# What is the worst single consequence of global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001 "2016-11-14T20:55:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/61 "2016-12-13T01:13:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t believe Thinkprogress anymore than you believe Roger Pielke Jr, and your original link was to excerpts of an interview, which is hardly what I’d call “scholarly”, but I do thank you for the IPCC special report link. I’ll read it, or at least the 20-page “summary for policymakers” and see if it catches my interest enough to dive into the full 600-page report Also, [here is an overview](http://www.nature.com/news/severe-weather-linked-more-strongly-to-global-warming-1.17828) in _Nature_ of a Kevin Trenberth paper on the extreme weather linkage. The overview is quite a short read and you may find it informative. As I said, there are many more recent papers but I don’t have the cites at hand ATM. And here is another blurb on Pielke Jr. from _Sourcewatch_. It quotes the late Stephen Schneider, a highly respected climate scientist, who said of Peilke Jr.: “_one consistent pattern emerges – he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess – and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis_”. [Roger Pielke Jr. - SourceWatch](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr). It’s kind of futile getting into a pissing contest about who said good or bad things about who, but it ought to be clear that several mainstream respected scientists (actually, most) totally disagree with Pielke Jr. whereas he himself has no real credentials in the field. Furthermore, a careful and knowledgeable reading of that Sourcewatch piece (which I think is thorough and evenhanded) reveals tons of red flags – the Schneider assessment of him; the fact that he is unquestionably extremely controversial yet has no credentials in the field; his association with denialists; his publication in the low-quality denialist junk journal _Energy and Environment_; his joint presentation with known denialist asshat Steve McIntyre, among other things. ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/62 "2016-12-13T01:38:14Z")
One point of clarification, lest there be any misunderstanding. I posted the above before I’d seen your quick comments on the IPCC SREX in #60, and provided the link to a summary of the Trenberth paper just as something I’d remembered about and passed it on since you seemed genuinely interested. It wasn’t a direct response to your #60 which I had not even seen, my point being that the SREX alone in my view provides compelling evidence for likely linkages that are also fully supported by theory and are seen in the climate simulations. The problem with your analysis is that it takes the extreme reticence and conservative approach to evidence that is the essence of true science, and one that is much further exacerbated by having to pass it through a consensus filter at the IPCC – a constant source of much frustration about the resultant understatement, and then judges it from an everyday skeptical perspective, where a carefully calibrated phrase like “medium” or “low” confidence is dismissed as “probably not true, then” whereas if you polled scientists on their actual personal views you’d get quite a different story. Just wanted to make that clear. That said, the Trenberth paper is more recent and offers strengthened evidence on many of the same issues. ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/63 "2016-12-13T01:38:57Z")
> [@aux203](#): > > The wide variety of nebulous answers in this thread is part of why climate change denial gets more play than it probably deserves. Making arguments for spending more to avoid climate change is easier if we could point to some real, concrete numbers about what will happen and how much it will cost. Uh, the subject of the tread was “the worst single consequence” it was not “the most likely” although I’m beginning to suspect that the OP did not want just that but it wanted others to point at the worst effects that could happen as a way to setup a gotcha. Consider the Hurricanes, It has been pointed out by experts that Hyper-canes could be possible. But what most of the media does not report is that what the experts said was that while Hyper-canes could happen they are **unlikely**. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/31/new-study-reveals-the-possibility-of-hurricanes-unlike-anything-youve-seen-in-history/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/31/new-study-reveals-the-possibility-of-hurricanes-unlike-anything-youve-seen-in-history/) > [@](#): > > Granted, these theoretical storms are also highly unlikely to occur — in some cases, they are 1-in-10,000-year events, or even rarer. The researchers refer to these possible storms as “gray swans,” riffing on the concept of a “black swan” event, an unpredictable catastrophe, or highly impactful event. A “gray swan,” by contrast, can indeed be predicted, even if it is extremely rare. > > The purpose of the study is “to raise awareness of what a very low probability, very high impact hurricane event might look like,” said Emanuel. What was deemed likely was that hurricane could become stronger, but for a while they cold also become less numerous. [https://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/hurricanes-typhoons-cyclones#6](https://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/hurricanes-typhoons-cyclones#6) > [@](#): > > **Is global warming affecting hurricanes?** > > Are hurricanes getting worse as the global average temperature rises? What can we expect in the future? > > A growing amount of research is looking into these questions, and not all of the answers are in just yet. Here’s a summary of what research tells us so far. > Oceans are warmer; more rainfall expected > > The bottom line: As summarized in 2007 in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases in tropical SSTs [sea-surface temperatures]. