Global Warming Hiatus

[Aimless]

I think you will find I was not the one claiming that there was nearly a universal understanding of the science. Nor did I claim science is perfection. Where the rest of your post comes from, I can not say.

You're both attacking a position that no-one here actually holds:

Which science? The greenhouse effect? You are talking about an incredibly intricate system, one which is not even close to being fully known. Even it it were, the world is hardly static. There are certainly elements that are better understood than others, but I think it would take a lot of hubris to claim universal or complete understanding of the science with a straight face - otherwise why are we still putting money into climate change studies?

Anyway, the science itself is reasonably good and getting better. The measured/observed data is noisy but we have some idea of the best and worst cases. Even if the science were crap, the best case we can reasonably expect doesn't seem to be all that awesome tbh

[Enoch the Red]

The Greenhouse effect itself is pretty easy - shortwave IR goes in, is absorbed by the earth, then radiated as longwave IR, part of which happens to fall into the absorption bands of several gasses which heats the atmosphere until an equilibrium between radiation to and from the Earth is reached.

And we're done.

The complicated part you're alluding to is the prediction of what will happen where as a consequence of this.

But that Greenhouse gasses lead to increased temperatures? That one is pretty much a given. Otherwise it'd be quite cold on the surface of Earth.

Right, I think that is a pretty good restatement of what I have been saying.

[RandBlade]

Anyway, the science itself is reasonably good and getting better. The measured/observed data is noisy but we have some idea of the best and worst cases. Even if the science were crap, the best case we can reasonably expect doesn't seem to be all that awesome tbh

Sure it is. If the science is crap then the best case is the status quo which is pretty awesome.

[Aimless]

No, the best case is kinda crap and even that is less likely than the worse possibilities.

[GGT]

That paper is written by climatologists who seem to simply assert things about conflict without knowing anything about it. The argument is: climate change made the drought more likely. Droughts are bad, mmkay. There's now a conflict in Syria, which is also bad. The conflict must be because of the drought.

No! The argument is that water is becoming more valuable than oil. People, and its governments, have always fought over scarce resources. What's different now is that water reservoirs are becoming more important than oil reservoirs.

And terrorist groups know they can get the biggest bang for their buck by controlling domestic water instead of exported oil. Bombed oil fields don't impact the local populace as much as diverted water does. Isn't that why ISIS tried to gain control over dams?

[Loki]

Except there's absolutely no evidence that this was a motivation of either the Syrian government, any of the Syrian rebel groups, or the fighters who man any of those groups.

[GGT]

Except there's absolutely no evidence that this was a motivation of either the Syrian government, any of the Syrian rebel groups, or the fighters who man any of those groups.

What "evidence" are you looking for? Pakistan has seen record deaths in the recent heat wave. The populace doesn't care if they're considered a global nuclear global power if their government can't keep their own people hydrated and alive when the temps exceed 100 degrees.

[Loki]

What "evidence" are you looking for? Pakistan has seen record deaths in the recent heat wave. The populace doesn't care if they're considered a global nuclear global power if their government can't keep their own people hydrated and alive when the temps exceed 100 degrees.

Someone actually saying "hey, I'm doing this because of water shortages". Not asking for a lot here.

And yet where's your war-related civil war in Pakistan? Are you going to pretend that this is the reason for the Taliban?

[GGT]

I'm saying Water is the new Oil. The valuable resource that people, and nations, will fight about...as it becomes more scarce.

How many sources should I cite before water is considered a "valid" resource?

[Aimless]

Hey man I like water as much as the next guy but it's pretty clear the civil war in Syria, the crazy in Pakistan and the conflict between folders and scrunchers are all caused by oxygen, the most valid resource of all*

* it's even in water

[GGT]

ha ha. It's easy to pose international conflicts as the political ideology and differences that divide us....until we realize that our domestic policies are just as divisive and dangerous.

[RandBlade]

I really can't follow your train of thought on this thread GGT. Global warming causes civil wars because water is valuable and our domestic policies are divisive and dangerous?

Water has always been valuable. There is a reason the areas near rivers and/or coasts are the most settled.

[Loki]

I'm saying Water is the new Oil. The valuable resource that people, and nations, will fight about...as it becomes more scarce.

How many sources should I cite before water is considered a "valid" resource?

You could say things as much as you want. You're wrong. You provided no actual evidence linking shortages in water to conflict. And whether water is objectively important or not is irrelevant; it's how political actors approach water that matters. As things stand today, there's no evidence that political actors are willing to start major conflicts over water. This might change in the future, especially if there are more severe shortages of water, but it certainly hasn't happened yet. As I mentioned before, the most you can say of the link between water shortages and conflict is that you might see more localized fighting between tribes in the very, very poor parts of the world.