed the average global temps in 1990's, but last I checked wine vineyards are still not viable in Northern Britian like they were for 400 years during the MWP. If anyone is growing wine grapes in Scotland without a glasshouse and we still have economicly viable fossil fuels left, I might have something to worry about, but I doubt it. I've literally seen wealthy people buy lakefront property around the Great Lakes on the potential that global warming would make such areas more valuable for their grandchildren. There are always things that real people can do to mitigate the risks of change.

Quote

Rising sea level isn't the biggest threat in itself. I'm sure people will have time to get out of the way when the water is coming. Flooded farmland leading to food shortage, ecosystems out of balance and other things are more of a concern I think. That's not something I'd like to leave behind when I go.

Food shortages, as a result from climate change, isn't a credible threat. Far more likely is the rapid expansion of agriculture for the above noted reasons. Whoever tells you such things is trying to scare you, or are simply scared themselves. As a trained meterologist, I think that you know this is so on some deep, rational level. Food shortages in places where food is already difficult to grow, now that can get worse. Fresh water sources could become a real issue with an expanding population and expanding agricultureal base, since is already is (but not as a consequence of climate change, but poor resource management with an expanding population). This is, ironicly, one of the reasons that I choose to live in this city of Louisville, Kentucky. I live 26 feet over the top of one of the largest replenishing known in the US. I have both the legal, and pyisical, capability of driving a wellpoint in my own backyard if I choose to do so.

Quote

I wasn't talking about you specifically. But I'm happy to hear that you're doing your part. So am I. Sadly I don't work close enough to ride my bike to work,

Define 'close enough'. I live 8.5 miles form work.

Quote

but I do commute with public transport, among other things that reduce my footprint. I'm still far above a sustainable level if you look at the web-tests you can do however.

ironicly, public transport isn't normally going to reduce your carbon footprint by any non-neglible degree in most US cities. New York or LA, yes. Cincinnati or Indianapolis, no. The reason for this is because public transport must run whether or not you are using it, public transit's average ridership is too low to compete with a modern compact car. Such public transit might make you feel good about it, but it exists as a transit subsidy for the poor; and no other reason is historicly or scientificly accurate.

Sadly I'm not a meteorologist. My fields of expertise are elsewhere. I just happened to work there and got basic training in meteorology. I probably know more about weather prediction than most people, but that's about it. That said, I know of these periods you speak, although not in great detail. And certainly not enough to draw any sort of conclusions from those periods.

There's a lot of farmland close to sea level and while I agree that new land probably will open up to agriculture. Lots of very good soil is in the lowlands. New land isn't sure to have the same properties and could produce lower yield per area. But we're going into a bit too much detail here.

I have about 100km one way. It would take me well over 5hours by bike. I travel by bus and it's about 80% full, so I think this makes a difference since most of my fellow travellers would drive their own car if the bus wasn't there. And I can work on the bus too, so it's a double benefit for me. An extra hour of work each trip.