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. —IPCC Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers, 2007 > > > > ``` > > Sea-surface temperatures across the tropics have risen along with global temperature over the last 100 years and are expected to warm further in the next century. All else being equal, warmer oceans can support stronger hurricanes. > > The extra water vapor evaporated by oceans in a warmer climate can be expected to boost rainfall from hurricanes by as much as 8% for every 1°C (1.8°F) of warming, according to Kevin Trenberth of NCAR (view a PDF of this paper). > Examining the record > > Several studies in the last decade have reported enhanced hurricane activity in some regions. For example: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Roughly twice as many hurricanes are now reported in the Atlantic compared to a century ago. The rise, identified by Greg Holland (NCAR), occurred over three distinct periods associated with rises in sea-surface temperature (see NCAR news release). > > In both the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans, the duration of tropical cyclones as well as their strongest wind speeds have both increased by about 50% over the past 50 years, according to Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (see MIT news release). > > The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide nearly doubled from the early 1970s to the early 2000s, found a team from the Georgia Institute of Technology and NCAR (see NCAR news release). > > > > ``` > > Changes in observing techniques pose a major challenge when studying past hurricanes. Tropical cyclones have been routinely monitored by aircraft for 60 years or less, and by satellite for only 20 to 40 years, depending on the ocean. In earlier years, many storms over the open ocean may have gone unobserved, as noted in a 2007 study by Christopher Landsea (NOAA, view a PDF of this paper). Thus, scientists must take special care in analyzing global hurricane records prior to the 1970s. > Studying the future > > The bottom line: According to the 2012 IPCC report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (PDF): > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. (Section 3.4.4) > > > > ``` > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Overall, I rate your claim mostly false with a final score of 1/3. :rolleyes: Tell it to the guys at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. > [@](#): > > The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is a nonprofit consortium of more than 100 North American member colleges and universities ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/64 "2016-12-13T01:50:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t believe Thinkprogress anymore than you believe Roger Pielke Jr. Roger Pielke Jr. has been found to be very misleading on this subject: > **[FiveThirtyEight’s disappointing science section](https://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/fivethirtyeights_disappointing.php)** > > Science journalism could use an infusion of analysis, but FiveThirtyEight isn't yet doing it rigorously or objectively > [@](#): > > Though Pielke has a deep pool of knowledge about climate change, as The Week has chronicled, he also has strong personal opinions and a history of using data to back them up against the larger scientific community. President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, has “accused [Pielke] of selective quotation and obfuscation,” and though Pielke claims to believe in climate change, Foreign Policy has included him on its list of climate skeptics. (He also has a shaky history with data, having once included the results of the filmmaker Michael Mann when analyzing the inflation of news coverage of a study by the scientist Michael Mann.) > > Pielke’s first post for the site covers the link between climate change and extreme weather—or lack thereof: “Disasters Cost More Than Ever—But Not Because of Climate Change.” In the post, he first shows the rising rate of global disaster losses, then adjusts the figure for the rise in global GDP—showing that global disaster losses have actually flatlined. “We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose—when an earthquake or flood occurs, more stuff gets damaged,” writes Pielke. Which is an interesting point, but not relevant to climate change. > > The shame is, there are plenty of subjects that could use a parsing from FiveThirtyEight: Silver could suss out the actual climate impact of shipping oil by rail, or give hard numbers on how decreased public research dollars effects disease funding—a subject the The New York Times specifically said was missing “[comprehensive] tracking [of] the magnitude and impact of private science.” Even a rigorous look at how to parse out acceptable health coverage would be welcome. > > FiveThirtyEight has ample opportunity to burst into this space and produce what Silver promised all along: an improvement in the level of analysis required by the general press. But you can’t take down journalism without first abiding by its best practices. Pielke Jr. did leave 538 later as it was clear that when others like Nate took a closer look Pielke got more criticism, not less. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/65 "2016-12-13T02:19:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The problem with your analysis is that it takes the extreme reticence and conservative approach to evidence that is the essence of true science, and one that is much further exacerbated by having to pass it through a consensus filter at the IPCC – a constant source of much frustration about the resultant understatement, and then judges it from an everyday skeptical perspective, where a carefully calibrated phrase like “medium” or “low” confidence is dismissed as “probably not true, then” whereas if you polled scientists on their actual personal views you’d get quite a different story. I can appreciate this point. The drive for consensus is essentially a drive for moderation. What do you think are the best source(s) of polling individual scientists on their actual personal views"? > [@wolfpup](#): > > Just wanted to make that clear. That said, the Trenberth paper is more recent and offers strengthened evidence on many of the same issues. Are there other areas of study in which the IPCC is now considered wrong / inaccurate? My impression had been that it was essentially the gold standard, but your post here makes me think that may be not be correct. ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/66 "2016-12-13T04:40:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Are there other areas of study in which the IPCC is now considered wrong / inaccurate? My impression had been that it was essentially the gold standard, but your post here makes me think that may be not be correct. One complaint I have seen several times is that several researchers worry that the IPCC **is too conservative**. This is a result of the IPCC reviewing the best of the current or recent research but sometimes also very optimist papers are considered. And then the report has to pass reviews to be used by policy makers. It is at this stage that some point out that the IPCC is erring on the side of conservative projections because many nations do not want to be hurried up. (And still most of the contrarian media out there tell their readers and viewers how alarmist the IPCC is!) One clear discrepancy so far was in the projections of how much and how soon we would lose cap ice. Unlike other projections like surface temperatures the rate of ice loss really missed the mark… it was worse that it was feared. [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/arctic-sea-ice-what-why-and-what-next/](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/arctic-sea-ice-what-why-and-what-next/) > [@](#): > > But our recent track record in predicting what happens to the ice has not been good. The reality of changes to the Arctic has far outstripped most predictions. Only a few years ago, in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the bulk of models showed the Arctic ice cap surviving in summer until well past 2100. Now it’s not clear that the ice will survive in summer past 2020. The level of sea ice we saw this September, in 2012, wasn’t expected by the mean of IPCC models until 2065. The melting Arctic has outpaced the predictions of almost everyone – everyone except the few who were called alarmists. > [@](#): > > Positive Feedback > > The second factor is positive feedback. Not the “good job” kind of positive feedback, mind you. This type of feedback is more similar to what happens when a microphone comes too close to a speaker, and a random piece of noise gets amplified out of control. Any time a process can amplify itself, it’s a positive feedback loop. The melting ice is, in fact, amplifying its own destruction by helping to fuel accelerated arctic warming and thus more rapid disappearance of the ice that remains. The point here is that cap ice loss is also a feedback that does increase the temperature, meaning that it is likely that the expected rise in temperature will increase more than the conservative projections are telling us. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/67 "2016-12-13T06:00:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Now it’s not clear that the ice will survive in summer past 2020. The level of sea ice we saw this September, in 2012, wasn’t expected by the mean of IPCC models until 2065. The melting Arctic has outpaced the predictions of almost everyone – everyone except the few who were called alarmists. Does this make Al Gore an alarmist? I read that he said back in 2008: > [@](#): > > Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years Or at least in the realm of Sam Wang levels of wrong. ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/68 "2016-12-13T06:35:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Does this make Al Gore an alarmist? I read that he said back in 2008: > > Or at least in the realm of Sam Wang levels of wrong. Yes, Al Gore was exaggerating there, but he is not a scientist. The point was that even the people that did point at a less dire scenarios as the one Gore posted were also called alarmists (contrarians still do), another point is that the researchers that worried more about the ice (not Gore) were correct. And even further: virtually all the ones the right wing point as “more accurate” researchers that are in reality contrarians continue to be wrong about the earth getting cooler: > **[Denier predictions vs IPCC projections](https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/69 "2016-12-13T07:24:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Also, [here is an overview](http://www.nature.com/news/severe-weather-linked-more-strongly-to-global-warming-1.17828) in _Nature_ of a Kevin Trenberth paper on the extreme weather linkage. The overview is quite a short read and you may find it informative. Thanks for the link. I did find it informative. It sounds like Trenberth is taking a significantly different approach to his analysis than the IPCC. I’m going to attempt to summarize, and you can correct me where you think I go astray. When the IPCC says: > [@](#): > > There is _low confidence_ in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. they’re telling us that they’re actually counting storms, and measuring their duration and intensity, (and taking a bit of a guess at the ones they couldn’t count decades ago because we weren’t monitoring the oceans with planes and satellites like we are today) and it doesn’t look like things are getting worse, at least yet (in this one particular category). Ternberth seems to take a different