Global warming slows down world economy: report

Sep 26, 2012
Multiple air-conditioners hang on the outside of a building in Hong Kong in February 2012. Key findings in a Climate Vulnerable Forum report include estimates that carbon-intensive economies and associated climate change are responsible for five million deaths a year, nearly all of them due to air pollution.

Climate change caused by global warming is slowing down world economic output by 1.6 percent a year and will lead to a doubling of costs in the next two decades, a major new report said.

The DARA and Climate Vulnerable Forum report, which was commissioned by 20 governments and is due to be presented on Wednesday in New York, paints a grim picture of the economic fallout of climate change.

The "Climate Vulnerability Monitor" report finds "unprecedented harm to human society and current economic development that will increasingly hold back growth, on the basis of an important updating and revision of previous estimates of losses linked to climate change."

However, according to the report, tackling climate change's causes would instead bring "significant for world, major economies and poor nations alike."

Key findings include estimates that carbon-intensive economies and associated climate change are responsible for five million deaths a year, nearly all of them due to .

Graphic showing the extent of Arctic sea ice melting, with coverage at its lowest in September since records began in 1979.

"Failure to act on climate change already costs the 1.6 percent of global GDP amounting to $1.2 trillion in forgone prosperity a year," the report says.

In addition, "rapidly escalating temperatures and carbon-related pollution will double costs to 3.2 percent of world GDP by 2030."

Although poorer countries face the steepest in terms of GDP losses, big countries will not be spared.

"In less than 20 years China will incur the greatest share of all losses at over $1.2 trillion. The US economy will be held back by more two percent of GDP; India, over five percent of its GDP," the report said.

It said these projected losses "dwarf the modest costs" of addressing climate change.

The climate forum's chairman, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, said changes would be devastating for her country.

"One degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10 percent in farming," she said. "For us, it means losing about four million metric tonnes of food grain, amounting to about $2.5 billion. That is about two percent of our GDP. Adding up the damages to property and other losses, we are faced with a total loss of about three to four percent of ."

Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of the aid agency Oxfam International, called the report "another reminder that climate change's most savage impact is hunger and poverty."

"The economic and social costs of political inaction of unchecked climate change are staggering," he said. "Behind the statistics are the stories of real families and communities, for whom climate change means putting children to bed with empty stomachs."

Explore further: Far more displaced by disasters than conflict

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate: a million deaths a year by 2030: study

Dec 03, 2010

By 2030, climate change will indirectly cause nearly one million deaths a year and inflict 157 billion dollars in damage in terms of today's economy, according to estimates presented at UN talks on Friday.

Storm costs to spiral, says report

Jun 29, 2005

The global costs of extreme weather could rise by two-thirds within decades unless governments tackle the causes of climate change, a report warned Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Unforeseen dioxin formation in waste incineration

1 hour ago

Dioxins forms faster, at lower temperatures and under other conditions than previously thought. This may affect how we in the future construct sampling equipment, flue gas filtering systems for waste incineration ...

Crowdsourcing could lead to better water in rural India

2 hours ago

With more than 10 million service points, India's rural drinking water system provides a real monitoring headache for public health officials. To help address the challenge, a three-continent research consortium ...

Far more displaced by disasters than conflict

15 hours ago

Disasters last year displaced three times more people than violent conflicts, showing the urgent need to improve resilience for vulnerable people when fighting climate change, according to a study issued ...

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ScooterG
2.3 / 5 (24) Sep 26, 2012
Lame and self-serving...an attempt to justify their own existence.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (19) Sep 26, 2012
Lame and self-serving...an attempt to justify their own existence.


Who?

Cleaner tech. costs less in the long run, it isn't rocket science, just common sense.
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 26, 2012
Lame and self-serving...an attempt to justify their own existence.


Who?

Cleaner tech. costs less in the long run, it isn't rocket science, just common sense.


DARA
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2012
Lame and self-serving...an attempt to justify their own existence.


Who?

