-
Asked by followtheyellowbrickroad to Meeks, Pete, Stephen, Steve, Tom on 17 Jun 2010 in Categories: General.
Question: Do you think global warming will kill us?
-
Steve Roser answered on 16 Jun 2010:
depends who you mean by us. Global warming is already killing people in the underdeveloped world – more extreme weather has lead to droughts and increased hurricane frequency. I Don’t think that we – the well resourced, developed world – will die as a result of global warming, but our lifestyles will have to change, for our own, but even more for the less developed world’s sake
-
-
Tom Hartley answered on 16 Jun 2010:
I think there’s a danger that global warming will make life very difficult for people, and indirectly some people will die as a result of the changes it brings about. I think that regardless of what causes global warming we should cut back on our use of fossil fuels and look for sustainable long-term alternatives. And I think we should also think seriously about reducing human population in the long term, as global warming is only one of many problems that are at least partly driven by the very large and growing numbers of humans (compared to other large mammals, for instance).
Now I am going to say something that will possibly get me drummed out of the scientists union (or worse) but I say it because I think being open-minded, sceptical and honest are vital for science to work.
Being a scientist I am a bit of a sceptic, and I like to see the evidence for something as important as this. When I looked into it (I could only spend a couple of hours at the weekend, and this was last year), I found that I couldn’t get hold of the original data on which all these predictions were based, and that a relatively small group of scientists had had the main input to the science. I didn’t find the evidence that overwhelming to be honest, and I was really shocked and disappointed by the way that some of the climate scientists had behaved (as revealed by their emails which were not kept secret and were published), for example trying to stop other people checking or challenging their findings. Being charitable I think they did this because they really believe that humans are warming the world, that this will have disastrous consequences and that we have to stop making it worse *nowMATOMO_URL All this is probably true, but I think it was a big mistake to try to control the science, rather than to open it up to scrutiny.
Like everyone else I have to trust the climate scientists to give us good advice on this – there seems to be a consensus amongst experts that global warming is happening and its caused by people. But I think they could and should do much better job of showing the data and explaining their methods, because if someone like me can’t understand it – how can non-scientists be expected to understand?
-
Stephen Curry answered on 16 Jun 2010:
I think it is likely to kill a great many people as climates change and societies struggle to adapt. It won’t be very dramatic (no tidal waves, for example) but the struggle for resources (esp. food and water) will become more difficult. I suppose this will be worse in the areas of the world that are already plagued by famine and drought.
There will probably be an impact on the UK but perhaps we are rich enough to be able to cope with the worst effects.
-
Pete Edwards answered on 17 Jun 2010:
I think that global warming is already making life very difficult for lots of people. I think that we should reduce our use of fossil fuels and look for sustainable forms of energy generation.
If possible we should also take steps to reduce the human population in the future. Global warming is only one problem caused by the growing numbers of humans on the planet. -
Marieke Navin answered on 17 Jun 2010:
I chatted with my friend who is an atmospheric scientist before I answered this.
People think that the war in the Sahel region of Africa has been (at least) exacerbated by the changing climate there. Bangladesh is likely to have already been impacted by rising sea levels too, which
will have resulted in deaths.Climate change has already (and is most likely to in the future) affect vulnerable, developing
countries first and hardest.I don’t think it will *wipe* out humans. If we make changes soon we might be able to reverse it. People are looking into removing CO2 from the atmosphere but i’m not sure about that – history has dictated to us time and time again that if we interfere with the Earth we make it worse.
Comments
Stephen commented on :
Tom raises a very important point which touches on a question asked the other day about how scientists know their tests are valid.
In this case, how do we know whether the evidence for man-made climate change is sound?
There is a consensus among the majority of scientists that the evidence for man-made global warming is pretty solid. Some people challenge that view – and of those, some do it for good reasons (testing the evidence) and some for not so good reasons (e.g. lobbyists for oil companies).
So in this case, the argument is very intense, largely because the issue is both scientific and political. If the science is right, then our societies have some very difficult decisions to make about how we generate and use energy (the main source of CO2 emissions – though cow farts are not insignificant). And politicians don’t like having to take unpopular decisions.
It’s therefore very important that we get the science right. The climate scientists at the University of East Anglia (mentioned by Tom) were criticised following the release of their emails. But although some of that criticism was justified, the reaction in the press was rather hysterical and made the situation seem a lot worse than it actually was. The case was investigated by MPs who found that, although the scientists had not been as open about their data as they should, they hadn’t hidden or manipulated data to back up their argument.
That said, it was not a good day for scientists. Most of us believe that full openness and discussion of the data is the best way to settle any contentious issues. I think that in future, climate scientists will be better at doing this.
But even then, it is very difficult for everyone to assess the evidence. I’ve done no more investigation than Tom (I wouldn’t even know what to do with the raw data if I could get hold of it). So most of us have to rely on the ‘experts’. The question then is, if the experts have different views, who do you trust?
It is interesting that a small number of Fellows of the Royal Society (who are therefore very good scientists) have asked the society to look again at its report that came out in support of man-made climate change. I think this is a good thing since it is evidence that the society is prepared to be rigorous.
On balance (and with a limited knowledge of the evidence), I take the view that man-made global warming is real – though I will keep an eye on the debate.
But what is still very difficult is to predict in the future exactly what impact that will have on the climate in different parts of the world. It’s still hard to predict the local weather more that a day or two in advance – so there is still a lot of uncertainty about what is going to happen.
However, given that the consequences of global warming are likely to be very serious, it is vital that we keep working on this problem – both scientifically and politically. I hope that our generation hasn’t messed things up too badly for your generation!
Tom commented on :
I agree with almost every word of this, except that I would be more critical of the UEA scientists (I read some of the emails, and I think the MPs and scientists that have looked into this have been rather generous).
As I said in my answer I think climate change is real, and in any event I think our reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable (both in terms of emissions and the security of our future energy needs). So for me, the most important thing is that we base our decisions on evidence, and not on peer group pressure. So it’s important that we can all see the evidence.
bangersmash commented on :
Obviously. We are all too ignorant though..
Stephen commented on :
Perhaps I understated what the MPs said. If you check out the link above, you will see that they did call the scientists’ actions ‘reprehensible’ (worth reading in full).
This takes us back to the more general point of the difficulty in knowing if scientists have got it right. Sometimes it can take a long time to reach agreement because the experiments are so hard (often being performed at the limits of sensitivity of the instrumentation). It is important also to realise that not all scientists are geniuses – in fact, of course, most aren’t. And some of them actually aren’t much good at the job (as in all walks of life).
Ultimately, science doesn’t stand or fall by the findings of one person. It is very much a community exercise that is always evolving. That is the secret of its success in the long run – or at least one part of it. Another important part, as Tom makes clear, it the need for open access to the data and open discussion of what the results mean. Sometimes, when egos or politics gets in the way, it can take a bit longer to get to the ‘correct’ answer.
Stephen commented on :
It’s not really devoted to the topic of climate science but today I listened the 2nd Reith Lecture given by Martin Rees (President of the Royal Society) on the subject of “Surviving the Century”. It gives a very thoughtful overview of the challenges facing the planet over the coming decades and talks about how science might help.
Well worth a listen while it’s still available.