approach: > [@](#): > > Trenberth’s team applied its methodology to multiple extreme events, including Hurricane Sandy. In that case, modellers at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which correctly forecasted the storm track a week in advance, have simulated the same storm but with cooler sea-surface temperatures. Their results suggest that the warmer sea-surface temperatures caused by climate change increased the size and strength of the storm, boosting precipitation by 35%. Ternberth isn’t going out and counting actual storms. He’s looking at various storms and saying, “well, we are pretty certain that warmer SSTs make storms stronger, so we built a computer model that simulates cooler SSTs and our best understanding of the effect of SSTs on storms and our model tells us that Sandy wouldn’t have been as bad if all this global warming hadn’t been increasing the SSTs”. That’s certainly an interesting approach, but I don’t think I’d call it evidence that “we are already seeing … stronger storms”. The IPCC is explicitly looking at this exact thing and says it’s probably not happening. OTOH, Ternberth is saying that if the oceans were cooler, we might expect to see less severe storms. The reason I zeroed in on the portion of your post that I’ve quoted several times now is because it deals with actual observable metrics (“we are already seeing…”), not just computer models about what we think will happen in the future. It’s stuff we can actually go out and count today, and the people doing that counting say we’re not really getting bigger and worse storms than we were years ago. In short, it looks like Roger Pielke Jr.'s claim that “there is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally” is largely correct, at least as far as we’ve been able to observe up through 2016. Your thoughts? ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/70 "2016-12-13T12:59:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The reason I zeroed in on the portion of your post that I’ve quoted several times now is because it deals with actual observable metrics (“we are already seeing…”), not just computer models about what we think will happen in the future. It’s stuff we can actually go out and count today, and the people doing that counting say we’re not really getting bigger and worse storms than we were years ago. In short, it looks like Roger Pielke Jr.'s claim that “there is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally” is largely correct, at least as far as we’ve been able to observe up through 2016. > > Your thoughts? Not **wolfpup** , but I think I did call it, you jumped from the worst single consequence to “small potatoes” there and like Pielke it is used in attempt at discrediting all observations. Like Richard Alley pointed at, that bit about extreme weather events is a piece of the puzzle that is not as sure as others, but it is not a reason to avoid the rest of what has been observed. In essence, worse consequences as increase in drought intensity and probability ([that has more than just scant evidence](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4386330/)) [has been observed](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/17/global-warmings-one-two-punch-extreme-heat-and-drought), precipitation increases in other areas and ocean rise too. And related to that Ice cap loss. Those items are attempted to be ignored by Pielke and others that are not publishing their opinions in science journals but they choose to make books and write opinions in the popular press forgetting to make science to convince others properly. So, while there is still a lot of uncertainty regarding hurricanes and tornadoes, the missed point there is that uncertainty is not our friend, it is preferable to make efforts to prevent other more likely changes that are coming thanks to the increase in temperatures brought by releasing that many greenhouse gases. The point here is that while other issues are more likely and should guide most of the reasons to deal with the issue; basing our actions on the worry that tornadoes and hurricanes will become more numerous is not the main one. Still, I would not want to bet that we will be lucky on those items while we are frying in general and the oceans rise. If we are unlucky an increase in hurricanes and tornadoes will be issues that will be **add** to the costs of the most likely consequences. ---
**Author:** ![aux203](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/77aa72/32.png) [@aux203](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aux203)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/71 "2016-12-13T13:11:26Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, it’s quite a reasonable response, actually, because the sort of interrelationship of complex factors expressed by that analogy is inherent in the nature of climate. It’s certainly reasonable to ask about priorities, costs, etc. as you suggest, but that’s not what the OP asked. > > I’m surprised that you learned that, since it isn’t true. There is certainly [an unsurprising relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3302/07-hott-nf.html) everything else being equal, but things are not equal in different geographic regions, and the same factors that drive higher SSTs can also drive countervailing influences to hurricane formation, so that you may end up with fewer hurricanes but more intense ones, and these patterns may be different in different geographies, so the balance of relationships to hurricane strength and frequency is quite complex. But the relationship is clearer to extreme weather events in general: we are already seeing a shift to greater frequencies of extreme heat, extreme cold, precipitation changes causing droughts and floods, and worse storm surges due to stronger storms and higher sea levels. > > Well, if you want something particularly detailed and specific you can refer