# How likely is this scenario? Global warming at 4C **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484 "2018-08-12T18:16:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/1 "2018-08-12T18:16:07Z")
I don’t know much about climate change, I believe it, however, I was alarmed by this map about how large swathes of the world would be left uninhabitable due to a runaway greenhouse effect. [![](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/565d7420e4b0987eb9f25078/1457487393039-XAOV8EBC8F1WR7CDJWI7/?format=1000w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg) ](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/565d7420e4b0987eb9f25078/1457487393039-XAOV8EBC8F1WR7CDJWI7/?format=1000w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg) Is this map an accurate prediction of what could happen in the next couple of decades? I still can’t wrap my head around it, Japan largely abandoned along with China and the US? Is it scaremongering? I can’t imagine those governments or their respective populations just deciding ‘Yup, we can’t do anything now, let’s go to Canada’ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/2 "2018-08-12T18:35:11Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I don’t know much about climate change, I believe it, however, I was alarmed by this map about how large swathes of the world would be left uninhabitable due to a runaway greenhouse effect. > > [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/565d7420e4b0987eb9f25078/t/56df7e1b27d4bdb9da179e1f/1457487412372/](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/565d7420e4b0987eb9f25078/t/56df7e1b27d4bdb9da179e1f/1457487412372/) > > Is this map an accurate prediction of what could happen in the next couple of decades? I still can’t wrap my head around it, Japan largely abandoned along with China and the US? > > Is it scaremongering? I can’t imagine those governments or their respective populations just deciding ‘Yup, we can’t do anything now, let’s go to Canada’ Seems that the map came from a British report from 2009, AFAIK it was based on early projections that are a bit obsolete now. The map projects the temperatures between 2060 and 2100 **if present rates of adding CO2 and other global warming gases into the atmosphere are not slowed**. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/3 "2018-08-12T18:44:08Z")
Yes, that map is undoubtedly realistic for a 4C average global rise in temperatures. All that’s uncertain is how long it will be before that number is reached. Global warming is also undoubtedly the most important and pressing issue of our time. If scaremongering creates even a slight change in attitude or postpones these results for an extra couple of decades I’m all for it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/4 "2018-08-12T19:05:05Z")
A more recent study shows that the changes will take place more on higher latitudes: > **[A new study puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map](https://phys.org/news/2016-01-temperature-co2-emissions.html)** > > Earth's temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But what does that mean locally? > [@](#): > > Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But what does that mean locally? > > A new study published in Nature Climate Change pinpoints the temperature increases caused by CO¬2 emissions in different regions around the world. > > Using simulation results from 12 global climate models, Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, along with post-doctoral researcher Martin Leduc, produced a map that shows how the climate changes in response to cumulative carbon emissions around the world. > > They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions. > > “This provides a simple and powerful link between total global emissions of carbon dioxide and local climate warming,” says Matthews. “This approach can be used to show how much human emissions are to blame for local changes.” > > Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramon de Elia from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution. So, if we get to see no stronger control of our emissions, it is a matter of time that we could see an increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius on equatorial regions (Remember, Celsius degrees increase at a higher rate than Fahrenheit ones) all over the world, while higher latitudes can see 4 or more degrees Celsius of an increase. > **[What happens if Earth gets 2°C warmer?](https://www.popsci.com/what-happens-if-earth-gets-2-degrees-warmer/)** > > Over the last 20 years, 2°C has been referenced in climate policies and agreements made by the Council of the EU, the G8, and more. What makes it so important? > [@](#): > > The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—an organization that advises governments on the causes and impacts of climate change—is now studying what the world would be like if average temperatures rise by three degrees, four degrees, or higher. It could lead to “substantial species extinctions, large risks to global and regional food security,” and an inability to work outside—and live—in some areas of the world. > > Can countries like the United States, China, and India not just limit but reduce CO2 emissions in order to keep our planet below the 2°C mark? The outlook is grim. Studies based on IPCC data say there’s a 95% chance we’ll pass 2°C by the year 2100—and the detrimental effects of climate change may be unavoidable. We do have the power to lower our emissions and keep the worst possible warming at bay. But we’re running out of time. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/5 "2018-08-12T19:37:27Z")