Cleaner tech. costs less in the long run, it isn't rocket science, just common sense.


DARA


Do you even know who they are or what they do?

http://daraint.org/about-us/

Could be another fraudulant humanitarian company cashing in on AGW I guess....they seem pretty genuine to me.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (62) Sep 26, 2012
The only hope wrt doing anything about "climate change" is that it naturally effect economies over time... so that economies naturally respond as a feedback.

The far left and their ad-hoc "solution" of government control and regulation of human behavior and economic growth, will imo, prolong the use of dirty energy sources, ... and in any case, is counter to human nature and so is not a workable solution in a free society.
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2012
I have to agree with your first paragraph Nou, but not the second. It will be like the ozone hole, once it (global warming) is undeniable and negatively effects those nations who can do something about it and have an impact, the changes to power generation/consumption we all know need to take place now will, 20-30 years after they should have.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (59) Sep 26, 2012
the changes to power generation/consumption we all know need to take place now will, 20-30 years after they should have.


My point is, it is not reasonable to expect such government regulation as being Accepted BEFORE AGW has an actual effect. BEFORE such clear effects upon economies and way of life, it is mere speculation,... only AFTER such effects become apparent, it is real.

Natural economic processes, and technological evolution will work, not world government control. Gov can't even spend within its means, can't prevent genecide even in modern times, nor solve world hunger. Also, understand that countries compete on the world market so have to protect their own economies. This is why the U.S. didn't sign originally.

Plus you have the obvious problem of the far left and socialists using this issue to further such anti-capitalist governments .

With your (naive) expectation, you must over come all of this in addition to controlling the global climate and human behavior.

Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (55) Sep 26, 2012
,... above I mean, if the action is to match the hysteria.

I'm all for reasonable, economically non-intrusive, steps, like funding research, even small dirty-energy tax, etc.
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 26, 2012
Could be another fraudulant humanitarian company cashing in on AGW I guess....they seem pretty genuine to me.

I went to their website - they openly believe in AGW. That's all I need to see to put all their data, efforts, good intentions, and integrity in one place - the trash can.
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2012
The post above is in response to rubbermans comment. I was trying to add quotation marks to his comment when I got the apple death curtain.
StarGazer2011
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2012
Huh ... CAGW in 2012... really? People are still making money off that scam?
I'd be interested to know where the new farmland is opening up out of the permafrost.
Sean_W
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 26, 2012
Climatologists have been saying that the last decade of declining temperatures don't disprove global warming because it is a temporary aberration. In other words, they don't (generally) deny the lack of warming recently. Yet this temporarily missing warming is costing the world all this money? It is not currently present but its presence is currently having effects?

And harping on the Arctic which had its ice pushed south this August by storms and ignoring the record high ice accumulation in Antarctica is pathetically dishonest.
Sean_W
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 26, 2012
But then, attention will turn to Antarctica when the record high levels of ice break off as it goes into summer and will be haled as proof of AGW, as it is every year. Greater sea ice extent will mean larger icebergs during Antarctic summer providing the media with more "proof" of warming even though it proves nothing of the kind.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 26, 2012
It's the AGWite/socialist attempts to control the world that has slowed the economies of the world.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2012
Well, this was inevitable. Ignore reality for long enough and it'll wind up a nice big gut punch for ya.
Argiod
2.4 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2012
I'm no expert; but it looks to me like we are past the point of no return. We may be on the brink of a major extinction event... extinction of humans, if we don't wake up. The Earth is well capable of shrugging off humans like so many fleas. We will never have the power to completely destroy the Earth... but we certainly have the power to completely destroy ourselves and all that humanity has worked towards throughout our existence. What a collossal waste... It is sad to see humanity failing just short of becoming members of the cosmic community; doomed forever to disappear into the void when the Earth finally becomes uninhabitable or the sun goes nova and recycles the lot.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (56) Sep 27, 2012
Climatologists have been saying that the last decade of declining temperatures don't disprove global warming because it is a temporary aberration. In other words, they don't (generally) deny the lack of warming recently. Yet this temporarily missing warming is costing the world all this money? It is not currently present but its presence is currently having effects?