to the three IPCC working group reports, of which WG1 covers the physical science of climate change, WG2 covers impacts, adaptations, and vulnerabilities, and WG2 provides an assessment of mitigation strategies and cost analyses, which ought to go a long way to answering your questions. Similar reports have been issued by numerous other organizations including the US military and global insurance associations. When I mentioned hurricanes I was referring to Atlantic hurricanes impacting the continental US. The fact that the oceans are warmer and that total energy is higher is uncontroversial I assume. I know there’s some controversy but global tropical cyclone frequency and energy dissipation increasing is pretty much what I would expect with warmers waters. But North Atlantic storm/hurricane frequency, news making hurricane frequency (cat 5 making landfall), and economic damages are… eh, pretty unremarkable. I was genuinely surprised by this. I mean in general I thought there would be obvious increases. But there aren’t. If a climatologist told me it was likely a fluke I would believe it. If they told me the Atlantic will actually be unchanged but SE Asia will get hammered as time goes on I’d believe that too. But to a skeptic noaa’s data and our recent cat 5 drought isn’t going to convince them of shit. I’ve read the IPCCs reports of course and while they’re interesting they fail to answer the op’s question which I think is broadly a fair one. It lacks precisely the hard figures a lot of people are looking for. If coastal cities are going to be subject to flooding and hurricanes how much will it cost?. If freshwater supplies will are going to be more costly how much will it cost to address it? If agricultural productivity and marine fisheries are going to fail when will we start to see that? Obviously no one can answer these questions with any degeee of cettainty. But flooding and hurricanes are going to have to actually cause measurable damage on a year to year basis, water bills for consumers are going to have to rise, agricultural productivity is going to have to fall significantly in a way that actually affects Americans in their day to day lives before anyone cares or believes. Let me close by saying I’m a firm believer in climate change and while my research focus was biology obviously even deca es ago the impact of climate change on biological systems was a hot topic. The.sneering condescension in this thread and most discussions on this topic annoys the shit out of me. Roll eyes indeed. To answer the ops question, speaking as a non specialist, I would venture to guess the worst single impact of global warming from an American perspective will be unrest and violence in less developed parts of the world resulting in regional armed conflict. A small drop in agricultural productivity in the industrialized world can be countered by technology. Even a slight increase in crop failures in the developing world could result in enough migrants to spark violence and waves of refugees. As many others have pointed out the Rwandan massacres weren’t purely racial. In areas where land was at a premium everyone took the opportunity to kill their rivals for inheritance, even within their own families. In the short to medium term I can easily see dealing with and stabilizing such areas in terms of refugee camps, relocations, military aid and assistance, etc as vastly more expensive than say coastal flooding or loss of wheat production in the ISA ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/72 "2016-12-13T15:34:12Z")
> [@aux203](#): > > When I mentioned hurricanes I was referring to Atlantic hurricanes impacting the continental US. The fact that the oceans are warmer and that total energy is higher is uncontroversial I assume. I know there’s some controversy but global tropical cyclone frequency and energy dissipation increasing is pretty much what I would expect with warmers waters. But North Atlantic storm/hurricane frequency, news making hurricane frequency (cat 5 making landfall), and economic damages are… eh, pretty unremarkable. I was genuinely surprised by this. I mean in general I thought there would be obvious increases. But there aren’t. If a climatologist told me it was likely a fluke I would believe it. If they told me the Atlantic will actually be unchanged but SE Asia will get hammered as time goes on I’d believe that too. But to a skeptic noaa’s data and our recent cat 5 drought isn’t going to convince them of shit. Well, IMHO a lot of what you are talking here is said by missing a lot of information: Were you aware that most experts did report that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the number of hurricanes? And that many did report that it was likely that because of issues like wind shear it was possible that less hurricanes could form? You see, this is crucial IMHO because just like with the misunderstanding that claimed that in the 70s scientists predicted global cooling (most in reality were not) a lot of the blame with the idea that most scientists predicted more hurricanes in the North Atlantic falls with popular media that failed to report properly what most scientists did report. And that BTW is not new. What I noted in 2013: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16279084&postcount=40](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16279084&postcount=40) > [@aux203](#): > > To answer the ops question, speaking as a non specialist, I would venture to guess the worst single impact of global warming from an American perspective will be unrest and violence in less developed parts of the world resulting in regional armed conflict. A small drop in agricultural productivity in the industrialized world can be countered by technology. Even a slight increase in crop failures in the developing world could result in enough migrants to spark violence and waves of refugees. As many others have