Part of the problem with a map like that is that regional projections are really hard to do reliably, though we’re now getting global circulation models with much finer spatial resolution. One thing that can be said reliably, though, is that 4°C temperature rise relative to some nominal 20th century average would have pretty devastating effects. The good news is that this kind of temperature rise by 2100 is unlikely because projections show it to be a worst-case outcome, essentially requiring reckless continued growth in global emissions. We’d hit that temperature by 2100 under conditions that allowed greenhouse gas accumulations to reach a net incremental forcing of +8.5 W/m[sup]2[/sup], a scenario called RCP 8.5. By contrast, RCP 6.0 or even 4.5 are considered more likely, but if we don’t reverse the trend of GHG accumulation we’re going to hit 4°C eventually and just keep right on going. As I’ve often said, CO2 levels during glacial maxima have averaged around 180 ppm and during interglacial maxima between 280 and 300 ppm. It’s cycled in that narrow band for millions of years. Today it’s over 400 ppm. [Here is a brief chart](https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-spm-2.html) of some of the expected impacts at different temperature levels relative to temperatures in the latter part of the 20th century. It’s from the older IPCC AR4 report but still reasonably accurate. [This is a report](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/2_knutti13sbsta.pdf) on some of the RPC and temperature projections from the newer AR5. Unfortunately this brief report only shows RCP 2.6 and 8.5 on most of the charts and you sort of have to extrapolate the middle ones, but it gives you some idea. The full [IPCC Working Group 1 AR5 report](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) is excellent and informative reading if you’re interested. If you want something briefer, download the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) from that page. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/6 "2018-08-13T00:38:15Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I don’t know much about climate change, I believe it, however, I was alarmed by this map about how large swathes of the world would be left uninhabitable due to a runaway greenhouse effect. > > [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/565d7420e4b0987eb9f25078/t/56df7e1b27d4bdb9da179e1f/1457487412372/](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/565d7420e4b0987eb9f25078/t/56df7e1b27d4bdb9da179e1f/1457487412372/) > > Is this map an accurate prediction of what could happen in the next couple of decades? I still can’t wrap my head around it, Japan largely abandoned along with China and the US? > > Is it scaremongering? I can’t imagine those governments or their respective populations just deciding ‘Yup, we can’t do anything now, let’s go to Canada’ Hell yeah go to Canada … well, maybe your great-grandchildren should go to Canada … it’s beautiful up there now and the future is nothing but prosperity and wealth … and you can trust Canadians to do the right thing … The map you’ve linked to has a major red flag … it shows deserts along the equator … that’s pretty much physically impossible … here’s [a diagram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#/media/File:AtmosphCirc2.png) of the large scale circulation pattern on Earth, see the arrows all point up and the equator, that means it rains all the time, ask anyone who’s lived near the equator … 30 feet of rainfall every year doesn’t allow for a desert climate … > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Yes, **that map is undoubtedly realistic for a 4C average global rise in temperatures.** All that’s uncertain is how long it will be before that number is reached. > > Global warming is also undoubtedly the most important and pressing issue of our time. If scaremongering creates even a slight change in attitude or postpones these results for an extra couple of decades I’m all for it. Emphasis mine Oh, sorry … it’s completely unrealistic at any temperature … there’s never been a desert at the equator while conditions on Earth allow for rainfall … billions of years now … I appreciate scaremongering for truly noble causes … but if the claim is so divorced from reality as to be complete fantasy, it’s going to cause minds to change the other way … many of us can simply drive a few hours south and experience the total sum of all climate change over the next 100 years in just an afternoon … have dinner and drive home and wonder what’s to be a afraid of … ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/7 "2018-08-13T00:51:27Z")
The idea that 4°C would only result in 2 meters of sea level rise seems awfully optimistic. And all the displaced populations are going to peacefully migrate to compact, high-rise cities, with no wars or border walls or any of that trouble? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/8 "2018-08-13T02:17:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Seems that the map came from a British report from 2009, AFAIK it was based on early projections that are a bit obsolete now. The map projects the temperatures between 2060 and 2100 **if present rates of adding CO2 and other global warming gases into the atmosphere are not slowed**. Looking around, that OP map is not coming from the Met Office. It seems to be coming from a book by Parag Khanna, an international relations expert, not a climatologist. So not as reliable as the other map I linked to. Better to look at the references that **wolfpup** made too. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/9 "2018-08-13T03:22:07Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Oh, sorry … it’s completely unrealistic at any temperature … there’s never been a desert at the equator while conditions on Earth allow for rainfall … billions of years now … That might be true, but I’d like to see cites. Weather patterns and climate changes are heavily dependent on the configuration of continents and oceans, though, and our present configuration seems to have potential for new patterns. See this study in [Nature Climate Change](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0034-4.epdf?referrer_access_token=sR4Wbo6RnvqsQkWYEdo6OdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Md-_o5A1rhm4JzTytmIvTkmxaaT7siHGll-VC_gYGc84v3nksvK1cjixUa8ENnnTMpcRx_oEvlJeJVUz8srFCpCfAaOVEA7_oCRGLik75Tdv3CzOcp_srarRXMaJpYAZxNwEqgent2RqEvZy5avpW4P6HG9VIgRuO3Jxh-NNBwkADMaWPDkZm6E4jdI3jS8zs%3D&tracking_referrer=www.newsweek.com) that shows aridification in equatorial South America if not Africa. That’s a meaningless argument in the bigger picture, however. People are denying any coming inconveniences at any temperature change. Realism has absolutely nothing to do with the political discussion. The idiots will seize on anything, true or false, to bolster their case. People won’t wake up until they feel it slapping their faces. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/10 "2018-08-13T15:25:31Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That might be true, but I’d like to see cites. Weather patterns and climate changes are heavily dependent on the configuration of continents and oceans, though, and our present configuration seems to have potential for new patterns. See this study in [Nature Climate Change](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0034-4.epdf?referrer_access_token=sR4Wbo6RnvqsQkWYEdo6OdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Md-_o5A1rhm4JzTytmIvTkmxaaT7siHGll-VC_gYGc84v3nksvK1cjixUa8ENnnTMpcRx_oEvlJeJVUz8srFCpCfAaOVEA7_oCRGLik75Tdv3CzOcp_srarRXMaJpYAZxNwEqgent2RqEvZy5avpW4P6HG9VIgRuO3Jxh-NNBwkADMaWPDkZm6E4jdI3jS8zs%3D&tracking_referrer=www.newsweek.com) that shows aridification in equatorial South America if not Africa. > > That’s a meaningless argument in the bigger picture, however. People are denying any coming inconveniences at any temperature change. Realism has absolutely nothing to do with the political discussion. The idiots will seize on anything, true or false, to bolster their case. People won’t wake up until they feel it slapping their faces. This is all basic meteorology … if you haven’t taken the class then my citation would be any textbook … not ground school, the textbook should be presenting triple integrals right away and systems of partial differential equations someplace … there’s good reasons for universities offering climatology degrees to start the climatology instruction at the junior level, you need two years calculus, a year of physics, a year of statistics and I’d recommend a year of general chemistry … I only got as far as the first diagram in your citation, as this completely validates my claim … see in the “a” portion: Amazonia, The Congo and Indonesia are all noted as “humid” and the very highest of the index the authors defined … and in the “b” portion it shows these regions as “no change” … profuse rainfall today, profuse rainfall in a 100 years … this letter was written by climatologist _for_ other climatologists, so we won’t find a detailed discussion of buoyancy forces … the authors assumed complete competence of such matters by the readers … and we can make all kinds a crazy claims by just ignoring 80% of the Earth’s surface, like the authors seems to have done … “People won’t wake up until they feel it slapping their faces.” … you seem to be missing the time scales involved here … most babies born today will have lived their entire lives and died of old age before 100 years will have past … a 3ºC increase in 100 years means that over ten years we’re still within instrumentation error … there’s nothing to ‘wake up’ to, we’re discussing several generations from now … We’re heading for a major crisis, that’s for sure … the way Western Europeans and Anglo-Americans are blowing through a thousand kW-hr of electricity every month is unsustainable if expanded to the other 5 billion people we have today … a 100 years from now we’ll have maybe 10 billion _more_ people … I don’t think we can burn fossil fuels fast enough even if the supply were unlimited … Anyway … physically impossible for there NOT to be a convergence zone over the equator … due to the fact the equator receives the most solar energy …just apply what you know of buoyancy forces … ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/11 "2018-08-13T15:42:37Z")
Well, Alaska’s freaking HUGE and I believe could support a good chunk of mass lower 48 migration if it got all pretty and green most of the year. That’s assumes they throw some mega cities up there in preparation like they’ve done in China. Interesting idea building in Antarctica. I could see the US commandeering that too. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/12 "2018-08-13T18:33:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > … a 3ºC increase in 100 years means that over ten years we’re still within instrumentation error … While I do agree that the Image in the OP is not accurate, what **Exapno Mapcase** linked to was more in tune with what is more likely. But what you point here is even more meaningless. Ten years is not enough to find a significant difference, but in less than 100 years [scientists have found it and that there are no significant errors in our records that have already been looked at.](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html) ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/13 "2018-08-13T19:13:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > While I do agree that the Image in the OP is not accurate, what **Exapno Mapcase** linked to was more in tune with what is more likely. > > But what you point here is even more meaningless. Ten years is not enough to find a significant difference, but in less than 100 years [scientists have found it and that there are no significant errors in our records that have already been looked at.](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html) I’ve never doubted global warming … but if pressure, relative humidity, precipitation rates and timing, and wind speed and direction do not change … then a few degrees increase in temperature does not change climate except for a few narrow bands … a place like St Louis will change from “humid continental” to “humid sub-tropical” … the catastrophe here is Missouri farmers will have a week or two longer growing season in 100 years, or just like Arkansas today … Global warming won’t cause bad things to happen … that’s a philosophical position since science doesn’t define “good” and “bad” … if the climate model outputs “bad” as a result, then it was programmed to do so … if ($climate\_forcing \> 1.5) {echo “bad”} else {echo “still bad”} ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/14 "2018-08-13T19:20:26Z")