Excellent point. Hysterical propaganda is not difficult to detect, and the AGW industry has a serious issue with this.

There is no way they could possibly quantify effects of AGW on world economies to any meaningful accuracy of "1.6 percent". Likewise there is no way humans have such an handle on global climate to claim accuracy to a few tenths of a degree per decade, or a few degrees per century.

That is transparently fraudulent and is the reason none of their predictions are in fact being taken seriously to anywhere near the same level as the hysterical propaganda.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 27, 2012
The Earth is well capable of shrugging off humans like so many fleas.

Humans have adapted to all previous attempts to shrug off humans for the past several million years which include rather drastic extremes.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2012
Natello has lost his faith in Rossi's Ecat. But his faith in the other scam artists persists.

"But until the rising price of oil drives the profit of influential people, we cannot expect a significant improving of this situation." - Natello
rubberman
4 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2012
The Earth is well capable of shrugging off humans like so many fleas.

Humans have adapted to all previous attempts to shrug off humans for the past several million years which include rather drastic extremes.


Humans haven't been on earth for several million years. We only stood up 2.5 million years ago. I would also ask you to define drastic as the MWP and Maunder minimum would be the most drastic climate shifts recorded by human hand, not quite mass extinction events. Nothing of global consequence has occurred in modern times...other than what we are doing now of course.

On a planet with 70 million people, migration to greener pastures and aquisition of necessities that aren't already claimed was alot easier when conditions for survival worsened in any given spot.

For example: extrapolate the US drought in the bread basket to last 15 years, coupled with a worldwide economic recession... 330 million well armed starving people = modern extinction event.
Forestgnome
2.4 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2012
So when people start going hungry they're not going to try growing food north or south of their current location? You mean farms are only going to exist at the exact latitude they do now? This is utter stupidity. People have always adapted to changes in their environment, that's why we're still here.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2012
Global warming slows down world economy: report


Global warming™.

Is there anything it cannot do?
CapitalismPrevails
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2012

Who?

Cleaner tech. costs less in the long run, it isn't rocket science, just common sense.


Wrong, clean tech costs more because while your waiting for your savings someone else who uses fossil energy will have already recouped his savings and has the purchasing power to do something else. With that said, green energy has a low net return. Fossil energy has a high net return.
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2012
With that said, green energy has a low net return. Fossil energy has a high net return.
What an utterly fucking stupid statement. Green energy is perpetual while dino is a building material simply being burned by you atavists to pollute the planet. The US spends half the tax revenue on it's military, which exists largely to steal oil worldwide in continuation of the Carter doctrine.

Back to the headline: What will truly slow down world economy is the UN gaining global taxation capability. They want to tax the Internet, trade, natural resources and the wealthy for a communist wealth redistribution. I see socialism useful for humans because they are frail. Sovereign nations are not frail and do not need some neo-communist world government butting into their affairs.

VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
There is no appreciable amount of soil in the north. The rock has been scraped pretty much clean by glaciation and moved south of the 49th. In the case of North America, moved into the region of the U.S. that is now reverting to desert.

"I'd be interested to know where the new farmland is opening up out of the permafrost." - StarGazer
VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
You mean these declining temperatures?

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

Doesn't a line sloping up indicate an increase?

I think I done learnded that in Grade 3.

How about you Sean?

"Climatologists have been saying that the last decade of declining temperatures don't disprove global warming because it is a temporary aberration." SeanTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Who writes this crap:

Key findings include estimates that carbon-intensive economies and associated climate change are responsible for five million deaths a year, nearly all of them due to air pollution.
Really? Why is it then, the more economically developed countries tend to have have higher life expectancies?

"One degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10 percent productivity loss in farming,"
This person obviously knows nothing about farming. Some of the most productive farmland in the world also has some of the highest daily temperatures in the world (California's Central and San Joaquin Valleys).