pointed out the Rwandan massacres weren’t purely racial. In areas where land was at a premium everyone took the opportunity to kill their rivals for inheritance, even within their own families. In the short to medium term I can easily see dealing with and stabilizing such areas in terms of refugee camps, relocations, military aid and assistance, etc as vastly more expensive than say coastal flooding or loss of wheat production in the ISA Of course ocean rise and loss of crops are likely to cause more unrest like the one you are talking about here. I also did notice in the past that lots of refugees are likely to be a result of this, and as my background has social studies I have to say that the current levels of xenophobia shown by many nations just about makes sure that many will die as a result of less affected countries not letting people move around thanks to the displacement. And the biggest irony will be to see the likely misguided efforts of a Trump administration to make the situation worse and in the end saddle his (maybe) or future administrations with more immigrants coming to the USA but this time as climate refugees. It is like in the trope that was supposed to be just fictional called [“nice job breaking it hero”](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero). Where the moral is about the dangers of getting seriously involved in things without learning much about them and causing harm as a result. ---
**Author:** ![aux203](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/77aa72/32.png) [@aux203](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aux203)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/73 "2016-12-13T16:36:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, IMHO a lot of what you are talking here is said by missing a lot of information: > > Were you aware that most experts did report that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the number of hurricanes? And that many did report that it was likely that because of issues like wind shear it was possible that less hurricanes could form? > > You see, this is crucial IMHO because just like with the misunderstanding that claimed that in the 70s scientists predicted global cooling (most in reality were not) a lot of the blame with the idea that most scientists predicted more hurricanes in the North Atlantic falls with popular media that failed to report properly what most scientists did report. > > Of course ocean rise and loss of crops are likely to cause more unrest like the one you are talking about here. > > I also did notice in the past that lots of refugees are likely to be a result of this, and as my background has social studies I have to say that the current levels of xenophobia shown by many nations just about makes sure that many will die as a result of less affected countries not letting people move around thanks to the displacement. > > And the biggest irony will be to see the likely misguided efforts of a Trump administration to make the situation worse and in the end saddle his (maybe) or future administrations with more immigrants coming to the USA but this time as climate refugees. > > It is like in the trope that was supposed to be just fictional called [“nice job breaking it hero”](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero). Where the moral is about the dangers of getting seriously involved in things without learning much about them and causing harm as a result. Er, what exactly are you arguing here? If you are claiming that the effects of climate change on hurricanes is unpredictable and there isn’t firm proof of increasing hurricane frequency/intensity I’m pretty sure climate change skeptics would agree with you. This also contradicts the multiple pop science articles (and other posters in this thread, heh) that argue the opposite. Either way I don’t blame them for skepticism. Also, even if climate change causes refugees, the US has the advantage of enormous oceans to protect them. They will be taking refugees voluntarily for the most part, if and only if they decide to. The bottom line is how many billions does it make sense to spend to avoid these future problems? Are refugees that expensive for the US? I’m more a of geoengineering guy myself, though I’m open to arguments otherwise. I’m curious on the OP’s opinion: does he feel like he got a clear answer to his question? I sort of doubt it. Also, Trump? Tvtropes? WTF? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/74 "2016-12-13T16:54:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Er, what exactly are you arguing here? … > > Also, even if climate change causes refugees, the US has the advantage of enormous oceans to protect them. They will be taking refugees voluntarily for the most part, if and only if they decide to. The bottom line is how many billions does it make sense to spend to avoid these future problems? Are refugees that expensive for the US? Climate change is a problem that will affect all of humanity, many countries much worse than the U.S. I’m always disconcerted when problems are judged only from the U.S.'s interest. Asians, Africans, and Europeans are hominids too! … Or if localization is key to values, why not just focus on Wisconsin, or Oshkosh or whatever your locale is? [off-topic] U.S.-centric thinking gets very perverse and always confuses me. I recall one discussion board dialog that went something like this: “The purpose of the Iraq invasion was to help the Iraqis. It was very successful with less than 5000 deaths.” Me: Iraqi deaths were in the hundreds of thousands … " :😕: Only American casualties matter to Americans." (_This after defining the war’s purpose as helping Iraqis!