Missed Edit window: I don’t disagree with **Exapno Mapcase** … just pointing out the vast majority of the Earth’s surface won’t see the index fall anymore than “noise” allows … ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/15 "2018-08-13T19:41:48Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ve never doubted global warming … but if pressure, relative humidity, precipitation rates and timing, and wind speed and direction do not change … then a few degrees increase in temperature does not change climate except for a few narrow bands … a place like St Louis will change from “humid continental” to “humid sub-tropical” … the catastrophe here is Missouri farmers will have a week or two longer growing season in 100 years, or just like Arkansas today … We had a similar conversation before, Of course this shows that you did not learn anything from Jennifer Frances and the other Polar experts that contrarians pointed before as being the beesnees; when in reality they were pointing out that the reduction of the winds actually leads to weather patterns getting stuck for longer periods of time, all that, and the loss of ice at the poles does change climate. Also the point made that while some wind circulation cells will slow down, others will increase in speed in a warming world. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Global warming won’t cause bad things to happen … that’s a philosophical position since science doesn’t define “good” and “bad” … if the climate model outputs “bad” as a result, then it was programmed to do so … There is no evidence for what you claim here. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/16 "2018-08-13T20:17:56Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ve never doubted global warming … but if pressure, relative humidity, precipitation rates and timing, and wind speed and direction do not change … then a few degrees increase in temperature does not change climate except for a few narrow bands … a place like St Louis will change from “humid continental” to “humid sub-tropical” … the catastrophe here is Missouri farmers will have a week or two longer growing season in 100 years, or just like Arkansas today … > > Global warming won’t cause bad things to happen … that’s a philosophical position since science doesn’t define “good” and “bad” … if the climate model outputs “bad” as a result, then it was programmed to do so … This is false and total nonsense, absolutely fundamentally wrong. Most of the critical climate drivers do NOT remain stable under conditions of strong climate forcing and temperature rise – that’s fundamentally most of the basis for the concern about climate change! The most important things that change are regional and global atmosphere and ocean circulation patterns which make huge differences to regional climates. A few degrees temperature rise will exacerbate global problems like increased damage from extreme weather, increased water stress, ocean acidification, 30% species extinction, sea level rise, total coral bleaching, and species range shift along with pests and disease vectors. Specifically in North America, the IPCC AR5 lists the following projections with high confidence – and that is _ **in addition to** _ global factors like casualties and property damage from extreme weather: [ul] [li]Wildfire-induced loss of ecosystem integrity, property loss, human morbidity, and mortality as a result of increased drying trend and temperature trend [/li][li]Heat-related human mortality [/li][li]Urban floods in riverine and coastal areas, inducing property and infrastructure damage; supply chain, ecosystem, and social system disruption; public health impacts; and water quality impairment, due to sea level rise, extreme precipitation, and cyclones[/li][/ul] None of that sounds to me like “will not change climate” or “won’t cause bad things to happen” or “a philosophical position”. California wildfires are already at all-time record levels with smoke now visible on the other side of the continent. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/17 "2018-08-13T22:12:15Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I only got as far as the first diagram in ecithertation, as this completely validates my claim … see in the “a” portion: Odd. I would have expected an expert of your magnitude to be able to read the caption on a chart. That first diagram clearly says “ **present** climate.” Most of the rest of us would therefore read on to the **second** diagram, which has the projected future aridification that I mention. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/18 "2018-08-14T03:27:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > We had a similar conversation before, Of course this shows that you did not learn anything from Jennifer Frances and the other Polar experts that contrarians pointed before as being the beesnees; when in reality they were pointing out that the reduction of the winds actually leads to weather patterns getting stuck for longer periods of time, all that, and the loss of ice at the poles does change climate. Also the point made that while some wind circulation cells will slow down, others will increase in speed in a warming world. Yes, that’s when I pointed out that that a reduction of winds means a reduction of power, so it is _less likely_ for powerful events to occur, like longer drier droughts or hypercanes … so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world … less crop failures, less flooding, less human misery (my Bible says this last one is a “good” thing) … If you want _more_ extreme events, you’ll need _faster_ winds … > [@GIGObuster](#): > > There is no evidence for what you claim here. None that you will accept? … fair enough … that’s allow in philosophy … > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Odd. I would have expected an expert of your magnitude to be able to read the caption on a chart. That first diagram clearly says “ **present** climate.” > > Most of the rest of us would therefore read on to the **second** diagram, which has the projected future aridification that I mention. I clued into the first diagram because of the word “change” in the title of figure 1b … that has a very explicit definition in science … this displays rainfall changes with respect to aridity index changes … this is zero in the Amazon Basin … that means it doesn’t matter what the aridity index does, the effect on the Amazon Basin is nothing … Scaremongering at it’s finest … take the most extreme forcing value humanly imaginable (= 8.5 W/m[sup]2[/sup], current value = 1.8 (±0.6) W/m[sup]2[/sup]) and show me a completely irrelevant shade of green and say that makes a horrific desert … I get it, don’t get me wrong … tell an Iowa corn farmer climate change he thinks no rain in summer … tell him global warming and he plans to work his fields a couple weeks sooner … 100 years from now has to sound scary or nobody will listen … > [@wolfpup](#): > > This is false and total nonsense, absolutely fundamentally wrong … [snip] I love you too, **wolfpup** … ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/19 "2018-08-14T03:38:04Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Yes, that’s when I pointed out that that a reduction of winds means a reduction of power, so it is _less likely_ for powerful events to occur, like longer drier droughts or hypercanes … so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world … less crop failures, less flooding, less human misery (my Bible says this last one is a “good” thing) … > > If you want _more_ extreme events, you’ll need _faster_ winds … And you’ll need to read again, faster winds were also mentioned. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > None that you will accept? … fair enough … that’s allow in philosophy … Your refusal to bring evidence is philosophically noted. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/20 "2018-08-14T12:48:30Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Yes, that’s when I pointed out that that a reduction of winds means a reduction of power, so it is _less likely_ for powerful events to occur, like longer drier droughts or hypercanes … so weather will be more moderated in a warmer world … less crop failures, less flooding, less human misery (my Bible says this last one is a “good” thing) … > > If you want _more_ extreme events, you’ll need _faster_ winds … It appears that my earlier statement characterizing your claims as “false and total nonsense, absolutely fundamentally wrong” is a recurrent theme in your writing, because it applies here, too. This is totally wrong and exactly backwards, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the research on Arctic amplification. Increased radiative forcing means _ **higher energies in the climate system** _, hence the predictions of [stronger and more damaging storms](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/) and [other damaging effects](https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-spm-2.html). For instance, the potential for stronger hurricanes because of higher sea surface temperatures imparting more energy to hurricane formation. The work of Jennifer Francis and others pertains to expected reductions in _ **high-altitude jet stream winds** _, leading to the above-noted extreme weather events lasting much longer, staying in one place for much longer periods and thereby being much more damaging. Cites: We find robust relationships among seasonal and regional patterns of weaker poleward thickness gradients, weaker zonal upper-level winds, and a more meridional flow direction. These results suggest that as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase. [http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005) The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, an effect enhanced when the sea ice that normally cools the Arctic air melts away. Because of this, the air currents that come from that region are getting disproportionately warmer too, narrowing the temperature difference between the Arctic and southerly winds, and thereby weakening the jet stream itself. “The winds have weakened by 10 per cent over the past three decades in the west-to-east wind of the jet stream,” says Francis. Francis thinks that, as the cool air of the Arctic becomes warmer, the jet stream is slowing down, almost to the point of stopping trapping weather systems in one place for prolonged periods. Instead of swirling round the world, winds reverberate back and forth in the same place, creating what she calls “extreme waves”. … **Between 1980 and 2010, extreme weather events doubled from about 400 to 800 a year, according to the insurance firm Munich RE.** > **[Crazy weather traced to Arctic's impact on jet stream](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26278-crazy-weather-traced-to-arctics-impact-on-jet-stream/)** > > Evidence is mounting that melting of Arctic ice is weakening the jet stream, causing weeks of cold, hot or stormy weather in the northern hemisphere [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484.md?page=2)