And AGW proponents wonder why people don't believe them?

Sheesh! Get a freakin' clue!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2012
Huh ... CAGW in 2012... really? People are still making money off that scam?
I'd be interested to know where the new farmland is opening up out of the permafrost.


http://seedstock....ne-food/

http://pubs.usgs....port.pdf

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
You mean these declining temperatures?

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

Doesn't a line sloping up indicate an increase?
Why does Vendibot dishonestly use a temperature trend data set which he starts before the current trend and which ends nearly two years ago?

Try this one:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

or this one:
http://www.woodfo....6/trend

Even the last available 9 years of his own data shows no global warming, and there's little doubt it would trend downward if it included the last two years:

http://www.woodfo...92/trend

Vendibot is perpetually dishonest.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Here's a pretty good extrapolated analysis of what Vendibot's data would look like if it included current data:
http://www.woodfo...o:2012.6

Lex Talonis
2 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2012
This is quite good.

David Suzuki: An elder's vision for our sustainable future

https://www.youtu...7SpLpN5A
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
Got a denialist/cold fusion/Faux News echo chamber going on in here.

If Phys.org draws mostly an anti-science crowd, the futility meter is pegged in the red.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2012
Key findings include estimates that carbon-intensive economies and associated climate change are responsible for five million deaths a year, nearly all of them due to air pollution.
@ubavontuba Really? Why is it then, the more economically developed countries tend to have have higher life expectancies?
Meaning there are plenty of Westerners your team can kill before you bring mortality up to third world levels. Typical lowest common denominator capitalist crap.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
Global warming slows down world economy

The question should be turned around, does the world economy slow down global warming? No. Your an idiot if you think global warming will stop for the economy. Global warming in man made. It's Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). We need to save the world, and that means work. Something you rightwingers no nothing about.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
Global warming slows down world economy

The question should be turned around, does the world economy slow down global warming? No. Your an idiot if you think global warming will stop for the economy. Global warming in man made. It's Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). We need to save the world, and that means work. Something you rightwingers no nothing about.
Save it from what? Non-global warming?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Even if it resumes warming, so what? What hypothesized effect are you so afraid of?

Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
Even if it resumes warming, so what? What hypothesized effect are you so afraid of?

In your case Ubatuba, its AGS (Anthropogenic Global Stupidity).
OmagaIII
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
Global warming is the reason why my dog sneezes funny...

Really? Nobody has stopped to think that maybe, just maybe there is a pattern here? It has been happening for decades. Mother natures way of shifting time. Records have clearly shown that these periods occur. Big freez, warming up, followed by a big freeze again ect... Recycling, if you will.

The only time global warming is costing us money is when we have these useless meetings all over the world and have to pay so that fat cats can sit and discuss cow dung for 2 weeks straight. Our country paid 500 Mil a few years ago to host this bull, and you know what, that could have been used on needed housing, food aid, education etc... But no, let's pay for bs

And the scary part is, people still believe this... Even when there is NO concrete proof. And if there is, I gladly invite anyone and everyone to list the links here.

Let me guess, you also believe that WWE wrestling is real??? 2 Large money making schemes, and people buy it...
Riothamus
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
@ubavontuba I believe you may be misinterpreting that as a local figure, when it is intended to be global. Which is to say, 5 million people worldwide die annually as a result of air pollution. If the calculations used to compare nuclear power with coal plants are anything to go by, that number will reflect primarily caused or aggravated respiratory conditions.

On the subject of farming, 'associated with' is not the same as 'caused by'. The damage to agricultural production will not arise simply because the ambient temperature has grown too high for the crops to succeed, but rather as a result of the accelerated desertification and more severe weather patterns that accompany a net increase in temperatures. Such is my understanding of the cause and effect, at least.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
IMO most of global warming is of geothermal origin and it comes from "wild neutrinos", as authors of 2012 movie correctly stated. These neutrinos accelerate the decay of radioactive elements inside of Earth crust and mantle. Such a warming manifests itself at most of planets and moons across solar system.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2012
Why does the QuackNut believe that it shouldn't then be happenign on all of the planets in the solar system?

