What Happens If The Earth Warms
SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING
Other suggested reading.
The many doomsday scenarios floating around have left me wondering what a warmer earth might look like. I would venture a guess that many people, if not most, would presume that wherever they are it would be warmer by 2° or 4° or whatever°. After posting yesterday about Michigan's extended spring, I thought it might be an interesting idea to speculate... much as the IPCC modelers have done... about the pros and cons of a warmer planet.
In February, 2007 I wrote a post entitled: Global Warming - A Clearer Perspective. In that post, I provided a comparison of average temperatures in Orlando, Florida with other U.S. locations through this chart [note temperatures are in °C ... click image for larger view]:
The purpose was to show that any warming may or may not be a bad or good phenomenon. That squiggly green line is supposed to be the 20th century global warming... in proper perspective, not the exaggerated perspective of most charts.
We all agree that having the earth's average temperature increase 7°C would have significant impact on the way we live... especially if that increase was rapid and evenly distributed. That, however, is a very unlikely scenario even if you believe the very faulty computer models... or doomsday science fiction movies modeled after Al Gore's fiction.
The present "official" data on the U.S. temperature change in the 20th century shows a modest change over the course of a century from a cold-period starting point... and a flat trend from the 1930s or so. And that change is dependent on continually revising past data downward and present data upward [thanks to Watts Up With That for the graphic... with the exaggerated perspective]
Regardless of the manipulation, the possibility that Fairbanks, Alaska will have a climate similar to Detroit, Michigan within a millennium is too remote to consider plausible... at least from some industrial emissions. But let's say that warming could be 2°F [not °C] or almost twice as much as the manipulated data for the 20th century. The effects would certainly be sporadic.
Coastal areas would probably have less temperature impact due to moderation from water circulation. It is possible that Detroit could have a milder climate... less severe winters and a longer growing season... perhaps like Columbus, Ohio. Texas could get hotter with high temperatures moving from the low 100s to the slightly higher low 100s. Water might become an issue in some inland areas... or rain may actually increase depending on whose study you want to believe.
2°F would have no impact on Antarctica except for, possibly, a very small percentage of the western peninsula coastline.
The reality is that 2°F average change would have little noticeable impact on our climates. Detroit will not become like Sacramento, California [too bad]. The world will not become a tropical paradise. With the exception of some slight added discomfort due to lack of air-conditioning caused by alternative energy power shortages, we will go about our lives shoveling a little less snow [or not] and harvesting our tomatoes a little longer. But our Cap and Trade schemes and Alternative Energy schemes will make this a much more expensive financial climate.
Regardless, all of this worry is likely misplaced:
We all agree that having the earth's average temperature increase 7°C would have significant impact on the way we live... especially if that increase was rapid and evenly distributed. That, however, is a very unlikely scenario even if you believe the very faulty computer models... or doomsday science fiction movies modeled after Al Gore's fiction.
The present "official" data on the U.S. temperature change in the 20th century shows a modest change over the course of a century from a cold-period starting point... and a flat trend from the 1930s or so. And that change is dependent on continually revising past data downward and present data upward [thanks to Watts Up With That for the graphic... with the exaggerated perspective]
Regardless of the manipulation, the possibility that Fairbanks, Alaska will have a climate similar to Detroit, Michigan within a millennium is too remote to consider plausible... at least from some industrial emissions. But let's say that warming could be 2°F [not °C] or almost twice as much as the manipulated data for the 20th century. The effects would certainly be sporadic.
Coastal areas would probably have less temperature impact due to moderation from water circulation. It is possible that Detroit could have a milder climate... less severe winters and a longer growing season... perhaps like Columbus, Ohio. Texas could get hotter with high temperatures moving from the low 100s to the slightly higher low 100s. Water might become an issue in some inland areas... or rain may actually increase depending on whose study you want to believe.
2°F would have no impact on Antarctica except for, possibly, a very small percentage of the western peninsula coastline.
The reality is that 2°F average change would have little noticeable impact on our climates. Detroit will not become like Sacramento, California [too bad]. The world will not become a tropical paradise. With the exception of some slight added discomfort due to lack of air-conditioning caused by alternative energy power shortages, we will go about our lives shoveling a little less snow [or not] and harvesting our tomatoes a little longer. But our Cap and Trade schemes and Alternative Energy schemes will make this a much more expensive financial climate.
Regardless, all of this worry is likely misplaced:
GLOBAL WARMING: OUR BEST GUESS IS LIKELY WRONGLook up, the answer may be right over your head.
Rice University, 14 July 2009
<http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW& >ID=12794&SnID=1419357327
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." ...
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM [Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum]."
CONTACT: Jade Boyd
PHONE: 713-348-6778
E-MAIL: jadeboyd@rice.edu
[H/T Benny Peiser]
..
From 