_) :smack: ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/75 "2016-12-13T16:57:23Z")
> [@aux203](#): > > Er, what exactly are you arguing here? If you are claiming that the effects of climate change on hurricanes is unpredictable and there isn’t firm proof of increasing hurricane frequency/intensity I’m pretty sure climate change skeptics would agree with you. This also contradicts the multiple pop science articles (and other posters in this thread, heh) that argue the opposite. Either way I don’t blame them for skepticism. Too late, back in the 2013 tread I noted that most fake skeptics out there do pump up the idea that all scientists were telling us about “humongous and numerous hurricanes are coming” when **that was not the case**. As in the case of the 70s and the myth of “most scientists predicted cooling” the hurricane issue looks to me as a very successful effort by deniers to discredit scientists by erroneously or on purpuse to point at erroneous popular science articles to make the point that “you see, I’m an skeptic because their prediction failed”, when the prediction (like the 70s one) came really from media that often gets science wrong. > [@aux203](#): > > Also, even if climate change causes refugees, the US has the advantage of enormous oceans to protect them. They will be taking refugees voluntarily for the most part, if and only if they decide to. The bottom line is how many billions does it make sense to spend to avoid these future problems? Are refugees that expensive for the US? I’m more a of geoengineering guy myself, though I’m open to arguments otherwise. Once a disaster happens a border is not going to be a limitation, and specially when I do think that a lot of Americans will realize that they will have to take many for humanitarian reasons, specially from Mexico and central America that are likely to suffer a lot with the projected changes. > [@aux203](#): > > I’m curious on the OP’s opinion: does he feel like he got a clear answer to his question? I sort of doubt it. I do not think he wanted any answers. > [@aux203](#): > > Also, Trump? Tvtropes? WTF? TVtropes was cited only to explain the concept of “nice job breaking it, hero”. Pointing at the current “hero” of many deniers that was elected president, he is selecting a cabinet were climate denial is a way of life. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/76 "2016-12-13T17:34:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I do not think he wanted any answers. One thing that generally makes this place enjoyable is the default assumption that posters are being sincere. You seem to violate that norm. This wasn’t some giant “gotcha” thread. I had a question, I figured I knew a place where some generally smart, generally liberal people hang out and I’d pose it to them. It has generated some interesting discussion, given me some thing to think about (I wasn’t aware of the ocean acidification concerns prior to this thread, for example), and offered a chance to evaluate some assumptions (like the extreme weather claim that I see repeated frequently). I thought it was worth my while to read the posts and cites presented and consider the (variety of) answers provided. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/77 "2016-12-13T17:43:06Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Climate change is a problem that will affect all of humanity, many countries much worse than the U.S. I’m always disconcerted when problems are judged only from the U.S.'s interest. Asians, Africans, and Europeans are hominids too! … Or if localization is key to values, why not just focus on Wisconsin, or Oshkosh or whatever your locale is? I think this sort of tribalism is a pretty common bit of human nature. I’ll admit that when I hear the hand-wringing over rising sea levels, there’s a tiny bit of an element of “well, I’m at 4000 feet above sea level, so f\*\*\* you, NYC, CA, and the rest of you coastal liberals”, but it’s never more than a fleeting thought before my mind moves on to more analytical thoughts on the subject. ---
**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:** [December 13, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/78 "2016-12-13T18:21:13Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > One thing that generally makes this place enjoyable is the default assumption that posters are being sincere. You seem to violate that norm. This wasn’t some giant “gotcha” thread. I had a question, I figured I knew a place where some generally smart, generally liberal people hang out and I’d pose it to them. It has generated some interesting discussion, given me some thing to think about (I wasn’t aware of the ocean acidification concerns prior to this thread, for example), and offered a chance to evaluate some assumptions (like the extreme weather claim that I see repeated frequently). I thought it was worth my while to read the posts and cites presented and consider the (variety of) answers provided. Point to order, you are missing here that you said that what wolfpup posted was overall a false effort on his part. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/79 "2016-12-13T18:35:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is it rising ocean levels? That’s what I seem to hear about the most. Or is there something else that’s going to be worse? What I fear most is a sequel to _Waterworld_. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001/80 "2016-12-13T18:46:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Point to order, you are missing here that you said that what wolfpup posted was overall a false effort on his part. On the contrary, I found pretty much everything wolfpup said to be enlightening and helpful, even if I disagree with some of it. I dove deeper on one particular sentence of his post #55, and, in an allusion to campaign fact checkers, assigned it a “mostly false” rating, but I wasn’t questioning the sincerity of his posts. That’s the difference. I questioned (one of) wolfpup’s assertions, you questioned my sincerity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-worst-single-consequence-of-global-warming/772001.md?page=5)