And why hasn't the effect been noticed by physicists looking at the decay rates of known elements?

"Such a warming manifests itself at most of planets and moons across solar system." - ValeriaT

No need to answer. I am not interested in Quackery.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2012
Test

twenty
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2012
[url}WHO
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2012
Riothamus:

5 million people worldwide die annually as a result of air pollution.
The World Health Organization pegs it at 1.3 million.

Are you trying to suggest more people are dying from air pollution than are being saved by industrialization?

The damage to agricultural production will not arise simply because the ambient temperature has grown too high for the crops to succeed, but rather as a result of the accelerated desertification and more severe weather patterns that accompany a net increase in temperatures.
This is long debunked alarmist fear-mongering. There's no scientific basis for these claims.

Riothamus
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2012
ubavontuba: I am not trying to suggest any such thing. I believe the contrary has been conclusively demonstrated, given our population expansion - the way your comments were written lead me to think you were arbitrary localizing the results. Air currents do not stay local, after all - it is simply worst where they are generated. I cannot speak for the veracity of the claims, either; these numbers, from my other readings, customarily include 'indirect effects'. Over half of the deaths attributed to indoor air pollution by the WHO are children who die of pneumonia, which is a problem of respiratory conditions being aggravated.

Regarding the agriculture issue, it remains a matter of correlation rather than causation. The long term trend is warming; deserts are expanding; weather is growing more severe. These things have been independently and repeatedly demonstrated. Which of these elements have been debunked? And why do you think they don't affect agriculture?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
the way your comments were written lead me to think you were arbitrary localizing the results. Air currents do not stay local, after all - it is simply worst where they are generated.
Actually, as the worst of the industrial pollutants are relatively heavy, air pollution does tend to be localized.

Over half of the deaths attributed to indoor air pollution by the WHO are children who die of pneumonia, which is a problem of respiratory conditions being aggravated.
Pneumonia is a disease. You can't catch it from air pollution.

The long term trend is warming;
Actually, the world is in a relatively cool period.

deserts are expanding;
Where?

weather is growing more severe.
Where?

These things have been independently and repeatedly demonstrated.
Says who?

Which of these elements have been debunked?
All of them.

And why do you think they don't affect agriculture?
When did I say that? I've only stated the effects appear positive (so far).
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
From UbVonTard's own link.

Permafrost containing large ice masses underlies 27 percent of the
Fairbanks .area. When the surface is cleared, the ice melts and
thermokarst mounds and pits form. As a result, the new field may
eventually become difficult or impossible to cultivate. Consequently, some fields in the area underlain by large ground-ice masses can be cultivated only a few years after clearing and then must be abandoned or put into pasture.

UbVonTard seems to live in a Conservative fantasy land.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
And again, UbVonTard's own source doesn't agree with him.

Indoor air pollution is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths mostly in developing countries. Almost half of these deaths are due to pneumonia in children under 5 years of age.
Urban outdoor air pollution is estimated to cause 1.3 million deaths worldwide per year

Perhaps he can't add. But 2 1.3 = 3.3

"The World Health Organization pegs it at 1.3 million." - UbVonTard

He seems to be living in a ConservaTard paradise.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
UbVonTard is wrong about almost everything. Is mental condition is truly sad.

"Pneumonia is a disease. You can't catch it from air pollution." - UbVonTard

"Pneumonia is an inflammatory condition of the lung—especially affecting the microscopic air sacs (alveoli)—associated with fever, chest symptoms, and a lack of air space (consolidation) on a chest X-ray.

The inflammation may be caused by infection with viruses, bacteria, or other microorganisms, and less commonly by certain drugs and other conditions."

So... nope... Not a disease. But UbvonTard's mental condition is.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
It is odd that UbVonTard would here choose to disagree with his fellow denialists who near universally claim that the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age.

"Actually, the world is in a relatively cool period." - UbVonTard

The world is certainly cooler than it was a half billion years ago.

Of course this has no relevance to the modern era, other than to note that the higher temperatures of the period were caused by higher CO2 concentrations during the period.

Poor UbVonTard. He seems to be completely immune to knowledge.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2012
Odd how the science always disagrees with you.

Do you enjoy being a laughing stock of PhysOrg?

"There's no scientific basis for these claims." - UbVonTard

Sensitivity of evapotranspiration to globalwarming: a case study of arid zone of Rajasthan (India)
R.K. Goyal

The Impact of Global Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing Conditions

Urbanization and global environmental change: local effects of urban warming

Climatic perspectives on Sahelian desiccation: 1973–1998

Exploring the links between Desertification and Climate Change

Mechanisms of Global Warming Impacts on Regional Tropical Precipitation*
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
From Uba's own link.

Permafrost containing large ice masses underlies 27 percent of the
Fairbanks .area. When the surface is cleared, the ice melts and
thermokarst mounds and pits form. As a result, the new field may
eventually become difficult or impossible to cultivate. Consequently, some fields in the area underlain by large ground-ice masses can be cultivated only a few years after clearing and then must be abandoned or put into pasture.
So? What's your point?

Apparently Vendibot is so stupid it thinks it's making a point simply by randomly posting material from a link. LOL

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
And again, Uba's own source doesn't agree with him.

Indoor air pollution is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths mostly in developing countries. Almost half of these deaths are due to pneumonia in children under 5 years of age.
Urban outdoor air pollution is estimated to cause 1.3 million deaths worldwide per year

Perhaps he can't add. But 2 1.3 = 3.3
Vendibot is so stupid it can't differentiate between the terms "air pollution" (as in industrial emissions relevant to the global warming debate) and "indoor air pollution." (as in, mostly natural chemical and organic household emissions). What a buffoon.

Sadly though, many people do die simply as a result of poor household ventilation.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Pneumonia is a disease. You can't catch it from air pollution. - Uba
"Pneumonia is an inflammatory condition of the lung—especially affecting the microscopic air sacs (alveoli)—associated with fever, chest symptoms, and a lack of air space (consolidation) on a chest X-ray.

The inflammation may be caused by infection with viruses, bacteria, or other microorganisms, and less commonly by certain drugs and other conditions."

So... nope... Not a disease.
Ooh. Vendibot can use Wikipedia. Now let's see a real medical definition, shall we?

From the Mayo Clinic:

Pneumonia is an inflammation of the lungs caused by infection. Bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites can cause pneumonia.

Here's another medical definition:

"Pneumonia is an infection of the lung that can be caused by nearly any class of organism known to cause human infections."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
It is odd that UbVonTard would here choose to disagree with his fellow denialists who near universally claim that the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age.
Non sequitur.

The world is certainly cooler than it was a half billion years ago.

Of course this has no relevance to the modern era, other than to note that the higher temperatures of the period were caused by higher CO2 concentrations during the period.
LOL. Was the Vendibot there? Maybe its servers were drawing too much power from the Bedrock power grid. Poor Fred Flintstone couldn't watch the game on TV! LOL.

Maybe next he'll explain how CO2 causes higher temepratures when the CO2 signal always lags behind temperature variations.

Poor Vendibot. It seems to be completely immune to knowledge.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Odd how the science always disagrees with you.

Do you enjoy being a laughing stock of PhysOrg?
LOL. This seems to be your problem. Not only that, but you're the most scorned for being such an obnoxious ass.

Sensitivity of evapotranspiration to globalwarming: a case study of arid zone of Rajasthan (India)
R.K. Goyal

The Impact of Global Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing Conditions

Urbanization and global environmental change: local effects of urban warming

Climatic perspectives on Sahelian desiccation: 1973–1998

Exploring the links between Desertification and Climate Change

Mechanisms of Global Warming Impacts on Regional Tropical Precipitation*
LOL. Some of these are so old, I almost fell off my dinosaur, from laughing.

Maybe you might explain how any of this is relevant to the contemporary discussion? Where are these supposed new deserts?

...crickets chirping...

...No? ...I didn't think so.

LOL. Poor Vendibot. LOL

Riothamus
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
Desertification is principally a problem, as I understand it, on the border of existing deserts. The most sensational would doubtless be the Gobi Desert, which is encroaching on the suburbs of Beijing, and according to some brief searches on Google, is moving south at approximately 3km a year, according to lower estimates.

The moving border of the Sahara is a continuing problem, with the generally accepted cause of strife in the region being competition over resources.

Desertification in places where we have already settled isn't linked to changing precipitation patterns (which are linked to global warming), but usually to regional water use practices. Whether the findings attribute this to increasing temperatures, I could not say.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
Desertification is principally a problem, as I understand it, on the border of existing deserts.
Hand-waving nonesense. Quantify it. How much is becoming desert vs. how much is greening?

The most sensational would doubtless be the Gobi Desert, which is encroaching on the suburbs of Beijing, and according to some brief searches on Google, is moving south at approximately 3km a year, according to lower estimates.
Anecdotal.

The moving border of the Sahara is a continuing problem, with the generally accepted cause of strife in the region being competition over resources.
Did you not know the Sahara is greening?

Desertification in places where we have already settled is ...usually (linked) to regional water use practices. Whether the findings attribute this to increasing temperatures, I could not say.
Then what's your point?

Riothamus
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
http://worldblog....ert?lite

No longer anecdotal. Encouraging read about the Sahara.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your position is, ubavontuba. So far, it seems to be everything involving the phrase global warming is wrong no matter what, except where you are in a position to claim it supports your criticism.

Apart from your utter dismissal of the report in the article on general principle, what are your specific criticisms?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
No longer anecdotal.
It's anecdotal in that it's only one dessert ...it's irrelevant to global conditions.

Encouraging read about the Sahara.
Especially in light of the doom and gloom spread in the 1990's about it.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your position is, ubavontuba. So far, it seems to be everything involving the phrase global warming is wrong no matter what, except where you are in a position to claim it supports your criticism.
My "position" is some warming has occurred, but it probably wasn't anthropogenic. And, warming has been on hiatus for at least 11 (and as much as 16) years.

My criticisms are generally directed to poorly performed science.

Apart from your utter dismissal of the report in the article on general principle, what are your specific criticisms?
It's exceptionally bad in almost every way possible. The "cost" numbers appear to simply be pulled from thin air, and the "benefit" numbers are obviously pie-in-the-sky too.

Riothamus
4 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2012
Yes, I did note this particular report did nothing to explain the process whereby they arrived at these numbers. My suggestions earlier concerning respiratory complications were an attempt to figure out how they arrived at them. The numbers they use for everything, like the agricultural production numbers, seem to likely be aggregating all reductions in agricultural production and then simply assigning them to climate change.

You mentioned that CO2 levels traditionally lag behind temperature fluctuations; could you provide me that source? I find the actual research on these matters is frustratingly hidden behind swathes of political advocacy.

Do you find the anthropogenic arguments bad because of misconstruing data, or are there more fundamental logical flaws at work in your opinion?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2012
Riothamus:

You mentioned that CO2 levels traditionally lag behind temperature fluctuations; could you provide me that source?
Generally, CO2 lags temperature by about a thousand years. Recently, climate scientists have sought to close this gap to as few as a few hundred years. But the science is rather iffy.

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

I find the actual research on these matters is frustratingly hidden behind swathes of political advocacy.
Indeed. Pragmatic objectivity seems sorely lacking in the climate sciences.

Do you find the anthropogenic arguments bad because of misconstruing data, or are there more fundamental logical flaws at work in your opinion?
Both. But I primarily concern myself witht the latter. The inconsistencies in objective and logical applications of science are positively rampant.